Guns are no longer prohibited in America's national parks. (Photo courtesy of Fenners)
People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:
Transcript
People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:
The new policy means a reversal for the nation’s 392 National Park sites. Firearms have been prohibited in the parks.
But now….
Whatever law you were under in that state outside of the park now applies in the national park unit.
That’s National Park Service spokesman David Barna. He says that means that parks everywhere except Illinois and Washington DC will allow firearms.
But different states have different laws about the specifics – for example, whether you can conceal your weapon or not.
Barna says that could get complicated.
Appalachian Trail passes over 14 states. Yellowstone National Park is in 3 states. And the burden is going to be on the public to know those various laws.
Barna says the Park Service will help gun owners out with website updates and postings in park facilities.
But he says they can’t put up notices every time a park trail crosses a state line.
Each compact fluorescent light bulb has a small amount of mercury in it
(Source: Yann at Wikimedia Commons)
Old incandescent light bulbs
are getting pushed out of the
way by the more efficient compact
fluorescent light bulbs. But
the bulbs contain a small amount
of a toxic chemical. Mark Brush
reports, that has some regulators
concerned:
Transcript
Old incandescent light bulbs
are getting pushed out of the
way by the more efficient compact
fluorescent light bulbs. But
the bulbs contain a small amount
of a toxic chemical. Mark Brush
reports, that has some regulators
concerned:
Each one of these CFL bulbs contains a tiny amount of mercury.
It’s not a big a concern. If a bulb breaks in your home, you’re supposed to vent the room for 15 minutes before you clean it up.
But regulators are concerned about large volumes of bulbs.
The state of New York decided to crack down on CBS after the Late Show with Dave Letterman threw bulbs off a rooftop.
Letterman: “You have some incandescent light bulbs and you have some fluorescent light bulbs. How many do you think you have there?”
Assistant: “Uh, a couple of hundred.”
Letterman: “A couple hundred”
(sound of bulbs crashing on ground)
The little cloud of dust that rose as the bulbs broke caused people from around the country to call the New York Department of Environmental Conservation. And CBS reached a settlement with the state.
Most home owners don’t need to worry about state regulators knocking on their doors. It’s not illegal to put them in your trash in most states.
But officials encourage home owners to find a bulb take-back program like the ones listed on EPA’s website.
Plant manager of Anheuser-Busch points out the plastic labels of the beer bottles now being recycled. (Photo by Karen Kasler)
Lee says the goal for Anheuser-Busch is to be the most responsible manufacturers they can be. (Photo by Karen Kasler)
The labeling machine inside the plant. (Photo by Karen Kasler)
Chain restaurants and retailers often test
their latest services and products in Columbus, Ohio
before launching them nationwide. It’s one of the
nation’s big test markets. But ‘going green’ is not
a trend that’s going well. Karen Kasler reports
recycling rates are well below the national average.
But businesses in this key market are beginning to
show more interest:
Transcript
Chain restaurants and retailers often test
their latest services and products in Columbus, Ohio
before launching them nationwide. It’s one of the
nation’s big test markets. But ‘going green’ is not
a trend that’s going well. Karen Kasler reports
recycling rates are well below the national average.
But businesses in this key market are beginning to
show more interest:
Columbus often bills itself as the nation’s test market. It’s demographics are seen as a reflection
of the nation as a whole. But this national test market is not at the front of the curve when it
comes recycling and other ‘green practices.’ For example, many companies around the country
have going green in the last few years, but businesses in Columbus are just starting to test the
waters.
John Remy works for SWACO, the Solid Waste Authority of Central Ohio It operates the area’s
landfill. Remy has only recently noticed a sudden jump in the number of calls he’s getting every
day:
“The boss wants the business to go green, and so the employees are left to, how do I go
green? And so they call us and want to know, how do I go green? And how do I do it five
minutes before I called you?”
