Welcome to the Environment Show, exploring issues and events of the planet.
I'm Thomas Lally.
The Environment Show is a national production made possible by the W.A.L. and Jones Foundation
and Heming's Motor News, the monthly Bible of the old car hobby, 1-800-CAR-H-E-R-E.
Your host is Peter Burley.
Thanks Thomas, coming up on this week's Environment Show.
We look at the environmental impact of one of the largest power dams in the world, now under
construction in China.
These are reusing their products, saving money and natural resources.
Then the Environment Show goes interactive.
We hear from you about the effects of mountain biking.
And finally, acorns are falling for the trees in the forest of Illinois.
These stories are coming up on this week's Environment Show.
Last week we heard from Interior Secretary Bruce Babitt, who was trying to reverse some of the
ecological damage done by big power dams.
He plans to release water from them to mimic the natural flows of the rivers before the dams were built.
This week we go to China, to look at the environmental impact of one of the largest dams in the world.
It's now under construction.
The Ertang Dam in China, which is not to be confused with the three gorges dam, is being built on the Yalan River.
The river rises into Bet and passes to the border of the Yunnan and Sichuan provinces in southwest China.
There it joins another river which becomes the Yangtze.
The dam itself, now half built, will eventually be 240 meters high, one of the world's tallest.
It will create a reservoir 150 kilometers long.
It is the first of 21 dams, which the Chinese plan to build along the Yalan River to provide hydro power.
Lee Talbot, professor of environmental science and international affairs at George Mason University in Virginia,
and former environmental advisor to three American presidents returned last week from an inspection trip to the dam.
He was part of a team from the World Bank, which is financing the project.
As part of his journey, he walked the 150 kilometer length of the river bank, which will be flooded.
From an environmental point of view, the Ertang Dam and many of the others on that river are going to be relatively benign.
Now, I emphasize relatively because no dam is benign.
But in this case, the terrain is very steep.
The major part of the reservoir, even though it's 150 kilometers long, will only be about 400 meters across.
It is therefore not burying prime agricultural land.
It's not displacing very large numbers of people.
It's a very different situation than many of the dams that I've looked at and many of the ones that we get very worried about.
Talbot says that given the fact that the Chinese need electricity, you have to compare the dams with other alternatives.
Is the power going to come from hydro or from coal or from nuclear?
And when one looks at the environmental consequences of these three,
a hydro dam under these conditions may well be, and in this case really appears to be the best from an environmental point of view.
Talbot is concerned that protection plans for the banks and buffer zones above the reservoir are not being implemented.
He also believes that some old growth forests in upland areas should be protected in mitigation.
Talbot's inspection panel was sent by the World Bank as part of their process to bring environmental concerns into banking operations.
Until 1987, the World Bank was financing huge projects all over the world with practically no environmental analysis at all.
In the late 70s, its total environmental staff consisted of four people.
In contrast, I was New York State's Environmental Conservation Commissioner at that time and had about 60 people working for me doing environmental analysis in New York State alone.
Talbot says in the last 10 years the bank has been changing its ways and has put procedures in place which if followed would protect the environment.
Unfortunately, he says things fall between the cracks.
The World Bank has made immense strides and has in place much of the machinery that it needs to do a very responsible, environmentally responsible job.
I think there's still a ways to go before it is completely implemented.
Lee Talbot is professor of environmental science at George Mason University in Virginia.
As we struggle to undo the environmental damage we've caused by preventing American rivers from running free, the Chinese are engaged in one of the biggest dam building splurges in history.
This is preferable, Talbot says, to the environmental consequences of the alternative.
Burning dirty coal or nuclear fuel. I'm Peter Burley.
You're listening to the Environment Show. Reach us by email at env.showw.com.
That's env.showw.com. Or listen to us by the internet. Go to our new webpage at www.enn.com.
And click on listen to the Environment Show. That's www.enn.com.
www.enn.com.
The Cheving Sustainability is a lofty goal, especially if we want to maintain our current standard of living.
One key in the sustainable formula is changing the way we manufacture products.
Currently, most things we make eventually wind up in the landfill. But a process called remanufacturing is leading to greater profits while saving natural resources.
Environment Show producer Thomas Lally visited a remanufacturing plant in Rochester, New York and has this report.
Just about all the consumer items around you right now, including the radio you're listening to, will someday concauld.
