William Holden, Stefanie Powers and their African Dream

This is a story about how fame and glamour mixed with a healthy dose of altruism and curiosity led to the formation of the prestigious William Holden

William Holden

Wildlife Foundation and its associated Mount Kenya Wildlife Conservancy.  

William Holden, one of the biggest box office draws of the 1950s, an Oscar-winning actor and devilishly handsome Hollywood legend carried on a nine-year affair with Stefanie Powers, whose tempestuous but tom-boyish beauty made her one of the most memorable female TV stars of the 1970s and 1980s. With her help, he left behind a legacy far more enduring and meaningful than his acting career. Stefanie remains the globe-trotting president and face of WHWF which she founded in his memory. 

A talented man of many passions (Audrey Hepburn, antique Asian art, Grace Kelly, travel, African wildlife conservation and Stefanie— not in any particular order), his work in Africa was probably his most enduring contribution to the planet. In love with the wildlife of eastern Africa and concerned about their decreasing numbers, Holden and two friends, oilman Ray Ryan and Swiss

Fairmont Mount Kenya Safari Club today

banker Carl Hirschmann,  bought a run-down hotel and converted it to the Mount Kenya Safari Club, refurbishing it as a ritzy watering hole for his wealthy Hollywood friends, European royalty and American tycoons of every commercial persuasion— the international jet set of the time. 

That was 1959, years before ecology, conservation and wildlife protection were to become popular. In 1967, Bill Holden and his friends purchased the surrounding property and founded the Mount Kenya Game Ranch. When business fell off in the '70s, Holden and his partners sold the club to Saudi millionaire Adnan Khashoggi. But, they kept the surrounding property and elevated the Game Ranch’s 1216 acres to an inspirational wildlife education center for Kenya’s youth and an animal rescue sanctuary.

Stefanie Steps Forward

Bill Holden died in 1981 (more on that later). By the following year, Stefanie Powers was the Founder and President of the William Holden Wildlife Foundation and a director of the Mount Kenya Game Ranch and Wildlife Conservancy in Nanyuki,

Stefanie Powers

Kenya—founded by Bill Holden and TV personality Don Hunt in or around 1964. She was also appointed conservation consultant to Jaguar and Land Rover after creating the Jaguar Conservation Trust operated on their behalf in Central America. 

She has been on the advisory board of four zoos in the United States and has served as a fellow of the Los Angeles Zoo, the Explorers' Club, and the Royal Geographic Society.  She is active in the movement to preserve and protect the dwindling herds of  North American wild horses, and has received numerous international awards for her work in conservation, which she considers a life-long commitment.  Powers still resides part of the year in Kenya. 

Bill Holden and Don Hunt
with zebra colt.

Although her history of animal care predates her relationship with Holden, many credit his inspiration for her dedication to wildlife conservation. Bill spent his time in Hollywood making movies to provide much of the funding for the Mount Kenya Game Ranch while Don Hunt and his wife, Iris, managed the ranch on a day-to-day basis. The partners’ ultimate goal was the preservation of endangered wildlife and its regeneration through selected breeding programs.

William Holden Wildlife Foundation

Today the William Holden Wildlife Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based in Beverly Hills, California. Its mission statement promises: 

To focus on the educational component of wildlife and environmental protection and conservation. To foster a better understanding of the crucial role flora and fauna plays in the quality of life and its sustenance on our planet with emphasis on practical methods of sustainability accessible to all. To teach alternatives to habitat destruction for man and animals. To enlighten students and visitors to the available innovations in energy producing techniques with low environmental impact. To inspire a personal commitment in all who participate.

The Foundation’s Education Center offers conservation programs designed for the local population and serves well over 10,000 students per year. The Foundation also operates an outreach program which installs libraries and field installations at rural schools to benefit over 2,000 students and their families. Holden realized that educating the people of Kenya was key to preserving their wildlife. Visit their website at http://www.whwf.org/

Bill Holden’s Demons…

Fame and glamour were heaped upon Bill Holden throughout his acting career and they helped with creation of his African dream, but they also contributed to his personal undoing. He was an intensely private man, but the disappointments he suffered were in full view of the curious and the prurient. 

His first marriage, to actress Brenda Marshall, began to unravel when he had a vasectomy at her request after birthing two sons. He enjoyed well-publicized extra-marital affairs with his leading ladies— most famously Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly and Capucine. 

Some biographers have said that Audrey was the real love of his life and credit his transformation from big game hunter to conservationist to the horror he felt after he shot an antelope. Observing its huge eyes and long, slender neck, he exclaimed, ‘I've just shot Audrey Hepburn.’

