Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome.
Well the weight is over, the time is at hand.
With the Earth Summit about to get underway, USEPH Chief William Riley has been tapped to
lead the US delegation.
We'll have excerpts of Riley's only commencement address this year.
Also this time, a new Gallup survey indicates the world leaders gathering in Rio may not
be representing the views of their constituents, so says Dr. Riley Dunlap, Director of the
Survey.
What struck me is that perhaps the world's public, you know, citizens around the world are
perhaps not as polarized as some of the leaders who are going to their summit seem to
assume.
Also this time, be careful what you call green.
The Environment Show is a national production made possible by the JM Kaplan Fund of New
York.
Mrs. Bruce Robertson.
Until recently, it was not known whether the United States would be attending the Earth
Summit in any official capacity.
Following the announcement that President Bush has decided he will attend, comes word now
that EPA Administrator William Riley will be leading the US delegation.
Bush and Riley will take their places with more than 100 other world leaders.
Speaking at the commencement ceremony at Connecticut College in New London, Connecticut
recently, Riley told the crowd this meeting, quote, may be the most important environmental
gathering in history.
End quote.
One at which the United States is well qualified to take a leadership role.
United States was the first country to pass sweeping national legislation to protect the
air and water and land from industrial pollution, just as it was first to install extensive
monitoring systems to measure air and water quality.
United States was the first country to require catalytic converters in cars.
The first to mandate scrubbers on new power plant smoke stacks.
The first to phase out lead from gasoline.
The first to ban aerosols containing CFCs.
A reporter said to me recently, it is not politically correct to acknowledge that we have
made environmental progress in this country.
But consider what we have achieved during the last 20 years since the environmental revolution
really began.
We have reduced carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide in cities about a third.
We have reduced particulates in cities by 64 percent.
And we have eliminated 97 percent of lead emissions.
In the last three years alone, we have achieved a law requiring a permanent cap on acid rain
emissions at half the current level.
In future years, you will see more night stars in the sky above Connecticut.
We have set new records in all categories of environmental law enforcement, including
more guilty verdicts and pleas, more jail time for offenders, and more criminal penalties
and civil fines that were achieved in the entire previous 18-year history of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
When the podium on the college green, Riley spoke before a crowd of some 2,000 students,
families, and invited guests at the 1992 commencement ceremony at Connecticut College.
It was a very hot day, the first 90-degree day of the season, and only a slight breeze
blew in from the waters of Long Island Sound in the background.
He spoke of the delays in getting a global warming treaty, the United States would sign.
While much has been made of the absence of specific targets and timetables for stabilizing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Of more lasting significance is the framework this treaty establishes, by which countries
many for the first time will begin to inventory their greenhouse gas emissions and then prepare
as they are required to do detailed, practical, workable programs for reducing them.
Significant here is the process this treaty puts in place by which commitments can be reassessed
as the science, the economics, and the technology improve.
Significant as well is the explicit recognition of this problem and its potential threat
by well over 100 countries, the community of nations.
This is no small achievement.
It is a first and giant step in its field.
Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, the summit is officially called the United Nations Conference
on Environment and Development, or UNZED.
It will be the first such since the 1972 conference in Stockholm.
In addition to work on a global warming treaty, delegates will also work on several other
binding agreements, including one on protection of Earth's forests.
Again, William Riley.
The forests are one of nature's primary harbours for biological diversity, as well as moderators
of the effects of pollution and climate change.
Yet, our forests continue to be decimated.
From 42 million acres of tropical forests, for example, are destroyed each year, and
tropical forests which account for only 6% of the landmass of the Earth, harbor 50%
or more of its flora and fauna of its species.
President Bush proposed an international convention on forestry at the 1990 G7 summit of industrial
leaders in Houston, and this proposal is now a primary objective of the United States
foreign policy, and the U.S. took the initiative to put forestry on the Rio agenda.
No less compelling is the plight of our oceans.
Parts of them are becoming a kind of water-logged landfill, stressed by the waste dumped by
ships washed off the land and discharged into streams and rivers that ultimately feed
into the ocean.
This year, in America, we dispose of used oil improperly in amounts that exceed by a
factor of 18, the largest oil spill in American history.
It all ends up in the waters.
