independent - The Environment Report

Greenovation: Spray Foam Your Home

While there are tax credits for spray insulation, credit is available for the material only, so the contractor should separate out the material and the labor costs.(Photo courtesy of the NREL)

When people talk about making their home energy independent, they often talk about solar panels and wind turbines. But before all of that, a home has to be tight. That’s not as exciting, but necessary. Lester Graham is following Greenovation.tv’s Matt Grocoff as he tries to make his home the oldest net-zero-energy house in America.

Transcript

The note on Matt’s door told me to come on in and head for the basement. Matt’s 110 year old home has what’s called around here a “Michigan basement.” Basically, cement floor, stone walls, low ceilings. Not glamorous.

Matt is spraying expanding foam insulation up in that area where the floor framing sits on the foundation. The sill plate… which is basically nothing more than one-and-a-half inches of wood between inside your home… and the great outdoors.

“There’s no insulation between your house, or your living part, and the foundation itself.”

Maybe you’ve been in the basement of an old house and sometimes you can actually see daylight through the sill plate in places. Those leaks need to be sealed. That could be done with caulk. Then the area needs to be insulated. That could be done with fiberglass insulation.

“What we decided to do is to do both at the same time, seal and insulate, is to use a do-it-yourself spray foam insulation kit from Tiger Foam. There’s plenty of professionals out there, and for most people, that’s what I’d recommend you do, go to the professional. If money is an issue or if you’re a really handy person, these spray foam kits are fantastic.”

The foam insulation kit costs about 300-dollars. It’s basically two tanks -each about the size of a propane tank you’d use for an outdoor grill. A hose from each tank is attached to a spray gun that mixes the chemicals. The chemicals mix as they come out and the make a sticky foam that expands into nooks and crannies and then hardens after several minutes.

“Way easier than I thought they were going to be, by the way. I was actually terrified. I went back and read the instructions three – four times. And when I started spraying, it wasn’t that bad.”

“You still ended up with a goof, though.”

“I did have a goof. There was a little bit of foam there, dripping, when I forgot to turn on one of the canisters, but what ya– c’mon Lester.”

Matt’s goof means he’s going to have to wipe up some of the mess and spray again. But it’s not a disaster.

If you’ve got a big job… maybe new construction or a remodel that takes it down to the studs… you might want to consider a professional.

John Cunningham owns Arbor Insulation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He says, sure, if you’re up to it… do it yourself.

“You could assume that it’d be cheaper to do it yourself and the kits are a really good option, especially for people that have smaller projects or they’re looking to do the work in a very specific time frame or in a distant location for instance.”

But the professionals are recommended for those big jobs. And right now there are federal tax credits for spray foam insulation– 30-percent up to 15-hundred dollars. That credit is limited though.

“The tax credit is available for the material only, so the contractor should be separating out the material and the labor. Also, there are additional incentives from some utilities and more incentives coming down the pike.”

Some states and even municipalities are considering incentives.

One final note… to use the spray foam, Matt Grocoff is decked out in a white haz-mat suit, latex gloves, goggles and a respirator…

“You’ve got to take all the safety precautions. You’ve got to wear your goggles, your suit. And it also can be messy too. Any overspray that gets in your hair will stay in your hair.”

And as he zips up, I get the hint that Matt has to get back to work.

“I do. I’ve got 30 seconds before this nozzle sets up. So, Lester, thanks again.”

“Sounds like my cue to get out of here. That’s Matt Grocoff with Greenovation-dot-TV. I’m Lester Graham with The Environment Report.”

“Thanks Lester.”

Energy Star Falling Short?

The Energy Star Program is "a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy helping us all save money and protect the environment through energy efficient products and practices" (Photo courtesy of Energy Star)

The federal government’s Energy
Star program is supposed to highlight
products that save you energy and money.
Rebecca Williams reports some independent
testers found Energy Star might be falling
a bit short:

Transcript

The magazine Consumer Reports tests all kinds of products to see how they
stack up. They were testing refrigerators when they stumbled on something
odd.

Steven Saltzman is a Deputy Editor with Consumer Reports. He says the
Energy Star program relies on government standards that are outdated in some
cases. For example, one standard is to test a refrigerator’s energy use with the
icemaker off.

