Author: Mary Stucky

The Debate Over a Corn-Based Hydrogen Economy

  • Researchers are looking at ethanol from corn as an environmentally-friendly way to power fuel cells. However, some studies show corn-based ethanol takes more energy to produce than the fuel provides. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Researchers are looking at ways to use corn-based ethanol as a way to power hydrogen fuel cells. It would appear to be an environmentally friendly way to get into the hydrogen fuel economy. However, ethanol might not be as environmentally friendly as its proponents claim. Backed by the farm lobby and ag industries such as Archer Daniels Midland, ethanol has plenty of political support. But some researchers say corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports:

Transcript

Researchers are looking at ways to use corn-based ethanol as a way to power hydrogen fuel cells.
It would appear to be an environmentally friendly way to get into the hydrogen fuel economy.
However, ethanol might not be as environmentally friendly as its proponents claim. Back by the
farm lobby and ag industry such as Archer Daniels Midland, ethanol has plenty of political
support. But some researchers say corn-based ethanol is a boondoggle. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports…


This reactor is in a laboratory at the University of Minnesota ticking as it converts ethanol into
hydrogen. Researchers here envision thousands of these inexpensive reactors in communities
across America using ethanol to create hydrogen, which would then be used in fuel cells to
generate electricity.


Lanny Schmidt, a Professor of Chemical Engineering, directs the team that created the reactor.


“We’re not claiming our process is the cure-all for the energy crisis or anything like that. But it’s
a potential step along the way. It makes a suggestion of a possible way to go.”


Hydrogen is usually extracted from fossil fuels in dirtier and more costly refineries.


Schmidt says it’s much better to make hydrogen from ethanol.


“It right now looks like probably the most promising liquid non-toxic energy carrier we can think
of if you want renewable fuels.”


Not so fast, says David Pimentel, an agricultural scientist at Cornell University. For years,
Pimentel has warned about what he calls the cost and efficiency and boondoggle of ethanol.
Pimentel says ethanol is a losing proposition.


“It takes 30-percent more energy, including oil and natural gas, primary those two resources to
produce ethanol. That means importing both oil and natural gas because we do not have a
sufficient amount of either one.”


Pimentel says most research on ethanol fails to account for all the energy needed to make the fuel,
such as energy used to make the tractors and irrigate crops. Adding insult to injury, says
Pimentel, ethanol relies on huge government subsidies going to farmers and agri-business.


“If ethanol is such a great fuel source, why are we subsidizing it with 2-billion dollars annually?
There’s big money, as you well know, and there’s politics involved. And the big money is leaking
some of that 2-billion dollars in subsidies to the politicians and good science, sound science,
cannot compete with big money and politics.”


Pimentel also points to environmental damage of growing corn – soil erosion, water pollution
from nitrogen fertilizer and air pollution associated with facilities that make ethanol. But
Pimentel has his detractors.


David Morris runs the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis. Morris is not a scientist,
but he commissioned a study on ethanol. He says Pimentel relies on out-of-date figures and fails
to account for the fact that ethanol production is getting more efficient.


Morris’ findings – a gallon of ethanol contains more than twice the energy needed to produce it.
As for subsidies…


“There’s no doubt that if we did not provide a subsidy for ethanol it would not be competitive
with gasoline. But what we need to understand is that we also subsidize gasoline, and if you took
the percentage of the Pentagon budget, which is spent directly on maintaining access to Middle-
Eastern oil, and impose that at the pump, it would add 25- to 50-cents a gallon. At that point,
ethanol is competitive, under the assumption that you will not need a large military budget to
protect our access to Iowa corn.”


But more efficient than making ethanol from corn might be grass, or even weeds. David Morris
says that’s because you don’t have fertilize or irrigate those kinds of plants, the way you do corn.


“So if we’re talking about ethanol as a primary fuel to truly displace gasoline, we have to talk
about a more abundant feedstock. So instead of the corn kernel, it become the corn stock, or it
becomes fast-growing grasses, or it becomes trees, or sawdust or organic garbage. And then
you’re really talking about a carbohydrate economy.”


Pimentel scoffs at that idea.


“You’ve got the grind that material up, and then to release the sugars, you’ve got to use an acid,
and the yield is not as high. In fact, it would be 60-percent more energy using wood or grass
materials.”


