Plunging Into Low-Flow Toilets

Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:

Transcript

Low-flow toilets left some people flushed with anger when the products
debuted in the 1990’s. But the Environmental Protection Agency is
pushing ahead with a voluntary program to create toilets that use even
less water. Chuck Quirmbach reports some toilet manufacturers say they
want to join the new water-saving market and hope consumers are ready
to buy:


Rob Zimmerman admits there are plenty of jokes about toilets, but the
water engineer for the Kohler Corporation takes the bathroom commode
very seriously.


“I’ve heard people say that the toilet is kind of the foundation of
modern civilization… that modern sanitation allowed for the growth of
cities and allowed for the decline of infectious diseases.”


And now Zimmerman has a handle on a new role for toilets: saving water.
Studies have shown that toilets can account for up to 30% of
a household’s water use. Water prices are going up and in some fast-
growing communities water supplies are growing more scarce.


So, the EPA created a voluntary program it calls Water Sense. It aims
to get toilets to use 20% less water than the newer toilets you’ve
probably seen that were mandated back in the 1990’s. This new
generation of toilets goes from 1.6 gallons per flush to about 1.3
gallons, and still meets performance guidelines for producing a clean
bowl.


(Sound of flushing)


Kohler and other toilet makers are trying various ways to get to 1.3
gallons. After looking at a 1.6 gallon model, Rob Zimmerman lifts the
tank lid on a 1.3:


“What you see that’s different here… is remember the other one had
that red flapper? This canister here, that lifts straight up when you flush
it, so all the water can move from all different directions and go down
down the valve. It’s a bigger rush and so the actual time that this
flushes is a little bit shorter than the other one.”


Zimmerman says other higher efficiency models use what’s called a dual-
flush system that sends away one amount of water for liquid waste and
another for solids, with an average of 1.3 gallons.


Another type is the so-called pressure assist, a louder system that
compresses air to force the smaller volume of water out quickly.
Under its new Water Sense Certification program, the EPA has put out
final specifications for the 1.3 models.


Kohler is getting ready to submit six toilet models for certification,
which the EPA compares to its Energy Star program for things like
computers. EPA Water Administrator Benjamin Grumbles says the public
can be confident about a third party certification system the EPA has
created:


“The agency working with the scientific community and with independent
testing organizations want to make sure that consumers, when they see that
Water Sense label, they will be able to have confidence that the
product will perform well, and it will lead to increased savings. Not
just in terms of water, but also reduce the water bill and reduce the
energy bill as well.”


But it may take a while to build that confidence. At a home remodeling
show, bathroom fixtures store owner Rich Libbey said he’s seen low-flow
toilets elsewhere that have not worked properly.


“Some of the Carribean Islands that are desert islands flush on a
European quart of water, but they don’t clean the bowl. So, later on in
the evenings, for example at a bar or resort, the toilet gets kind of
gamey.”


But Libbey says he’s willing to give companies like Kohler the benefit
of the doubt of reliably getting to 1.3 gallons per flush. Like most
high-efficiency energy-saving systems, the up-front costs are a little
higher.


The Kohler Corporation says its new high-efficiency toilets might cost
an extra fifty dollars to buy, but estimates the financial payback of
using less water could come in just a couple years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Getting Paid to Recycle

  • If you don't recycle, the bin can make a handy shelf. Cities are trying to get people who don't recycle much or at all... to get into the habit by offering them incentives.

Recycling can have some economic benefits. But as a country, we’re
just not doing that much of it. The US Environmental Protection
Agency says the national recycling rate has been hovering around 30%
for several years now. Rebecca Williams reports some cities
are trying to get people to recycle more… by paying them to recycle:

Transcript

Recycling can have some economic benefits. But as a country, we’re
just not doing that much of it. The US Environmental Protection
Agency says the national recycling rate has been hovering around 30%
for several years now. Rebecca Williams reports some cities
are trying to get people to recycle more… by paying them to recycle:


It’s not easy getting someone to admit they don’t recycle. But I was
over at my friend Andrea’s house for dinner, and she confessed.


