This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. I'm Peter Burley.
Coming up, a community is divided about whether its polluted land and river should be named
a superfund site. We celebrate Earth Day and the 50th anniversary of the death of Aldo
Leopold, the patron saint of modern ecology. We have reflections about wolves, fire and
philosophy, also readings from the San County Almanac.
Earth Day has a moral imperative. National Coordinator of the First Event, Dennis Hayes,
Cummins. And in Nebraska, the bison are calving on the Nierbauer River Preserve. These
stories and more coming up on the Environment Show.
There are over 1,000 sites around the country that have been placed on a schedule maintained
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency called the National Priority List. These are
places where toxic waste has contaminated the area and sufficient concentrations to warrant
cleanup under the Federal Superfund Program. Just recently, EPA said it would add another
site to the list. Specifically, parts of Pitsfield, Massachusetts and stretches of the Hussetonic
River which runs along the western edge of Massachusetts through Connecticut and into
the Long Island Sound.
Unusual in this case was the intensity of the controversy in the community about whether
superfund designation should be made. For approximately 40 years before EPA banned the
production and distribution of PCBs in 1979, the General Electric Company discharged
waste containing PCBs into the Hussetonic River. Land at some of their manufacturing sites
also became heavily contaminated. Things got more complicated when GE documents recently
came to light showing that PCB contaminated fill had been deposited around the city.
In negotiations with GE, involving the EPA and local officials, a cleanup plan could
not be agreed upon. Some members of the Pitsfield Business Community argued strongly that
superfund designation should not be made. Jeffrey Cook, a lawyer with business clients in
the area, explains the opposition.
It's a position that comes from the experience that many of my clients have been having in their
efforts to attract quality employees from outside the area into Pitsfield. The perception
of a superfund designation raises a stigma which the environmentalists argue about and
say that the stigma is because of the contamination. What we have found is that a superfund designation
connotes to people a serious health risk that some of us don't feel the science backs
up that's available. We don't think that PCBs are so serious a health risk that a superfund
designation is appropriate and it just scares people away and makes it difficult for the
companies that we want to have growing here in the Berkshire's to get the people that they need.
Environmentalist George Wisslachy, president of the Berkshire Natural Resources Council,
members along the Hustonic River is skeptical about the stigma argument and its origins.
I think most of the hesitation about superfund or designation of superfund has been generated
by General Electric itself that is stated that if we go as a superfund site there will be
a long delay. Well the fact of the matter is there has been an enormous delay in the past
in cleaning up this site and in my opinion being designated as superfund site would go
unnoticed by the greater population. Superfund today is a success story. In the past it has
been problems but there have been revisions to that act and today it is working and I think
what is important is that 50% of all Americans live within six miles of a superfund site and I
doubt that many of them know that they are that close to sites that have had this designation.
The decision to start superfund designation was made by EPA Regional Administrator John DeVillars
when he was unable to reach a negotiated settlement with GE. He says superfund is necessary not only
for cleanup but to recover for damage to the Hussetonic River itself. There are two key reasons
why we need to use superfund absent and acceptable agreement. One is that without it our prospects for
successfully collecting natural resource damage assessments from GE compensation for the damage
that has been brought in over a hundred miles of river the fish advisories on one of the great
rivers of New England indeed of this country the public health threats that communities not just
in Pittsfield but South of Pittsfield and Southern Berkshire County have been exposed to.
The law affords us the opportunity to have those citizens and those resources compensated for
that damage. Superfund is the surest legal tool we have to make certain that we're successful in
achieving that level of justice. Secondly under any law other than superfund that would be relevant
for this cleanup GE can appeal and litigate almost to their hearts content they can draw this
process out as frankly they already have done under the resource conservation and recovery act
for years and years and years under appeal. Superfund affords them do process under the law
but many fewer opportunities for appeal and importantly while they appeal we can go forward
under superfund and do the work and seek treble damages which is to say multiply the total cost
times three and to send them the bill and also to penalize them twenty seven thousand five
hundred dollars a day for failing to comply with our orders.