While scientists and policy people debate whether ethanol is efficient or not, Lanny Schmidt and
his team soldier on in the lab undeterred in their efforts to use ethanol for fuel. Schmidt
understands some of Pimentels’s concerns, but he thinks scientists will find an answer, so ethanol
can be used efficiency enough to help power the new hydrogen economy.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Related Links

Musicians Rock the Environment

  • Cloud Cult is a rock band that combines songs about love and loss with messages about consumerism and the natural world. From left: drummer Dan Greenwood, cellist Sarah Young, and lead singer and band founder Craig Minowa. (Photo by Casey Mosher)

The rock band Cloud Cult is on a mission to turn music lovers into environmental activists. And they’re determined to do it without what they say is the usual message of environmental doom and gloom. Cloud Cult has fun. That’s more effective, according to the band – and its fans throughout the region seem to agree. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports, Cloud Cult is taking environmental activism to new forms… from the way they package their cds, to the flyers they distribute at concerts:

Transcript

The rock band Cloud Cult is on a mission to turn music lovers into
environmental activists. And they’re determined to do it without what
they say is the usual message of environmental doom and gloom. Cloud Cult
has fun. That’s more effective, according to the band and its fans
throughout the region seem to agree. As Mary Stucky reports, Cloud Cult is taking
environmental activism to new forms, from the way they
package their cds, to the flyers they distribute at concerts.


(music of Cloud Cult – “you’re so pretty…”)


Cloud Cult sings about love and loss.


(music of Cloud Cult)


And Cloud Cult sings about over-consumption and the beauty of the natural
world. Band leader Craig Minowa is an environmentalist disguised as a rocker.


(music fades out)


“I’ve tried so many ways of getting the message across and if you’re singing , ‘I gotta go out and
recycle today everybody is just gonna,’ (laugh). Our hope is that you bring people out, they
realize this movement isn’t something that is dark that you have to feel bad about but it’s
something exciting and we can have a good time doing this.”


Minowa founded the band and runs what he calls Earthology Studios about an
hour north of St Paul, Minnesota. This is a business that replicates CDs
for other bands. Minowa says he’s doing the only environmentally-friendly
CD replicating in the country. He takes used plastic jewel cases, cleans them up and recycles
them for new CDs .


“I mean they’re polyvinyl chloride so if you don’t recycle them, if
you send them off for incineration it creates dioxin which is one of the
most toxic pollutants.”


Liner notes are made with recycled paper and non toxic ink. The shrink
wrap around the CD – that’s made from corn-based cellulose.


But it’s not how the CDs are made, it’s the music that’s important to this
crowd at a Cloud Cult gig in Duluth Minnesota. Cloud Cult just released
a new CD, “Aurora Borealis.” Their previous disc, “They Live on the
Sun,” was a hit on college radio.


(sound of music)


Even though he’s here to play music, Craig Minowa can’t let an environmental
opportunity pass by. At the back of the bar – tables with information and sign-up sheets.


“Organic Consumers Association, Great Lakes United and the Environmental Association for
Great Lakes Education.”


“I work for the organization that is putting on the Living Green Conference.


“Is it the first time you’ve been at a bar to promote your organization?”


“Yeah I think so.”


“It’s really a noble cause, I’d like to be involved and sign up. For the last couple weeks I’ve
really been excited and I looked forward to this concert.”


Minowa thinks this is the future of the environmental movement.


“The winning equation is making people feel. Make them feel through the music. Hopefully
then as they’re walking out looking at the organizations they’re more receptive to the statistics on
the table. And that’s when real action is going to take place.”


Craig Minowa donates all profits after overhead to environmental
Causes and says giving money comes naturally.


“You’re not really gonna be able to get somebody to pull 20 bucks out of their wallet and invest
that in protecting the creek down the way unless that same person is able to go over there and feel
in their heart, that is a really beautiful flower and I want to protect that because I have love, I have
compassion, I feel.”


