Tag: federal government

Safer Bags of Salad

There’s growing concern about the spinach and lettuce in your crisper. There have been
several recalls of bags of salad produce after they hit the grocery stores. The federal
government recently noted that food safety has become one of the biggest ongoing
problems facing agencies responsible for inspecting food. The result is a debate among
growers, food processors and conservation groups over how to better protect the food
supply. But environmental groups say some of the safeguards can harm wildlife. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

There’s growing concern about the spinach and lettuce in your crisper. There have been
several recalls of bags of salad produce after they hit the grocery stores. The federal
government recently noted that food safety has become one of the biggest ongoing
problems facing agencies responsible for inspecting food. The result is a debate among
growers, food processors and conservation groups over how to better protect the food
supply. But environmental groups say some of the safeguards can harm wildlife. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


During the last year, people have died and hundreds of people have gotten sick because
of E. coli bacteria contamination of some produce. Farmers and food processors are
fighting in court over what officially caused the contamination. But in the Salinas Valley
of California, an area known as the nation’s Salad Bowl, the food processing industry is
trying to show consumers they can be confident about the safety of commercially-
produced leafy greens. Even processors who were not linked to last year’s E. coli scare
suffered a drop in sales. They’re anxious to show off their facilities and the safety
precautions they’ve taken.


Inside this large processing plant a million pounds of lettuce come through every day.
It’s washed in chlorinated water, some of it is mixed in with other raw vegetables and
packed into bags that are sent to grocery stores across the U.S. This plant is operated by
Fresh Express, a company owned by Chiquita Brands. Plant manager Phil Bradway says
the plant is sanitized daily:


“You generate organic material buildup and its extremely important on a regular and
consistent basis to remove that organic material before you continue to process a food
safe product and that’s why we’re rigorous about the seven-day-a-week sanitation activities in
our facilities.”


Fresh Express vice president Bill Clyburn says this salad bagging plant ships out a
product that is better protected than vegetables that are sent unbagged to the grocery
stores:


“We’re taking the precautions to wash the lettuce and make it clean. You take commodity
produce of any type, go into a grocery store and watch how many people pick it up,
breathe on it, put it back down and take another head of lettuce and how many people still
don’t wash that. You never hear about people getting sick on commodity lettuce ’cause
there’s no label to go back at.”


And Fresh Express says it’s not just conditions at the plant that they and other processors
are trying to control. In the last year, California growers came up with a voluntary
program to try to develop better agricultural practices. Things such as protecting farm
fields from contamination from animals. Fresh Express insists that its growers exceed the
standards so that no wildlife urine or fecal matter come into contact with the produce, but some farmers say the food processors have some unrealistic ideas.


(Sound of sprinkler)


A sprinkler waters crops at an organic farm. Grower Andrew Griffin says some food
industry giants want more fences around farms to help keep wildlife out of the fields. But
he says those won’t make a difference:


“Absolutely not. It’s ridiculous. You can’t fence out the birds. You can’t fence out the
sky… I mean I don’t know what they’re thinking.”


Griffin says a better solution would be reduce the growing concentration of agri-business
and not send so much of the Salad Bowl’s leafy greens through just a few processing
plants:


“So, if there’s a contamination of say the blade on the cutting machine, you have an
opportunity to contaminate salad that’s gonna feed a whole nation. Whereas if it was
diffuse, if we had a diffuse system and you had small farms in different places, you
wouldn’t have that same broad spectrum problem.”


And the skeptical farmers have allies in groups such as The Nature Conservancy.
Spokeswoman Chris Fischer says the new restrictions in the farm fields are affecting
wildlife habitat along streams and river. She says people across the nation who eat salads
should care about what happens to the environment of the Salinas valley:


“As both a consumer and a conservationist the sustainability of our farming and
watershed health and ultimately our water quality and public health is all wrapped up
together and unsustainable, unhealthy farm practices ultimately aren’t going to serve us
well.”


