The Environment Show #376, 1997 March 15

This is the Environment Show. It's about our stewardship of the Earth and the beauty
and mystery of life in all its forms. The Environment Show's a national production
made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the Turner Foundation,
the JM Kaplan Fund and Heming's Motor News, the Bible of the Collector Carhabi, 1-800-CAR-HRE,
your hostess Peter Burley.
Coming up on this week's Environment Show, electricity is the country's most polluting
industry, and this $300 billion industry is about to be radically restructured. Some say
the environment will be the big loser. Ever wondered why police don't pull over polluting
cars or trucks? One listener did and asked us to investigate. Across the country, people
have been heading out to find out where the Eagle's Soar. It's the annual Midwinter Eagle
Survey. And in the Earth calendar, we hoot all night long with a soft wet owl. These
stories and more coming up on this week's Environment Show.
Electricity is the most polluting industry in the U.S. and possibly the world. Now, a
movement is underway across the country to restructure the electric industry to allow
customers to choose who generates their power. The hope is that prices will drop and new
technologies will be introduced. But many worry that restructuring will mean cheaper
energy at the expense of the environment. Environment Show producer Thomas Lalley reports.
Today, if you want electricity, you can buy from the utility company or sit in the dark.
But over the next several years, that will change. The electric industry will be opened
up to competition and you'll be allowed to select from any power company the same way
you now choose long distance. We're essentially talking about turning the electric utility
industry upside down. Ted Freeman is the managing editor of Electric Power
Alert, an industry magazine. He says how the electric industry is restructured will profoundly
affect the environment because cheap and often dirty power may have an edge in the competitive
market. The first people regulators will allow to access this inexpensive power will be
large industrial corporations, but environmentalists say they will fight to prevent pollution.
Industrial customers who are very anxious to bring about a competitive environment are doing
everything they can to separate the issue of the environment from the issue of electric
restructuring. And they're arguing that these two issues of the environment and energy
are not linked. Environmentalists on the other hand are saying they are inextricably linked.
Much of the dispute over air pollution comes from older power plants. They're allowed
to emit more pollution under current clean air laws. Environmentalists blame them for
a significant portion of the pollution caused by electric generation. Some of the highest
concentrations of these plants are in the Midwest. Their emissions drift hundreds of miles
and pollute the air in the Northeast. The worry is that this situation will get even worse
with competition. Jeanine Shaheen is the governor of New Hampshire. She says Northeast states
pay for bad air when they violate federal clean air laws and when their citizens get sick.
But we bear the brunt of the dirty practices of those utility in the Midwest. And the
fact is we're paying more for our electricity because of that we're paying more for our
clean up. And it's very important that we do something about it. And I think this is
an area where we've got to see federal involvement that it's not fair for those of us in New
England to have to pay those costs. Shaheen and other lawmakers in the Northeast make her
tale or even outright block some power from the Midwest in order to prevent an increase
in air pollution. The big fight now is whether Congress will force older power plants to meet
the same emission standards as newer plants. That would make a state like New York very
happy. It borrowed construction of co-fired power plants decades ago to improve air quality.
But it adds roughly 10% to New Yorker's electric rates. Businesses in the Northeast and New
York say they deserve access to cheap Midwestern power to lower their rates. Barbara Brenner is
with the law firm of couch white Brenner and Faganbaum, which represents industrial companies.
She says it's unfair to prevent them from getting a good deal. I do not think that the Northeast
should do anything that will disadvantage itself economically vis-a-vis the rest of the country.
And if we don't buy it in the Northeast, we still have the environmental fallout from it.
So then we have the worst of all possible worlds. We can't buy the cheaper power and we still have
the environmental impact. Another major concern for environmentalist is investment in energy efficiency
and renewable energy. Both have largely been funded by utilities through rate payer bills.
But in the future, that funding may dry up. Environmentalists say the technology for renewables and
energy efficiency is here. But implementing it on a large scale may take 20 years. They worry
there won't be enough interest in the private sector to make it to the day when these investments
pay off. This will likely be addressed in federal legislation, which may mandate spending for
these projects. Representative Dan Schaeffer is the chair of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee
and a congressman from Colorado. He's introduced a restructuring bill and says renewables and energy
efficiency are taken care of. You know, we have a section in our bill that deals with renewable energies
that a certain percent of the portfolio of utilities have to be renewables or green. And if people
want to use them, they certainly should have the ability to do it, even though they may cost a
little more. But that should be a choice of the individual. But Schaeffer's optimism is not
shared by all. Environmentalists and consumer advocates say the restructuring process in
Washington and in state capitals is being dominated by utilities and large corporations,
which are reluctant to spend money on environmental issues. Lobbyists have descended on lawmakers'
offices and are largely getting what they want, which is sometimes in contrast to what environmentalists
want. Edward Rothschild is with citizen action. He says current federal restructuring legislation
does not assure that the environment or small consumers will be protected.
