Communities Welcome Wilderness

  • Eric Fernandez of Oregon Wild says wild areas still allow for a lot of activity - "just leave your chainsaws and bulldozers at home." (Photo by Sadie Babits)

More than two million acres in nine states could soon become permanent wilderness. Congress is expected to vote on the plan today. Sadie Babits recently visited one of the sites, Mount Hood in Oregon:

Transcript

More than two million acres in nine states could soon become permanent wilderness. Congress is expected to vote on the plan today. Sadie Babits recently visited one of the sites, Mount Hood in Oregon:

A steady stream of traffic runs through the small town of Sandy, Oregon every day.

It’s known as the “Gateway to Mount Hood.”

This used to be a town of lumberjacks. The timber industry was king here.

And a wilderness designation means no logging.

“It wasn’t that long ago that this was a mill town so for the city council unanimously support wilderness is an interesting thing.”

That’s Scott Lazenby. He’s the town’s city manager. He says in the past a wilderness proposal would end up in a Paul Bunyan sized tussle.

But Lazenby says the city council saw real benefits to having wilderness in Sandy’s backyard.

“We do have a watershed that our city water comes from. It’s important to protect that and part of that watershed would be protected by the wilderness bill.”

Not only that. Lazenby says these days, it’s not timber – it’s tourism that brings money to Sandy.

“Even though the number of people who can go into wilderness is relatively limited, the presence of wilderness is a very positive thing.”

Under a massive bundle of bills now before Congress, 127,000 acres surrounding Mount Hood would become wilderness along with other sites across the nation.

“Right now we’re standing in White River Canyon and in the winter this is a really popular place for cross country skiing, snow showing.”

That’s Eric Fernandez. He’s the wilderness coordinator for Oregon Wild – a conservation group out of Portland.

He says a wilderness designation still leaves a place open to all kinds of activities hunting fishing camping.

“You just have to leave your chainsaw and bulldozer at home.”

Fernandez says, yes, this entire area will mean clean drinking water, and wildlife protection.

“But in this instance, the reason I’m so excited about protecting this area of White River Canyon as wilderness is because it has the world’s best sledding habitat.”

Yep, he said sledding – like tobogganing. There’s nobody sledding today.

But, we did bump into Jeff McKnown, who’s out skiing.

“It’s great to come here on the weekday when no one is here.”

McKnown says he loves the trees and the snow so bright it hurts your eyes.
He’s been escaping to White River canyon when he can for the last fifteen years.

“You know when you have a wife and five kids these moments are pretty precious.”

The law that makes wilderness designations possible has been around since 1964. There are more than 700 wilderness areas in 44 states.

But Oregon has lagged behind. Even conservative Idaho has more wilderness than the more progressive Oregon.

Mike Matz thinks that could change. He leads the ‘Campaign for America’s Wilderness’. It’s been pushing for the new wilderness designations before Congress.

“It’s really become amazingly so a motherhood and apple pie issue. This is something that Republicans and Democrats alike have gotten strongly behind.”

And from Oregon’s Mount Hood, to rolling hills in West Virginia, from red rock country in southern Utah, to sand dunes along the Great Lakes – it looks like Congress will preserve two million acres more as wilderness.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

All Aboard for Amtrak?

  • The Akron multi-modal transportation center. It was built by the train tracks, but before it was completed, Amtrak pulled out of Akron. Now the only mode of transportation is the bus. (Photo by Julie Grant)

People who like the idea of passenger trains have been waiting for decades for the
federal government to get on board. Now, some think Congress might be ready to
get funding on track for Amtrak. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

People who like the idea of passenger trains have been waiting for decades for the
federal government to get on board. Now, some think Congress might be ready to
get funding on track for Amtrak. Julie Grant reports:

A few years ago, I took the train from Akron, Ohio to visit my sister in Washington,
D.C. She still teases me about it. What would have taken less than 2 hours by
plane or 6 hours by car took 14 hours by train.

We got side-tracked a lot, waiting for freight trains to go by.

(sound of a train)

That passenger route I took has since been canceled. The trains that come through
now are only for freight.

Moving freight was the real reason most railroad companies started laying down
tracks in the 1800s.

Passenger trains were just a way of getting name recognition and brand loyalty with
the fat cats that owned the factories that needed to move freight. They were treated
well on the passenger trains, and everybody benefited from that great service.

By the 1920s, the government started investing a lot of money in highways.
The age of the auto moved ahead. Passenger trains became quaint.

Companies running trains started going bankrupt. By 1970, Congress voted to
create a national passenger rail line – Amtrak.

