Tag: lands

Part 5: The Science Behind Dioxin Delays

  • West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River. Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination. The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot spots in the rivershed. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Two rivers in central Michigan were
polluted with dioxin 30 years ago.
The dioxin came from a Dow chemical
plant. The toxin’s been found in fish,
animals, and dirt, but, of all those,
contaminated soil might be the touchiest
subject. A study done in the area suggests
dioxin in soil might not be getting into
people living there. In the final part
of a series on Dow Chemical and dioxin,
Shawn Allee looks at that study
and the government’s take on it:

Transcript

Two rivers in central Michigan were
polluted with dioxin 30 years ago.
The dioxin came from a Dow chemical
plant. The toxin’s been found in fish,
animals, and dirt, but, of all those,
contaminated soil might be the touchiest
subject. A study done in the area suggests
dioxin in soil might not be getting into
people living there. In the final part
of a series on Dow Chemical and dioxin,
Shawn Allee looks at that study
and the government’s take on it:

To understand what’s at stake over the science of dioxin and soil, I want to talk with Marcia Woodman.

So, Woodman and I talk in this big, three-season room with tons of windows. It’s like you’re outside in some woods.

“I love it, so it wasn’t hard to convince me to move here.”

From here, the trees look inviting, but Woodman says she only lets her kids enjoy them from a distance.

“They’re not allowed to play back in the woods anymore. They used to play and we used to take walks back there.”

You see, eight years ago, the state tested soil for dioxin. Her place was okay, but there were high levels in the neighborhood. So, Woodman worried dioxin might move from soil into her kids, and maybe they’d get cancer or some other disease. But, what if dioxin in soil is not getting into people nearby?

“We found virtually no relationship between soil contamination and blood dioxin levels. In other words, the amount of soil contamination on your property really didn’t relate to blood levels.”

This is Dr. David Garabrant. He researches public health at the University of Michigan. Now, we need to tell you, in the interest of full disclosure, The Environment Report is produced at the University of Michigan.

Dr. Garabrant looked at whether people in the contaminated region have higher dioxin levels in their blood. They do – but just slightly. And those higher dioxins levels? They’re probably from other factors, like living in that area when dioxin pollution was highest – decades ago. Again, for him, soil is less of an issue.

This conclusion bothers two groups of people that really matter. That would be the US Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Michigan. The EPA would not provide an interview on this, but they have public documents about it. Michigan has the same reservations about the study. Here’s just one.

“He didn’t test children. And children, typically, have some of the highest exposures.”

This is Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality.

“It’s probably even more of a concern for children who get down into the dirt and get it on their hands and shoes and so forth.”

Chester says the state needs to create regulations that take risk to kids into account. That makes Dr. Garabrant’s study a bit beside the point. Dr. Garabrant says he wanted to get kids into his study, but you have to draw lots of blood.

“You can’t ethically take enough blood from a child to find the dioxins. And that’s a real dilemma.”

Garabrant says his study went as far as it could.

For some people, there’s a different problem with the research.

“The study is funded by the Dow Chemical company through an unrestricted grant to the University of Michigan.”

That would be Dow Chemical – the company that polluted the Tittabawassee River and floodplain decades ago. Soon, Dow might have to spend tens or maybe hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up contaminated river silt and soil. Still, Garabrant insists Dow has no influence.

“The only thing we give Dow is when they sit in meetings like the rest of the public and they hear what we have to say.”

Garabrant’s study on dioxin exposure is getting attention right when the US EPA is taking another look at the risk dioxin poses to people. Critics of his study worry it will stir up a whole new debate that could delay dioxin clean ups in Michigan and other toxic waste sites across the country.

