An in-depth look at the future of coal in this country. The Environment Report explores the role that coal plays in our lives and in the lives of those who depend on coal mining for a living. Can coal truly be a viable option in the new green economy? Support for this series comes from the Joyce Foundation.
Credits:
– Written by Mark Brush, Rebecca Williams, Lester Graham and Shawn Allee
– Produced by Mark Brush and Rebecca Williams
– Executive Producer: Tamar Charney
– Additional reporting by Erika Celeste, Sandra Sleight-Brennan. Julie Halpert, and Matt Shafer Powell
– Production coordinator: Jessi Ziegler
– Production assistance from Erin Kelly and Katherine Kelly Martin
– Narrated by Lester Graham
– Web page and slideshow created by Nick Meador
– Music was composed by Paul Brill
– Special thanks to Greenfield Village at The Henry Ford and the Thomas Edison National Historic Park
Photo Slideshow – Click an image for more information
Lester Graham at the coal mine Shay #1 in Macoupin County, Illinois. He's interviewing the mine general manager Roger Dennison.
(Photo courtesy of Phil Ganet)
The coal industry is hopeful
an old technology will help
them clean up an increasingly
unpopular fuel. Lester Graham
reports, without it, coal faces
an uncertain future:
Transcript
The coal industry is hopeful
an old technology will help
them clean up an increasingly
unpopular fuel. Lester Graham
reports, without it, coal faces
an uncertain future:
[Editor’s Note: The script for this story will be posted shortly.]
Critics of sonar say it’s so loud that it confuses whales and other marine animals, and can cause them to be injured or even die.
(Photo courtesy of NOAA)
A new federal ruling could
protect marine animals by
changing how and where
the Navy uses sonar. Samara Freemark reports:
Transcript
A new federal ruling could
protect marine animals by
changing how and where
the Navy uses sonar. Samara Freemark reports:
Critics of sonar say it’s so loud that it confuses whales and other marine animals, and can cause them to be injured or even die. That’s why environmental groups have been pushing for tighter regulations on the technology.
This week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, took a step in that direction. The agency acknowledged that current policies are not doing enough to protect marine mammals. And NOAA says it will identify critical marine habitats impacted by sonar.
Michael Jasny is a policy analyst with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defense Council. He hopes the policy will be a first step to banning sonar in those habitats.
“It’s not a prescription, it’s a plan. And it sets in motion potentially a very significant change. I mean, the proof will be in the pudding, of course.”
Jasny says his organization will work with NOAA and the Navy to negotiate sonar policy so that marine mammals are not hurt.
Debbie Joy, a participant in the University of Ottawa Heart Institute's prevention program for family members.
(Photo by Karen Kelly)
Every year, more than one million
Americans have a heart attack.
The majority survive, thanks
in part to advances in modern
medicine. But Karen Kelly reports
on a program that’s shifting
its focus from miraculous cures
to persuasion – getting the family
of patients with heart disease
to change the ways they live:
Transcript
Every year, more than one million
Americans have a heart attack.
The majority survive, thanks
in part to advances in modern
medicine. But Karen Kelly reports
on a program that’s shifting
its focus from miraculous cures
to persuasion – getting the family
of patients with heart disease
to change the ways they live:
(sound of aerobics class)
It’s a frigid January night in Ottawa, Canada. Most people are curled up on the couch. Debbie Joy is doing push-ups, lifting weights, even hula-hooping.
“After long day – I get up at 5:30, I get to the office at 7:30, I don’t leave there until 4:30, quarter to five. It takes a lot for me to go out and exercise. You just have to be motivated and do it.”
A couple of years ago, Joy didn’t have that motivation. But she did worry.
Both of her parents had died young of heart disease and, in the back of her mind, she knew what she should be doing to take care of herself.
Then she saw an article about a study at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute for the family members of current and former patients.
Bob Reid is directing the study.
He says research has found that family members of patients have a 30 percent chance of contracting heart disease themselves within 10 years.
But there’s been very little focus on this group.
Reid says he and his colleagues realized that if they wanted to focus on prevention, they had a major high-risk group already coming through the door.
“I think anybody who’s practiced in a hospital for any length of time recognizes that sometimes our patients of tomorrow are the family members of our patients today. Families tend to have very similar smoking habits, very similar eating habits, very similar activity habits. This really is a group that can benefit from fairly close attention.”
Close attention is the key to the heart institute’s program.
Family members work with a dietician, a nurse, and personal trainers to set up a new lifestyle. Then, they keep working with them.
Participants keep close track of exercise and their diet. The professionals track blood lipids, weight, and cholesterol levels.
Debbie Joy says it worked.
“The fact that you were watched, you were called every week, it made you follow the program. Then they got you into a routine. So they called you every week for 6 months, then it was dropped to once a month. At that point, you were in a routine and it was easier to follow.”
