The watchdog agency for Congress says the President’s greenhouse gas reduction programs don’t hold companies accountable.
Four years ago, the Bush Administration unveiled its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the time critics said the voluntary programs simply wouldn’t work. The GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
The watchdog agency for Congress says the president’s greenhouse gas reduction
programs don’t hold companies accountable. Four years ago, the Bush Administration
unveiled its plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the time critics said the voluntary
programs simply wouldn’t work. The GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:
In 2002 president Bush announced a plan to cut the nation’s output of heat trapping
gases:
“My administration is committed to cutting our nation’s greenhouse gas intensity, how
much we emit per unit of economic activity, by 18% over the next ten years.”
What followed were two government programs that called on businesses to voluntarily
reduce their greenhouse gases. The Government Accountability Office recently put out a
report on those two programs run by the Department of Energy and the EPA. It found the
businesses that volunteered make up only half of all greenhouse gas emissions in the US.
It also found there’s no system in place to verify whether companies are meeting the
goals of the programs. The GAO recommends the agencies make policies that will track
a company’s progress, and hold companies accountable if they don’t meet their goals.
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)
Proponents of genetically modified crops say the crops can be grown with fewer pesticides. (Photo by Daniel Wildman)
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.
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air, water, or ground. This information is made available to the public. And proponents say this database has led to the cleanup of countless facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Every year companies have to file a report with the Environmental
Protection Agency on the toxic chemicals they release into the air,
water, or ground. This information is made available to the public, and
proponents say this database has led to the clean-up of countless
facilities. Now, the EPA says it wants to cut back on the amount of
information gathered. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush
has more:
The EPA says it wants to make things easier on companies that are
required to file yearly reports on the toxic chemicals they work with.
Instead of filing a report every year, officials say they want companies to
file a report every other year.
Dr. Michael Harbut heads up the Center for Occupational and
Environmental Medicine in southeast Michigan. He says
epidemiologists rely on the annual reports for research into human
diseases:
“What’s being proposed here is a marked reduction in the data available
to persons who are involved in the fight against cancer, and to persons
who are involved in the fight against the most common killers in the
United States; heart disease, lung disease, and diabetes.”
EPA officials say having companies report every other year will help
improve data quality, and will allow them to conduct more analysis
on the data that’s submitted.
For the GLRC, I’m Mark Brush.
Host Tag: The EPA will take public comments on the proposed changes
until January 13th.
More than a million acres are up for sale in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Two large paper companies are selling vast tracts of land. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, it’s a trend that’s occurring throughout the country. And residents are worried that the land will be split up and developed:
Transcript
More than a million acres are up for sale in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Two large paper companies are selling vast tracts of land. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, it’s a trend that’s occurring throughout the region. And residents are worried that will be split up and developed:
Escanaba Timber and International Paper have put more than one-point-one million acres of forestland in the Upper Peninsula on the market.
Paul DeLong is the chief forester for the state of Wisconsin. He says many timber companies across the nation are finding it’s more profitable to sell their land as real estate than maintain it for lumber. DeLong says environmentalists, state governments and timber companies are increasingly joining forces to preserve large tracts of forestland.
“So we’re seeing this convergence of interest from across the political spectrum, recognizing that maintaining larger blocks of forestland as working forests can be a real win-win from an ecological and economic and social standpoint.”
The Michigan Nature Conservancy plans to work closely with Governor Jennifer Granholm to create a conservation easement on the property when it’s sold.
The Karner blue butterfly is an endangered species. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
There are several groups in the region working to protect and restore the endangered Karner blue butterfly. Now these efforts could be helped by a new computer mapping and statistical modeling technique. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has more:
Transcript
There are several groups in the region working to protect and restore the
endangered Karner blue butterfly. Now these efforts could be helped by a
new computer mapping and statistical modeling technique. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach has more:
Habitat maps for endangered species can be based on broad general
estimates. But some scientists hope a combination of computer
software and data such as soil type and vegetation will lead to
more accurate information on where the Karner Blue butterfly lives.
David Mladenoff is a professor of Forest Ecology at the University of
Wisconsin – Madison. He says having a better idea of the butterfly’s
habitat might save companies money on things like surveying costs.
“In other words, if they say we’re planning on doing work on this utility
right away or potentially harvest this area of forest, is this even
a place we have to be concerned about for the Karner Blue butterfly
occuring?”
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a state agency, and some power
companies are funding a computer mapping project in Wisconsin.