DeViller says the extent of river cleanup and payment for resource damage to the river itself
were the major sticking points for GE a Hussetonic River settlement may set a precedent which
could be significant 50 miles to the west in New York state the Hudson River is also contaminated
with PCBs also deposited by GE the natural resource damage question to be resolved in both cases
is how much should GE pay for making the fish in the river in edible and for polluting an entire
ecosystem in ways that are hard to measure in dollars and cents. One thing that is clear
is that GE has the resources to pay for PCB related damage or to litigate or both.
Their 1997 annual report says ongoing revenues rose to 89.3 billion dollars up 13% from the year before
and in the same period they invested 17.2 billion dollars in more than 75 industrial and financial
services acquisitions. I'm Peter Burley.
This is the week of Earth Day and Earth Day this year also coincides with the 50th
anniversary of the death of Aldo Leopold. Many concepts of ecology and the philosophy of the
relationship between humans and the Earth regarded as modern today were articulated by Aldo Leopold
in his writings during the 1930s and 1940s so we dedicate this Earth Day broadcast to the memory
of Aldo Leopold. His daughter Estella Leopold a professor of botany at the University of Washington
and president of the Aldo Leopold Foundation reflects on his contributions.
Putting aside my filial bias as one of his daughters I'd like to offer some of my thoughts here.
A probably Leopold's idea of a land ethic is one of his preeminent gift stuff.
The idea that an ethical view of land would include plants and animals. It led to a sense of values
and ethics in nature and that idea though he was writing about it in the 1940s is more poignant
today as I think when we step into the perception now of sustainability of the land.
We see that maybe there are three and maybe more fields that have come out of
that's idea about land ethics. One is sustainable agriculture. Restoration ecology,
farmers are now talking about native plants that may be better for erosion prevention or make
better pasture than exotics or weeds and one that occurs to me Peter is the organic farming.
Aldo Leopold never mentioned that word per se it didn't exist in the 40s.
But he said in one of his essays that someday people will pay more for vegetables grown in
natural soils without DDT and he was right and we are paying more and this is now quite a
blooming field. Professor Estela Leopold says her father changed our thinking about a number of issues.
Aldo Leopold began to realize the importance of balance between plant and animal communities
when he was working in the southwest and he once advocated predator control where he was out
there shooting wolves and then he turned around and openly fought for maintaining the predators
cougars and raptors and wolves and you know in his essay thinking like a mountain
he pointed out that the lack of natural predators set the stage for population explosion and the deer
heard Leopold was looking at the importance of fire in natural forests where you have
seasonally dry climates like in the southwest and that's where he worked when he was younger.
Now while Gifford Pinchot was teaching that fire is damaging to southwestern forests
Leopold was out there writing essays to point out the importance of natural fire and maintaining
the health and structure of the southwestern forests. Aldo Leopold wrote not only about a land
ethic but also about wilderness. As a member of the U.S. Forest Service he not only challenged
conventional wisdom he achieved specific results. Professor of American Western environmental
history at the University of Missouri Susan Flater comments. He was one of the first to begin talking
about wilderness not the only one he had other colleagues who were interested in the concept but
Leopold was really the one who shaped the concept who was successful in getting the first large
scale wilderness area designated by the National Forest Service that was the Helo wilderness which
was established in 1924 and he was the first person who began writing in a wide variety of
periodicals to make the case to the American public for the need for wilderness preservation.
Professor J. Beard Calacot is a scholar at the University of North Texas who has studied
Leopold intensively. He reflects on how Leopold combined science and philosophy.
Leopold I think was astounded by the implications for all other dimensions of life, religion,
art and ethics of an evolutionary and an ecological world view. From an evolutionary point of view
he realized that we are literally kin to other forms of life we're not set apart as something
special. And I think that Leopold took this to heart and from an ecological point of view
all aspects of nature are interrelated and interconnected so that means that we can't
mess with one part of the world without expecting unexpected or unpredictable repercussions
in other parts. Later in our celebration of Aldo Leopold at Earth Day we will hear some of his work.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. The Environment Show is a national
production it's made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation,
the Turner Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Fund, the Oliver S. and Jenny R. Donaldson Charitable Trust,
the William Bingham Foundation and Hemings Motor News, the monthly Bible of the collector
Carhovy, 1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
If you have reflections about the writings of Leopold let us know. Our number is 1-888-49-Green
that's 1-888-49-Green. Email is green at wamc.org that's green at wamc.org
.