The EPA insists it won’t let that happen – and it’ll soon have more science to back up its position.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 4: Hunters Warned After Dioxin Delays

  • Fish advisories dot the banks of the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers. Various forms or pollution, including historical dioxin pollution from Dow Chemical, have led to warnings to avoid certain species of fish and limit consumption for them. Pregnant woment and young children are given more stringent warnings. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

It’s deer season in Michigan, and
hunters are trekking through the woods,
trying to bag dinner or something
special for the holidays. Hunting’s
gotten a little complicated in some
areas recently. Just because you catch
something doesn’t mean you should eat
it. That’s because a stretch of river
in Michigan was polluted with dioxin –
decades ago. In the fourth part of a
series on Dow Chemical and dioxin, Shawn
Allee found the state thinks
old dioxin pollution from a Dow chemical
plant poses a health risk today:

Transcript

It’s deer season in Michigan, and
hunters are trekking through the woods,
trying to bag dinner or something
special for the holidays. Hunting’s
gotten a little complicated in some
areas recently. Just because you catch
something doesn’t mean you should eat
it. That’s because a stretch of river
in Michigan was polluted with dioxin –
decades ago. In the fourth part of a
series on Dow Chemical and dioxin, Shawn
Allee found the state thinks
old dioxin pollution from a Dow chemical
plant poses a health risk today:

It was hard for me to understand why wild game like deer or turkey might be contaminated from river pollution, so I hit up Daniel O’Brien for some answers. O’Brien’s a toxicologist with Michigan’s Department of Natural Resources. He says the problem starts with dioxin in the river.

“It’s in the sediments in these contaminated parts of the Tittabawassee River, and after flood events in the spring when, say, mud in the river gets deposited onto bushes or whatever and deer browse those, then they pick up soil that way.”

Part of O’Brien’s job is to spread the news about the contamination. He says when you buy a hunting license in Michigan you get this brochure.

“It’s a booklet that has all the regulations for hunting and trapping in it.”

These wildlife consumption advisories are voluntary but they kinda read like owners manuals. They lay out where the dioxin-contaminated animals are. They tell you what animals you can eat, and what parts. For example, no one’s supposed to eat deer liver from the areas – that’s got the most dioxin in it. And, of cuts you can eat, the advisory says how much, and how often. Plus, they tell who should eat less or maybe none at all.

“Kids might be more sensitive. They might have a more stringent advisory than somebody like me who’s kinda your middle-aged man and we might not be as susceptible to toxic effects.”


The idea’s to protect people from dioxin, and the risk it poses for cancer and diseases of the immune, reproductive, and developmental systems. It’s an important job, given how big hunting is in Michigan.

“We have three quarters of a million hunters every year that go afield and harvest half a million white-tailed deer.”

Michigan scientists take the issue seriously, but I’m kinda curious whether hunters do. So, I visit the Saginaw Field and Stream Club. Inside, there’s this paneled wall with faded pictures of club presidents. It stretches from the club’s founding in 1916 – all the way to this guy, current President Tom Heritier.

“We’re still here today.”

Heritier says his club’s smack-dab in the contaminated area and everyone knows about the advisories, but, well …

“With the game advisories, I have not heard one person who has any problem with the deer or the birds around the watershed.”

This goes for him, too.

“Nobody is sick from it. I don’t know of anybody that has died of exposure. That’s never been proven. It’s nothing to take lightly, but then again, it might be a little bit on the overblown side, too.”

The State of Michigan tried to survey hunters like Heritier. Officials wanted to know if hunters were feeding tainted game to young children. That survey never made the budget.

Before I leave the hunting club, Heritier wants to clear something up. He’s actually mad about dioxin. It’s in the environment – he wants it gone.

Heritier: “There’s absolutely no reason for industry to be polluting our natural resources, whether it be air, soil, or water.”

Allee: “Even if it’s not a slam-dunk, for sure, killing people off sort of thing?”

Heritier: “Number one, God didn’t put it there, it don’t belong there. That’s the way it is.”

Well, Heritier wants the environment protected from dioxin, but not necessarily himself.

State scientists say, if Heritier changes his mind and wants to reduce his health risk – they’ll keep printing those game advisories for him.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 3: Living With Dioxin Delays

  • Mitch Larson lives in Saginaw's Riverside neighborhood, which saw a large dioxin removal project last year. His home is on the banks of Tittabawassee River. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:

Transcript

Several communities in central Michigan
are polluted by dioxins from a Dow Chemical
plant. People there have known about
it for thirty years. But, residents
are divided over whether the government
should force Dow to pay for a cleanup
that could cost tens, or even hundreds,
of millions of dollars. In the third
part of a series on Dow and dioxin,
Shawn Allee traveled to the
area and talked with some of them:

Dow Chemical is not just some company in Midland, Michigan. It’s part of life there.
Dow employs thousands of people. It pays for libraries and civic gardens. A high school football team is even named “The Chemix.”