After three months, Joy’s weight and cholesterol levels dropped – and stayed there. One year later, she’s still exercising four days a week and eating well. It’s a part of her life now – she’s made friends at the gym and her family has adjusted to her new cooking methods.
The ultimate goal for the heart institute is to demonstrate that this works, and to justify funding the family prevention programs full-time.
The ultimate goal for Debbie Joy is quite simply, to live longer.
“You know, I have two kids and I want to be around for my grandchildren. So, it’s never too late.”
The Massachusetts election puts the passage of a climate change bill in doubt.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:
For one, forget a climate change bill.
“Things are not looking good for this bill.”
Darren Samuelson is a reporter with GreenWire. He spent the day yesterday talking with Senators of every stripe.
A vote this year on a climate bill that included a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gases was already in doubt. Now Senators say Massachusetts taught them it’s all about jobs and the economy.
So the climate change bill will become an energy bill – more drilling, offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more natural gas leases.
Samuelson says, judging on what he’s hearing in the Senate, any chance for a climate change bill comes down to just a couple of things.
“It depends on how much of an emphasis President Obama puts on it in his State of the Union address and just how much the Democrats are willing to give the Republicans.”
But since the Republicans had already decided the climate bill was a jobs killer, the win in Massachusetts makes it unlikely the Democrats can give enough to the Republicans to get it passed.
Asian Carp can weigh up to 100 pounds and are notorious for jumping out of the water and injuring boaters.
(Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The US Supreme Court has turned
down a request from Michigan and
other Great Lakes states. They
wanted the locks in a canal to
be closed immediately. That man-made
canal artificially connects the
Mississippi River system and the
Great Lakes. For now at least,
those locks will stay open to cargo
traffic. This fight is all about
a fish, a type of Asian Carp, that
many people don’t want to get into
the Great Lakes. Lester Graham
spoke with David Jude about the
threat of the fish. Jude is a
research scientist and fish biologist
at the University of Michigan:
Transcript
The US Supreme Court has turned
down a request from Michigan and
other Great Lakes states. They
wanted the locks in a canal to
be closed immediately. That man-made
canal artificially connects the
Mississippi River system and the
Great Lakes. For now at least,
those locks will stay open to cargo
traffic. This fight is all about
a fish, a type of Asian Carp, that
many people don’t want to get into
the Great Lakes. Lester Graham
spoke with David Jude about the
threat of the fish. Jude is a
research scientist and fish biologist
at the University of Michigan:
Lester: We keep hearing if this fish gets into the Great Lakes system, it will be devastating for the ecology of the lakes, ruin the commercial and recreational fishing. What is it that all these people think this Asian Carp fish will do to the Great Lakes?
David Jude: Well, I am sure they all watch the video where the fish are jumping out of the river, in the Illinois River, and harming some biologists and some people that are there.
Lester: Smacks them in the head!
David: Yes, so they are very concerned about that. And then biologists are concerned about the fact that they have taken over the river there, they are very voracious feeders, and so they have really crowded out a lot of other fish in the river. So there are a lot of things that are going on with regards to impacts on humans as well as impacts on fish communities that we certainly don’t like.
Lester: And these are big fish, they are up to 100 pounds.
David: Exactly.
Lester: There’s this electric barrier in place in the canal that is supposed to prevent these Asian Carp from swimming from the Mississippi River into the Great Lakes. Environmentalists say that there’s still too much of a risk, too many scenarios where the fish could get through because of flooding or some other scenario, and that canal should be closed. The Obama Administration is fighting that, the state of Illinois if fighting that, they say we need that open. There’s barge traffic carrying steel and rock and gravel and grain, all of this seems to be coming down to money. Is money the right measure when we’re looking at this situation?
David: No, it’s not. I mean traditionally, we’ve gone into the, a lot of these decisions are made and the environmental costs are not taken into consideration. The costs of having that canal open are going to be very very high and, uh, and you have to balance it against what the sport fishery and the commercial fishery is the Great Lakes is going to be because once they get in there it’s going to be a very detrimental impact on them.
Lester: This fish is knocking at the door, we’re not even sure it’s not already in, so, is there a certain inevitability that this fish is going to be in the Great Lakes and we should just start making plans to deal with it?
David: Well, I don’t think it’s inevitable and I think if we did stop them and somehow were able to shut down the Chicago Ship and Sanitary Canal and prevent that avenue, we’d go a long way toward preventing them from coming in. The other avenue for them getting in, of course, is people that like to eat them and they might bring them in and stock them. So, I think we should be doing everything we can right now to stop them, I mean this is our opportunity to do that. But, the other part of it is, because they’re so close, and because as you know there probably could be some in the Lakes already, you know, we should be prepared to have some plans on what we might want to do to try to, you know, focus on some of these optimal spawning sites and see what we can do to keep their populations down there.