Holden & Hepburn in Sabrina

During the filming of Sabrina, Bill Holden and Audrey Hepburn fell deeply for one another despite his broken marriage to Brenda who would not agree to a divorce. In the end, Hepburn broke it off when she learned he could not have children-- one of her most cherished aspirations.

Holden suffered from alcoholism and depression for many years. By the early 1960s, his roles reflected his accelerated rate of aging. On the one hand he was no longer “The Golden Boy”, but the deepening lines in his craggy face brought him more mature character roles and acclaim for his acting abilities.

His troubles deepened in 1966 while in Italy. Holden was involved in a traffic accident in which the other driver was killed. Holden had been driving under the influence of alcohol; he was charged with vehicular manslaughter, and received an eight-month suspended prison sentence. Holden was apparently overcome with guilt and friends said this led to even heavier drinking.

Stefanie and Bill

He met Stephanie Powers when he was 56 and she was 32 at a California tennis tournament in 1972. The age difference did not seem to matter as Stephanie loved Bill-- and Kenya. For a while he stopped drinking. But his resolve didn't last and eventually, she too left. But Stefanie has kept both Bill and his promise to Africa in her heart for a very, very long time.

… And His Death

William Holden died in his high-rise apartment on the seaside cliffs of Santa Monica, California in November 1981 at the relatively young age of 63. He was alone and heavily intoxicated. He reportedly slipped on a throw rug, gashed his head on a night table and bled to death. The coroner said he was conscious for at least a half an hour after the fall, but probably did not comprehend the severity of his injury and did not call for help. His body was found on November 16, but forensic evidence suggested he had been dead for several days and probably passed on November 12.

His friend, director Billy Wilder said of Bill Holden: “ Here was a most successful man who virtually abandons his profession to take care of endangered species.  He does not care about himself; indeed he kills himself. What he didn't realize was that he himself was an endangered species: the beautiful American.”

Long live the William Holden Wildlife Foundation! The man did good things despite his demons.

Clean Water Act?

Acting like we have clean water is not the same as actually having clean water.

After the Clean Water Act (CWA) was passed in 1972 by a bipartisan congressional effort over-riding President Richard Nixon’s presidential veto, America experienced impressive declines in the pollution of its waterways. Then the law was undermined and made toothless by two Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court Acts Questionably

Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) (in 2001) and Rapanos v. United States (in 2006), the Supreme Court ignored congressional intent and narrowed its definition of the scope of waters covered by the Act. Armed with these decisions, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers excluded numerous waters from protection and placed unnecessarily high hurdles to protecting others.

These decisions crushed the underlying structure of the Clean Water Act by casting doubt on what waterways are covered by CWA. Today countless streams, ponds and wetlands are threatened, potentially affecting the drinking water of more than 115 million Americans.

Are navigable rivers the only water worthy of protection?

Because the CWA compels the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to protect the integrity of the “waters of the United States,” industrial and agricultural interests argue that a reference in the text of the law to “navigable waters” limits federal jurisdiction to waters big enough for a boat. Therefore, they argue, it is permissible to discharge whatever they want into smaller waterways despite the fact that they generally drain into navigable waterways.

After 30 years of intermittent, yet impressive progress, at least 26 water bodies have been denied CWA protections in southern California alone, and the EPA has failed to prosecute hundreds of polluters nationwide who benefit from the confusion.

When the Clean Water Act became law in 1972, it provided states the tools needed to target the worst sources of pollution at the time-- particularly industrial waste and city sewage. The CWA forced both

industrial polluters and sewage treatment plants to use new technology to treat and control pollution. Across the country, the CWA succeeded in restoring many rivers, lakes and wetlands, but the goal of cleaning up America’s waters has never been fully realized.

In fact, enforcement of pollution standards on industries has become more lax in recent years, and the law has done little to rein in pollution that is generated not just by heavy industry but also by individuals: the dirt and contaminants from city streets, lots, houses and lawns that flow into lakes, beaches, bays and rivers when rain washes across the landscape.

Storm Water Runoff

Storm-water runoff is another major source of the pollution in our rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

Storm-water runoff enters coastal waters.

Runoff worsens the more developed an area becomes. More households mean an increase in the number of septic tanks, car washes, golf courses, lawns and streets that can produce contamination. Waterborne contaminants include engine oil, traces of gasoline and paint, lawn fertilizer, chemical flame retardants from furniture, lead and copper from old roofs, and other kinds of grime.

