The numbers of people who hunt, fish and watch wildlife went down again in 2006, according to a survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
The numbers of people who hunt, fish and watch wildlife went down again in 2006, according to a survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Tracy Samilton reports:
The number of people who fished in 2006 was down 12 percent from 5 years ago.
Hunting numbers were also down a little, about 4 percent:
Jerry Leonard is an economist with US Fish & Wildlife Service. He says since 1996,
fewer people have been passing down the tradition of hunting and fishing to their
children. He says that isn’t great news from an economic standpoint:
“The money that is spent on wildlife-related recreation is huge. In fact, over 120 billion
dollars. That’s approximately equivalent to 1 percent of the gross domestic product in the
United States.
Still, even though fewer people are involved in wildlife recreation, spending on the
activities is slightly up from 2001, mostly due to inflation and higher license fees being
charged by states.
Some people are warning there are hidden costs
to the drive for ethanol. The demand for corn-based
ethanol for fuel has pushed the price of corn close
to the highest price it’s been in 10 years. In the
first of our two-part series on ethanol, Rebecca Williams
reports that economists say the push for more ethanol will
mean higher prices at the supermarket:
Transcript
Some people are warning there are hidden costs
to the drive for ethanol. The demand for corn-based
ethanol for fuel has pushed the price of corn close
to the highest price it’s been in 10 years. In the
first of our two-part series on ethanol, Rebecca Williams
reports that economists say the push for more ethanol will
mean higher prices at the supermarket:
(Sound of burger sizzling)
Everything in your classic American meal has one thing in common.
(Sound of soda can opening and fizzing)
The burger, chips, soda, even the ketchup. They all depend on corn.
Cows eat corn. Chips have corn oil in them. And your soda and ketchup
have high fructose corn syrup as a main ingredient. Supermarkets are
loaded with food that has something to do with corn.
And lately, corn’s been near its highest price in ten years. The price
has nearly doubled. Everyone from livestock producers to beverage
companies has been feeling the squeeze of more expensive corn. And
that’s been starting to show up at the grocery store.
The US Department of Agriculture predicts our food is going to get more
expensive this year, and maybe for many years to come.
Ephraim Leibtag is a USDA economist. He says we’ll probably be paying
between two and a half and three and a half percent more this year at
the store:
“That’s on average for your food bill. So if you’re buying an average
basket of products and you spend $100 when you go to the store, now
you’ll be spending $103. But you’ll see it first in products most
related to corn. In addition you’ll see some after-effects because if
more corn is produced that may drive up the price of other commodities
if the tradeoff in land is between, let’s say, corn and other potential farm
products.”
So if farmers plant more corn for ethanol instead of soybeans, that
will drive up the price of soybeans, and in turn, the food that’s made
from them.
It turns out that’s exactly what farmers are planning to do this year.
A recent USDA report says farmers will be planting 12 million more
acres of corn than last year… and less soybeans, and rice.
Leibtag says high corn prices have been great for corn farmers, but he
says it’s been rough on a lot of other people:
“If you use corn as a main ingredient you’ve already noticed your costs
go up quite a bit. Some companies have explored the possibility of
substituting or using other products. But certainly producers of livestock and
poultry have higher feed costs. They have to think about exactly how they’re
going to produce their product when one of their inputs goes up 20, 30,
50, 80 percent in price.”
Ethanol backers say it’s just a matter of time before the market will
adjust to more expensive corn. Bob Dinneen is the president of the
Renewable Fuels Association:
“Corn prices are indeed going up… Our own industry is paying more for feedstock for ethanol today. But
at the end of the day, as the marketplace adjusts, we’ll be able to grow
more than sufficient grain to satisfy the country’s demand for food,
fuel and fiber and rural America will be better for it.”
But others argue it won’t be possible to have it all forever. Lester
Brown is the president of the Earth Policy Institute:
“Usually in the past, rises in food prices come when we have a poor
harvest somewhere in the world as a result of weather and therefore is temporary. It usually
lasts a year or so and weather comes back to normal and we get a good
harvest again. What we’re looking at now is continuous pressure on
prices as far as we can comfortably see in the future, simply because in
agricultural terms, the demand for automotive fuel is insatiable.”
Brown says we’re at risk of trading food for ethanol fuel. And he says
it’s not just going to impact food prices in the US. It’s also going
to affect food supplies worldwide, especially in developing countries.