(sound of music)


Cloud Cult tours this winter throughout the Great Lakes region.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Related Links

Cities Look to Golf Courses to Raise Money

Throughout the region, financially-strapped cities and counties are looking for ways to generate revenue. One idea – converting publicly owned park land into golf courses. Environmentalists hate the idea. But at least some government officials say a golf course is a way to make money and ease the burden on taxpayers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports on a battle over whether to turn part of a hardwood forest near Lake Superior into a golf course:

Transcript

Throughout the Great Lakes region, financially strapped cities and counties are looking for ways
to generate revenue. One idea, converting publicly owned park land into golf courses.
Environmentalists hate the idea. But at least some government officials say a golf course is a way
to make money and ease the burden on taxpayers. Mary Stucky reports on a battle over whether
to turn part of a hardwood forest near Lake Superior into a golf course:


(natural sound)


On a cold winter day, the air is still and quiet on Spirit Mountain, on the western side of Duluth,
Minnesota, a town on Lake Superior. There is a chalet and downhill ski area on one side of the
mountain, but for the most part, the forest is undeveloped.


“We’ll just walk up here a bit so you can see into the forest a bit more.”


Nancy Nelson is a local environmentalist who’s horrified at the thought of a golf course here.


“So, if the golf course were to be built that would all be clear cut and turned into turf grass.”


Spirit Mountain is owned by the city of Duluth. It has a unique mixture of ecosystems. There are
wetlands and small streams. Wildflowers cover the ground in the spring and there is old growth
forest including sugar maple, yellow birch and red oak. Outgoing Duluth Mayor Gary Doty
thinks the golf course is a good idea. The course would have taken 250 acres of the 2 thousand
acre forest.


“I saw this as a responsible activity with safeguards put in place to prevent problems with water
run-off and wetlands and trees and all those kinds of things.”


The Mayor says it would have been an environmentally responsible project. Environmentalist
Nancy Nelson disagrees.


“Once you clear cut an area it all starts over. It takes hundreds of years, at least, to get to the
stage that this forest is at. I just don’t think it’s a fair tradeoff to destroy something that’s taken
that long to develop just so we can build a golf course.”


But experts say building golf courses in natural areas is tempting for cash-strapped cities and
counties throughout the Great Lakes region. Brett Hulsey works with the Sierra Club to fight
plans for golf courses on government park land.


“Across the Great Lakes we see golf courses threatening our national parks, local parks, wetlands
and forests. They destroy habitat for wild animals, fish and wildlife. They increase
run off pollution and they also close off access to public areas.”


Hulsey says trees are cut down, lawn chemicals are used and to even walk through the area you
have to pay greens fees. The Sierra Club website keeps track of places where parkland is
threatened by golf course development.


But as for the course on Spirit Mountain, Mayor Doty says it’s been stopped, at least for now,
stopped by what Doty calls extreme environmentalists who blindly oppose development.


“I don’t think we should take every tree down and build parking lots and hotels and
condominiums every place in town. But I looked at what was good for the community. And
what was good for the community was to develop an environmentally sound golf course and it
still leaves a lot of wooded lands that people would be able to enjoy outside of using the golf
course.


But environmentalists say the world doesn’t need a another golf course. They say, there are too
many now. Since the Spirit Mountain course was first proposed 9 years ago, the popularity of
golf has waned, according to the Sierra Club’s Brett Hulsey, with the supply of golf courses now
outstripping demand.


“We’re seeing a lot of golf courses struggling. The bloom is definitely off the golf course rose
and local governments should take a real hard look at whether this is the best way for them to
raise local money.


And so some experts say that in the future, the battle over turning park land into golf courses
might be won by environmentalists by default.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Related Links

“Biosafety Engineers” for Gmo Industry?

  • According to the USDA, 40% of the corn grown this year in the U.S. has been genetically modified. Some researchers fear there's not enough oversight on the rapidly growing biotech industry. A program at the University of Minnesota wants to create a new profession - the 'Biosafety Engineer.' (photo courtesy of the USDA)

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now there’s a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:

Transcript

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a
battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated
food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears
we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now, there’s
a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers
think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:


To remove a gene from one organism and transfer it to another…
that’s genetic engineering. Genetically modified or GM crops are
easier to grow, according to bio tech supporters and in the future
might be more nutritious. But they also might contain hidden
allergens, because they use genes from a plant or animal that
people might be allergic to. And there are concerns that GM crops
might harm the environment by crossbreeding with natural plants in
the wild. And so the University of Minnesota is proposing a
solution – an entirely new profession – call them biotech safety
engineers – along with a new science of bio safety. Anne
Kapuscinski is a researcher at the University of Minnesota and a
force behind the initiative called Safety First. Kapuscinski says
rather than regulating the industry after a new product is developed,
companies should prove safety first.


