Using Your Phone to Pick Products

  • Good Guide allows you to look up products while you're in the store and see how they're rated in terms of safety, environmental impact, and social concerns (Photo courtesy of Good Guide)

Companies that make things like cosmetics, household cleaners, and toys are not required to list every ingredient that’s in their products. Now, some shoppers are dialing up that information on their cell phones. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Companies that make things like cosmetics, household cleaners, and toys are not required to list every ingredient that’s in their products. Now, some shoppers are dialing up that information on their cell phones. Mark Brush has more:

There’s a new app for the iPhone that can give you information about products. It’s called Good Guide.

And you basically take a picture of a barcode – on say a bottle of shampoo – and then Good Guide gives you a score.

The guide can rate products on their environmental footprint – how socially responsible the company is – or how safe it is.

Other phones can access the same information using text messages.

Dara O’Rourke is the founder of Good Guide. He says he started the company after he discovered a sunscreen that he put on his daughter contained a potential carcinogen.

“And that really initially, actually kind of upset me, that this product that I’m bringing into my house and putting on my young daughter has chemicals that have been banned in Europe, banned in Australia, banned in many industrialized countries, but still are in products on our store shelves.”

O’Rourke says if consumers are interested, they can access the research and the life-cycle studies behind each product’s overall score.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Cap and Trade Calculations

  • Economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)

President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:

Transcript

President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:

Under some of the cap and trade plans, oil and gas companies would have to buy pollution permits.

But these companies want them for free.

They say if they’re forced to pay, they’ll have to pass the cost onto you and me.

But economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what.

That’s because things like coal, oil, and natural gas will be restriced.

And they say that’s what drives prices up.

Chad Stone is the Chief Economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

He says if pollution permits are bought at an auction, the money can be passed onto you and me. But it’s different if they’re just given away for free.

“If you don’t auction, you don’t have any revenue and consumers only get a hit to their budgets.”

Stone says if the pollution permits are auctioned, you could be getting a check in the mail or a tax credit to help you pay for higher energy bills.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Study: 1/4 of World’s Mammals at Risk

  • A study finds that 25% of all mammals are threatened with extinction (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

A new survey shows that at least
one fourth of the world’s wild mammal
species are at risk of extinction. Julie
Grant reports that scientists find human
activities are largely to blame:

Transcript

A new survey shows that at least
one fourth of the world’s wild mammal
species are at risk of extinction. Julie
Grant reports that scientists find human
activities are largely to blame:

The mammal survey took five years, and 1,700 experts in
130 countries to complete. Their results are just being
published in the journal Science.

Jan Schipper of Conservation International is a lead author.
He says the assessment paints a bleak picture.

“It was in fact surprising to find out that 25% of all mammals,
to which we currently have sufficient information, are
threatened with extinction, meaning they are either critically
endangered, endangered, or vulnerable.”

Schipper says hotbeds for extinctions are in Southeast Asia,
Africa and Central and South America – and it is largely
driven by consumers.

For example, if we demand bananas in the middle of winter,
it drives growers to cut down native forests for banana
plantations – but without those native forests, many
mammals are left without a place to live.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Interview: ‘The Better World Shopping Guide’

  • (Photo provided by Dr. Ellis Jones)

A lot of people want to know what
they can do to be more environmentally friendly.
Ellis Jones says you make a vote on environmental
issues every time you pull out your wallet.
Jones is a sociologist at the University of
California Davis. And he’s written a pocket-sized
booklet called ‘The Better World Shopping Guide’
that grades companies that make the things we buy.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham talked to
him about the guide:

Transcript

A lot of people want to know what
they can do to be more environmentally friendly.
Ellis Jones says you make a vote on environmental
issues every time you pull out your wallet.
Jones is a sociologist at the University of
California Davis. And he’s written a pocket-sized
booklet called ‘The Better World Shopping Guide’
that grades companies that make the things we buy.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham talked to
him about the guide:

Ellis Jones: “I think that people will use this guide to make sure that the companies that
are doing good work get their dollars. And the companies that are not doing good work,
they don’t get their dollars until they improve.”