Ross Capon is president of the National Association of Rail Passengers. He was
already a leader in the passenger rail movement when the gas crisis in 1979 hit. He
thought gasoline shortages and high prices were going to give Amtrak the jump it
needed.

“When we had prominent cartoonists ridiculing the Carter administration for
discontinuing Amtrak trains, at the same time as gasoline was unavailable to many
people, I thought we were going to be in clover from then on. I was wrong.”

But when gas prices spiked last year, so did Amtrak ridership. Capon thinks, maybe
this time passenger rail will come into its own. Even though gas prices have
dropped, lots of people still want to ride the rails.

I’m visiting the brand new multi-modal transportation center in Akron. But so far, the
only mode of transportation is the bus.

Kirt Conrad is director of planning for the Metro Regional Transit Authority. He says
the center was built along the train tracks. But before it was even finished, Amtrak
pulled out of Akron.

Now if you want to go somewhere, you’ve got to take the bus. But over the past
year, Conrad says, the buses can barely keep up with all the new demand.

It’s like this in many cities across the country. People want to ride the rails – but
there’s no train.

In cities like Dallas and Phoenix, Conrad says trains have been successful.

“The ridership projections are surpassing what they had forecast. So i think the
experience is, you do build it and nationally they have come.”

Many states have been working with Amtrak to improve tracks. And, in some places,
trains go as fast as 120 miles an hour. Passenger rail supporters say for shorter
trips, say a couple of hundred miles or so, trains make a lot more sense than going
to the airport.

But analysts say if passenger rail is going to get on track it needs government
investment.

Conrad says passenger trains need better access to tracks – and better tracks – so
they can move past the slower freight trains.

But Ross Capon at the Rail Passenger Association says Congress is spending
almost all its transportation money on highways and airports.

“The federal government has, to put it crassly, bribed the states for years not to
spend money on rail. Look, we’ll give you 90% dollars on your highway projects,
80% dollars on your airport projects. But if you dare spend money on passenger
trains, youíre on your own buddy.”

But Capon thinks, maybe now, since Amtrak is more popular, Congress might be
ready to increase the amount of federal money it spends on passenger rail service.

Getting rail projects across the nation on the fast track.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Noisier Oceans Bad for Whales

  • Beluga whale (Delphinaptherus leucas) with its mouth wide open, White Sea, Russia, Kareliya. (© Andrey Nekrasov / WWF-Canon)

Scientists say the oceans are
getting noisier. The racket threatens
whales and other marine mammals that
communicate through sound. Nancy
Greenleese reports:

Transcript

Scientists say the oceans are
getting noisier. The racket threatens
whales and other marine mammals that
communicate through sound. Nancy
Greenleese reports:


The oceans are already noisy from military sonars and oil and gas exploration. Scientists say it could get worse. Some of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, is getting soaked up by the oceans and seas. The carbon dioxide makes the water more acidic. Sound travels through that acidic water more easily. A UN climate change panel recently issued a report raising concerns about the chemistry change. Mark Simmonds of the Whale and Dolphin Conversation Society says already there’s an “acoustic fog” in the world’s waters.

“The ambient noise levels in the oceans because of pH are likely to rise. This is a very unexpected finding. They’re anticipating that marine mammals will have further problems communicating.”

The noise confuses marine mammals. So, they’re beaching themselves and running into ships more often.

For The Environment Report, I’m Nancy Greenleese.

Related Links

Protecting Whales Across Borders

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

Environmentalists have wanted to
“Save the Whales” for decades. But experts
say that can’t happen until the people
realize whales don’t know if they’re in
American waters, Mexican waters or Japanese
waters. Nancy Greenleese reports whales
cannot be saved until all countries protect
them:

Transcript

Environmentalists have wanted to
“Save the Whales” for decades. But experts
say that can’t happen until the people
realize whales don’t know if they’re in
American waters, Mexican waters or Japanese
waters. Nancy Greenleese reports whales
cannot be saved until all countries protect
them:

Whales travel off many countries’ coasts and different countries have different laws
about protecting the animals. Chris Butler Stroud is with the Whale and Dolphin
Conservation Society. He told a United Nation’s conference for the Convention on
Migratory Species that international cooperation is key.

“When countries try to take political action to conserve an animal, they often think of
their own borders. Not remembering that animals are able to move beyond those because
they don’t see the lines in the sand or lines in the water.”

(sound of Gray Whales splashing)

Gray whales swarm around fishing boats off Mexico’s Baja California peninsula.
They’ve traveled -without passports – from the Bering Strait in Russia, into U.S. waters,
through Canada, and back into the U.S. before arriving in Mexico. Here they’re
breeding, and providing a water show to rival Sea World for ecotourists.

