Commercial Fishing Gets Failing Grade

  • Countries are getting bad grades because there’s a lot of over-fishing going on. (Photo by Stephen Ausmus, courtesy of the USDA)

A new study out in the journal Nature grades countries on their ocean
fishing practices. Rebecca Williams reports even the top countries are not
getting a passing grade:

Transcript

A new study out in the journal Nature grades countries on their ocean
fishing practices. Rebecca Williams reports even the top countries are not
getting a passing grade:

The US, Canada, and Norway are some of the countries doing the best job.
That means they’re fishing in a responsible way.

But they all come in at 60%. That’d be a D, maybe a D-plus.

Tony Pitcher is the main author of the study.

“Wasn’t very encouraging actually that even the top scoring countries were
not really that good. So it wasn’t anything to write home about – we were
at the top but it wasn’t a great field. At the bottom end some countries
were just disastrous. More than half the countries didn’t even pass the
40%.”

Countries are getting bad grades because there’s a lot of over-fishing going
on. There’s illegal fishing. And there’s a big problem with nets and traps
getting lost. They can snare marine mammals, birds and fish.

Tony Pitcher says it’s not always easy to know where your fish came from.
But he says you can look for a blue and white label when you’re shopping.
It’ll say Marine Stewardship Council on it.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Science Jobs Scarce (Part Two)

  • (Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:

Transcript

It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:

Briana Gross is in her second year of a post-doctoral fellowship at
Washington University, she’s studying genetic adaptations of wild rice.

She’s been applying for college faculty jobs for the past two years. This
year she says she’s gone all-out.

“I’ve applied for I think 36-38 jobs, 3-4 of those positions have been cancelled
completely due to hiring freezes. I’ve had two interviews.”

These days there’s a glut of qualified talent. Between too many doctoral
grads and cutbacks, it’s tough to find a position.

One recent job interview did little to bolster Gross’s confidence for the
future.

“While I was waiting to meet with the dean, one of the financial administrators came buy
and kind of joked about how I couldn’t possibly be interviewing for a position because
there was no money available to hire anyone at the university. So, if that’s happening
this year, next year is going to be really rough.”

So, how’d we end up with too many scientists for the jobs out there? Well,
the answer goes back to an event scientists simply call “the doubling.”

In 1998, President Clinton doubled budget for the National Institutes of
Health, which had the effect of drawing in all kinds of new talent and
investment for science and research.

The problem came later when that funding went flat – precisely at the same
time all those new PhD’s were entering the job market.

“You know, its like you push a bunch of people into the pipeline and then there’s been
chocking off of the U.S. pipeline.”

Kristen Kroll is a professor of developmental biology at Washington
University; she employs two post-docs in her lab.

“What we’ve done is we’ve convinced a whole generation of U.S. post-docs and graduate
students not to go into academic science.”

Young PhD’s see the uphill battle for jobs and scarce grant money and
wonder if its worth the struggle.

And it’s not just post-docs who are feeling the pressure these days—junior
faculty are spending more of their time in the lecture hall and less time in the
lab.

David Duvernell teaches biology at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville.

“We try to maintain an active research program at SIUE, at the same time we’re teaching
our 2 or 3 courses a semester.”

Duvernell says SIUE enrollment in freshman-level biology courses has
nearly doubled, but state support has not.

“And where the students are losing out is that then we have less time to spend in research
labs, where we train students individually and give them an experience that will
ultimately make them employable and competitive for graduate and professional
programs.”

University administrators point that historically only about 30% of all post-
docs land a faculty job, with the rest going into the private sector. Except
these the private sector is shedding jobs even faster than the universities.

Jared Strasburg is a 4th-year post-doc from Indiana University. He says if he
hasn’t found a faculty job by August, he’ll have to consider something else.

“Academia is long hours, it’s a lot of work, But, I never felt like if I put in those hours
and worked really hard that I wouldn’t be capable of getting a position and getting
funding necessary to do the work that I was interested in. Needless to say now that
proposition looks a lot more tenuous.”

In recent years some universities have taken steps to curb the number of
graduating PhD’s.

But as the number of unemployed post-graduates rises, some say the whole
system for training scientists needs to be updated to jive with the modern
economy.

