Smog hovers over Toronto as some at the Sierra Club of Canada worry about the government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo by John Hornak)
Russia recently signed the Kyoto Protocol, jumpstarting the agreement in countries around the world. But in Canada, environmental groups fear their government isn’t doing enough to enforce the protocol. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:
Transcript
Russia recently signed the Kyoto Protocol, jumpstarting the agreement in countries around the world. But in Canada, environmental groups fear their government isn’t doing enough to enforce the protocol. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
The Canadian government has agreed to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by about 20 percent over the next eight years. And the government reiterated that commitment in the recent Speech from the Throne. It’s the Canadian equivalent of a State of the Union.
But John Bennett of the Sierra Club of Canada is concerned that there are still no laws that would force industry to reduce its emissions.
“Either we have the most naive politicians in the world, or they’re not very smart because they talk about cooperation, but industry does not want to go ahead and do this.”
So far, the Liberal government has tried to rely on voluntary agreements to reduce emissions. Officials have promised that no one industry or region of the country would bear a greater burden than others.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
Once hunted nearly to extinction, the gray wolf has recently rebounded under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to take the wolf off of the Endangered Species List and hand wolf management back to the states. (Photo by Katherine Glover)
A captive wolf at the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. (Photo by Katherine Glover)
Peggy Callahan, Executive Director of
the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. Callahan works to minimize conflicts between wolves and people. (Photo by Katherine Glover)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:
Transcript
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population
of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management
to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:
(sound of wolves howling)
The image of the wolf has always had a powerful effect on people. Wolves seem dangerous,
mysterious, romantic. They are a symbol of the untamed wilderness. Before Europeans came
to America, wolves roamed freely on every part of the continent. In 1630, the colony of
Massachussetts Bay started paying bounties to settlers for killing wolves. Over the next
300 years, wolf killing spread across the country, until all that was left was a few small
pockets of surviving wolf packs.
When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, the only wolves left to protect in the
Midwest were in Northern Minnesota. By some estimates, there were as few as 350 of them.
Today, Minnesota has a healthy wolf population of around 2400 animals, and smaller populations
are growing in Wisconsin and Michigan. Becaue of this success, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has proposed removing the animals from the Endangered Species List. This would mean wolves would
no longer be federally protected – it would be up to the states.
(sound of gate opening)
Peggy Callagan works with captive wolves at the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. She’s the
Center’s co-founder and executive director. She and her staff research ways to minimize
conflicts between wolves and people. Callahan is looking forward to seeing the wolf taken off
the Endangered Species List.
“It’s a good thing for the Endangered Species Act, to take a wolf off or an eagle off or a
peregrine off when it has recovered. The act was not established to provide a permanent
hiding place. It was established to protect a species until such time that they could be
managed in a different way.”
Wisconsin and Michigan have wolves because young born in Minnesota have migrated east to start
their own packs. Callahan says how Minnesota manages its wolves will affect wolf numbers in the
Midwest. And she isn’t crazy about Minnesota’s current wolf management plan, which has different
rules for different parts of the state.
“Now, there’s a boundary; there’s a boundary called a wolf zone, and there’s a boundary that’s
called the ag zone. And nobody likes it. We went backward.”
In Northeastern Minnesota, where the majority of wolves are, landowners can only kill wolves
if they can demonstrate an immediate threat to pets or livestock. In the rest of the state, where
there is more agriculture and more people, the rules are more lenient. On their own property,
landowners can kill any wolf they feel is a danger, without having to prove anything to the state.
The Sierra Club is opposed to taking the wolf off the Endangered Species list, largely because
of Minnesota’s management plan. Ginny Yinling is the chair of the Wolf Task Force of the Sierra
Club in Minnesota.
“They’ve pretty much given carte blanche to landowners, or their agents, to kill wolves
pretty much at any time in the southern and western two thirds of the state; they don’t even
have to have an excuse, if a wolf’s on their property they can kill it. Instead of this being
what should have been a victory in terms of wolf recovery and the success of the Endangered
Species Act, instead we’re afraid it’s going to turn into something of a disaster.”
Yinling is also concerned with the protection of wolf habitat, such as den sites, rendezvous
sites, and migration corridors.
“The current management plan protects none of those areas; it leaves it entirely up to the
discretion of the land managers.”
But wildlife managers say these are not critical for a large wolf population
like Minnesota’s. Mike DonCarlos is the wildlife program manager for the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.
“As you look at the range of species that are threatened by habitat change, ironically the wolf
in Minnesota is not one of them. As long as there’s a prey base that continues, wolves should
do just fine. The key is mortality rates and availability of food.”