(Sound of Andrea opening a can of beans)


“Normally I would take this can and throw it away in the garbage and
never look at it again. I don’t really like cleaning garbage to throw
it away.”


Now in her defense, she doesn’t really produce that much trash to begin
with. Maybe just one small bag a week.


Andrea says it just feels like too much work to recycle. Taking the
labels off, cleaning out the cans, walking down four flights of stairs.
Though they’re indoors and carpeted.


(Sound of garage door opening)


Right now she’s using her recycle bin as a shelf. She’s got some books
and a quart of oil sitting on it.


If Andrea did recycle, she’d have to drag her bin out to the curb from
the garage. About oh, three feet or so.


“In the mornings I run pretty late so just taking the garbage out and
lugging it down the stairs along with my bags for work is quite a hassle in
and of itself and I’m proud of myself for doing that, so… (laughs).”


Now… my friend can’t be the only one out there who doesn’t recycle.
A recent survey found that 28 states reported a decrease in their
recycling rates since 2001.


That’s not good news for cities, because cities can benefit from
recycling. If they can divert enough recyclables from the waste
stream, they can avoid some of the high costs of disposing waste in
landfills.


But even if you have trucks that drive around and pick up people’s cans
and newspapers from their curbs, there’s no guarantee they’ll put them
out there for you.


Unless, of course, you offer them a reward.


Some cities on the East Coast are paying people to recycle. They’re
using a company called RecycleBank.


With RecycleBank, you get a recycling container with a tracking chip
embedded in it. You can toss all your cans and newspapers and bottles
into that one container… so, none of that annoying sorting.


Ron Gonen is the company’s co-founder.


“There’s a mechanical arm on the truck that picks up your container,
reads the chip, identifies that your household recycled and how much
your household recycled. The amount that your household recycled is
translated into RecycleBank dollars.”


Those RecycleBank dollars can be cashed in as coupons to shop at more
than 300 stores.


“We really look at it from the lens of the recycling industry and that if
your household recycles you’re actually creating value, and some of
that value should be passed back to you.”


Gonen says each family can earn up to $400 a year. He says people are
so into it, they’re even bringing stuff from work to recycle at home.
And he says recycling rates have tripled or even quadrupled in
neighborhoods using RecycleBank.


But some cities have found incentives only work up to a point. So
they’re making it against the law not to recycle. Seattle, for
example, won’t pick up your trash if there’s stuff in it that could be
recycled.


Timothy Croll is Seattle’s Solid Waste Director. He says trash
collectors aren’t going through trash cans, but they are peeking in.


“It’s not like we’re taking these things into an MRI or anything like
that it’s just what the garbage collector can see at the top when they
open the lid.”


Croll says the law works. He says only a few trash cans have been left
behind with a note. And Seattle did try incentives first. The city
charges residents less for trash collection if they use a teeny little
trash can and recycle a lot more. Croll says that’s been pretty
successful. But he says the city wanted to push for even more
recycling… so, they made it a law.


“Some tools work better for some people than others. For some people
it might be they know it’s the right thing to do, but their lives are
busy, and unless you give them one more reason they’re just not going
to get over that threshold and do it. It’s like yeah I know, I know I
should floss too, you know?”


Croll says it’s up to cities to first make recycling convenient… And
then try sweetening the deal.


You know, my non-recycling friend DOES recycle her soda cans. She
lives in Michigan, so she gets 10 cents back for each one. It’s enough
of an incentive that she’s saving bags of cans at work and stashing
cans in every corner under her kitchen sink.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Governments Accountable to Great Lakes?

A commission that advises the US and
Canadian governments on the Great Lakes wants to
see more accountability from Washington and
Ottawa. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

A commission that advises the US and
Canadian governments on the Great Lakes wants to
see more accountability from Washington and
Ottawa. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The International Joint Commission is focusing its latest report on
getting the US and Canada to set up an accountability plan for
restoring and protecting the Great Lakes.


US Commissioner Allen Olson says one example of accountability is
getting Congress to approve money for an Asian Carp barrier near
Chicago to keep the foreign fish out of the lakes.


“There are a number of members of the United States Congress of both
parties that are immediately accountable to address that issue.”