Scientists say the same technique could be used in other states.
Environmental groups are praising the Canadian government’s plan to spend billions of dollars to help Canadians reduce greenhouse gases. From Ottawa, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
Environmental groups are praising the Canadian government’s plan to spend billions of dollars to
help Canadians reduce greenhouse gases. From Ottawa, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Karen Kelly reports:
Four billion U.S. dollars will be spent on the environment over the next five years. That number
is part of the recently announced federal budget in Canada. And many say it’s a signal that
Canadian officials are taking their commitment to the Kyoto Protocol on climate change
seriously.
Much of the money will be spent on financial incentives for companies and individuals to reduce
their energy use.
The Sierra Club’s John Bennett says that’s a wise investment.
“This new system should be a way of spurring action much more quickly… and it will be open to
all comers to come forward with ideas to reduce emissions.
For instance, Canada plans to quadruple its investment in wind power. It has put aside 740
million dollars U.S. on incentives for those who build windmills – and for those who buy the
energy they produce.
A new report by an environmental group says car companies could be using environmentally safer plastics in their automobiles. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
A new report by an environmental group says car companies could be using
environmentally safer plastics in their automobiles. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
The Michigan based Ecology Center finds that five out of the six top automakers
in the world get below average grades when it comes to the kinds of plastics
they use in their vehicles. The group says many the plastics in today’s cars
release toxic chemicals.
Charles Griffith helped author the report. He says there is one plastic the
car companies should work to phase out now.
“A good starting point for the car companies would be to commit to phasing
out PVC by the end of this decade. That would be a great place to start and
would send a strong signal that they intend to move in the right direction.”
Griffith says of all the plastics used in today’s cars, PVC plastics pose the
biggest threats to environmental and human health. A spokesperson
representing the automakers says the report is too negative.
He says it
fails to recognize the significant progress car companies have made in
moving toward environmentally friendly plastics.
It looks as though a second pollution hot spot in the Great Lakes
will receive money for cleanup. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Mike Simonson reports on the progress of the Great Lakes Legacy Act:
Transcript
It looks as though a second pollution hot spot in the Great Lakes will receive money
for cleanup.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports on the progress of the
Great Lakes
Legacy Act:
The Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed in 2002. It earmarked 54 million dollars a
year for five
years to clean up pollution hot spots. In the first several years, not all the
money promised was
delivered. So clean up on the 31 polluted areas has been slow.
Right now, the Black Lagoon on the Detroit River is the only pollution hot spot
being cleaned
up. Officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency say they’re hoping to
start on a
second project in Lake Superior next year.
Wisconsin will need to pony up a third of the 5.2 million dollar cost to dredge the
sediments in
Superior Harbor. Wisconsin Project Supervisor John Robinson is hopeful. He says
two decades
after identifying the pollution, money may finally be available.
“The Legacy Act is clearly a catalyst that will allow us to go ahead. Without it,
the project
would be delayed into a period of time that we’re uncertain of.”
Some of the money will come from companies partly responsible for the pollution.
Robinson
hopes to begin cleanup in February.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.
PVC is used in many building materials, including pipes like these. However, due to health problems that can be caused by PVC and the emissions created in production, the expansion of a PVC plant along Lake Erie is worrisome to some environmentalists. (photo by Jason
Krieger)
A new PVC manufacturing plant is being built in the region,
and that has some environmental groups alarmed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Joyce Kryszak reports on efforts to halt production of polyvinyl chloride:
Transcript
A new PVC manufacturing plant is being built in the region, and that has some environmental groups alarmed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, Joyce Kryszak reports on efforts to halt production of polyvinyl chloride:
Environmental groups are protesting the construction of a new PVC plant near Buffalo. They say manufacturing PVC releases toxic chemicals into the environment. The group recently released a report highlighting the dangers of PVC and are calling on companies to phase out production of the popular manufacturing material. Mike Schade heads the Citizens’ Environmental Coalition in western New York. The region is home to CertainTeed, a PVC plant that will soon expand to a site along Lake Erie. Schade says it’s a step backward.
“I think it’s outrageous that, given the fact the Great Lakes have seen so many environmental problems, that CertainTeed is coming in and citing a PVC plant right on the lake,” said Schade, “It certainly isn’t my vision for a clean and safe and healthy waterfront.”
Schade says residents near other Certain Teed plants show increased levels of cancer and other serious disease. But company spokesperson Dottie Wackerman disputed the claims. And she says the company’s new plant will have virtually no emissions.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Joyce Kryszak.
