Behind Big Oil’s Green Motivations

  • The Maryland Science Center is running a pilot project, renting out a handful of bright green battery powered cars to Baltimore residents and tourists. The cars use a battery that employs a special polymer film developed by Exxon Chemical. (Photo courtesy of the Maryland Science Center)

Some well known oil companies
are very publicly getting behind
alternative energy initiatives.
But are these serious efforts
or just a case of green-washing?
Tamara Keith tries
to get some answers:

Transcript

Some well known oil companies
are very publicly getting behind
alternative energy initiatives.
But are these serious efforts
or just a case of green-washing?
Tamara Keith tries
to get some answers:

The first thing oil giants like Exxon Mobil, BP and Chevron would
like us to know is that they’re not oil companies. They are energy
companies. So, they say, investing in biofuels, solar panels and
geothermal power really isn’t out of character… even if those things
only make up a fraction of their total business.

And I guess that’s how you end up with an electric car that says
“powered by Exxon Mobil” on its bumper.

Reiner: “So, you want to go take a look?”

Keith: “Yeah, sure.”

Vann Reiner is the CEO of the Maryland Science Center.
The center is running a pilot project, renting out a handful of
bright green battery powered cars to Baltimore residents and tourists.

Reiner: “Here’s the gas cap.”

Keith: “It’s an outlet.”
Reiner: “It’s an outlet, that’s right. And you see it’s 110 volt
15 amp – so household current.”

The cars use a battery that employs a special polymer film developed
by Exxon Chemical.

“So, you turn the key the way you normally would.”

(sound of car)

Exxon Mobil said it couldn’t make anyone available to be
interviewed for this story.

Reiner: “Nice job on acceleration.”

Keith: “Thank you.”

So I asked the science center’s Reiner what I wanted to ask
the folks at Exxon Mobil. Why in the world is an oil company
promoting an electric car? Isn’t that like working to put themselves
out of business?

“I see it as a technology company who has made a lot of money
in oil, no getting around that. But what else can you do? And
this is a way to insure their future, in my opinion. But I’m just
delighted that they chose us.”

Exxon Mobil also recently announced a 600-million dollar investment
in algae as a future biofuel – and the company is making sure we all
know about it with with newspaper and television ads.

“And they absorb CO2. So they help solve the greenhouse problem as well.
We’re making a big commitment to finding out just how much algae can help
to meet the fuel demands of the world.”

Still, Exxon Mobil is planning for oil, gas and coal to continue dominating
the world’s energy supply for at least the next 30 years.

Alex Yelland is with Chevron, and he says that’s what his company is projecting, too.

“Renewables is currently around 10 percent of the energy mix, and, in the
coming decades, that’s not expected to change a huge amount but from its
current state it’s relative state, it will grow significantly.”

Over the next 2 years, Yelland says Chevron plans to spend 2-point-7
billion dollars on renewable energy and energy efficiency. But Yelland
insists that kind of investment in energy sources other than oil isn’t
counterintuitive.

“For us, it’s about building a sound business for the future and
understanding where global demand is going and how we can meet that.”

“I think it definitely is smart PR.”

Edward Wu is with Cora Capital Advisors in New York. His firm specializes
in alternative energy investing. He says these companies are worth hundreds
of billions of dollars and, by comparison, their green investments are fairly small.

“They’re not going to replace oil, but I think they’re hoping that
they’ll be somewhat economically viable and at the same time definitely
serve a PR purpose right now.”

But Wu says the sprinkling of investments isn’t just about having something
to talk about in their ads.

“They want to have some biofuels in the mix. They want to have some battery
companies in the mix. They’re essentially dipping their toe in the water to
essentially hedge their bets.”

Because no one will want to be an oil company if, or perhaps we should say when,
oil stops dominating the energy landscape.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Related Links

Footloose and Diaper-Free

  • Diaper-free parents say that their baby shows them signs when a bathroom break is needed. They call the dialogue "elimination communication." (Photo by Jessi Ziegler)

When most Americans have a baby,
the parents decide whether to use
disposable or cloth diapers. But
Julie Grant reports that there’s
another trend: no diapers at all:

Transcript

When most Americans have a baby,
the parents decide whether to use
disposable or cloth diapers. But
Julie Grant reports that there’s
another trend: no diapers at all:

Having kids without diapers might seem kind of far out. So,
who better to tell us about this then Willow Lune, of
Berkeley, California.