Well, we think that the restructuring is going in the wrong direction. Wall Street analysts are
saying that we could end up with 10 huge companies in this kind of market. Well, why exchange
a regulated monopoly for a deregulated monopoly? Rothschild is equally displeased with the action
on the Senate side. There Frank Murkowski, Republican Senator from Alaska and head of the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has convened a series of workshops to study restructuring.
Environmentalists largely mistrust Murkowski and claim he's too close with industry. But Murkowski
says that's where expertise is found and he wants to place more control in the hands of the states,
which can make decisions based on their circumstances. But I'm not suggesting we got the answers.
We're going to get the answers from the people who know what and have to live in the environment
of providing energy and it's hard oftentimes communicate the public because the public expects
the government to have the answers. The industry is going to come up with the answer as far as I'm concerned.
That's exactly what raises the eye of environmentalists. They say the electric industry should be
just one of many voices in the restructuring debate. On the state level, consumer advocates and
environmentalists have mixed reviews. But the process is still in its early phases. William Spritely
is the editor of the leap letter which tracks restructuring. Right now this is very much as
Justice Lewis Brandeis said in a laboratory of democracy each state going its own way and the time
will come when this will have to be made more coherent. You'll be hearing more about this issue.
Electricity affects virtually all aspects of the economy and environment. So as deadlines approach
and decisions are made, each group will have something to say. For now environmentalists say they
view electric utility restructuring as an opportunity to improve a heavily polluting industry.
But expect that to change if assurances are not made that air quality will improve and clean
energy is encouraged. For the Environment Show, I'm Thomas Lalley.
The Environment Show wants to hear from you. Our new email address is green at wamc.org.
That's g-r-e-m at wamc.org. Tell us what's on your mind or send us questions you have about the
environment. Or visit us on the internet where you can hear the Environment Show anytime.
It's at www.enn.com.org. Our toll free number is 1-888-49-green.
Environmental producer Stephanie Goyschman finds the answer to a question we got by email from a
listener in New York. Listener Sheila Pratt asks why don't state troopers give out tickets to
polluting trucks? Where I live there are so many trucks going through, what is the state police
going to do to keep their emissions clean? Rich Castle senior attorney with the Natural Resources
Defense Council responds. The state troopers don't have as part of their responsibility
regulating the emissions of truck or for that matter car engines. That responsibility is held in
two places. The federal government sets tailpipe standards for trucks and state governments that
can put into place the kind of inspection and maintenance programs for trucks that we all have
with our cars. So the real answer to the question is how do we get states to take their environmental
responsibilities with their respective trucks more seriously? And I think the answer comes from
people raising this issue with their legislators and writing to their state environmental
departments and saying we think trucks should be handled the same way as cars. We think that
trucks should be asked to undergo emissions inspections and maintenance. That's the way that
we can capture those trucks that are the most dirty and require their cleanup.
Although enforcement of polluting trucks is inconsistent from state to state,
when we contacted the New York State Police, they directed us to the Department of Environmental
Conservation, which directed us back to the New York State Police. Unfortunately, we did not receive
a response from either party in time for this broadcast. In contrast, state police in California
will pull over polluting trucks and ticket them. Jack Schwendiner, an automotive engineer with the
California Highway Patrol, says his state has been building on their standards for quite some time.
We have a number of ways that we enforce laws against polluting trucks and other vehicles
for some time. We've had a couple of vehicle code sections that we've used. One of them applies to
all vehicles, cars as well as trucks and buses. And it prohibits a discharge of excessive
smoke, flame, gas, or oil or fuel residue from vehicles. Usually that's applied to smoke.
And it can maybe sometimes be a little subjective, but it is used and has been used for vehicles of
all types that are smoking too much. We also have another section that's intended pretty much
just for diesel type vehicles. And it, again, prohibits a discharge of smoke. But in this case,
it uses what we call a wringlement chart, which is a little card with a hole in the middle and
various shades of gray for comparison. And the officers can kind of hold that up to their eye
and take a look and see how dark the smoke is. And if it exceeds a certain darkness, then they can
pull that truck over and write a ticket for that. We have another method that's just now coming on
line. And it's based on the SAE Society of Automotive Engineers Snap Idol Test, which kind of
simulates a diesel engine under load. And it uses an electronic opacity meter rather than just
the officer's eye for comparison purposes. So it's a lot more objective. And that's probably going
to be, I think, pretty effective out here. They've had a little trouble getting it developed and
getting it to work and be consistent and make sure that it picks the dirty trucks out from the
clean trucks. But they seem to be getting that pretty well worked out. So we expect to see more
that. And I would expect that probably a number of states will go with that if it starts to work.
