Tag: environmental

America’s Food Waste

  • It takes 25% of all the fresh water Americans use just to produce food that ends up being wasted. (Photo courtesy of Samara Freemark)

Government researchers recently put out a study that says American’s throw away forty percent of their food. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

Americans waste a lot of food – by some estimates, almost half of the total amount in the food supply. Samara Freemark reports that the problem goes way beyond cleaning your plate.

A couple of months ago, government researchers put out a study that said Americans waste 40% of their food.

When I read that figure, it seemed incredibly high. So high that when I sat down with a food policy expert, I was actually a little embarrassed to ask her about it.

“I saw this number, 40%. Is that possible? It seems high to me.”

“I think the wasting of 40% of food, I actually think that could be a low number.”

That’s Jennifer Berg. She’s the director of the graduate program in food studies at New York University, and she spends a lot of time thinking about the food waste problem – in particular, about its huge environmental impacts.

It turns out, it takes 25% of all the fresh water Americans use just to produce food that eventually ends up in the garbage. It takes a lot of fuel to move that food around; packaging it takes plastic and paper, and throwing it away fills up landfills.

“There’s that old, you know ‘an orange peel…’ An orange peel takes years to break down. You know, a banana peel, half a loaf of bread. All that stuff goes into landfills. It doesn’t matter whether it’s organic matter or not. It doesn’t decompose. It doesn’t break down, when it’s all put together like that.”

Berg says Americans get plenty of messages about cleaning their plates.

But they don’t necessarily understand how much food gets wasted before it even makes it to the table.

“If you think about meat. Other countries, they will consume 85% of a cow. We will consume 30%. 20%. We only eat very specific cuts. We want our food totally filleted, we want it boned. We just eat very very specific food.”

I wanted to see what a waste-free meal looked like, so I took a trip to EN Japanese brasserie in Manhattan.

For the past couple of months, EN Brasserie has hosted special dinners where customers pay good money to eat the kinds of things most Americans throw away.

Reika Alexander owns the restaurant. She came up with the idea for the dinners when she moved to New York and saw how much food people in the city threw out.

“I realized that New Yorkers create so much garbage. When I saw that my heart was really aching. We have to do something about that.”

Alexander showed me some of the food she’d be serving that night. The first thing she handed me was a plate of fried eel backbones.

“We import live eels. So we get the whole thing. So we deep fry the bone part. It’s like a really flavorful rice cracker. Want to try. You just eat it? Like the bone? The whole bone? It’s good, right? It’s really good. The bones just fall apart in your mouth.”

There was a platter of rice topped with scraps of fish and vegetable trimmings. A salad made from salmon skin. And a cauldron of soup with whole fish heads bobbing in the broth.

“The eye, it’s so flavorful and delicious. The fish eyes have so much flavor. It makes a beautiful fish stock.”

At the dinner that night I asked college student Cordelia Blanchard what she was eating.

“I don’t know. I think the idea is that what’s left over the chefs just throw in a pot, and that’s what we have the pleasure of eating tonight. It makes me want to be more creative about how I combine what’s left in the kitchen sink.”

Which is the kind of attitude that restaurant owner Reika Alexander likes. Still, she says, she doesn’t expect the average American to sit down to a dinner of eel bones and fish eyes any time soon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark

Related Links

Trial of Insecticide Used on Food

  • The EPA has been trying to stop the use of the carbofuran for four years,but corn, sunflower and potato farmers say they need the chemical to produce their crops.(Photo courtesy of thebittenword.com cc-2.0)

The future of an insecticide used on food is on trial. The Environmental Protection Agency wants to stop the use of the chemical. Rebecca Williams reports the pesticide company and some growers’ trade groups have been fighting the EPA:

Transcript

The future of an insecticide used on food is on trial. The Environmental Protection Agency wants to stop the use of the chemical. Rebecca Williams reports the pesticide company and some growers’ trade groups have been fighting the EPA:

For four years, the EPA has been trying to stop the use of the insecticide carbofuran.