Earth Day 1998. The U.S. Manufacturers Association is staging an event on the mall in Washington,
DC. In the eyes of Dennis Hayes who was national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970,
the event is being trivialized with its emphasis on the use of paper or plastic and picking up trash.
He says Earth Day has moral significance that is of great importance.
Well for the first time in the history of the planet a single species has the ability to
to basically destroy it or to fundamentally alter it. Whether you're talking about thermonuclear
war or the collapse of biodiversity, threats to the global planetary system, holes being rent
in the ozone layer, these are the kinds of things that in some important ways make the
environmental movement different from other things that can be characterized as limited special
interests. This is really planetary stewardship and the same sort of sense that the
Bible and all other important religious works have told us that we need to care for the planet
except in the 21st century that care takes on a brand new deep moral dimension.
That was Dennis Hayes who was national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970.
I see trees of green, red roses too, I see them blue.
Continuing our reflections about Aldo Leopold and Earth Day, Linda Anderson reads from
Leopold's best known work, the San Cauti-Gaubanac, which was first published in 1949.
In his essay Monument to the Pigeon, inspired by the extinction of the passenger pigeon,
he reflects on humankind and our role in nature.
It is a century now since Darwin gave us the first glimpse of the origin of species.
We know now what was unknown to all the preceding caravan of generations,
that men are only fellow voyagers with other creatures in the odyssey of evolution.
This new knowledge should have given us by this time a sense of kinship with fellow creatures,
a wish to live and let live, a sense of wonder over the magnitude and duration of the biotic
enterprise. Above all, we should, in the century since Darwin, have come to know that man,
while now captain of the adventuring ship, is hardly the sole object of its quest,
and that his prior assumptions to this effect arose from the simple necessity of whistling
in the dark. When Leopold wrote Acts in Hand, he instructed that the conservationist
is one who is aware of the mark that is being left behind.
I have read many definitions of what is a conservationist and written not a few myself,
but I suspect that the best one is written not with a pen but with an axe.
It is a matter of what a man thinks about while chopping or while deciding what to chop.
A conservationist is one who is humbly aware that with each stroke he is writing his signature
on the face of his land. Signatures, of course, differ whether written with axe or pen,
and this is as it should be. In his essay Thinking Like a Mountain,
Leopold says it was on the day he saw a wolf die that he became convinced mountains have secret
opinions about them. It was this essay that began the revolution and thought about predators.
We were eating lunch on a high rimrock at the foot of which a turbulent river elbowed its way.
We saw what we thought was a doe fording the torrent, her breast, a wash, and white water.
When she climbed the bank towards us and shook out her tail, we realized our error.
It was a wolf. A half dozen others, evidently grown pups, sprang from the
wellows and all joined in a welcoming melea wagging tails and playful mollains.
What was literally a pile of wolves, rived and tumbled in the center of an open flat at the foot
of our rimrock. In those days we had never heard of passing up a chance to kill a wolf. In a second
we were pumping lead into the pack, but with more excitement than accuracy. How to aim a steep downhill
shot is always confusing. When our rifles were empty, the old wolf was down, and a pup was
dragging a leg into impassable sliding rocks. We reached the old wolf in time to watch a fierce
green fire dying in her eyes. I realized then, and have known ever since, that there was something
new to me in those eyes, something known only to her and to the mountain. I was young then and
full of trigger itch. I thought that because fewer wolves meant more deer, that no wolves meant
hunters paradise. But after seeing the green fire die, I sensed that neither the wolf nor the
mountain agreed with such a view. It was in the land ethic that Leopold said neither government
programs nor the profit motive could by themselves produce good land stewardship. To sum up, a system
of conservation based solely on economic self-interest is hopelessly lopsided. It tends to ignore and thus
eventually to eliminate many elements in the land community that lack commercial value, but that are,
as far as we know, essential to its healthy functioning. It assumes falsely, I think, that the
economic parts of the biotic clock will function without the un-economic parts. It tends to relegate
to government. Many functions eventually too large, too complex, or too widely dispersed to be