So do you find that this is really being enforced by the highway patrol?
It is being enforced, but I can't tell you that it's a real priority. You know, we consider
drunk drivers unsafe lane changes running stoplights and excessive speed to be a lot more of a
concern from a safety standpoint. And we are mostly concerned with safety. So I can't say that
it's our number one priority, but we certainly do write tickets for excessive smoke. And at least
I get complaints from truckers who call up and complain because they had been cited. I have to
try and explain what our procedures are. So we do write some. If you have a question about the
environment, call us at 1-888-49-Green. You just might tune in to find an answer to your question
next week on the Environment Show. That was producer Stephanie Goysman with this week's listener
questions. Next, we soar with the Eagles.
It's estimated that before Europeans came to this country, half a million bald Eagles soared
the skies. Several factors led to the reduction of their numbers, but most notable was the use of
the insecticide DDT. By 1972, the year DDT was finally banned, less than 420 bald Eagles remained
in the lower 48 states. Listed as an endangered species in 1978, important steps have been taken
to protect, reintroduce, and monitor our national symbol. Environment Show producer Linda Anderson
gives us an eagle eye view on the National Midwinter Bald Eagle Survey.
On a brisk January morning, Ron Rennony drives up a country road along the Baton-Kill River in
upstate New York. Rennony, a middle school biology and earth science teacher, is peering intently
into the tops of trees. Looking for that telltale sign of a bald eagle, a white head.
I've seen him sitting right here, right this close to the water.
And you can tell it's been a mild winter, just as hardly any ice here at all, typically.
In a winter, at least most of this channel would be frozen because it's not bright
deep here. It's about the less than three feet deep here. So this channel's almost completely
open. So, Eagles have a wide range. And the bigger area they have to feed, the harder it is to
find them because that means they are movements and are not restricted to just open water. They can
really move around to sections of open water that are not so easily visible from any nearby road.
They're a little skittish around people. So, they don't like to habitat really close to a lot of
people activity. And staying in a car is a prerequisite for most eagle watching.
I'm just going to slow down here and take a closer look.
In January, Rennoni joined professional conservationists, biologists, and hundreds of private
individuals like himself in the National Midwinter Bald Eagle Survey. As Rennoni drives along the
Baton Kill, he explains that the bald eagle he's looking for come down from Canada, where lakes and
rivers are frozen over. In New York, as elsewhere along the Canadian border, Eagles move south,
searching for open water. When they find it, they'll typically perch nearby, where they can feed on
fish, duck, geese, or whatever else might be available. During hard winters, Eagles may travel south
as early as December. But generally, mid-January to mid-February is prime time for bald Eagles since
Peter Nye. He's head of the endangered species program in New York, and coordinator for that
states bald eagle survey. In mid-January when the survey is run, that is the time when all the
Eagles theoretically will have come out of Canada, will be where they are going to be wintering,
and they can be counted kind of in a static condition, in other words, they won't be moving
around very much. Winter visitors will be here, and they can be counted before they start to leave
again in the spring. Nye says New York has been monitoring Eagles since 1979, and populations of
wintering bald Eagles have been increasing steadily, as is true for the rest of the country. He says
the mid-winter survey tells wildlife officials how the bald eagle population is doing, and is kept
separate from a nesting survey, which establishes the numbers of nesting or breeding pairs in the country.
Nye explains that since the late 70s New York state introduced 198 bald Eagles from Alaska,
resulting today in 29 nesting pairs. The populations do mix, he says, but generally breeding
populations are kept separate and remain smaller since it takes five years for bald Eagles to mature.
Great patience is required for eagle watching, and sightings are not guaranteed.
Having no luck on the baton kill, Rannoni moves on to his next site.
Now we're driving along the shore of the Hussick River in Scaticoke, New York,
and it's a very large sicklemore trees and maple trees, and looking for some of the favorite
eagle roosts, and sometimes they'll be here. The one part about this section is that numerous
imitore eagles will hang out here, and they're harder to see because they don't have the characteristic
white. Bald Eagles are immature for the first three years of their lives. When they leave the nest
or fledge, they're full grown with a six-foot wingspan weighing eight to 14 pounds and standing two
and a half feet tall. Peter Nye says many people do not recognize these immature as bald Eagles,
because they're mostly brown with white modeling. By the fourth year, they begin to show much more
of a dark body and a white head and tail that's characteristic of an adult sexually mature bald eagle.