“Oh…it’s the baby. Right there! Right next to us. And here comes mom! (Splash) Hey,
wow, right at us.”

There’s an international agreement that bans commercial hunting for gray whales. And
the whales draw tourists. That’s pretty important for a poor country such as Mexico.

The whales are safe here, but not everywhere.

And everywhere the whales travel and threat looms: climate change. Many whale species
migrate to the poles where the ice is disappearing. The World Wildlife Fund predicts
30% of the ice will melt away in the next 30 years unless action is taken.

Wendy Elliot says that means the whales will have to travel even farther to get to the ice
and the food they find there.

“So they’re already hungry, tired, they’ve traveled a long, long way and now they are
going to have 500 km extra to go. So how these species are going to adapt is very
unclear and it’s very concerning.”

Another worry is the growing acidity of sea water. Greenhouse gases from burning fossil
fuels mix with the water and make carbonic acid in the ocean. Monterey Bay Aquarium
Research Institute chemists have determined that the altered chemistry will increase the
distances that underwater sounds travel. That disturbs the communications of marine
mammals. The oceans and seas are becoming a headbangers’ ball from rumbling ships,
air guns used for oil and gas exploration and military sonars.

Nicolas Entrup, managing director for the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society,
lobbied at the UN meeting for an international resolution on marine noise pollution.

“Look, we stressed to the governments that underwater noise is a key threat to whales and
dolphins in the ocean. These animals are acoustic animals.”

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation society says research shows loud underwater
noises causes some whales to beach themselves.

At the UN conference, nations passed watered-down resolution to reduce ship sounds.
They did nothing about the noises made by oil and gas industry and the military. Entrup
is furious.

What we’ve passed is absolutely not enough. And I have to say it’s giving in to the
interests of the military and the industries in that occasion. That’s really bad.”

Officials admit that industrial noise can be reduced but the military, that’s another matter.

The 85 governments at the U.N. conference did agree to provide addition protection for
some small whales. But putting any initiatives into effect will be difficult. The global
financial crisis has drastically limited countries’ contributions to field research on whales
and other migratory species. Entrup with the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society
says the nations of the world cannot ignore the problems.

“If you care, then start now and do not wait until it’s too late. That’s expensive, that’s
irrational, that’s stupid.”

Wildlife groups say rich countries have to reach across borders and give a hand to poorer
countries if we’re going to save the whales.

For The Environment Report, I’m Nancy Greenleese.

Related Links

Inaugural Address and the Environment

President Barack Obama wove refences about the environment throughout his inaugural address. Lester Graham reports that approach differs from the typical political view of the issue:

Transcript

President Barack Obama wove references about the environment throughout his inaugural address. Lester Graham reports that approach differs from the typical political view of the issue:

During the inaugural address, President Obama indicated the environment is not an issue, it’s part of all issues.

For example, when he addressed the world, he talked about wealthy nations’ consuming natural resources at a cost to poor nations. He seemed to make reversing global warming as urgent as preventing nuclear winter.

“We will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.”

And talking about the economy, Mr. Obama talked about new energy.

“We will harness the sun and the wind and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.”

Wayne Fields is an expert on presidential speeches at Washington University. He says Obama doesn’t separate the issues.

“All these are bound together and we take them on all at once.”

He says Obama didn’t compartmentalize issues such as foreign oil and terrorism, or climate change and the economy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Peeking in on Poland Climate Talks

  • Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)

Delegates from 190 countries are
meeting in Poznan, Poland for the The
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Lester Graham reports
the delegates are concerned about the
economic costs of reducing the greenhouse
gases that cause climate change:

Transcript

Delegates from 190 countries are
meeting in Poznan, Poland for the The
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Lester Graham reports
the delegates are concerned about the
economic costs of reducing the greenhouse
gases that cause climate change:

With the world in an economic slump, it might be difficult to come to a new climate
change agreement.

But, Yvo de Boer, who’s the Executive Secretary for the convention says, you think
this is bad, wait ‘til you see what happens if nothing is done about global warming.

“This result in an economic failure on the scale of two world wars and the great
depression combined.”

Most countries are looking to see what the U.S. will do.

Angela Anderson is with the Pew Charitable Trusts Environment Group and a
speaker at the climate change convention. She says there’s talk about what the
Obama administration might do.

“There has been a discussion of the ‘Obama Buzz’ as it’s being called here in
Poznan. And you do hear lots of people in the corridors speculating on what the
negotiations will be like next year.”