Lester Graham: “I chose three topics. One of them is gasoline. No one gets an A+? But
you did give an A to Sunoco and you gave an F to Exxon-Mobile. Can you tell me really
quickly what went into those grades?”

Jones: “It includes everything from how polluting their petroleum refineries are, what
their human rights records are when they deal with communities abroad, how they deal
with consumers, what their advertising is like and how they do or don’t ‘greenwash’ – to
really give a sense of, you know, the difference between the good guys and the bad guys
in gasoline.”

Graham: “I also looked at bread, and you gave an A+ to local bakeries.”

Jones: “Supporting a local bakery is really about as good as it gets. Far above and
beyond what you can get supporting even the most organic bread company.”

Graham: “The third thing I looked at was water, because bottled water is such an issue
these days. The A+ was given to tap water, which, in most communities, is as good as
anything you can buy in a bottle.”

Jones: “The most powerful difference a consumer can make is actually avoiding the
product all together. So, anything to really minimize the impact because this industry
itself is inherently problematic.”

Graham: “Just casually flipping through looking at who rated an F in your guide, often it
seemed like it was the most recognizable name. Kraft, Nabisco, Libby’s. Those kinds of
companies. Why is it these really large corporations tended to do so poorly in your
guide?”

Jones: “Well, you know, I think this really points out a kind of inherent problem within
our current economic system. And that is that the way to get ahead in the system is to
grow larger, to gobble up smaller companies, to basically out-compete the other
companies around you by cutting costs wherever you can by using larger economies of
scale. And the process that gets lost in the system is the impact on the people and the
planet.”

Graham: “I’m wondering how this changes your view of things when you go shopping
now.”

Jones: “Well, let me tell you, I really have put in as much research as a human being can
into this. And I am still filled with questions. These questions are out there and we need
to keep companies accountable and the government accountable to be able to provide us
with good data so we can make smart decisions as consumers.

Graham: “So your guide doesn’t let us off the hook, we still have to do some of our own
homework.”

Jones: (laughs) “Exactly. We have to actually make do with the information that we
have now, make the best choices available, and then as new information comes in, then
we’re responsible to make even better choices. But in that process we have to build in
quite a bit of forgiveness, because one thing this book is not about being perfect or pure
in the world. It really is about trying to make the best choice at any given time in any
given place.”

Related Links

New Law for Lead in Toys

  • A lead detector finds over 5000 parts per million of lead in this toy. (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

A new federal law is forcing
toy manufacturers to get the lead out
of children’s products. Consumer
advocates are cheering the tougher
guidelines. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

A new federal law is forcing
toy manufacturers to get the lead out
of children’s products. Consumer
advocates are cheering the tougher
guidelines. Julie Grant reports:

Consumer advocate Ed Mierzwinski says despite what
you’d assume, toys have not been tested for safety.

Mierzwinski is with the U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
He says, until now, the government agency in charge – the
Consumer Products Safety Commission – hasn’t been able
to do that.

“It was a rudderless ship. It had no leadership. It had no
money. It had one person testing toys. A guy named bob.
And in 2007 the whole thing just came to a crisis.”

Mierzwinski says 30-million toys were recalled last year.

This new law requires all children’s products meet tougher
new standards for toxic materials. It also gives the
Consumer Product Safety Commission more money, staff,
and authority.

But the law doesn’t take effect until February – so toys for
sale this holiday season could still be a problem.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Selling Earth Day

  • Earth at twilight. A digital photograph taken in June 2001 from the International Space Station orbiting at an altitude of 211 nautical miles. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

The first Earth Day in 1970 often gets credit
for jumpstarting the modern environmental movement.
Lately, Earth Day’s meaning might be changing a bit.
A lot of companies are running Earth Day ads and
offering special Earth Day shopping events. Rebecca
Williams reports the idea is that we can buy our way
to a better world:

Transcript

The first Earth Day in 1970 often gets credit
for jumpstarting the modern environmental movement.
Lately, Earth Day’s meaning might be changing a bit.
A lot of companies are running Earth Day ads and
offering special Earth Day shopping events. Rebecca
Williams reports the idea is that we can buy our way
to a better world:

You can’t watch TV lately without tripping over ads around Earth Day.

