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.
Ballast holds can carry aquatic species from foreign ports to U.S. ports. Those species can cause severe damage to the ecological system of harbors, lakes and rivers. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory)
The Saint Lawrence Seaway is now open to international ship
traffic from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes. But as
Sarah Hulett reports, the start of this year’s Great Lakes
shipping season is raising questions about a new state law aimed
at protecting the lakes from invasive species:
Transcript
The Saint Lawrence Seaway is now open to international ship
traffic from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes. But as
Sarah Hulett reports, the start of this year’s Great Lakes
shipping season is raising questions about a new state law aimed
at protecting the lakes from invasive species:
The state of Michigan is now requiring ocean-going ships that
come into the state’s ports to get ballast water permits, and
agree not to discharge untreated ballast into the lakes.
Ballast water is pumped in and out of a ship to help keep it
level in the water, but ballast water is known to carry small
organisms from foreign waters that can wreak havoc on Great
Lakes’ ecosystems.
So far, only two shipping companies have applied for the
permits. John Jamian heads the Seaway Great Lakes Trade
Association:
“The joke is that the big players that represent over 98% of the
cargo that comes into Michigan ports have not filed for permits.”
Jamian’s organization and others are suing to get the law
overturned. They say it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
A team of horses drags a dead ash tree through the woods to be milled into usable lumber. Tens of millions of ash trees have been killed by a bug imported from China called the emerald ash borer. (Photo by Lester Graham)
John Yarema is a hardwood flooring company owner who suggested a new library could use the wood from dead ash trees on the very same property. (Photo by Lester Graham)
As the emerald ash borer is spread, millions of ash trees have been cut down to try to contain the insect infestation. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Ash trees are dying by the millions because of an infestation of a
foreign bug. In one town, they’re using the dead wood to help build a
library. Lester Graham reports the wood beams and flooring will be a
permanent exhibit to remind visitors of the trees that were once there
and the cost of imported pests:
Transcript
Ash trees are dying by the millions because of an infestation of a
foreign bug. In one town, they’re using the dead wood to help build a
library. Lester Graham reports the wood beams and flooring will be a
permanent exhibit to remind visitors of the trees that were once there
and the cost of imported pests:
Craig Novotney is driving a team of black draft horses, some young
Percherons, through a wood lot. They’re dragging a pretty good sized
log out into the open to be trucked away and turned into lumber. They
could have used a bulldozer to do this job, but that would have damaged
a lot of the other trees in these woods:
“It’s a lot less impact on the forest floor. You don’t ruin near as
much stuff, you know, getting it out with horses. It’s a kind of
lighter approach to it.”
Sixty ash trees have been cut down on this four-acre piece of land.
They were all dead, killed by a bug called the emerald ash borer. The
wood from these dead trees will be used to make flooring, wood trim,
and to be support beams for a new branch library.
The architects knew they wanted to use ash, as a way of reminding
people of this disappearing natural resource. But it was the flooring
contractor who suggested the ash wood they needed was on the very
property where the library is to be built.
John Yarema owns Johnson Hardwood Floors:
“We were originally came out to look at flooring and ash. And when we
told them we could use the material off the site, they were excited.”
Rather than just flooring, Yarema suggested the architects use the dead
ash trees for some of the structure of the building, so that people
could see the damage the emerald ash borer had done, a sort of
permanent exhibit.
“One wall – it’s a 90 foot wall facing the woods – all glass. So, in
front of that, we’re going to have trees, emerald ash borer-killed
trees supporting that wall.”
The trees will still bear the marks of the damage done by the bug.
The ash tree is a popular tree, but like this place where they’re
chopping down the trees, city after city has had to cut down all of
their ash trees in an effort to stop the spread of the emerald ash
borer.
Despite efforts to quarantine infested areas, the emerald ash borer
is spreading. It was first detected in Michigan in 2002. It probably
came in shipping crates from China. The pest already has spread to a
half dozen other states and Ontario. The bug is being spread in part by people
hauling firewood with them on vacation and hunting trips, and in some
cases by nursery stock being shipped out of the area.
Josie Parker is the Director of the Library District in Ann Arbor,
Michigan where this new branch library is being built.
“Because it’s a public building, it will tell the story of what can
happen and did when there’s an infestation. This building will always
be here. The emerald ash borer tracings will be evident in the wood.