Canadian Commissioner Jack Blaney says the governments also have to be
accountable to what citizens said at recent IJC hearings:


“They want to swim at their beaches, they want to be able to eat the
fish. They want to be able to take water out of the lakes that they
don’t have to spend enormous sums treating.”


The IJC wants a preliminary plan to be ready by the summer of next
year.


For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Water Intakes Kill Aquatic Life

Billions of fish and other aquatic organisms
are killed every year by industrial plants located on
waterways. Brad Linder reports that environmental
regulators are hoping to bring those numbers down:

Transcript

Billions of fish and other aquatic organisms
are killed every year by industrial plants located on
waterways. Brad Linder reports that environmental
regulators are hoping to bring those numbers down:


Power plants, oil refineries, and other industrial plants often have
cooling systems that rely on river water. But when water is sucked
into the cooling tanks, so are fish and other tiny organisms.


John Hughes is the state of Delaware’s environmental secretary. He says companies could use systems that recycle water but few want to spend the money:


“Every refinery in America looks up into the air and
worries about their emissions. That’s where the bulk of their
investments go in pollution controls. And when you bring up water, you
get that blank look, like ‘what now?'”


Hughes says federal rules let companies sidestep water regulations if
upgrading is considered too costly. But Hughes says
he is asking local companies to step up… and if that doesn’t work,
his state might pass tougher regulations.


For the Environment Report, I’m Brad Linder.

Related Links

Farm Workers Back in Court to Fight Pesticide

Environmental groups are back in
court to challenge the use of the main pesticide
used in growing cherries and apples. Bob Allen
reports the environmentalists had set aside their
lawsuit while waiting for EPA to issue new rules
for applying the chemical during a phase-out period:

Transcript

Environmental groups are back in
court to challenge the use of the main pesticide
used in growing cherries and apples. Bob Allen
reports the environmentalists had set aside their
lawsuit while waiting for EPA to issue new rules
for applying the chemical during a phase-out period:


Azinphos-Methyl or AZM is a highly toxic chemical that
affects the nervous system. Last November, EPA released
stricter rules for applying it and they gave apple and
cherry growers another six years to phase it out.


Environmental groups say that’s much too long, and they’ve
taken up their suit again.


Shelley Davis is with Farmworker Justice. She says EPA was
supposed to weigh the cost to growers against the health
risks to workers and their families.


“The problem here is that EPA didn’t do that. All it did
was total up the financial benefit to the growers. And
that’s what we said to the court is not a fair deal.”


Regulators say growers need more time to learn to use
alternative pesticides.


For the Environment Report, I’m Bob Allen.

Related Links

Phasing Out a Teflon Chemical

DuPont says it will phase out a chemical that is
used to make Teflon coatings for things such as pots and
pans. Rebecca Williams reports the EPA says the chemical
stays in the human body and the environment for a long time:

Transcript

DuPont says it will phase out a chemical that is
used to make Teflon coatings for things such as pots and
pans. Rebecca Williams reports the EPA says the chemical
stays in the human body and the environment for a long time:


The chemical’s called PFOA or p-foah. An EPA science advisory board
has suggested that PFOA might cause cancer.


The EPA says it’s still deciding whether PFOA poses a significant
health risk. By 2015, the agency wants DuPont to eliminate any chance
of PFOA getting into the environment.


DuPont says it can do that. David Boothe is a global business manager
for DuPont:


“PFOA is present in the blood of the general population and that raises
questions that need to be answered. It’s important to note, though,
that DuPont believes that there are no human health effects known to be
caused by PFOA even though study of the chemical continues.”


Some environmental health activists worry that PFOA fumes emitted when
Teflon pans overheat might be more toxic than anyone is willing to
admit.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Tossing Food Scraps to the Worms

Every day we have to deal with throwing away
garbage. For most, that means taking it to the curb.
But some people keep the food scraps for something
special. Richard Annal has the story of a
family that’s using a money-saving, all-natural way
to dispose of food waste:

Transcript

Every day we have to deal with throwing away
garbage. For most, that means taking it to the curb.
But some people keep the food scraps for something
special. Richard Annal has the story of a
family that’s using a money-saving, all-natural way
to dispose of food waste:


I’m driving through the rain to meet a woman who’s doing something I’ve
heard about for years but have never actually seen. And she’s doing it in her basement. She’s taking her
family’s food scraps and feeding them to worms downstairs. Brenda
Lotito’s home is white and brown, and sits on a little hill in a suburban
neighborhood. Brenda is expecting me and greets me at the door. Behind
her, there’s a little commotion. That’s her son John and the family dog,
Charlie.