Fischer says some of the new restrictions on growers are based on the best available
research, but she’s concerned food processors are adding extra requirements that aren’t
based on good science. Recently news reports added to the debate about safety of leafy
greens that end up on your table. The Associated Press reported federal inspections of
both growers and processors of salad greens only happen about once every four years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Nuke Waste Storage at Power Plants

The federal government is being blocked by judges and state officials from building a
nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. While the legal fight goes on, nuclear power
generators store their radioactive waste at their plants. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The federal government is being blocked by judges and state officials from building a
nuclear waste storage site in Nevada. While the legal fight goes on, nuclear power
generators store their radioactive waste at their plants. Lester Graham reports:


The Department of Energy has been stumbling through legal hurdles and political
setbacks for 20 years now. It’s been trying to establish Yucca Mountain in Nevada
as the nation’s storage site for spent nuclear fuel and other highly-radioactive
material.


The Los Angeles Times reports the most recent challenge was a judge’s
ruling that makes it difficult for the Energy Department to drill test holes at the site. It
will likely cause a domino effect of delays.


Many environmentalists and others don’t want Yucca Mountain to ever receive the
nuclear waste. But, in the meantime thousands of tons of spent nuclear power rods
are being stored at the nuclear power plants… and many of those power plants are
located near rivers, lakes and towns. Some of the storage is in buildings, some of it
in casks, sitting outside.


For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Bark Beetle Forest Fire Risks

  • The bark beetle (pictured) is native to forests in the Rockies. (Photo courtesy of the Colorado State Forest Service)

In much of the West populations of the bark beetle have exploded. Trees
are dying, and the risk of forest fires is huge. Some ecologists are
saying that global warming is responsible, but forests will survive.
Steve Zelaznik reports the risk of fire is forcing communities to balance fire
prevention, and ecological preservation:

Transcript

In much of the West populations of the bark beetle have exploded. Trees
are dying, and the risk of forest fires is huge. Some ecologists are
saying that global warming is responsible, but forests will survive.
Steve Zelaznik reports the risk of fire is forcing communities to balance fire
prevention, and ecological preservation:


(Sound of trail)


We’re surrounded by forest, mostly lodge pole pines. The bark beetle is native to forests in the Rockies. The landscape is a patchwork of green and red. The red trees have been
killed by the bark beetle. Jan Hackett with the Colorado State Forest
Service says many of the green trees are also infected:


“Well I’m just pointing to the pitch tubes, and those are fresh hits
from this year’s beetles. The beetles are flying right now. This is a
result of this year’s flight, a successful hit. This tree will be red
next year.”


This means the tree will be dead. Dominick Kulakowski is a biology professor at
Clark University. He says climate change has caused warmer temperatures so the beetle can survive the winter and spread, but he says insect outbreaks like these are normal, and
the forest will recover:


“There have been very extensive, very severe outbreaks of bark beetles
in Colorado long before Colorado was even a state. Large disturbances
are a normal function of the ecosystems of the Colorado Rocky
Mountains. So while we may look out on this and be concerned by the
amount of mortality, what we need to remember is this may be
unprecedented based on what we’ve seen over the past hundred years, but
that’s partly a function of our relatively short temporal perspective.”


From an ecological perspective, Kulakowski just isn’t worried about the
beetles. But the dead trees increase the risk of fire. And with homes
nearby, the forest can’t be left to burn.


Driving up a winding road to a nearby subdivision, I’m in the car with Barry
Smith. He’s the emergency manager for the adjacent Eagle County. He says
roads like these make his job difficult:


“This is one of those subdivisions like many of our mountain
subdivisions that, from a fire safety perspective, this is the only road
to get into our out of this subdivision, so if we have a large fire
here, you’re trying to get fire equipment in and get homeowners out at
the same time and that’s going to create a lot of problems.”


So government is forced to protect nearby homes from fire, and also
preserve the health of the forest.


Increasingly, governments are addressing the problem by clearing dead
trees. State and federal governments have thinned eighteen thousand
acres in Colorado. This compares to the seven hundred thousand acres
infected.


