A broken dam caused this cement-like sludge to spill into the Emory River in East Tennessee. The coal ash sludge could dry out, putting toxic dust into the air. (Photo by Matt Shafer Powell)
This past December a sludge of coal ash broke out of an impoundment at a power plant in
Tennessee. It destroyed homes. It devastated a section of river. And it set off a firestorm
about the problem of coal ash disposal. Now two US Senators and a bunch of environmental
groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash. Tamara
Keith has the story:
Transcript
This past December a sludge of coal ash broke out of an impoundment at a power plant in
Tennessee. It destroyed homes. It devastated a section of river. And it set off a firestorm
about the problem of coal ash disposal. Now two US Senators and a bunch of environmental
groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash. Tamara
Keith has the story:
Coal ash is byproduct produced by coal burning power plants and it’s stored at more than 500
sites around the country.
Anti-coal activist Dave Cooper signed onto a letter this week with more than 100
environmental groups telling the EPA it’s time to get involved.
“What we want is for the EPA to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.”
But Dave Goss with the American Coal Ash Association says safe storage is an issue, but a
lot of the ash is actually recycled into things like concrete and wallboard.
“If you stigmatize it by giving it some sort of a classification such as hazardous, that’s going
to have a dramatic impact on the ability to re-use the materials.”
The EPA has been studying this issue for years, and hasn’t responded to the latest calls for
regulation.
Dennis Macray of Starbucks speaks about the coffee company’s social and environmental efforts. He was the keynote speaker for the annual George McGovern lecture for United Nations’ employees. (Photo by Nancy Greenleese)
People who work to help people in poor countries have always had big hearts. Some of
those helping these days have fat wallets as well. Multinational corporations are helping
the people who grow raw materials for those companies. They’re protecting the
environment, building schools, trying to improve living conditions – just like charities.
Nancy Greenleese reports there’s controversy over the businesses’ motives. But there’s
no denying they’re changing how help is given in poor countries:
Transcript
People who work to help people in poor countries have always had big hearts. Some of
those helping these days have fat wallets as well. Multinational corporations are helping
the people who grow raw materials for those companies. They’re protecting the
environment, building schools, trying to improve living conditions – just like charities.
Nancy Greenleese reports there’s controversy over the businesses’ motives. But there’s
no denying they’re changing how help is given in poor countries:
(sound of steaming milk and cups clanking)
At a Starbucks in Germany, customers are clamoring for their daily fix of caffeine.
“My name is Ellen Sycorder and I’m from Bonn. And I’m drinking a black coffee.”
What she doesn’t realize is that it’s coffee with a conscience.
Starbucks buys the bulk of its coffee from farmers in its program called Coffee And
Farmer Equity or CAFÉ. The farmers agree to grow quality coffee without jeopardizing
the environment. They pledge to take care of their workers and pay them fairly. Ellen
can drink to that.
“I think the idea is positive and I think I would drink more coffee here than somewhere
else.”
That’s exactly what Starbucks ordered a decade ago when it teamed up with the
environmental group Conservation International. They started by helping farmers in
Chiapas Mexico grow premium beans while protecting the region’s famous cloud forest.
CAFÉ practices grew from there. Starbucks and its non-profit partners are working with
farmers now from Costa Rica to East Timor.
Dennis Macray of Starbucks says the environmental advice is paying off.
“We’ve had farmers come to us and say these practices helped me weather a hurricane
for example, where neighboring farms had mudslides.”
Starbucks’ director of global responsibility says the company sometimes even
discourages farmers from growing beans. That might seem like a grande step backwards.
But Macray says keeping the farmers in business is the goal and sometimes that means
diversifying.
He recently found out how well it was working when he visited the mud hut of a Kenyan
farmer .
“In this case, the farmer was really proud of all the fruit and other vegetables that he had
on his farm. So he walked around and showed us how interspersed in-between the coffee
and providing shade for the coffee which is very important were a number of other crops
and fruits and things that he could either sell or his family could feed itself.”
Starbucks is among a growing list of multinational companies that are pouring money
into the developing world. Veteran international aid worker Carl Hammerdorfer says
working with big corporations made him pause at first.
“I’m a pretty skeptical, maybe even cynical, person about the motives of business. I
would have said 5 years ago that these Fortune 500 companies are only talking about
environmental and social concerns for marketing purposes, so they would improve their
image and sell more product.”