“The biggest effects are hitting people in other countries who consume
corn more directly, like Mexico for example, which has a corn-based diet and there
the price of tortillas has gone up about 60 percent.”
Brown says many US politicians have what he calls “ethanol euphoria.”
He’s called for a moratorium on licensing new ethanol plants. He wants
the government to think about whether it makes sense to keep
subsidizing ethanol made from corn.
Many people, even some in the ethanol industry, say ethanol from corn
is a limited solution. So researchers are looking for ways to make
ethanol from other sources, such as woody plants like switchgrass.
In the meantime, ethanol from corn is still the most viable option.
Economists say if corn gets diverted into ethanol on a large scale,
that might mean we’ll all be paying higher food prices for the next
several years.
If you buy groceries at the big natural food stores, your options just
got a little slimmer. Whole Foods Market plans to buy its smaller
rival, Wild Oats. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
If you buy groceries at the big natural food stores, your options just
got a little slimmer. Whole Foods Market plans to buy its smaller
rival, Wild Oats. Julie Grant reports:
Whole Foods and Wild Oats are the nation’s best-known names in organic
grocers. Many a mom and pop health food store has fallen over the
past decade as those big-players have moved into towns across the
country.
Between them, they’ve opened about 300 stores, providing one-stop
shopping for all the health-conscious consumers’ needs,
everything from fresh produce and seafood to ready-made meals to
cleaning supplies.
But as more people want to buy natural and organic foods, more
mainstream stores, from Safeway to Wal-Mart Super Centers, want some of the
action. Economists say natural foods stores have been losing market
share to those national grocery chains.
Whole Foods says buying Wild Oats will boost its presence in
Florida, the Rockies, and the Pacific Northwest.
A new survey finds that many people say they’ll cut down on holiday shopping this year because of high-energy costs. But even the researchers who conducted the survey are skeptical that will actually happen. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
A new survey finds that many people say they’ll cut down on holiday
shopping this year because of high-energy costs, but even the researchers
who conducted the survey are skeptical that will actually happen. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tracy Samilton reports:
Consumers have told the Credit Union National Association for the past
six years that they planned to spend about the same or less during the
holiday season than they did the year before, but the association’s Chief
Economist Bill Hampel says spending has actually gone up each year.
“We typically go into holiday spending season saying I’m not going to do
what I did last year I’m going to restrain myself and then by end of
December we have this post holiday spending hangover saying whoops
we, our bills have run up we’ve spent more than we planned to.”
Hampel says this year, many people say high gas prices and heating bills
will curb their holiday spending. Still, Hampel says the economy would
benefit more if people spend what they can afford on gifts and cut down
on energy use. He says what we spend on presents goes into the
domestic economy, while energy spending typically goes to foreign
suppliers.
Many of the crops being grown in the U.S. don't end up in the produce aisle. In fact, they usually aren't even sold to people in neighboring areas. (Photo by Rene Cerney)
Some experts think farmers could do a lot better for themselves if they changed what they’re growing. They say growing corn and soybeans subsidized by the government doesn’t do much for the farmer and almost nothing for the local economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports on efforts to change that:
Transcript
Some experts think farmers could do a lot better for themselves if they changed what they’re growing. They say growing corn and soybeans that are subsidized by the government doesn’t do much for the farmer and almost nothing for the local economy. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Grant reports on efforts to change that:
It can be hard to find locally-grown broccoli, milk, or beef in most grocery stores, even in the middle of farm country. In some states, ninety percent of the land is farmed, but ninety-eight percent of food people eat is shipped in from other parts of the nation or other countries.
The local farmers are growing commodities: corn and soybeans harvested for cattle-feed or processed foods, not stuff that winds up in the produce aisle. But ag economist Ken Meter wants to see that change.
“Farmers have doubled their productivity since 1969, and yet, they’re not making more money, they’re actually losing more money after doubling productivity.”
Meter has studied the economics of farm communities. In one area, he found that nearly all of the farm fields there were used to grow corn and soybeans for the commodities market, but farmers were losing money. At the same time, nearly all of the food people bought there was shipped in from other places.
“The economy we’re in right now is extremely efficient at taking any money that you or I earn in our neighborhood or in our daily lives and basically pulling it into a big global network that very efficiently takes that money and helps other people elsewhere make some value from it.”
It hasn’t always been this way. Richard Pirog is food systems researcher at the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture in Iowa. Eighty years ago, he says, most farms grew a lot of different
products and processed them to be sold locally or within the region.