The United States is working through unsaid to focus the world's attention on the plight
of the oceans.
In fact, we have proposed that a conference be held soon after Rio to pursue specific
commitments for reducing land-based sources of marine pollution.
Raleigh said the conference represents a new direction in world leadership thinking,
one in which the environment and the economy are being talked about in the same context.
We need, he said, to keep this in mind as we pursue the general agreement on tariffs
and trade and the North American free trade agreement and other such negotiations in
the future.
The elevation of environment as a priority in our foreign policy, in our trade policy,
in the elevation of science and economic analysis in our environmental policy, this is a new
world we are making, and we need a new and more sophisticated environmentalism to guide
it.
This new environmentalism is not no growth, it is pro-growth, for growth that is clean
and sustainable and doesn't produce air that you can see and water that makes you sick.
The new environmentalism is international, just as our economic and environmental prosperity
now depend on a stable cooperative community of nations, in trade, in management of the
ozone layer, and climate, and for us.
This new environmentalism is not angry and industrial phobic, but is oriented to reconciliation
and convergences and it is hopeful and inclusive.
People the world over want their leaders to find ways to meet their economic aspirations
and also their environmental goals.
That is our task, our primary challenge for Rio and beyond.
William Riley, Chief Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, he addressed
the graduating class of Connecticut College in New London on the shore of Long Island
Sound.
This will be his only appearance this year as a commencement speaker.
In his closing remarks, Riley said, this is the first generation to be so informed about
the consequences of our actions, not just in our local neighborhoods, but for life itself
on Earth.
What we do now, he said, will determine, as never before, the prospects for survival
of all life on Earth.
That is Riley, we dare not now give up.
This is Bruce Robertson.
According to a new Gallup survey, the people of the world are way ahead of their leaders
when it comes to environmental concern.
In the final weeks leading to the United Nations Earth Summit, those nations expected to attend
are still locked in disagreement over essential proposals.
At issue is, who will take responsibility for the Earth's environmental problems and their
solutions.
For the problems, wealthy industrialized nations point to uncontrolled population growth
and misuse of natural resources in developing nations.
Leaders of the developing nations, on the other hand, blame the industrialized world
for overconsumption per capita.
Seeking solutions, industrialized nations call on developing nations to curb population
growth.
Well, developing nations ask for money and technology.
But according to the survey released by the Gallup Organization, the squabbling leaders
gathering at the summit may not be representing the views of their constituents.
The health of the planet survey of 22 nations reported that people all over the world are
seriously concerned about the environment.
Washington State University sociologist Dr. Riley Dunlap conducted the study.
Oh, I was just quite surprised.
If someone who's followed US results for quite some time, I knew that in our country, public
support for environmental protection, public concern about the state of the environment
was quite high.
I really expected to find more variation around the world.
And what I found was, first of all, that in some of the European nations, it's higher
than it is here.
And secondly, it's not all that much lower, even when you get out to places like India,
Mexico, Philippines, which have so many very, very pressing problems other than environment
to face because of their poor economic conditions.
Dunlap directed the study using Gallup affiliates in 22 countries, including nations in Africa,
South America, Central Asia, and the Orient.
One thousand interviewees in each country were questioned.
To see how many would rate the environment as their nation's worst problem, Dunlap first
asked the respondents to name the biggest problem facing their nation today.
He says the results are surprising.
In the United States, you seldom find more than 10 percent of the people mentioning environment.
The economy is just something that's always on people's minds, whether it be the inflation
or unemployment or whatever.
And that tends to dominate.
And oftentimes, environment only gets a few percent.
Well, we found 11 percent in the United States, volunteered environment, and the most
important problem, a very substantial figure, one that's pretty much comparable to what
people were finding two years ago at the time of the 23rd day.
It really shocked me was that in some other countries, we found much higher than Netherlands
with the highest with 39 percent.
But also some of the poorer countries, Mexico had 20 percent volunteering this in Chile,
20 percent, India, 21 percent.
So even when you're looking at environment relative to other issues, and again, we coded
all the answers.
They may have said political problems.
They could have said hunger.
They could have said wars, whatever.
To have 10 to 20 percent of the people mentioning right off the bat like that environment is a
very striking finding to me.