I talked with plenty of people who’ve sided with Dow over the dioxin pollution issue. One works right across the street from the chemical plant.

“We’re in my law office and my house is two blocks south of us here.”

Bob McKellar says Dow’s been good for Midland, and, as far as he’s concerned, the federal government’s been trashing the town.

McKellar: “Dow, rightfully so, takes the position that, you know, ‘why are you always picking on us? We agree we’ve done some of this and we agree we’ll help clean it up.’ But then the EPA comes back and says, ‘well, you’re not doing enough.'”

Allee: “But the EPA says they’ve been dealing with the issue for 30 years.”

McKellar: “It’s because the EPA’s had the fist out – they haven’t come with a little bouquet of flowers and say, ‘okay folks, let’s sit down and talk about this and let’s get this thing done right.’”

McKellar says, getting things done right means the government should pay for a big hunk of any dioxin cleanup. It’s only fair – because he thinks pollution in the river and soil is overblown, and the EPA’s the one overblowing it.

Downstream, fewer people work at the Dow plant. They see less benefit, but they live with more dioxin pollution.

“Well, This is the Tittabawassee River. This is my homestead.”

I’m with Mitch Larson. He lives 20 miles downstream from Midland. His home’s in a woodsy part of Saginaw.

“When I bought this place, I was thinking that this would be a great place for kids to grow up. As they grew up, it was a right of passage to swim across the river. You know, I’d swim alongside them, you’d swim across to the other bank, and you’d have them sign their name in the sand, you know, you did it.”

The Tittabawassee River floods, and it left silt and traces of dioxin on Larson’s yard, but he didn’t know that until the state government tested his soil and found the dioxin.

They even tested his pet chickens and the eggs he fed his kids.

Larson: “They tested those also.”

Allee: “What did they tell you?”

Larson: “Don’t eat them. Chickens eat the dirt. The dirt was where the dioxin was, and eggs were full of dioxin. So, for the past couple years, every egg we ate was like a little shot of dioxin.”

He got rid of the chickens, of course, but he had to have a talk with his teenage girls. A report said the dioxin put them at risk for having kids with birth defects.

“You know, when they were all tested for the dioxin, I told them they were all high in dioxin and I had information about, you know, about the child-bearing thing. It put them at risk for having kids. You know, it’s not a good feeling.”

Larson and one hundred seventy two other plaintiffs sued Dow to pay for follow-up medical monitoring.

The courts said no.

Six years after dioxin was first found on the property, Dow chemical paid to clean and re-sod Larson’s lawn. He says it looks great, but he worries another flood’s gonna leave behind dioxin.

Right now, Dow and the EPA are negotiating an agreement that might make Dow clean up river sediment.

“If it takes them thirty years to clean this river up so it’s clean for the next 200 years, it’d be worth it. People are fishing, kids are swimming across the river to show, you know, they’re a bad-ass.”

Larson says he’d welcome that future – even if it cost Dow a lot of money.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 2: Foot Dragging Produces Dioxin Delays

  • The southeast corner of the Dow Chemical plant, from the vantage of Midland's Whiting Overlook Park, which features an homage to and history of the company and its founder. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:

Transcript

The State of Michigan, the US
Environmental Protection Agency
and Dow Chemical are negotiating
an agreement to clean up dioxin
pollution in towns, two rivers,
and Lake Huron. The pollution
is largely from a Dow chemical
plant in Midland, Michigan. The
government worries the pollution
poses a risk of cancer and other
health problems, and it’s been
found in fish, on property, and
in the blood of some people there.
Residents are asking why it’s taken
so long to get cleaned up. In the
second part of a series on Dow and
dioxin, Shawn Allee went
looking for an answer:

If you want to see an environmentalist kinda lose his cool – talk to James Clift of the Michigan Environmental Council.

And bring up dioxin pollution.

Clift: “Um, it’s … people are think, frustrated. It is my entire career of working environmental protection in Michigan, this has been an issue. I’ve been doing this for over twenty years, and from day one I’ve been sitting on meetings about this site.”

