Scientists are reporting vast expanses of open water in polar bear habitat due to thinning and melting ice (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
Polar bear researchers off Alaska’s
northern coast found striking differences in
sea ice conditions recently. Lori Townsend
reports:
Transcript
Polar bear researchers off Alaska’s
northern coast found striking differences in
sea ice conditions recently. Lori Townsend
reports:
Dr. Steven Amstrup is a polar bear expert and USGS wildlife biologist.
“This is the first time in my 28 years working up here this time of year that we’ve seen anything like
this.”
Amstrup is conducting yearly research on polar bears in Alaska’s Arctic. He says getting out to pack ice usually means
flying over a narrow expanse of open water called a lead.
“But this year that lead is wide open, we have no idea really how wide it is, but its way too far for us to
fly across. So we’ve been limited to hunting in a fairly narrow band of ice that’s fairly near shore.”
Amstrup says the open water is consistent with warming conditions that result in
thinner ice. Polar bears rely on pack ice for hunting seals and other marine
mammals.
The polar bear is now listed as a threatened species (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The federal government has announced that
it’s listing the polar bear as a threatened species.
Biologists say the rapid loss of sea ice from
the warming climate is putting the bears at risk.
Mark Brush reports the government is now facing
legal action from some conservative groups:
Transcript
The federal government has announced that
it’s listing the polar bear as a threatened species.
Biologists say the rapid loss of sea ice from
the warming climate is putting the bears at risk.
Mark Brush reports the government is now facing
legal action from some conservative groups:
In the announcement Secretary of the Interior Dick Kempthorne tried to make it clear –
the listing doesn’t mean the government is regulating greenhouse gases. He says the
listing can’t be used to stop oil and gas drilling or to go after industries for releasing
carbon dioxide.
Reed Hopper is the principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation – a conservative
public interest group. He says he still expects lawsuits from environmentalists. And that
the Secretary can’t control how the courts will interpret the new listing.
“If the activists are able to use this as they intend, to challenge industrial activity in the
United States, the ultimate effect on the average person is going to be an increase in
energy costs, transportation, fuel, food and housing.”
Hopper says his group is planning to go forward with a lawsuit of their own – opposing the listing.
Michaels' book about industry's influence on science. (Oxford University Press)
Bisphenol-A, in bottles like these, is one instance where Michaels says companies are calling for more data, even though the picture is clear (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.
Transcript
There’s a lot of confusion about global
warming. Is it real or not? Are the ingredients
in our food, our soap, the household products we
use all safe? Even if they’re not, there’s a
whole industry that’s working to make you, and
Congress, uncertain. David Michaels recently wrote
about this. His book is titled ‘Doubt is Their
Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens
Your Health.’ Lester Graham talked with Michaels,
who says companies today base their approach on the
tactics of big tobacco. The tobacco companies
successfully obscured the connections between
smoking and lung cancer for decades.
David Michaels: “Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years as
they can, they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be disturbed. It works.”
Lester Graham: “We hear about Bisphenol-A in plastics, of course we hear about mercury in fish,
phthalates, even something like dioxin – industry scientists say ‘we’re safe, these are in minute
quantities’ or ‘the jury is out on just how dangerous this chemical is’. If they are dangerous, why
doesn’t the government make that determination and phase these products out?”
Michaels: “Well, right now, the Bush administration has absolutely abdicated its responsibility to
protect the public’s health and the environment. It’s not even a question of phasing them out, the
Bush administration has turned a blind eye, and said ‘we’re not even going to think about those
chemicals’. I’m hoping that as public consciousness of this increases, we’ll have more demand on
regulatory agencies to do something.”
Graham: “You’re very critical of the Bush administration in the book, saying scientific review
boards are stacked with industry officials. Why, or how, does the scientific community continue to
allow that?”
Michaels: “Well, the scientific community doesn’t have the power to stop it. But the scientific
community has me furious about this. And over and over again, not just individual scientists, but
mainstream science organizations, like the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
have issued statements, have passed resolutions complaining, criticizing the Bush administration.
But that’s all we can do. Congress has to stop it. And, the American public has to stop it.”
