Hello friends, it's the Environment Show and welcome.
President Bush campaigned to be the Environment President after three years the Sierra Club
reviewing the President's record says will the real George Bush stand up?
Meanwhile White House Environment Council Michael DeLand says the President's record is a
good one.
Also this time we have a duty to transfer as a heritage and planet in good shape to our
descendants because otherwise we are taking options away from them.
Captain Jacques Cousteau this time on a campaign of his own the petition for the rights of future
generations.
Some of the stories this time on the Environment Show a national production made possible
by the JM Kaplan Fund of New York and this is Bruce Robertson.
During his recent state of the Union address as recorded here by C. Span President Bush
outlined a nine point plan to lead the nation to higher ground.
Step 8 Congress should enact the bold reform proposals that are still awaiting congressional
action.
Bank reform, civil justice reform, tort reform and my national energy strategy.
As it turned out this was the one and only reference to anything environmental that he
was to make during his entire speech.
It should be noted that Speaker of the House Democratic Congressman Thomas Foley in a
rebuttal speech immediately following the President's delivery did not make any reference
to environmental programs or concerns.
All this is not surprising according to a recent USA Today CNN Gallup poll, respondents ranked
environmental issues 11th on a list of 16 top concerns facing the nation.
Though the environment as a political issue may have lost some voter support the President's
attitude has been more than benign neglect says Reed Wilson, political director for the
Sierra Club in Washington.
President Bush did campaign on a platform of being the environmental president.
He promised that he would be an environmental president and claim that he was already an
environmentalist.
However, since he has taken office almost every single action he has taken on environmental
issues has been against environmental protection and not on behalf of environmental protection.
There are a number of issues one that comes to mind he promised that there would be no
net loss of wetlands in this country.
However, since he has been President his administration has proposed redefining wetlands to exclude
half of the wetlands in this country from protection and that is just one example of many in which
President Bush has done things which are stridently anti-environment.
Chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality Michael Dilland says not so fast.
While the environment may have dropped back in the pack as you say on some of the polls
it hasn't dropped back in George Bush's agenda.
He remains committed to it.
He's been a lifelong environmentalist and so we would see during the course of the campaign
and if there were to be a second George Bush administration a deep seated continuing commitment
to environmental protection.
You can see a continuation of the kinds of initiatives that we have evidence in the first three years.
It is precisely those first three years that posed the problem for many environmental groups.
The Sierra Club recently published a report titled Beyond the State of the Union in search
of the Environmental President.
The paper takes a look at a series of Bush campaign promises including the issue of wetland
protection and reacts with a series of counter arguments.
Reed Wilson.
Again this is an example of George Bush in his 1988 campaign making an environmental
promise and not keeping it.
He said that he would fight the greenhouse effect with the White House effect.
However, the United States government led by Mr. Bush has been the leading international
power which has been delaying worldwide action to solve the greenhouse effect.
Some speculate that one of the reasons for the Bush administration's foot dragging was
the presence of chief of staff Johnson-Nunu.
However, in the end the buck stops with the president and Johnson-Nunu did what he did
with the permission of the president.
While the new new may have been influential it was in the end President Bush's decision
to go slow on global warming and to not respond to the urgent need that we think exists.
We believe to counter global warming and to stave off a number of climate change problems
which could come true in any number of years if the climate continues to change because
of a build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
We believe that the best thing to do is to pass a bill which would require that automobiles
get 45 miles per gallon.
Now they're required to get 27 miles per gallon on average.
We believe that this is a relatively simple step.
It saves fuel, it cleans the air, it reduces emissions of global warming gases, it balances
our trade deficit, it lessens our dependence on foreign oil.
For a number of reasons we think it's a great idea yet the Bush administration opposes it.
Wilson is here referring to a proposal by Nevada Senator Richard Bryan and others to
mandate an increase for the corporate average fuel economy or cafe standards for America's
automobiles and light trucks.
So far any bill legislating this has been shot down in Congress, suffering criticisms
that the increase is too radical, too much too soon.
Chairman DeLan says this is the president's view.