performed by government. An ethical obligation on the part of the private owner is the only visible
remedy for these situations. That was Linda Anderson, reading from Aldo Leopold's book, The Sand
County Almanac. And now it's time for the Earth calendar. As we speak, Bison are calving on the
Nierbauer Preserve in North Central Nebraska. The 55,000 acre natural area owned and managed by the
nature conservancy includes both wet and dry perilions with six major plant types. The Nierbauer
Preserve is also home to 250 American Bison. Al Stoyter is director of science and stewardship
for the nature conservancy in Nebraska. And those calves are born unassisted. You know, it's one of
the things about bison there. Very capable of taking care of themselves. In fact, they do best
when you don't kind of mess with them or handle them too much, but they have 50 pound calves, which are
smaller than typical beef cattle. And are quite hardy. You know, we can have snowstorms this time of the
year and they do just fine. And it's a pretty vigorous calf. They're red. You know, unlike that kind of
that darker brown and black color of the adults, the calves are born with a kind of a winter length red coat,
which makes them pretty cute. And they're very active when they're born. They're up and moving
and suckling and moving with their mother pretty quickly. Bison arrived at the preserve in 1985
through a reintroduction program. Officials were hoping these native grazers would help in plant
management. At the time, they're only 50 bison. Today, there are 170 females that give birth to
about 140 to 150 calves each year. Elstoyter says 90% of the calves will be born by the first of
June. And typically, there's a week. A lot of times, it's that third or fourth week,
often the fourth week in April, where we'll have 50% of those calves all born in one week. So
the timing of the calving in it hurt that's unsupplemented and living just off the native
grassland like ours is controlled by the adult females condition. And they have about a nine
month and 10 day gestation cycle. And so sometimes in July or August is when the adult females
coming out of the winter, nursing a calf, regain, you know, condition to the point that they will
cycle and breed. And that kind of lumps all those calves in that April period.
Female bison average about six feet in length and weigh between 700 to 900 pounds. Bulls are
much larger weighing 1,600 to 2,200 pounds and measuring up to 11 feet long. They mature at two to
three years and have a life expectancy of about 25. Probably the most notable feature of the bison
is the massive hump in the shoulder and neck region. Bison or buffalo as they're commonly called
live and herds. While older bulls tend to be more solitary, bison are actually quite social animals.
Breeding usually occurs in mid to late summer and alstoyter says that's when bison really become
active. One of the interesting things you see during that time especially can coincide with insect,
outbreaks, you know, different insects that can bother them a little bit. And I think it's related
to that but at times you'll see a whole herd of bison for no apparent reason, just kind of frallicking
up one hill and down the other and it looks like a stampede. Kind of like what you'd see horses do
on a fresh spring morning when they're feeling their oats and just, you know, flying around.
Only when you see a whole herd of bison doing it, it's a little bit more impressive.
Bison usually feed an early morning and late afternoon. During the midday hours, they can be found
chewing cudd, wallowing, or taking a nap. It's a pretty good life. But if you have to survive near
extinction to reach the happy pasture, not many of us are going to make it. Thanks for listening.
This is the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley.
You're listening to the Environment Show and I'm Peter Burley. Still a hip. One way to celebrate
Earth Day is to plant a tree. We meet a man who is giving thousands away. We talk green about
genetically engineering and environmentally friendly pesticide in a crops. It means less chemicals,
but some scientists say it may be a major mistake. We conclude with an essay about Aldo Leopold.
He died 50 years ago, but his ideas inspire resource managers today. Stay with us.
As part of Earth Day and Arbor Day, we reflect on the deep forest station that is occurring across the
globe. Each year, millions of trees are cut down for use or burned. Clear cutting and slashing
burn practices are probably the largest contributors to the problem. But there is a non-profit
organization in Kentucky that's doing its part to replenish some of the trees that are lost.
The Environment Show's Stephen Westcott has more. The Ecology Crossroads Cooperative
Foundation is calling its Arbor Day USA program the single largest tree giveaway ever.
The organization provides trees free of charge to anyone looking to plant them on Earth Day or
Arbor Day or even to institutions or homeowners looking to fill spaces in an environmentally healthy
manner. Arbor Day USA program coordinator David Wright says the trees come from across the country.