But he says global climate change prompted the companies to take their mission more
seriously. Any changes to the climate that shrink the rain forest, parch or flood land
would drastically affect their supplies of raw materials.
The former Peace Corps country director says his views have changed as he’s watched
companies such as McDonalds help farmers build more stable businesses.
“The evolution of their consciousness about social and environmental bottom lines is all
good. It’s a net gain for all of us who care about these enduring gaps.”
But there are concerns that the collapse of the economy will make the companies’
generosity shrivel up. There’s not a lot of evidence of that so far. While Starbucks is
closing 900 stores, the CAFÉ program is expanding. The company says it’s vital to its
long-term success to keep grinding on.
The stimulus bill includes funds for a light rail Amtrak system, however the money could be tied in up in approval processes for quite a while. (Photo courtesy of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)
There’s money in the stimulus package for high speed rail projects. Lester Graham reports Amtrak is waiting to see how the money might be spent:
Transcript
There’s money in the stimulus package for high speed rail projects. Lester Graham reports Amtrak is waiting to see how the money might be spent:
Eight billion dollars is set aside for high speed rail projects. So, where’s Amtrak going to start?
Turns out Amtrak doesn’t really make the decisions. Marc Magliari is a spokesman for Amtrak. He says the passenger train company has submitted a plan to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration. That office is now asking the different state governors what they’d like. Amtrak is just… waiting.
“I’m not going to speculate on the speed under which the FRA will make its make its grant decisions and which grant decisions it will make. That would not be our call.”
We do know any project under the stimulus plan has to be started within the next 18 months.
Amtrak basically has to hope that each governor understands not only his or her own state’s needs, but how their decisions might affect a high-speed rail network.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
This train in Graniteville, South Carolina, crashed while carrying chemicals called "toxic inhalation hazards." Transporting these chemicals is extremely dangerous, and rail companies think chemical companies should share some of the insurance burden. (Photo courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency)
Workers in Hazmat suits at the site of the Graniteville crash, which killed nine people. (Photo courtesy of the Environmental Protection Agency)
Toxic Inhalation Hazards are a class of chemicals with a notorious name: if you inhale them, you die.
On the flip side, they’re useful: Take chlorine. It purifies drinking water. Another is anhydrous ammonia. It’s used for corn fertilizer.
The government feels some toxic inhalation hazards are so important it forces railroads to ship them, even though insurance is expensive.
Shawn Allee says rail lines now want the chemical industry to chip in:
Transcript
Toxic Inhalation Hazards are a class of chemicals with a notorious name: if you inhale them, you die.
On the flip side, they’re useful. Take chlorine: it purifies drinking water. Another is anhydrous ammonia. It’s used for corn fertilizer.
The government feels some toxic inhalation hazards are so important it forces railroads to ship them, even though insurance is expensive.
Shawn Allee says rail lines now want the chemical industry to chip in:
To understand why the railroad industry wants help with insurance, you should know what happened in Graniteville, South Carolina.
Phil Napier is Graniteville’s fire chief. Napier tells me, one night in January 2005, he got paged about a train wreck.
He hopped in his truck and before long, he found the train engineer.
“I stopped to roll the window down and this gentleman told me they had a chemical leak and he couldn’t breathe and he fell to the ground. And immediately, it hit me. It basically took my breath and all I remember is taking a U-turn heading north but I ended up south. There’s a time-zone in there that I have no memory.”
When Napier came to, he got word from his radio: the train carried chlorine and a toxic cloud was spreading.
Napier evacuated Graniteville. Later, he got a look by helicopter.
“We did a flyover. I mean, it was like a Twilight Zone – you could see cars all up and down the highways, with the doors open.”
Nine people died in the Graniteville derailment and chlorine spill. Since then, the railroad industry worried an accident like this could ruin them.
“The lesson we drew from that was, if there is a major catastrophe by the railroad carrying this material, could be forced into bankruptcy and be forced out of operation.”
That’s Ed Hamberger, the head of the Association of American Railroads.
Hamberger calls the Graniteville accident a tragedy for the town and a financial mess for the railroad responsible – Norfolk Southern.
“The accident in Graniteville resulted in damages of 400 to 500 million dollars.”