This time next year is the deadline for an agreement to replace the expiring Kyoto
protocol.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Climate Change Panel Moves Ahead

  • Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)

The leader of a key panel on climate
change says upcoming international meetings
will have a lot at stake. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

Transcript

The leader of a key panel on climate
change says upcoming international meetings
will have a lot at stake. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:

The UN intergovernmental panel on climate change has developed a road map for holding down
emissions that contribute to global warming.

The panel will be part of meetings in Poland this December and in Denmark next year.

R.K. Pachauri chairs the panel. He says negotiators must build on progress made so far.

“And if we miss this out, then I think all the momentum that’s been generated would be lost and
essentially we’d be starting from scratch and we know what that means. It means several years
of delay.”

Pachauri says he’s worried that the current global economic problems will hurt efforts to protect
the earth against climate change. He says things like sea levels, weather patterns, crop
production, and the health of some kinds of animals hang in the balance.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

U.S. Gets an ‘Eco-Checkup’

  • Wetlands, such as these in Michigan, have decreased, according to a report on the country's ecosystems (Photo by David Kenyon of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources)

A new report about the state of the nation’s ecosystems was recently released. And the results are so-so. Jennifer Guerra has the details:

Transcript

A new report about the state of the nation’s ecosystems was recently released. And the results are so-so. Jennifer Guerra has the details:

Think of the report as the environmental equivalent of an annual physical exam.

Here are the results: the number of wetlands in the country is down and virtually every stream contains contaminants. On the plus side, it looks like soil erosion has decreased. And farmers are able to produce more food on less land.

Robin O’Malley plans to take those results to federal lawmakers. O’Malley is with the Heinz Center. It’s the non-partisan think tank responsible for the report.

“In the same way the chairmen of the federal reserve comes up and reports to congress about how our nation’s economy is doing, we think we need to do that kind of thing at a national scale for the environment.”

In addition to the report, the Heinz Center also included a little roadmap of sorts to help the lawmakers along.

For The Environment Report, I’m Jennifer Guerra.

Related Links

Legislation Dividing Organic, Biotech Farmers

  • Organic farms are concerned about nearby farms that produce genetically modified crops. They fear that the genetically modified crops will cross with and alter the genes of their own crops. (Photo by Rene Cerney)

The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal government’s job to regulate food safety. But critics say federal agencies aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety. They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:

Transcript

The nation’s agricultural seed companies are fighting local restrictions on
their genetically engineered products. They say it’s the federal
government’s job to regulate food safety, but critics say federal agencies
aren’t doing a good job of testing genetically modified food for safety.
They’re backing the right of local governments to regulate genetically
engineered crops themselves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Sarah Hulett reports:


Genetically engineered crops are created when genes from other plants,
animals or bacteria are used to alter their DNA.


Critics call them “Franken-foods,” and two years ago, three California
counties banned farmers from growing genetically altered crops. That
alarmed the agribusiness industry, and now it’s fighting to keep that from
happening elsewhere.


So far, the industry successfully lobbied 14 states to pass laws preventing
their local governments from putting restrictions on engineered crops.
Four other states are considering similar measures.


Jim Byrum is with the Michigan Agri-Business Association.


“Frankly, it’s pretty frustrating for us to look at some of the rumors that
are floating around about what happens with new technology. It’s
reduced pesticide use; it’s reduced producer expense in production. It’s
done all sorts of things.”


Genetically engineered seeds are created in the laboratories of big seed
companies like Monsanto and DuPont. The modified plants can produce
higher-yield crops that make their own insecticides, or tolerate crop-
killing problems such as drought or viruses.


Proponents of the technology say genetically altered crops have the
potential to feed the world more efficiently, and they say it’s better for
the environment. That’s because the crops can be grown with fewer
polluting pesticides, but critics say not enough is known yet about
engineered crops’ long-term ecological impact, or on the health of
people who eat them.


(Sound of farm)


Michelle Lutz is among the skeptics. She and her husband run an 80-
acre organic farm north of Detroit. She’s watching about a dozen head of
the beef cattle she’s raising. They’re feeding on cobs of organic corn
grown several yards away.


“I’m surrounded by conventional farmers. The farmers right over here to
my east – they’re good people, and I don’t think they would intentionally
do anything to jeopardize me, but they are growing genetically modified
corn.”


Lutz worries that pollen from genetically modified corn from those
nearby fields could make its way to her corn plants – and contaminate
her crop by cross-breeding with it. Lutz says people buy produce from
her farm because they trust that it’s free from pesticides, because it’s
locally grown, and because it has not been genetically altered. She says
she shares her customers’ concerns about the safety of engineered foods.