Yeah, the trees come into us as donations and essentially we take the trees to a central location
and offer them to the general public either free or at little cost. Right now we have a program going on
that allows homeowners, anyone that's been affected by a disaster, schools, businesses,
organizations and others wishing to get anywhere from five to 250 trees, those trees for free.
And in addition to that we have a program that allows people to select the varieties of trees that
they want and that's basically in an effort to get more trees into the ground.
Wright adds that those receiving trees usually only have to pay for shipping and handling.
Close to 3,000 schools in the US are receiving trees through the program. Mainly birch,
maple, blues, spruce, scotch, pine and oak trees are being distributed and David Wright says the
organization will help ensure a tree is right for the area in which it is planted. Ecology
Crossroads Cooperative Foundation located in Berea, Kentucky has been promoting environmental
exhibits and displays since 1990. Wright says tree distribution efforts were rooted in Lexington.
There was an ice storm in March of 1994 and the result was a lot of trees down in neighborhoods
in the forest. The whole forest was damaged to a degree of as much as I'd say about 25%
as a result of this ice storm. So we contacted a tree farmer and this particular tree farmer
who happens to be on our board, his name is Dave Johnston, up in western Pennsylvania.
He donated 100,000 trees which were considered surplus for his inventory that year.
And ever since we've just been coming across more and more tree farmers,
willing to give us trees for this type of program.
As with Earth Day, corporations are showing their green sides by getting involved with the
Arbor Day USA program. For example, Wright says Nickelodeon, the children's cable television
network has been involved with a project that encourages kids to help clean up communities.
You know, big help week is the 18th of April through the 25th and Arbor Day falls on April 24th.
So it was a perfect connection there for us. And right now there are posters going up in all
the McDonald's all across the United States that include our website and our 800 number for kids
to call in and get information about what they can do in the community as far as tree planting
goes. And we also have a program that is partially subsidized by sponsors.
And that allows kids to get the trees, a five pack of trees, for a reduced shipping and handling cost.
Arbor Day USA officials say they have given out about 6 million of the 12 million trees that were
available for distribution. Unfortunately, the deadline to order for this Earth Day was April 11th.
But David Wright says you can still receive trees for the fall by contacting them in Lexington,
Kentucky. For the Environment Show, I'm Stephen Westcott.
We're talking green and I'm Peter Burley. Today we're talking about genetically engineered crops.
And the question is whether crops engineered to produce bacillus, there are, I always have problems
with this. There in Genesis or BT will improve the environment because they require less pesticides
or whether in the long run they're harmful or not as desirable because bugs will develop
that are BT resistant. And thus this natural pesticide, which is about the only one that organic
farmers can use will become ineffective. Seed for BT crops such as corn, cotton, and potatoes
has only recently been developed, but its use is growing tremendously because of course farmers
that use it use less pesticides. So we'd like to know how you feel about genetically engineered
crops. Our number is 1-888-49 Green. My guest is Richard Helmick and he's research endomologists at
the USDA Agricultural Research Station in Ames, Iowa. And Jane Rissler, she's senior scientist
in the Agriculture and Biotechnology Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. That's a
nonprofit environmental group. She is co-editor of a study which calls for substantial limitation
of the use of BT crops. So Richard Helmick from USDA, let's start with you. For folk that haven't
thought about this, what is BT? Well BT, as you mentioned before, stands for Bacillus Thurin
Genses. And I could say that the first generation of crops from most part have genes from a bacterium
called Bacillus Thurin Genses. Now the neat thing about this is that these genes from this bacterium
have been transferred to plants. That's what they're called transgenic. And they can express these
proteins and more or less become factories of insecticides. And we're very excited about this
because the BT is a very environmentally safe protein and it's very specific. So they can,
they can, there's several different strains of it. Some of them are specialized for moths,
some for beetles. And for the most part, like I mentioned. So the way this works then is that
the gene goes into the plant. The plant grows. It produces BT within itself and thus is resistant
to various bugs that might otherwise eat it. And Jane Rissler, why isn't this the perfect
solution? You get rid of pesticides because the plants are producing their own.