So, we’ll be able to explain (to) science classes and anyone who’s
interested what happened to ash trees and why we need to be more
careful about insect infestations.”
A lot of the dead ash has been cut up for firewood. But some people
have felt that the wood shouldn’t be wasted. It should be preserved
somehow. John Yarema says it makes him sad, seeing the ash tree
disappear. But, he likes the idea of using these ash trees in a way
that might serve as a lesson:
“It’s nice in the sense that it’s in an educational facility and not
chopped up into firewood. So, in that way, you feel better than
burning it in a fireplace. If we can make a statement and maybe
somebody will look at it, maybe a child will look at it and say, you
know, ‘Wow, this is…’ because (in) 40 years there aren’t going to be
any. The only ash trees that’ll be around will be in the flooring, the
walls, the ceiling and in the structure. I think we just all need to
open our eyes and hope for the best, I guess.”
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A government report indicates to clean up fewer than half of the leaky
underground storage tanks in the nation it would cost billions of
dollars. But the Bush administration budget only calls for millions.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
A government report indicates to clean up fewer than half of the leaky
underground storage tanks in the nation it would cost billions of
dollars. But the Bush administration budget only calls for millions.
Lester Graham reports:
Leaking underground storage tanks of gasoline or other hazardous
liquids can contaminate drinking water and soil. There are 117,000
known leaks from underground storage tanks across the nation.
A Government Accountability Office report indicates to clean up just
half that number would cost 12 billion dollars. The Bush
administration has requested less than 73 million dollars in the budget
currently before Congress.
The chair of the House Energy and Commerce committee, John Dingell,
calls the Bush request disgraceful and inadequate. But in the last
budget, Congress only appropriated 70 million to clean up leaky
underground storage tanks.
States across the nation expect to discover more than 16,000 new leaks
in the next five years. That could mean the current government funding
of clean-ups will never catch up with the actual number of leaky
underground storage tanks.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Federal restrictions have not stopped importation of invasive species. Now some states are passing laws that will stop some ocean-going ships from docking in their ports. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Ocean-going cargo ships are blamed for bringing in many aquatic invasive species that damage the environment, such as zebra mussels, quagga mussels and round gobies. These foreign species also cost the economy in lost fishing, clogged intake pipes, and in eradication efforts. (Photo by Lester Graham)
US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:
Transcript
US ports receive more than imported cargo.
They often receive fish and other aquatic organisms
from foreign ports. They stow away in the ballast
water of cargo ships. Once in US waters, some of
the foreign species become invaders, damaging the
ecosystem. The federal government has done little
to stop these invasive species. Rick Pluta reports now some states have decided to take
things into their own hands:
The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.
In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.
The damage caused by invasive species carried to the US in
ballast water is not only harmful to the environment, but it
hurts the economy. The federal regulations have not stopped the
problem. So, states such as California and Michigan have passed
laws that require foreign ships to treat ballast water like
pollution. They have to clean it up before they can discharge it
into a port. The problem is, almost no ships have a way to treat
the ballast.
In Michigan, the Great Lakes shipping industry is trying to delay
the new Michigan rules. Shipping companies, port owners, and
dock workers say Michigan’s new rules are jeopardizing jobs
without actually stopping the introduction of new species into
the Great Lakes.
People in the shipping business say the problem is Michigan is
the only state in the Great Lakes region that is requiring ocean-
going freighters to install expensive technology as a condition
of using one of its ports.
John Jamian is the president of the Seaway Great Lakes Trade
Association. He says requiring ocean-going freighters to install
expensive technology before they can dock in Michigan ports won’t
solve the problem. The ships will just go to other Great Lakes
ports.
If a ship goes to Windsor or Toledo that doesn’t have these rules
and regulations, they will discharge their cargo. If there were
any critters on those ships they could still swim or crawl into
Michigan waters, so you still haven’t solved anything.
Jamian represents the owners of ships that travel from the
Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes via the Saint Lawrence Seaway.
He says ship owners will very likely avoid Michigan ports, and
choose to unload at ports in other states and Canada:
“The fact of the matter is that they’re not going to put an
expensive piece of equipment just because Michigan calls for it
on their ship when in fact it may not be acceptable anywhere else
in the world and it might just be easier to take that cargo
across the river and unload it where they don’t have these
regulations.”