As fewer and fewer scientists actually work in universities, some say more
focus needs to be placed on careers outside of academia.

For The Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links

Stimulus Package to Boost Research?

  • The stimulus money is a one-time thing, which concerns some researchers (Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:

Transcript

The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:

There’s 10 billion dollars for health care research, 3 billion for other science funding, and that’s just the beginning.

Sam Rankin says it’s a positive change. He chairs the Coalition for National Science Funding.

“This administration and the current Speaker of the House have been very adamant about how important science is and that they want to fund science because they realize it’s an economic driver.”

There’s a catch. The stimulus money is a one-time thing.

But this week, President Barack Obama indicated his budget will mean steady money for health care and energy technology.

“We will invest 15 billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.”

That makes scientists hopeful, but we won’t know the details of the budget until sometime in April.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

President Calls for Profitable Green Energy

  • President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24 (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)

Health care and education are always
top priorities in a Presidential budget.
But last night President Barack Obama
told Congress in his budget address,
“It begins with energy.” Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

Health care and education are always top priorities in a Presidential budget. But last night President Barack Obama told Congress in his budget address, “It begins with energy.” Lester Graham reports:


The President reminded us the recent stimulus package included doubling the supply of renewable energy in the next three years, investments in basic research – including energy, a better power grid and making buildings and homes more energy efficient.


“But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.”


And to do that the President called on Congress to pass legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution. A carbon cap and trade program would make fossil fuels more expensive… and encourage solar, wind and other renewable energy.


Climate change legislation opponents say a carbon cap-and-trade program would be a jobs killer. By tying it to creating new green jobs, President Obama hopes to challenge that argument.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

The Mass Transit Paradox

  • Because of the down economy, ridership is up. But with the economy flagging, transit companies are having to cut routes and raise fares. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

So with the government’s 787 billion dollar stimulus plan now approved, a lot of folks in state and local government are thinking about the federal dollars that’ll float their way soon. Some mayors are especially eyeing the 8.4 billion for public transit. Rene Gutel looks at who wants to spend what:

Transcript

So with the government’s 787 billion dollar stimulus plan now approved, a lot of folks in state and local government are thinking about the federal dollars that’ll float their way soon. Some mayors are especially eyeing the 8.4 billion for public transit. Rene Gutel looks at who wants to spend what:


Mayors from coast to coast see the stimulus package as one big pot of gold. Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon knows exactly how he’d like transit money spent in his city.


“First and foremost, Light rail.”


(sound of a train)


It’s all about light rail. Phoenix is notorious for its car-culture, freeways and gridlock; Residents worry it’s turning into the next L.A., but a brand new twenty-mile light rail line launched in December.


Trouble is, it’s only one line. It goes from the suburb of Mesa and ends in downtown Phoenix.

Mayor Gordon wants to use federal stimulus money to add a three-mile extension. Gordon says it’s the ultimate shovel-ready project. All planned, just add 250-million dollars and it’s ready to go.


“We could sign a contract with America, with the federal government, that we will turn dirt by March 31st, and we’ll create 7,000 new jobs.”


Those new jobs will be around long enough at least to get the rail extension built. But getting a light rail line is not the same as keeping it running.

Look at San Francisco that has a well developed transit system. They have a different kind of wish list that centers on maintaining the system they already have.

Judson True is a spokesman for the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency.


“We want to repair light rail vehicles that have been damaged in collisions, we have some cable car kiosks that we’d like to replace, we have change machines we’d like to replace in our metro subway stations.”


And it keeps on going. The American Public Transportation Association has identified nearly 800 public transit projects nationwide ready-to-go within 90 days.

APTA says the projects will not only create hundreds of thousands of jobs, but reduce fuel consumption and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

But San Francisco’s Judson True says, while he’s grateful for funding for capitol projects…


“Systems like ours in San Francisco also need help on the operating side, and you see that all over the country.”


People are calling it the transit paradox and it’s hit cities like Denver, St. Louis and New York City.

Because of the down economy, ridership is up. And yet most transit systems rely on local and state money to subsidize operations. But with the economy flagging, cities and states are struggling too – and transit companies are having to cut routes and raise fares.


“You have a catch 22, more riders and you have to make service cuts.”