The EPA says there are a couple problems. First, it’s toxic to birds. Second, the agency says carbofuran residues on food are not safe for us.
FMC Corporation makes the chemical. It’s been fighting the EPA for years. Now it’s before a U-S appeals court.
Corn, sunflower and potato farmers say they need carbofuran.

John Keeling is the CEO of the National Potato Council.

“Would there be potato production next year in the U.S. without carbofuran? Absolutely. Will it make decisions much more difficult for a lot of growers? Yes.”

The trial for the use of the insecticide is expected to last for months.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Getting Chemicals Out of Drinking Water

  • Chemicals used as industrial solvents can seep into drinking water from contaminated groundwater or surface water. (Photo courtesy of Mr. McGladdery CC-2.0)

Some chemicals are getting into drinking water, and it’s not so easy to get them out. The Environmental Protection Agency says it’s working on the problem. Lester Graham reports on the agency’s plans:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency is outlining a plan to reduce the amount of chemicals getting into drinking water. Lester Graham reports.

The EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson told members of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies about the new plan. She said it would work to improve technology to clean up water, get tougher with polluters, coordinate efforts with the states, and deal with contaminating chemicals in groups rather than individual chemicals.

James McDaniels is President of the water agencies group. He says that last idea might speed up the process of getting some contaminants out of water.

“Focusing too much on one contaminant and not looking at it holistically and not really seeing what the other ones are. We all have limited reso urces and as utility managers, looking at these things more holistically makes a lot of sense to us.”

Pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals make cleaning up drinking water a real challenge for the water agencies.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Giving the Electric Grid Some Smarts

  • The enhanced communication of the Smart Grid could help utility companies predict an overload on the power system. (Photo courtesy of Gastev CC-2.0)

Remember that huge blackout in the summer of 2003? Forty-five million people in the Midwest and Northeast US – as well as 10 million in Canada lost power. Julie Grant reports that the federal government and utilities are spending billions of dollars on what’s called a “Smart Grid” – in part, so we don’t have more large scale blackouts.

Transcript

Remember that huge blackout in the summer of 2003? Forty-five million people in the Midwest and Northeast US – as well as 10 million in Canada lost power. Julie Grant reports that the federal government and utilities are spending billions of dollars on what’s called a “Smart Grid” – in part, so we don’t have more large scale blackouts.

Right now, electric power in the U.S. is generated by a relatively small number of very big power plants. That power is transmitted all over the place.

But this set up is increasingly running into problems. The demand for power is skyrocketing: from big American houses and TVs, air conditioners and computers. The grid is struggling to keep up. And it’s not always succeeding.

There have been more – and more massive – blackouts in recent years than in previous decades.

Universities, private laboratories, and utility companies are all looking at different aspects of making the electric grid smarter.

Chris Eck is spokesman for First Energy, which provides power in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. He says there are so many ideas on how to improve the nation’s electrical system.

“Part of the challenge is defining the smart grid. I think there are different opinions out there about what it will and won’t include.”

The Department of Energy says the smart grid will change the electric industry’s entire business model. Instead of being a centralized, producer-controlled network – it will transform to become decentralized and consumer-interactive.

Ken Laparo works on these kinds of issues at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. He says a smart grid will get consumers more involved in planning their energy use.

“Right now, you have no idea what a killowatt hour is costing you in Cleveland on March 10 at 8:30 in the evening.”

Laparo says most of us just look at those little bars on our electric bills that show how much energy we used that month. But he says it doesn’t really mean much to us.

But companies are developing all kinds of products: smart plugs, smart thermostats, smart appliances, that tell you how much energy is being used – so customers can decide the best ways to reduce energy use – and to reduce their bills.

Utility companies might start charging more at peak energy times of day – and they will communicate those shifting prices to “smart” consumer devices in real time.

Laparo says these small slices of energy savings might not seem like a lot:

“But it’s the cummulative effect of what everybody is doing, no matter how small it is. When you add it up over millions of customers over days and weeks and months and years that the overall opportunity is huge.”