“Iowa back in the 1920’s had fifty-four canneries. We were the canned sweet corn capital of the world in the mid-1920’s. Fast forward to today, there isn’t a single cannery in Iowa. So that infrastructure is gone.”
Pirog says you could tell similar stories in farm areas across the U.S. Back during World War Two, the federal government encouraged farmers to grow commodities, such as corn and soybeans. The government starting paying them subsidies to grow those crops.
These days, Pirog says a lot of farmers wouldn’t even think about risking those subsidies to grow something besides corn and soybeans. Economist Ken Meter says that might be a mistake. He says many farmers don’t realize there’s a growing market for local ag products.
“All of us get focused on whatever we’re paying attention to, and as a farmer you get focused on producing quite well. I’ve spoken with farmers who’ve told me that they really didn’t have any clue that that their neighbors would be looking for different foods, because they just haven’t heard of the tremendous increase in demand we’ve had for things like organic milk or higher quality meats or fresher produce.”
There has been an organic explosion of local farm markets in recent years, because customers want to buy fruit, vegetables, milk, and meat directly from the farmers who produce them. But government policy and farm subsidies mainly still support the commodity production of corn and soybeans.
Richard Pirog hopes that changes, but it’s unclear if growing produce for the new local markets is always economically viable. No one has studied the phenomenon.
“It has to make economic sense for a community and a region. We believe it will, which is why it’s spread so rapidly. But it’s sort of like, the real numbers, the quantification hasn’t caught up with all the growth and explosion and the interest.”
Pirog says he’d like to push the process along. He says it would make more sense for the government to shift subsidies from corn and soybean production to the farms that produce food for their local communities.
Riverfront Stadium in Cincinnati, OH just before detonation in 2002. The 32 year-old stadium was demolished to make way for a new stadium paid for by a sales tax. (Photo by Eric Andrews)
Detonation almost complete. (Photo by Eric Andrews)
The home of the "Big Red Machine" is no more. (Photo by Eric Andrews)
In cities across the nation, taxpayers are finding themselves facing the same dilemma: cough up big bucks for a new sports stadium… or else. Right now it’s happening in Washington, D.C. as the capital city tries to lure a baseball team. It’s happening in New York where the city’s deciding whether to spend 600 million dollars on a new home for the Jets in Manhattan. The debate is over what the taxpayers get. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Richard Paul takes a look at whether sports stadiums really can hit a homerun for taxpayers:
Transcript
In cities across the nation, taxpayers are finding themselves facing the same dilemma:
cough up big bucks for a new sports stadium… or else. Right now it’s happening in
Washington, D.C. as the capital city tries to lure a baseball team. It’s happening in New
York where the city’s deciding whether to spend 600 million dollars on a new home for
the Jets in Manhattan. The debate is over what the taxpayers get. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Richard Paul takes a look at whether sports stadiums really can hit a
homerun for taxpayers:
It’s sort of funny when you think about it. The most hackneyed rationale you can think of
for building a ballpark is… it turns out… actually the primary motivation when cities sit
down to figure out whether to shell out for a stadium. You know what I’m talking
about…
(MOVIE CLIP – “FIELD OF DREAMS”: “If you build it they will come…”)
Just like in “Field of Dreams.” Put in a stadium. People will show up, see the game, eat
in the neighborhood, shop there, stay overnight in hotels, pay taxes on everything and
we’ll clean up!
(MOVIE CLIP – “FIELD OF DREAMS”: “They’ll pass over the money without even
thinking about it…”)
Here’s the thing though… it doesn’t work.
“In the vast majority of cases there was very little or no effect whatsoever on the local
economy.”
That’s economist Ron Utt. He’s talking about a study that looked at 48 different cities
that built stadiums from 1958 to 1989. Not only didn’t they improve things, he says in
some cases it even got worse.
“If you’re spending 250 million or 750 million or a billion dollars on something, that
means a whole bunch of other things that you’re not doing. Look at Veterans Stadium
and the Spectrum in South Philadelphia or the new state-of-the art Gateway Center in
Cleveland. The sponsors admitted that that created only half of the jobs that were
promised.”