That’s Aaron Golub, an assistant professor in the School of Planning at Arizona State University. Mass transit’s his specialty. He’s worried about transit systems getting gleaming new buses, and kiosks, and buildings but then not having the means to operate them.


“It would be quite ironic if, for example, Phoenix were able to afford a light rail extension while cutting back on light rail service at the same time. Or the worst case, opening a light rail extension and not being able to operate it at all.”


Golub points to studies that say you create more jobs by investing in current transit operations – not capitol projects.

But many mayors across the nation feel light rail and other mass transit is an investment in their future. They’re ready to take on those shovel ready projects now with the hope that it’ll kick start the economy now and by the time the routes are finished, we’ll be out of the recession.


For The Environment Report, I’m Rene Gutel.

Related Links

Obama’s Budget Address & Green Recovery

  • President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24 (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)

President Barack Obama outlines his budget tonight before a joint-session of Congress. Lester Graham reports many people will be watching for more investment in what’s be called the “green recovery”:

Transcript

President Barack Obama outlines his budget tonight before a joint-session of Congress. Lester Graham reports many people will be watching for more investment in what’s be called the “green recovery”:


The stimulus package includes money for making government buildings and some homes more energy efficient… and pursuing alternative energy such as wind and solar power.

Robert Heilmayr is a research analyst with World Resources Institute. He says so far the Obama administration has recognized there are long term payoffs in green investments.


“The key next step that I think is missing and I’ll really be paying attention to as Obama addresses Congress is whether he recognizes the stimulus is only the first step, that comprehensive energy and climate policy is necessary and should be a priority moving forward as a follow-up to the stimulus is a big question.”


Heilmayr says the long-term savings in energy conservation will help businesses and everyone else by keeping fuel prices lower in the short-term and give us a step up when the world markets start taking greenhouse gas emissions seriously.


For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Farming the White House Lawn

  • Some farmers think this spot is a perfect place for a White House organic farm. (Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

Some people think American agriculture needs a makeover. They question why we waste so much fuel moving food long distances. A growing movement is calling for farmers and everybody else to produce more locally-grown, organic food. Shawn Allee reports some people want the President to set a good example:

Transcript

Some people think American agriculture needs a makeover. They question why we waste so much fuel moving food long distances. A growing movement is calling for farmers and everybody else to produce more locally-grown, organic food. Shawn Allee reports some people want the President to set a good example:

Last October Michael Pollan published a letter to the President in the New York Times.
Pollan is a sort of agricultural policy gadfly. His open letter to the President was full of big, policy-wonkish ideas about how to encourage local food production. But Pollan also wrote one small suggestion. NPR’s Terry Gross picked up on it.

GROSS: “You would like the next president to instead of having a White House lawn to basically have a White House garden. The president would set an example for the rest of us by having this garden of locally-grown foods?” (laughs)

POLLAN: “Now why is that preposterous, Terry? I mean, that’s actually one of the more practical things I proposed.”

Pollan went into how the President could even share some of his veggies with food banks.

POLLAN:” So you have this powerful image of the White House feeding Americans. What could be better than that?”

Some people heard this interview or read Pollon’s article and thought, “right on” – there should be a White House farmer. One family from central Illinois was especially intrigued. Terra Brockman talked about it with her father and sister.

BROCKMAN: “Well, it’s a great idea, but why don’t we bring it down to earth and make it real?”

ALLEE: “So, basically you translated it into reality by creating a contest on a Web site. White House Farmer dot com, as I understand it.”

BROCKMAN: “Yeah, we figured it was a way that we could get it out nationally without much time or money and ask people all across the country, ‘who do you think would be a good White House farmer?’ and have people nominate their farmers.”

Now, Brockman built her contest Web site even though President Obama never even talked about the idea of a White House farmer. But she’s hopeful because the White House actually has an agricultural past. At one time sheep grazed on the White House lawn, and during World War II Eleanor Roosevelt grew a Victory Garden there.

BROCKMAN: “It’s not like this is so, so way out there. And really, whatever the President does is pretty symbolic and people do pay attention.”