I have a seat at the kitchen table. I find out it was John who first
took an interest in worms. He likes the red, slimy night crawlers:


“What sparked my interest in the worms is how they feel when you touch
them and how you can’t hold them very well because they keep slipping
out of your hands.”


With a little research at their local library, Brenda and John found
worms work as a natural garbage disposal. So for the past five years,
instead of putting the garbage out, they’ve been feeding the worms.
They turn the food scraps into compost.


We all head down to the basement, including Charlie, the dog. That’s
where Brenda keeps the family’s worm box.


The Lotitos have a typical basement. Washer, dryer, sports equipment…
and a box of worms. It’s wood. It’s about 2 feet wide by 4 feet long.
Brenda tells me they can be different sizes depending on what you need.
This one is more than large enough for Brenda, John, her husband, and
Charlie, the dog. Brenda says she can put just about all her food waste
into the box:


“I don’t put meat or anything like that in there but we put all our
vegetables. Ya know, I don’t have to cut anything up. I just simply
throw the corn cobs in there throw the husks in there. And they eat
it.”


I open the lid and peer in. The first thing I notice is what I don’t
notice. There’s no offensive odor. The only smell I do detect is that
of fresh earth. I move the contents of the box around. There’s some
shredded newspapers, some corn cobs in the process of becoming worm
food, coffee grounds, and other food waste.


After a little poking around, I find the worms: dozens of red,
well-fed looking worms. They’re fat.


Brenda tells me she has been making worm boxes for years and she thinks
others can benefit from her experience. She’s selling worm composting
kits for a small price. She says worm boxing is easy to get started,
takes a little investment, and the maintenance is low:


“Once you buy a batch of red worms, they’ll just keep on multiplying every
7 to 10 days, and um, you’ve got yourself a great composting bin.”


Brenda says worm box composting has a lot of benefits. In her town,
the trash pick-up service charges by volume. So, she saves money on her
garbage bill by putting most food waste into the box instead of the
trash can.


And she saves money on fertilizer. Brenda is a gardener. The compost
left by the worms is a great all-natural fertilizer. And in addition,
the worm’s, um, leavings work as a natural bug repellant as well:


“What it does is it makes the plant create an enzyme that is bitter to
aphids and other creatures.”


And Brenda thinks fewer chemicals and fossil fuel-based fertilizers
makes the food in her garden that much better:


“You know I can pick the tomato right off the plant. Ya know, wipe it
off, wash it off, And feel comfortable that I’m putting it in my mouth.
Everything has come from the earth. It’s a circle, it’s awesome.”


Brenda says to her, the biggest benefit of worm box composting comes
from letting people know there’s another way to dispose of food waste.
It’s all-natural. It means less garbage to pick up, less garbage to
fill up the landfill, and at the same time it saves money, provides a
superior fertilizer that’s all organic, and puts nutrients back into
the Earth… where they come from.


For the Environment Report, I’m Richard Annal.

Related Links

Polars Bearing Weight of Global Warming

  • These polar bears lives at the Pittsburgh zoo where food is plentiful. In the wild, however, global warming might be making it harder for the bears to find food. (Photo by Reid Frazier)

If global warming is represented by one symbol, it
might be the polar bear. It’s an icon of the North
Polar region. Now, federal biologists have asked that
polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. They’re the first species to be considered
for protection because of global warming. Reid Frazier
reports that the polar bear might help connect the
abstract idea of global warming with the concrete
actions of people in their homes:

Transcript

If global warming is represented by one symbol, it
might be the polar bear. It’s an icon of the North
Polar region. Now, federal biologists have asked that
polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. They’re the first species to be considered
for protection because of global warming. Reid Frazier
reports that the polar bear might help connect the
abstract idea of global warming with the concrete
actions of people in their homes:


(Sound of kids talking to polar bears)


Parents and children gather around a large window to watch Nuka and
Koda frolick in the aqua water tank. The polar bears are having a
blast. They splash and dive, play with foam toys, and duck their heads
underwater to look around. The young brothers are only two-years-old
and already they weigh 600 pounds each. These bears, born and raised in
zoos, eat about 18 pounds of food a day. But, their cousins in the wild
are finding food much harder to come by these days.