Allee: “You’d rather work on something else? Birds or something?”

Clift: “I’d rather work on something else.”

Clift is frustrated with people who could have wrapped this up.

“I believe that each administration at both the state and federal level is culpable in failing to move this forward.”

When I talked to federal and state officials about this, they did some serious finger-pointing.

Let’s start with Steve Chester. He heads Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Chester says when people first learned about the dioxin problem at Dow’s chemical plant, the federal government was the lead regulator.

That changed.

“The federal government wanted to transition and hand the project off to the state of Michigan and we were in fact given this corrective action authority in the mid-nineties, and so there was a period of time quite frankly, the agencies didn’t take advantage of moving a little bit quicker.”

Actually, it took Michigan almost ten years to re-license the Dow chemical plant. That meant the state was slow to find out exactly where old dioxin pollution was in the river system, so some people didn’t know there was dioxin in their yards until the past few years. That’s decades after dioxins got into local rivers.

But what about the US Environmental Protection Agency?

Several former officials said the polluter, Dow, slowed things down.

One of these who would go on the record is Mary Gade. She led the EPA office that regulated Dow. Now, in the past we’ve reported Gade said she was fired by the Bush Administration because she got tough with Dow.

The EPA wouldn’t comment on that.

But even today, Gade says Dow slowed down the clean-up.


“I think this corporation is hugely adept at playing the system and understanding how to build in delays and use the bureaucracy to their advantage and to use the political system to their advantage.”

A confidential memo leaked from the EPA says when Dow didn’t like what Michigan’s technical staff had to say, they’d go higher up and try to get rules changed.

For a month, I requested comment from Dow. A spokeswoman said the company is interested in talking about the future, not the past.

People who’ve watched this say, there’s been plenty of foot-dragging.

But why should this dioxin cleanup even matter to people who don’t live there? It’s Michigan’s problem, right?

Well, James Clift, that environmentalist, says, no, there’s a long list of toxic waste sites across the country. And Clift worries the government gets bogged down with big, slow cleanups.

“If they’re not even getting to the big ones which are known to everyone as known as causing widespread problems, that means they’re not getting to the medium sized ones and they’re not getting to the small ones.”

But there seems to be some progress. Recently, the EPA, the State of Michigan, and Dow came to a tentative agreement about cleaning up the dioxin pollution.

That means there’s at least one more delay, that would be public comment until mid-December.

That’s one delay many people don’t mind.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Part 1: A Long History of Dioxin Delays

  • In 1981, Valdus Adamkus was appointed to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. One of his jobs jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled a report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution. (Photo source: Dantadd at Wikimedia Commons)

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

Transcript

Dioxin pollution has been present in a
watershed in central Michigan for more
than thirty years. People around the
country might think it’s just a local
issue, but there was a time when this
very same pollution problem made national
news. In the first part of a series
on Dow and dioxin, Shawn Allee met the man who took the issue to Congress
and who feels it should make news again:

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed Valdus Adamkus to a regional Environmental Protection Agency office. From the get-go, one of Adamkus’ jobs was to study dioxin pollution that got into the Great Lakes. His office compiled this report that said dioxin is a cancer risk, and that a Dow Chemical plant in Michigan was responsible for some dioxin pollution.

Adamkus says his bosses in Washington called this report “trash.”

Adamkus: “We simply refused to retreat from our findings.”

Allee: “Did they ask you to retreat from your findings?”

Adamkus: “Yes, unfortunately we almost got instructions, let’s use a very mild word, to change our report. And that brought us Congressional hearings, which probably the entire country was watching on TV networks.”

Koeppel (ABC Archive ): “An official at the EPA today said the Dow chemical company was allowed to participate in the redrafting of a report on dioxin contamination that had been critical of Dow. And that official charged that Dow’s involvement was at the direction of the EPA’s acting chief.”

That was March 18, 1983, and ABC’s Ted Koeppel wasn’t the only one covering the Congressional hearings.

All the TV outlets caught this line from Adamkus –

Adamkus ( ABC Archive ): “It’s unethical, unusual, unprofessional to get the internal document approved by outside company.”