“It will mean that some ideas that will be on the lab bench won’t go
any further in development because the developers
will realize there are safety concerns that we don’t know how to
mitigate, or how to prevent from happening or how to address.”


And that could save companies money… by avoiding costly mistakes
such as the Starlink corn debacle. That’s when genetically modified
corn accidentally mixed with conventional corn and got into dozens of
foods. Kapuscinski says it was common knowledge in the industry that
the corn could get mixed up because of the way it’s transported and
stored… which might have been avoided with uniform safety standards
and government oversight. But until now, industry has resisted that.
They’ve been touting the benefits rather than the risks such as this
ad campaign put out by a group called the Biotechnology Industry
Organization.


(music under)


“Biotechnology, a big word that means hope.”


But one expert says if the industry wants to inspire public
confidence, it should support the Safety First initiative. John
Howard is the founder of a Texas based biotech firm called
ProdiGene. Not all biotech companies support the University of
Minnesota effort, but Howard thinks it has a good chance of
alleviating public concerns.


“The problem is, however, if you do it yourselves, what
credibility do you have as a company promoting your own safety
assessment? So an independent agency or source that comes out
and says, ‘Look, this is now credible, we’ve looked at all the safety
issues,’ that’s great, and if they find something that we’ve missed
then fine, we want to do it that way.”


John Howard says his company is working to bio-engineer corn to
deliver drugs. For instance, if you need insulin you could have it
in your breakfast cereal.


Opponents of bio tech say we don’t know all of the ramifications of
engineering drugs into food or altering the genetics of any organism,
but John Howard thinks we know enough to be safe.


“You can always argue that we just don’t know
enough yet and that’s an argument that can go on and on. And this
applies to everything that we think about in terms of risk. But
what you can do is look at a risk benefit equation. There’s
no question this is a for-profit company, let’s not make any mistake,
but not at the expense of harming people.”


And supporters say the Safety First initiative will see to that.
Lawrence Jacobs is a political scientist at the University of
Minnesota and a leader in Safety First. Jacobs says, like it or not,
GM food is here to stay.


“If we do not find some credible way to address the biosafety issues in
biotechnology, we are heading for a major maelstrom. The challenge
that’s out there now for the biotechnology industry right now is get
your act together. And the potential for consumers to panic in this
country is significant.”


Of course safety standards are already engineered into the
manufacturing of airplanes and cars. But will that work in an
industry which is manufacturing a living thing?


Supporters of the Safety First initiative say there’s too little
oversight on an industry that could have much greater impact on health
and the environment.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Related Links

State to Ban Phosphorus in Dishwasher Soap?

Every summer, lakes become inundated with algae. As the slimy, green muck dies, it chokes out oxygen, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. One cause of all that algae – phosphorus in the water. The phosphorus comes from natural sources such as decaying leaves, and it comes in farm and lawn fertilizer, which runs off into the water. But there’s also phosphorus in a product many of us use every day – dishwasher soap – which goes directly into the water and down the drain. One state might be the first in the nation to ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap, and as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports, other states might follow:

Transcript

Every summer, lakes become inundated with algae. As the slimy, green muck dies, it chokes out
oxygen, which can kill fish and other aquatic life. One cause of all that algae – phosphorus in the
water. The phosphorus comes from natural sources such as decaying leaves, and it comes in farm
and lawn fertilizer, which runs off into the water. But there’s also phosphorus in a product many
of us use every day – dishwasher soap – which goes directly into the water and down the drain.
One state might be the first in the nation to ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap, and as the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports, other states might follow:


(ambient sound of lapping water)


Lakes are a source of natural beauty, recreation, tourist dollars, even food. And in Minnesota
people take their lakes seriously. But when the algae takes over, no one wants to swim in the
scum, fish die for a lack of oxygen and the lake’s ecosystem is endangered.


(natural sound break)


Phosphorus occurs naturally. Some of it comes from decaying vegetation, grass clippings and
dead leaves. But because too much phosphorus is harmful, lawmakers have banned it from
certain commercial products. Last year Minnesota banned it from lawn fertilizer. And decades
ago, many states outlawed laundry detergent containing phosphorus. But they didn’t ban it in
dishwasher soap.