Graham: “The members of the Bush administration often point out, ‘hey we can’t make knee-jerk
reactions, over some single study, or even a small group of studies, we really need to rely on
sound science, this needs more review’. And it sounds like common sense to many of us.”
Michaels: “Well, when I hear the Bush administration call for ‘sound science’, I see what they’re
doing is calling for something that sounds like science, but isn’t. Bisphenol-A is a great example.
There are well over 100 studies showing that this causes endocrine disorders and reproductive
disorders in laboratory animals. And there are less than a dozen studies that say it doesn’t cause
it. The question we have to ask is: should we be exposing our babies, our children, ourselves to
potentially toxic chemicals that we don’t know that they’re safe?”
Graham: “And Bisphenol-A is, of course, used in plastics, in liners of canned foods, and so forth.
It’s a product that we come across a lot.”
Michaels: “Not only that, the studies are right now that 90% of us have Bisphenol-A in our body.
We can tell that from studies where we’re are excreting it in our urine. So, it’s out there are we’re
being exposed to it. We don’t know what the effects are, but since it causes harm in animals, why
should we be exposing ourselves to it?”
Graham: “You note that journalists are often the victims of their own determination to get both
sides of the story. What are you suggesting? That journalists ignore industry when it questions
studies or scientific method? That would assume that corporations are always bad actors.”
Michaels: “No, but I think it’s very important to note, for example, when an industry scientist
criticizing the study, to note, for example, that, you know, that this criticism is being paid for by the
industry. But the other criticisms, which are, you know, are independent, often paid for by the
government through grants to universities, are independent, and therefore have a lot more validity.
We have example after example, in the book, and all through the medical literature, of companies
that essentially create studies that provide the results they want. In my reviewing it, I’ve never
found a study which disagrees with what the sponsor wanted them to hear. It’s just overwhelming.”
Environmentally friendly architecture is
becoming very common. Architects are designing
innovative, cutting edge, energy-efficient homes,
using renewable resources. But, Lester Graham
reports on another approach that recycles an
entire house:
Transcript
Environmentally friendly architecture is
becoming very common. Architects are designing
innovative, cutting edge, energy-efficient homes,
using renewable resources. But, Lester Graham
reports on another approach that recycles an
entire house:
You know, we’re always hearing about new green building construction – new homes with all the
latest. That’s nice, but it’s a little ironic to think about all those resources being used to
build new to save resources.
That’s why I kinda got interested when I read about Matt
and Kelly Grocoff. They bought a modest, century-old house and started making
energy-efficient changes. A lot of them as Matt showed me in the bathroom.
“We have the motion-sensor light. We have the compact fluorescent bulbs. We have a
dual-flush toilet that will use only (flushing sound) use point-eight gallons for a flush.
This is actually a one-gallon-per-minute shower head. It will save you at least $100 in
electricity your first year of having that because of the eleven-thousand gallons of hot
water that you’re going to be saving. (faucet sound) This faucet aerator is also point-
five-gallons-a-minute. It’s plenty of water to wash your hands. Most people will never
notice that they’re using two-gallons-per-minute less in this faucet than another faucet.”
(stairs sound)
And that’s just the bathroom. As the couple took me upstairs, they told me about the really,
really efficient geo-thermal heat. They insulated everywhere. It’s tight. But everything
was off-the-shelf. None of that, ‘oh this is custom, you can’t buy it anywhere’, type
stuff.
Kelly Grocoff says if your house is a statement about you, then having a low-impact on
the earth’s resources and reducing greenhouse gas emissions is part of the statement they
want to make.
“For us, we proclaim loud and clear this is where our values are. And this is where we’re
going to spend our time and it’s incredibly important to us.”
And with all the efficiencies, all the updates, the house looked normal, comfortable. And
the Grocoff’s say that’s the way it should be.
Matt: “One of the things with building green, everyone thinks that you’re going to sacrifice
something, you’re going to spend more money and you’re not going to be as
comfortable. And that is completely not true anymore.”