And for Michigan ports that are near other competing ports,
that’s a concern. Patrick Sutka is the treasurer for Nicholson
Terminal and Dock Company at the Port of Detroit:
“We fear these ships may be going to other ports, such as Windsor
right across the waterway, or other competitors of ours such as
Toledo or Cleveland.”
At the height of the shipping season, there might be three
freighters at a time moored to the docks, offloading steel and
other cargo. A hundred trucks a day will move in and out of the
docking area to get those commodities to factories.
On the dock right now are dozens of stacks of 20-ton slabs of
steel from France and Russia. That Russian steel was most likely
shipped from a port in the Caspian Sea or the Black Sea. The
freighters take on ballast water from those seas for the voyage
to the Great Lakes. That ballast water helps keep the ships low
and steady in the water.
The ships are required to exchange the water in deep ocean mid-
journey. The salt water is supposed to kill the fresh water
organisms. But, some organisms can survive the trip. That’s how
zebra mussels, quagga mussels and the round goby fish made their
way from the Balkans to the Great Lakes.
Those invasive species and others combine to cost the economy an
estimated 5 billion dollars a year. For example, zebra
mussels cost taxpayers and utility customers. It shows up in
your power bill because the utilities have to pay divers to
scrape the crustaceans off pipes carrying cooling water to power
plants.
Shipping companies, port owners, and dock workers’ unions are all
pressuring Michigan to hold off on enforcing its new law. What
they’d really like is for the federal government to step in,
negotiate with Canada, and create a regional set of rules for
combating aquatic invaders:
“…But the federal government has not had the guts or the
gumption to step up to the plate and get this done.”
Patti Birkholz chairs the Michigan Senate Environmental Affairs
Committee. She sponsored the law:
“So we’re going to do it on a state-by-state basis. Our eco-
system within the Great Lakes is what many scientists have termed
‘on the tipping point.’ We cannot deal with any more invasive
species in this system, and we know the majority of the invasive
species come through the ocean-going vessels. They know they’re
the cause. We know they’re the cause. We’ve got to deal with this
situation.”
Michigan’s new law is as much a political statement as anything
else and other states are starting to follow Michigan’s lead.
Birkholz says Wisconsin and New York could pass ballast standards
this year.
In the mean time, Michigan environmental officials say they
intend to enforce the state’s requirements when the Great Lakes
shipping season resumes in the spring. But, so far, no ocean
freighters have applied for a permit to dock at a Michigan Port.
Underground mines that were abandoned long ago are coming back to haunt the people and places above them. The voids and toxic metals left behind are posing new kinds of environmental challenges. But one church that was almost destroyed by a mine is now trying to turn it into a new kind of green resource. Katherine Fink reports:
Transcript
Underground mines that were abandoned long ago are coming back to haunt the people and places above them. The voids and toxic metals left behind are posing new kinds of environmental challenges. But one church that was almost destroyed by a mine is now trying to turn it into a new kind of green resource. Katherine Fink reports:
John Wesley A.M.E. Zion Church is on a street where cars don’t stop. Crime rates are high here. A faded sign with graffiti on it indicates where a convenience store used to be. Most of the church’s stained glass windows are either missing or covered with plywood. Pastor Calvin Cash says he remembers when things were different.
“This was once a thriving community. Stores, residential homes, businesses, the whole bit.”
Cash was first assigned to the church in 1996. It had been closed for a couple years. He found 18 inches of orange water in the basement. Moss was growing on the walls. Cash says church leaders had known about the water problem, but thought they had it under control.
“For years, they had sump pumps down in the basement. And when the water reaches a certain level, the sump pumps would come on, and carry it away.”
Meanwhile, state environmental workers were investigating another mysterious pool of water down the street. They suspected an old underground mine had filled with water and was starting to burst. One of those workers, Charles Johnson, noticed the church nearby.
“I left a card inside of the mailbox with my number on it and said if you are having any water problems in your basement, give me a call… so within two days, reverend Cash gave me a call and said, ‘you got to see this.'”
Mine-related issues are not new for the Pittsburgh area, which has one of the largest coal seams in the country. But water problems like these are becoming increasingly common as more and more mine voids fill to capacity. Johnson says in the church’s case, the need for a fix was urgent.
“The pressure on the building from the water; it was just a matter of time before the pressure would just collapse the whole building.”
Workers redirected the water into local storm sewers, relieving the pressure on the church.