(Commercial montage featuring WalMart-SunChips-Home Depot)

And at the grocery store:

Campbell’s soup is wearing an Earth Day label. Campbell’s says condensing
soup means smaller, lighter cans. So, that means less waste. Of course,
they’ve been doing that since 1897. Long before Earth Day and the
environmental movement.

Even Barbie’s excited about Earth Day. She’s got a limited edition line of
accessories. They’re made from scraps of fabric that would otherwise have
been thrown away. She’s so crafty.

Of course, there’s a reason why it’s raining Earth Day ads.

“Companies advertise in ways they think people will respond.”

Tom Lyon directs the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise at
the University of Michigan.

“Five years ago they didn’t think they were getting a whole lot of mileage
out of advertising green. Now you could say green is the new black – every
company is moving in this direction.”

Lyon says the reality of climate change has been more widely accepted in the
past couple years. People are wondering what they can do about it. And
companies are trying to tap into that.

Joel Makower has been studying green marketing for 20 years. He’s the
executive editor of Greenbiz.com. He says Earth Day marketing ebbs and
flows over the years. But he hopes Earth Day never turns into a marketing
event on the scale of Christmas.

“I think most people recognize the very clear reality that we’re never going
to shop our way to environmental health and so to the extent that Earth Day
becomes an excuse to consume, then we’ll have sent all the wrong messages.”

But Makower says a lot of companies actually are making big changes in their
practices and they should talk about that. He says Earth Day advertising
makes sense if the company’s doing something to improve all year long.
Otherwise he says it might just be a stunt.

Others think Earth Day as a marketing opportunity is probably here to stay.

Adam Werbach is the Global CEO of Saatchi and Saatchi S. It’s a major ad
agency. He says companies see Earth Day as another holiday.

“The reason that works so well this year – Easter came very early and there
was a large gap between Easter and Memorial Day so Earth Day fit in really
well so that stores could get through their Easter merchandise and start
putting green merchandise on the shelves and then move into Memorial Day.”

Werbach thinks that’s actually not a bad thing. He’s had feet in both
worlds – as a former president of the Sierra Club. More recently he’s been
a consultant for Wal-Mart. He thinks consumers should be the ones driving
companies to improve their practices.

“Our hope is of course that people who have tried these new products will
return and buy them in the next month so that in the end you’re creating a
cycle of demand for green products on shelves so that they don’t go away and
be a one time occurrence.”

But at the same time, Adam Werbach is a little conflicted. He wishes Earth
Day could be the one day of the year we could take a break.

No branding. No ads. No buying. Just Earth.

Hey… that might make a nice commercial.

For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Big Biz Snapping Up Green Companies

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Factory Farms – Water Pollution

  • Hog manure being injected into the ground and tilled under. The manure fertilizes the crops, but if too much is applied it can foul up waterways. (Photo by Mark Brush)

Transcript

(sound of giant fans)


About a thousand cows are in this building, eating, lolling around, and waiting for the next round of milking.


There’s a sharp smell of manure hanging in the air. Big fans are blowing to keep the cows cool, and to keep the air circulated.


Stephan Vander Hoff runs this dairy along with his siblings. He says these big farms are good for consumers:


“We’ve got something here and we’ve been able to do it in such a way that we’re still producing at the same cost that we were fifteen years ago. It costs more now for a gallon of gas than a gallon of milk. And so, that’s something to be proud of.”


Vander Hoff’s dairy produces enough milk to fill seven tanker trucks everyday. They also produce a lot of waste. The cows in this building are penned in by metal gates. They can’t go outside. So the manure and urine that would normally pile up is washed away by water.


Tens of thousands of gallons of wastewater are sent to big lagoons outside. Eventually, the liquefied manure is spread onto nearby farm fields. It’s a challenge for these farmers to deal with these large pools of liquid manure. The farther they have to haul it, the more expensive it is for them. Almost all of them put the manure onto farm fields.


It’s good for the crops if it’s done right, but if too much manure is put on the land, it can wash into streams and creeks. In fact, this dairy has been cited by the state of Michigan for letting their manure get into nearby waterways.


(sound of roadway)


Lynn Henning keeps a close eye on Vander Hoff’s dairy.


(car door opening and closing)


She steps from her car with a digital camera, and a device that measures water quality.