“But we found that when you turn the icemaker on – the refrigerator actually
used twice as much energy as it would with the icemaker off.”

Saltzman is not saying you can’t trust the Energy Star label. But he says the
tests need updating. And there’s a dark Energy Star secret, manufacturers get
to do their own testing in most cases – so there’s not a whole lot of third party
checking going on.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Big Biz Snapping Up Green Companies

Clorox is best known for selling bleach. But the company
recently purchased the natural cosmetics line Burt’s Bees.
That billion dollar sale is part of a growing trend of big multi-
nationals buying up small natural products companies. Julie
Grant reports:

Transcript

Matt Kohler is a brand manager for Clorox. He says every
day the company is getting greener. It recently bought Burt’s
Bees, which is known for its beeswax lip balms, lotions, and
shampoos. But nearly as important to many people – is that
the company was started by a man who just loved tending
bees. They like seeing a picture of the thick-bearded bee-
man Burt Shavitz on each label. Clorox’s Kohler says
consumers want to buy into that ecologically minded spirit.

“Well, I think if you look at marketplace right now, and where
we’re seeing growth, two of the major trends that are driving
growth, one is health and wellness, and then the second
piece is around sustainability. The nice part is where you
can have products that actually overlap both of trends. They
cover health and wellness and they cover sustainability at
the same time. That’s kind of the sweet spot for growth in
company.”

Kohler says Clorox can help Burt’s Bees – by getting it on
the shelves at Wal-Mart and other big stores. But he says
Burt’s will remain semi-independent…so it can maintain its
own spirit and culture.

“I’m excited about it. I think it really offers not just potential
growth for company. But products that we love and believe
in and that consumers are passionate about.”

But the online buzz about the purchase has not been
favorable. A health blog on The Chicago Tribune
website is similar to many others. Comments range from,
quote, “Say it ain’t, so,” to “I was horrified,” to “We will be
dropping Burt’s from our shelves since we don’t feel the
‘mission’ of the new owners aligns very will with the mission
of our retail operations.”

“You know it’s certainly raised a lot of eyebrows, I think,
within the environmental community.”

Alex Scranton is with the group Women’s Voices for the
Earth.

“I think a lot of people are looking at it differently because
Clorox does own it. And they’re a little bit concerned that
Clorox may not be able to keep to all the commitments that
Burt’s Bees originally had. So I think there are certainly
some consumers who are wondering where the
accountability is and how do we make sure that Burt’s Bees
stays as true as it had been?”

There have been lots of similar buyouts of natural products
companies in recent years. Colgate-Palmolive, one of the
biggest oral care companies in the world, purchased Tom’s
of Maine, a niche toothpaste company known for decades
for using only natural ingredients. Leading cosmetics
company Estee Lauder acquired Aveda, an environmentally
friendly skin and hair care products line, and multinational
giant Unilever bought socially-conscious Ben and Jerry’s ice
cream company.

Tom Lyon is the Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology,
and Commerce at the University of Michigan Business
School. He says the bigger companies can give smaller
companies stronger financial security without changing the
products. But in some cases, like at Ben and Jerry’s, lots of
employees leave.

“They don’t feel that the Ben and Jerry’s that operates within
Unilever is the same company, the same small company,
that it was years ago. And it’s not. Small companies have
to adjust when they’re bought by larger entities. And the
culture is going to change.”

Lyon says the sense of shared commitment at a small,
socially-conscious startup company can make it feel like a
family. He says many people attracted to that type of
workplace aren’t at home in a large conglomerate. So he
says Ben and Jerry’s, for example, lost lots of its committed,
innovative employees.

As consumer demand for natural products grows, Lyon
expects more big corporations will buyout small, green
companies in the future.

“And every time it happens we’ll feel a little bit bad about it.
But I think the consolation is that we’re gradually seeing the
overall market become much greener. And so we take a
little comfort in that.”

JG: “Why do you think we feel bad about it?”

“When we see a small company get bought up I think we feel
like there’s a loss in the culture somewhere. It’s almost a
kind of biodiversity that’s lost. And yet there are some gains
at the same time as that product becomes more widely
available.”

