Air Date: February 25, 1994
Global Warming Lawsuit/ David Baron
Roger Revelle is the grandfather of global warming theory. Shortly before his death, he co-authored an article which downplays the certainty and severity of the greenhouse effect. A former student claims that Revelle was coerced for political reasons into lending his name to the article. Co-author Fred Singer is suing for libel. He claims the article is an accurate reflection of Revelle's ideas. David Baron from member station WBUR reports. (08:27)
More Grappling with the Greenhouse Effect
Host Jan Nunley discusses climate change policy with Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. Climate talks in Geneva have increased interest around a multinational strategy that rewards countries for helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions anywhere — including in other nations. (05:02)
Sludge-Eating Fish/ Eric Westervelt
Eric Westervelt of New Hampshire Public Radio profiles Terry Welch, a man with a dirty job and a unique idea. Welch uses bottom-feeding fish to break down huge quantities of sludge at his sewage treatment plant. Other sewage managers scoff, but federal sewage experts are taking interest in the process. (05:28)
The Trash-Covered Slopes of Mount Everest/ Ruth Page
Commentator Ruth Page sounds off about the tons of trash left behind by visitors to Mount Everest. . . and looks hopefully towards emerging solutions to the problem. (03:02)
Copyright (c) 1994 by World Media Foundation. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold, or transmitted without the written authority of World Media Foundation.
HOST: Jan Nunley
NEWSCASTER: Peter Thomson
REPORTERS: Alan Siporin, Peter Klein, David Barron, Eric Westerveldt
GUEST: Alden Meyer
COMMENTATOR: Ruth Page
(Theme music intro)
NUNLEY: From National Public Radio, this is Living on Earth.
(Music up and under)
NUNLEY: I'm Jan Nunley. Did the father of the Greenhouse Effect theory change his mind and downplay the threat of global warming before his death two years ago? That's the question at the center of a nasty and high-stakes legal fight over an article that bears his name.
LANCASTER: I see a group of people taking this article, saying it's the last testimony of Roger Revelle, and essentially using it against his career. And I think it's a terrible thing.
NUNLEY: Also, a sewage manager is using fish to treat his system's sludge. Some of his colleagues are skeptical, but Terry Welch isn't concerned.
WELCH: If they don't believe it and don't want to try it, well, good for them. In another five or ten years they're going to be wading in it getting rid of it, and I'll be here laughing, catching fish. (Laughs)
NUNLEY: Those stories and more on Living on Earth. First the news.
THOMSON: I'm Peter Thomson with this week's environmental news. Thousands more acres of Pacific Northwest forest would be closed to logging under the final version of the Clinton Administration's Northwest Forest Plan. The plan has been nearly a year in the making. Alan Siporin of member station KLCC reports.
SIPORIN: The primary catalyst that brought forest policy to this point is the threat to the northern spotted owl, long seen as an indicator species for the health of the old growth forest. That assumption is reaffirmed in the latest revisions of the Clinton plan. The report indicates that increased logging limits are needed to protect more than one thousand species of fish, plants, and wildlife. The revised plan would trim Federal logging levels by an additional 8%. Timber interests say that goes too far, because it will cost an additional 5,000 jobs. Some environmentalists, like those whose primary focus is old growth forest, say the plan still doesn't go far enough. Others, such as watershed advocates, say the plan will make a difference for species like salmon. The plan must still be approved by Federal Judge William Dwyer, and is likely to face appeals no matter which way the judge rules. For Living on Earth, this is Alan Siporin in Eugene, Oregon.
THOMSON: The government of Japan says it may scrap plans to build a controversial series of breeder reactors and a nuclear waste reprocessing plant. All of the facilities would have produced highly radioactive plutonium fuel, but Japan now says it's over-estimated its need for plutonium. Some critics say the project succumbed to high production costs and international concerns over safety and security. The final decision is expected in the next few months.
Austria has asked the US to rescind a promise to help complete a nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic. In exchange, the Austrian government has offered to help convert the facility to a natural gas-fired plant. The plant is just 40 miles from the Austrian border. The Austrians say its design is fundamentally flawed and could cause a catastrophic accident. Austrian diplomats traveled to Washington recently to lobby against US assistance to the nuclear facility.
High rates of cancer deaths among golf course workers between 1970 and 1992 may be linked to pesticides. In a study of death certificates of over 600 golf course workers, University of Iowa Professor Bernard Cross found rates of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and brain cancer up to two-and-a-half times higher than average. Cross says his study can't pinpoint the reasons for the high rates.