(sound of crickets and walking through the brush)


She weaves her way down to the edge of this creek.


“This is the area where we got E. coli at 7.5 million.”


High E. coli levels mean the water might be polluted with dangerous pathogens. Lynn Henning is testing the creek today because she saw farmers spreading liquid manure on the fields yesterday. Henning is a farmer turned environmental activist. She works for the Sierra Club and drives all over the state taking water samples and pictures near big livestock farms.


Henning says she got involved because more of these large animal farms expanded into her community. She says when the farmers spread the liquid manure, it can make life in the country pretty difficult:


“The odor is horrendous when they’re applying –we have fly infestations–we have hydrogen sulfide in the air that nobody knows is there because you can’t always smell it. We have to live in fear that every glass of water that we drink is going to be contaminated at some point.”


Water contamination from manure is a big concern. The liquid manure can contain nasty pathogens and bacteria.


Joan Rose is a microbiologist at Michigan State University.


“If animal wastes are not treated properly and we have large concentrations of animal waste going onto land and then via rainfall or other runoff events entering into our water – there can be outbreaks associated with this practice.”


Rose tested water in this area and found high levels of cryptosporidium that likely came from cattle. Cryptosporidium is the same bug that killed people in Milwaukee back in 1993. Rose says livestock farmers need to think more about keeping these pathogens out of the water. But she says they don’t get much support from the state and researchers on how best to do that.


For now, the farmers have to come up with their own solutions.


(sound of treatment plant)


Three years ago, the state of Michigan sued Stephen Vander Hoff’s dairy for multiple waste violations. The Vander Hoff’s settled the case with the state and agreed to build a one million dollar treatment system. But Vander Hoff isn’t convinced that his dairy was at fault, and thinks that people’s concerns over his dairy are overblown:


“If we had an issue or had done something wrong the first people that want to correct it is us. We live in this area. So why would we do anything to harm it?”


Vander Hoff is upbeat about the new treatment system. He says it will save the dairy money in the long run.


The Sierra Club’s Lynn Henning says she’s skeptical of the new treatment plant. She’ll continue to take water samples and put pressure on these farms to handle their manure better. In the end, she doesn’t think these big farms have a place in agriculture. She’d rather see farms go back to the old style of dairying, where the cows are allowed to graze, and the number of animals isn’t so concentrated.


But farm researchers say because consumers demand cheap prices, these large farms are here to stay and there will be more of them. Because of this, the experts say we can expect more conflicts in rural America.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Searching for New Bio-Diesel Source

The U.S. is looking for ways to depend less on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. A popular method is so-called bio-fuels. Those are fuels, such as
ethanol or bio-diesel, made from plants. Cleaner burning bio-diesel has been billed
as an environmentally-friendly replacement for our 60 billion gallon a year thirst for
diesel oil. But there aren’t enough crops or land to produce enough bio-diesel to
replace fossil fuel-based diesel. Amy Quinton reports new research is looking at
another way to make bio-diesel: using algae:

Transcript

The U.S. is looking for ways to depend less on foreign oil and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. A popular method is so-called bio-fuels. Those are fuels, such as
ethanol or bio-diesel, made from plants. Cleaner burning bio-diesel has been billed
as an environmentally-friendly replacement for our 60 billion gallon a year thirst for
diesel oil. But there aren’t enough crops or land to produce enough bio-diesel to
replace fossil fuel-based diesel. Amy Quinton reports new research is looking at
another way to make bio-diesel: using algae:


Bio-diesel is made primarily from plant oils: soybean, canola, rapeseed. Ihab Farag
is a chemical engineering professor at the University of New Hampshire. He climbs
up scaffolding to demonstrate a processor that turns waste oil from the University’s
cafeteria into bio-diesel. Farag says this is more environmentally-friendly than diesel:


“It’s coming from vegetable oil, so therefore it’s cleaner… it doesn’t have the sulfur in it so you
don’t get acid rain issue that you get from diesel, it doesn’t do particulates which are suspect[ed] to be cancer-
causing.”


Almost any diesel engine built in the last 15 years can use bio-diesel, but Farag says
there’s a major drawback: it takes an acre of most crops to produce only 100 gallons
of bio-diesel per year:


“I think it has been estimated that if we are using just something like soybean[s] and want to
produce bio-diesel for the whole country, we need almost an area of land that’s about
two and a half to three times the area of Texas.”