There are two issues here. One is that it will likely be only a temporary reprieve from the use of
synthetic chemicals. And secondly, organic farmers will lose a very valuable pesticide.
Now you better explain that a little more. Because of the likelihood that resistance will
develop in insects. Insects will be resistant to the BT. And therefore, even though they chew on
BT crops, they won't be killed. So farmers will have to go back to using synthetic insecticides.
So it's a very short-term solution. At the same time, right now organic growers who are the best
stewards of the environment that we have among growers today will have lost BT sprays, which they
have used for years. These are sprays, a mixture of the soil bacteria that produces the
toxic. They've been using them for years to kill insects on their crops. So they will lose that.
So the critical issue there from your perspective as I understand it then is how long
and whether it's clear that if you use BT engineered crops that the bugs will respond and develop
a resistance. Well that's right. And I think there's a growing consensus among scientists in this
country that resistance will develop. And it's just a matter of time. Depending on the crop and the
host, it may be two to four to six years or longer. But it's going to happen in some crops.
Richard Helmick from USDA, do you agree with that? Well, I agree with Dr. Ristra to a certain extent
that resistance is a very important issue. I think where we separate is our, or what we should
do about resistance management. I think that the Union of Concerned Scientists has advocated that
in some cases they remove some of these crops from the market. And I don't think that's quite fair
to the producers who have a lot to benefit from these technologies. I mean, I have a nine-year-old
daughter and I'm as concerned as anybody about trying to keep the environment clean and trying to
reduce the insecticides and that the producers feel the same way. I go to meetings and I rub
shoulders for these producers. Well, let me ask you something about the crop and as it is being
produced. In fact, if you plan to be t-engineered crop, do you need much less pesticide in the
production of that because plants creating it? Absolutely. Does it eliminate the use of other pesticides?
In some cases it could eliminate the use of pesticides. But for the most part it does not because of
other insect problems and other weed problems and fungal problems. So Dr. Ristra, what you're saying
is that it does pesticides are still used, but are they used to a lesser degree of... Yes, yes,
insecticides are reduced and I think that's a wonderful result. And if that were going to be a
long-term result, that would be good. But it is an example of our non-sustainable approach to
solving problems in agriculture. Insects are a big problem in agriculture. In your report,
you recommended in the report that you edited that various steps be taken when it comes to
planting beauty crops that might extend its use because the bugs would be less likely to develop.
What are those? Dr. Helmick mentioned those. Those are called resistance management plans.
These are ways that farmers should grow crops in order to reduce the likelihood or to delay,
I should say, delay the development of resistance. And what are those? How does that work? In
cotton, for example, it means that in addition to the BT cotton farmers should plant non-BT cotton
and they should plant them close together. And would they then have to spray the non-BT cotton to
get a crop? In some options they would. Here's the purpose of the non-BT. It is to allow susceptible
insects to grow. Then those susceptible insects could mate with the resistant insects that come
off the BT cotton, thus reducing the slowing down the development of resistance. But isn't there
some better way to do that if what you're trying to do is produce a genetic pool of bugs that
aren't resistant to BT? There's a better way to do that to let them grow somewhere else
rather than in the same farmers' field. Well, Jane had the nail on the head which she said that
we have to control resistance and we have to produce the susceptible insects. And we are
working with producers right now trying to develop strategies where they can do that. And I think
that at least in BT corn that the farmers will be very receptive to these ideas and they will be
good stewards of this product because they don't want to lose the technology any more than the
organic farmers do. But that is not a very powerful argument really when you look at the history
of pesticide use among conventional growers. They have lost pesticide after pesticide due to
resistance. I don't really see why they're going to be any better stewards of this than they have
of the other pesticides that they have lost. So I have to disagree with you there, Dr. Risser,
just by the fact that we're having this conversation, we're being proactive and we have the
opportunity to educate the public and educate the producers what's the best way to use this.
Well, you could argue that we should have had this conversation 30 years ago with some of the other
insecticides. And I can reconcultely let me ask you. The fact that we're having a conversation now
suggests that we're being proactive and that we're taking steps to try to reduce the
resistance. But let's talk about this. Excuse me just a minute. Let's see if we understand this
clearly. The idea, as I understand it, Dr. Isler that you're proposing is that the farmer
plants some of this land or maybe alternate strips or whatever. Some of it with BT
resistant crops and others without. That's right. And that that kind of keeps the bugs going.