As Burt’s Bees becomes more widely available, Clorox is
anticipating growth from Burt’s. Like a lot of big corporations
that are acquiring smaller green companies, it’s expecting to
cash in on the growing interest in the ideals and practices
that built those small environmentally-friendly companies.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Ten Threats: Coastal Development Pressures

Construction along the shorelines can put a strain on natural systems. (Photo by Carole Swinehart/Michigan Sea Grant Extension)

One of the more subtle but relentless threats to the Great Lakes is
coastal development. Condos, ever larger and nicer beach homes
and buildings and parking lots in the watershed all have an
impact on the Lakes. As the population grows and the suburban
lifestyle keeps spreading, the health of the lakes is compromised
in countless tiny ways. Reporter Peter Payette finds those tiny
ways all add up:

Transcript

We’re continuing our look at ‘Ten Threats to the Great Lakes.’
Lester Graham is our guide through the series. He says the
experts who were surveyed to determine the threats say rapid
development is among the problems affecting the lakes:

Greg Reisig is standing at the edge of a 20-acre construction site
just down the street from the shore Lake Michigan.

Below him is a man-made pond a few hundred feet long. It was a
dry summer around here, but the pond is full.

In fact, Reisig says the water level is always the same.

“And that indicates there’s a lot of ground water flowing
here…there’s a lot of water in this pond and you can see what
was a whole big wetland complex…there’s a lot of cedar and red
osier dogwood…all the wetland plants.”

There are no wetlands here now.

The site in northern Michigan was excavated for homes a few
years ago.

But now the Army Corps of Engineers says the wetlands that
were here need to be restored. A few acres likely will be
restored. But Reisig says almost the whole site was wetlands
once. He expects it will soon be a subdivision with not much
more than a drainage ditch connecting it to Lake Michigan.

“What will that do to the amount of flow of water going into the
bay? Because of hard road surfaces, hard driveways, roofs,
buildings and supposedly fertilized lawns. What will happen to
the water and how will that increase the flow to the bay?”

The developer’s attorney says this is nonsense. Matt Vermetten
says this land was heavily farmed and mined for clay.

“There are pockets of quote unquote wetland and those are there
because of excavation for clay. So is this a wetland complex of
the nature we speak of when we typically speak of such a thing? I
think not.”

Disputes like this are becoming more common around the Great
Lakes. John Nelson is the baykeeper with the Grand Traverse
Bay Watershed Center. The bay off Lake Michigan and attracts a
lot of people. But Nelson says development doesn’t have to be a
problem.

He says the problem is people don’t think about the ecology of
the lakes. For example, east of Traverse City, Michigan, resorts
dominate the coastline. Along the beach, thick stands of sedges
and rushes extend out a few hundred feet. But the sections of
dark green marsh alternate with stretches of clean sand and white
lawn chairs.

(birds calling on beach)

Nelson grew up here and says this part of the lake was never a
sugar sand beach.

“They’ve located in a coastal marsh. Instead of celebrating and
dealing with that they’ve chosen to see it as they would like to
have it and then change it.”

The impacts of the changes are cumulative. Fish and wildlife
habitat is fragmented. The natural filtering properties of the
wetlands are gone.

So every time the city gets a rain shower all the dust and grime
and pollution are washed right into the lake.

Census data show people are leaving many of the Great Lakes
coastal cities and spreading out along the coastline. But it’s not
clear how local governments should plan for the growth.

Mike Klepinger studies land use planning for the Michigan Sea
Grant program. He says it’s hard to make direct connections
between a healthy lake and particular land uses.

“We are getting more planning along the shoreline than we had
thirty years ago in the state. The number of counties and number
of townships that have a plan has gone up, for example. But we
don’t know whether those plans are really doing any good.”

And it’s hard to implement good planning on a broad basis. In
any area, dozens of different local governments might have
independent control over development.

Multiply that by the number cities, townships and counties along
the coasts of the Great Lakes… and it’s hard to see how it all can
be managed so that enough coastline habitat is preserved.

For the GLRC, I’m Peter Payette.

“Biosafety Engineers” for Gmo Industry?

