Time to Eat the Dog?

  • Meredith Mull loves dogs. She owns five and works as a groomer. She's not getting rid of any of her pets to help the environment. (Photo by Julie Grant)

We’ve all heard about the
environmental problems our
gas-guzzling cars and trucks
cause. But some researchers
say our vehicles aren’t the
biggest energy hogs. The biggest
energy users actually live
in our homes. Julie Grant
reports about the new book
‘Time To Eat The Dog?’ about
the wasteful ways of our pets:

Transcript

We’ve all heard about the
environmental problems our
gas-guzzling cars and trucks
cause. But some researchers
say our vehicles aren’t the
biggest energy hogs. The biggest
energy users actually live
in our homes. Julie Grant
reports about the new book
‘Time To Eat The Dog?’ about
the wasteful ways of our pets:

Robert Vale is sorry. He didn’t set out to incriminate Fido. He and his wife Brenda Vale specialize in sustainable living at Victoria University in New Zealand. And they just wanted to see how much of the world’s resources it takes to do things like eat, work, play sports, and own pets.

“The thing that most surprised us, and was the most unexpected was the scale of the impact of pets – which was really, really high.”

Vale says a big dog, like a German Shepard, actually has a bigger ecological footprint than an SUV.

To measure the ecological paw-print of pets, the Vales looked at the ingredients in common brands of dried pet foods. Based on recommended portion sizes, they calculated that a medium sized dog would consume more than 3 ounces of dried meat a day. To get that much dried meat, the Vales found, it takes nearly a pound of fresh meat. Add that up each day, and they concluded a medium sized dog eats about 360 pounds of meat a year!

Robert Vale says raising that meat – beef, lamb and chicken – has an environmental impact.

“And we did the calculation based on a dog eating chicken, which is a fairly low footprint meat, rather than say beef, which is a fairly high footprint meat. So, we tried to bias it in favor of the dog. But it still came out really big. It was a big surprise, really.”

Vale says the dog takes more than 2 and a half times more energy and resources than building and driving an SUV 6000 miles a year.

These numbers aren’t just coming from the Vales.
The New Scientist Magazine asked the Stockholm Environment Institute in England to calculate a dog’s paw-print, and the findings were almost exactly the same.

But none of this really computes with dog-lover Meredith Mull. She doesn’t understand why Robert Vale would even look into this.

“He must not have a pet. He must not know what it’s like to be loved by an animal and take care of it and have it give you nothing but respect and loyalty and love. He must not know what it feels like.”

The Vales don’t have any pets. They used to have cats and other animals. But when they died, Robert Vale says they felt they shouldn’t replace them and use more of the world’s resources just to give themselves a little more comfort.

“We are increasingly pushing up to a question of limits. What can we have, what, everything. I think to some extent, that’s why it’s unpopular. We’ve all been brought up to believe that not only can we have more of everything, but it’s our right to have more of everything.”

But some people think the Vales are barking up the wrong tree.

Chetana Mirle works on global warming issues at the Humane Society of the United States. She says instead of blaming dogs, people should look at what they, themselves are eating – and how that contributes to environmental problems.

“So to me, I felt like, ‘are you kidding me?’ Um, we’re worried about our pets, and what our pets are eating instead of what we’re eating, and what our consumption is about – which has such a huge disproportionately large impact on climate change and the environment in general.”

It’s not that the researchers want people to blame dogs and cats instead of themselves. They say they just want people to understand that each choice we make – right down to whether we have pets – has an environmental impact.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Money for Railway Upgrades

  • 8 billion dollars was announced for rail projects. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

The Obama Administration’s
release of money for higher
speed rail ended up being less
than most states wanted. Lester
Graham reports on what this
will mean for passenger train
service:

Transcript

The Obama Administration’s
release of money for higher
speed rail ended up being less
than most states wanted. Lester
Graham reports on what this
will mean for passenger train
service:

Eight billion dollars apparently doesn’t go that far in rail projects. The pundits have noted California’s Sacramento to San Diego corridor got 2.3 billion and Florida’s Tampa to Orlando route got 1.25 billion, making those states the big winners.