Since then, Johnson says they’ve learned that mine water can actually be useful. Its constant 57-degree temperature makes it an attractive candidate for geothermal heating, which uses the earth’s natural warmth.
George Watzlaf with the National Energy Technology Laboratory has studied the idea.
“We could probably reduce their heating and cooling costs 60, 70, maybe 80 percent; the annual cost.”
Geothermal heat is becoming increasingly common as a lower-cost alternative to natural gas. Pipes filled with an antifreeze solution carry heat from deep in the earth up into buildings. Instead of using antifreeze, Watzlaf says he wants to build a system that draws in mine water:
“We’re trying to put together a small project where we price everything out to say, okay, all we need is $10,000 to go out and put in a small system somewhere, heat a shed or something like that. Just to, no pun intended, get our feet wet and just learn some things about some of the potential problems and how we can overcome those problems.”
Reverend Cash wants his church to be that demonstration project. Since learning about geothermal heat and its potential cost savings, Cash is convinced it could save his blighted neighborhood. He’s become a convert to all things green.
“We are responsible for this world, and God expects us to take care of it.”
On this night, Cash is holding a workshop at the church to help residents learn how to make their homes more energy efficient. Only one person came. Trays full of untouched sandwiches, fried chicken and cookies are being wrapped up for another day, but reverend Cash says he’s not discouraged. Sometimes, he says it takes something big to get people’s attention:
“One of the best proofs of it, when they were taking that water out of there, we had all that heavy equipment active out there, and if 10 cars went by, nine of then slowed down or stopped to see what was going on. And I think when we start building back this community, that curiosity will grow, and benefit us. So we’ll hold on and see.”
Cash is hoping to convince the state to have faith in geothermal heat. His church is applying for a grant this year.
The mid-term elections caused a major power shift in Washington. Democrats say they plan to rev up Congress’ power of oversight. (Photo courtesy of Architect of the Capitol)
The political landscape in the U.S. changed overnight last week. The Democratic takeover will mean a big shift in policy-making efforts in Washington. Mark Brush has more on how environmental issues played out in the election, and what this new Congress might do on the environmental front:
Transcript
The political landscape in the U.S. changed overnight last week. The Democratic takeover will mean a big shift in policy-making efforts in Washington. Mark Brush has more on how environmental issues played out in the election, and what this new Congress might do on the environmental front:
Environmentalists say some of their biggest enemies were defeated in the midterm election. And top on their list of the worst environmental offenders was California Congressman Richard Pombo.
(The “Pombo Mambo” plays: a catchy ad jingle whose lyrics expose Richard Pombo’s environmental record, produced and run by the League of Conservation Voters.)
Environmentalists spent millions of dollars on radio and television ads to defeat Pombo, and they say it was money well spent. They came to really despise Pombo because of his work to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
Tiernan Sittenfeld is the legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters. She says many Republican committee chairs, such as Richard Pombo, simply obstructed environmental legislation. She says now that will change.
“It’s not that even that Congress has even voted to pass particular pro-environment legislation; it’s that the house leadership and the committee chairs haven’t even allowed such legislation to come to the floor. They haven’t even wanted a debate on it. So I think having different leadership, having different committee chairs who care about protecting the environment, who care about clean air, clean water, and open space is going to be a whole world of difference.”
So now that the Republican leadership is out who is taking their place? One legislator who is expected to gain a lot of power is Democrat John Dingell of Michigan. He will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Dingell says he, and other Democratic committee chairs will first use their power to make sure that existing environmental laws are being enforced by the Bush Administration.
“This administration has been totally unsupervised by the Congress, and checks and balances which are so important to the Founding Fathers, and legislative oversight, have simply not taken place since the Bush Administration came in.”
Dingell will be joined by many other legislators who are likely to have strong environmental agendas. People like Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and Henry Waxman. They have several issues in mind that they feel have been mishandled by the Bush Administration. Top on their list is energy policy and global warming.
On energy, environmental lobbyists say high gas prices have made the issue one that resonates with voters.
Karen Wayland is the legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says the new Congress will revisit the tax breaks and other financial incentives given to oil companies in the last energy bill.
“I think what something the House will do at least will be to look at the royalty relief that Congress has given to the oil companies and sort of try to roll back some of the royalty relief; make the oil companies pay full price for extracting oil from our public lands and then use that money to invest in clean energy.”
Democrats are also expected to make a push for national renewable energy standards, and higher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.