People paid attention to White Houser Farmer dot com, anyway.
The site gathered around 57 thousand online votes in just a few days.
And exactly who is the unofficial new White House Farmer?
That would be Claire Strader, from Madison, Wisconsin.
Strader invited me to see the land she works.

STRADER: “We’re at Troy Gardens. It’s in a parcel of land in the city of Madison, on the North Side. I haven’t actually seen the farm for a few months because the snow’s been so deep.”

ALLEE: “Can we get closer to the farm area?”

STRADER: “Yeah.”

Strader is the head farmer at Troy Gardens. She trains city people to grow food here. She also makes the soil fertile through organic growing techniques.

STRADER: “You can just start to see now, the green flush over the whole field. That’s our cover crop of rye. It looks really good. I’m happy to see it.”
ALLEE: “Could you tear yourself away to go to DC and leave all this behind?”
STRADER: “It would be difficult to pick up and leave it behind, but it would be a tremendous honor and a lot of potential to spread the good word of organic agriculture and the positive impacts that would have on our country in the future. It would be hard to accept and hard to reject.”

Even with a White House Farmer chosen for him, President Obama still hasn’t said anything about the idea.
But Strader says she and some top contest vote-getters are trying to sway him – even if he’d pick someone else to run his garden.
Strader says she loves the idea of cucumbers and zucchinis growing at the White House… even if she’s not there to pick them.

For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Opening Up New Waters for Whale Hunts?

  • Mother-calf pair of "Type C" orcas in the Ross Sea. (Photo by Robert Pitman, NOAA)

Japan kills more whales than any other country in the world. A new proposal would allow Japanese whalers to hunt off their county’s coasts. Mark Brush reports – some think opening up these waters to whale hunts is a bad idea:

Transcript

Japan kills more whales than any other country in the world. A new proposal would allow Japanese whalers to hunt off their county’s coasts. Mark Brush reports – some think opening up these waters to whale hunts is a bad idea:

The International Whaling Commission passed a moratorium on commercial whaling in 1986. But it allowed some countries to kill whales for what it calls scientific study.

Japanese boats kill hundreds of minke whales in the southern ocean under this designation. Critics say there’s nothing scientific about these hunts.

Now, the Commission wants to stop Japan from killing whales in the southern ocean. Phasing out these so-called scientific whale hunts. But in exchange, they might let the country openly hunt whales off its own coasts.

Jonathan Stern is with the American Cetacean Society. He says whale populations could take a hit, if Japan is allowed to start hunting in these waters:

“I’m just afraid once their fleet starts operating. They’re going to want to take more whales and more different species of whales.”

Japan has long maintained that these hunts are part of their cultural heritage. The International Whaling Commission will meet next month to decide the issue.

For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Getting People to Stop Burning Trash

  • Robert Olsen used to burn his trash. Now he drives his trash into town. (Photo by Todd Melby)

Getting rid of your trash in the city
is easy. Take it to the curb on pickup
day and the city does the rest. In rural
areas, many people don’t have garbage pickup.
So they burn their trash. And that causes
pollution. Todd Melby tells us about one
place that’s trying to change its burning
habits:

Transcript

Getting rid of your trash in the city is easy. Take it to the curb on pickup day and the city does the rest. In rural areas, many people don’t have garbage pickup. So they burn their trash. And that causes pollution. Todd Melby tells us about one place that’s trying to change its burning habits:


Robert Olsen lives out in the country. He used to burn his garbage. But not any more.


(Pickup hatch opens)


On this windy morning, Olsen has driven his pickup into town to dump his trash.


“I think this is probably a week’s worth for us.”


He grabs the blue plastic bin from the back of his pickup and dumps it into a green Dumpster.


“Not too difficult.”


Olsen runs the environmental office here in Lincoln County, Minnesota. It was his idea to set-up nine Dumpsters throughout this sparsely populated county. He did it because he knows that burning garbage pollutes.


“The issue is that when you burn garbage at home, in the country, the first people or persons who are going to experience any harmful effects from that garbage are going to be you.”


That’s because a lot of trash — including even plain old paper — contains chlorine that produce dioxins when burned at home. Plastic is even worse.


Mark Rust is a solid waste expert with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.


“If you’re using a burn barrel or fire pit or you’re burning garbage in any way on your own property, you’re creating a perfect factory for producing dioxins.”