They're not completely white, there's some dark flecking still in the tail and in the head,
and then by five years old when they're fully sexual mature, then you have a pretty much full white
head and tail and brown body, big yellow bill, big yellow eyes, big yellow feet, which is hard to miss.
Bald Eagles live for an average of 20 to 30 years, and according to Karen Steenhoff, who coordinates
the National Bald Eagle Survey for the Biological Resources Division of the United States Geological
Survey, the greatest threat they face today is loss of habitat. Their numbers have risen since the
banning of the insecticide DDT, and two years ago they were removed from the endangered species list,
but Steenhoff is worried because some states like Washington haven't been participating in the
survey lately. I think it is important that monitoring continue, so that we are certain that
the populations are continuing to do well. I mentioned that some states have kind of taken the
attitude that well, the Eagles on the right track, so we don't have to monitor them anymore,
and personally I think that's a mistake because I think we have to make sure that things are
continuing on the track. They're continuing. It's too soon for this year's Bald Eagle count,
but last year 15,722 bald eagles were counted in the lower 48 states. 174 of those were in New York.
This year's mild winter is expected to bring the numbers down, but on the whole,
sightings of bald eagles are on the rise, and that's good news for the Eagles, and those who enjoy
watching them. For the environment show, I'm in the Anderson.
Stay tuned, the Earth calendar is next.
All across the northern part of the United States, tiny,
saw-hued owls are now hooting all night to find a mate. In northern Michigan, it's prime time to
hear the saw-wets monotonous call, Rich Bateson is a wildlife biologist and photographer in Michigan,
and he spends his nights this time of year recording the saw-wet to find out how many
owls have returned and how large their territories are. Well, the saw-wet owls have returned
to growing their Michigan, and we begin the surveys of the seven-year study that we've initiated
in northern Michigan on seven study sites, and we've located 28 territorial calling saw-wet owls,
the males call on territory to attract the females, and they have returned within the last
10 days to 14 days. Although there is still three feet of snow on the ground,
Bateson says he knows spring has arrived when he begins hearing the saw-wets. He says the
owls have many calls, but almost always use the call you're hearing now. He told Environment
Show producer Tonus Lally that the owls have to call to find a mate because they live in the dark.
And their behavior is such that they would not be able to be seen being an
anctonal species, and so what they do is they call. And this call is a monotone type of
sound that's repeated, say three times every two seconds, and it might be, it starts right after
dusk and it repeats right right to daylight in the morning, and then they're very repetitive,
and then continue to do that until they might pair bond or mate, and then like many of the other
owls, they become somewhat silent, and like most of the year you don't hear too many of the owl species.
So they don't call for most of the years that are they?
No, the saw-wet owl and other species of northern forest owls, such as the hawk owl and
specific of the boreal owl, are actually quite silent during most of the seasons, except during
the breeding season, where they do this auditory, you know, broadcast to attract a mate.
Though tiny, these creatures are skilled hunters. They're equipped with sharp claws and beaks
and eat almost exclusively small mammals like nice and voles.
Bateson says they can hear and see so well, they can even locate prey under the snow.
The owls have both keen hearing and vision. My understanding is that they've done studies and
established that the owls could take a mouse just by hearing alone. They've also had a situation
where they had a mouse that they put out in one of those football type stadiums and had one candle
in it, and the owl was able to go down. And the owls have the facial discs that you see on the
owls that are somewhat the wrong circular thing in their face. Actually, is utilized to channel
the sounds that they gather to the ears on the sides of these facial discs, and that's why they're
so effective at hearing. If the saw-wet owl were in high school, he'd be the smallest in the class.
He'd probably be showed up by his bigger competitors and failed to get a date for the prom.
But if you wanted to go with him and he wasn't hooting, it means he's already taken.
In fact, he doesn't give a hoot. Thanks for listening, this is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burley.
This is the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead. We look at the snowball inside the
Halebop comet. Astronomers think it will help us find out where our oceans came from.
Investment advisors talk green and answer questions about green investing. Do environmentally
conscious mutual funds make any sense? Singer songwriter Alice DiMicelli defends the Earth. Her tools
are her voice and her guitar. These stories still ahead on the Environment Show.