She remembers when her son was 3-months old. They
were at her mother-in-law’s house. Her husband took the
baby to the bathroom – and accidentally left the door open.

“And his mother came in and saw him holding our son over
the toilet. And she said, ‘what are you doing?’ And my
husband said, ‘well, he’s going to the bathroom, just like you
do.’ And it took her about a minute, and she said, ‘that’s so
cool.’”

Lune and her husband said it was normal to see babies
without diapers when they were traveling in Tibet and
Thailand. So, when their son was born, they decided to try
it. He’s was going to the toilet on his own by age 1 and a
half.

Now Lune teaches classes in Berkeley and other areas
around San Francisco.

She says diaper-free little ones can wear crotch-less pants –
or might not wear anything from the waist down.

And it’s up to the parents to pay close attention – or risk
having to reach for the cleaning supplies.

“There might be a little wiggle, or sometimes just the staring
at you. There’s just little subtle clues that they actually give
you from the time they’re born. So it’s our job to look at that,
listen for that, pick up on that. And then respond to it.”

Turns out, there’s a name for this little dialogue between
babies and parents. They call it elimination communication,
or E.C. Instead of using diapers – and then training them to
go in the toilet a few years later – Lune says parents can just
pay attention. They can show babies from the start what to
do when the need arises.

Lune says one of the reasons she and her husband do this
is because they are concerned for the environment.

Pampers and Huggies clog up the landfills. The other major
option – washing cloth diapers – takes more attention from
parents. But doing that can use a lot of water and electricity.

Jennifer Williams lives in the San Francisco area. She has
three children – all under age four.

Williams is also concerned for the environment. And she
wants to pay close attention when her 6-month old daughter
goes to the bathroom. She even uses cloth diapers.

“Even just with cloth diapers, you have to be way more in
tune to what’s going on with someone’s body. Where –
she’s in disposable right now – I’ll just forget about it for five
hours. You don’t have that option with cloth. Unless you
want to give her a horrible a rash. So, the whole EC thing is
really interesting, because you really have to be in touch with
what’s going on physiologically.”

But Williams works full time. Elimination communication just
is not practical for her family.

“Yeah, I mean, because you really do have to be available to
whenever the baby has to go to the bathroom. With one
baby, when I was home on maternity leave, I probably could
have done it. Once you have more than one running
around, it just doesn’t fit. Maybe I’m lazy. So be it.”

Supporters of the diaper-free lifestyle say it’s actually easier
then potty training kids when they’re older. And they say
parents don’t have to do it all the time. They can try it when
they do have time to pay close attention.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

How to Avoid the Flu

  • Research finds that Americans don't wash their hands enough (Photo courtesy of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:

Transcript

Health experts say handwashing is the single most important thing you can do to reduce your chance of getting sick or making other people sick. But as Rebecca Williams reports, recent research finds antibacterial soap is not any better than plain soap at keeping us from getting sick. And some scientists and doctors worry there might be risks to widespread use of antibacterial products:

Some studies estimate about 70% of liquid soaps on store shelves have antibacterial ingredients in them. Ingredients such as a chemical called triclosan.

Allison Aiello teaches epidemiology at the University of Michigan School of Public Health. Aiello is lead author of a paper in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

She examined more than two dozen studies on antibacterial soaps containing triclosan. She says triclosan kills bacteria by going after the bacterium’s cell wall.

“The cell wall cannot be kept intact anymore; it’s not able to survive.”

But Aiello says there’s a growing body of evidence that even though antibacterial soap kills bacteria, it’s no better than regular soap at preventing illness.

Regular soap doesn’t kill bacteria, but Aiello says it works just as well at getting rid of bacteria and viruses like swine flu.

“Regular soap, is basically, it has a surfactant in it and what it does is it allows bacteria to be dislodged from hands and then the motion that you’re using under water helps dislodge it and make it go down the drain, basically.”

Aiello says it’s important to note that the soap studies were done with basically healthy people.

She says more research needs to be done to find out if antibacterial soaps could be more effective for elderly people or people with compromised immune systems.