CROSS: However, it turns out in other studies among farmers, and among individuals who work with pesticides, brain cancer and non-Hodgkins lymphoma are also elevated in those populations.
THOMSON: The study was commissioned by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America. Spokesman Pat Jones says new chemicals, protective equipment, and education have greatly reduced any dangers to workers.
JONES: Maybe what we saw here was a look at the past, but there's obviously an incentive for us to go now and to look at the specific areas where we did have red flags.
THOMSON: A new study begins this summer to examine the pesticide question. Jones says that golfers themselves face no risks on the links. This is Living on Earth.
The US Supreme Court has refused to allow the family of a Vietnam veteran to sue the makers of Agent Orange. The high court action upheld the validity of a 1984 settlement which awarded damages to some vets and their families but blocked legal action on behalf of other vets who got sick or died later. Observers say the decision may make similar settlements more attractive to companies wishing to stem product liability suits, possibly including cases involving asbestos, breast implants, lead paint, and smoking.
The discovery of pollution in some remote south Florida waterways could hold up efforts to restore the natural flow of water to the Everglades. From Miami, Peter Klein has the story.
KLEIN: Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have found high traces of DDT, PCBs, and heavy metals in the waters of Florida's 10,000 islands. The findings surprised researchers, since this area near the Everglades is far from known sources of pollution. Scientists must determine where the poisonous substances are coming from before the government undertakes the replumbing of south Florida's 1,000-mile-long canal system. Adrana Quantile, a chemist working on the study, says that changes in the canal system may disperse pollutants that have settled.
QUANTILE: When you increase the amount of water going through there, some of that material may mobilize, may move with the water, and eventually end up in a coastal area.
KLEIN: This study is part of a 7-year-old look at pollution in 300 sites throughout the country. For Living on Earth this is Peter Klein in Miami.
THOMSON: A scheme to combat global warming by dumping iron filings in the ocean apparently won't work. Some scientists had hoped the iron would stimulate a plankton bloom, which would absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In the first real-world test of the idea, the plankton bloom occurred as predicted, but then researchers report tiny animals moved in, ate the plankton, and released the CO2 right back into the air.
That's this week's environmental news. I'm Peter Thomson.
(Theme music up and under)
NUNLEY: This is Living on Earth. I'm Jan Nunley, in this week for Steve Curwood.
How real is the threat of global warming? And how seriously should the Federal Government try to reduce the production of greenhouse gases? Those are two of the biggest issues in environmental policy today. And they're at the center of a bitter legal battle brewing in a state court in Massachusetts. Although they're not actually involved in the dispute, two of its major figures are Vice President Al Gore, who's an advocate of strong action to reduce greenhouse gases, and Roger Revelle, often called the Grandfather of the Greenhouse Effect and the man most influential in shaping Gore's position. The lawsuit involves a much-discussed article which some claim shows that Revelle changed his mind on global warming shortly before his death. Others say the article misrepresented Revelle's views for political purposes. David Barron of member station WBUR in Boston explains.
BARON: Roger Revelle wasn't the first person to suggest that carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels might build up in the atmosphere and cause a warming of the Earth's climate. But in the 1950s he performed critical experiments that convinced scientists the threat was real. Revelle wrote ominously that mankind was embarking on a great, one-time geophysical experiment. Vice President Al Gore wrote in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance, that Revelle inspired his efforts to counter the Greenhouse Effect. Revelle was Gore's professor at Harvard. But after Revelle's death in 1991, some politicians and commentators tried to use Revelle's legacy against Gore, who was calling for strict international curbs on emissions of greenhouse gases. Gore's critics claimed that Revelle changed his mind about global warming in his final years. Gore was asked about the issue during the 1992 Vice Presidential debate.
GORE: ... how he had been misquoted and had his remarks taken completely out of context just before he died. He believed up until the day he died (audience groans) - No, it's true.
MODERATOR: If the audience would stop please.
GORE: He died last year, and just before he died he co-authored an article which had statements taken completely out of context...
BARON: That article appeared in an obscure journal published by the Cosmos Club, a private, Washington-based organization with about 3,000 members. The article was titled, "What To Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap."
SINGER: Which means that we should think or a moment before we take drastic action. And this is further emphasized in the article itself.