Lutz says letting local governments create zones that don’t allow
genetically engineered crops would protect organic crops from
contamination.


But Jim Byrum of the Michigan Agri-Business Association says no
township or county should be allowed to stop farmers from growing
genetically modified crops. He says every engineered seed variety that’s
on the market is extensively tested by federal agencies.


“Frankly, that evaluation system exists at the federal level. There’s
nothing like that at the state level, and there’s certainly nothing like that
at the local level. We want to have decisions on new technology, new
seed, based on science as opposed to emotion.”


Critics say the federal government’s evaluation of genetically modified
crops is not much more than a rubber stamp. The FDA does not approve
the safety of these crops. That’s just wrong.


Doug Gurian-Sherman is a former advisor on food biotechnology for the
Food and Drug Administration.


“It’s a very cursory process. At the end of it, FDA says we recognize that
you, the company, has assured us that this crop is safe, and remind you
that it’s your responsibility to make sure that’s the case, and the data is
massaged – highly massaged – by the company. They decide what tests
to do, they decide how to do the tests. It’s not a rigorous process.”


Gurian-Sherman says local governments obviously don’t have the
resources to do their own safety testing of engineered foods, but he says
state lawmakers should not allow the future of food to be dictated by
powerful seed companies. He says local governments should be able to
protect their growers and food buyers from the inadequacies of federal
oversight.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Searching for E-Waste Solutions

  • Many people do not know what to do with old computers and equipment, so they end up in the trash.

If you bought a new computer over the holidays, there are plenty of places to drop off your household’s old computer. But to prevent more of the old monitors, laptops and other items from winding up in landfills, some Midwest states are looking to make sure computer makers get involved in recycling their products. One of the few manufacturers that already helps re-use old computer parts is Texas-based Dell, Incorporated. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach went to a Dell-sponsored recycling center and has this
report:

Transcript

If you bought a new computer over the holidays, there are plenty of
places to drop off your household’s old computer, but to prevent more
of the old monitors, laptops and other items from winding up in
landfills, some Midwest states are looking to make sure computer
makers get involved in recycling their products. One of the few
manufacturers that already helps re-use old computer parts is
Texas-based Dell, Incorporated. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Chuck Quirmbach went to a Dell-sponsored recycling center and has this
report:


About a year ago, Dell helped set up and publicize a computer
recycling plant at a Goodwill Industries facility in Dell’s home city
of Austin.


(Sound of clunking)


Goodwill employees and volunteers sort through the hundreds of
boxes of computers and computer parts that are dropped off – at no
charge to the consumer – at the site. Newer computers are set aside
for repairs, and hard drive memories are erased. Older computers go
to a bench where workers like Paul take apart (or demanufacture)
them.


“I’m taking apart all the useable parts. Motherboard, power sources,
cards, ports, metal goes into bins, plastic goes into bins for
recycling and what not.”


(Sound of ambience switch)


Goodwill sells the reusable parts at its retail store elsewhere in the
building. Used LCD monitors, for example, go for as low as twenty
dollars.


Manager Christine Banks says some of the equipment is under
a 30-day Goodwill warranty. Other parts can be exchanged if the
customer isn’t satisfied. Banks says Goodwill is happy this computer-
recycling program makes a profit.


“Our operation does. However, there are 7 or 8 other Goodwills
throughout the country that do this that barely break even. We’re just
fortunate we have higher tech donations, a pool of employees with
more technology, it’s very tricky.”


Some states charge high disposal costs for unwanted computer parts,
which can contain potentially harmful chemicals. Those high costs can
make it difficult for a recycling program to get off the ground, but
environmental groups say the fast-growing pile of circuit boards,
monitors, and plastic parts can leach poisons like lead, mercury, and
cadmium into the environment.


They say small-scale projects like the one in Austin have to be part of a
broader effort to keep electronic waste out of the nation’s landfills. That
effort could include government mandates forcing manufacturers to
safely dispose of old products.


Robin Schneider is with the Austin office of the National Computer
Takeback Campaign.


“So, to really deal with the environmental problems of millions of
pounds of toxins, we’re gonna need something bigger than this. This is a
piece of it…and gonna need lot of pieces of it.”


Schneider says she’s encouraged that some Midwest states are
looking into manufacturer takeback programs. She acknowledges that
recycling may drive up the cost of new computers, but she also says
manufacturers may start redesigning computers so that it’s more
profitable for the companies to take them back.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links