Author Bob Lilienfeld suggests that we find ways to express our love for each other in less material ways. (Photo by Denise Docherty)
The message from advertisers this holiday season seems to be: buy more because you and your family deserve it. Retailers are hopeful we’ll all spend just a little bit more to make the holidays shiny and bright. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham went to the shopping mall with a guy who thinks we ought to scale back our spending during the
holidays:
Transcript
The message from advertisers this holiday season seems to be, buy more because you and your family deserve it. Retailers are hopeful we’ll all spend just a little bit more to make the holidays shiny and bright. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham went to the shopping mall with a guy who thinks we ought to scale back our spending during the holidays:
Bob Lilienfeld is one of the co-authors of a book called Use Less Stuff. As you might guess, he’s an advocate of using fewer resources, including buying less stuff during the holidays. We asked him to meet us at a big shopping mall to talk about why he thinks buying less means more.
Lilienfeld: “I want you to go back to when you were a kid. Think about the two or three things in your life, the things that you did that made you really happy. I guarantee none of those have to do with physical, material gifts. They have to do with time you spent with your family or things you did with your friend. But, it wasn’t the time you said ‘Oh, it was the year I got that train,’ or ‘the year I got those cuff links,’ or ‘when I got those earrings.’ That’s the principle difference. We’re trying so hard to be good and to let people know that we love them, but the things that we love about other people and that they love about us have nothing to do with material goods.”
Graham: “There’s a certain expection during the holidays, though, that we will get something nice for the people we love and here at this mall as we’re looking around, there are lots of enticements to fulfill that expectation.”
Lilienfeld: “That’s true, but we’ve been led to believe that more is better, and to a great extent more gifts is not better than fewer gifts. Quality and quantity are very different kinds of thoughts and we’ve been led to believe economically that quantity is more important. But, in reality it’s the qualitative aspects of life that we long remember and really are the ones we treasure.”
Graham: “Now from the news media, I get the impression that if I don’t do my part during the holidays in shopping, that it’s really going to hurt a lot of Americans, the American economy. $220-billion during the holiday season. It’s 25-percent of retailers’ business. So, if I don’t buy or if I scale back my buying, won’t I be hurting the economy?”
Lilienfeld: “It’s always been 25-percent of retailers’ business, even if you go back 30 or 40 years, and that’s probably not going to change. It comes down to your thinking through what’s good for you, what’s good for your family, what’s good for your friends and not worrying so much about what’s good for the economy and what’s good for big companies.”
Retailers are expecting sales to be better this year than last year. So, that simpler lifestyle that Lilienfeld is talking about is not widespread enough to have any real impact on the overall shopping season. But apparently the economy isn’t strong everywhere.
We talked to some shoppers about their holiday shopping plans and the idea of simplifying things. Many of them told us that the economy was forcing them to cut back on gift buying…
Shopper 1: “Well, because of my limited budget, I have to buy, like – I have a list – and I have to buy one at a time, so, being pretty poor is being pretty simple. I’m kind of already living that way.”
Shopper 2: “I don’t need to celebrate Christmas by buying people gifts. And I can give people gifts all year long. And I — Christmas is kind of sham-y to me.”
Shopper 3: “This year, yeah, my family is like, ‘Don’t get me anything.’ I’m going to do something, but hopefully it will be smaller and less expensive and all that.”
Shopper 4: “Well, I don’t feel compelled to buy something because an economist says it’s my part as an American. And I think people are going to get smarter and smarter about how they spend their money and the almighty dollar.”
With the constant messages on television, radio, the Internet and newspapers to spend, there’s a lot of persusive power by advertisers to buy now and think about the cost later.
Since Bob Lilienfeld is such an advocate of a simpler lifestyle, it makes you wonder about his own shopping habits.
Graham: “Do you ever find yourself in the shopping mall, buying stuff for the folks you have on your Christmas list or your holiday list?”
Lilienfeld: “All the time. But, what I try to do is two things. One is think about the fact that more isn’t necessarily better. But the other thing I really try and do is look for gifts that are what I call ‘experiential’ as opposed to material. Tickets. Things where people can go to plays or operas or ball games so that they have an experience. Same thing with travel. I mean, if I could give my father a gift or if I could help him afford to go somewhere, like to see me and the kids, that gift is probably worth a lot more to both of us than if I just gave him a couple of bottles of wine.”
And Lilienfeld says you don’t waste as much wrapping paper when you wrap up tickets.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