Rob Davis is the president of Forest Energy Colorado. His company
takes dead trees, and makes wood pellets to heat homes. He says an
opportunity exists to improve the health of the forest and make a
profit:


“This is an extremely valuable resource,
do we want to use it? You know if this goes into energy and displaces
fossil fuels, it helps global warming. It helps climate change that is
one of the problems that we have with these forests. So are we going
to keep the narrow point of view that says ‘Oh! It’s got to stay
exactly like it was historically,’ or do we want to open our mind and
say ‘We can actually use this to help global warming, we can use this
in cases as long as remember that first thing is the health of the
forest…’ we can use it.”


But removing dead trees may have ecological costs. A 2002 study by the
University of Colorado concluded that harvesting forests leads to soil
erosion, loss of nutrients, and warmer ground temperatures. Professor
Kolikowski says the effects of harvesting might be worse than the initial
disturbance.


“That’s not to say that harvesting or salvaging is inappropriate, we
just need to be clear about what it is we want to do and why.”


And local governments may not have the money to do it all… to curb the
population of bark beetles, protect homes from fires, and preserve the
ecology. Tom Fry with the conservation group the Wilderness Society
remembers work he did on the Front Range. In the ten-county area, it
would have cost fifteen million a year for forty years to do risk
reduction and forest restoration:


“I think one of the messages here is we won’t have that money. We’ll
never have that money. So we as a community, and that community
includes all of us, need to be hyper strategic and surgical in where we
look to apply what resources we have.”


For the time being, governments are choosing to use their resources to
thin the forests to reduce the risk of fire from the beetle.


The U.S. Forest Service (White River National Forest) just auctioned
the right for timber contractors to remove dead trees from another
thirteen hundred acres. The work will begin by the end of the summer.


For the Environment Report, I’m Steve Zelaznik.

Related Links

Live Animal Import Laws

A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:

Transcript

A recent report accuses the federal government of failing to take simple, inexpensive steps that could reduce the risk of live animal imports. Zebra mussels, Asian carp, and pets that get loose, such as Burmese pythons in Florida, hurt native wildlife and can damage the nation’s economy. Lester Graham talked with Peter Jenkins, one of the authors of the report issued by the Defenders of Wildlife. Jenkins says the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is one of the agencies that needs to do a better job screening for invasive species:


Peter Jenkins: They’re charged with protecting native species. They’re charged with enforcing the
Endangered Species Act, which is an important part of this issue because these non-
native species threaten our native species, including threatening endangered species in
many cases.


Lester Graham: In the past, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has been accused of being too
slow to act, even when a problem is pointed out. Would the regulation changes you’re
talking about help speed that process?


PJ: Well, Congress would have to agree to commit more resources to the agency…I mean,
there is only one person, believe it or not, only one person whose job is to assess species
to be listed under that law to keep out of the country. Obviously, we need more than one,
we need some qualified professionals working this area. We don’t need millions and
millions of dollars, but we do need a significant increase, probably five or six or up to ten
professional staff looking closely at these imported animals to assess whether we’re
gonna have problems and which ones need to be restricted.


Now, how’s that gonna be paid for? Well, the industries that are bringing these species in
and that want to benefit from the import trade, whether it be pet or live animals or
biomedical testing or zoos or what have you…Those people bringing these species in
clearly should carry some of the cost of what they’re bringing in and in that way, the
taxpayers don’t get burdened too much.


LG: As you’ve mentioned, this is as much an economic problem as it is an environmental
problem. Why haven’t the dollars and sense of this issue really had an impact on the
politics behind making sure that we can restrict this kind of trade?


PJ: Well, that’s a great question and defenders of wildlife did do a white paper on the
economic impact of animal imports trade. The reason is very simple…the people who
benefit do not suffer the cost when these things go wrong. That is to say, the costs are
suffered by the public in terms of disease or invasive species concern or pests, so these
costs are externalized or passed on to the general public and it’s the taxpayers in the end
who wind up having to pay the costs. On the whole, these species that are brought in,
non-native species, are brought in for the pet trade…That’s by far the biggest reason that
species are brought in. That’s basically a luxury item, that’s not an essential item. Those
that benefit from luxury items should bare the cost.


LG: Now, nature seems to eventually cope with many of these exotic species, even the
invasive species to one degree or another and some people would say that this biological
pollution is nearly impossible to prevent so why fight the inevitable?