But there’s still a lot to be done. A decentralized system is going to need better communication. If every programmed refrigerator is constantly trying to optimize its energy usage based on the power’s moment-to-moment price — the electricity system will also have to be an information system. Each smart appliance and home meter, will have to be able to communicate with the energy companies.

If it works, this type of communication could help utility companies predict an overload on the power system – like the one that started the black out in 2003. Utilities today just predict when usage will be high. But a smart grid, they will actually know how high it is in real time.

Utilities will also have a better ability to fix problems in the system before they get out of control.
This is what some researchers call the Holy Grail of the Smart Grid. In the short term, they see consumers learning more about saving energy, and communicating that to the power companies. But in the long term, they want to be able to sense and manage the grid, to avoid those debilitating blackouts.

The 2003 blackout started because there was a high demand for power in one Ohio town. When that one generating plant went off line – it tried to get power from another plant, and overloaded the next plant, setting off a cascade of outages. More than 100 power plants shutdown that day.

First Energy spokesman Chris Eck says a smart grid could help prevent blackouts.

“As it is now, you might know you have circuits out and you have to send crews out to physically for a problem with these lines. With a smart grid, with enough sensors and feedback communication, you might be able to pinpoint before they get to the site. And they can isolate the problem and fix it quicker.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Clean Water Act Clear as Mud

  • Two Supreme Court rulings have left landowners, regulators, and lower courts confused over what waterways are protected by the Clean Water Act. (Photo courtesy of Abby Batchelder CC-2.0)

The nation started cleaning up lakes and rivers in 1972 after passing the Clean Water Act. But two U-S Supreme Court rulings have left some waterways unprotected from pollution. Mark Brush visited one couple who says a lake they used was polluted and the government has let them down:

Transcript

The nation started cleaning up lakes and rivers in 1972 after passing the Clean Water Act. But two U-S Supreme Court rulings have left some waterways unprotected from pollution. Mark Brush visited one couple who says a lake they used was polluted and the government has let them down:

Sheila Fitzgibbons and her husband Richard Ellison were looking for a good spot to open up a scuba diving business. They found Cedar Lake in Michigan. Unlike the other lakes they looked at, this was crystal clear water.

“Ours always stayed clean and it took care of itself and aquatic plants were very healthy. We had a lot of nice fish in here – healthy fish that only go into clear water.”

They said they could take six scuba diving students underwater at a time – and have no problem keeping track of them because the water was so clear.

But that all changed in the spring of 2004. Richard Ellison was in the lake on a dive:

“We were with our students down on the bottom, doing skills and stuff with them, and all of the sudden it sort of looked like a big cloud come over, you know. And the next thing you know, it just turned dark and it was just all muddy. It looked like we were swimming in chocolate milk.”

Ellison and Fitzgibbons say the lake was never the same after that. They blamed the local government’s new storm drain. They said it dumped dirty water right into the lake. Local officials said it wasn’t their new drain, but a big rainstorm that was to blame.

Fitzgibbons and Ellison sued in federal court. They said the new drain violated the Clean Water Act. The local government argued, among other things, that the lake was not protected by the Clean Water Act. The case was dismissed – and Fitzgibbons and Ellison closed their dive shop.

Just what can or cannot be protected by the Clean Water Act used to be an easy question to answer. But two Supreme Court rulings – one in 2001 and one in 2006 – muddied the waters.

After the rulings, it wasn’t clear whether a lot of isolated lakes, wetlands and streams still were protected by the Clean Water Act.

Some developers and farmers saw the court rulings as a big win. They felt the government had been exercising too much power over waterways, limiting what they could build or do on their own property.

Jan Goldman-Carter is a lawyer with the National Wildlife Federation. She says the people who enforce the nation’s water protection laws were left scratching their heads after the rulings:

“The confusion generated by these decisions has wrapped up the agencies, the courts, and even landowners and local governments with really not knowing when a water is protected or not. And that’s had the effect of actually, kind of, unraveling the fabric of the Clean Water Act, which really is our primary protection of our nation’s water supplies.”