The Great Wall of the World
During March, the biggest thing in the pre-dawn sky has been the Halebop comet. I've been watching
it through the window while lying in bed. Astronomers say it may help us determine where the Earth's
oceans come from. What we see as we look skyward is gas and dust being released by the comet when
it is struck by the rays of our sun. We don't see the center of the comet itself,
which Dr. Michael Moomem, chief scientist for Ponditary Research at the Goddard Space Flight Center,
says is made of ice. It's 25 miles in diameter, but this is not ordinary ice.
Well, let me say one thing about the concept of a block of ice. I think that's a very misleading
concept. People who would think of literally a block of ice that you might buy at your local ice plant
or an ice cube you'd freeze in your refrigerator. A better idea is to keep in mind a very fluffy
structure, more like a bunch of loosely coagulated snowflakes, not even one that you packed it
with your hands, but one that has fallen in the fluffiest manner imaginable and gives rise to a
very tenuous structure. The icy nucleus of the comet becomes embedded with small grains of dust
the size of smoke particles. As these come off in the sunlight, they form the comet's tail.
Dr. Moomem says the materials, the comet accumulated as it was formed, or what may tell us more about
the formation of our solar system, the oceans, and possibly the origins of life on Earth.
Well, there are three things of interest regarding these comets, particularly the ones like
Albot that are visiting sun relatively and frequently. These are bodies that are the most
pristine material remaining from the time of planet formation in the early solar system.
By actually measuring the composition of the comet, we can compare that with the composition
of interstellar ice, which preceded our solar system. And then in this way, we can determine
to what kinds of processes actually occurred in the early solar system, it might have changed
those ice and affected the manner in which planets formed, and the manner in which the pre-biological
organic chemicals were delivered to the early Earth. I asked Dr. Moomemou whether comet
ice's striking the Earth were responsible for water formation here. As a matter of fact, that's
the current view. And of course, like all scientific theories, it requires detailed measurement for
verification and change. Currently, we think that the early Earth, when it first
accreted, was exceedingly hot. The rocks were molten at the surface. There were no oceans,
the atmosphere boiled off into space, and had things going on from there without comets,
we wouldn't have the beautiful world we have today. We believe that in the first few hundred
million years after the Earth formed, it was visited by a host of comet nuclei that impacted the
Earth. And each one brought in its inventory of water and other organic chemicals.
Moomemou says that in the last ten years, we've learned that the chemistry of all comets is not
the same, but differs as the comets were formed at different times. There are other theories about
the formation of the oceans. One is that our atmosphere and oceans formed when volcanoes
here on Earth spewed out a lot of chemicals and gas, which resulted in water and a primitive
atmosphere. That theory holds that lightning strikes on the chemical stew led to the formation
of building blocks of biological life. But at the moment, Moomemou says he believes comedy impact
caused ocean formation. On the basis of your own research, I take it, you are an advocate of a
comet impact model. To present time I am, actually, I find the the comet hydrogen abundance ratio,
the deuterium to hydrogen ratio I mentioned earlier, to be fully consistent with the view that
the Earth's hydrogen was delivered by impact from comets. But I don't feel fully bound by that
theory. In fact, my view is that we need to make measurements in many, many comets in order to
validate that because measuring one comet is not sufficient. These bodies were formed at different
distances from the proton sun. They show evidence that their chemical composition is quite different.
From body to body, for example, the methyl alcohol abundance changes by an order of magnitude,
a factor of 10 relative to water. And so we think it's very important to establish what the
average value of deuterium to hydrogen in comets is. And you can't do that by measuring just one.
You need to measure a significant number of them. Whether you were a scientist exploring the
origins of our oceans and terrestrial life or a layman who is inspired by gazing at the night sky,
Halebop is quite a show. Paul Feldman, professor of physics and astronomy at John Hopkins University
in Baltimore, Maryland, describes its size. In the central bureau for astronomical telegrams and
in Cambridge, Massachusetts, keeps records of comets and their observations dating back to
some 2,000 years or more. And according to Brian Marsden, he believes that this is perhaps the
largest comet in the past 200 years. I think it was a great comet of 1811 that he compares this to.
And for those of you who have missed Halebop in the morning, you'll get a chance soon to see it in the
evening. Because of the viewing geometry, Halebop is visible to the naked eye for a period of about two
months. It's currently best seen in the morning, but within a few days it will start to be a very
noticeable evening object. And during the month of April, it will be very prominent in the evening sky.
Moreover, unlike the predictions, its brightness is growing instead of leveling off as it approaches
its closest point to the sun. Paul Feldman is a professor of physics and astronomy at John's Hopkins
University.
We're talking green and I'm your host Peter Burley. Today we're talking about green investing.