PJ: Uh, I don’t buy that argument at all. It’s like saying diseases are natural and people are
going to eventually cope with diseases, so why bother trying to prevent diseases? I mean,
we do it because we want to protect certain values. We want to protect our native species,
we want to protect human health, we want to protect the health of our livestock. Of
course we need to be protective and have adequate standards. I mean, we don’t need to be
operating under a law that was written in 1900 just because some people think it’s futile
to try to deal with this issue…We could cope with it.


HOST TAG: Peter Jenkins was one of the authors of a Defenders of Wildlife report calling on the government to do a better job of screening live animal imports. He spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham. The report is available at www.defenders.org.

Related Links

Chemical Companies Could Be Safer

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups want Congress to push for use of less toxic chemicals at many industrial
sites. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


A House committee last year passed a plan to require industries to replace dangerous chemicals
with less toxic alternatives whenever feasible. The US Public Interest Research Group is among
the environmental organizations urging this year’s Congress to revive the measure.


Spokesman Bruce Speight argues the companies, and consumers, would not face sticker shock
when adopting greener chemicals and processes:


“No, in fact, over the long term they could actually save the facilities money and, you know, of course in the event of something happening, the cost to these facilities is great.”


When Speight says something happening he means an accident or terrorist attack at a site that
uses dangerous chemicals. Thousands of people could be hurt in such an incident. But the
chemical industry says many firms are already switching to less toxic substances, and don’t need
the federal government to push them.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Ethanol Part 2: Widening the Dead Zone?

  • Farmer Laura Krouse says the ethanol boom has been great for corn farmers, who she says are finally getting a fair price for their corn. But she says she's worried that there's not enough being done fast enough to reduce the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

Scientists are predicting the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico will reach its largest size ever this summer. Fish and shrimp can’t survive in the Dead Zone. It’s believed to be mainly caused by fertilizer washed from farm fields across the nation. Rebecca Williams reports some scientists say demand for ethanol made from corn could make the Dead Zone even bigger:

Transcript

Scientists are predicting the dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico will reach its largest size ever this summer. Fish and shrimp can’t survive in the dead zone. It’s believed to be mainly caused by fertilizer washed from farm fields across the nation. Rebecca Williams reports some scientists say demand for ethanol made from corn could make the dead zone even bigger:


(Sound of tractor raking hay)


“It’s the perfect Iowa day, you know?”


Laura Krouse is tearing apart a bale of hay to mulch her tomatoes.
She’s a thousand miles from the Gulf of Mexico. But she points out,
what happens on farms here ends up affecting life way down South:


“This watershed I live in drains 25% of Iowa. And we’re one of the
richest farming states in the nation – of course we have something to
do with it.”


By “it,” Krouse means the dead zone. All or parts of 31 farm states
drain into the Mississippi River, which empties into the Gulf.
Scientists point to nitrogen fertilizer used on farm fields as the main
cause of the dead zone. All that nitrogen causes an enormous algae
bloom. When the algae dies it drops to the ocean floor. Bacteria eat
the algae and they rob the water of oxygen.


This summer, the dead zone’s predicted to reach a record size. It could get as big as the state of New Jersey.


Laura Krouse has been trying to cut back her own role in the dead zone.
Five years ago, she added something to her farm that’s rare around here.
Krouse cut some of the tile lines that drain water from her farm, and
replaced part of her farmland with a prairie wetland. She says that
made her neighbors nervous:


“We just don’t see people taking land out of production in Iowa very
frequently.”


Wetlands like this one remove nitrogen from the water that flows from
farm fields.


It’s one of the things a government task force on the dead zone
recommended to cut nitrogen loading into the Gulf.


But instead of a big push to restore wetlands, the economic landscape
is changing in the other direction. Demand for ethanol has led to
historically high corn prices. And that’s encouraging farmers to grow
more corn. A USDA report says farmers have planted 14 million more
acres of corn this year than last year. It’s the most corn planted in
the U.S. in more than 50 years.