But if you forget state boundaries and look at rail networks, the Midwest’s Chicago Hub network pulled in a whopping 2.6 billion to improve the rails.

Amtrak doesn’t get any of this money. It just runs the trains. It doesn’t own many of the tracks. But spokesman Steve Kulm says better tracks mean Amtrak trains can go faster.

“Train speeds are going to increase from say 79 to 90 or from 90 to 110. But wit this funding that was announced, there was the Florida project and the California project. If those projects do happen and get moving, those projects will be at the 150 or higher levels.”

That’s how fast the train from Washington to New York goes and it’s getting more passengers than the airlines.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Fights Over Parkland

  • Ken Cheyne says trash piles like this one are evidence that the city of Detroit has abandoned Eliza Howell Park. (Photo by Sarah Hulett)

Have you ever given someone a
gift, only to have that person
break it, mistreat it, or take
it for granted? Well, the grandson
of a man who gave a big chunk
of land for a city park says
that’s exactly what’s happened
to his family’s gift. So he’s
going to court to get the land
back. Sarah Hulett has this story about the dispute –
which highlights a problem facing
many cities:

Transcript

Have you ever given someone a
gift, only to have that person
break it, mistreat it, or take
it for granted? Well, the grandson
of a man who gave a big chunk
of land for a city park says
that’s exactly what’s happened
to his family’s gift. So he’s
going to court to get the land
back. Sarah Hulett has this story about the dispute –
which highlights a problem facing
many cities:

Eliza Howell Park is an oasis from the blight, traffic, and hard-knocks neighborhoods that surround it. At almost 140 acres, it’s one of Detroit’s biggest parks. It has woods, and trails, and a pair of rivers that come together at the south end.

But it’s also got some problems.

“Those little red posts, that’s actually a picnic table. It’s all gone, people have stolen, broken everything. All the sewer grates in the park have been stolen. They maintain nothing.”

That’s Ken Cheyne. It’s his grandfather who deeded this park to the city more than 70 years ago, with the requirement that it be used “for park and recreation purposes.” Now, he says, the city has virtually abandoned it.

“There’s been burned out cars in here. On the south end there was a boat for over two years. Just this old, awful, derelict, broken boat.”

The city has also barricaded the park’s entrances at times. Cheyne says that also signals abandonment. But it’s open to traffic today. As Cheyne drives around the park, he’s got to steer around huge potholes in washed-out parts of the road. People have dumped trash in the park. And the grass is waist-high.

Cheyne says all this adds up to neglect. So he’s asking a judge to give the land back to the family. And Cheyne, who’s a developer, says, if that happens, he wants to build new retail stores on the land. He also says he’ll keep part of it a park that the public can use. But he says he’ll pay to have it maintained so it’s much more attractive than it is now.

“It’s a land grab.”

That’s Larry Quarles. He’s the head of a group formed to help fight Cheyne’s effort.

“It’s pure and simple. If the land goes back to him, he’s going to develop it and this park is gone forever. Kids from now on will never have a chance to play in this park. It’s the wrong thing to do just because this city has fallen on hard times.”

And Detroit is not the only city struggling to keep up its obligations when it comes to maintaining parks and vacant land.

“It’s happening all over.”

Robin Boyle is a professor of urban planning at Wayne State University.

“Many of these cities are facing similar problems. Nothing quite to the scale of Detroit. The story of what’s happening in places like Flint in Michigan, or Youngstown in Ohio – and these are just the poster children for this challenge.”

Last summer, the mayor of Toledo, Ohio asked residents to bring their lawnmowers to city parks, and spent several Saturdays cutting park lawns himself.

A recent audit of Milwaukee County’s park system suggests selling some parkland to help deal with a maintenance backlog.