But Aiello says generally, for healthy people, antibacterial soaps are no better than plain soaps at keeping you healthy.

And she says there could be risks to antibacterial products. She says there’s evidence from lab studies that antibacterial soaps might be adding to the emergence of super-bugs: bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics.

“In the laboratory setting, it is clear that there are mechanisms that can lead to antibiotic resistance when bacteria are exposed to triclosan.”

Aiello says they haven’t seen this play out for antibacterial soaps in the real world yet. But she says researchers need to keep an eye on it because antibiotic resistance might take some time to develop.

The soap industry dismisses the idea that antibacterial soaps might have something to do with antibiotic resistance.

Brian Sansoni is with the Soap and Detergent Association.

“The last thing we want to see is people discouraged from using beneficial products. Antibacterial soaps have proven benefits, they’re used safely and effectively by millions of people every day. Consumers should continue to use these products with confidence.”

The Food and Drug Administration has the final word on antibacterial soaps. But they’re still trying to figure out what to say about them.

The FDA has been trying to come up with rules for the products for more than 30 years. Right now there are no formal rules about the levels of antibacterial chemicals in soaps. And there aren’t any rules about how the products can be marketed or labeled.

There’s one thing both the soap industry and doctors agree on – Americans don’t wash up often enough with any kind of soap.

A recent study found one out of every three men walk out of the bathroom without washing their hands. Women did better than the guys, but still, about one of every ten women didn’t wash their hands either.

Experts say after you sneeze, cough or visit the restroom, you should scrub your hands with soap and water for 20 to 30 seconds.

That’s as long as it takes to sing the happy birthday song twice.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

‘Non-Stick’ Chemical Discovered in Great Lakes

New research shows that chemicals used to repel food, stains, and water are sticking just about everywhere else in the environment. They were recently found in the Great Lakes. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports, their discovery was not a surprise:

Transcript

New research shows that chemicals used to repel food, stains, and water are
sticking just about everywhere else in the environment. They were recently found
in the Great Lakes. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett
reports, their discovery was not a surprise:


The chemicals are called perfluoronated compounds. They’re used in products
like Teflon, Scotchgard, and Gore-Tex. They’ve been detected in animals from
Arctic polar bears to seals and birds in the Baltic.


Matt Simcik is a researcher at the University of Minnesota. His studies turned up
the chemicals in lake trout from all five Great Lakes. Simcik says a likely source
for the contaminants is wastewater treatment plants.


“Because these chemicals are used in everyday use – textiles and carpets and
things. And when you wash your clothes, or wash your carpet, that water gets
into the waste system, and eventually ends up in the lake.”


The effects of the chemicals on humans is the subject of intense debate – but at
high exposures they’ve been linked to problems including birth defects and
cancer .


One of the two known chemicals has been phased out of use. Federal regulators
are looking at the other to determine whether it should be restricted as well.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Trash Burning Can Threaten Human Health

For most of us, getting rid of the garbage is as simple as setting it at the curb. But not everyone can get garbage pick-up. So, instead, they burn their trash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… that choice could be affecting your health:

Transcript

For most of us, getting rid of the garbage is as simple as setting it at the curb. But not everyone
can get garbage pick-up. So, instead, they burn their trash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports… that choice could be affecting your health:


(sound of garbage trucks)


It’s not been that long ago that people everywhere but in the largest cities burned their trash in a
barrel or pit in the backyard. That’s not as often the case these days. Garbage trucks make their
appointed rounds in cities, small towns, and in some rural areas. But they don’t pick up
everywhere… or if they do offer service… it’s much more expensive because the pick-up is so far
out in the country.


Roger Booth lives in a rural area in southwestern Illinois. He says garbage pick-up is not an
option for him.


“Well, we burn it and then bury the ashes and things. We don’t have a good way to dispose of it
any other method. The cost of having pick up arranged is prohibitive.”


He burns his garbage in the backyard. Booth separates bottles and tin cans from the rest of the
garbage so that he doesn’t end up with broken glass and rusty cans scattered around. A lot of
people don’t do that much. They burn everything in a barrel and then dump the ashes and scrap in
a gully… or just burn everything in a gully or ditch. Booth says that’s the way most folks take
care of the garbage in the area. No one talks about the smoke or fumes put off by the burning.


