In their submission, the environment groups charge that oil extraction processes leach contaminants into both surface and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed. (Photo courtesy of Aude CC-2.0)
You might think about imported oil and Saudi Arabia or Venezuela come to mind. But, the single biggest source of imported oil to the U.S. comes from Canada. And half of that comes from a dirty form of oil called tar sands oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists are trying to use NAFTA to get restrictions on tar sands oil:
Transcript
You might think about imported oil and Saudi Arabia or Venezuela come to mind. But, the single biggest source of imported oil to the U.S. comes from Canada. And half of that comes from a dirty form of oil called tar sands oil. Lester Graham reports environmentalists are trying to use NAFTA to get restrictions on tar sands oil.
Environmental groups say extracting tar sands oil causes a lot of water pollution. Matt Price is with Environmental Defence Canada:
“We keep on presenting the evidence to the government, and they just sort of keep on ignoring it which is why we filed this citizens’ complaint.”
They’ve filed the complaint under the North American Free Trade Agreement. The say oil companies in Canada are not complying with Canadian environmental laws and that might be a violation of the NAFTA treaty. So, his group and others are taking the fight to Canada’s trading partners.
A study finds that companies can be environmentally friendly and still make a profit(Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)
Critics of environmental regulations
often say the restrictions are bad for a
company’s bottom line. But Rebecca Williams
reports a new study finds companies can find
ways to offset the costs:
Transcript
Critics of environmental regulations
often say the restrictions are bad for a
company’s bottom line. But Rebecca Williams
reports a new study finds companies can find
ways to offset the costs:
Researchers looked at more than 2,000 manufacturing plants in seven countries.
Nicole Darnell is an assistant professor at George Mason University and the
study’s author.
She says it’s true that the tougher the regulation, the more it tended to lower a
company’s profits. But she says some companies were able to break even.
“Those companies that are proactive and seek to do right by the environment
can offset or eliminate the cost of regulation and potentially get ahead of the
curve.”
Darnell says that’s still a pretty rare case. But she says some of the most
successful cases are companies that reduce energy and water use in their
manufacturing processes.
Composite wood products are everywhere in the American home – in
cabinets and shelves and doors. And almost all of it is made with
formaldehyde, a carcinogen also known to aggravate the lungs of people
with asthma. But as Tamara Keith reports, the widespread use of the
chemical could be changing:
Transcript
Composite wood products are everywhere in the American home – in
cabinets and shelves and doors. And almost all of it is made with
formaldehyde, a carcinogen also known to aggravate the lungs of people
with asthma. But as Tamara Keith reports, the widespread use of the
chemical could be changing:
Particle board, plywood and fiberboard are all made with a glue that uses
formaldehyde to give it extra binding power. From the moment the wood
is manufactured until it comes to your home as a cabinet and well
beyond, it releases toxic fumes. Dmitri Stanich is a spokesman for the
California Air Resources Board:
“Even small amounts of formaldehyde are known to have adverse health
effects so whenever you get that smell and you go, hmmg. Most
people won’t even think twice about it, but it is a known carcinogen
and that’s what we’re trying to reduce.”
Over some industry objections, California recently adopted new
standards limiting the use of formaldehyde in manufactured wood. Come
2012, California will have the toughest formaldehyde restrictions in
the world. And it’s expected other states will follow its lead.
A bill before the U-S House of Representatives would stop state and local governments from passing their own restrictions on chemicals. We have more from the GLRC’s Rick Pluta:
Transcript
A bill before the US House of Representatives would stop state and local
governments from passing their own restrictions on chemicals. We have more
from the GLRC’s Rick Pluta:
California recently passed a law that would ban the use of a fire retardant that’s been
linked to neurological disorders, and other states are looking at passing regulations that
are stricter than federal rules governing fertilizers, pesticides, and industrial chemicals.
Democratic Representative John Dingell of Michigan says all of those could be sidelined
by the bill before Congress:
“In other words, it is a wall not only against existing law, but it is a wall against the states enacting additional laws which would make it safe for people.”
He says the bill would also require environmental regulators to perform a cost-benefit
analysis as part of their decisions, when the health of the public should be their top
concern.
Supporters say the United States needs a single standard governing pesticides and
chemicals to comply with an international treaty.
A blue-green algae bloom. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
The experts who identified the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes for us
say nonpoint source pollution is one of the worst threats. That’s
pollution that doesn’t come out of a pipe but instead is washed from
streets and farm fields… and lawns. Americans use at least three million of tons
of fertilizer on their lawns every year. But the same compounds that make for a lush,
green lawn can make a stinky, slimy mess when they get washed into lakes and rivers.
Sarah Hulett looks at efforts to limit the amount of lawn chemicals that make their way
into the waterways:
Transcript
In our series, Ten Threats to the Great Lakes, we’ve been looking
at environmental problems affecting the health of the lakes. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham is guiding us through the
issues one-by-one:
The experts who identified the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes for us
say nonpoint source pollution is one of the worst threats. That’s
pollution that doesn’t come out of a pipe but instead is washed from
streets and farm fields… and lawns. Americans use at least three million of tons
of fertilizer on their lawns every year. But the same compounds that make for a lush,
green lawn can make a stinky, slimy mess when they get washed into lakes and rivers.
Sarah Hulett looks at efforts to limit the amount of lawn chemicals that make their way
into the waterways:
When newspaper headlines decried the death of Lake Erie in the 1970’s, Americans got
familiar with a new enemy of the environment. Scientists named phosphorus the major
culprit in the lake’s decline. And the reaction went a long way toward cleaning up the
lake: billions of dollars went into upgrades for wastewater treatment plants to reduce
phosphorus from sewage. And phosphate detergents have been mostly phased out of use.