Norfolk Southern won’t confirm the figures, but consider this: it’s still in court over an incident involving nine deaths.
Experts say if a similar derailment happened in the middle of a big city like Chicago, it could kill at least 10,000 people.
Hamberger says railroads can’t insure against that.
You might think they would refuse to carry toxic inhalant hazards, but the government says they have to – because rail has the best safety record.
“The freight railroad industry has what is known as a common carrier obligation to carry these toxic by inhalation materials. Several of our members have said if they were not forced to, they would not carry it because of that liability threat.”
Hamberger says if the government won’t lift the obligation, it’s fair to require chemical companies to pay some insurance.
And, he says, it would make the public safer.
The argument goes, if chemical companies paid more to insure against transportation accidents, they’d create safer chemicals.
“With regard to the argument the chemical industry needs an incentive to make safer products, frankly, we have all the incentive in the world.”
Marty Durbin is with the American Chemistry Council.
He says chemical companies already pay insurance against accidents in their factories.
And they are looking for alternatives to chlorine and other toxic inhalant hazards.
Durbin says, besides, when trains leave their factories financial risk should be out of their hands.
“You have to have liability throughout the chain that helps motivate safety improvement.”
The chemical and railroad companies will battle this out in front of government agencies for a while.
In the meantime, each year, trains will make 100,000 shipments of toxic inhalation hazards along the nation’s railroads, even if some freight rail companies don’t want to.
A Dow Chemical sign next to a river in Michigan contaminated with dioxin. Homeowners downstream are still waiting for their case against Dow to be heard. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)
The world’s largest chemical company is fighting a lawsuit filed because of dioxin pollution. Rick Pluta reports neighbors downstream from Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Michigan want something to budge in the case:
Transcript
The world’s largest chemical company is fighting a lawsuit filed because of dioxin pollution. Rick Pluta reports neighbors downstream from Dow Chemical’s headquarters in Michigan want something to budge in the case:
A Dow chemical plant near the company’s headquarters in Michigan produced all kinds of products over decades, including Agent Orange. Dioxin polluted the Tittabawassee River and its flood plain. A group of 173 people have sued, after learning their property is contaminated. Many of these people have been involved in this litigation for six years. The courts still have not gotten around to their case. Attorney Theresa Golden took their case to the Michigan Supreme Court.
“The clients obviously are concerned and disappointed that it’s taken us long to get to this point.”
The group wants class action status, so every single homeowner does not have to take on the corporate giant. There are a couple thousand property downstream of this plant. And Dow does not like the idea of potentially having to pay every one of them.
Bus lines like Megabus are attracting new riders with cheap rates, direct routes, and perks like free wi-fi. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
Each bus can transport 81 people, most of whom would have driven instead. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
Buses are one of the most environmentally friendly ways to travel. But for years, the bus has had an image problem. The Environment Report’s Tamara Keith tells us that could be changing:
Transcript
Buses are one of the most environmentally friendly ways to travel. But for years, the bus has had an image problem. The Environment Report’s Tamara Keith tells us that could be changing:
I swear I’m not a snob, but up until a couple of months ago I wouldn’t have been caught dead on a bus. Come on, the thought of being trapped for hours with potentially smelly strangers on some rundown, grimy bus –well– it’s just not all that appealing.
But, there’s a new genre of motor coach travel out there and it’s making the intercity bus cool again (or maybe cool for the first time).
In a downtown Washington DC parking lot, Lauren Kessler is waiting to board a Bolt Bus to New York City. It’s a shiny black and red bus with a bold lightning bolt on the side.
“I’ve never taken Greyhound. I would take Amtrak or fly but those are both much more expensive.”
What Kessler doesn’t know is this is a Greyhound bus. The company launched the Bolt brand last spring. Giselle Carr doesn’t realize it either, until I point out the fine print on the side of the bus: “operated by Greyhound.”
“I did not know that. Yeah it says right there, operator Greyhound. Oh, so they’re changing their strategy. Interesting.”
It’s not your father’s Greyhound. Gone are bus terminals. Bolt picks up curbside in just a few major east coast cities. Delivering passengers from one happening downtown to another with no stops in between. It’s cheaper than the traditional bus lines and there are some pretty nice amenities too, says Greyhound spokeswoman Abby Wambaugh.