And just two years ago, Detroit’s former mayor pitched a failed plan to sell 92 city parks to help close a budget deficit.

Detroit’s attorneys are trying to hold onto Eliza Howell Park. They say even if a park is barricaded to vehicles, or the grass isn’t mowed, it’s still a park.

George Bezenar agrees. He comes to the park with his dogs several times a week.

“Just because the lawn isn’t mowed all the time, that doesn’t matter to me because, to me, it represents more like a natural preserve, where you see birds, you see deer, you see fox. You see everything here.”

Including things you’d rather not see in nature, like bags of garbage, and rusted playground equipment.

Neighbors like Bezenar say they hope Detroit will someday have the money to properly maintain this park.

A judge is expected to decide this spring whether the city gets to keep the parkland.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Ethanol Goes to Court in Cali

  • California regulators want car fuels to come from sources that create fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That means corn-based ethanol will soon get a kind of penalty in California's fuel market. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The US government is steadily
increasing the amount of ethanol
used in our gasoline supply.
But Shawn Allee reports
that effort’s hit a roadblock
in the country’s largest gasoline
market:

Transcript

The US government is steadily
increasing the amount of ethanol
used in our gasoline supply.
But Shawn Allee reports
that effort’s hit a roadblock
in the country’s largest gasoline
market:

California regulators want car fuels to come from sources that create fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That means corn-based ethanol will soon get a kind of penalty in California’s fuel market.

Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council say ethanol should be at a disadvantage. The NRDC’s Roland Hwang says when we grow corn for fuel, farmers overseas plant more corn.

“Someone’s going to cut down a rain forest or convert pasture land or grass land to grow more food. Unfortunately, converting that land will lead to very dramatic increases in global warming pollution.”

Hwang wants the ethanol industry to stop using food crops for fuel.

Ethanol makers are not taking California’s rules sitting down, though; they’ve gone to court. They argue more lenient federal rules on ethanol should trump California’s.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: Coal’s Future

  • A coal mine in West Virginia. (Photo by Erika Celeste)

The coal industry wants us to
believe in the idea of ‘clean coal.’
But burning coal emits a lot of
carbon dioxide, the greenhouse
gas contributing to climate change.
The coal-burning electric power
industry is just now testing technology
to capture CO2 and to permanently
store it. The second round of tests
is happening at American Electric
Power’s Mountaineer Power Plant
in New Haven, West Virginia. Hank
Courtright is monitoring those tests.
He’s with the non-profit Electric Power
Research Institute. Lester Graham
talked with him and asked how the
tests are going:

Transcript

The coal industry wants us to
believe in the idea of ‘clean coal.’
But burning coal emits a lot of
carbon dioxide, the greenhouse
gas contributing to climate change.
The coal-burning electric power
industry is just now testing technology
to capture CO2 and to permanently
store it. The second round of tests
is happening at American Electric
Power’s Mountaineer Power Plant
in New Haven, West Virginia. Hank
Courtright is monitoring those tests.
He’s with the non-profit Electric Power
Research Institute. Lester Graham
talked with him and asked how the
tests are going:

Hank Courtright: We think it has great progress, it’s really the second step of a multi-step process that we’re doing. We had just concluded a project up in Wisconsin on a smaller scale, the same type of technology, and it was very successful. It capture 90-plus percent of the CO2 that passed through it and saw some great promises as far as reducing the cost of doing it. The idea here is that we’re scaling it up ten times larger at the mountaineer plant and so far the early results seem very good and we’ll continue to test that over a year plus to see how it does produce.

Lester Graham: I understand it takes a lot more energy to run this extra CO2 capture equipment, as much as 30% more coal has to be burned to generate the same amount of electricity, what’s being called a parasitic load. What’s this going to mean for our power bills?

Hank: Well, what we’re trying to Lester is that the parasitic load gets down into the, let’s say, the 10 to 15% range. If you get to that level, it means that the electricity out of a coal plant might be about 25% higher than it is. But right now coal is basically the cheapest form of producing electricity, so it still ends as being an economical option even if you might be increasing the cost of that coal plant by about 25%.