Can you invest your money in ways that help the environment and help you too? We want to hear from
you. Our number is 1-888-49-Green. Our guest today are Elisa Gravitz. She's executive director of
Co-op America. It's a nonprofit organization that provides economic strategies for businesses and
individuals to address today's social and environmental problems. She's in Washington, D.C.
Also with us is Dick Pearl. He's senior portfolio manager at the First Man Hatton Company in New
York, which manages money for individuals, families, pension funds, and eerie-mice and area
institutions. This is a time of year when a lot of folks are making contributions to their
individual retirement accounts or IRAs. And many of them are putting that money into the stock market
in mutual funds. One option are the so-called green funds. Elisa, what is a green fund?
A green fund, some people call them socially responsible funds, are basically mutual funds that in
addition to the semancial criteria that any mutual fund would have also are concerned with what
kind of investment and what kind of companies they typically exclude the worst of the polluters,
they typically exclude the worst of the companies with bad labor policies, and they typically
exclude alcohol gambling in tobacco. Okay, now Dick, suppose I'm an environmentalist and I want to
invest profitably as I can so I can meet my own needs and maybe have some money left over to
give to the National Audubon Society or the Sierra Club and so on. Are there better strategies
than investing in these so-called green funds? Well, if I heard Elisa correctly, she termed the
incremental investment in addition to the kinds of investment criteria that other people might use.
Now, our investment criteria are that we look for value, or traditional value investors,
and we search for businesses that we think have good franchises and good management,
so that's sort of thing. And we look for what we can think of as opportunities when market
valuations are significantly below business values. So you think there are better ways
to do this than simply opt-in to the green fund option which some of the mutual funds are giving
you. Well, Peter, what I was going to say is as an opinion, I don't think there's any wrong style
of investing, but when it comes down to what we actually end up owning, I think we end up owning
given our style of investing. Many of the same businesses that people who think of themselves as
green investors would own also. I think- You just get there in a different way. Yeah, that's
what I would say. Okay, well, I want to go to the phones and let's start in New York, and we have
a call from Barbara. Barbara, you're talking green in the Environment Show. Yes, hi. Hi there.
If I invest my retirement funds in green stocks, will it hurt me financially?
Good question. Let's have answers from both of you. Alisa, somebody investing their
retirement funds in green stocks? Does it hurt her? Or can she come out okay?
It will absolutely not hurt you. Provided you do your homework carefully like you would do for
any investment and come up with a good investor, good investment manager. Let me give you a
couple of quick examples. Apples to apples, which is very important in this field that you make
sure that you're comparing the right things. The Domino Social Equity Index outperformed the S&P 500
over the last six years since it's been alive. The BSI 400 is the country's largest companies
excluding the worst of the polluters, excluding the alcohol gambling in tobacco, and including
the kind of value-based companies that Dick was talking about. Okay, Dick, how do you respond to
Barbara's question? Again, I think there's no wrong style of investing. I think over time different
styles will do better or worse depending on whether the wind is at your front or at your back.
I've looked at the Domino Social Equity Fund and I've looked at some of their individual holdings
and many of their holdings are companies that I own or would own. Again, our screen is to look at
this from a financial standpoint. I really think Barbara that you're looking at a moving target
and that it's very difficult to segment out green investing as a criteria. I prefer to look at
the standards of looking for value and over time I believe that's a better approach.
Okay, well thanks for the question. Let me ask you something, Alisa, before we go on.
And that has to do with how you really know some companies green. What is the criteria? Does the
CEO have to drive a Volkswagen? Does the company have to be free of pollution violations?
What makes a green company from your perspective? Well, there's an emerging body of what's called
social and environmental research that tracks, again, not only the financial performance of the company,
which is the traditional way and as Dick mentioned, very important. It also looks at the company's
social and environmental performance. So, for example, in the environmental arena, it will look
as to whether or not it's had violations of federal or state laws. It will look at the kind of
products. It will look at the impact on the communities. It will look at whether or not the
company has taken a leadership position in certain environmental activities. So all in all,
it's an additional piece of information that the investment community that's focused on what's
called social and environmental research adds to the investment decision. Okay, now, by phones are
jumping off the hook. Let's go to Helen in Tacoma, Washington. Helen, you're talking green in the
environment show. Hi. This is something that most of the boards I've sat on have talked about a lot
and one of the things that I'm curious about is, you know, Helen, before you go on, you're talking
about boards of non-profit institutions. Non-profit organizations, NGOs, non-governmental groups.