Lester: David Jude is a research scientist and fish biologist at the University of Michigan. Thanks for coming in!
A company is using waste from
coal-burning power plants to
make bricks. The firm hopes
to reduce the amount of coal
ash sent to landfills, and,
at the same time, cut the amount
of energy used to make bricks.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
A company is using waste from
coal-burning power plants to
make bricks. The firm hopes
to reduce the amount of coal
ash sent to landfills, and,
at the same time, cut the amount
of energy used to make bricks.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The company, Calstar, says it wants to open several U.S. plants which would use fly ash in making bricks for construction and paving. The California firm says its method uses far less energy that traditional clay bricks that have to be heated at high temperatures.
Luke Pustejovsky is a Calstar executive. He insists the quality of fly ash brick meets industry standards.
“We spent 18 months and millions of dollars on durability testing with our own labs, with outside third party labs, and this is a brick that’s built to last.”
But a trade group, the Brick Industry Association, is cool to fly ash brick. The group says the product has not yet met the test of time. The group is concerned any problems that come up could discourage customers from using brick.
Craig Lorch, co-owner of Total Reclaim in Seattle. His company is certified to recycle electronic waste under Washington's e-waste law.
(Photo by Liam Moriarty)
Workers at Total Reclaim in Seattle disassemble old electronics for recycling.
(Photo by Liam Moriarty)
The law started just a year ago, and already it’s collected more than 38 million pounds of e-junk, costing producers nearly 10 million dollars. Basically, it requires electronics companies to cover the end-of-life costs of the products they sell.
(Photo by Liam Moriarty)
It used to be that when a company
sold you a widget, they got your
money, you got the widget, and
that was the end of it. Now, that
way of doing business is changing.
Liam Moriarty reports that in Europe, and in the
US, businesses are being required
to take responsibility for their
products in new ways:
Transcript
It used to be that when a company
sold you a widget, they got your
money, you got the widget, and
that was the end of it. Now, that
way of doing business is changing.
Liam Moriarty reports that in Europe, and in the
US, businesses are being required
to take responsibility for their
products in new ways:
(sound of recycling machine)
In a huge industrial building in Seattle, forklift-loads of TVs and computer monitors are heaved onto conveyor belts. Workers go at them with screwguns and hammers.
“They’re pulling the plastic covers off of devices, they’re pulling the picture tubes out of them. They’re basically dismantling it to component parts.”
Craig Lorch is co-owner here at Total Reclaim. His company is certified to recycle electronic waste under Washington’s e-waste law.
The law requires that these old machines don’t end up being dumped, where their toxic chemicals can poison humans and the environment.
Recycling old electronics has been happening for years. John Friedrick explains what’s new about Washington’s e-waste law.
“It’s a producer responsibility law, which takes the burden of all of this off of the taxpayer.”
Friedrick runs the state-wide recycling program that’s fully paid for by electronics manufacturers. It started just a year ago, and already it’s collected more than 38 million pounds of e-junk, costing producers nearly 10 million dollars. Basically, it requires electronics companies to cover the end-of-life costs of the products they sell.
That concept – called extended producer responsibility – is new in the US. When Washington’s e-waste law was passed three years ago, it was the first to put full responsibility on manufacturers. But this isn’t a new idea in Europe.
Klaus Koegler is with the European Commission’s Directorate General for the Environment in Brussels. He tells me about a keystone of EU environmental policy – what’s called the “Polluter Pays” principle.
“That simply means whoever causes damage to the environment is responsible, also in financial terms, to repair it or to minimize it right from the beginning.”
Koegler says that gives regulators the muscle for a range of laws. One example: any car sold in the EU has to be 85% recyclable. Koegler says that creates an incentive.
“If you are responsible for the recycling, that means you will try to design a car to make your life as a recycler as easy as possible.”
And a product that’s easy and cheap to recycle is likely to be easier on the planet, too. Europeans also see making manufacturers take back and recycle their old products as a way to reclaim resources. For instance, nickel and other metals are becoming more scarce and expensive.
“So in keeping the waste here, recycling it here, and recovering these metals, we are protecting the environment. At the same time, we are helping to secure supply for our industries.”
So, the EU is moving toward setting even more ambitious goals for recycling. In the US, Wisconsin recently became the 20th state to pass a take-back law for electronics. States are also extending producer responsibility to other products – including batteries, fluorescent lamps and paint.
Now, the electronics industry is pushing back. Two major industry groups have filed a lawsuit against the e-waste law in New York City. They say it’s unconstitutional. Environmental activists see the suit as an attack on the whole concept of producer responsibility.
But Rick Goss with the Information Technology Industry Council insists it’s not.