“There were not near the number in 1970 of automatic dishwashers in the households. It’s an
everyday thing now. ”


Ray Cox Is a Republican representative in the Minnesota legislature. He is sponsoring the bill,
banning phosphorus in dishwasher soap. There are phosphorus free dishwasher soaps, but they’re
a tiny fraction of the market. Still, Cox says phosphorus free soaps work better than they used to
because of the improvements that have been made in dishwashers.


“There are many, many products around here available right now and they work great. We’ve
used it for many years at home and there’s no problem. I mean, our dishes are clean.”


(ambient sound of dishwasher running)


Unlike other products containing phosphorus, detergent is flushed directly down the drain. For
each box of dishwasher detergent, it costs your local sewer treatment plant at least two dollars
and fifty cents to remove the phosphorus. But most cities don’t have state of the art water
treatment, so a lot of phosphorus makes its way into lakes, rivers and streams. Just how much, no
one knows exactly. One study estimates that 6 percent of the phosphorus in water comes from
dishwasher detergent, according to Don Arnosti of the Minnesota Environmental Partnership, a
coalition of 80 environmental groups.


“Removing this phosphorus will improve our waterways. How much, that’s what’s in debate. Is
it 6 percent as we suggest? Is it 8 percent? Is it 4 percent? And we say that’s not important.
Nobody is saying it’s not gonna be an improvement.”


But will the improvement be worth the cost? Tony Kwilas is a lobbyist for the Minnesota
Chamber of Commerce, which has taken the lead in attacking the ban. He says consumers won’t
stand for it because it doesn’t help that much and the replacement products are inferior.


“Why ban a product that we’re not quite sure the cost benefit of it. In Europe they went
phosphorus-free and they turned around and went back due to consumer complaints. Mainly it
sounds like there’s spotting and scratching on some of the glasses, and it doesn’t get all the food
off.”


Tony Kwilas says a ban on phosphorus in dishwasher detergent won’t really help much since
there are so many sources of phosphorus in the water.


“I’m not going to dispute that phosphorus is a problem, but if you look at what phosphorus is
contained in, it’s contained in antifreeze, it’s contained in chicken tenders, it’s contained in
bath beads, frozen fish, fire extinguishers, instant pudding, pet food, toothpaste, cake mixes. I
mean, so phosphorus is everywhere.”


To ban phosphorus in dishwasher soap would raise the cost about 70 cents a box. But most
consumers seem unaware of the issue, even those shopping at this food co-op in St Paul.


“I was not made aware that this was really harming our environment badly.” “I thought
phosphorus was already gone.” “You know, I just became aware of it, so I will start paying
attention to it right now.” “We don’t pay attention regularly.” “I had no idea that was in there
either.”


There doesn’t seem to be a consumer demand for phosphorus-free dishwasher detergent, just yet.
Don Arnosti of the Environmental Partnership says just as they did with dolphin-safe tuna and
phosphorus-free laundry soap, consumers need to make their voices heard.


“It’s time for the people of Minnesota to speak up and say clean water is more important than the
soap industry’s contribution to certain politicians.”


But if Minnesota passes the ban, what would happen? Would major detergent manufacturers
make special dishwasher soap just to sell in one state? Minnesota lawmaker Ray Cox says look
at what happened as states started to ban phosphorus in laundry detergent.


“As soon as the scale tipped to where we had about 20 states that were banning it all the
manufacturers gave up the fight and they reformulated and nobody makes anything that has that
significant content anymore. So while you can say a state by state basis doesn’t make any sense,
on many things I think that’s the way we have to go.”


Cox says if Minnesota starts the ball rolling, it’ll just be a matter of time before phosphorus is
removed from dishwasher soap everywhere, which is why both sides are paying so much
attention to what happens in Minnesota.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky in St Paul.