But now that regulators have gotten a handle on the phosphorus coming from the most
obvious sources, they’re left with a much more difficult task: reducing phosphorus from
countless smaller sources that together add up to a lot of pollution.
One of those sources is lawn fertilizer. And Glenn Short says it’s easy to see what
happens when that fertilizer gets washed into the lake where he lives.
(sound of ducks quacking and waves)
“You have this, like, green slime floating all over the top of the lake water. Just pops up
everywhere and it can fill the entire lake surface – especially in the calmer bays. It can be
just miserable for swimming and things like that.”
Short sits on the board of the Lake Sherwood Association, in southeast Michigan. His
neighbors asked him to lobby the township to pass a ban on phosphorus fertilizer to
reduce the algae that takes over the lake in the summers. But he says at first, he was
reluctant to do it.
“I’m like any other homeowner. I don’t want government telling me what to do with my
own property. If I want a really nice lawn, I felt that I should be able to have one.”
But he started doing some research. And he found that enough phosphorus will
eventually kill a lake.
“Over a period of time, you get more and more organic material growing, you kill it off,
you just start filling up your lake. And eventually you have no lake anymore. You just
have a wetland. Well, I like my lake. I mean, I live on a lake. I like to use my lake.”
So Short drafted an ordinance to ban fertilizers containing phosphorus, and his township
board passed it. Several other local governments in the region have also enacted limits or
outright bans. And the state of Minnesota has statewide limits on phosphorus fertilizers.
It’s an approach the landscape industry calls unnecessary.
Gary Eichen is with Mike’s Tree Surgeons in southeast Michigan. It’s a company that’s
signed onto an initiative aimed at environmentally responsible lawn care.
(sound of spreader)
The company uses zero-phosphorus fertilizer on almost all the lawns it treats. Back at the
office, Eichen says the problem isn’t the chemicals – it’s that most homeowners don’t
know how to use them.
“They purchase from a source that is not educated in what the products are. He goes
home and starts going through this giant label on the back, and most of it might as well
be Egyptian hieroglyphics. He has no idea. So he ends up over-applying or incorrectly
applying.”
Eichen says there would be far fewer problems with runoff if homeowners left fertilizing
to the professionals. And he says it’s tough for the experts to stay in business when
there’s a patchwork of local ordinances to regulate chemicals like phosphorus.
But that’s exactly what the Environmental Protection Agency is asking communities to
do. Brad Garmon of the Michigan Environmental Council says that kind of bottom-up
regulation presents some challenges.
“It’s very difficult to see what’s working and what’s not, and to chart success. And I
know that a lot of the state programs are re-evaluating right now to see if the approach
they’ve been using over the last five or ten years has been working.”
It’ll take at least another five to ten years for Glenn Short to see the results of his
community’s phosphorus ban. The lake he lives on is part of a river system that
eventually dumps into Lake Erie. But he says just like that Great Lake, it’ll be worth the
wait and the effort to see his small lake bounce back to health.
A scientist collects samples of ballast sediment. (Photo courtesy of NOAA)
A new study finds that ocean-going ships that enter the Great Lakes often carry biological pollution in their ballasts, even when they declare their ballasts are empty. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A new study finds that ocean-going ships that enter the Great Lakes often carry biological pollution in their ballasts, even when they declare their ballasts are empty. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
The study by the University of Michigan and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration looked at ships coming into the Great Lakes from the ocean. Nearly 80-percent of them declared “no ballast on board” and avoided inspections by the Coast Guard.
But several of those ships were tested by the researchers. They found that although the ballast water was pumped out, there were thousands of organisms left behind in the sediment in the bottom of the ships’ ballast. Then, when the ships unloaded at their first stop, they took on Great Lakes ballast water which stirred up the sediment.
And that made it possible for the biological contaminants to be pumped out at the next Great Lakes port.
The authors of the study warn that more restrictions must be placed on how the ships handle ballast water, or the Great Lakes will continue to be invaded by more invasive species such as the zebra mussel, round goby, and 180 other foreign aquatic species that have harmed the Lakes’ ecosystems.
Spotted Knapweed seed heads - Land managers work hard to control or prevent invasive plants like this one from taking root. New research may help their efforts. (Photo by Barry Rice/The Nature Conservancy)
New research indicates that some invasive plants spread rapidly because they don’t have natural enemies to keep them in check. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush explains:
Transcript
New research indicates that some invasive plants spread rapidly because they
don’t have natural enemies to keep them in check. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mark Brush explains:
The research found that some foreign plants thrive in North America because
they’ve escaped their natural enemies. In a study published in the journal Nature, researchers found some of the enemies the plants escaped were
in the soil. They looked at the invasive plant spotted knapweed. They found the
plants are not only free from microbes that might eat their roots, but they
also found microbes in the areas the plants invaded that actually help them
grow.
Ray Callaway is one of the researchers at the University of Montana.
He says regulations are needed to stop these kinds of invasions:
“I think we ought to have much stronger restrictions on the movement of
horticultural plants and so on from across continents. I think we’re
playing with fire.”
The majority of plant invasions come from the horticultural trade. Policymakers are now
working on a protocol to monitor the importation and sale of non-native plants.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark
Brush.
As of August 1st, an unprecedented ban on personal watercraft will affect most of the Upper Saint Croix (croy) Riverway in Minnesota and Wisconsin. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports, this action may extend to other national parks around the Great Lakes:
In their submission, the environment groups charge that oil extraction processes leach contaminants into both surface and groundwater in the Athabasca watershed. (Photo courtesy of Aude CC-2.0)