It will then likely head to the landfill. But corporations are finding they can save money and valuable resources by going beyond recycling and reusing what is today tossed out.
Nebiel Nasser is an engineer and researcher at the Rochester Institute of Technology. He says everything from cars to toasters are being studied for reuse.
What we're looking at is basically a product that can go through a process called remanufacturing where we can reclaim some of the components of the product.
And you can do this several times and then it's the end you would be able to recycle the material itself because you can't do that forever as a product, technology changes.
Nasser calls remanufacturing the ultimate form of recycling. He says by refurbishing and then reusing a product, you reclaim 85% of its value.
That's because the most costly elements of a product come from the labor, energy and equipment it took to make it. Only 5% of the value is in the materials.
So if you throw something away, you lose 100% of its value and if you recycle, you're only reclaiming 5%.
Nasser uses the example of a worn out car clutch. With the exception of one part, the clutch could be reused many more times. But because of the design, it's headed to the landfill.
As a society we're throwing away material here that there's nothing wrong with it. The replaceable parts we could have replaced if it was not designed and assembled this way.
So as a society we end up throwing away resources. Europeans call this recoverable resources. And it could have been used several times.
And we could have saved the energies that went into making the specific parts, the labor that went into making the specific parts as well as basically the capital equipment costs that we pay for to make this parts.
Remanufacturing may seem like a no-brainer, but it's not easy. To make it happen, companies often have to do a top-to-bottom restructuring of their entire manufacturing process.
But once that's done, it can be lucrative. Currently, remanufacturing accounts for a $53 billion year industry. It's led to truck engines lasting an average of 1.2 million miles. Single-use cameras are used about seven or more times before they're melted down and recycled.
And here in Rochester, New York, the Xerox Corporation has found that remanufacturing is saving them money and keeping them ahead of tough regulations.
Many of the large Xerox copiers use cartridges, which need to be replaced about twice a year. They're expensive items costing about $400 a piece.
Mike Petrano is an engineer at Xerox. He says the cartridges used to be thrown away after they ran out.
When the product was first designed, this cartridge was actually a throwaway. These parts are definitely something that has more than one life on them.
So they're durable, even though they were designed to be a throwaway, we have been able to capture a lot of lives off of the individual components that go into the cartridge itself.
The cartridges are large and have about 50 separate parts. When Xerox gets the used ones back, they break them down, clean them, and reassemble them.
It's a labor-intensive process, but it saves the company the trouble of recasting the plastic parts, and it's good for the environment because resources and landfill space is saved.
Bruce Meyer, also as Xerox says, remanufactured parts perform just as well as new parts.
We first started up this program. The guidelines were we absolutely had to pay for ourselves, and we've achieved that and more.
The big thing that everybody has to understand is there is no degradation at all to the copy quality, so there's no need to go into any kind of pricing tiers or anything like that.
The customer gets an AS-new quality cartridge. All warranties are in effect, regardless of its kind of reclaimed or recycled components, so it's totally transparent.
Remanufacturing is so lucrative that companies like Xerox are now competing with other companies for their old and used cartridges.
It's a far cry from the days when cartridges and a host of other products were routinely tossed in landfills.
Remanufacturing is still new to many companies, but it's a growing trend that will result in greater efficiencies and less resources used.
For the Environment Show, I'm Thomas Lalley.
You're listening to the Environment Show, and I'm Peter Burley. Still ahead, the Environment Show goes interactive. We hear from you about the effects of mountain biking on the land.
And Boy Scouts raised the squirrels for acorns in Illinois. These stories still ahead on the Environment Show.
The Environment Show is going interactive. We want to hear what you have to say about environmental issues. Call us at 1-800-323-9262 and dial extension 600. That's 1-800-323-9262, extension 600.
We'll give you that phone number later on in the show. We want to hear your questions about environmental issues, so give us a call and we may ask you to join us in the air.
I'm your host, Peter Burley, and our discussion today is about mountain biking.
In the late 70s, mountain biking took off as a sport. So much so that the International Olympic Committee now has it as a formal competitive category.
But as mountain biking got going, controversy also arose, and it has been intense. Some say that bikers erode the soil and are tearing up trails. Some say that they're tough on plant life and ecology.
There are hikers and horsemen who object to having to share trails with mountain bikers. And a lot of mountain bikers say the real problem is that our recreational resources are being heavily stressed by multiple uses in the real challenges to see how we can sort these things out.