So, higher-ups in the EPA allowed Dow to edit the report critical of the company. But, in some ways, Adamkus won. His boss got ousted and Ronald Reagan gave Adamkus a civil service award for integrity.

As for Dow Chemical’s involvement?

For a month, I asked for comment.

A Dow spokeswoman said the company was interested in talking about the future, not the past.

Adamkus eventually left the EPA and he became President of Lithuania. But back in the US, there was a surprising follow-up to his fight over dioxin.

Mary Gade was a young staff attorney back when Adamkus was on TV. Twenty-three years later, President George W. Bush appointed her to Adamkus’ old job. When Gade arrived – dioxin was still a problem in Michigan.

“My staff in the region characterized this as probably the worst dioxin contamination in the country.”

And, she saw it as a national issue.

“You’d like to expect that your government will function appropriately, that corporations will act responsibly and that you can be assured of a safe and healthy environment for you and your family.”

So, Gade ordered Dow Chemical to clean up some hot spots.

“They would either do the work themselves or the federal government would go forward and do it on their own, and then go back and sue Dow to cover our costs.”

Michigan politicians complained about Gade, and some state officials felt some of her actions were counterproductive. In May 2008, she was forced to resign.

Gade told the Chicago Tribune, it was for being tough on Dow.

The EPA hasn’t commented on that, and Dow denies any involvement.

Recently, Mary Gade’s old boss, Valdus Adamkus, returned to his old EPA office to say hello. He asked about the dioxin problem in Michigan, and he learned it’s still around – after all these years, and after all the trouble he and Mary Gade got from it.

“When I hear from them what enforcement actions are being still considered, and that they are not big progress in that respect, that’s what really bothers me and to me this is inexcusable.”

Dow and the EPA are negotiating a final resolution on cleanup right now.

But Valdus Adamkus knows details need to be worked out, and he says all of this has been promised before.

“God help them. I hope this is really coming to the end.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

On Board ‘The Waterpod’

  • The pod docked at the Worlds Fair Marina in Queens. (Photo by Samara Freemark)

So, maybe you think you do good
by the environment. Maybe you buy
local, maybe you go to the farmers’
market, maybe you even walk to work.
But you’ve probably got nothing on
the crew aboard the Waterpod – a
converted barge anchored in New York
City. Samara Freemark
went to the Pod to see just how
sustainably people can live:

Transcript

So, maybe you think you do good
by the environment. Maybe you buy
local, maybe you go to the farmers’
market, maybe you even walk to work.
But you’ve probably got nothing on
the crew aboard the Waterpod – a
converted barge anchored in New York
City. Samara Freemark
went to the Pod to see just how
sustainably people can live:

When I caught up with the Waterpod barge, it was docked at a marina right next to
Laguardia Airport.

(sound of a plane)

That’s the sound of people and products moving all around the world.

But on board the Waterpod, four artists have spent the summer living locally – about as
locally as a group of people can possibly live. They’ve been surviving almost entirely on
what they can make, grow, or gather on a 3000 square foot barge.

Which is where I found artist and Waterpod creator Mary Mattingly.

“Hi.”

Last spring, Mattingly and some friends rented the barge and spent a month converting it.
They built a kitchen, 4 bedrooms, gardens, and a whole lot of alternative energy and
water systems. They wanted to see whether they could create a floating self-contained
ecosystem – one that could adapt to a future where resources were scarce and rising sea
levels had swamped coastal regions.

“We’re probably going to need to find new ways to make land that’s usable. So can you
just recreate it on a platform like this? So what’s the answer? I think so.”

Waterpod launched in June. It’s been traveling to docks in the New York City area since
then. The barge is towed around by tugboats – not exactly a sustainable energy source,
true, but the crew does pretty well producing just about everything else.”

We have 33 vegetables and 2 fruits. In this garden we’re growing kale, potatoes,
tomatoes.”

There’s also a coop for 4 chickens, which each produce an egg a day.

“Their names are Gilly, Rizzo, Marble and Bonzai.”

Between the chickens and the gardens, Mattingly says Waterpod is almost self-sufficient
for food. The barge gets its water from collected and purified rain.

“We get enough water barely. We are very close to not having enough water. We only
use a 55 gallon jug of water a day. So split between four people that’s about maybe 10
gallons a day at the most. So we’re taking really short showers.”