In Wisconsin and Michigan, where there are fewer wolves, state laws will continue to protect
wolf habitat. Peggy Callahan says she has faith that the wolves will be fine, even if the
Minnesota state plan is not perfect. But at the Sierra Club, Ginny Yinling says they have
plans to challenge wolf delisting in court.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Katherine Glover.
More and more Americans are being warned that the local fish they eat could be contaminated with mercury and other toxins, according to a new report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett reports:
Transcript
More and more Americans are being warned that the local fish they eat could be
contaminated with mercury and other toxins, according to a new report by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Sarah Hulett
reports:
The EPA report reflects the number of state-issued fish consumption advisories. And
according to those advisories, more than a third of the nation’s lakes, and close to a
quarter of its rivers contain fish that could be contaminated. In addition to that, 100
percent of the Great Lakes and its connecting waterways are covered by fish consumption
advisories.
EPA officials say the increased warnings reflect better monitoring by states, and not
increased emissions.
But environmental groups are using the data to attack the Bush administration’s proposed
new mercury emission rules as doing too little, too late. Ed Hopkins is with the Sierra
Club.
“I’m sure that everyone would like to see mercury emissions reduced sharply, so that fish
are safe to eat again.”
The EPA is expected to issue new rules for mercury that would require coal-fired power
plants to reduce their emissions by 70 percent by 2018. By contrast, the Clinton
administration called for a 90 percent reduction by 2008.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Sarah Hulett.
A business group representing the world’s largest auto and oil companies has released a report that calls for more action to deal with the social and environmental impacts of cars and trucks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman has more:
Transcript
A business group representing the world’s largest auto and oil
companies has released a report that calls for more action to deal with
the social and environmental impact of cars and trucks. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman has more:
The report was developed through the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. It calls for so-called “sustainable
mobility.” That includes controlling pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions and reducing traffic deaths and congestion. Louis Dale with
General Motors worked on the report.
“There are about 800 million vehicles in the world today. By 2030,
just about 25 years from now, there will be almost a doubling of that.
Probably at least 1.5 billion vehicles.”
Dale says making environmental and safety improvements will help avoid
a backlash from government or customers. Dan Becker is with the Sierra
Club. He says the report is nice. But the companies could do more now.
“Hybrid cars are one example, but better engines, better
transmissions, better aerodynamics. The auto industry needs to take
these technologies off the shelf and put them on their vehicles.”
The industry report says that some improvements can be made now, but
effective cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will have to wait until well
after 2030.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
Environmental groups are turning to national ad campaigns to push automakers to make more fuel-efficient vehicles, and they’re singling out Ford Motor Company for the most criticism. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports:
Transcript
Environmental groups are turning to national ad campaigns to get automakers to
make more fuel-efficient vehicles. And they’re singling out Ford Motor Company
for the most criticism. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman
reports:
The Sierra Club ran a series of ads criticizing Ford last year. Earlier this
year, the group Bluewater Network ran a series of ads portraying Ford chief Bill
Ford as Pinocchio, for backtracking on environmental commitments he made four
years ago. The latest campaign came this summer from Global Exchange and the
Rainforest Action Network. Those ads called on Ford to develop a fleet of zero
emissions vehicles. Jennifer Krill with the Rainforest Action Network.
“Right now, Ford is the worst in the US auto industry. Ford’s average fuel
economy of its car and truck fleet is the last among the top six automakers for
the fifth straight year.”
In the U-S Environmental Protection Agency’s latest reports, Ford’s vehicles got
an average of 18-point-8 miles per gallon. For its part, Ford says some of the
environmental groups’ demands are unaffordable. The company also comes out with
gas-electric sport utility vehicle this summer.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
Carl Pope is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. (Photo courtesy of the Sierra Club)
Lynn Scarlett is the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior's Office of Policy, Management and Budget.
As the political campaigns get into full swing this presidential election year, the environmental record of George W. Bush is being scrutinized. The big environmental groups are very critical of the Bush administration. In the first of two interviews about the Bush White House approach to environmental protection, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope. Pope and the Sierra Club are critical of the Bush administration’s record on environmental protection:
Transcript
As the political campaigns get into full swing this presidential election year, the
environmental record of George W. Bush is being scrutinized. The big environmental
groups are very critical of the Bush administration. In the first of two interviews about
the Bush White House approach to environmental protection, the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope.
Pope and the Sierra Club are critical of the Bush administration’s record on environmental
protection:
POPE: “The biggest environmental problem this country faces right now is the policies of this
administration. It’s kind of stunning too, when you add it all up, just how much damage they
have quietly managed to set in motion in only three years.”
LG: “Now, we’ve listened to folks in the Bush administration who indicate that what they’re
really doing is bringing some balance to dealing with the economic issues the nation faces and
how it relates to the environmental issues that we face.”