“I haven’t ever thought much about that. So, I don’t suppose that I have any real concerns at this
moment. I don’t think I’m doing anything different than most people.”


And that’s what many people who burn their garbage say. A survey conducted by the Zenith
Research Group found that people in areas of Wisconsin and Minnesota who didn’t have regular
garbage collection believe burning is a viable option to get rid of their household and yard waste.
Nearly 45-percent of them indicated it was “convenient,” which the researchers interpreted to
mean that even if garbage pick-up were available, the residents might find more convenient to
keep burning their garbage.


While some cities and more densely populated areas have restricted backyard burning… state
governments in all but a handful of states in New England and the state of California have been
reluctant to put a lot of restrictions on burning barrels.


But backyard burning can be more than just a stinky nuisance. Burning garbage can bring
together all the conditions necessary to produce dioxin. Dioxin is a catch-all term that includes
several toxic compounds. The extent of their impact on human health is not completely known…
but they’re considered to be very dangerous to human health in the tiniest amounts.


Since most of the backyard burning is done in rural areas, livestock are exposed to dioxin and it
gets into the meat and milk that we consume.


John Giesy is with the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State University.
He says as people burn garbage, the dioxins are emitted in the fumes and smoke…


“So, when they fall out onto the ground or onto the grass, then animals eat those plants and it
becomes part of their diet. And ultimately it’s accumulated into the animal and it’s stored as fat.
Now, particularly with dairy cattle, one of the concerns about being exposed to dioxins is that
then when they’re producing milk, milk has fat it in, it has butter fat in it. And the dioxins go
along with that.”


So, every time we drink milk, snack on cheese, or eat a hamburger, we risk getting a small dose
of dioxin. Beyond that, vegetables from a farmer’s garden, if not properly washed, could be
coated with dioxins. And even a miniscule amount of dioxin is risky.


John Giesy says chemical manufacturing plants and other sources of man-made dioxin have been
cleaned up. Now, backyard burning is the biggest source of dioxins produced by humans.


“So, now as we continue to strive to reduce the amount of dioxins in the environment and in our
food, this is one place where we can make an impact.”


“That’s the concern. That’s the concern, is that it’s the largest remaining source of produced
dioxin.”


Dan Hopkins is with the Environmental Protection Agency. He says, collectively, backyard
burning produces 50 times the amount of dioxin as all the large and medium sized incinerators
across the nation combined. That’s because the incinerators burn hot enough to destroy dioxins
and have pollution control devices to limit emissions. Backyard burning doesn’t get nearly that
hot and the smoke and fumes spread unchecked.


The EPA wants communities to take the problem of backyard burning seriously. It wants state
and local governments to do more to make people aware that backyard burning is contaminating
our food and encourage them to find other ways to get rid of their garbage…


“(It) probably won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution, but by exchanging successful efforts that other
communities have had, we should be able to help communities fashion approaches that have a
high probability of success.”


But… public education efforts are expensive… and often they don’t reach the people who most
need to hear them. The EPA is not optimistic that it will see everyone stop burning their garbage.
It’s not even a goal. The agency is just hoping enough people will find other ways to get rid of
their trash that the overall dioxin level in food is reduced.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

TRASH BURNING CAN THREATEN HUMAN HEALTH (Short Version)

There’s an effort underway to get people to stop burning their trash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that experts have found that toxins from backyard burning can get into food:

Transcript

There’s an effort underway to get people to stop burning their trash. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that experts have found that toxins from backyard burning
can get into food:


Often, garbage truck routes don’t include rural areas, so many people there just burn their trash.
But that can lead to toxins getting into food. John Giesy is with the National Food Safety and
Toxicology Center at Michigan State University.


“Well, when we burn waste in a barrel, the dioxins will be in the gas and in the particulates. And,
so, they go downwind, but those particulates ultimately fall out.”


And they end up on the grass that livestock eat. We end up taking in the dioxins in the meat and
milk products that we eat. Because backyard burning is the largest human-caused source of
dioxins, the Environmental Protection Agency is working with states and communities to try to
get people to get rid of their trash some other way.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Cleaning Up the Dumping Grounds

  • Residents in many states find that large appliances are not allowed in landfills. It's hard to get anyone to pick up things like tires, old washers, dryers, and refrigerators.