CUBA GROWS ITS WAY OUT OF SHORTAGE (Part 1)

  • A market in Cuba where growers sell what they don’t keep themselves. Photo by Mary Stucky

While organic farming is growing across the U.S., the number of farmers in the Great Lakes using organic methods is still quite small – not so though in Cuba. In the past decade that island nation has embraced small-scale organic farming and urban gardens. Production of vegetables has soared, which has attracted attention from experts in the Great Lakes region who are visiting Cuba in increasing numbers. In the first of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky went along with one group to find out how the country transformed its agricultural practices:

Transcript

While organic farming is growing across the U.S., the number of farmers in the
Great Lakes using organic methods is still quite small. Not so, though, in Cuba.
In the past decade that island nation has embraced small-scale organic farming and urban gardens. Production of vegetables has soared… which has attracted attention from
experts in the Great Lakes region who are visiting Cuba in increasing numbers. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky went along with one group to find out
what the Cubans can teach Midwest farmers about farming.


Cuban farmers had little choice about whether to embrace organic agriculture. Just seven
years ago, the Cuban people faced starvation, but today.


“For us, we are alive, we are alive.”


For Mavis Alvarez, and other Cubans, just having survived is an accomplishment.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, it had a ripple effect on Cuba as well. That’s because Cuba’s economy was based on financial assistance from the Soviet bloc, especially its food economy. And when that money stopped, Cuba’s citizens began to feel the effects. Before long, Cuba could no longer afford to import food, fertilizer or pesticides. So the government made a
drastic decision. Food would be grown without chemicals using alternative methods.
To many, it was seen as a major gamble…. but it worked.


(Natural sound from vegetable stand)


Vegetable stands in residential Havana display piles of lush vegetables at reasonable prices. While there are still severe shortages of meat and milk, the country is now producing four
times the vegetables compared to the worst year of the food crisis – and this is done largely without the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.


“I have so much respect for that and Cubans are evidently in the forefront.”


Diane Dodge is a master gardener from St. Paul, Minnesota. Among organic farmers, Cuba is
renowned – and many, like Dodge, are visiting the island to see Cuba’s methods with their own eyes.


“They’re not necessarily trying to change anything. What they’re trying to do is go with the
flow of nature and that’s very contrary to what we do. We’re always trying to manage nature, change nature and here it’s all of a piece.”


Cuba has combined organic farming methods including natural pest controls and
fertilizers… along with a vast new system of urban gardens like this one in Havana.


(Natural sound of windmill)


A windmill pumps water for this garden. Ten years ago this was a weed patch. Now it’s a lush
jungle of vegetables, spices and fruit… by law no chemicals can touch this soil. Through a translator gardener Ignacio Aguileras Garcias explains he feeds 10 family members from his plot.


“Here we have 43 farmers and maybe only 8 or ten sell the products. The rest use the products for their own consumption. You work on your piece of land and you do with your production whatever you want.”


Just a few short years ago many Cubans were starving. Nowadays most Cubans are eating well
enough to meet standards set by the United Nations. Some experts’ say that proves organic farming can feed a country’s people. Urban gardens produce more than half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in Cuba. Minor Sinclair lived in Cuba in the 1990’s. He represented Oxfam America, a charity working on food policy, and says it’s justified to use valuable urban land to grow food.


“You produce it locally, you get people involved in the production, you market it locally. You can go out and walk two blocks and buy a head of lettuce that’s been removed from the earth right there in front of your eyes. And that lettuce lasts a week in the refrigerator. Better product, cheaper prices and better income for the farmers too.”


So what those who came to visit the farms have found is that in ten short years Cuba has transformed its agriculture production… and that’s a good thing, says the Minnesota Department of Agriculture’s Wayne Monsen.


“You know they know how to feed themselves. I’m not sure Americans would know how to feed
ourselves if there was a crisis where the food supply stopped.”


But Cubans are looking beyond feeding themselves. In February, the first certified organic sugar
from Cuba was sold to European chocolate-makers. There’s a great demand in Europe for other
organic foods as well. If organics become a Cuban export bonanza, it would certainly get the
attention of farmers up north, in the Great Lakes.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

CUBA SETS EXAMPLE FOR ORGANIC FARMERS (Part 2)

  • Cuban growers examine their crops. Farmers in Cuba have been successful in growing their own crops after the Soviet Union collapsed ten years ago. Photo by Mary Stucky

Cuba is in the midst of an unprecedented experiment in alternative agriculture… an experiment that’s attracting the attention of farmers in the Great Lakes. When the Soviet Union collapsed ten years ago, so did Cuba’s economy. Lacking money to import food or the chemicals to grow it, the Cuban government made a bold move — embracing organic farming and natural pest control. In the second of a two-part series, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky takes a look at the lessons farmers may learn from Cuba’s organic experiment:

Transcript

Cuba is in the midst of an unprecedented experiment in alternative agriculture… an experiment that’s attracting the attention of farmers in the Great Lakes. When the Soviet Union collapsed ten years ago, so did Cuba’s economy. Lacking money to import food and the chemicals to grow it, the Cuban government made a bold move – embracing organic farming and natural pest control. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky takes a look at the lessons Great Lakes farmers may learn from Cuba’s organic experiment.