Storm-water pollution usually gets worse as a community grows. In nature, rain seeps slowly into soil; but in a city, it surges across pavement, gathering filth as it pours into storm drains. In some older cities, it sometimes mixes with sewage-treatment sludge, where it can overflow the system and slop out. In other cases, storm water gushes untreated from cities into water bodies. Such pollution is fouling water nationwide, on nearly every beach, bay, lake, river and marsh that is well occupied and urbanized—from San Francisco Bay and the Louisiana bayous to Chesapeake Bay on the mid-Atlantic coast and the Great Lakes.

Storm-water runoff from industrial sources, municipal storm drains, and other sources was not specifically addressed in the 1972 law, and the EPA declined to include urban runoff and industrial storm-water discharges in their enforcement program until they were sued by environmentalists. The courts ruled that storm-water discharges must be covered by the EPA’s permit program.

The requirements are more stringent for cities with populations over 100,000, but  smaller communities have so much discretion they can ignore the problem, and they rarely have the resources

Dead zone fish kill in Aberdeen Creek, Maryland.

to address the problems anyway. The problems of storm-water are worsening in many parts of the United States. A combination of polluted storm water and farm runoff helped create Chesapeake Bay’s “dead zones,” where few or no fish can survive, and the algae blooms that rendered Toledo, Ohio’s water supply undrinkable last summer.

New Rule Proposed by EPA and Army Corps of Engineers

March 25, 2014,  the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly proposed a new rule that more closely resembles law than guidelines. It is intended to: reduce confusion about CWA protection, clarify the types of waters covered under the CWA, provide more benefit than cost to the American public, and help states to protect their waters. The rule promises to reinforce the Act’s legal and scientific foundations, provide more long-term certainty to landowners while protecting the health of America’s water.

The rule would restore jurisdiction over tributaries of waters already covered by the Clean Water Act and to all of the wetlands, lakes adjacent to these tributaries and floodplains. This includes intermittent and seasonal streams which flow into larger rivers where fish spawn and the young are

Dry (intermittent) stream bed Coronado National Forest,
southeast Arizona.

reared. The health of a stream bed which is dry in August will determine the health of downstream waters when it rains in the fall.

The rule specifically excludes many man-made ditches, ponds, and irrigation systems from their oversight— and honors current exemptions for normal farming, ranching and forestry operations. Nevertheless,  some industry groups are fighting to prevent changes that would stop them from polluting our waters and filling our wetlands. Agricultural groups, oil companies and Republicans are among the most vocal critics, calling the rule change “a blatant case of EPA overreach” that will burden anyone who has a small body of water in their backyard with onerous regulations and federal intrusion into their affairs.

What can be done?

Although the fight over clean water will continue for some time with the usual suspects lining up on their side of the divide (with great predictability), there are things that can be done to protect our clean water.

Individuals can do the following:

• Limit your use of pesticides and fertilizers, and control runoff containing either.
• Wash your car in a commercial carwash, not your driveway. If you do wash it at home, do so on the lawn to prevent runoff from pouring down storm drains.
• Repair automobile fluid leaks promptly.
• Scoop pet poop and dispose of properly to prevent runoff into streams rivers and coast waters.
• Plant rain gardens, or use rain barrels to capture rain water to prevent rainwater from picking up dirt and pollution on the way to its destination.
• Educate yourself, your family and community. Learn how to report sources of pollution.

Working together…

• Insist new developments in your community employ green building technologies like bioswales (gently sloping troughs similar to rain gardens) and pervious pavement.
• Seek out community groups working on clean water issues and speak out.
• Support efforts to fund infrastructure projects through state and federal grants, or through local storm-water utility fees.
• Support the new rule as a step in the right direction. There are links from the EPA and the NWF below to voice your opinion.

Additional reading
Environmental Protection Agency http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

Bloomberg BNA (The Bureau of National Affairs) http://www.bna.com/proposed-epa-corps-n17179889094/
   
National Wildlife Federation http://www.nwf.org/What-We-Do/Protect-Habitat/Waters/Clean-Water-Act.aspx

Green Vehicle Choices

Being only an average thinker, and not a technical genius, I've had a great deal of trouble understanding the greenest options in modern automobiles. Automobile manufacturers are delivering better fuel economy and lower emissions intended to defeat climate change and improve their bottom lines. For simpletons like me, that means the technology has surpassed either my capacity to understand it, or my patience to study it—

Vokswagen Jetta Sportwagen TDI

or both. And, when you add advertising hyperbole on top of that…

The simplest hierarchy seems to be: conventional gasoline engines are the dirtiest with the worst fuel economy; followed by modern, clean diesel engines like the Volkswagen Jetta Sportswagen TDI ; then hybrids like the Toyota Prius and the Honda Insight are supposed to be the cleanest and leanest. Of course, the comparisons are muddled by new gasoline engines that are sippers like the Ford Focus SFE and the Honda Civic HF (both rate 40 mpg on the highway) in the same miles-per-gallon class as the TDIs of Volkswagen and Audi (a VW subsidiary)--  and further muddled by the Volkswagen Golf GTE diesel plug-in hybrid which can achieve 130+ mpg for 30 miles before it runs out of juice. 