Henry Kacprzyk is a curator at the Pittsburgh Zoo. He wants crowds to
know just how fragile the bears’ situation is. Walking along a
boardwalk near the exhibit, Kacprzyk points to a sign. It welcomes
visitors to “Piertown,” a replica village designed to resemble a
growing Alaska fishing town:


“The thing to note here is the human population has increased from 110
to 1,712, on the other side the bear population has declined, from 1,784
to 368, which, the message there is, as humans increase in population in some
of the bears’ habitat, the bears go down. It’s a sad but true fact.”


The situation for the world’s 25,000 polar bears is increasingly dire.
Besides people crowding them out, overfishing has depleted arctic
waters of fish for seals to eat, and seals are the bears’ main source
of food.


But here’s the biggest problem: the polar ice cap is melting. That’s
depriving the bears of a main hunting ground. The vast majority of
scientists attribute this to global warming. They say the warming is
caused by a buildup in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from burning
fossil fuels.


Scott Schliebe is a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service. His
team recommended polar bears be added to the protected list because
they’re losing their habitat. Schliebe says the bears need sea ice to
hunt seals. No sea ice means no food for the bears:


“They will wait at a breathing hole for a seal and wait until the seal comes up
and then catch the seal. They’re not effective at hunting seals in open
water, seals have the severe advantage of being able to outpace the polar bears in that environment.”


In areas with receding ice, polar bears are already hurting. Scientists
see the world’s polar bear population shrinking by a third in the next
50 years.


Back at the Pittsburgh zoo, the polar bears are a big hit with
visitors. They helped the zoo break an attendance record last year.
Curator Henry Kacprzyk hopes visitors tie their own behavior with the
plight of the arctic:


“It’s sometimes little things, as a general family, for instance, what you
can do is conservation of fuel and energy, keeping your lights off,
maybe living closer to work is a great idea. By choosing conservation
you can make a difference.”


The bears are popular with Cindy Jagielski, who’s visiting the zoo with
her small grandchild. Jagielski’s worried the bears will one day become
extinct but she admits she doesn’t know much about global warming:


“Maybe it’s just the Earth’s changing. I don’t know that industry has
anything to do with the melting of the ice there. Maybe it’s just a
natural occurrence.”


Despite some lingering doubts over what causes global warming,
polar bears are a popular cause. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
already received 40,000 emailed comments since it proposed protecting
the species. The Service will make its final decision on protecting
polar bears by next January.


For the Environment Report, this is Reid Frazier.

Related Links

Flex-Fuel Economy Questioned

If you plan to buy a new car or truck this
year, you might find some showrooms filled with
vehicles that run largely on ethanol instead of
gasoline. Car companies are pushing these corn-fueled vehicles as environmentally friendly.
Julie Grant takes a look at those claims:

Transcript

If you plan to buy a new car or truck this
year, you might find some showrooms filled with
vehicles that run largely on ethanol instead of
gasoline. Car companies are pushing these corn-fueled vehicles as environmentally friendly.
Julie Grant takes a look at those claims:


More people are considering buying cleaner, more fuel-efficient
cars now that gas prices and global temperatures are on the rise. The gas-
electric hybrids made by Toyota and Honda are becoming popular. And
American car companies are also jumping on board and offering alternative-
powered vehicles.


General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner has put much of his company’s stock in
ethanol:


“At GM, we believe that the bio-fuel with the greatest potential to
displace petroleum-based fuels in the US is ethanol, and so we have
made a major commitment here to vehicles that can run on E85 ethanol.”