The agricultural transformation in Cuba is striking. In a land only recently dependent on imported chemicals, much of the farmland is now cultivated without chemical fertilizer or chemical pest controls. In a land where people were once starving, a vast system of urban gardens are producing more than half of the fruits and vegetables consumed in Cuba, completely without the use of chemicals. So while certain foods like meat and milk are in short supply, the United Nations reports that most Cubans are now consuming enough calories for a healthy life.
There’s a pride in proving alternative agricultural methods can feed a country’s people. Fernando Funes made that point in the busy lunchroom at the agricultural research facility he runs near Havana.


“In the whole world we are a handful of people trying to go ahead with this struggle and we have to show that we are producing more healthy products that is healthy for nature. I don’t know what will happen in the future but I guess in my opinion, we are not going to come back because we have been proving very well that this paradigm is going to substitute the other one.”


Funes is out to spread the message that even the most chemical fertilizer and pesticide dependent farming can be transformed. Folks like the University of Minnesota’s Bill Wilcke are listening. Wilcke was recently in Cuba studying its agricultural innovations.


“Their solution is ‘what do we have to fix the problem,’ trying to make use of their natural resources and their own human resources to make this work.”


It’s not that they don’t use any fertilizer, or pest controls – they do. It’s just that they involve far less chemicals. For instance, Cuba’s approach to fertilizer involves the production of worm humus in so-called vermiculture facilities – where staff regularly invites curious American farmers to visit.


“We use commonly just manure, but also the kitchen residues and many other organic matters. They eat double their size.”


This Cuban farmer explains how they feed manure or garbage to the worms, which then transform it into a richer, more potent fertilizer. That fertilizer has been used to dramatically improve yields for some crops in Cuba.


(Ambient sound from lab)


Throughout rural Cuba there are more than 200 centers for the production of natural pest controls – including bacteria that devour insect larvae. That’s an inexpensive – and largely effective – alternative to chemical pesticides. Alternatives such as these are well known in the United States. But because of the ready availability of chemicals and because alternatives don’t work well on some big cash crops, they’re little used in the U.S. right now. Still, developing alternatives makes good sense to the University of Minnesota’s Bill Willcke.


“I don’t know if we need to advocate abandoning technology, but I think we need to think about what some of our options are and we have to think about the scale of our agriculture, the kinds of technology that we use.’


Some economists say it’s foolish for countries like the U.S. to imitate Cuba. They say, why go back to what some call medieval farming methods, why use valuable urban land to grow food. But Minor Sinclair disagrees. Sinclair lived in Havana in the 1990’s, representing Oxfam America, a charity working on food policy. Sinclair says Cuba may be sitting on a gold mine, with the increasing demand for organic food.


“Will Cuba’s agriculture be able to be a lighthouse for other developing countries in the region, and in some way even for farmers here in the United States. I hope so.”


Maybe someday, but most experts do not expect to see a system of organic farming and urban gardens widely embraced in the U.S. any time soon, at least not without a food crisis of Cuban proportions.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Native Americans Challenge Hydropower Plans

  • Jenpeg hydroelectric generation station, 10 miles upstream from the Cross Lake community. Dams on the Nelson River produce power for consumers in Manitoba and the U.S. Midwest (photo by Will Braun).