That would be an environmental nightmare because bio-fuels require a lot of fossil
fuels to plant, harvest and process them. They only produce a bit more energy than
the energy needed to make them. It also would put the nation’s fuel needs in conflict
with its food needs. That could drive the price of both sky-high.


So Farag and Master Chemical Engineering student Justin Ferrentino are looking at
another plant. One that’s capable of producing much more oil : algae.
Inside the University’s bio-diesel lab, Ferrentino holds up a glass jar filled with a sea-
green powder:


“This is freeze-dried cells that we’ve grown up in our photo-bioreactor.”


He’s testing different ways of extracting oil from these single-celled algae plants to
produce the most bio-diesel:


“People have projected with micro-algae you can grow somewhere between five and 15,000
gallons per acre per year, so it’s a big difference.”


Compared to 100 gallons per acre of soybeans, it’s a very big difference. Ferrentino
has built a contraption of two small fiberglass tanks, surrounded by florescent lights
and reflectors. It’s called a photo-bioreactor. With the right amount of light, the algae
here grows rapidly:


“When I fill these with growth medium and then add the cells to them and they just
multiply, they divide… they double every ten to 15 hours, when they’re growing
exponentially.”


The more cells, the more oil, and the more bio-diesel. Ferrentino’s photo-bioreactor
is small, producing only a tenth of a gram of bio-diesel. But build one on a larger
scale where there’s lots of sunlight, like the desert Southwest, and it could potentially
produce thousands of gallons on just an acre of land.


And Farag says because carbon is needed to fertilize algae growth, the potential
exists to remove greenhouse gases while simultaneously producing bio-diesel:


“If we can connect it with a wastewater treatment plant, where they have a lot of
waste coming in with lots of carbon in it then you can consume the carbon to grow
the algae and at the same time clean up the wastewater.”


But skeptics say one of the biggest challenges is making algae production
economical. Commercial production would initially yield fuel that could cost between
20 and 50 dollars a gallon. Ferrentino recognizes the drawbacks, but says their
research is worth pursuing:


“I think that our energy needs are not necessarily going to be solved with a magic
bullet, but I think this is certainly one part of it, being that you don’t need arable land
you have the added benefit of maybe being able to use the carbon from flue gases
from power plants, maybe being able to treat wastewater. So, it has some significant
added benefits so it could be one piece of the energy picture.”


But growing algae in the desert or anywhere else doesn’t have the kind of political
appeal that subsidizing farmers to grow soybeans for soy-diesel does. So finding
funding for a commercial-sized algae bio-reactor will face significant obstacles.


For the Environment Report, I’m Amy Quinton.

Related Links

Small Engines to Pollute Less

  • Lawn mowers pollute a lot more than cars. Proposed EPA rules will require small engine makers to reduce polluting emissions. It's been estimated that these changes will add about $25 to the price of a typical lawn mower. (Photo by Lester Graham)

In the next few years, lawnmowers, weed whackers and many boat engines
might cost a little more… but they’ll pollute less. Mark Brush
reports the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule
aimed at cutting air pollution from these small engines:

Transcript

In the next few years, lawnmowers, weed whackers and many boat engines
might cost a little more… but they’ll pollute less. Mark Brush
reports the Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule
aimed at cutting air pollution from these small engines:


Today’s lawnmowers and boat engines put out a lot more air pollution than
your car. That’s because your car has a catalytic converter that burns
up a lot of harmful chemicals.


The EPA says that to meet its new rule, many small engine makers will
eventually add catalytic converters to their equipment. In the past,
small engine makers have complained that adding catalytic converters
will increase the risk of fire.


John Millett is a spokesman with the EPA. He says the EPA studied the
safety issue before drafting the proposed rule:


“We found no increase of risk of fire. In fact, several of the experts
that we consulted actually suggested that because of reducing the
amount of fumes that would escape from these engines we would actually
see improved safety.”


If the rule is approved, it’s estimated that consumers would pay around
$300 more for a new boat engine, and around $25 more for a new lawn
mower.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links