Solar panels and a power-generating stationary bike provide energy – enough to power
the lights and the fridge and an impressive collection of laptop computers. The crew uses
those to collect and analyze data on how their various survival systems are functioning.

Crew member Ian Daniels says the data could eventually be used not just by people
embarking on radical living experiments – but also by regular folks who just want to
make their homes a little more sustainable.

“We have 3000 square feet here. So what would happen if you cut that in half? Or a
third? What can I use that space for? Maybe you’re growing food on your roof or in your
window. Maybe you just take this example and take it down a notch, just do what’s
plausible in your own world.”

The Waterpod experiment is ending. So, I asked the crew for the biggest lesson they
learned this summer about living sustainably. Was it about energy conservation? Or, a
new method for collecting rainwater? Actually, Mattingly told me, it was mostly about
getting along with other people.

“I guess I didn’t really consider what it would be like to live in such a small space for
such a long time with other people and the psychology of that became a really interesting
part of the day to day life, and how we managed to make that work and how we would
have to have that dinner every night to reconnect and get back together.”

Which, she says, is a lesson that translates pretty well back on land.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Solar Within City Limits

  • Tom O'Neill (in suit) develops new businesses for Exelon, an energy company best known for its fleet of nuclear power stations. The Chicago solar project is the company's largest to date. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

There’s a commercial-scale solar project
that’s getting some buzz in Chicago and
beyond. The builders promise to use up
some abandoned industrial space within
the city limits… and hope to provide
some local jobs. City governments across
the country like both of those ideas.
Shawn Allee looks at why this
urban solar project’s falling into place,
and whether it might get repeated across
the country:

Transcript

There’s a commercial-scale solar project
that’s getting some buzz in Chicago and
beyond. The builders promise to use up
some abandoned industrial space within
the city limits… and hope to provide
some local jobs. City governments across
the country like both of those ideas.
Shawn Allee looks at why this
urban solar project’s falling into place,
and whether it might get repeated across
the country:

Carrie Austin is a Chicago alderman, and, as she says, she’s constantly dealing with problems unique to Chicago. But she’s convinced she’s got one problem a lot other cities face, too: what to do with vacant industrial land. She’s got 200 acres of it in her neighborhood.

“The environmental issues left from the company, left us with such devastation without any regards to human life. That has been our fight all these years. ”

Austin says, even with some clean-up in recent years, it’s been tough getting someone to come in with some work – and jobs.

“We’ve talked to FedEx, Kinkos and many other corporate offices. Even to Wal-Mart, bringing some of their distrubution to such a large piece of land. But to no avail.”

Austin says there’s a portion of this land she’s not so worried about now. The energy company, Exelon, is putting up solar panels on about 40 acres. And for the first time in a long time, there’s the sound of new construction there.

“This site’s been vacant for thirty years.”

That’s Tom O’Neill – he develops new businesses for Exelon. We’re walking along a padded-down field of soil where there used to be factory walls, machines, and concrete floors.

“What’s changed is you don’t see the brush and the shrubbery and there was a building that used to be here. The whole site is now graded and you can see signs of the construction where the foundations are going to come out. If you look further west, you can actually see the foundations going in for the solar panels, so it’s changed quite a bit.”

This is a transformation a lot of cities would envy, but I’m curious why Exelon’s doing this in Chicago and whether it’ll repeat it in other cities. On the first question, O’Neill says Exelon’s putting up the panels because it’s got a plan to cut its own carbon emissions.

“This project here will displace 30 million pounds of greenhouse gases per year. So it is a part of our low-carbon initiative.”

This Chicago solar project qualifies for federal loan guarantees and tax credits, but even with that, it’s not clear Exelon will make a profit. So, the question is: will Exelon repeat this? O’Neill says he’s hopeful.

“It is a demonstration project to show what can be done and with its success will come other successes.”

To get an industry-wide view of whether other cities might get urban solar farms, I talk with Nathaniel Bullard. He analyses solar power markets for New Energy Finance, a consulting firm. Bullard says cities are eager to re-use land that can be an eye-sore, or even cost a city money to maintain. For example, some southwestern cities have old landfills – and they’re planning to put solar farms on top.