We have a distinguished group of people who know a lot about this subject who are with us. Tim Blumenthal is executive director of the International Mountain Bicycling Association in Boulder, Colorado. Tim, welcome to the environment show.
Thank you very much. Happy to be here.
And with us is Casey May, who is the chief ranger in Mount Tam. And that's in Marin County. And Casey, I've always understood that Mount Tam is where mountain biking began. Is that correct?
Well, that's the rumor. Okay. Richard Priemek is planted colleges that Boston University. Richard, welcome. Well, thank you very much for having me. And finally, Carl Pastore is the regional supervisor in middle sex, fells reservation in Massachusetts.
Our number is 1-800-323-9262. Extensions 600. This is the environment show. And I see we have a call from Eden. Eden, welcome to the environment show. What's on your mind?
Hi, I was just wondering if they say that mountain bikers, you rode the trails and killed plant lives and scared the animals. I'm just wondering how they can say a question, trails aren't doing the same thing.
In fact, what you're asking is, aren't the horses worse than the bikers?
I mean, not worse, but about the same thing. At least is bad. And Eden, are you a biker? Yes, I race. Uh-huh. Where do you race?
I race all over the country. I race on the northern national circuit. Well, let me ask our panel. What do you think about this? Uh- erosion and soil erosion as it relates to horses? Is this a problem?
Uh- this is compulsory. It's, it's, um, it is a problem as much, uh, well, not as much, but it's similar. It does. It does impact the soil. Sure it does.
And Tim, what does the international associations say? Clearly this must be an issue all over. Uh- what, what is your position? Because I know that you spend a lot of time sponsoring trail work as well.
Right. Well, we don't, uh, we try to form alliances with horseback riders and with foot traveler group and, you know, and, and folk dwell on the physical side.
I think the more important side for our association and for this discussion, probably is the social side helping trail users get along better.
So, Casey, sure.
Councilor Spundes is, uh, Richard Priemek. I think that in my experience, the metropolitan Boston that horses are relatively infrequent. One doesn't encounter horses very much, but the number of mountain bikers on the trails has increased to a very high level in, in the metropolitan Boston area.
And that formerly trails, which were very narrow, which were only one or two feet wide. And were very pleasant woodland experiences. Now have expanded over the course of the last 10 years to sometimes being five or 10 feet wide and have eroded right down to the rock.
And that's very clearly because of mountain bikes. Casey, you must have encountered this issue on montaum. How have you handled it there?
Well, there is correct. There is some erosion when you have equestrian youth as well as bivorem souls hiking youth and bicycling.
So, we are, our rules were not developed and we weren't able to quantify really any kind of erosion to anyone particular user group.
So, we were able to see the safety issues of how our trails evolved, which date back to earlier than 1912 when our water district was formed.
And we really inherited single track trails that were again built on from, in some ways, from getting from point A to point B, rather than taking into consideration vegetation type or soil type or topography.
Okay, well, Ethan, thanks for your call and now we're going to go to Virginia Beach and you're from Brown Gold.
Brown, welcome, you're on the environment shelf. Where do you come out? I assume you're a biker. How should we sort it out?
I've done all three.
Okay, simultaneously. I'm sorry.
Simultaneously? No. I was thinking it might be tough for that horse to get on the bike. But okay, here you are.
As a one who has done all three, how do we sort out this use problem and what do our, what do you think and what do our panelists have to respond?
We have a wonderful affiliated club in Boston that's called the New England Mountain Bike Association.
And I believe that so far in 1996 they performed about 650 hours of volunteer trail work at Middlesex Fells.
And Carl could maybe attest to that. And also they do a lot of work on mountain biker education.
They set up a little education stand in the parking lot on weekends. So yeah, I think education, Emma would say that that's the most important thing.
And then the second thing that we would say is that there's a long list of options that trail managers have that aren't as restrictive as comprehensive year-round closures.
So maybe after heavy rains all trail users, not just mountain bikers, need to be encouraged and maybe even prohibited from using trails.
This is Carl Pastore. The Fells, Middlesex Fells is a 2000 acre metropolitan reservation right next to Boston.
And it is highly used by mountain bikes, it's being loved to death by the mountain bike community.
And there are no worries we look at it. I know Richard has done a lot of research in the Fells.