“We have free wi-fi, extended leg room, power plug ins. It’s a very sleek brand.”
And she says it’s been an incredibly successful brand.
“We actually broke even financially in May 2008, which is just a couple months after launching which was phenomenal and exceeded all our expectations. And every month we see a larger ridership than the month before.”
Bolt isn’t the only one. MegaBus, operated by Coach USA, started in the Midwest in 2006. It now serves 14 cities with its double-decker wi-fi enabled buses. Each bus holds 81 people, and, Coach USA President Dale Moser says, most of them would have driven if not for the bus.
“And I would have told you 3 years ago that it was going to be a challenge to change a culture and get Americans out of their automobile. But we’re finding that there is a large contingency out there that is looking for something like this and it just continues to grow.”
These bus lines can thank regulars like Raphael Fuchs-Simon for their success. If there was a uniform for a hipster, it might just be what he’s wearing: red framed 80s sunglasses, a soccer jersey and one of those Peruvian Alpaca sweaters.
“Sometimes I drive but there’s no point. It’s 22 dollars dude. Get out of here. It’s like a lunchtime meal in Manhattan.”
He’s pretty stoked about the green credentials, that come with his chosen mode of travel. Joe Schwieterman has actually crunched the numbers. He’s a transportation professor at DePaul University in Chicago.
“You can get 200, 300 even more passenger miles per gallon of fuel burned and you just compare to that to a private automobile, it can be a 10-fold increase in fuel efficiency.”
And, Schwieterman says, just in the last couple of years intercity bus transportation has had a remarkable revival.
“The growth has been roughly about 8 percent a year, so the mode is growing much faster than air travel or automobile travel or even rail travel. The bus kind of stands alone for an industry that’s growing in some pretty tough economic times.”
That’s even with gas costing just half what it did last summer. For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.
Congress will soon debate a carbon-cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports that debate will renew arguments about jobs versus the environment:
Transcript
Congress will soon debate a carbon-cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports that debate will renew arguments about jobs versus the environment:
This is an old argument with a new twist.
It goes like this. The economy is a mess. We need jobs. So right now we should worry less about the environment and more about jobs.
Putting a price on carbon emissions will gradually make fossil fuels like coal more expensive to burn.
That will cost big corporations that use a lot of energy. Opponents of cap-and-trade say it’s a job-killer.
But at the same time, carbon-cap-and-trade will make solar and wind more attractive. And that could create green collar jobs.
Environmental activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund’s Tony Kreindler say that won’t stop the critics.
“You’re always going to have defenders of the status quo claiming that it’s going to be economic ruin.”
But, a growing number of business leaders see carbon-cap-and-trade as a way to invest in an energy future that pollutes less and makes the U.S. more energy independent.
Not everyone can get out and walk along the Lake Superior coastline everyday, but researchers say any walk in a natural setting will help. They count an increase in productivity among the benefits. (Photo courtesy of Dave Hansen.)
You’ve probably heard about studies that show enjoying nature can reduce stress. Well, a new study published in the journal Psychological Science shows a walk in nature can also help you focus better. It can improve your memory and attention. Lester Graham asked one of the researchers, Marc Berman from the University of Michigan, if he was up for a walk:
Transcript
You’ve probably heard about studies that show enjoying nature can reduce stress. Well, a new study published in the journal Psychological Science shows a walk in nature can also help you focus better. It can improve your memory and attention. Lester Graham asked one of the researchers, Marc Berman from the University of Michigan, if he was up for a walk:
Marc Berman was one of the co-authors of a study on nature and focus published in the journal Psychological Science. He spoke – and walked – with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham.
Labor and energy groups say they want the federal government to create a Clean Energy Corps. The say the Corps would retro-fit and upgrade old buildings and, as Chuck Quirmbach reports, create a lot of jobs in the process:
Transcript
Labor and energy groups say they want the federal government to create a Clean Energy Corps. The say the Corps would retro-fit and upgrade old buildings and, as Chuck Quirmbach reports, create a lot of jobs in the process:
Some cities and states have programs that work on making older buildings more energy efficient.
Now, progressive think tanks have joined unions and alternative energy groups to ask for a national program.
Bracken Hendricks is with the Center for American Progress. He says it’s critical for the federal government to help pay to make older structures more efficient.