Kelly: “We have made zero sacrifices. We have gained enormously. And we have no
time to waste. Your house is the number one place where you can make a significant
impact on a daily basis. For me there’s no other choice to be made.”
Matt and Kelly Grocoff say doing something about reducing energy use, reducing the
emissions that are causing global warming, and re-using old lumber and this old house
is just a start for them. They want to help other people do it too. That’s why they’re
launching an online site for do-it-yourselfers called ‘GreenovationTV.com’
Matt: “Uh, through Greenovation TV, we’re going to take everything that we’ve learned from
this house and teach others about it.”
Kelly: “We need that kind of resource there as we’re going through this process. And so there was hours upon hours spent researching things. And that’s kind of the goal with this station.”
Matt: “Once you have the knowlege to do it, it’s really, really easy.”
The Grocoff’s say the one thing holding people back from making their homes more
environmentally friendly is they feel like they have to do it all or it won’t be right. They
say just take the first step. Even if it’s just changing to a lower-energy compact
fluorescent bulb, it’s a good start.
The creation of 'green-collar' jobs may help the Rust Belt's unemployment problems (Photo by Lester Graham)
The nation’s economy is in decline, and
the middle states that make up the Rust Belt have
been hit particularly hard with job losses. Some
Midwest states have turned to a new type of
manufacturing and the so-called green collar jobs
it creates. Marianne Holland reports:
Transcript
The nation’s economy is in decline, and
the middle states that make up the Rust Belt have
been hit particularly hard with job losses. Some
Midwest states have turned to a new type of
manufacturing and the so-called green collar jobs
it creates. Marianne Holland reports:
Nationwide, just over half the states have passed some sort of laws or incentives geared at
getting green manufacturing jobs. In the nation’s rust belt,
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Ohio already have green policy in place.
Ron Pernick is a co-founder of CleanEdge. That’s a national green manufacturing research
organization. Pernick says those jobs, are in one of the major growth sectors in American
manufacturing. They’re growing at a rate of about 30% each year. In Iowa, property tax abatements are given to green manufacturing. In Illinois, the state has passed laws requiring utilities to get a portion of their energy from wind or solar power. Pernick says public policy translates to more jobs.
“If you think about creating new industry, you can’t export development. You’ve got to
hire local people to put in the wind turbines, to install the solar farms, to put solar on top
of rooftops. And those jobs can never be exported.”
But other states have been slow to change policy to embrace green manufacturing. In Michigan, green energy legislation has been tied up in
the State Senate. An in states like Indiana, there are no laws or business incentives even on the table to attract the green
manufacturing industry.
Indiana State Representative Ryan Dvorak blames the big power companies for lobbying against incentives to create green jobs.
“I’m not sure why they have so much sway in the state with the different legislators but
they don’t want to give up any ground basically. Obviously they make their money by
generating and selling electricity, so any loss in market share, they’re motivated to
stop that legislation.”
The power companies say they’re just looking out for their customers.
Angeline Protegere is a spokesperson for Duke Energy. Protegere says renewable energy is
moving forward without state regulations. She says Duke understands that some day
regulations will come. But she says that will be at a high risk.
“We constantly have to balance our environmental responsibilities with our economic
responsibilities to our customers because they pay for the cost of pollution control
through their bills.”
And the power companies’ lobbyists persuade legislators it’s in the best interests of the people to block incentives for green jobs. Representative Dvorak thinks his colleagues are being misled.
Jesse Kharbanda is with the Hoosier Environmental Council. He says in his state and others that ignore the green jobs opportunity, workers are being left behind.
“We’re obviously in this situation where Indiana has historically had a formidable
manufacturing base and that base has been continuously eroded because of globalization.
We’re not in any time going to fundamentally change Indiana’s economy and so we have
to deal with the labor force as it is. We have a good, technically minded labor base, but
the question is: what sectors are we creating in the state to employ that technical labor
base. And one of them ought to be the green technology sector.”
Kharbanda says it’s a state’s public policy, tax breaks, and other incentives that will attract the
most green collar jobs. Without those incentives, unemployed factory workers in Rust Belt
states will have to hope for some kind of recovery in manufacturing, or take lower paying, service sector jobs.
