Author: Jonathan Ahl

While the debate over the economic and ecological viability of ethanol continues, another fuel made from crops is becoming more available in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl has more:

Transcript

While the debate over the economic and ecological viability of ethanol continues, another fuel made from crops is becoming more available in the region. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl has more:

(ambient sound under voice)

A man who would only call himself Steve is reaching for the gas pump at this station in rural Illinois. It’s a warm spring day, and the wind is cutting across the corn and soybean fields that surround this filling station. Steve is pumping bio-diesel fuel into his landscaping truck.

“Anything to help the farmers I think is a good thing. It’s supposed to be better on the engines from what I understand.”

Bio-diesel is a fuel that includes an additive made from soybean byproducts. Steve says his company buys all of its fuel at this station, so it wasn’t his decision to purchase bio-diesel instead of regular. Brad Jurgens is the manager of the station. He says the company thinks most people will come to his station to buy bio-diesel on purpose:

“Hopefully they will think it is a better product, its cleaner burning, they will get behind the product as a result of its attributes, and they will feel good about using the soy diesel, and be willing to pay a couple cents premium. That’s our goal.”

This station is the latest in a growing number of gas stations in the Great Lakes Region to sell bio-diesel fuel. But not everyone is convinced that the soybean based fuel additive is an economic alternative to regular diesel, or even the best option to help the environment. Mike Osenga is the publisher of Diesel Progress Magazine — an engine industry trade publication. He says the formula for bio-diesel fuel has changed over the years, and there have not been long-term tests on any one blend to prove they are better for engines or the environment:

“Anything in a short term testing, a matter of hours or even a matter of days, may show some encouraging results. But diesel engines like engines in cars are designed to run hundreds of thousands of miles or even of million miles and many hours. Until you test it over a long period of time, you don’t really know.”

Osenga says there is even some evidence the bio-diesel can clog injectors on engines, and be less fuel-efficient. He also says a government mandated low-sulfur diesel that will be available this fall will reduce emissions much more than bio-diesel can. Osenga also says the only way bio-diesel can compete with regular fuel is with heavy government subsidies. In rural Illinois, the bio-diesel sells for a dollar thirty-six per gallon, a couple cents higher than regular diesel available down the street. Osenga says that number would be closer to fifteen cents per gallon without government subsidy.

(ambient
sound — back at the station)

But those arguments find little support back at the gas station in rural Illinois, where bio-diesel supporters are celebrating the fuel’s availability in the area. Brad Glenn is a farmer and president of the Illinois Soybean Association. He says even if bio-diesel costs a little more and needs to be subsidized, it’s worth it:

“I don’t think anybody in this country, especially after September 11th, wants to be as dependent on the Middle East for oil as what we have been. And yes, it’s a little bit more expensive at this point in time. We think it’s well worth it. Both from the renewable aspect and the environmental aspect.”

While there may be disagreements over the merits of bio-diesel, there is some history that bodes well for fuels made from crops. Many of the arguments against bio-diesel were also made against ethanol. But a powerful farm lobby and some scientific advances have slowly led to increases in using the corn-based fuel as an additive. Bio-diesel supporters hope the same will happen for their fuel. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

For years, ethanol has been heralded as a renewable fuel that will help the environment while also helping Midwest farmers. But now the U.S. EPA is asking ethanol production plants to take a second look at the emissions that come from making the corn-based fuel. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

For years, ethanol has been heralded as a renewable fuel that will help the environment while also helping Midwest farmers. But now the U.S. EPA is asking ethanol production plants to take a second look at the emissions that come from making the corn-based fuel. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

About three years ago, residents that live near the Gopher State ethanol plant near Minneapolis complained of a foul odor. The EPA investigated, and found unexpectedly high levels of pollutants including carbon monoxide, methanol and formaldehyde. That led to a seventeen-month study of selected ethanol sites in the Great Lakes region that showed other plants were also spewing out the pollutants. Ron Miller is the president of Williams Bio-Energy, an ethanol producer. He says as an industry, ethanol producers want to make things right:

“If indeed some of the plants have to make some corrective investments, I believe those will be made. I don’t think it is going to long-term harm the industry. And certainly, if we discover things that we didn’t know, then we should make those changes.”