And they want to know whether they should be ingested. A lot of the money aside for their continued
well-being, MNOs, so forth. I'm curious if a good, clean, healthy environment is good for the
economy as they like to say. Why is there more advertising about invest in this or that for
instance paper company they don't use chlorine bleachers or whatever. Why aren't we pushing these
things? So people can put their money where their mouth is. Okay, well, that's advertising is so
much a part of our lives. I mean, you just can't avoid it. I never hear that happening.
As someone who is seeing what the companies are putting out as you pick stocks, are you seeing?
I think it's a very difficult question that Helen asked. I think that, you know, in many cases,
the criteria that we're talking about are goals rather than achievements that have already been met.
And in many cases, it's not clear. I'd be, as an example, I'm looking at the IBM annual report
and they talk in glowing terms about how they have contributed over $1.2 billion to the economy
over the past X number of years. At the same time, I know that IBM has been a polluter of
Lake Champlain and of the Hudson River. And I think that responsible shareholders have urged IBM
to take responsible actions and they have. But it's sort of a push pull. It's not a quickly
answerable question that Helen's asking. Well, I think Helen, you're absolutely right. All of us
who care about this need to get the word out so that people can do the appropriate research and
make the appropriate investment decisions for themselves. I mean, when you think of it, so many
people like yourself, Helen, are working really hard in their personal lives. You're even volunteering
on boards and you're trying to help clean up the environment. But no matter what anyone does,
the average American has far more money in investments than they're ever able to give to charities.
So it's really important that we demand of companies' environmental responsibility.
And one way to send that message strongly is the kinds of companies we'll invest in and the
kinds of companies we won't. Well, Helen, thanks for your question. And let's go into the
here. Can I ask Elisa a question? Sure. Would you rather be an owner of a company that you feel
is environmentally insufficient and exert that influence as a shareholder or would you rather not
be a shareholder? Explute yourself from that dialogue. There's a tough one. No, I think that's a very
good question. And for your listeners, really important in terms of the different kinds of strategies
of social investing, one of them is excluding companies from your portfolio that you think are so
egregious that you couldn't even sleep well at night if you were making money from them. And that's
very important because it sends a signal to companies. It raises the bar for corporate responsibility.
If you got one of those on the top of your list, Elisa, just quick.
Well, I think a lot of people, for example, right after the Bhopal incident or right after the
Exxon Valdez incident, for example, said no more Exxon. I mean, here's an oil company. Oil
companies are, oil is a difficult business, but here's a company that appears. Right. And Bhopal
was Union Carbide. That's right. Yes. So those are two examples of companies that many people will
just say, I can't sleep at night. Okay. Now, on the other hand, what Dick is bringing up is
something that's very important, a very important social investment strategy, which is for the
companies that might do some good things and some bad things. You know, it might be a mixed bag.
For you as a responsible shareholder to say, management, I'm an owner. This is what I expect of you.
I expect you to clean up the fact. I expect you to follow these laws. I expect you not to lobby
against things that that will matter for our future environment. Okay. Well, let's go back to the
comments once again. Let's go into the center of the country and hear from Pat and Iowa. Pat,
welcome to the Environment Show. You're talking green. Thank you very much for having me.
I would like to go a little bit further on a comment that just was made. As a shareholder,
how am I going to be able to select green funds when companies today are so diverse? They may be
into oil and food or tobacco and food. Many things that, you know, they'll have a combination of good
and they'll have a combination of bad. At the same time, you find companies may be doing a very
great environmentally sound business in one part of the country or one town and not so good in
another. So how do we filter these things out as found investors? Well, I think there's a couple of
different strategies. One is there are about 45 mutual funds that are considered social
responsible mutual funds. In that, right in their perspective, they'll tell you what their
financial criteria are and what their environmental criteria are. And like any mutual fund, they will
list what their investments are. So you can look at those and say, hey, that matches my concerns.
I know that the researchers here have the same concerns that I do and that they're going to
make the investments because they have these policies. And that's important because Dick mentioned
earlier that many investors will often end up investing in the same companies as social investors
because of the value of the company. Dick Katpour is the question of the conglomerate that may
do a lot of things. They may make food, they may make cigarettes, they may make airplane part.