POPE: “Well, let’s look at three trends. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was President, we began
cleaning up toxic wastes dumps in this country with the Superfund. In 2003, for the first time
because the Bush administration both allowed the Superfund to run out of money and allowed
companies to start dumping new kinds of toxins on the landscape, the American landscape
became more polluted. We started going backwards after 20 years of progress.
1972, under Richard Nixon, another Republican, we made a national commitment under the
Clean Water Act to clean up our rivers and lakes. In 2003, because the Bush administration cut
funding for clean water clean-up and because they exempted large factory feedlots from clean
water regulation, EPA had to report for the first time in 30 years America’s waterways had gotten
dirtier.
And finally, in 1902, Theodore Roosevelt, a third Republican, created Grand Canyon National
Monument. And every president since Theodore Roosevelt left us with more of the American
landscape protected than he found it. And in only three years uniquely, singularly and in the
violation of the entire trend of the entire 20th century, this President Bush has stripped
environmental protection from 235 million acres. It’s an area as big as Texas and Oklahoma that
is now open to development which was protected when George Bush became President. I don’t
think that’s balance.”
LG: “I assume that you’re not all that chummy with everyone in the White House these days….
POPE: “That’s a safe assumption.”
LG: …but I’m trying to get an insight into what you think the thinking might be behind some of
the decisions that the Bush administration makes.”
POPE: “Well, in 1970 we made a national compact in this country. It was a national
environmental compact which was: we were environmental optimists and we believed that as a
nation that we could clean up every waterway, we could modernize every power plant and we
could remedy every toxic waste dump. We said as a nation ‘You know, everybody in this country
is going to have water that’s safe to drink. Everybody is going to live in a community where the
air doesn’t give their kids asthma. And we’re going to take time to do it. The federal government
is going to help everybody. And we’re all going to do it as a community.’ I think the fundamental
problem with that compact from the point of view of this administration is the ‘everyone’ part of
it. They really don’t believe that the community should do very much. They believe individuals
should take care of themselves. If you want to have safe drinking water, get yourself your own
supply; buy bottled water. If you want to breathe clean air, move somewhere where the air is
cleaner. They really don’t believe in the idea that every American ought to enjoy certain basic
environmental amenities simply as a consequence of being an American.
And, I think what motivates them is their concern that if it’s the federal government that
is cleaning up our toxic waste sites, then people will have faith in the federal government. And
they don’t have faith in the federal government. In fact, one of their chief advisors says he wants
to shrink the federal government down to a size where he can drown it in a bathtub. And I think
it’s the fact that the environmental compact in this country was based on the idea of an
environmental safety net for everyone that they find antithetical to their view that we all ought to
be tough, we all ought to be competitive, we all ought to be self-reliant and on our own. And
they don’t like the fact that the environmental compact says wait a minute, we’re all in this
together and we’re going to solve it together.”
HOST TAG: Carl Pope is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club.
The Ford Motor Company has warned a California environmental group to stop running advertisements criticizing the company’s efforts to improve the fuel economy of its vehicles. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has more:
Transcript
The Ford Motor Company has warned a California environmental group to stop
running advertisements criticizing the company’s efforts to improve the fuel
economy of its vehicles. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has more:
The San Francisco-based Bluewater Network began running ads in national
publications this spring…accusing Ford Motor Company of failing to keep
promises to reduce the gas consumption of its product offerings. An ad which
ran in the New York Times portrayed Ford CEO Bill Ford, Junior as
Pinocchio.
The country’s second largest automaker responded to the ad by sending a
letter demanding the environmental group stop its campaign, calling the ads
gratuitous and offensive.
Ford’s Manager of Environmental and Safety Communications is Carolyn Brown.
“Running a full page advertisement and attacking someone who’s very well
known and turning him into a cartoon figure is really not a constructive way to
advance the interest of either party.”
Brown says the automaker often meets with groups like the Bluewater Network
or the Sierra Club to discuss environmental goals…and methods of reaching
them.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jerome Vaughn in Detroit.
One of the leading environmental groups is traveling the country criticizing the Bush Administration’s environmental policies. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
One of the leading environmental groups is traveling the country criticizing the Bush
Administration’s environmental policies. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
The Sierra Club has been at odds with President Bush’s approach to the environment from the
start. Now, during this election year, the Sierra Club’s Executive Director is touring the country,
taking the concerns to anyone who’ll listen. Carl Pope recently visited the Great Lakes region.
There, he complained about the Bush administration’s loosening of mercury restrictions, its
exemption of factory feedlots from the Clean Water Act and a proposal to allow cities to blend
raw sewage with rainwater during big storms and release it into streams and lakes.
“It doesn’t make any sense to allow people to contaminate the waters and then spend a lot of
money a decade later, cleaning it up. It’s much cheaper to keep contamination out of the Great
Lakes.”