That willingness on the part of ethanol manufacturers to comply with new emissions restrictions led the U.S. EPA to meet with ethanol producers, and ask them to make the corrections. But some groups are upset that the EPA is asking and not telling the manufacturers to clean up their act. Brian Urbaseski is a spokesperson with the American Lung Association Chicago chapter. He says the EPA needs to take a stronger stand with the ethanol industry:

“A voluntary situation can’t last forever. These plants will eventually have to follow the rules under the Clean Air Act. It’s the federal law. And the law is there for a reason, to protect public health.”

The American Lung Association thinks the ethanol industry gets a lot of breaks because it’s politically popular. They question if the current EPA action is another one of those sweetheart deals. The EPA disagrees. Tom Skinner is the director of the U.S. EPA’s region that covers most of the Great Lakes states. He says because the ethanol industry seems willing to comply with the new guidelines, he wants to give them a chance to get there without lengthy court action and fines. Skinner says the initially voluntary program may speed things up:

“The goal is being more effective environmental protection. If we can get the same environmental protection within three months or six months that would normally take us two or three years, everybody finishes ahead of the game.”

Skinner says he will not hesitate to enforce new standards with ethanol producers if they do not comply with the request. But Skinner says he doesn’t think that will be necessary. Ron Miller, the ethanol plant manager at the Williams Bio-Energy plant says it’s in the industry’s best interest to take advantage of the voluntary program and make the changes as soon as possible. He says if nothing else, it makes sense from a marketing standpoint:

“We try to bill ourselves as a clean, environmental product. We are the only renewable component in gasoline that you can drink. And so we are a very environmentally beneficial product, so we ought to be able to produce it in an environmentally sound manner.”

Miller says the whole situation doesn’t deserve the attention it has gotten and it isn’t that important. He calls it a small bump in the road toward more ethanol use. But the idea of a voluntary emissions clean up may be off to a rough start. The industry and the government are just beginning the process. The EPA and ethanol producers have yet to agree on a method to test and track pollution levels, let alone what those levels should be capped at.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

The Upper Mississippi River system shares many of the physical characteristics of the Upper Paraguay River in Brazil. The Nature Conservancy has been working for more than four years to get people from both countries to share information on problems including pollution, siltation, and invasive species. After a visit last year, some Brazilian scientists are back in the U.S. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on how the two countries are helping each other to help their rivers:

Transcript

The Upper Mississippi River system shares many of the physical characteristics of the Upper Paraguay River in Brazil. The Nature Conservancy has been working for more than four years to get people from both countries to share information on problems including pollution, siltation, and invasive species. After a visit last year, some Brazilian scientists are back in the U.S. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports on how the two countries are helping each other to help their rivers:

(ambient sound)

A group of scientists are standing on the banks of the Illinois River. The unseasonably warm day has many of them rolling up the sleeves on their denim shirts or fanning themselves with their sweat-soaked ballcaps. They’re watching different ways
researchers use to count the variety and number of fish in the river.

(more ambient sound)

The group includes researchers from Illinois’ Department of Natural Resources and area universities. The other half of the group is a delegation from Brazil – scientists and
government representatives from the Pantanal region. This trip is one stop on a week-long tour through the Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Michael Reuter is the Director of the Illinois Chapter of the Nature Conservancy – the group that is hosting the Brazilians during their tour of the Midwest. He says environmentalists have long talked about taking a global perspective to problems. He says this exchange helps put that idea into action:

“We’re trying to shift some of our thinking here to a larger level perspective, a more comprehensive approach. My sense is that we are making too many decisions based on a narrow view… too many decisions where we are looking at one piece of the river, only one piece of the problem.”

The major difference between the Pantanal region that includes the Upper Paraguay River and the Upper Mississippi River valley is that Brazil has not yet done the damage to its
rivers that has happened in the U.S. Pierre Girard is a scientist with the Pantanal Research Institute. He says his country has much to learn from the U.S.’ mistakes. Girard says there’s one important lesson he’s already learned from the Americans. That is for scientists to work with land managers to set up programs to stop problems before they begin.

“We must get managers and the science people together right at the beginning. We must talk and really try to understand each other and see what the objectives are and define them. We have broad objectives, but we do not have specifics yet.”

Girard says Midwest scientists are already providing practical advice on how they can convince developers and farmers to take better care of the land near their rivers. They are already looking at the Midwest’s use of buffer strips to separate farmland from the flood plain. While the Pantanal in many ways looks like the Upper Midwest of 150 years ago, local scientists say there is still a lot they can learn from Brazil.