SWACO advises businesses to audit their waste — to dig into trash cans and dumpsters and see
how much paper, plastic, glass, cardboard, food and other material is there and can be
recycled. Some big corporations were already working on that. Columbus’ Anheuser-Busch
brewery is one of big brewer’s 12 plants nationwide. Plant manager Kevin Lee says “green beer”
is not just a St. Patrick’s Day thing here. He says it’s a way of doing business, from the way the
bottles are labeled:
“The backing off of these labels that are applied onto the Bud Light bottle, we recycle the
backing, and there was approximately 66,000 miles of backing a year that is plastic
backing that’s recycled.”
To the cans that fall off the filling lines and end up in hoppers:
“And we send those cans back to a recycling area where the cans are crushed, they’re
sent for aluminum recycling purposes…”
Lee says the idea is to save money and cut down on trash:
“Everything that is consumed off the line, whether it’s the waste beer or the
waste cans or the waste bottles or cardboard, we want to take those materials, treat them
or recycle them, so that we reduce our demand on the environment certainly, reduce our
costs, and that allows us to be the most responsible manufacturer we can be.”
Multi-million dollar automated operations can afford to smoothly snap new green technology
into their production lines, but it’s a little more hands-on in smaller companies and in non-profit
organizations.
Catholic priest David Gwinner did things the old-fashioned way at St. Paul’s parish just north of
Columbus. He stands by one of two eight-cubic-yard recycling bins outside the church offices.
And he says he started by sorting the trash on his own:
“Many days I would take the recycling, separate it and take it in my car.
Yes, in my Oldsmobile sitting over there and my dog, Margaret. And it started to be two,
three trips a day.”
After a few months of dumpster diving, Gwinner decided to organize the St. Paul’s staff in a
recycling effort. In the last year, Gwinner says everyone has gotten in on it – workers in the
administrative offices, guests in the meeting rooms, and the thousand kids in the school. Now,
the trash dumpsters are emptied three times a week instead of every day, which Gwinner says
has saved the parish 2,400 dollars over the last year. But Gwinner says it’s about more
than money. He’s preaching that this is a “partnership with creation,” and now his mission is to
get that message out to his 12,000 parishioners, many of whom own businesses:
“And if they had one or two or three pounds a day, times 12,000, times 365 days a year.
That tells the story of how huge… it’s a million tons a year that SWACO is receiving that’s
going into the ground. And they believe that a great percent of that is recyclable.”
A study a few years ago concluded 60 percent of commercial and residential trash is
recyclable, with paper and plastics the most common things thrown away. But even as
businesses are trying to take their bottom lines to zero when it comes to waste, their employees
may not be taking that attitude home. 88 percent of people in this test market town don’t
recycle. That number is nearly four times the stat from a recent Harris poll which shows the
national non-recycling average is 23 percent.
The Mississippi River basin drains farmland from 31 states (41% of continental U.S.). Agricultural fertilizers and chemicals are washed into the river. (Photo by Lester Graham)
States do not coordinate efforts to reduce soil erosion or chemical runoff. Grass buffers are not required along streams that feed the Mississippi and its tributaries. (Photo by Lester Graham)
A new study says the Mississippi River is still at risk from too much soil runoff,
and that better government protection is needed. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
A new study says the Mississippi River is still at risk from too much soil runoff,
and that better government protection is needed. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The study by the National Academy of Sciences says the Clean Water Act has
worked to reduce much of the point source pollution in the Mississippi from
factories and wastewater treatment plants, but the report says fertilizers and
sediments that enter the river from farmland still create many water quality
problems.
Study Committee Chairman David Dzombak says even though some states are
working together on the issue, there’s not enough coordination.
“One really needs to take a system wide view and look at total loadings into the
river. These are coming from multiple states and right now the states are not
communicating with each other very much.”
Dzombak says the US EPA should to be more aggressive in coordinating and
enforcing state activities along the Mississippi. The EPA says it’s committed to
increasing its efforts with its riverside partners.