BARON: That's Fred Singer. He co-wrote the article with Roger Revelle and Chauncy Starr, former president of the Electric Power Research Institute. Singer directs the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project, and is a frequent critic of environmental activists. He explains that the article wasn't meant to dismiss the possibility of global warming, but it was intended to show that no one knows how serious a threat global warming poses.
SINGER: We say the scientific base for greenhouse warming includes some facts, lots of uncertainty, and just plain lack of knowledge.
BARON: The article argues there's no good evidence to suggest the Earth is heating up, despite predictions that global warming should already be underway. The paper questions the dangers of global warming, raising the possibility that the Earth's environment might in fact benefit from a warmed climate. The authors conclude that nations should take only modest and inexpensive steps to ward off possible global warming until more research is done.
LANCASTER: I don't see that Roger Revelle wrote this article.
BARON: That's Justin Lancaster, Revelle's former student and colleague at Scripps. Lancaster is being sued for libel, for claiming that Revelle's name was placed on the Cosmos Journal article despite Revelle's objections. The person suing Lancaster is Fred Singer. Like Singer, Lancaster directs a nonprofit organization devoted to environmental policy, but he considers global warming a much greater threat.
LANCASTER: I see a group of people taking this article, saying it's the last testimony of Roger Revelle, and essentially using it against his career. And I think it's a terrible thing. I'm as close a colleague as anybody on this issue of global warming, in the last years of Roger's life, and I'm not going to sit silently and let this happen.
BARON: Lancaster has been far from silent. In 1992 he complained repeatedly about the article to the editors of a book that was to include the controversial paper. Lancaster tried unsuccessfully to block republication of the article, calling it "misleading" and "unscholarly." He claimed that Fred Singer had taken advantage of Revelle at a time when he was weak. When the article was written, Revelle was 81 and had recently undergone open heart surgery. Though Lancaster admits Revelle's mind remained sharp until the end. Lancaster suggested in his letters that Singer had pressured Revelle into accepting co-authorship so Singer could use the article for political purposes in his fight against environmentalists trying to combat global warming. It's because of these statements that Fred Singer is suing Lancaster for libel. The lawsuit is expected to go to trial some time next year. Lancaster stands by what he wrote in those letters, though he admits the article isn't completely out of line with Revelle's thinking.
LANCASTER: That's the cleverness, in my mind, of this article, is that it incorporates enough of what is consistent with Roger Revelle's view to get him to pass on authorship. And then it's used after that against Roger Revelle's effect as a scientist trying to reach policy.
BARON: Lancaster's rival Fred Singer admits he wrote the first draft of the article. In fact, many of the key sentences expressing skepticism about global warming were copied verbatim from an earlier paper Singer authored alone for an American Chemical Society publication. But Singer adds both co-authors revised his draft to their liking. Justin Lancaster counters he has galley proofs showing that some of Revelle's desired changes in the manuscript never made it into the final version. But co-author Chauncy Starr, who is not a party to the lawsuit, says that's not true.
STARR: The very last changes were made by Roger Revelle and were sent to me for approval and I approved them and that's what printed in the article. There was no question that he was actively engaged, and that whatever appeared in that article, he agreed with.
BARON: In fact, many of Revelle's former colleague say the Cosmos Journal article is perfectly consistent with this previous writings. While Revelle was concerned about global warming, they say, he wasn't dogmatic. He believed public policy should be based on hard data, not speculation. In earlier articles, Revelle had questioned the accuracy of computer models that predict dramatic climate change in the next century, and he had speculated increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might actually benefit crops. University of Virginia climatologist Pat Michaels, the well-known global warming skeptic, charges it's Justin Lancaster, Revelle's former student, who's misrepresenting his late professor's beliefs.
MICHAELS: To me it is astounding. It's absolutely astounding, that we are having the living trying to take the names of the dead off papers that they wrote because the living don't agree with what the dead said when they authored the paper. That's straight out of a rather frightening book by George Orwell.
BARON: But many of Revelle's former colleagues criticize Michaels and others who've used the Cosmos Journal article for political purposes. Michaels has cited the article in his attacks on Al Gore's proposals for combating global warming. Harvard professor Peter Rogers, who knew Revelle for almost 30 years, says his former colleague would not have been pleased to see the article used against the environmental movement.
ROGERS: If he thought that it was going to be used in that way, I don't think he would have wanted to participate.
BARON: Rogers contends that if Revelle were around today, he'd consider the debate over who really wrote the article with his name on it a waste of time. Rogers says Revelle would have wanted to see scientists discussing the issue at the heart of the controversial article. That is, how big a threat is global warming? And what should be done about it? For Living on Earth, I'm David Baron.