Laura Krouse says this is not good for the Gulf of Mexico:


“I’m concerned about all the extra corn because it requires nitrogen to
produce that corn and no matter how careful we are and no matter how
expensive it is which causes us to be more and more careful with
application, nitrogen as a molecule just wants to get away. It is
leaky.”


When it rains, nitrogen runs quickly from farm fields and gets into
creeks and rivers. The federal government’s task force on the dead zone has been trying to
tackle all this.


Don Scavia led a group of scientists advising the task force under the
Clinton Administration. The Bush Administration convened a new science
panel to review the original science panel’s work. Don Scavia says
since then, there’s been very little progress in shrinking the dead
zone, or what scientists call an area of hypoxia:


“In fact what we’ve seen in the last year is just the opposite with
this push towards corn-based ethanol production. Even acres that were
set aside into conservation are coming back out into production, into
corn, and the increased nitrogen load to the Gulf this year and the projected record
hypoxia is probably caused by this increased corn production.”


Scavia says if the dead zone keeps increasing, the Gulf shrimping
industry could collapse.


Ironically, the new science panel appointed by the Bush White House is
calling for even bigger cuts in nitrogen than the first panel appointed
by the Clinton Administration. They want to reduce nitrogen from farm
fields and other sources by 40 to 45 percent.


Don Parrish is with the American Farm Bureau. He says those reductions
are too much:


“Those are going to be really difficult and they could cause
significant economic dislocation at a time when I think we need to be
thinking about the products that agriculture produces, and those are
important.”


There’s no question corn for ethanol is at the top of that list right
now. Ethanol’s popular. It’s making farmers richer. It’s making the
chemical companies that supply nitrogen richer. The government task
force has to figure out how to cut back on all the nitrogen that’s
needed to grow all the corn… that’s needed for billions of gallons of
ethanol.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Report: Ethanol Not the Answer

  • As ethanol is becoming more common, the demand for corn is driving up prices for the grain. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Using corn to make fuel for cars and trucks will cause more pollution, higher food prices,
and will not greatly reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. That’s according to a
recent report by several environmental groups. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Using corn to make fuel for cars and trucks will cause more pollution, higher food prices,
and will not greatly reduce the country’s dependence on foreign oil. That’s according to a
recent report by several environmental groups. Mark Brush has more:


About 20% of this year’s crop in the US will go into making ethanol. That’s expected to jump to 27% next year. The push for more corn-based ethanol has already led to higher food prices. A new report
says if the ethanol trend continues unchecked – it will cause more fertilizer pollution in
water – and more air pollution from ethanol processing plants powered by coal and
natural gas.


Dulce Fernandez is with the Network for New Energy Solutions – one of the groups that
put out the report. She says ethanol is not the answer:


“I think everybody is looking for one great solution to solve all of these problems. But
nobody is thinking about the great potential that is out there to reduce demands.”


Fernandez says the best way to reduce demands is for the federal government to raise fuel
economy standards, instead of subsidizing corn-based ethanol.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Oil Companies Serve Up Bio-Diesel

  • Tom Torre (pictured) is Chief Operating Officer at Metro Fuel Oil. (Photo by Brad Linder)

For years, environmental activists have been demonstrating that you don’t need gasoline to fuel a
car. Some people have been retrofitting cars with diesel engines that can be powered by
restaurant grease. But with the price of oil soaring in recent years bio-diesel’s been getting more
popular. Brad Linder reports that it’s moving from a fuel for hobbyists to an energy alternative
that’s even getting the attention of oil companies:

Transcript

For years, environmental activists have been demonstrating that you don’t need gasoline to fuel a
car. Some people have been retrofitting cars with diesel engines that can be powered by
restaurant grease. But with the price of oil soaring in recent years bio-diesel’s been getting more
popular. Brad Linder reports that it’s moving from a fuel for hobbyists to an energy alternative
that’s even getting the attention of oil companies:


From a distance, Metro Fuel Oil in Brooklyn, New York looks like an over-sized gas station. And
in a way, that’s what it is. Truckers pull up to a series of pumps, grab a hose and load their tanks
with oil. It’ll be distributed to heating oil and diesel customers throughout the area.