It was a radical proposal that could well have driven the American auto industry under.
And that's clearly not in the interest of the United States.
Now obviously we need to be more aggressive as the president is being about alternative
fuels and about increasing mileage standards.
We have just added that alternative fuel vehicles at the White House fleet have spent
$30 million dollars in purchasing alternative fuels for the federal fleet.
So the president certainly is sensitive to that but wants to implement it in a way that
does not basically dry wonder as a bill such as Bryan proposal could have done a major
in the United States industry that as we all know is significant problems as it is.
As we heard at the beginning the president is calling on Congress again to take up debate
on his national energy strategy.
A Senate version of the NES sponsored by Louisiana Senator Bennett Johnston was set aside last
fall in a filibuster.
The NES is seen as highly symbolic of the big picture no matter what side you take.
Proponents of the plan see in it a bold move the first ever by an American president to
formulate a comprehensive policy toward energy production and conservation.
Critics see in the plan everything that is wrong with the Bush approach to the environment.
For example during the president's 1988 campaign he often aligned himself with President
Teddy Roosevelt often considered a champion of wilderness protection.
Justice Wilson details in the recent Sierra Club paper the affiliation is all wrong.
President Roosevelt was a very strong conservationist he believed in the value of protecting
wild places in America.
On the other hand President Bush while he claims to be a Teddy Roosevelt environmentalist
has not had the kind of record the Teddy Roosevelt had.
For one President Bush believes that we ought to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
which is an incredible area with many important biological uses to oil and gas exploration and
drilling.
We think that is a really bad idea.
It's a beautiful pristine place with many different types of species there that depend
on a pristine environment to be able to survive.
We believe there isn't enough oil under the wildlife refuge to justify destroying this
very delicate ecosystem.
For one the claim that he's a Teddy Roosevelt environmentalist goes right out the window when
you consider his position on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
In addition the Bush administration opposes strong protection of ancient force in the
Pacific Northwest and in addition opposes strong legislation to protect very sensitive
areas of the California desert.
The land counters saying the president is not committing to drill or not to drill just
to explore and this using the most advanced technology.
Even this say environmentalists would be very damaging to the fragile ecosystem in the
Arctic.
To illustrate further the administration's commitment to environmental protection,
Allah Teddy Roosevelt, Chairman DeLan says there are other steps President Bush has taken.
One is the president's moratorium on offshore drilling, also virtually all of the California
coast, the Georgia's Bank area of New England and the Florida coast.
And doing so despite intense lobbying pressure from his long time friends from his oil business
days.
One of the tests of anyone's authenticity is heard in the admonition, put your money
where your mouth is.
Chairman DeLan points out that President Bush has done just that.
The 1993 budget proposal calls for a modest increase in funding for the EPA.
Wilson says it's encouraging that President Bush reportedly is going to advocate increases
in different environmental budgets, most particularly EPA.
But we believe that should have been done a long time ago.
And that we're still catching up for the Reagan years in which environmental budgets were
smashed.
Just the cost for cleaning up federal facilities such as Department of Defense or Department
of Energy facilities that pollute is astronomical.
And there's not enough money to do that job properly yet.
What else is interesting here is even though this seems to be a good sign from the President
that he wants to increase his environmental budgets, we have to be careful about what
else he's doing.
For instance, he does claim credit for getting the Clean Air Act moving in past and Congress.
And we did applaud his efforts to get that bill going.
However, since it's been passed, Vice President Quail's Council on Competitiveness has behind
the scenes been dismantling some of the stronger regulations of the Clean Air Act.
So we have to be careful that we're looking at the entire record and not just one isolated
positive incident.
We applaud and are encouraged by this increase in the budget.
There are a lot of other things going on which are disturbing in Mr. Bush's record.
Reed Wilson, Political Director for the Sierra Club in Washington, he edited a recent
report titled Beyond the State of the Union in Search of the Environmental President.
Michael D'Land is chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
And this is Bruce Robertson.
Captain Jacques Cousteau joins us now with news of a special project he and the Cousteau
Society have launched all around the world.