(Music up and under)
NUNLEY: The Global Climate Change Treaty signed at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 goes into effect in March. It's a document that reflects many of the debates over the issue: scientific uncertainty, reluctance to make possibly expensive commitments, and rifts between rich and poor countries over how to share the burden of cutting greenhouse gases. The treaty's primary goal is to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the end of the decade. But the countries which signed the document are still trying to figure out how to do that. Representatives of 180 countries met in Geneva in mid-February, and a lot of the discussion centered on what's known as joint implementation. For an explanation of what's turned into a major issue in the climate talks, we turn to Alden Meyer, the director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
MEYER: Basically, joint implementation is a very elegant theory that would allow industrial countries or other countries to meet some of their obligations under the treaty in terms of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, by making investments or cooperating in projects in other countries. For example, the United States might help Poland or Czechoslovakia modernize some of its power plants and thereby reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from burning coal, and then take some credit for those reduced emissions toward the United States objective.
NUNLEY: So the basic idea is that since it's all one atmosphere it doesn't really matter where the reductions come from so long as they happen. So what problem do people see with that?
MEYER: Well, there's a number of concerns. First of all, only the industrial countries have taken on specific targets for greenhouse gas emissions. If you allow countries that have made specific commitments, such as the United States or western Europe, to in effect trade those commitments with developing countries that have made no binding commitment, you could see the industrial countries not reaching the target they had set for themselves, whereas the developing countries still have their emissions growing. And as a result, net planetary emissions continue to increase dramatically.
NUNLEY: Why is joint implementation a popular concept in the developed countries?
MEYER: Well, I think there's a couple of reasons. First of all, from an economic point of view, it makes a lot of sense if you have limited funds to put into reducing greenhouse gas emissions, to make sure that you are investing in the most cost-effective reduction measures, whether they're in the United States or India or Czechoslovakia. So from a theoretical point of view, it makes a lot of sense. There's also a political element to this, which is, I think, many industries in the west, in the industrial countries, would like to slow down the rate of change required of their industries in the industrial countries to deal with climate change. And one way they see of doing that is by pushing for measures in the developing countries to reduce their emissions.
NUNLEY: But the developing countries say that this is basically grandfathering overconsumption in the developed countries. Correct?
MEYER: There is that element of criticism of it. There's a concern that it's not equitable, but there's somewhat of a tension there as well because obviously the developing countries are looking for financial assistance and for technology transfer. And joint implementation is one way of augmenting the development assistance budgets which, as we know, are under a lot of pressure.
NUNLEY: Is there a way that everybody can get what they want using this strategy?
MEYER: Well, I think from the nongovernmental point of view, most of us see joint implementation as something that could be made to work in the context of serious reduction commitments by the industrial countries. The current commitments in the climate treaty only require the industrial countries to try to return their emissions back to 1990 levels by the year 2000, but make no commitment to actually reducing emissions below those levels. Now, in that context, we don't see a big role for joint implementation over the next 5 or 6 years. But, for example, if countries were able to adopt a goal of reducing emissions 20 or 25% below 1990 levels, then I think a lot of us would feel more comfortable having joint implementation be a part of the way they meet that commitment.
NUNLEY: Now that the countries have signed on to the treaty, there's a general feeling that it's not as strong as it needs to be. Are the countries willing to go back and make the agreement stronger now? Do they really have the ability to do that?
MEYER: Well, most of the industrial countries over the last couple of weeks in Geneva, including the United States, stated that in their view, the current treaty was inadequate. What they haven't done is spelled out specifics of how they think they would go below current emissions levels, what kind of commitments they would make. Would it be an additional percentage reduction country by country? Would it be commitments to implement specific energy efficiency measures? Would it be commitments to rapidly commercialize renewable energy technologies like solar and wind? So they haven't gotten down to the details, and I think the hope is that the next session of the negotiations in Geneva in the coming August, that they will put some specific proposals on the table.
NUNLEY: Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists spoke with us from Washington, DC. Thanks for being with us.
MEYER: Thank you. Glad to be here.
(Music up and under)
NUNLEY: Your comments and questions always warm our world. Our toll-free number is 1-800-218-9988. Or you can send your comments to Living on Earth, Box 639, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02238. Transcripts and tapes are $10.