Tom Torre is Metro’s chief operating officer. He says starting next year, some of those trucks
will be topping off with a blend of oil and vegetable-based bio-diesel:


“Kind of like if you’ve ever seen a Sunoco gas station where they had the different octanes you
can buy, same thing with the bio. It’d be B5, B10, B20, B15s, whatever they might utilize.”


In other words, you can get a blend… For example, B20 is 80% diesel and 20% bio-diesel.


For more than six decades, Metro has provided oil to residential and commercial customers. A
few years ago, Metro began importing processed bio-diesel from nearby states to fuel its own
fleet of 40 trucks.


But next year, the oil company plans start taking in raw vegetable oil and processing it on-site.
Metro’s planned 110 million gallon bio-diesel processing facility will be one of the largest in the
country.


Torre says Metro doesn’t expect to get out of the oil business anytime soon. But the company
does see a future for domestically-produced fuels like corn-based ethanol and vegetable-based
bio-diesel:


“And it’s good for the economy as well. I mean, you know, the numbers are astounding as to
how much we spend a day, billions of dollars a day, that are being spent on foreign imported oils that are going back to the Arabs where… and
nothing against the Arabs, don’t get me wrong, but it’s money flowing out of the United States.”


When the processing plant opens, Metro will be able convert large quantities of soybean, palm,
and rapeseed oil into fuel. With a few modifications, the facility could also process restaurant
grease:


“I’ve been here, with the company, for 25, 26 years. Most exciting thing that’s happened in at
least the last 20, 25 years. We’re looking to push this thing going forward. And with our
association as well, the New York Oil Heat Association, to say, listen guys. We’d better start
thinking about this. We’d better be forward thinkers. Otherwise we’re going to be left behind.”


But as more and more facilities like Metro’s pop up around the country, what happens to the
nation’s food supply? Bill Holmberg heads the biomass division of the American Council on
Renewable Energy. As the demand for vegetable-based fuels rises, he says so could the price of
foods based on corn and soybeans.


“I think there will be an increase in price in those. But I think they’re beginning to level off now,
I think people are beginning to realize that you can find other resources to make those diesel- type
fuels.”


Holmberg says if you make bio-diesel out of soybean oil, there’ll be less soybeans available for
food processing. But that’s not the case if you use restaurant grease. And researchers are looking
at ways to cultivate algae as a fast-growing source of vegetable oil for bio-diesel.


If the economic impact of bio-diesel remains unclear, Holmberg says there’s no question it’s
more environmentally friendly than petroleum. Bio-diesel emits far less carbon monoxide, sulfur,
and particulate matter than petroleum-based diesel.


The U.S. bio-diesel industry is still young. Last year, it processed less than 300 million gallons
of fuel, which is just a drop in the 40 billion gallon transportation diesel market. Holmberg says
even large facilities like Metro’s aren’t going to change that overnight:


“We, in the world of bio-fuels, ethanol, and bio-diesel and other forms of bio-fuels, will be
making a major contribution if we just do not increase the amount of fuels used in the
transportation sector, which we’re doing now. If we can just keep that number steady for a few
more years, we’re providing a real service to the United States.”


Holmberg hopes that ten years from now, facilities will be in place to actually reduce the amount
of petroleum used. He says that could be from a combination of ethanol, bio-diesel, gas electric
hybrid vehicles, and other technologies that are just in their infancy.


Metro’s Tom Torre doesn’t think the oil industry is going away anytime soon. But he says the
company’s willing to invest 15 million dollars in its new processing plant to help the
environment and to get in on a growing industry.


It doesn’t hurt that Metro can sell bio-diesel for almost the same price as oil. The federal
government provides a tax incentive for bio-diesel producers like Metro, and the state of New
York offers a tax credit to residents who purchase bio-diesel. Currently, that means it’s cheaper
to heat your house with a bio-diesel blend than with 100% petroleum-based heating oil.


Without those incentives, Torre says Metro would still be opening a processing facility — just a
much smaller one:


“It would definitely not have been a 110 million gallon plant. You know, we could have started it
off with 5 million gallons, let’s say, and just utilize it for people that really wanted to be green.
But when we took a hard look at it and saw that it could be competitive, especially last year as
the price of petroleum just soared, is when we really started to say you know what? Instead of
doing the 5 million, let’s just go right to the 110 million.”