Lester: If they can accomplish that with this experiment, how long will it take to get this technology built into the bulk of coal burning power plants?

Hank: Well, you’re going to be working over this for several decades, really. If this plant at Mountaineer works well, our thinking is around 2020 you’re going to be able to have most new coal power plants use the carbon capture and storage. And you might be able to retrofit about 20%, 25% of the existing plants in the United States with this type of technology.

Lester: If all of these methods fizzle, we can’t capture carbon economically, or at the other end, we can’t find a way to sequester this carbon underground, or whatever type of method they can come up with, what’s next?

Hank: Well, that causes some difficulties because right here in the United States coal is used to produce about half our electricity. And if it doesn’t work on coal, it’s also the issue that it won’t work on any other fossil fuels such as natural gas, which produces about 20% of our electricity. So you’re into a difficult situation that if you’d wanted to significantly reduce the CO2 emissions to improve the climate change issue, then you’d have to be looking at a combination of probably nuclear power and a very large roll out of renewable energy. Both of those would have to take the lion share of electricity production. But our hope is that we can get this working because it is not only here in the US that you need it on fossil fuels of coal and gas, but also in places like China, Russia, India, Australia, country’s that very large reserves of coal and hope to use those natural resources.

Related Links

Birth Weights on the Decline

  • Researchers studied records of more than 36 million births and found the birth weight of the average full term single baby actually decreased over a 15 year period. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

American moms are giving birth
to smaller babies. Rebecca Williams
reports on a new study that suggests
this recent trend might be the
reversal of American babies getting
bigger and bigger of the past half-
century:

Transcript

American moms are giving birth
to smaller babies. Rebecca Williams
reports on a new study that suggests
this recent trend might be the
reversal of American babies getting
bigger and bigger of the past half-
century:

A few giant babies made the news last year. One was even 15 pounds.

“At guess at some point you can’t make bigger babies (laughs) so maybe we’ve maxed out.”

That’s Dr. Emily Oken with Harvard Medical School. She says babies are getting smaller. She studied records of more than 36 million births and found the birth weight of the average full term single baby actually decreased over a 15 year period.

But it was just a couple of ounces. Dr. Oken says that’s not a big deal for most healthy babies.

“But, is there an underlying reason why perhaps babies might be getting a little bit smaller and does that exposure have a short or longer term health implication for babies?”

She says she ruled out factors such as age, race, tobacco use, and birth complications. Dr. Oken says next, she wants to study mother’s diets, exercise, stress, and exposure to environmental toxins as possible causes.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Part 2: Food Ads and Kids

  • Researchers say food advertisers convince kids they need different food than adults. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Lots of people are concerned
that American children are
getting fat. More than one-
third are considered overweight
or obese. And some are pointing
the finger at those who manufacture
and advertise food for kids. In
the second part of our two-part
series on food and health, Julie
Grant reports on efforts to crack
down on food marketing targeted
at children:

Transcript

Lots of people are concerned
that American children are
getting fat. More than one-
third are considered overweight
or obese. And some are pointing
the finger at those who manufacture
and advertise food for kids. In
the second part of our two-part
series on food and health, Julie
Grant reports on efforts to crack
down on food marketing targeted
at children:

Have you ever tried going to the supermarket with a five year old? They’re cuckoo for cocoa puffs, and everything else on the shelves that’s colorful with big cartoon characters – strategically placed right at kids-eye level. So, They beg. They plead. Some even just grab what they want.

It’s called parent pestering.

Marion Nestle is Professor of Public Health Nutrition at New York University and author of several books on food politics. She says food advertisers convince kids they need different food than adults. And they want kids to pester their parents.

“I hear parents tell me all the time that the kids won’t even taste things because they say they’re not supposed to be eating that. They’re supposed to be eating chicken fingers, or things that come in packages with cartoons on them.”