Smoke from burn barrels and fire pits are now the leading source of dioxins in air pollution. Some studies have connected dioxins to cancer. Burning garbage is especially bad because there are no anti-pollution scrubbers on do-it-yourself burners.


“With a burn barrel, it’s all right there.”


Melby: “It all just goes right up into the air?”


“Into the air, into the soil. Ultimately, we’re going to be taking it in on the dinner table.”


Most states still allow people living in the country to burn their garbage. In Minnesota, only farmers and those without access to affordable garbage pickup can burn. A 2005 survey found that about half of the people living in rural Minnesota burn at least occasionally.


Which is why the state offered rural counties some start up money to get people to burn less.


Rural residents in Lincoln County, Minnesota have had access to drop-off sites for seven months now. When the program started, haulers took away about 8 tons of trash every month. Now it’s up to 15 tons.


Back at one of the county’s drop-off sites, Clarence Lietz is getting of his Buick and grabbing newspapers for the nearby recycling bin. What doesn’t get recycled, gets burned, he says.


“What garbage we have like small things for the yard we just burn right at home, you know. I’d say about a five-gallon pail full or something like that.”


Another elderly customer — she didn’t want her name used — says she burns junk mail and envelopes at home.


“Papers. That’s all you can burn. I don’t burn garbage.


Melby: “And why don’t ya?”


“It’s not right to burn garbage. It don’t burn any good anyway.”


Melby: “Why isn’t it right to burn it?”


“You know why, don’t cha?”


I do now.


For The Environment Report, I’m Todd Melby.

Related Links

Science Funding in a Tanking Economy (Part One)

  • An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)

The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:

Transcript

The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:

At first glance there’s not much in Dale Dorsett’s lab beyond the usual – you know, grad students in white lab coats, centrifuges, test tubes.

Even though his lab is relatively small, his costs are not.

He takes me toward a locked room in the back of the lab containing a single microscope.

“It’s a laser scanning confocal microscope, which is essential for part of our work. That cost – $350,000 – now you know why we keep it locked.”

Dale is a molecular biologist at St. Louis University. He studies a genetic disorder that affects about one in ten-thousand humans.

Well, that is, when he can.

These days Dorsett says he spends more of his time filling out grant applications than he does on his research.

And he’s not the only one in this pickle. Winning grants for research is getting tough.

“The problem becomes when it gets so competitive that even really deserving projects, or very productive scientists who are doing really good work can’t get funded and that’s the situation we’re in right now.”

Funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation has been slipping for years. It’s a big problem.

It used to be about 30% of grant applications were successful. Now, that success rate has slipped into the teens.

And even those researchers who do get funded say grant preference is often given to projects that produce immediate results – which just isn’t the way most science works.

“I’m conservative because otherwise the lab would go under.”

Kristen Kroll runs a lab studying stem cells at Washington University.

“I would love to be more aggressive about what we go after, which connections we try to make to other models. I think I’ve curbed what we could be doing to a point where what we are doing is sustainable in the current funding climate.”

Kroll says there is such a back log of quality grant applications on file at the NIH and NSF, grant reviewers aren’t even separating wheat from chaff any more they’re separating wheat from wheat. So a lot of good research just doesn’t happen.

And in a world economy the U.S. isn’t the only player in the market for innovation. Other countries could gain an advantage in science.

James McCarter is the Chief Scientist for Divergence, a St. Louis-based biotech company.

“The emergence of India and China, in addition to Japan and Korea and Europe. There are sizeable countries out there now that are serious in these spaces and are making serious investments and have the talent.”

Now,you might be thinking, won’t that big stimulus package send wave of cash into the coffers of government research agencies – problem solved right?

Not so much. While a billion dollar shot in arm might be welcome news for some labs, many advisors worry that the long-term effect might actually exacerbate the funding crisis.

John Russell is the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at Washington University. He says, a big pile of cash all at once does nothing for ongoing research that can take years to complete.

“One of the concerns about a big bubble is that if it’s just a bubble is that it takes five years to train somebody so it needs to be more spread out I think to be effective.”

Russell warns universities considering a building and spending spree to plan carefully, so current projects don’t reach beyond future budget realities.

For The Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links