A look at the new window sticker that will be seen on all 2008 models. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
Starting this year you’ll see new fuel economy window stickers on cars and trucks. And as Mark Brush reports – the gas mileage displayed on these stickers will be closer to the actual mileage you’ll experience:
Transcript
Starting this year you’ll see new fuel economy window stickers on cars and trucks. And as Mark Brush reports – the gas mileage displayed on these stickers will be closer to the actual mileage you’ll experience:
The EPA gas mileage stickers will appear on all 2008 cars and trucks. And the Environmental Protection Agency says these stickers are more accurate. No more inflated gas mileage claims. Mileage estimates have been based on old tests that don’t reflect how we drive today.
David Friedman is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says car buyers might get sticker shock:
“Well what they will see is no matter what the car or truck they get they will see lower numbers. In fact, depending on the size class they are dealing with, the new window sticker numbers are anywhere from 10 percent to 15 percent lower on a combined basis than the old numbers.”
Consumers won’t just see the lower miles per gallon numbers. They’ll also see a bar graph that compares each vehicle’s gas mileage to others in its class.
Entry to a ballast tank in a ship's cargo hold.(Photo courtesy of the Great Lakes NOBOB Team)
New research supports the practice of “swish and spit” for ocean-going ships. As Mark
Brush reports – the practice of rinsing ballast tanks with ocean salt water will help stop
aquatic pests from getting into US harbors:
Transcript
New research supports the practice of “swish and spit” for ocean-going ships. As Mark
Brush reports – the practice of rinsing ballast tanks with ocean salt water will help stop
aquatic pests from getting into US harbors:
Aquatic invasive species cause billions of dollars in damage every year. Many hitchhike
here from foreign ports in the ballast tanks of cargo ships. And even when ships declare that
they have no ballast on board – the ballast tanks still have muck in the bottom where
invasive species hide.
David Reid is with the Great Lakes Environmental Research Lab. He says their research supports the idea that all ships should rinse out the tanks during their journey across the ocean:
“That’s why we call it swish and spit. From the point of view of the ballast tank, it’s
very similar to doing a mouthwash. You’re taking in a little bit of fluid, sloshing it around, and spitting it – or in this case pumping it out.”
Reid says the practice doesn’t get rid of every creature lurking in ballast tanks, but it’s
better than doing nothing at all. Right now, the US does not require swish and spit for
ships that declare no ballast on board.
Wind farms are being constructed across the nation. Experts think there should be clear criteria about how they're built. (Photo by Lester Graham)
A new study says more planning and
guidelines are needed to put wind energy
farms in the right places. Chuck Quirmbach
reports… windmills are sometimes built in
migrating bird flyways or block scenic views:
Transcript
A new study says more planning and
guidelines are needed to put wind energy
farms in the right places. Chuck Quirmbach
reports… windmills are sometimes built in
migrating bird flyways or block scenic views:
Wind energy generation has been growing and the growth is expected to
continue. A report by the National Research Council predicts that by
the year 2020, wind energy will offset the increase in carbon dioxide
pollution from coal-burning power plants by almost 5 percent. But wind
turbines can disturb wildlife and to some people, be an eyesore. So the
new report recommends that regulators adopt an evaluation guide for
proposed projects.
Study director David Policansky says the guide should make it easier to
site wind farms:
“So even if following that guide leads people to avoid some areas, we
believe that following the guide will just rationalize the process and
make it more streamlined and effective for everybody.”
The study also urges governments to work together to analyze the
cumulative effect of wind projects.
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Transcript
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Back in March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing
on how the auto industry could help fight global warming. All the
bigwigs in the U.S. auto industry were there: the heads of Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler, the North American president of Toyota and
the head of the United Auto Workers.
At the hearing, all of them agreed they would support a cap on CO2
emissions from vehicles, but they had a sort of caveat:
“We believe that there’s a lot of merit to it. And we believe if it’s
upstream…”
“For Cap and Trade, I think the further upstream you go, the more
efficient you’re going to be.”
“I’d just echo the upstream part.”
“The upstream as I stated earlier and the rest is absolutely critical.”