“We support producer responsibility. We understand and recognize, that as manufacturers, we have a role to play in offering our consumers options and solutions for used products here. But we don’t have the only role to play.”
Still, the suit makes constitutional arguments that could be used to challenge the right of states to impose recycling requirements on manufacturers.
Researchers say some companies bought renewable power because customers pushed them to.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The market for renewable solar
and wind power is growing quickly.
Most people assume that growth
has been mandated by government.
But Shawn Allee found
a report that challenges that:
Transcript
The market for renewable solar
and wind power is growing quickly.
Most people assume that growth
has been mandated by government.
But Shawn Allee found
a report that challenges that:
The report’s from the Center for Resource Solutions, an advocacy group.
Orrin Cook was a co-author. He totaled up growth in sales of wind, solar and other renewable energy between 2003 and 2008. He compared how much growth came from government mandates and how much was bought voluntarily. Cook says the voluntary market grew a tad faster.
“States requiring renewable energy and federal government requiring renewable energy is really just part of that equation. Another part is businesses and individuals buying renewable energy when they don’t have to.”
Cook says this voluntary renewable energy market grew because some companies have eco-minded managers. But he says companies also bought renewable power because customers pushed them to.
Cook looked at federal figures that came out before the financial crisis.
Charter boat captain Eric Stuecher says Asian Carp will likely ruin his business.
(Photo by Jennifer Guerra)
A big monster of a fish is at
the center of a US Supreme Court
case. Asian Carp are making their
way up the Mississippi towards the
Great Lakes. Michigan’s Attorney
General filed a lawsuit asking the
Court to close a Chicago canal in
order to keep the carp out. The
shipping industry says, ‘no can do.’
Jennifer Guerra has
a closer look at what’s at stake:
Transcript
A big monster of a fish is at
the center of a US Supreme Court
case. Asian Carp are making their
way up the Mississippi towards the
Great Lakes. Michigan’s Attorney
General filed a lawsuit asking the
Court to close a Chicago canal in
order to keep the carp out. The
shipping industry says, ‘no can do.’
Jennifer Guerra has
a closer look at what’s at stake:
There’s one way to look at this as a purely economic story. In one corner you’ve got the people who ship cargo by water.
“Lynne Munch, senior vice president regional advocacy of the American Waterways Operators.”
She says, if the Illinois is forced to close two of the locks in the Chicago canal permanently, more than 17 million tons of cargo will have to be shipped by truck instead of barge, and hundreds of jobs will be lost.
“One company alone has reported that they will lose 93 jobs next year if the locks are closed. One of our towing companies estimates they’ll lose more than 130 jobs if the locks are closed.”
In the other corner, you’ve got the seven billion dollar tourism and fishing industries.
“Oh hi, I’m Eric Stuecher, I own a company called Great Lakes Fishing Charters.”
Stuecher takes people out on the Great Lakes and in rivers across Michigan. Salmon, Trout, Perch, you name it, he’ll help you fish it. But if the invasive Asian Carp get into the Great Lakes?
“It would probably cost me the business. They’ll eat anything they can get in their mouths, to the demise of so many of our other game fish.”
So that’s the economic side of the story. But what if we told you there’s more at stake here than dollars and cents.
“In terms of environmental impact, the Asian carp have the potential to seriously disrupt the Great Lakes ecosystem.”
That’s Marc Gaden with the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. He says there are already a lot of pests in the Lakes.
“There are 180 non-native species in the Great Lakes, many of which came in accidentally. Precisely two of them can be controlled. That’s it. So that’s why biologists and others are very, very concerned about the Asian carp. Once they get in, the cat’s out of the bag.”
Asian Carp were first brought to the states by Southern catfish farmers. The carp escaped the South in the 1990s because of flooding and have been making their way north ever since. These fish are huge. They can grow to four feet and weigh up to 100 pounds, and they reproduce like crazy. In some areas, they reproduce so much that by weight they account for more than 90 percent of the fish in the Mississippi River system.
So you can see why people around the Great Lakes don’t want them.
That’s why Gaden and a lot of other scientists say we should somehow block the man-made canal that connects the big rivers to the Great Lakes for barges carrying cargo.
“We need to be open to saying, just because we’ve been moving goods on the canal by barge for decades and decades, doesn’t mean we need to continue to do it that way. Is there a better way to do it? Can we shift it to rail?”
Gaden and others have been arguing for 15 years to get some kind of permanent barrier built in order to stop invasive species from moving from one ecosystem to another.
“The government agencies that are responsible for doing things on that canal are not moving at the speed of carp, they’re moving at the speed of government. And we don’t have a minute to spare.”
That’s because new DNA tests suggest that Asian carp have moved well beyond the electric barrier meant to keep them out of Lake Michigan.