As for global warming, the Democrats say the Bush White House and the Republicans in Congress have completely ignored the issue. The Democrats are expected to introduce several global warming bills in the next session.
But while the Democrats gained a lot of power, they still will have to work around the threat of a presidential veto. And in the Senate, the republicans still hold more than enough seats to block legislation.
Darren Samuelsohn is a senior reporter with Greenwire, a Washington DC based news service covering energy and environmental policy. Samuelsohn says while the Republicans still hold a lot of power, it’s interesting to see how much of it was eroded overnight.
“As you start to talk about it and think about it, it’s across the board: it’s judges, it’s legislation, it’s oversight. And then the thing that really nobody outside of Washington ever really kind of knows what’s going on about, but the whole huge appropriation – the whole federal budget process. That will now be Democrat controlled and we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that get spent every year.”
Samuelsohn says the Democrats will now face the challenge of finding more money for their favorite environmental programs, while at the same time making good on campaign promises to cut the huge federal budget deficit.
John Harnois raises Narragansett turkeys, one of the so-called heritage breeds. He also raises a few Bourbon Reds, another heritage breed. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Many heritage turkey breeds tend to be closer in appearance to wild turkeys than the most common commercial turkey breed, the Broad-breasted White. The Broad-breasted Whites have been bred to have white feathers, so there won't be dark marks left behind when the birds are plucked. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
The tom turkeys strut their stuff for the hens... who appear to be not particularly interested. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
John Harnois gobbles to the turkeys and the turkeys respond in unison.
(Photo by Rebecca Williams)
A male Narragansett in living color. Turkeys are native to North America.
They've been transported across the Atlantic Ocean several times, from Mexico to Europe... from Europe to America... as turkeys were domesticated, crossed with wild turkeys, and new varieties were developed. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
The type of turkey you buy for your big holiday feast isn’t always an easy decision. You can choose the usual supermarket bird, or you can get a kosher turkey, or one that’s been fed only organic feed. You can also buy a heritage turkey that’s got a little wilder history. Rebecca Williams has the story of farmers who are trying to keep these older turkey breeds from going extinct:
Transcript
The type of turkey you buy for your big holiday feast isn’t always an easy decision. You can choose the usual supermarket bird, or you can get a kosher turkey, or one that’s been fed only organic feed. You can also buy a heritage turkey that’s got a little wilder history. Rebecca Williams has the story of farmers who are trying to keep these older turkey breeds from going extinct:
John Harnois talks turkey.
“The turkeys pip, they bark, they gobble, (Harnois makes gobbling sound and turkeys respond in unison).”
He’s got a yard full of turkeys, mostly males. They’re trying to look all big and macho as they strut around in front of the hens. These turkeys are Narragansetts, one of the so-called heritage breeds.
“They’re old time turkeys, much closer to wild. They don’t have the broad breasts, so proportionally for eating (turkeys gobble, Harnois laughs), they have more dark meat to white meat.”
People who’ve tasted a heritage turkey say the flavor is stronger too. Sara Dickerman is the food editor for Seattle Magazine. She taste tested different types of turkeys, from the Butterball brand, to kosher, to heritage.
“When you taste one of these heritage breeds you’re getting more of a… it begins to taste more like a distinct meat, and I’m afraid our vocabulary is so ill suited to describing it, except that it tastes meatier, it tastes more intensely, and it just has a resonance that you’ll never get in a Butterball.”
Dickerman says still, you’ve got to be pretty committed to buy a heritage turkey. They can cost upwards of $100.
Taste and cost aren’t the only things that set heritage turkeys apart from the turkeys you find in the grocery store. Your common grocery store turkey is a breed called the Broad-breasted White. These turkeys have been bred over the years to produce a lot of meat in a short period of time. As a result, they’re large breasted birds with short little legs.
John Harnois says that means they can’t mate naturally.
“One of the things about heritage birds is they’re small enough to mate as opposed to the broad-breasteds which is artificial insemination. With that big breast they just can’t do the deed.”
But even though heritage turkeys can mate naturally, they haven’t been doing so well on their own.
“These birds, the heritage breeds, were real close to dying out. It’s funny, you gotta eat ’em to keep ’em going. To keep their genetics in the gene pool, there has to be a market for them.”