That was Ron Gettlefinger of the UAW, Jim Press of Toyota, Alan Mulally
of Ford, and Tom Lasorda of Chrysler.
So what do they mean by “upstream”? Here’s Ford spokesman Mike Moran:
“Lower carbon fuels, so that it’s just not what comes out of the
tailpipe, but you’re moving upstream and including the fuels that would
be included in the equation in the transportation sector.”
Basically the idea is, if you have less carbon in the fuel, you’ll pump
less carbon dioxide into the air.
But car companies really can’t take the carbon out of fuel. That’s
really more of a job for the oil industry. So are auto executives just
passing the buck?
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says yeah, they’re
dodging the issue:
“The auto companies are basically finding more creative ways to say,
‘No,’ they won’t do anything to improve their products.”
Auto executives would say they’re already working to improve their
products, with millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road, and a
growing number of gas-electric hybrids. And many in the auto industry feel that they’ve been singled out for
regulation in the past.
The carmakers main lobbying group, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says that for the past 30 years, the auto industry has
been the only industry subject to carbon dioxide regulations. Though
most people try to avoid saying so in public, there is clearly some
tension between the auto industry and the oil industry.
Louis Burke is with Conoco Phillips. He says his company is willing to
do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the oil company just
came out in favor of setting up mandatory federal rules. Those include a
possible system that caps carbon dioxide emissions, and allows
companies to trade carbon credits as if they were commodities:
“You can cap and trade at some point down within the value chain,
whether it’s all the way upstream, or whether it’s pretty far downstream. You
can also apply a carbon tax throughout the whole value chain. The whole
idea is it’s gotta be transparent, it can’t penalize any one group.”
So upstream, downstream, the point is something needs to be done.
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says everyone can
do a little more:
“Everyone has to do their part. That means car companies have to
produce vehicles to get more miles to the gallon. Oil companies need to
have lower carbon fuels and yes, even consumers need to find ways to
drive less.”
It’s still not clear what exactly what approach Congress will take
toward cutting auto emissions, but while leaders in Washington try to
settle on a plan, local and state officials across the country are
coming up with their own plans.
California and 10 other states have their own plans to regulate
tailpipe emissions. Those plans are being challenged in court by the
auto industry. And California has also gone forward with the nation’s first low carbon
standard for fuels.
That “upstream” plan has the support of both auto and oil companies.
DuPont says it will phase out a chemical that is
used to make Teflon coatings for things such as pots and
pans. Rebecca Williams reports the EPA says the chemical
stays in the human body and the environment for a long time:
Transcript
DuPont says it will phase out a chemical that is
used to make Teflon coatings for things such as pots and
pans. Rebecca Williams reports the EPA says the chemical
stays in the human body and the environment for a long time:
The chemical’s called PFOA or p-foah. An EPA science advisory board
has suggested that PFOA might cause cancer.
The EPA says it’s still deciding whether PFOA poses a significant
health risk. By 2015, the agency wants DuPont to eliminate any chance
of PFOA getting into the environment.
DuPont says it can do that. David Boothe is a global business manager
for DuPont:
“PFOA is present in the blood of the general population and that raises
questions that need to be answered. It’s important to note, though,
that DuPont believes that there are no human health effects known to be
caused by PFOA even though study of the chemical continues.”
Some environmental health activists worry that PFOA fumes emitted when
Teflon pans overheat might be more toxic than anyone is willing to
admit.
Some industries are working with government to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. People who are worried about their personal CO2 emissions can buy carbon offsets, but there are dozens of programs, making it confusing. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Whether you fly, drive or just turn on the lights, you're responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Some people are buying carbon offsets to balance out their emissions. (Photo by Lester Graham)
There’s evidence that the Earth is changing
because of global warming. Glaciers are receding.
Polar ice caps are melting. Weather patterns are
altered. That’s prompted some people to look
for ways to reduce their personal contribution to
global warming. Rebecca Williams reports there
are many new companies that claim to help you do
that… for a price:
Transcript
There’s evidence that the Earth is changing
because of global warming. Glaciers are receding.