People have been secretly dumping old appliances almost as long as companies have made them. Too often, clean-up crews find old stoves, water heaters, and even refrigerators that people have thrown away improperly. Even the threat of big fines has not stopped the practice. So now, some Great Lakes states are beginning to set up programs to accept the old appliances. They’ve found it’s more effective than having to pick them up out of roadside ditches. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

People have been secretly dumping old appliances almost as long as companies have made them. Too often, clean-up crews find old stoves, water heaters, and even refrigerators that people have thrown away improperly. Even the threat of big fines has not stopped the practice. So now, some Great Lakes states are beginning to set up programs to accept the old appliances. They’ve found it’s more effective than having to pick them up out of roadside ditches. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


It might be against the law to dump an old refrigerator or washing machine, but that doesn’t stop thousands of people each year from doing just that. And the reasons are simple, it’s hard to find a place that will take them, and those that do take them often charge a fee.


It got to be more of a problem in the 1980’s. Several states banned large appliances from landfills because they took up too much space. So, homeowners were left to their own devices to get rid of them. Then at about the same time, an increase in cheap imported steel forced down the price being paid for scrap metal. So anymore, fewer scavengers are making fewer rounds to pick up old appliances. That’s because much of the time, it just doesn’t pay. But, the few times when prices do get high enough, some of the scavengers will even pull appliances out of illegal dumping grounds to cart off and sell to steel recyclers. Greg Crawford is with the Steel Recycling Institute. He says the scrap metal market can have a great affect on where old appliances end up.


“That happens routinely year in and year out as the prices cyclically go up and down. And it is money. It is the scrap value of the iron and steel in the appliances that encourages the peddler trade to make these collection runs and then bring the appliances back into the scrap dealers.”


Besides looking horrible, dumping can also damage the environment. Many old appliances such as refrigerators, deep freezes and air conditioners contain coolant gases such as CFC’s that damage the ozone layer. If those gases aren’t captured, they’ll eventually leak out of the appliances. That’s why some governments are trying to come up with new ways to the problem of appliance disposal. Arley Owens is with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. He says Ohio is helping to lead an effort to make sure unwanted appliances are disposed of properly.


“We basically had to ask the question ‘Do you want to collect the appliances that people may illegally dump?’ Because in some cases when you don’t have enough money in your budget to buy food or to make ends meet for that particular month, there’s no way you’re going to take an appliance half-way across the county and then be charged a fee for the drop off and then the evacuation of the CFCs, which could run as much as anywhere from 30 to 40 to 75 dollars depending on the location.”


In Ohio, Owens says, each year the state gives each county’s solid waste management district a thousand dollars to publicize a drop-off period in the spring. Then, working with steel recyclers, they remove the CFC’s and send those old appliances to Ohio’s steel mills to be melted down for new products. But, most states don’t have such a program. In some cases, appliance stores will dispose of the old equipment for little or no cost when they deliver a new replacement. But, many of the large retail chains don’t. So those customers are on their own.


Some solid waste experts say that should change. Dana Duxbury-Fox has been a consultant on solid waste issues. She says someone should be responsible for making sure every big appliance will be recycled properly.


“And in my ideal world the manufacturer has that responsibility. If they made it –and particularly with products that have hazardous constituents– if they put those into the marketplace, they should be responsible for keeping it out of it.”


She suggests there should be a deposit on appliances, or a fixed cost included in the price that would pay for recycling services at the end of the life of the appliance. But those kinds of programs are hard to sell to lawmakers. That’s because despite the very real problem o illegal dumping. Big appliances are already being recycled at a higher rate than most steel products. In fact, according to the steel recycling institute, the recycling rate for big appliances increased from forty-one percent in 1990 to eighty-four percent last year. But still that leaves the question of where sixteen out of every hundred appliances end up. Greg Crawford with the Steel Recycling Institute says adding a fee or deposit probably wouldn’t be helpful.


“It would have the effect, really, of being a very expensive add on system that would perhaps get the incremental appliances, but it would be at a very high cost. It would not be the same efficient system that’s already in place, not withstanding the exception of improper dumping that some people erroneously choose to do.”


But, for many areas, especially rural areas’ dumping remains a problem because no one has offered a practical and inexpensive alternative. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.