A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
A sign on the Tittabawassee River, downriver from Dow Chemical Plant, stating to avoid contact with the soil and not eat the fish due to dioxin contamination (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
Transcript
It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:
(sound of backyard)
Kathy Henry’s backyard runs down to the bank of the Tittabawassee River.
It’s a beautiful view, but that’s not what Kathy Henry sees.
“When I look back there now, I see dioxin.”
You can’t really see the dioxin, but it is there. Dow Chemical started
dumping dioxin into the Tittabawasee river in the 1890s. Dioxin is believed
to cause cancer and damage reproductive systems. And, there are high
concentrations of dioxin not only in the Tittabawasee, but in all the water
and floodplains between the chemical plant and Lake Huron 50 miles
downstream.
Kathy Henry first found out about the dioxin seven years ago when a
whistleblower at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
warned local environmentalists about the contamination. She has wanted to
sell her house ever since.
“We’ve lived here for 24 years. We loved living in here. Now I’m afraid to
go out in my own yard. I just, psychologically, couldn’t stand living here
anymore. I had to get out.”
Dow says it will clean up any dioxin that’s proven to be dangerous to human
health, but the company has spent decades fighting with Michigan and the
US Environmental Protection Agency over how much of it is a threat.
Dow spokesman John Musser says there’s no proof anyone has gotten sick
because of the dioxin.
“We’re not seeing any impacts. We’re not seeing any cause for alarm. We’re
not seeing any imminent health threat. If it’s not a problem for humans or
the environment, then maybe the best thing to do is to leave it alone.”
But Michigan environmental officials are not so laissez-faire about the
contamination. They continue to warn residents about eating fish from the
rivers, about eating wild game killed in the region, and about swimming at
some beaches.
Robert McCann is with the state of Michigan. He says science is way past
the point of debating whether dioxin is dangerous.
“Study after study has shown that there are some very serious potential health
effects from being exposed to it, even at some lower levels over a long
period of time and those health effects do include things like cancer and
diabetes as well as some more minor health effects that can be caused from it.”
But Dow does debate whether dioxin is dangerous. John Musser says
Michigan and the EPA are using bad science based on dioxin exposure to lab
animals. He says Dow has human data from employees that show dioxin is
not as dangerous as people think.
“They were exposed at extremely high levels. And we’ve tracked their
health and their death records for 60 years and we’re not finding any ill
health effects.”
Attacking regulatory science is a common defense for industries. David
Michaels is an epidemiologist at George Washington University. He says
just like big tobacco questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer,
big business always questions the science.
“Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years
as they can they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be
disturbed. It works.”
For example, a recent meeting supposed to update residents about clean up
efforts turned into more of a debate between government scientists and scientists
hired by Dow. One member of the audience got sick of it.
“I’m not a geologist, I’m not a toxicologist, I’m just a resident that lives on
the river. And the last I knew dioxin was the most toxic substance known to
man. And what I’m seeing here is you guys trying to find excuses to justify
poisoning us.”
The EPA recently forced Dow to clean up four hot spots along the river,
including one spot with the highest concentration of dioxin ever found in the
United States.
But the last few months have had more set backs than
progress. In January, the EPA gave up trying to negotiate a clean up
agreement separate from Michigan’s. It said Dow’s proposals were going
backward.
Earlier this month the Region 5 director of the EPA was fired. Mary Gade
says it was because of her tough stance against Dow Chemical.
The Tehachapi Wind Farm in California. The turbines produce enough electricity to meet the needs of 350,000 people each year (Photo courtesy of the Department Energy)
Large wind turbines are popping up all over
the United States. But some homeowners are beginning
to put up their own backyard wind turbines. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
Large wind turbines are popping up all over
the United States. But some homeowners are beginning
to put up their own backyard wind turbines. Lester
Graham reports:
Dozens of companies are popping up, making these smaller wind generators.
Southwest Windpower is one of the older manufacturers.
Andy Kruse is a Vice President there.
He says these smaller wind turbines can supply power for houses on the grid; maybe
even enough to sell some electricity back to the power company. But some states
haven’t passed the laws necessary to require power companies to allow the turbines to
be hooked up to the grid.