Nestle says marketers are just trying to sell products – they’re not worried about obesity and other health problems caused by the processed food targeted to children. She’d like to see some big changes.

“If I were food czar, I would just say, ‘you can’t advertise to children, period.’ They’re not capable of making intelligent, adult decisions about what they’re eating.”

The Federal Trade Commission agrees the ads are a contributing factor to growing problem of childhood obesity. The FTC, the Food and Drug Administration and other government agencies will recommend changes to food marketing rules to Congress later this year.


Most people in the food and advertising industries say cutting off all marketing to kids would go way too far.

Elaine Kolish is Director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. It’s part of the Better Business Bureau. She’s been working with 16 of the major U.S. food manufacturers to change what is advertised to children.

Over the past few years, she says food manufacturers have spent millions of dollars to reformulate kids products – like cereals – to make them healthier.

“Before the initiative, cereals that were advertised to children might have had as much as 16 grams of sugar per serving. Now the maximum that anyone could have is 12 grams of sugar per serving. In fact, more of the cereals have less. So that’s a big improvement right there.”

And Kolish says advertising can actually help to get kids to eat healthier. For example, the McDonalds happy meal. Instead of offering kids French fries and a soft drink, the default happy meal now includes skim milk and apples – although it includes a side of caramel dipping sauce.

“I think now because of Burger King and McDonalds, alone, there’s probably more fruit advertising than ever before…and the sales and the trend data is really good. McDonalds has sold over 100-million orders of apple dippers in the last two years. That’s a lot of apples.”

But recent surveys at the University of Arizona and at Yale show that TV and online marketing toward children is still for foods that are not healthy for children. It’s mostly for things that are high in sugar, fat and salt.

Mary Engle is Associate Director for Advertising at the FTC. She says, for the most part, food companies have been taking foods that are bad for kids and only managing to make them less unhealthy.

“Whereas the proposal that the government group came up with is to only allow the marketing of truly healthful foods to children – foods that actually make a positive contribution to a healthy diet. So it’s much more limited which kinds of foods could be marketed to kids.”

Some food makers call the government proposal extreme. But government officials say they wouldn’t ban all ads – just those that encourage kids to eat bad food.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Wind Power Gets a Boost

  • The government's Recovery Act spending led to enough new wind turbines to power about two and a half million homes. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

2009 was a bumper year for new
windmills. But Mark Brush reports,
if it weren’t for government money,
it might have been a bad year:

Transcript

2009 was a bumper year for new
windmills. But Mark Brush reports,
if it weren’t for government money,
it might have been a bad year:

Companies normally have to borrow money from banks or investors to build big wind projects. And money was tight last year.

But the government stepped in with Recovery Act spending. It led to enough new wind turbines to power about two and a half million homes.

Even with government spending, experts say there’s still a lot of uncertainty in the wind business. The wind industry says the federal government should set mandatory goals for renewable energy. That way utilities will know what to expect over the long term.

Denise Bode is the CEO of the American Wind Energy Association.

“That kind of assurance sends a signal to a utility that they need to diversify their portfolio. That it’s in the public interest. And that gives them the support they need to go and make 20 and 30 year decisions. Right now, most utilities are making very short term decisions.”

A lot of the growth that happened last year happened in states that required a certain percentage of their power come from renewable energy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Part 1: Regulating Sweet Foods

  • Researchers say science is starting to show that people can become addicted to sugar, fat and salt. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

More people are becoming concerned
about the growing problems of obesity
and diabetes. Some even compare
foods that contribute to these health
problems to nicotine and tobacco. In
the first part of our series on food and
health, Julie Grant reports on efforts
to regulate foods that are bad for you
in the same way as cigarettes:

Transcript

More people are becoming concerned
about the growing problems of obesity
and diabetes. Some even compare
foods that contribute to these health
problems to nicotine and tobacco. In
the first part of our series on food and
health, Julie Grant reports on efforts
to regulate foods that are bad for you
in the same way as cigarettes:

Yale University professor Kelly Brownell has been watching for a long time as Americans gain weight. He says obesity and diabetes are creating debilitating health problems. And the food industry is largely to blame.