But what about those numbers showing that stadiums bring the state money – all that
sales tax on tickets and hot dogs? Economists will tell you to look at it this way: If I
spend $100 taking my wife to a nice dinner in Napa Valley…
(sound of wine glasses clinking)
Or we spend $100 watching the Giants at Pac Bell Park…
(sound of ballpark and organ music)
…I’ve still only spent $100. The hundred dollars spent at the ballpark is not new money.
I just spent it one place instead of another.
In Washington right now, fans have been told they can keep the Washington Nationals, if
Major League Baseball gets a new stadium that the fans pay for. Washington is a place
was more professional activists, more advanced degrees and more lawyers than it has
restaurants, traffic lights or gas stations. And as a result, it’s practically impossible to get
anything big built. But the mayor’s trying. He wants the city to build a new stadium in
really awful part of town and use baseball as the lever to bring in economic activity. The
reaction so far? Turn on the local TV news…
NEWS REPORT – NEWS – CHANNEL 8
ANCHOR: “Baseball’s return to the District still isn’t sitting well with some folks. One
major issue is the proposal for a new stadium.”
ANGRY MAN GIVING A SPEECH: “Tell this mayor that his priorities are out of
order.”
Turns out that guy’s in the majority. A survey by The Washington Post shows
69% of the people in Washington don’t want city funds spent on a new baseball stadium.
We Americans weren’t always like this.
MOVIE CLIP – SAN FRANCISCO WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “You will want to see the Golden Gate international exposition again
and again in the time you have left to you…”
Today politicians need to couch this kind of spending in terms of economic development
because no one will support tax dollars for entertainment. But there was a time in
America when people were willing to squander multiple millions in public money for the
sake of a good time.
MOVIE CLIP – SAN FRANCISCO WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “Remember: Treasure Island – the world fair of the West closes forever
on September 29th.”
In 1939, in New York and San Francisco, and then again in New York in 1964. they
spent MILLIONS. And the purpose was never really clear. Here’s Robert Moses… the
man who made New York City what it is today… on the 1964 Fair.
REPORTER: “What is the overall purpose of the new Fair?”
MOSES: “Well, the overall stated purpose is education for brotherhood and brotherhood
through education.”
MOVIE CLIP – NEW YORK WORLD’S FAIR
ANNOUNCER: “Everyone is coming to the New York World’s Fair. Coming from the
four corners of the earth. And Five Corners, Idaho.”
Maybe those were simpler times. When people were a lot more willing to let rich men in
charge tell them what was right and wrong. Today, a politician looking to build himself a
monument is going to have to convince people it’s for their own good – and economic
development is the most popular selling point. Looking around these days – more often
than not – it seems voters are willing to rely on a quick fix. Taken together, that’s a
recipe for this kind of thing continuing. After all, when you’re a politician building a
legacy for yourself, a sports stadium is a lot sexier than filling pot holes or fixing school
roofs.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Richard Paul.
This first report in the "Your Choice; Your Planet" series looks at the difficulties of being a "green" consumer.
Most of us are conflicted when it comes to the environment. Polls show the majority of us consider ourselves to be environmentally-friendly. But, our day-to-day decisions often don’t measure up to an earth-friendly lifestyle. Part of the reason is that there’s lots of confusion about what’s best for the environment. Another reason is that being earth-friendly is pretty darned inconvenient. In the first report of an ongoing series we’re calling ‘Your Choice; Your Planet,’ the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham explores the dilemmas we face when we attempt to do right by the environment:
Transcript
Most of us are conflicted when it comes to the environment. Polls show the majority of
us consider ourselves to be environmentally friendly. But, our day-to-day decisions often
don’t measure up to an earth-friendly lifestyle. Part of the reason is that there’s lots of
confusion about what’s best for the environment… Another reason is that being earth-friendly is pretty darned inconvenient. In the first report of an ongoing series we’re
calling ‘Your Choice; Your Planet,’ the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
explores the dilemmas we face when we attempt to do right by the environment:
It’s tough, trying to be green, or earth-friendly or whatever you want to call it. I mean…
most of us aren’t interested in always trying to find the eco-friendly clothes or trying to
figure out the differences between the “all natural” and the “100-percent real” juice. And
then there’s stuff. There’s all kinds of stuff we need… alright… maybe we don’t NEED
it… but – hey – everybody else has one. Why shouldn’t ?
There’s a gap between being a flower-sniffing, hemp-wearing, tree hugger… and a
regular person trying to be a bit more environmentally friendly. The Executive Director
of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope, says if you’re struggling with that gap… you’re not
alone…
“We haven’t solved the problem of linking up our values and our consumption. Most of
us consume out of habit and convenience. We don’t consume out of our deepest values.”