The Bush administration says rather than cleaning pollution at any cost, its environmental policies
consider the financial cost versus the benefit to the environment.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
A Canadian environmental group is protesting Canada’s decision to seek public comments before giving protection to endangered species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
A Canadian environmental group is protesting Canada’s decision to seek public comments before
giving protection to endangered species. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly
reports:
Representatives of the Sierra Club of Canada say they were blindsided by the federal
government’s decision.
The government announced public consultations to consider adding 63 new species to Canada’s
Species at Risk Act.
The Sierra Club’s Rachel Plotkin says endangered species should be chosen by scientists, not by
the public at large.
“Either a species is becoming endangered or its not becoming endangered. It’s not whether or not
someone wants it to be on the list because they recognize that might impact their profit and their
industry.”
Plotkin says socioeconomic issues are already considered when action plans are developped to protect a species.
Unlike the U.S. Endangered Species Act, the Canadian law only protects species on federal land.
However, new listings in the U.S. are also subject to public comment.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
Throughout the region, financially-strapped cities and counties are looking for ways to generate revenue. One idea – converting publicly owned park land into golf courses. Environmentalists hate the idea. But at least some government officials say a golf course is a way to make money and ease the burden on taxpayers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mary Stucky reports on a battle over whether to turn part of a hardwood forest near Lake Superior into a golf course:
Transcript
Throughout the Great Lakes region, financially strapped cities and counties are looking for ways
to generate revenue. One idea, converting publicly owned park land into golf courses.
Environmentalists hate the idea. But at least some government officials say a golf course is a way
to make money and ease the burden on taxpayers. Mary Stucky reports on a battle over whether
to turn part of a hardwood forest near Lake Superior into a golf course:
(natural sound)
On a cold winter day, the air is still and quiet on Spirit Mountain, on the western side of Duluth,
Minnesota, a town on Lake Superior. There is a chalet and downhill ski area on one side of the
mountain, but for the most part, the forest is undeveloped.
“We’ll just walk up here a bit so you can see into the forest a bit more.”
Nancy Nelson is a local environmentalist who’s horrified at the thought of a golf course here.
“So, if the golf course were to be built that would all be clear cut and turned into turf grass.”
Spirit Mountain is owned by the city of Duluth. It has a unique mixture of ecosystems. There are
wetlands and small streams. Wildflowers cover the ground in the spring and there is old growth
forest including sugar maple, yellow birch and red oak. Outgoing Duluth Mayor Gary Doty
thinks the golf course is a good idea. The course would have taken 250 acres of the 2 thousand
acre forest.
“I saw this as a responsible activity with safeguards put in place to prevent problems with water
run-off and wetlands and trees and all those kinds of things.”
The Mayor says it would have been an environmentally responsible project. Environmentalist
Nancy Nelson disagrees.
“Once you clear cut an area it all starts over. It takes hundreds of years, at least, to get to the
stage that this forest is at. I just don’t think it’s a fair tradeoff to destroy something that’s taken
that long to develop just so we can build a golf course.”
But experts say building golf courses in natural areas is tempting for cash-strapped cities and
counties throughout the Great Lakes region. Brett Hulsey works with the Sierra Club to fight
plans for golf courses on government park land.
“Across the Great Lakes we see golf courses threatening our national parks, local parks, wetlands
and forests. They destroy habitat for wild animals, fish and wildlife. They increase
run off pollution and they also close off access to public areas.”
Hulsey says trees are cut down, lawn chemicals are used and to even walk through the area you
have to pay greens fees. The Sierra Club website keeps track of places where parkland is
threatened by golf course development.
But as for the course on Spirit Mountain, Mayor Doty says it’s been stopped, at least for now,
stopped by what Doty calls extreme environmentalists who blindly oppose development.
“I don’t think we should take every tree down and build parking lots and hotels and
condominiums every place in town. But I looked at what was good for the community. And
what was good for the community was to develop an environmentally sound golf course and it
still leaves a lot of wooded lands that people would be able to enjoy outside of using the golf
course.
But environmentalists say the world doesn’t need a another golf course. They say, there are too
many now. Since the Spirit Mountain course was first proposed 9 years ago, the popularity of
golf has waned, according to the Sierra Club’s Brett Hulsey, with the supply of golf courses now
outstripping demand.
“We’re seeing a lot of golf courses struggling. The bloom is definitely off the golf course rose
and local governments should take a real hard look at whether this is the best way for them to
raise local money.
And so some experts say that in the future, the battle over turning park land into golf courses
might be won by environmentalists by default.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mary Stucky.
Smog hovers over Toronto as some at the Sierra Club of Canada worry about the government's commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo by John Hornak)