“States that have yet to do that, you know, they have to question it. I mean, some of
them have never even heard something like this either for solar or for wind, so it’s a
learning curve for them.”
Kruse says home-grown wind power is starting to catch on, with thousands of people
asking about getting their own small wind turbine put up in their backyard.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
An outfit from American designer Rogan Gregory, which is made of 100% certified organic cotton. The collection arrives in Target stores on May 18th (Photo courtesy of Target)
If you want to buy organic clothes, chances
are you’ll have to order them over the Internet.
But that’s about to change. Lester Graham reports a
big retailer will soon be selling eco-friendly clothes:
Transcript
If you want to buy organic clothes, chances
are you’ll have to order them over the Internet.
But that’s about to change. Lester Graham reports a
big retailer will soon be selling eco-friendly clothes:
The big-box retail store, Target, will soon be carrying a line of environmentally-
friendly clothes for women.
Tim Craig is Editor in Chief for the magazine “Retailing
Today.” He thinks if Target starts carrying eco-friendly clothes, other retailers will take
notice.
“Without a doubt there will be some me-too-ism. And they watch each other very
carefully. Certainly, Kohls and Target go back-and-forth as to who has the leadership position and I
wouldn’t put it past them to have some one-upsmanship, if you will, in the area of
offering sustainable, organic product.”
Craig says it’s unclear whether there’s a demand for those kinds of clothes. But for
women who want eco-friendly clothing, being able to see, touch, and try on clothes
before buying them might persuade them to skip ordering on the internet and instead shop at
the store.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A ship discharging its ballast water (Photo courtesy of the US Geological Survey)
Ships should be bringing in fewer unwanted
pests into the Great Lakes. Both Canada and the
U-S are now requiring ships to flush out their
ballast water tanks before entering the lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
Ships should be bringing in fewer unwanted pests into the Great
Lakes. Both Canada and the U.S. are now requiring ships to flush out their
ballast water tanks before entering the lakes. Tracy Samilton reports:
Ships need to take on ballast water to keep them stable. When they pump in
water from freshwater foreign ports, they also suck up pests.
Since 2006,
Canada has required ships to flush their tanks with salty ocean water
before entering the Great Lakes. The U.S. adopted the requirement at the
start of this year.
Collister Johnson is with the U.S. side of the St.
Lawrence Seaway, which connects the Atlantic Ocean to the Great
Lakes. He says the rule will eliminate almost 99% of freshwater
pests in ballast tanks.
“If they’re exposed to salt water, especially full strength sea water, they
are effectively killed.”
Samilton: “Why didn’t we do this before?”
Johnson: (laughs) “I don’t know.”
It won’t completely eliminate the problem because some aquatic pests can
still survive in the sediment in the bottom of ballast tanks.
Honeybees have been dying at a rapid pace for the second year in a row. (Photo by Rob Flynn, courtesy of the USDA)
For the second year in a row, honeybees
are dying at a startling rate. Mark Brush reports
beekeepers are asking the public for help:
Transcript
For the second year in a row, honeybees are dying at a startling rate. Mark Brush reports
beekeepers are asking the public for help:
Farmers rely on honeybees to pollinate a lot of the food we eat – apples, blueberries,
almonds, soybeans – the list goes on and on.
Beekeepers are losing about a third of their hives each year. The sudden die-off is
known as Colony Collapse Disorder. Researchers are still trying to figure out what’s
making the bees sick.
Dennis vanEngelsdorp is the President of the Apiary Inspectors of America. He says
when the bees get sick, they fly away from the hive to die because they’re social
creatures.
“If you belong to a social group, you don’t want to infect your sisters. And so what we
think is happening. Is these bees somehow are aware that they’re ill, and so they’re flying
away from the colony to die away from the colony.”
vanEngelsdorp says you can help the honeybees by growing plants that bees like in your
backyard, by supporting local beekeepers by buying their honey, or by becoming a
beekeeper yourself.
Scientists are reporting vast expanses of open water in polar bear habitat due to thinning and melting ice (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