(ambient sound – on the boat)

Rip Sparks is riding on a small boat through the Illinois River backwaters with some of his Brazilian counterparts. The University of Illinois scientist says the Pantanal is kind of like a 150-year-old photograph of the Mississippi River valley. He says having access to
their research can help efforts to clean up and protect Midwest rivers:

“Their soils haven’t been disturbed in the flood plain. They haven’t had the application of fertilizer that we have had here. So we get the chance to see how the soils function in terms of taking up nutrients and cleaning the water.”

Sparks says being able to share information with the Brazilians is a big deal. That’s because there are no large, undisturbed river systems in the U.S. to serve as a model. But even with the free flow of knowledge, scientists from both countries say there is only so much they can do to protect their respective rivers. Mario Dentes is with the Nature Conservancy’s Chapter in Brazil. He says, ultimately, any effort to protect or restore a river will take money:

“Who is going to pay the bills? The people who made the intervention in our highland? The government? Who? We don’t know yet.”

But Dentes and his American counterparts say that will be an ongoing process. For now, they are setting up ways to share information via the Internet, creating joint research
projects, and planning many more trips to visit each other’s countries, and the rivers they are trying to protect. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

A television ad for a car company has created a battle between hunting interests and animal welfare groups, but as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium ’s Jonathan Ahl reports, only one side’s voice is being heard:

Transcript

A television ad for a car company has created a battle between hunting interests and animal welfare groups. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports, only one side’s voice is being heard:

Toward the end of the past football season, the Jeep company ran a TV ad that featured hunters admiring two seemingly dead deer tied to the roof of a Jeep. The vehicle’s owner then drives into an area marked with a sign that says “no hunting zone.” He unties the deer, which are not dead, and they leap to safety. Within hours, Jeep’s parent company Daimler-Chrysler was inundated with calls from hunting groups and National Rifle Association members complaining the ad was unfair. Jeep pulled the ad and it hasn’t run since. Kelly Whitley is an NRA spokesperson. She says the company did the right thing:

“We don’t think it reflected hunters accurately, and we felt it really didn’t do anything for the corporation, and certainly, as far as our members were concerned. They weren’t interested in buying a jeep after they saw the ad.”

But once word spread that the ad was pulled,
animal welfare and rights groups including People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals and the ASPCA sent out emails to their members
encouraging them to call a toll-free number where a poll was underway on
whether to restore the ad. When people called the line, they received this
automated message:

“If you would like to register your comments about the Jeep Deer Hunter
Ad, please press one.”

(phone beep)

“If you are satisfied with the commercial and would like to see it
continue running, please press one.”

(beep)

(automated message sound continues under)

While it appeared to be a poll concerning the ad, the information was not being collected and passed on to Jeep. Daimler Chrysler hires an outside firm to handle its customer relations phone calls. That company took it upon itself to set up the automated system to deflect callers wanting to complain about the ad, so that other customers with questions about their Jeeps could get through to live operators. Daimler Chrysler spokesperson James Kenyon says the company was never authorized to set up the fake poll. He says Jeep is not considering putting the ad back on the air. He says the company wants to sell Jeeps, not create a debate on hunting:

“The ad was intended to do one thing, and people saw something else that was not intended to be there. We have even heard from people who felt that since that ad ran, we should run a pro-hunting ad. Well, that misses the point again.”

While Kenyon says Jeep will not take a stand in a debate on hunting, he does acknowledge that hunters make up a substantial part of the company’s customer base. The automated poll was taken down about an hour after our interview with Kenyon. Animal welfare and rights groups, meanwhile, say Jeep had an opportunity to sell their product in a positive way, but were bullied by hunting interests. Karen Coangelo is a spokesperson for the ASPCA:

“I think some corporations are worried about any bad PR being bad for business. And obviously that is how jeep feels in this situation. I don’t think they are specifically NOT looking at what people are saying about the ad itself, I think they are just worried about business in general, which is somewhat unfortunate.”

Coangelo says she’s disappointed that Jeep listened to the concerns of the hunters more than the concerns of people interested in protecting animals. She also says the situation has been a learning experience. Coangelo says the ASPCA will do a better job of checking the validity of phone polls before calling on members to respond to them. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.