Goldman Carter says – polluters are getting the signal. In many places – no one is watching:

“When the polluters recognize that basically the enforcers are not out there, and no one’s really in a position to deter their activities, it’s a lot cheaper for them to pollute than to follow the law.”

The New York Times recently reported that judgments against major polluters have fallen by almost half since the Supreme Court rulings.

In 2008 EPA officials said the rulings kept them from pursuing hundreds of water pollution enforcement cases. We asked for an interview with the EPA officials, but they would only answer questions by e-mail. They agreed the Supreme Court decisions do limit their ability to protect water quality.

The EPA is now calling on Congress to pass a new law. It’s called The Clean Water Restoration Act. The bill’s sponsors say they want to put back what was taken away by the Supreme Court.

The bill was introduced a year ago. It’s been stalled in Congress ever since.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Governors Push for Renewable Energy

  • According to the governors' report more uniform standards would increase demand for wind, whose manufacturing base in the Midwest is growing. (Photo courtesy of US DOE)

Governors across the nation want more electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass. Lester Graham reports… they’re calling on Congress to make it happen.

Transcript

Governors across the nation want more electricity from renewable sources such as wind, solar and bio-mass. Lester Graham reports… they’re calling on Congress to make it happen.

The Governors’ Wind Energy Coalition is 29 governors –Republicans and Democrats who want Congress to establish a renewable energy standard. They’d like to see 10-percent of all electricity come from renewables by 2012. By 2025, they want 25-percent. And they want a new interstate electric transmission system built to get wind power from isolated areas to the cities that need the power.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver chairs the coalition.

“If Congress fails to pass a strong national goal on renewable energy and transmission upgrades, the continued uncertainty will cause the nation to potentially surrender wind manufacturing to other countries.”

And Governor Culver says with that wind manufacturing would go the potential jobs the U.S. needs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Deodorant Maker Fouls the Air

  • Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) come out of our vehicle tailpipes, out of smokestacks, and they’re in a lot of every day products. (Photo courtesy of NinaHale CC-2.0)

The makers of a popular deodorant body spray have been fined more than a million dollars for polluting the air in California. Julie Grant reports it’s part of an increased effort to reduce air pollution.

Transcript

The makers of a popular deodorant body spray have been fined more than a million dollars for polluting the air in California. Julie Grant reports it’s part of an increased effort to reduce air pollution.

The makers of Axe body spray – popular among teenage boys – have been fined for causing environmental problems in California. Dimitri Stanich is spokesman for the California Air Resouces Board. He says California has specific low limits on how much air pollution can come from consumer products.

And if they get a tip that a product is over the limit – they head to the pharmacy.

“THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD HAS ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT WILL BUY PRODUCTS OFF THE SHELF AND THEN TAKE IT BACK TO THE LAB IN SACRAMENTO. TECHNICIANS THEN WILL PIERCE THE CANISTER AND DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF VOCS IN THERE.”

VOCs – that’s short for volatile organic compounds. VOCs come out of our vehicle tailpipes, out of smokestacks. And they’re in a lot of every day products: some aerosol sprays, most paints, even some cosmetics. Stanich says there are lots of reasons a manufacturer might use a volatile organic compound. In a product like Axe, he says the VOCs make it spray better.

“MOST OF OFTEN IT IS PART OF THE PROPELLENT USED TO FORCE THE PRODUCT OUT OF THE CANISTER AND INTO THE PRACTICAL PURPOSE THAT THE CONSUMER IS USING IT.”

And once those VOCs hit the air – from deodorants, tailpipes and smokestacks – they mix with the heat of the sun – and create ground level ozone. Pollution.

The multinational corporation, Unilever, owns the Axe brand. Stanich says that between 2006 and 2008, Unilever’s parent company, Conopco, sold more than 2.8 million units of Axe spray that failed to meet California’s clean air standards.

The state has fined Conopco 1.3 million dollars.

It’s all kind of a bummer. At least for some teenage girls.