Brownell says science is starting to show that people can become addicted to sugar, fat and salt: the same stuff that’s in most processed foods.

“Certain parts of the brain get activated by food constituents, particularly sugar, that look like the same activation that occurs with heavily addictive substances like nicotine, alcohol or morphine.”


Brownell says the science is not definitive at this point. And he doesn’t expect it will ever show that donuts are as addictive as cigarettes. But he expects something similar. And so, he’s advocating that society treat these treats the same way as cigarettes: tax them. And put the money toward prevention programs.

Brownell is specifically pushing for a tax on sugary drinks. He says this approach worked for smokes, so why not soda pop.

“Oh, there’s no question about it. The rate of people smoking in the United States is about half of what it was in the 1950s and 60s. And that’s attributable to a number of things. But economists have figured that the taxes were the single most effective contributor to that.”

Brownell says California has held hearings on the idea, the New York state legislature is considering a tax on sugary drinks, and New Hampshire has just introduced legislation. And he says that’s just the tip of the iceberg. More sugar taxes are on the way.

We tried to reach the food industry’s major trade group: the grocery manufacturers association to comment for this story – but they didn’t respond. We also didn’t hear back from General Mills – a company that recently announced plans to lower the sugar content in its cereals.

We did speak with John Feldman. He’s an attorney who represents some of the major food manufacturers. He says they make foods that have salt, fat and sugar because people like them.

“There are products that people want to buy because they taste good or they are fun or they are attractive, of course. If they didn’t sell, people wouldn’t make ‘em.”

Feldman says any laws limiting or taxing certain foods must be based on scientific evidence: facts that show the foods are causing health problems. He says science hasn’t proven that with sugar, salt and fat.

Consumers at one Ohio supermarket also want sugary drink tax idea to fizzle out. College student Alicia Cobb is looking at the sweetened teas. She says beverages are only one of the reasons Americans are overweight.

“Well, so is McDonalds and Burger King and not working out and being a lazy bum.”

“How they think people supposed to live, taxing everything?”

Marie Holloway has a 12-pack of ginger ale in her cart. She says she’s not supposed to have sugar – because her doctor is concerned she’s developing diabetes.

“I only get a small income. By the time my doctor takes all of my money for copayments and doctor bills and stuff then I don’t have anything left because they’ve taxed everything so high. I think it’s terrible.”

Some TV pundits call the soda tax part of the Obama nanny state – telling people what’s good for them and limiting their choices. But those who support the sugar beverage tax say it doesn’t take away choice: it just helps people break what might be an addictive habit. One that’s costing everyone lots of money in health care costs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Wind Power Potential

  • In this study, researchers wanted to see what it would take to increase wind energy enough that it could provide 20% of power for the eastern United States. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

A new study says wind power
could meet 20% of
the energy needs of the eastern
United States. But to get there,
the nation needs to invest in a
lot of infrastructure. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

A new study says wind power
could meet 20% of
the energy needs of the eastern
United States. But to get there,
the nation needs to invest in a
lot of infrastructure. Samara Freemark reports:

The study was released by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. That’s a federal lab that develops green technologies.

Researchers wanted to see what it would take to increase wind energy enough that it could provide 20% of power for the eastern United States. What they found was, we need a lot more transmission infrastructure.

David Corbus worked on the study. He says transmission lines would connect turbines offshore and in the Midwest to cities on the east coast.

“You have to get all that wind energy to where people can use it. So you have to build a lot of transmission. Which can be difficult to build.”

Difficult, and expensive. Corbus says those investments could cost more than fifteen billion dollars. But he points out that that’s actually a relatively small amount compared to the total that the nation spends on energy.

The lab will release a similar study on the western states in a few months.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links