One of the things that need to be done first in Middlesex Fells which has not really been done, I think effectively, is a resource inventory, natural resource inventory.
We need to know what is in the Fells before we can look at the trail. Second, the trails are designed for pedestrian use. They were designed over 100 years ago.
So the layout is not appropriate for mountain bikes.
Okay, let me interrupt you for a moment. Again, this is the environment show. My name is Peter Burley and our number is 1-800-323-9262.
Extension 600 and our discussion is about mountain bikes. Now we got an email message from a Robert Grunnenberg and he raises an issue that I think probably will put everybody into orbit.
But he says since he was discussing the question of maintenance and that has come up in all of our discussions today.
He says, and I'm reading out from his message, I don't mind the licensing of offboat road bikers similar to what has been done for some hunting programs.
The bikers pay for their usage and for maintenance and in return get guaranteed access to a portion of the land in the state.
Licensing mountain bikers. How does our panel feel about that? Why don't we start with you Tim representing the International Mountain Bike Association?
Well, we have nothing against user fees as long as the money goes back into trails and environmental protection directly.
We've been somewhat reluctant to endorse some of the federal programs because we feared that the money would just disappear into the treasury.
Casey is a chief ranger at Mount TAM in California would have paid as you go program work out there or would it be politically disastrous?
Well, we've looked at a couple of options over the last five years as to generating revenue to put towards trail maintenance and possibly new trail development.
Logistically, we hear for our watershed we have over 97 or 100 access points, we have a limited ranger staff and how do you then enforce that or enlist at the folks to participate.
And we haven't really come up with a solution as to how that can work for the people who do participate or are planning to participate.
Okay, let's go back to the phones. Brian Jackson. Yes. You're on the environment show. What do you think about mountain bikes and what do you have for our panel?
Well, on the issue of licensing, there'll be a tough one to enforce. A lot of your bikers are young kids, the billion have jobs.
Perhaps you have the option of performing certain number of hours of maintenance on the trail as opposed to paying a fee or paying a partial fee and doing some maintenance or maybe just paying an out-rate higher fee for no maintenance.
That may work, but at the same time, if it's a tough thing to regulate, who's going to run around the woods checking bike tags?
Brian, are you a biker? Yes, I am. Where do you bike? I bike mainly in New England.
What kind of shape are the trails in that you find you're using? Everything looks pretty good. You run into the problems after the rains with riding and people riding in the mud. That's probably one of the worst problems.
I think we touched on this earlier. The big problem here is education and responsibility. You can get a careless, irresponsible, equestrian or hiker on the trail due just as much damage as an irresponsible biker.
There definitely are cases where when the trails are widened, rare species within these areas like the middle-sex spells are lost. With my colleague Brian Dreyton, we've often observed very small populations of wildflowers right along the trail that are gradually engulfed as the trails widened.
Well, thank you all and thank our callers. I'm Peter Burley. It's the Environment Show, 1-800-323-9262, Extension 600. Call us and join us on the Environment Show.
And now it's time for the Earth calendar. 8 corns and hickory nuts are falling to the ground in Illinois and boy scouts are racing the squirrels to retrieve them. The Nature Conservancy's Dave Magical, along with 800 scouts are then planning them. They're trying to reforest an area cleared for farming over a century ago.
What we're trying to do is jumpstart succession. If we were to leave it alone, it would go to box elder and willow and green ash for a couple of hundred years.
And what we're trying to do is get the hard-mast species in there. The species that are much more important to wildlife and that put the the acorns and hickory nuts, the mass crop, that are in many ways the bottom of the food chain out there on the landscape. That's really what we're after.
Spreading nuts to areas that wouldn't receive them naturally for many years may upset the balance of nature. Southern Illinois is known for its quiet countryside. But with all those squirrels chasing the boy scouts running around, the places become downright nutty.
Thanks for being with us on this week's Environment Show. I'm Peter Burley. For cassette copy of the program, call 1-800-323-9262 and ask for show number 357.
The Environment Show is a presentation of national productions which is solely responsible for its contents. Dr. Alan Sharktuck is the executive producer, Thomas Lally is producer, and Stephanie Goichmann is the associate producer.
The Environment Show is made possible by the W. Alton Jones Foundation and Hemings Motornews, the monthly Bible of the old Karl Harvick, 1-800-CA-R-H-E-R-E.
So long and join us next week for the Environment Show.