And the fact that it was spread all around the world, and both in poor countries and as
well as the wealthy countries was quite surprising.
Dunlap reports that even when those pulled compared the environment to other issues, the
environment was named as one of the top three problems in 15 of the 22 nations.
Dunlap says polling such a diverse population is a challenge.
As a sociologist, he knew he must devise questions relevant in every country.
One of his biggest challenges was to phrase a question that asked interviewees to compare
the importance of environmental protection with economic development.
At first he worried this would seem insensitive to third world poverty, but his results show
otherwise.
One of the most astounding results to me was we asked, and actually I asked this with
some hesitation because I thought it would be so biased against the poor countries in
terms of giving them a reasonable option on saying protect the environment.
But we wanted to ask a question that's been used a lot in the United States in which
in fact people were given the option of choosing between protecting the environment should
be given priority or economic growth should be given priority.
And although just as we find in the United States in most countries a majority of people
do say we should give priority to protecting the environment.
In our survey in 20 of the 22 nations we've looked at so far a majority opted for environmental
protection over economic growth.
One lab says majorities in countries like the Philippines, Chile, Poland and Mexico said
they are willing to protect the environment at the expense of their economy.
Indeed, Dunlap says he found many examples of environmental concern overriding conventional
economic thinking.
In Rio he will present his findings to a public forum which will run concurrently with the
official UN summit.
There he hopes to present his conclusions that residents of all nations accept equal
blame for environmental problems.
What struck me is that perhaps the world's public, citizens around the world are perhaps
not as polarized as some of the leaders who are going to the Earth Summit seem to assume.
In the preparations for the Earth Summit there's been a big division between the northern
rich countries and the southern countries over population and pollution and so forth.
Again, kind of conventional wisdom that one part of the world denorescues it is a population
problem and the other part the Southeast is us consuming too much.
And our results really don't support that.
So I would basically try to get out the message that hey there may be less polarization more
consensus among the public than our leaders seem to think.
Dunlap also says he was surprised residents of poor nations are so informed about environmental
problems.
Not only are they concerned about water and air quality problems in their community,
they also expressed great concern for global ozone depletion and global extinction of plants
and animals.
Eastern European countries tended to rate their own regional environment worse than the global
picture says Dunlap.
As Eastern Europe builds new nations many are wondering who will take care of the environment.
Dunlap found citizens in many countries are turning to less conventional sources for
help.
So in this country we often we generally find that people say government.
In fact, some people have said one of the problems in the United States is that environment
is seen as an institutional problem.
It's seen as being caused by one institution industry and it should be solved by another
institution government and citizens kind of opt out they just say well it's not my
role.
But I found interesting is that in all the countries government was the one that was
most likely to be chosen or at least it was essentially tied for first.
But it was in the poorer countries that they were most likely to assign responsibility
to citizens.
Countries like Mexico and Chile and the Philippines again Brazil were among the ones that were most
likely to say that would be citizens.
And then we turned it around a bit and we said in your opinion how much of an effect can
individual citizens and citizens groups have unsolving problems.
Great deal, fair amount not very much not at all.
And again it was in the poorer countries where people were likely to say that citizens
could have a great deal of effect.
And I found that interesting that the people in the poorer countries were much more likely
than those in the rich to say citizens could make a difference.
And I don't know exactly how to explain this if it's because they think well we just
don't have all the government laws and regulations and maybe the scientific knowledge so it's
up to the citizens or if they really believe that it's the role of individual citizens
sort of a moral duty or whatever.
Dr. Riley Dunlap, professor of sociology at Washington State University, Pullman Washington
and director of the Health of the Planet Survey released by the Gallup Organization.
He hopes to survey people in eight additional countries in the near future.
He says the study demonstrates that the environment is no longer an aesthetic issue for rich
countries but a concern that affects the health and well-being of people in all nations.
This is Bruce Robertson.
The Earth Day 1990 sent a signal to manufacturers and advertising firms across the United States.
Many Americans are angry about continuing environmental damage and we've begun to
show it when we spend our money.
As a result, national advertising campaigns reflect the corporate race for the green dollar.
But as Leslie Lomas reports, some challenge these new claims of environmental friendliness.