From the farmer's point of view, presumably, we have to ask a farmer to leave
part of her crop exposed to insects. It's very tough. Sorry, Tom, I think it's going to be a hard
thing to do. Would you recommend that the farmer who does that would not use conventional pesticides
for the piece that is not BT resistant so they can get a crop under the normal course of events?
Or do they have to do this? Do they just have to give a certain amount of bugs to keep it going?
It depends on which crop you're talking about. The BT cotton or BT potatoes or BT corn. In the case of
BT corn, in most areas of the corn belt, we would recommend that they not spray, that they
leave the refuge untreated. Of course, they have to have that option. And I think they're going
to be receptive to this idea. We've done surveys in about 75% of the producers say that they
are willing to participate in resistance management and they are willing to use refuge in a crop.
Well, let me understand that. With respect to corn then, you plant your BT corn. Do you plant any
other corn that's not BT or... Absolutely, absolutely. You do both. Currently, we recommend that the 20 to
30% of the planted corn should be known BT corn that would be a refuge for producing these
insects, these susceptible insects. And so Dr. Ristler, does that solve the
solve it for you as far as corn is concerned if people were to follow that? If they were, but here's
what worries me, Mr. Burley, is that they are not going to do this voluntarily sufficiently.
We think that the environmental protection agency should require, as a condition of using these
crops, that these refugees be required. And I just don't think that a voluntary program, given the
economic difficulties of seeing a portion of your crop go down to insects, given that problem,
I don't think we can trust a voluntary system. But let me ask you both something. Do we have
other genetically engineered crops on the way where this problem is going to arise?
Oh, yes. In some cases, for corn, in corn, for example, there will be corn developed
sometime in the next few years that will be resistant to corn rootworm. And we say that the
root, the cornbore problem is actually a terrestrial result for corn rootworm, which is perceived
as a bigger problem and more insecticides are used for corn rootworms.
So Dr. Rissler, what I think I hear you saying is that we really need to take a whole look at
all of our crop production to the extent that we're using toxins that we want to keep using.
Of course, of course, we need to develop methods that are sustainable.
Would you recommend doing the same thing for people that are using conventional pesticides?
Well, frankly, what I recommend in terms of conventional pesticides is that we work toward a
significant reduction in them, period. I mean, a sustainable agriculture cannot rely on dumping
billions of pounds of toxic chemicals on the soil on ourselves over a period of years.
And I agree with that 100 percent. And I see BT crops as a major tool in helping us achieve
a sustainable agriculture. I don't think that if it is practiced with good stewardship,
that we have resistance management, I think that it can be effective.
I don't think that it is going to be effective. I think we're going to lose BT because
folks are not going to do what is necessary. Moreover, I don't think that this is a technology
that is going to lead us to sustainability. It's another example of a short-term solution
to problems in agriculture that are being brought by the same people who brought us pesticides.
Would you stay away from genetically engineered crops entirely then?
Not entirely, but for the most part, I think that there are other sustainable methods that show
greater promise. And frankly, if the US research establishment had spent as much on sustainable
agriculture in the last 50 years that they've spent on chemicals and biotechnology,
we would have a lot of great methods to help farmers make the transition to much, much
lower pesticides.
Now, I'm the first one to admit that BT crops won't be the complete answer. That's just one major tool.
But, you know, another point where I differ from Dr. Ristler is I don't think that you can
mandate this type of thing. You can't tell producers what to do. A lot of them are very independent.
I say it the best way is to work with them to educate them. And we have a, we've developed the
forum with the research committee called NC205 where we work with the EPA, with the producers,
with the gene suppliers, with the BT corn companies, and with academic.
Well, I'm afraid our time is up. And this is a problem which is going to be with us for a long time.
A critical environmental problem. We've been talking about BT engineered crops. My guests have
been Jane Ristler from the Union of Concerned Scientists and Richard Helmick from the USDA Agricultural
Experiment Lab in Iowa. We've been talking green. Our telephone number is 1-888-49-green. Give us a
call. I'm Peter Burley.