“For a long time, we’ve made great inroads on improving the energy efficiency and the performance of new buildings with tools like green building standards. But we really haven’t had a way to go and systematically block by block retrofit and weatherize homes.”
Hendricks says the clean energy corps would help the umemployed find work in the building and construction trades.
The coalition backing the corps says the money for the program could come from the stimulus package or other upcoming legislation.
Jack Spicer of Preservation Chicago is on a campaign
to save the venerable 'wood frame window,' like these
on his Chicago home. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Each winter presents some homeowners with a choice: whether to replace old,
wooden windows with modern, energy-efficient ones before cold winds blow
again. Each year, more homeowners choose the replacement windows, often made from vinyl or aluminum. Shawn Allee found some historical preservationists want homeowners to think twice about that:
Transcript
Each winter presents some homeowners with a choice: whether to replace old,
wooden windows with modern, energy-efficient ones before cold winds blow
again. Each year, more homeowners choose the replacement windows, often made from vinyl or aluminum. Shawn Allee found some historical preservationists want homeowners to think twice about that:
If you think century-old windows have to be rickety and leaky, Jack
Spicer would like you to come to his place.
He’s eager to show off windows on his Chicago two-flat, built in 1908.
“So, here’s an example of the way an old-fashioned wood window
looks from the outside a hundred years later. These windows are
longer-lasting and obviously better looking than any replacement window you
can find.”
It’s no surprise Spicer makes this pitch.
He’s with a group called Preservation Chicago, and he’s on a campaign
to save wood-frame windows from the onslaught of vinyl and aluminum-framed
replacements.
Spicer’s losing ground, even in his own neighborhood.
“This apartment building replaced their windows. The next building
replaced all their windows. If you look across the street at this huge
courtyard building, there’re about 48 units in there. Those windows were
fine, and those windows are now trashed. They went into a dumpster and are
now in a landfill somewhere.”
But if old wood-framed windows are so great, why do so many US homeowners
replace them?
“Somebody told them it would save them money if you put in brand-new
replacement windows. Everybody’s taught that – you read about it, you
see the ads. All the replacement window (companies) tell you, if you’re
American and you love your children, you’ll replace your windows. Well,
we’re getting over that now, I hope.”
Spicer insists replacing your windows is not an environmental slam dunk.
He says if old wood-frame windows are properly sealed and have storm
windows, they’ll hold heat almost as well as replacements.
I ask Spicer for numbers on this, and he sends me to Mike Jackson, with
Illinois’ Historic Preservation Agency.
“Several years ago, Vermont as a state did a study and they looked
at repairing windows, adding storm windows, replacing windows, and what it
really came down to was, how leaky are your windows? If they were
reasonably tight, there wasn’t a lot of savings to replacing your windows
at all.”
Jackson says a new furnace or insulation are better pay-offs, and
replacement windows often last just a few decades.
“We’re throwing away items that lasted for a hundred years with
simple technologies and replacing them with more complex things with
shorter life spans. In our line, the reason they call them replacement
windows is because you have to keep replacing them.”
Well, people in the replacement window industry don’t take kindly to
this.
One rep told me the short life span of replacement windows is overblown –
high quality ones last longer.
And he told me, if energy prices rise in the future, replacement windows
become more competitive.
So, is it worth replacing old, wooden windows?
“There’re many factors and that’s why it’s, in our opinion,
not so clear-cut.”
Christian Kohler studies window technology at the Lawrence-Berkeley
National Laboratory.
He says replacement windows are better on energy, but it could take decades
to get a good payback and by that time, you might need to replace them
again.
Anyway, Kohler says there’s an alternative.
If your wood windows are in good condition, you can add storm windows that
have what’s called a “low – E” coating.
The coating helps retain heat.
“It’s applied to glass and it’s virtually invisible. It
doesn’t have a color or anything.”
Kohler says if preservationists want to keep wood windows around on account
of their looks or long-term value, it still makes sense to crack down on
leaks and get good storm windows.
It doesn’t make sense to waste energy on account of beauty when you
don’t have to.
A broken dam caused this cement-like sludge to spill into the Emory River in East Tennessee. The coal ash sludge could dry out, putting toxic dust into the air. (Photo by Matt Shafer Powell)