In April 1990, shortly before Earth Day and a year after the Exxon Valdese oil spill,
a congressional conference committee was debating the final version of a bill that would
require oil companies to start equipping their tankers with double hulls.
Conoco oil, a subsidiary of DuPont, announced its decision to replace its fleet of six tankers
with double hulled ships.
Conoco's announcement gave impetus to passage of the new law which had been opposed by the
oil industry.
Later that year, DuPont began running a television commercial publicizing that decision.
Recently DuPont announced that its energy unit Conoco would find here the use of new
double-hulled oil tankers in order to safeguard the environment.
The edge shows sea lions clapping their flippers, birds clapping their wings, and various
cheerful marine animals and birds.
Jack Doyle of the Environmental Advocacy Group Friends of the Earth decided to take a close
look at DuPont's environmental record after seeing the so-called applause commercial.
While he commends DuPont's voluntary decision to switch to double hull tankers, the environmental
impact was relatively small, and Doyle points out Conoco is only a small part of DuPont's
operations.
Its chemicals elsewhere, for example, are shredding the ozone layer.
It's a huge energy appetite and production of synthetic products is contributing to global
warming.
Its agricultural pesticides are polluting groundwater.
Researchers like Doyle are able to check companies pollution records thanks to a 1986
law, the Community Right to Know Act.
It requires all businesses that release certain chemicals to report annually to the environmental
protection agency, and DuPont's record didn't look good to Doyle.
We found that the single largest corporate polluter in the United States by far out polluting
in 1989 every other company in the Fortune Top 10, for example.
DuPont did not have a spokesperson available to comment on the Friends of the Earth report,
but written statements claim that the company has cut its overall releases by 30 percent
since it began reporting, although some statistics are questioned by Friends of the Earth.
The Community Right to Know Act also fostered advertising campaigns.
Last year, the Chemical Manufacturers Association sponsored a series of print ads publicizing
their members' willingness to inform the public about their use of toxic chemicals.
John Hulsman, Vice President of CMA.
It's said that you're driving by that chemical plant just like you do every day and your
kids ask you what they make in there and you can't tell them and it occurs to you you
should be able to.
And then the ad says, well, we don't blame you for not knowing we haven't always been
the most open industry in the world.
However, we're trying to change and we're trying to do that through being more open
in communities where we operate.
We went out and took the industry up on their challenge as it were and decided to call
them and see if in fact we could track them and find out about toxic.
Carol Enhartman of the Public Interest Research Group or PURG says her group called 192 member
businesses of the Chemical Manufacturers Association.
They had a list of nine questions about the company's use or production of toxic chemicals.
And the results of our survey are rather distressing and are frankly not in sync with the
advertising campaign which says we want you to know.
So if you're skeptical of advertising but want to use your consumer dollars to support
green companies, how can you find out what to believe?
Looking for answers to that question, Boulder activist Larry Tassade spent three years researching
the environmental impacts of hundreds of consumer items which he evaluates in his book, shopping
for a better environment.
We as consumers I think will be able to do most of the work ourselves and then we're
going to have to.
The government isn't going to save us.
Let's face it.
And corporations are not always going to act in our best interest either.
We're going to have to leave the way and as consumers and let them follow and I believe
that they will fall.
Tassade urges consumers to look for specific substantive information on packages when
they're shopping and to check lists of ingredients.
Leslie Lomas reporting for the High Plains New Service.
The High Plains New Service is a production of the Western organization of resource councils
with headquarters in Billings, Montana.
That's our report on the environment show this week.
The hikers on the expedition are circling Harper's Ferry West Virginia, halfway point on
the track.
They are officially to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Sierra Club in 1892.
We'll have a special report next week.
Our special thanks to Mr. Joseph Sylvestery and the recording engineers at Connecticut College
for providing taped coverage of the commencement address of EPA Chief William Riley.
In preparing the piece on the Gallup Survey we had help from Karen Kelly.
For a cassette copy of this program call 1-800-767-1929, ask for the environment show Program
Number 126.
That's 1-800-767-1929, Program Number 126.
The environment show is a presentation of national productions solely responsible for
its content.
Dr. Alan Chartock, Executive Producer.
This is Bruce Robertson.
The environment show is made possible by the JM Kaplan Fund of New York.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0