One of the things I heard Pat saying is, how do you sort this thing out? How does one ever know
whether anybody is green or purple or who knows what? Well, I think Alisa gave a very good answer
a few moments ago to my question and to Helen's question also, that is that there are some
egregious offenders and she used the X on and the union carbide example. But more often than not,
companies fall in that mid area where it's up to shareholders to look at their annual reports,
to look at their proxies and to vote and to write to the management of companies that they own
or that the mutual funds they own own for them. And there are lots of examples of companies that are
mixed bags and which I think I'll use as one example, Canadian Pacific which has had charitable
contributions going back to 1921 and gives away 1% of its pre-tax profits each year. But at the same
time, Canadian Pacific owns Pan-Canadian petroleum which is in the conventional crude and natural gas
business and they own a business called Fording which mine's metallurgical coal. So I think the question
is right on. It's not a simple question to answer. I think that this is an evolving subject. I
think we're talking a lot about goals rather than actual achievements and it's up to shareholders
to move companies in that direction. But Dr. Pat and the ways to leave through this, one is the
Owna Mutual Fund that does research on these criteria for you. The second is to go to a
socially responsible financial planner or money manager who again will help you do the research.
The third is to consider a small portion of your portfolio. That portion which is appropriate
for you to take some risks in and really invest in the small, advanced cutting edge types of
companies. They're making a really clear contribution. They may be purchasing, excuse me, they may be
manufacturing recycling technology or they may be manufacturing cleanup technology. Those kinds of
businesses where you can take the risk to invest in a smaller company, that's the third part of
the strategy. So Mutual Funds, Financial Advisors who can do the research for you and then going
after those cutting edge companies for a portion of your portfolio.
Oh, Pat, thanks for your question. Great question. Our time is running short.
But let me ask you both something and I'm sure that neither one of you want to answer this.
We have had a huge run-up on the stock market. It seems to me that investing green or purple
or otherwise with reasonably good luck, one was making a lot of money in the last couple of years.
If one is a green investor, do you need to be more concerned about the fact that this thing may
go in the other direction or the so-called green funds more likely to drop more quickly? Or is this
crystal ball gazing that nobody's going to be able to figure out? Just a few seconds, Dick,
how do you come out of that one? Peter, I don't consider myself a green investor. I consider myself
a value investor and I think in investing for value that the issue is finding a value and then
determining what you're willing to pay for it. And anytime you overpay, as Mr. Buffett said yesterday
in his remark, you run the risk of being ahead of the market and sustaining losses.
Great, well, Lisa, shorting in the time remaining green funds, are they going to drop faster than
others? None of us have a crystal ball and the past doesn't determine the future. But the last
time in the early 90s when we had to drop, the green funds dropped less far. They had to be
20, 20 seconds ahead. Okay, I'm afraid our time is up. We'll have to refer you all to the green
crystal ball. We've been talking about green investing and my guests have been Alisa Gravitz from
Co-op America and Dick Pearl from the First Man Hatton Company. Let's hear from you. Our number is
1-888-49 Green and I'm your host, Peter Burley.
We close with a piece by singer-songwriter Alice Dimicelli from her album, Searching.
She urges us to defend the earth and admonishes that committing global suicide is a bad idea.
Timer says she always hear that with words about how to defend the earth and admonishes it is one time
and day.
When will we understand?
No one will have a job if we destroy this thing.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Someone's playing cards,
because I didn't what you feel I didn't what you're not.
Someone plays with fire,
but you know we're only building our own a few goldpies.
How can we sit here until actualizing when we know what's happening is wrong?
Causing mass extinction,
while doctors use machines on human lives to roll on.
Someone's playing cards,
because I didn't what you feel I didn't what you're not.
Someone plays with fire,
but you know he's only building his own a few goldpies.
In my mind I cannot see the sense of global suicide,
the view pooled in the luxury,
perhaps it's up to you and I,
to save this world will have to put up one hell of good fight.
A good fight.
We have a voice,
but is that a strong is the mountain?
Yes, we have a choice,
but is that destruction or something to do?
Defend the earth,
do what you can't do,
what you must,
but just do something to defend the earth.
Defend the earth,
do what you can't do,
what you must,
but just do something to defend the earth.
Defend the earth,
do what you can't do,
what you must,
but just do something to defend the earth.
Defend the earth,
do what you can't do,
what you must,
but just do something to defend the earth.
Defend the earth,
That was Alice DiMicelli singing,
Defend the Earth,
from her album,
Searching.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show.
I'm Peter Burley.
For a cassette copy of the program called 1-888-49-Green,
and that's for show number 3-77.
The Environment Show is a presentation of national productions,
which is solely responsible for its content.
Dr. Alan Shartuck is the Executive Producer,
Thomas Lalley is Producer,
and Stephanie Goetchman is the Associate Producer.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W. W. W. W.
and Jones Foundation,
the Turner Foundation,
the J. M. Kaplan Fund,
the Packard Foundation,
and Heming's Motor News,
the monthly Bible of the Collector Carhubby,
1-800-C-A-R-H-E-R-E.
So long,
and join us next week for the Environment Show.