Polar ice caps are melting. Weather patterns are
altered. That’s prompted some people to look
for ways to reduce their personal contribution to
global warming. Rebecca Williams reports there
are many new companies that claim to help you do
that… for a price:
Whenever you drive, fly, or ride, you’re emitting carbon dioxide. And it’s not just the way you get around. It’s also any time you turn on lights or plug into an electrical outlet. More than half of the electricity in the U.S. comes from power plants that burn
coal and that’s another major source of carbon dioxide.
It’s a problem because carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas.
The vast majority of scientists agree all this carbon dioxide
that people produce is trapping heat in the atmosphere and making
the planet warmer.
David Archer is a climate scientist at the University of Chicago:
“The problem with fossil fuels is that the cost of that climate
change isn’t paid by the person who makes the decision to use
fossil energy so it’s sort of like a bill we’re leaving to future
generations.”
Some people say there’s a way to pay that bill now. About three
dozen companies and nonprofits have sprung up in the past few
years. They’re selling carbon offsets.
The idea of a carbon offset is to balance out the carbon dioxide
that you emit. In theory, you can do this by investing in
something like tree planting or energy projects that don’t emit
greenhouse gasses, such as wind or solar power.
First, you can go to one of the group’s websites and calculate
your carbon footprint. That’s all the carbon dioxide you produce
by driving, flying, and so on, in a year. North Americans have
especially big footprints.
The companies assign a price per ton of carbon that’s emitted.
You can decide how much of your carbon-emitting you want to
balance out. Then you type in your credit card number and voila… no more guilt.
Well, that’s the idea anyway.
But what if you buy a carbon offset
but you don’t change your behavior? If you keep driving and
flying and using electricity just as much as before, or maybe
more than before, you’re still a part of the problem.
“You’re absolutely still emitting the carbon. The idea is that
you’re balancing it out through reductions elsewhere.”
Tom Arnold is a cofounder of Terrapass. It’s a carbon offset
company:
“Now this isn’t the optimal solution of course – you should stop
driving. But it’s a good way that we can get you involved in the
dialogue and help you reduce emissions somewhere else.”
And you can get a little sticker for your car to show you’re in
the offsetting club. But Tom Arnold admits there aren’t a whole
lot of drivers of huge SUVs buying offsets.
“We have this nice little SUV sticker – it’s pretty expensive and
a horrible seller. Most of our members already drive passenger
cars, very efficient cars. They’re just looking for a tool to
balance the rest of their impact out to zero.”
Erasing your carbon footprint sounds pretty positive, but there
are quite a few critics of the carbon offset industry. They
point out there aren’t any agreed-on standards for what an offset
is, and prices are all over the map. So it’s not always clear
what you’re getting for your money.
Mark Trexler is president of Trexler Climate and Energy Services.
He’s a consultant who reviews the groups selling carbon offsets.
He says you do have to ask questions about what you’re buying:
“Am I putting my money into something that wouldn’t have happened
anyway? Because if somebody would’ve built that windmill anyway
or if they would’ve done whatever it is you’re putting money into
anyway, you’re really not rendering yourself climate neutral.”
Trexler says there are certification programs in the works so
consumers can know more about what they’re buying. But the people
who are buying offsets now say it feels like they’re making a
difference.
Kate Madigan bought offsets. She started thinking about it when
she was awake at night worrying about the world her new baby
would live in:
“Some people say oh, global warming, it’s going to change the
world in 100 years, but I’ll be gone by then. But I think that’s
a horrible way to look at things because we’re leaving the world
to a lot of people that we love.”
Madigan says she doesn’t think carbon offsets alone will really
solve the problem. She says she thinks it’ll take a lot of
harder choices too, like driving less and using less electricity.
Supporters say that’s the real power of offsets. It’s getting
people to talk about the role they play in global warming.
Guns are no longer prohibited in America's national parks. (Photo courtesy of Fenners)