So… we BELIEVE that we ought to save the earth for future generations. And most of
us have a few habits that make us feel a little better about ourselves. Maybe we bring a
coffee mug to work instead of using Styrofoam cups. Or we might take the bus or the
commuter train once in a while, you know, to save the earth from our bit of car exhaust.
But the real challenge comes when we start buying stuff. You know… like groceries,
and cars, and appliances. Stuff. Joel Makower is the founder of GreenBiz-dot-com. It’s
website that bills itself as a “The Resource Center on Business, the Environment and the
Bottom Line.” He says the big impact on the environment takes place in how we spend
our money…
“I think consumers know intuitively that every time they open their wallet they cast a
vote for or against the environment. But, doing that’s a very complicated matter.”
(grocery store sound up)
It’s complicated because even if you walk into a store determined to buy only the
products that are the most environmentally friendly… you’re bombarded with conflicting
claims. Say you’re looking for trash bags. Are the bags claiming to be made of 80-
percent recycled plastic any better than the ones over here called ‘enviro-bags?’ I don’t
know. And that’s the problem. Most of the time we really don’t know which products
are the safest for the environment. And don’t even get me started on the whole paper or
plastic grocery bag question.
Joel Makower says we care, but we’re confused.
“There’s a huge gap between green concern and green consumerism. And that’s
everybody’s fault.”
Makower says companies don’t know how to market their products’ environmental
attributes and when they do try, he says, they often do it poorly or misleadingly. And
we’re afraid to try new things… not knowing if we’re being suckered into a poorly
performing product that SAYS it’s more environmentally friendly.
So, often, rather than deal with all that confusion… or instead of spending hours and
hours researching everything we buy…. we figure… “Well, it can’t be that bad; can it?”
Charles Ballard is an economist at Michigan State University. He says, really, there’s
only so much you can ask of us…
“Keep in mind that people can’t be expected to become saints just because they’re
interested in the environment.”
He says most of us see being environmentally friendly something like extra credit… or
something we do when we’re better off financially… kind of like a luxury item that we
can feel good about. Ballard says most of the time we’re more distracted by the glitz and
glamour we see on TV or read about in magazines and want just a little bit of that good
life for ourselves…
“What we have is a situation where immediate gratification, where grabbing for all the
gusto you can right now is the thing that’s driving our decisions.”
And when you’re going for the gusto… you tend to forget about the environmental cost
of your lifestyle. We buy the wrong things… and we buy too many things. We just plain
consume too much. But, then… sometimes our conscience starts eating at us… and
before you know it, we’re being a little more careful about recycling at work… or some
other little contribution to the earth’s well being.
The Sierra Club’s Carl Pope says environmentalists… or those of us who like to think of
ourselves that way… keep trying to do better…
“The American people’s values and ideals are ahead of their own habits. That’s actually
why we have religions, is because people want to be better than they are. And one of the
reasons we have an environmental movement, I think, is because Americans want to be
better than we are.”
And so… we sin in all of our consumption… and then make restitution by trying to be
better, more earth-friendly consumers. The problem is… as one writer put it… you can’t
really buy your way out of consumption. When you get right down to it…. you really
just have to buy less. That’s a tough one.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Earlier this year, the EPA tightened regulations on pollution from large-scale livestock operations. Farmers will be limited on the amount of manure they’re allowed to spread on fields. A new study by the USDA says, under the new regulations, these farmers will need more land on which to spread the manure. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Earlier this year, the EPA tightened regulations on pollution from
large-scale livestock operations. Farmers will be limited on the amount of
manure they’re allowed to spread on fields. A new study by the USDA
says, under the new regulations, these farmers will need more land on which
to spread the manure. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has
more:
Researchers say most of the big livestock farms will need more land under
the new regulations. The study found that operations in some parts of the
country will have trouble finding that land.
Marc Ribaudo is an agricultural economist with the USDA’s Economic Research
Service. He says it’s possible that these large-scale farms will look to
the Midwest as a potential place to relocate:
“I would think that for those companies or those operations where manure
management is suddenly an important cost, that they would give greater
consideration to the Midwest or areas where there’s more land available for
spreading manure.”
He cautions that manure management is just one factor in the overall cost of
running these farms. But that finding available land to spread manure on is
becoming increasingly important.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