A decision several years ago to bring power from Canada to the GreatLakes has led to major problems for a group of Native Americans livingin northern Manitoba. That’s because dams were built on their land tosupply that power. The dams, and the lakes they created, have altered alarge portion of the landscape. They’ve also adversely affected thetraditional lifestyle of many Cree Indians. Now, with soaring demandfor energy coming from the Great Lakes region, Manitoba Hydro isconsidering new contracts for yet more dams. The Great Lakes RadioConsortium’s Mary Stucky reports:

Transcript

A decision several years ago to bring power from Canada to the Great Lakes
has led to major problems for a group of Native Americans living in northern
Manitoba. That’s because dams were built on their land to supply that power.
The dams, and the lakes they created, have altered a large portion of the
Manitoba landscape. They’ve also adversely affected the traditional
lifestyle of many Cree Indians living there.
Now, with soaring demand for energy coming from the Great Lakes region,
Manitoba Hydro is considering new contracts for yet more dams in Manitoba.
Opposition to the new dams is growing, but as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary
Stucky reports, there is disagreement over the new development
among the Cree themselves.

(Sound of water lapping)


Until not that long ago, life for the Cree First Nation in Northern
Manitoba was idyllic …surrounded by nature’s plenty, they were able to
sustain their indigenous way of life by living off the land. But that was
before the water projects began. Sandy Beardy is an 80-year-old Cree elder
who lives in Cross Lake, a community of 5 thousand and one of the hardest
hit by hydro development.

“All this land ever since the dam was built, all of
it’s disappeared, the game, the birds of the air just pass by, they used
to stop and feed, but they don’t anymore. The environment is
totally destroyed, that we used to enjoy.”

(Sound of generators)


Beardy says in addition to this high environmental price, the Crees,
received little economic benefit from all the current dam projects. So the
overall cost to the Cree has been immense.. But the price for U.S.
consumers in the Midwest has been small. That’s because hydro power in
relatively cheap. And with the demand for energy outstripping supply, new
dams in Manitoba are on the drawing board. …a boon to the Manitoba
economy, according to the provincial premier Gary Doer, who promises
Indians will finally share in the profits of any new hydro development.

“Our cabinet has decided there will not be any dams built
unless there is economic opportunity for aboriginal people. That’s a
difference. That’s a change and long overdue.”

Four of five bands of Cree Indians in Manitoba are cooperating with
Manitoba Hydro to share in the profits from new dams. Victor Spence is a
Cree from Split Lake, one of the bands negotiating with
Manitoba Hydro.


“We are doing it in a different way, more diplomatic,
negotiating instead of the ways of confrontation and conflict.”


However, unlike their neighbors in Split Lake, The Cross Lake Cree refuse
to negotiate any new deals with Hydro . They oppose new dams, and instead
are holding firm to a 1977 agreement. That agreement promised to clean up
the environmental damage caused by the dams and to compensate the Indians
for economic and social costs. Cross Lake Cree leader Tommy Monias says
that agreement has never been honored.

“Clean the debris, clean the standing dead trees,
stabilize the shorelines. We’re not asking for dollars, all we’re
asking is for implementation of that agreement.”


In the meantime, Monias says he can’t be bought off by promises of new
riches from the next round of dams.


“At the end of the day I’m pretty sure you cannot eat money.”

The Cross Lake Cree, meanwhile, have some powerful new allies south of
the border in the U.S.


(Protest sound)


This fall the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will decide whether to
allow a new contract between the former Northern States Power — now called
Excel Energy — and Manitoba Hydro. Diane Peterson, is a Twin Cities
Quaker, she’s one of dozens of people from environmental and religious
groups who’ve been protesting every week in downtown St Paul
Minnesota. Peterson says they want to pressure the Commission into not
signing the deal.

“I’m incensed that Manitoba Hydro for short term monetary
profit is going to destroy the North American environment. It’s time
for North Americans to start respecting our red neighbors who were here
before us.”

But the best way to respect native people is to allow a new
contract, according to Joe Keeper a Cree from Manitoba who’s working with
Hydro.

“Right now the Split Lake Cree and others are trying to
work out an arrangement with Hydro so they can get some benefits from their
own land. Now if suddenly this is stopped, the people who are going to be
hurt in the final analysis are the northern Cree.”

But the Cross Lake Cree call cash from hydro development dirty money. For
them it’s a matter of right and wrong….part of a bigger conversation
about justice for native people and the environmental costs of hydro
electric power. But despite the protests, new hydro development is likely,
at least if Manitoba Hydro has it’s way….. It’s plentiful, cheap and so
far at least, it appears there’s nearly insatiable demand in the
U.S. Perhaps most importantly, many of the Indians say it’s finally their
turn to profit from nature’s bounty.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.