(Music up and under)
NUNLEY: Just add fish. That's Terry Welch's recipe for turning the effluent and sewage settling ponds into clean water with no leftover sludge. Sludge is a big problem for sewage treatment plants: it's expensive and difficult to dispose of in an environmentally-friendly way. But Welch, who runs several small treatment facilities in northern New Hampshire, thinks he's found a safe, cheap, and remarkably simple way to deal with his sludge problem. He's released thousands of bottom-feeding fish from local rivers and lakes into his settling ponds, and he says his sludge problem has virtually disappeared. Now, Federal officials are trying to find out if Welch really is on to something. From New Hampshire Public Radio, Eric Westerveldt has our report.
(Footsteps on gravel or sand)
WESTERVELDT: Few people truly love their jobs, especially those who work with human excrement.
WELCH: I love this plant. This is like my baby. I started this when I was, from day one. I was here since the first day it started up, and I don't ever want to leave.
WESTERVELDT: Meet Terry Welch, who runs sewage treatment plants in the north country of New Hampshire: facilities he affectionately calls his little Gardens of Eden. His Breton Woods operation north of Crawford Notch overlooks the local ski resort and the snow-dusted Presidential Range of the White Mountain National Forest. The heart of the plant is 2 large swimming pool-size lagoons 10 feet deep that hold and process the domestic waste from more than 60 ski resort condominiums.
(Inside plant: blower)
WESTERVELDT: This time of year it's shrouded in deep snow and ice, quiet except for a massive blower that constantly pumps air into the sewage, which helps separate the solids from the liquids and adds oxygen which aids bacteria breakdown of the sewage. From here, the water is then filtered twice and drained into the nearby Ammonoosuc River.
WELCH: I swim in these rivers. I fish in the rivers. And I raft in them. And I don't want to pollute them. And now I have a direct hand on what goes to the river. So that's why I'm constantly trying to make it, my end-product, better.
WESTERVELDT: The end-product is supposed to be clean water from wastewater. But to get clean water, many plants have to deal with a number of problems, including sludge: the solids left behind when cleaning wastewater.
(Entering the plant office)
WESTERVELDT: Inside the plant's small office, Terry Welch explains that dredging, pumping, and shipping the sludge waste out of the ponds is a big, nasty, and expensive process: one that can cost towns tens and sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars.
WELCH: The first time I did it my wheels were turning. There's gotta be a better way. (Laughs)
WESTERVELDT: Now Welch thinks he's found a better way to get rid of the sludge. New high-tech equipment? No. Perch, bluegills, hornpout, large mouth and small mouth bass: tens of thousands of them. Using these fish, Welch claims he has dramatically reduced the amount of sludge.
WELCH: We have actual data from other consultants that took the sludge depths before I put the fish in, and I had a state official this year take sludge depths four years later. And there's nothing out there. It's all gone.
WESTERVELDT: Welch got the idea to enlist fish in his operation almost by accident. An avid scuba-diver and fisherman in his spare time, Welch watched these kinds of fish in local ponds poking around the bottom and stirring up sediments, and the idea was born. Welch isn't really sure, but he speculates that the fish reduce the sludge in his sewage lagoons two ways. They burrow and swim through the excrement, stirring it up, aerating it, and allowing millions of microorganisms and bacteria to naturally break it down. He's also found evidence that these fish actually eat the sludge. Welch's creative solution to an old problem has caught the eye of state, regional, and Federal environmental officials. Paul Olander is an engineer with Vermont's Department of Environmental Conservation.
OLANDER: I'm very optimistic. I think that, boy, if we could get the fish to do this work for us, at least to some degree, it could save a lot of communities quite a bit of money.
WESTERVELDT: And Welch has actually saved towns money, thousands of dollars in the avoided costs of dredging and chemicals. And Welch says his treated water meets Federal clean water standards. The New Hampshire and Vermont Departments of Environmental Services have formed an ad hoc committee with Federal officials to study Welch's seemingly crazy idea. Welch is more than willing to help. In fact, he plans to dive into the excrement lagoons next summer to photograph his Eden in action and help prove his case. Dr. James Martell, an environmental engineer with the US Army Corps of Engineers, who's involved in the research, says he'll reserve judgment on the experiment. But he says there is a precedent for using fish to help treat sewage.
MARTELL: In Asia, they use this technology all the time. They grow fish in their lagoons and they actually catch the fish and eat them.