According to the USDA, 40% of the corn grown this year in the U.S. has been genetically modified. Some researchers fear there's not enough oversight on the rapidly growing biotech industry. A program at the University of Minnesota wants to create a new profession - the 'Biosafety Engineer.' (photo courtesy of the USDA)

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now there’s a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:

Transcript

Genetic engineering – especially when it comes to food – is a
battleground. On one side: people who fear a world of contaminated
food, harming humans and the environment. The other side fears
we’ll miss an opportunity to prevent hunger and disease. Now, there’s
a ground breaking initiative that might produce compromise. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports that some researchers
think safety can be built into the bio tech industry:

To remove a gene from one organism and transfer it to another…
that’s genetic engineering. Genetically modified or GM crops are
easier to grow, according to bio tech supporters and in the future
might be more nutritious. But they also might contain hidden
allergens, because they use genes from a plant or animal that
people might be allergic to. And there are concerns that GM crops
might harm the environment by crossbreeding with natural plants in
the wild. And so the University of Minnesota is proposing a
solution – an entirely new profession – call them biotech safety
engineers – along with a new science of bio safety. Anne
Kapuscinski is a researcher at the University of Minnesota and a
force behind the initiative called Safety First. Kapuscinski says
rather than regulating the industry after a new product is developed,
companies should prove safety first.

“It will mean that some ideas that will be on the lab bench won’t go
any further in development because the developers
will realize there are safety concerns that we don’t know how to
mitigate, or how to prevent from happening or how to address.”

And that could save companies money… by avoiding costly mistakes
such as the Starlink corn debacle. That’s when genetically modified
corn accidentally mixed with conventional corn and got into dozens of
foods. Kapuscinski says it was common knowledge in the industry that
the corn could get mixed up because of the way it’s transported and
stored… which might have been avoided with uniform safety standards
and government oversight. But until now, industry has resisted that.
They’ve been touting the benefits rather than the risks such as this
ad campaign put out by a group called the Biotechnology Industry
Organization.

(music under)

“Biotechnology, a big word that means hope.”

But one expert says if the industry wants to inspire public
confidence, it should support the Safety First initiative. John
Howard is the founder of a Texas based biotech firm called
ProdiGene. Not all biotech companies support the University of
Minnesota effort, but Howard thinks it has a good chance of
alleviating public concerns.

“The problem is, however, if you do it yourselves, what
credibility do you have as a company promoting your own safety
assessment? So an independent agency or source that comes out
and says, ‘Look, this is now credible, we’ve looked at all the safety
issues,’ that’s great, and if they find something that we’ve missed
then fine, we want to do it that way.”

John Howard says his company is working to bio-engineer corn to
deliver drugs. For instance, if you need insulin you could have it
in your breakfast cereal.

Opponents of bio tech say we don’t know all of the ramifications of
engineering drugs into food or altering the genetics of any organism,
but John Howard thinks we know enough to be safe.

“You can always argue that we just don’t know
enough yet and that’s an argument that can go on and on. And this
applies to everything that we think about in terms of risk. But
what you can do is look at a risk benefit equation. There’s
no question this is a for-profit company, let’s not make any mistake,
but not at the expense of harming people.”

And supporters say the Safety First initiative will see to that.
Lawrence Jacobs is a political scientist at the University of
Minnesota and a leader in Safety First. Jacobs says, like it or not,
GM food is here to stay.

“If we do not find some credible way to address the biosafety issues in
biotechnology, we are heading for a major maelstrom. The challenge
that’s out there now for the biotechnology industry right now is get
your act together. And the potential for consumers to panic in this
country is significant.”

Of course safety standards are already engineered into the
manufacturing of airplanes and cars. But will that work in an
industry which is manufacturing a living thing?

Supporters of the Safety First initiative say there’s too little
oversight on an industry that could have much greater impact on health
and the environment.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.

Tag: independent

Greenovation: Spray Foam Your Home

Transcript

Related Links

Energy Star Falling Short?

Transcript

Related Links

Big Biz Snapping Up Green Companies

Transcript

Related Links

Ten Threats: Coastal Development Pressures

Transcript

Related Links

“Biosafety Engineers” for Gmo Industry?

Transcript

Related Links