Given the trade-offs of range, price and practicality, it seems that the conscientious tree-hugging buyer can find a green vehicle— at least in terms of fuel economy. Then comes the environmental impact of manufacturing, delivering and recycling its parts— particularly the robust batteries of hybrids and all-electric vehicles. 

A Sour Note on Batteries

The good news is that hybrid vehicles can reduce air emissions of smog-forming pollutants by up to 90% and cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50%. The bad news is that although more environmentally friendly than lead-based batteries, the two types of batteries primarily used by today’s hybrids, nickel metal hydride and lithium ion, present their own dangers—

Toyota Prius

and they are much, much larger than conventional car batteries. There are also questions about the economic viability of manufacturing the batteries in the long term. 

Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH) Batteries
An older technology, NiMH has two major advantages over lithium ion batteries— price and safety. Nickel batteries are mildly toxic in that various nickel compounds, such as nickel chloride and nickel oxide, have known carcinogenic effects in chick embryos and rats. Some manufacturers of hybrid vehicles claim that NiMH costs one-third of an equivalent Li-ion system due to more relaxed safety rules.

An unfortunate disadvantage of NiMH batteries is their high rate of self-discharge. They lose about 20% of their capacity within the first 24 hours, and 10% per month thereafter. In 2005, a low self-discharge (LSD) technology was developed. LSD NiMH batteries significantly improve self-discharge, but have a capacity approximately 20% lower. NiMH batteries face other obstacles as well.

Stanford R. Ovshinsky invented and patented an improved NiMH battery and founded Ovonic Battery Company in 1982. General Motors purchased their patents in 1994, and by

Stanford Ovshinsky

the late 1990s, NiMH batteries were successfully powering many fully electric vehicles, such as the General Motors EV1 and Dodge Caravan EPIC minivan. 

But, in October 2000, the patent was sold to Texaco who was acquired by Chevron a week later. Chevron's Cobasys subsidiary chose to provide these batteries to large original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) only, for fleet vehicles and leases. General Motors shut down production of the EV1 citing lack of battery availability as one of their chief obstacles, but there is reason to believe GM bailed out for a variety of reasons—  including the potential decline of their lucrative spare parts business. Electric vehicles require fewer parts. 

Large-format NiMH batteries were, at that time,  deemed commercially viable and ready for mass production, but there is evidence to support that Chevron and other oil industry allies, even OEMs, may have suppressed the technology. In an interview with the Economist, Stan Ovshinsky stated, "I think we at ECD  made a mistake of having a joint venture with an oil company, frankly speaking. And I think it’s not a good idea to go into business with somebody whose strategies would put you out of business, rather than building the business."

In the end, some experts believe NiMH will serve as an interim solution to more promising lithium systems.

Lithium Ion Batteries
Hitachi is a leader in the development of the lithium ion battery. The battery’s smaller size and lighter weight delivers voltage more than three times that of NiMH batteries while storing large amounts of electricity simultaneously. The batteries also produce higher vehicle power, higher efficiency and provide excellent durability. 

Because it is smaller and lighter, a lithium-ion battery reduces the overall weight of the vehicle to achieve improved fuel economy— 30% better than petroleum powered vehicles. Proponents say that leads to a reduction in CO2 emissions helping to prevent global

Tesla Roadster

warming. Tesla Motors uses this technology which is reportedly the least toxic of the battery types used in automobiles.

What to do with an old battery?
To prepare for a future for electric vehicles — and their batteries, green will not be realized unless there's green recycling as well. Whatever the environmental gains, there's one potential problem, and that is: How to dispose of EV and hybrid batteries once they grow too old and feeble to store and deliver adequate power to move a vehicle?

When will the need will arise?  Although more than 2 million conventional and plug-in hybrids and electric cars are on the road in the U.S., few have been around long enough to dump a profitable flow of batteries to the recycling industry. The Mineta National Transit Research Consortium, however, estimates that 2035 may be the tipping point. There will be somewhere between 1.3 million and 6.7 million worn-out EV hybrid and plug-in vehicle batteries in the U.S.  That's sufficient volume to justify commercial recycling and/or re-use programs, the report says.