“We’ve actually see those go much larger than what’s on the books right now for Exelon.”

Bullard says companies are taking a closer look at solar power because states are mandating utilities buy at least some. And the US Congress changed some tax laws recently. Exelon is taking advantage of that.

“First thing to note in the Exelon project is that it is Exelon itself which is going to own its project. If this was a year ago, they would be purchasing the electricity on contract. Now, with a change in policy, investor-owned utilities is allowed to own the asset itself and take advantage of tax benefit.”

Bullard says we’re likely to see more urban solar projects like Chicago’s – if the technology gets cheaper and government incentives stay in place.

Bullard has this joke about solar power that he swears is true. He says, in the solar industry, the strongest light does not come from sunshine – it comes from government policy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

National Parks Hit by Climate

  • Glacier National Park in Montana. (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)

A new report warns that US National
Parks will be affected by global warming.
Tanya Ott reports rising sea
levels and changing habitat will mean
major changes:

Transcript

A new report warns that US National
Parks will be affected by global warming.
Tanya Ott reports rising sea
levels and changing habitat will mean
major changes:

Forget melting ice-caps. Stephen Saunders wants you to picture your favorite
vacation spot closer to home.

“Climate disruption caused by humans is the greatest threat to all of our national parks.”

Saunders is president of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. Their new
report identifies 25 national parks, lakeshores, seashores and monuments
most at risk from warming temperatures, rising sea levels and retreating
snow.

So what does that mean? Among other things, wildlife is going to
have to move to other areas. The report recommends the Park Service work
with private landowners to create special wildlife corridors for migration.

Right now, the US Senate is considering clean energy and climate
legislation. The House passed its climate bill in June.

For The Environment Report, I”m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Not Just Tailpipes and Smokestacks

  • 42% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US are related to everything that goes into creating the food and products we use, and then throw away. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

More than 100 world leaders are
in New York today talking about
climate change at The United Nations.
A new report from the U-S Environmental
Protection agency says a big chunk of
greenhouse gas emissions can be pinned
on how we use land and resources.
Tamara Keith has more:

Transcript

More than 100 world leaders are
in New York today talking about
climate change at The United Nations.
A new report from the U-S Environmental
Protection agency says a big chunk of
greenhouse gas emissions can be pinned
on how we use land and resources.
Tamara Keith has more:

Some EPA scientists say greenhouse gas emissions are not just about tailpipes and smokestacks. They say you have to look at the big picture.

42% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US are related to everything that goes into creating the food and products we use, and then throw away. So, they say more reduce, reuse and recycle. And, a lot of emissions are caused by urban sprawl. We have to drive everywhere.

Brigit Lowery is with the EPA. She says there are ways to reduce those emissions too.

“Encouraging compact development, such as promoting smart growth. But also reducing development pressures on green space, such as redeveloping formerly contaminated properties.”

Lowery said she knew going into it that land use and resource management contributed to climate change. But she was surprised by how much.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Size Does Matter, Research Suggests

  • Some scientists blame global warming for larger and more intense hurricanes. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

When it comes to hurricanes,
apparently size does matter.
New research suggests the bigger
the storm, the more tornadoes it
spawns. Tanya Ott reports:

Transcript

When it comes to hurricanes,
apparently size does matter.
New research suggests the bigger
the storm, the more tornadoes it
spawns. Tanya Ott reports:

Last year, Hurricane Ike ripped through Texas and the Midwest. It was a
relatively weak Category 2 storm. But it spun off a lot of tornadoes and
caused 32 billion dollars in damage.

Researchers at the Georgia Institute of
Technology say they have a new model for predicting how many tornadoes a
hurricane will cause. Dr. Judith Curry says storm size – not intensity –
is the key.

“A lot of time people just think, oh it’s Category 5 or
it’s a Category 2, and they immediately calculate the risk to damage in
their head and the 5 is bad ande 2 isn’t so bad.”

But, Curry says, sometimes a 5 can be small and tight, and a 2,
especially one like Ike, can be big and produce a lot of tornadoes.

The study is published in this month’s Geophysical Research Letters.

Some scientists blame global warming for larger and more intense hurricanes.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links