Called the petition for the rights of future generations, it began, he says, the result
of another such petition he circulated, to call attention to threats confronting Antarctica.
That drive, after two years, resulted in the signing last year of an international treaty
regulating the use of that continent.
It was a demonstration, it was a demonstration from the power of public opinion when it is
internationally expressed and in massive numbers.
The political leaders are obliged to take into consideration the opinion of their constituents
because they are voters.
And for this reason, we thought that radical changes in the policy of most of the important
patients in the world, radical changes in necessity if we wanted to keep this planet
in good shape for the future generations.
So we thought that the system that we had used for the Antarctic would be probably even
no popular for the rights of future generations because what is at stake is the future of our
children and grandchildren and all the models of the world care for that and many fathers
too.
So the first phase, as we started first in France, and then we expanded it to other countries.
But I wanted to see into tests, I met in my country, a test to see how successful it
would be.
Well, we have in a few weeks, we have got all the 1,600,000 signatures in France.
So which means that it is a normal warming success and I immediately tested it again in
other countries like Czechoslovakia, like Romania and with the same success.
We'll have an address for you at the end of this piece.
Captain Kustow has been stumping here in the United States since last fall discussing
the petition and gathering signatures.
The earlier petition was directed toward individual nations and their leaders.
This time, the signatures will be delivered to the world body of the United Nations in
1993.
In theory, Kustow will have the signature of everybody on earth.
There are five articles in the Bill of Rights, the preamble may be summed up in this way.
We have a duty to transfer as a heritage, a planet, it would shape to our descendants
because otherwise we are taking options away from them.
We are asking them to pay for our mistakes.
This is immoral.
So we have to consider as a duty to transfer to future generations, a healthy planet.
This in fact is Article 1, the text of which reads as follows.
Future generations have a right to an uncontaminated and undamaged earth and to its enjoyment
as the ground of human history, of culture and of social bonds that make each generation
and individual a member of one human family.
Article 2 considers individuals trustees of the future, with a special responsibility
to ensure the dignity of other individuals in the future.
Article 3 calls us to be on the lookout for changes we make in our habits and technology
that have an adverse effect on the earth.
Education, research and legislation to protect the earth are stressed in Article 4.
The Sto says the fifth article asks us to put the other four into practice as though
future generations are watching us to see what we do.
The challenge says, Cousteau, is to get all nations industrialized and developing alike
to reset priorities.
The military, for example.
The budget of the military will roll around is $1 trillion to $100 billion a year.
If only one third of this time was used to improve the quality of life in the developing
countries, one third only, $400 billion a year, if enough and nobody in the rich world
would suffer from that, it would be even unnoticed.
So there are solutions that at the moment the most religious are like auspicious putting
their head in the sand.
Sto says the petition, modeled after the United Nations Human Rights Treaty effectively
used against apartheid in South Africa, for example, this petition would be insufficient
by itself.
Rather, he says it is part of a system of tools and programs being developed.
We are creating at the moment a vast network of universities throughout the world adopting
chairs of ticker technique, which is the science of how to take decisions taking to consideration
the long term consequences.
At the moment, the long term consequences are never taken into consideration.
So that's the second weapon that we have.
The third weapon is a collection of top scientists of the world, big dates, noble prizes, heads
of the Academy of Sciences, who have decided to express their own ideas.
They are concerned about the way the world is governed today.
And the fourth is the mobilization of thousands and thousands of children in the world over
to express to their leaders openly in big manifestations.
The current generation will not forgive you if you carry on that way.
Well, Captain Kustow, we know you have much work ahead of you as you continue your global
navigation and circumnavigation of the world to get this petition around.
You know what I am now?
What are you?
I feel that I am the fathering sense man of social innovation.
Captain Jack Kustow, speaking to us from San Francisco, on a recent national tour to circulate,
a petition for the rights of future generations.
If you would like more information, please write to the Kustow Society, 930 West 21st Street,
Norfolk, Virginia, 23517.
That's 930 West 21st Street, Norfolk, Virginia, 23517.
This is Bruce Robertson.