Even then, the Mineta report indicates that while recycling to recover individual components

From this...

won't be very profitable by 2035, reusing the batteries — for energy storage at solar or wind-power generating plants, for example, or re-manufacturing them for re-use in vehicles — will only help establish a successful commercial recycling and reuse industry.

Even if the batteries in the very earliest Toyota Prius and

...to this.

Honda Insight hybrids are defunct, those cars were sold in relatively small numbers. Just 19,000 Insights and 33,000 Priuses were sold in the U.S.through the 2003 model year, when the first-generation Prius was retired-- not enough to feed a commercial recycling industry. 

Nevertheless, recycling is an essential part of a battery’s life, even though lithium-ion batteries used in most EVs and plug-in hybrids and the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in most conventional hybrids are not considered toxic. Both types, unlike conventional 12-volt lead-acid car batteries, are deemed safe for landfills. But the world is running out of space for landfill . It would be better for the environment and for the economy if spent batteries are reduced to their components, to be reused instead of being buried in trash heaps.

What Recycling Means for You
Owners of battery operated vehicles, expect recycling to be a painless— maybe even routine— process. Automakers and the auto dismantling industry will handle the recycling. The car owner won't have to do anything except get the vehicle and its defunct battery to a dealer. Recycling is supposed to help keep battery costs down, because it will permit the reuse of the metals and rare-earth compounds that make these batteries work. Re-use is cheaper than mining and processing all-new material in a world depleting its resources. If lithium-ion batteries accounts for as much as half the cost of a new EV, reducing battery costs through recycling will go a long way toward making electric-drive vehicles competitive with conventional cars. A market for used batteries also will help prop up the resale value of electric-drive vehicles— a definite plus for consumers.

Battery recycling helps reduce CO2 emissions and energy use from processing new

Neodymium Sulfate

material. Recycling can also help with energy security. Many of the rare metals used in these batteries come from other countries, and battery recycling will reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers. The primary metals recovered are nickel, copper and iron. The principal rare earths are neodymium and lanthanum. I've never heard of them, but we could start a war over them!

How recyclable are these batteries?
Nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries found in hybrid vehicles are called "zero-landfill" products by the auto industry. They claim that whatever can't be recycled is consumed as fuel in the recycling process, leaving no trash behind. Lithium-ion batteries today are somewhere between 70 and 100 percent recyclable, depending on the particular chemistry of the batteries. Recycling can yield cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese and lithium. Lithium, however, is so cheap there's no incentive for recovering it from lithium-ion batteries today say experts. 

Lithium-ion batteries may enjoy a life of re-use. Even when an EV or hybrid battery can no longer hold and discharge sufficient electricity to power a car's motor, the pack still carries a tremendous jolt. Battery manufacturers claim the packs can still deliver about 80 percent of their capacity when retired from automotive use. The market is lucrative enough that auto companies are partnering with battery, recycling and electronics firms to develop post-automotive markets for lithium-ion battery packs.

For instance, several major power utilities are working with companies— including General Motors, Ford, Toyota and Nissan— to explore the use of these batteries for storage of power produced in off-peak periods by wind turbines and solar generation stations. Lithium-ion packs also are being tested as backup power storage systems for retail centers, restaurants and hospitals, as well as for residential solar systems.

Is a bird in hand worth two in the bush?

by Erika Aoyama

Choosing a green vehicle today almost comes down to an ideological choice. Although we want to preserve the health of the planet and retain as much green in our wallets as possible, we must make judgments about which corporate profit strategy to support.

Battery manufacturers have developed safe, dependable and efficient technologies to move vehicles. Because the vast majority of batteries on the road are still viable, there is no profit to be made in recycling them yet. If and when the tipping point is reached (2035 according to the Mineta Report), battery manufacturers may face other obstacles. 

The next 20 years may see rare earth metal shortages. The automobile industry may elect to concentrate on improved gasoline and diesel engines, either because petroleum remains relatively cheap, or because they do not want to relinquish their aftermarket and auto parts profit centers. And, the oil companies may squelch the battery industry as they have other unwanted competitors.

The bird in hand may be improved gasoline and diesel engines which are progressively leaner and cleaner. Consumer demand will continue to apply pressure through the enactment of laws and buyers’ choice. The future may demand diversity of fuel options in order to preserve our plant’s health and to conserve precious resources, but choosing a green vehicle today can be very confusing.

Since I readily admit my confusion, please check out these additional sources.

Union of Concerned Scientists    http://blog.ucsusa.org/diesel-vs-hybrid-cost-benefits-410

US Department of Energy  http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_batteries.html

Edmunds.com on battery recycling
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/what-happens-to-ev-and-hybrid-batteries.html

Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America
by Sherry Boschert