Metro’s new bio-diesel processing plant – one of the biggest in the country – is scheduled to open
next fall.


For the Environment Report, I’m Brad Linder.

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

States Pass Feds on Invasives Law

  • Federal restrictions have not stopped importation of invasive species. Now some states are passing laws that will stop some ocean-going ships from docking in their ports. (Photo by Lester Graham)

US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:

Transcript

US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:


The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.


In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.


The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.


In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.


People in the shipping business say the problem is Michigan is
the only state in the Great Lakes region that is requiring ocean-
going freighters to install expensive technology as a condition
of using one of its ports.


John Jamian is the president of the Seaway Great Lakes Trade
Association. He says requiring ocean-going freighters to install
expensive technology before they can dock in Michigan ports won’t
solve the problem. The ships will just go to other Great Lakes
ports.


If a ship goes to Windsor or Toledo that doesn’t have these rules
and regulations, they will discharge their cargo. If there were
any critters on those ships they could still swim or crawl into
Michigan waters, so you still haven’t solved anything.


Jamian represents the owners of ships that travel from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
He says ship owners will very likely avoid Michigan ports, and
choose to unload at ports in other states and Canada:


“The fact of the matter is that they’re not going to put an
expensive piece of equipment just because Michigan calls for it
on their ship when in fact it may not be acceptable anywhere else
in the world and it might just be easier to take that cargo
across the river and unload it where they don’t have these
regulations.”


And for Michigan ports that are near other competing ports,
that’s a concern. Patrick Sutka is the treasurer for Nicholson
Terminal and Dock Company at the Port of Detroit:


“We fear these ships may be going to other ports, such as Windsor
right across the waterway, or other competitors of ours such as
Toledo or Cleveland.”


At the height of the shipping season, there might be three
freighters at a time moored to the docks, offloading steel and
other cargo. A hundred trucks a day will move in and out of the
docking area to get those commodities to factories.


On the dock right now are dozens of stacks of 20-ton slabs of
steel from France and Russia. That Russian steel was most likely
shipped from a port in the Caspian Sea or the Black Sea. The
freighters take on ballast water from those seas for the voyage
to the Great Lakes. That ballast water helps keep the ships low
and steady in the water.


The ships are required to exchange the water in deep ocean mid-
journey. The salt water is supposed to kill the fresh water
organisms. But, some organisms can survive the trip. That’s how
zebra mussels, quagga mussels and the round goby fish made their
way from the Balkans to the Great Lakes.


Those invasive species and others combine to cost the economy an
estimated 5 billion dollars a year. For example, zebra
mussels cost taxpayers and utility customers. It shows up in
your power bill because the utilities have to pay divers to
scrape the crustaceans off pipes carrying cooling water to power
plants.


Shipping companies, port owners, and dock workers’ unions are all
pressuring Michigan to hold off on enforcing its new law. What
they’d really like is for the federal government to step in,
negotiate with Canada, and create a regional set of rules for
combating aquatic invaders:


“…But the federal government has not had the guts or the
gumption to step up to the plate and get this done.”


Patti Birkholz chairs the Michigan Senate Environmental Affairs
Committee. She sponsored the law:


“So we’re going to do it on a state-by-state basis. Our eco-
system within the Great Lakes is what many scientists have termed
‘on the tipping point.’ We cannot deal with any more invasive
species in this system, and we know the majority of the invasive
species come through the ocean-going vessels. They know they’re
the cause. We know they’re the cause. We’ve got to deal with this
situation.”


Michigan’s new law is as much a political statement as anything
else and other states are starting to follow Michigan’s lead.
Birkholz says Wisconsin and New York could pass ballast standards
this year.


In the mean time, Michigan environmental officials say they
intend to enforce the state’s requirements when the Great Lakes
shipping season resumes in the spring. But, so far, no ocean
freighters have applied for a permit to dock at a Michigan Port.


For the Environment Report, this is Rick Pluta.

Related Links