That’s where the American Livestock Breeds Conservancy stepped in. It’s a non-profit group trying to keep rare breeds from going extinct. Marjorie Bender is the group’s research manager. She says just three companies own the rights to the commercial turkey breeds.
“And they’re all very, very closely related and it’s that narrow genetic pool that has been of particular concern to us, and what makes the conservation of these other lines of turkeys and these other varieties of turkeys so important.”
Bender’s group is encouraging farmers to raise rare turkeys so there will be a larger genetic pool of the birds. And they’re helping to market the turkeys. Bender says now, there are more of these heritage turkeys than there were a few years ago.
“In terms of the breeds themselves, they’re not out of the woods, in terms of the farmers and the market. It’s so young that many farmers are really investing capital in them to make this a viable option, but they are making some money off the birds, otherwise they wouldn’t be doing it.”
(turkeys gobbling in background)
John Harnois says he is earning money from his heritage turkeys, but it’s not easy money. Heritage turkeys cost a lot to raise, and it takes longer to get them to market weight. And unlike the commercial turkeys, the heritage birds can fly the coop.
“You’re chasing them, and it’s dark out, and you don’t know if you’re going through poison ivy, if you’ve got shorts on you’ve gotta change your pants to long pants… it’s a pain.”
But he says the late night chases and extra turkey TLC are worth it.
“When there’s no more Narragansetts the gene line is done. You can never pull on that. You don’t want everything being the same, and if you only have one thing and something happens to it, there’s no more. Where are the turkeys going to come from?”
Harnois says he feels like it’s his job to make sure there will always be plenty of different kinds of gobblers to go around.
Jamie Juenemann invested in equipment to produce energy at his home in northern Minnesota. He says the government should offer more consistent incentives for renewable energy. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
The Juenemann family has a carbon-neutral home - they produce as much energy as they use. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Americans are thinking more about energy. We’re facing higher prices. There’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:
Transcript
Americans are thinking about energy more. We’re facing higher energy prices, there’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:
This winter, a handful of people around the country won’t have to worry about oil or gas prices. Jamie Juenemann is one of them. He lives out in the country in northern Minnesota, and he’s installed his own energy plant.
Behind the house, there’s a pole reaching above the trees. At the top, a modern windmill turns as it catches the wind. There’s also a solar hot water heater, and a geothermal heat pump, that brings underground heat into the house.
“This was the final phase in our goal to become carbon neutral; essentially producing as much energy as we’re consuming.”
Carbon neutral means not using fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, believed to be a greenhouse gas, and warming the planet.
Of course these systems aren’t cheap. Juenemann took out a second mortgage to pay for them. It was a big decision, but he says he’s doing what he can to make sure his young daughters will inherit a livable world.
“It’s all about choices. We have the choice to either purchase a Chevy Suburban, or we can use that same outlay, that same expense and put in some renewable energy systems.”
Eventually these systems will pay for themselves, and the Juenemann family will have free hot water, electricity, and heat.
The government helps pay for some of these systems; as much as three-quarters of the cost can be covered by tax-breaks and rebates. The trouble is one of the major federal subsidies ends next year, and others are limited to the first few buyers in a fiscal year. Businesses that sell renewable energy systems say that on-again, off-again subsidy approach by the government makes it difficult to stay in business to provide the alternative systems.
Politicians have been sending mixed messages about energy. Last year’s energy bill offered subsidies for nearly every energy source, without sending a clear message favoring one over another. Congress even offered subsidies for fossil fuels.
And that makes sense to John Felmy. He’s chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. He says the country depends on traditional sources — including the 40% of our total energy budget that comes from oil. He says the government should subsidize exploration and research on fossil fuels.
“You have to say where can you get the biggest impact from encouraging additional supplies, and those numbers of 40% clearly dwarf what you have from the alternatives.”
He says to keep the economy strong, the government should make it easier to drill for oil and gas, and to bring energy to where it’s needed.
Another government approach to the challenge of energy is to reduce the demand. Some groups predict conservation could cut energy needs as much as thirty percent.
J. Drake Hamilton is a scientist with Fresh Energy, a non-profit organization. She says conservation is cheaper and cleaner than producing more energy.
“Every time you cut energy use, you cut pollution. Every time you increase it, you increase pollution.”
And some people regard pollution as a hidden cost of traditional fuels. They say if consumers directly paid for the environmental and health costs of burning coal and oil and gas, the prices would be a lot higher. Economists call these “external costs,” and they argue over how to set a price on them.