E85 is a blend that’s 85% ethanol with 15% gasoline. GM’s not the only company offering cars that run on them:


(Sound of vehicle introduction)


Angela Hines is from Green Bay, Wisconsin. She’s taking notes as she looks at one
flex fuel car. The E85 only matters to her if it’s going to save her a
few bucks:


“I drive anywhere from 80-200 miles
a day for work, so yeah, gas is important.”


Gui Derochers is looking at a Chevy Silverado pickup truck:


(Grant:) “Does it matter to you that it’s a flex fuel?”


“I think it’s a good thing… flex-fuel. Particularly, we know there are some ethanol plants in Michigan coming, right? Isn’t
that what flex fuel is? Ethanol?”


Derochers works on engines and transmissions:


“You have to remember, I work for Daimler-Chrysler. But we have flex fuel as well. It’s a good thing. It’s wonderful.”


But not everyone thinks the move toward ethanol-fueled cars is
wonderful. Tadeusz Patzek is a professor of civil and environmental
engineering at the University of California in Berkeley. He says
ethanol is not cheaper and it’s not any better for the environment than
regular gas.


Patzek says each gallon of ethanol burned might emit less greenhouse gas
into the air, but you have to burn more fuel to go the same distance:


“So, mile for mile, emissions of CO2 are exactly the same for gasoline as
they are for ethanol. Because they are proportional to the energy stored in
the fuel.”


When it comes to gas mileage, Patzek calls claims that ethanol is any
better then gasoline an imaginary economy… and he’s not alone. When
Consumer Reports magazine tested a Chevy Tahoe that runs on gas mixed
with only ten percent ethanol, the truck got 14 miles per gallon. But
it got less than 11 miles per gallon when the ethanol content was
raised to 85%, as in E85. That’s a 27% drop in fuel economy with E85.


Consumer Reports concluded that to go the same distance, you wind up paying more than a dollar
extra per gallon on E85 then on regular
gas.


Patzek says it’s not a good deal for consumers or for the environment:


“You emit less because you have oxygen but you burn more, so it comes as a wash.”


Patzek says ethanol has other environmental costs. To grow the corn needed to make it, farmers have to use more fossil fuel-based fertilizers, tractor fuel, and then more fuel to truck the fuel to gas stations.


Even so, many scientists say ethanol still provides an energy benefit over fossil fuels and some auto engineers say ethanol cars
are just a stop-gap measure until a better technology comes along, but Patzek disagrees with that logic:


“So, you’re saying the following: why don’t we have a terribly bad
solution and call it a stop-gap solution because it’s politically
convenient. I’m saying is, if I’m an engineer, I have to, essentially, if I’m honest with myself and others, do I want a
better technological solution or do I want to say, let’s do probably the worst possible solution
that delays other solutions 10-15 years into the future… while the
world is running out of time?”


Patzek says the real reason American car companies are moving toward
vehicles that run on E85 is that the federal government rewards them
for it.


GM and the others get extra credit for meeting fuel efficiency
standards just for making cars that can run on E85, even if those cars
aren’t more fuel efficient.


Patzek knows he’s become unpopular among many farmers, engineers,
scientists and politicians who want easy answers. He wants people to
start reducing their energy-use rather than waiting for technological
magic bullets.


For the Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Colleges Graded on Sustainability

A new report on sustainability is grading
the top 100 colleges and universities in the
country. Tracy Samilton reports the grades
reflect the institution’s environmental and
endowment practices:

Transcript

A new report on sustainability is grading
the top 100 colleges and universities in the
country. Tracy Samilton reports the grades
reflect the institution’s environmental and
endowment practices:


The top 100 colleges and universities in the country just got their
report cards grading them on sustainability. There are a few A’s, a
lot of B’s and C’s, and more D’s than you might really hope to see.


Mark Orlowski is head of Sustainable Endowments Institute. He says
colleges were graded in seven areas, including recycling and whether
the institution considers more than profit when managing its endowment
portfolio.


He says Dartmouth, for example, buys locally produced food, and
Stanford stands out for its endowment practices:


“We recognize Stanford for being the first school in the
country to adopt climate change shareholder voting guidelines.”


Orlowski says he hopes the annual report will encourage colleges to
make sustainability more of a priority.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links