In South Dakota, an entrepreneur has developed a unique way to use old paper.
One that's not only good for the environment, it's good for animals too.
More from Vivian Cooper.
There's a lot of paper that goes into the landfields, whether it's here or other towns and
cities.
And if we can keep that value of out of the landfields and bring it out here on the farm and use it
for a very practical use, I think we're killing two birds in one stone really.
East Central South Dakota farmer, Charlie Johnson, has been using paper betting for his hogs
for over a year.
He sees the recycled paper as both a practical solution that helps the environment while
at the same time benefiting the farmer.
You know, you'd have all that dust in your hair and certainly you still carry it with
you when you leave here to go to town or go back in the house, but it's far less now
with a paper than it was with a straw.
And I think our pins stay a lot drier.
It would be that you could bet them down the morning by night they'd be soaking wet
again and you're either faced with cleaning the pins twice a day or adding a bunch more
straw.
And now it's seemed like they just stay a lot more drier and healthier.
Johnson says since using paper betting, he's seen a big decline in disease problems in his
herd, especially for newborn baby pigs.
It's very likely since studies conducted in Wisconsin and Iowa on dairy cattle and hogs
have proven that the drier conditions provided by paper betting eliminates the breeding ground
for bacteria.
And there's another thing farmers like about paper betting, possibly because it's more
absorbent than straw and dries out faster, much of the odor of manure is absent when ground
paper is used, which may go a long way in winning its acceptance.
A large pole barn houses AMSS recycling of Del Rapid South Dakota.
The business is in its third year of operation, grinding paper to be used for animal betting
and packing material.
Our rave works long hours, finding and hauling old newspapers and other suitable material,
grinding and bailing it, and then delivering the bails to his customers in Western Minnesota,
Northwestern Iowa and Eastern South Dakota.
His equipment for the most part is modified farm machinery powered by two old tractors.
The paper grinder was purchased new.
Well, when I went into the business, I didn't have the financial backing that I thought I
would could get.
I didn't get.
And I did a lot of it myself.
I could have bought the whole system out of Wisconsin and instead I did a lot of my own.
A lot of it right now is the way I'm doing it right now is a lot of labor.
With ear protection in place, rave begins hand feeding paper bundles into the grinder.
The torn up pieces are blown into a hay baler where they're compressed into 60 pound
to squares that will sell for $1.60 each.
This last December, rave says 25 tons of paper was recycled this way.
That's still a very tiny fraction of the total amount of paper that ends up in a land
fill each year.
But we learn that not all paper is suitable for recycling.
People today, when they hear the word recycle and they hear the word recycled paper, they
think that anything can be recycled and it can't be.
We've got to stay back to the soft rough paper instead of the shiny slick paper like
as in magazines or catalogs.
And it's a hard, very hard term to get across to the people that this is what we've got
to have and that's the way it's got to be.
Rave gets the paper he grinds free the only way he says he can stay in business.
Summary cyclers and other parts of the country are subsidized by local municipalities.
Charlie Johnson, who also serves as a county commissioner, is in favor of such actions.
Rather than paying tipping fees at a land fill, we just as well be using those monies and
those costs and help recycling effort involving paper and hopefully other products also so we
keep them out of the land filling out of the environment.
For the High Plains News Service, I'm Vivian Cooper.
The High Plains News Service is a production of the Western Organization of Resource Councils
in Billings, Montana.
And that's our report on the environment show this week.
The environment show is a program about the environment, the air, water, soil, wildlife
and people of our common habitat.
If you know of something happening in your area, if you think we ought to know about, or
if you have a question about this week's or any week's environment show, do drop us
a line, address your questions and your comments to the environment show 318 Central Avenue,
Albany, New York 1-2-0-6.
For a cassette copy of the program, call 1-800-767-1929.
That's 1-800-767-1929.
This week, ask for the environment show number 109.
The environment show is a presentation of national productions solely responsible for
its contents, Dr. Alan Shartock, executive producer.
This is Bruce Robertson.
The environment show is made possible by the J.M. Kaplan Fund of New York.