WESTERVELDT: So far, Welch's fish haven't been deemed safe to eat. Tissue analysis is being done on the fish to see if they're consuming any heavy metals from the domestic sludge. Terry Welch welcomes the cooperation and attention of state and federal officials, but he quickly dismisses other non-believers, especially fellow wastewater plant operators, some of whom view his sludge-eating fish with mirthful skepticism.
WELCH: If they don't believe it and don't want to try it, well, good for them. In another five or ten years they're going to be wading in it getting rid of it, and I'll be here laughing, catching fish. (Laughs)
WESTERVELDT: For Living on Earth, I'm Eric Westerveldt in Breton Woods, New Hampshire.
(Music up and under)
PAGE: Anyone who's been around for over 70 years ought to be shock-proof.
NUNLEY: Unfortunately, says commentator Ruth Page, humans continue to challenge her resistance.
PAGE: Recent news tells us huge amounts of garbage and litter have been dumped with abandon on Mt. Everest. Mount Everest, for heaven's sake, the highest point on earth. That snow-crowned, poetry-inspiring mountain, its heights unconquered until 1953. Nine thousand people visit the glorious mountain each year, climbing portions of the great slopes and leaving their empty food containers, broken equipment, and personal wastes behind. Last year, in July alone, 33 tons of trash, 550 yak-loads, had to be carried down from the mountain.
So a new system for climbers has been established. They must leave a cash deposit with Nepalese officials based on the weight of the stuff they bring in. Their gear is weighed again when they leave, and they forfeit funds for the difference.
Everest is home to magnificent animals that are being harmed by all the metal and plastic trash: Himalayan mountain goats, black bears, musk deer, wolves, red pandas, wild dogs, and the rare and beautiful snow leopards. Visitors and climbers have been helping themselves to the scarce wood supply in the wild, too, without considering the erosion that will follow. Villagers in the park area have formed a cooperative to try to control pollution and protect woody growth. Nepalese working on the Everest clean-up are testing various methods. They don't want to lose tourists, but if the tourists spoil the mountain, local Nepalese will have nothing of value left.
When humans conquer anything, they're almost sure to leave it filthier than they found it. Should we give up the human race as a bad job? Maybe not quite yet. When the Nepalese discover the best techniques for cleaning and protecting their great mountains, they'll share the knowledge with others around the world, including people in the homelands of the Alps, which also have Herculean clean-up jobs facing them. So, maybe dark clouds still have silver linings.
NUNLEY: Commentator Ruth Page lives in Burlington, Vermont. She comes to us from Vermont Public Radio.
Our program is produced and edited by Peter Thomson. The director is Deborah Stavro, and the coordinating producer is George Homsy. Our production team includes Kim Motylewski, Chris Page, Colleen Singer Coxe, Jessika Bella Mura, Eve Stewart, and engineers Laurie Azaria, Keith Shields, and Monica Spain. Our theme music was composed by Michael Aharon.
Living on Earth is a project of the World Media Foundation, in cooperation with the Public Media Foundation and WBUR, Boston. The executive producer is Steve Curwood, who will be back next week. I'm Jan Nunley.
ANNOUNCER: Major support for Living on Earth comes from the W. Alton Jones Foundation, supporting efforts to protect the global environment; the National Science Foundation; the Pew Charitable Trusts, and all-natural Stonyfield Farm Yogurt - whether supporting worthwhile causes or producing healthy foods, Stonyfield's goal is to make you feel good inside. Additional support comes from the Great Lakes Protection Fund.
NPR ANNOUNCER: This is NPR, National Public Radio.
The preceding text has been professionally transcribed. However, although the text has been checked against an audio track, in order to meet rigid transmission and distribution deadlines, it has not yet been proofread against tape.
Living on Earth wants to hear from you!
P.O. Box 990007
Boston, MA, USA 02199
Newsletter [Click here]
Donate to Living on Earth!
Living on Earth is an independent media program and relies entirely on contributions from listeners and institutions supporting public service. Please donate now to preserve an independent environmental voice.
Sailors For The Sea: Be the change you want to sea.
Innovating to make the world a better, more sustainable place to live. Listen to the race to 9 billion
The Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment: Committed to protecting and improving the health of the global environment.
Energy Foundation: Serving the public interest by helping to build a strong, clean energy economy.
Contribute to Living on Earth and receive, as our gift to you, an archival print of one of Mark Seth Lender's extraordinary wildlife photographs. Follow the link to see Mark's current collection of photographs.
Buy a signed copy of Mark Seth Lender's book Smeagull the Seagull & support Living on Earth