Katie Schombeck and Julia Rombach say the boys locker room reeks of Axe. And they love it.

“YOU SMELL IT AND YOU’RE LIKE DRAWN TO IT, IT SMELLS SO GOOD.”

“I DO THAT ALL THE TIME. I REMEMBER HANGING OUT WITH GUYS, AND LIKE IF THEY SMELL GOOD I’LL BE LIKE ‘HEY COME HERE FOR A MINUTE’ AND SMELL THEIR SHOULDER AND BE LIKE ‘YOU SMELL GOOD.’”

“I’LL GIVE THEM A BIG HUG, JUST BECAUSE THEY SMELL GOOD.”

But these 16 years olds didn’t realize body spray could be bad for air quality.

“BUT IT NEVER REALLY DAWNED ON ME THAT AXE…I DON’T KNOW, YOU DON’T REALLY THINK ABOUT THAT.”

Compared to all those cars and trucks and smokestacks – it doesn’t seem like a little deodorant spray could cause that much of a problem. But Dimitri Stanich with the California Air Resources Board says all those little bits add up.

“WE SPRAY A LITTLE PERFUME HERE, WE SPRAY A LITTLE DEODORANT THERE, SOME WD-40 ON THE VEHICLES WE’RE WORKING ON. THE LIST GOES ON. EVERYTHING THAT’S A CONSUMER PRODUCT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO OZONE.”

Stanich says on peak ozone days, people have a harder time breathing, especially those with asthma.

California has a particularly bad ozone problem in its cities – and also has tougher clean air rules than most of the country.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is about to tighten federal air quality standards – to reduce ozone pollution everywhere else.

Julian Marshall is professor of environmental engineering at the University of Minnesota.
He says most health officials support tougher air standards.

But there are lots of ways to reduce exposure in your own home:

“BUYING LIMITED QUANTITIES OF PRODUCTS THAT EMIT VOCS, OR BUYING LOW VOC PRODUCTS. WHEN YOU GO TO BUY PAINTS FOR EXAMPLE THERE ARE LOW VOC PAINTS.”

To reduce exposure, Marshall says get rid of old chemicals and those you don’t need.

In the meantime, California officials say Unilever has corrected the problems with Axe – and reduced the emissions from its spray can. Making a lot of teenage boys – and some of their girl – friends happy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Energy Legislation Breeding Bipartisanship?

  • Representatives from both sides of the aisle are beginning to find some common ground on energy policy. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Members of Congress from fossil fuel states want to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. Lester Graham reports
– it’s one of the few bi-partisan efforts in Washington, but it’s not the only one:

Related Links

Challenging the EPA Over CO2 Regs

  • Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)

The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:

The EPA says it has a duty to regulate greenhouse gasses to protect us from global warming.

The state of Texas, Virginia, and Alabama have filed legal challenges to try to stop the EPA. They say the coming regulations will be bad for the economy. And they call into question the science that EPA based its decision on.

Here’s the Texas attorney general – Greg Abbott:

“The information on which the EPA relies can neither confirm nor deny that there has been global warming, or that temperatures have risen.”

The EPA says it’s evaluated all the science available for the last ten years, and that the evidence is quote “compelling” that climate change is real – and that it’s a threat to human health and welfare.

Those three states challenging the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases are countered by sixteen other states supporting the EPA’s decision.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Ad Campaign Targets Senators

  • The advertisements are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:

Transcript

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:

The ads call Murkowski’s resolution the “Dirty Air Act”. They’re sponsored by a coalition of environmental and faith-based advocacy groups.

Eric Sapp is with the American Values Network, which co-sponsored the ads. He says the spots are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.

“They’re moderate Democrats and Republicans who have been getting a lot of pressure to vote the wrong way on this bill. And our goal in these is to make sure the people know what’s going on, and then to let the Senators know that we will be able to stand behind them if they vote the right way.”

It’s not clear exactly when Murkowski’s resolution will move forward – especially now that a major snow storm is blanketing Washington and disrupting the Senate calendar.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links