We always tell you how to reach this electronically, but you can still do it by mail.
The address is the Environment Show 318 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 1-2-2-06.
That's 318 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 1-2-2-06. And we know you'll always write on recycled paper.
We'll be talking green.
We'll be talking green.
We'll be talking green.
We'll be talking green.
We'll be talking green.
We'll be talking green.
We'll be talking green.
We conclude this program which is reflected on Earth Day and the 50th anniversary of the death of
Aldo Leopold with an essay by James R. Calcoun. Mr. Calcoun has made resource management his career.
He serves as ecologist and biologist for the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The views he expresses are his own.
50 years ago the Earth lost one of its most eloquent and thoughtful advocates.
For much of his adult life Aldo Leopold was a preeminent spokesman for wildlife conservation.
While fighting a grass fire on April 21, 1948, near the Wisconsin farm that inspired much of his
book of essays, a sand county almond-ack, he suffered a heart attack and died at the age of 61.
Aldo Leopold did not place nature on a pedestal to be enjoyed only during vacation tours
through remnant wild parks as a brief respite from the real world.
He did not retreat from the hubbub of academic life to a pristine Wisconsin forest.
His shack was located on abandoned marginal farmland that he actively managed until his death.
He bought it because it could support a Pinewoods ecosystem that he wanted to restore and manage.
Yet he clearly valued the wildest of places.
In fact, he was a founder of the wilderness society.
Leopold seemed always to have understood that functioning natural systems are necessary to
support human life as well as wildlife. He did not oppose human use of ecosystems.
He repeatedly described the joy and value of the use of plants and animals produced by the land.
But he did warn us that we cannot just make withdrawals from the landscape bank.
We must also replenish the account by careful stewardship,
especially if those systems are to sustain life over generations.
He wrote that people should think of themselves as part of the ecosystem that supports them,
not merely as its unconnected beneficiaries. About six weeks before his death,
Leopold wrote in the forward to a San County Almanac,
we abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.
When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.
Aldo Leopold's work serves as a bellweather.
He recognized and mourned the growing American cultural fascination and need
for material things and gadgets.
What would he think about current gadgets and practices?
What would he think about electronic fishfinders,
competitive bass fishing tournaments,
stocking pheasants one day to shoot them the next,
filling wetlands for shopping centers,
bigger roads for longer commutes and so on.
He left us his answers to those questions.
Leopold remains influential not only because of his prescient thoughts,
but also because he could articulate them so clearly.
He was a respected scientist and an effective spokesperson.
His 1933 Wildlife Management textbook, Game Management,
was still in use as the primary text in that field for many years after his death.
Most serious works on sustainable development or ecosystem protection
include references to his work.
His essay, Thinking Like a Mountain,
has been used to describe the most positive way that we can interact with the wild world.
His description in that essay of the green fire going out of the eyes of a dying wolf
is probably the most often cited passage on the human realization of the import
of the loss of animal populations and species.
Not only is the wolf lost, but also the mountain because we cannot lose the predator
without enduring the effect of the proliferation of the prey.
In reading Leopold, I am confronted by two possibilities.
Either nothing has changed about the way people think about the land,
and he merely wrote about it sooner and more eloquently than most.
Or he was so far ahead of his time and so effective that he changed the way that people think.
I suspect that some of each is true.
I wonder where he would have led us during the last half century.
Read us in County Almanac and see what you think.
That was James R. Calcoun, ecologist and biologist,
reflecting on Aldo Leopold and Earth Day.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burling.
Save a copy of the show to make every day Earth Day.
Send $10 to WAMC 318 Central Avenue, Albany, New York 1-2-2-06.
Ask for show number 433.
The Environment Show is a national production which is solely responsible for its content.
Alan Shartock is executive producer,
Steven Westcott is producer, and Ray Graff is audio engineer.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W. Walton Jones Foundation,
the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation, the J. M. Kaplan Fund,
the Oliver S. and Jenny R. Donaldson Charitable Trust,
the William Bingham Foundation, and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the collector car hobby,
1-800-CAR-HRE.
Be good to the Earth and join us next week for the Environment Show.