Environmentalists say we should start charging an extra tax on fossil fuels because they contribute to global warming. At the same time, we could reduce the income tax, so the shift would be revenue-neutral, but the idea is still likely to be politically unpopular. A higher tax on fossil fuels would mean higher prices, which would make renewable energy systems more competitive.
There’s nothing new about taxing things that are bad for us, and subsidizing things that are good. But so far, when it comes to energy, Congress hasn’t been able to agree on what to discourage, and what to encourage.
For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.
Big city residents expect a lot out of urban parks. They want open space, things to do there, and literally, a place to breathe. But if the park’s beautiful, it’s bound to attract out of town visitors, who might make it crowded. Shawn Allee meets one man who wants to expand the welcome mat in his park:
Transcript
Big city residents expect a lot out of urban parks. They want open space, things to do
there, and literally, a place to breathe. But if the park’s beautiful, it’s bound to attract out
of town visitors, who might make it crowded. Shawn Allee meets one man who wants to
expand the welcome mat in his park:
Grade-schoolers are busy romping around Chicago’s Grant Park. At first blush,
it doesn’t seem odd at all, but the sight surprises Bob O’Neill, a local parks advocate:
“When you think of a park, a lot of times you do think of children. Grant Park actually is
underrepresented in that demographic.”
But O’Neill wants to change all that and get more children in the park. One way would
be to bring one of the city’s biggest tourist attractions here. The Chicago Children’s
Museum lures half a million children each year, but its success has caused growing pains.
It’s outgrown its space on an isolated, tourist trap on Chicago’s lakefront and O’Neill
wants the museum’s kids in Grant Park.
“As they grow up their memories will be having gone to, and interacted with, and learned
from a premier children’s museum in Chicago’s front yard, surrounded by the high rises,
and using the outdoor space. I think it’s wonderful.”
O’Neill sees it like this: city high rises are an efficient use of land, but museum visitors
from the suburbs never see that. So, if the museum’s in the park, maybe kids will fondly
remember the urban landscape, but when he pitches this idea of moving the Children’s
Museum:
“You might think that a toxic waste dump was proposed for Grant Park on its north end,
not a children’s museum.”
And what’s got him stumped most is who opposes it, namely, local parents.
Vicky Apostolis is one of them. She’s bringing her daughter to a field house for an art
lesson:
(Daughter) “I made a flower…”
Apostolis says, when her neighbors got wind of the museum’s move, they sprung into
action. Before long, they’d gotten the local alderman and civic groups to oppose the plan.
For Apostolis, this park’s enormity is misleading. Developers are building more high
rises here, and each one will house hundreds of additional kids. She says, if you add the
museum’s visitors, the neighborhood will be awash in children and the park will be
overcrowded. Apostolis says people are drawn by the quality of life here, and this quiet
stretch of park is part of it:
“Everyone who has a family who has children, they know the value of going to a safe,
secure location that we can take our children, we can trust the people around there.
And there’s not a lot of car traffic either, that’s safe to get to.”
Apostolis says, if half a million annual visitors arrive, she and her daughter might get
squeezed out:
“We have tourist attractions all over the city of Chicago, which are perfect – we love
tourists. However, we also want our neighborhoods, too.”
But parents groups aren’t the only ones watching this fight. Preservationists and urban
planners are taking note, too. Land-use expert John Crompton says Chicago should take
a hard look at the proposal:
“If these things are good things, and they obviously are, then they should find their own
niche in the world and not take it from parks.”
Crompton says green space is always on the defensive in public parks. There’s pressure
to fill it with something, say, a sports venue or, maybe, a museum:
“They see it as inexpensive land, and since it’s
leisure, we’ll put it there. I think that’s a totally wrong mindset. This is very expensive
land, it’s a very scarce and precious resource downtown, and in a hundred year’s time, what will
people think of us giving this up?”
Bob O’Neill is confident no one has to give up anything. After all, the museum would be
underground. But the parents fear out-of-town kids would still crowd the park, especially
in the summer. Again, O’Neill says it’s worth a try:
“The more that we can have children experience a downtown urban environment and all
the good and even some of the bad that goes with that, the better.”
On the other hand, the park’s high rise neighbors say they’re already living the urban good
life and they resent sacrificing today’s urban garden for a more crowded one in the future.
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)
