Some say that the use of air-friendly gas blends causes prices to increase. (Photo by Pam Roth)
The new energy legislation passed by Congress
includes an item that supporters claim will ease spikes in gasoline prices. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The new energy legislation signed by the President includes an item that supporters claim will ease spikes in gasoline prices. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Critics claim the system of using special gasoline blends to reduce air
pollution has led to sizable price hikes when production problems reduce
supplies of the so-called boutique fuels.
The energy legislation would allow the temporary lifting of cleaner fuel mandates during supply disruptions. The EPA would also limit the number of boutique fuels and look for ways to
make the blends more widely available.
Wisconsin Republican House Member Paul Ryan says the new plan will bring stability.
“So we can standardize our gasoline blends, maintain our clean air standards, but stabilize the supply of gasoline.”
Ryan admits it may take several years for motorists to see any savings. Democrats worried about air pollution and oil companies concerned about additional regulations have traditionally blocked changes in the fuel supply system, but with gas prices around two fifty a gallon, the federal
government is taking action.
The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its plans to adopt a controversial policy for sewage treatment plants. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency has dropped its plans to
adopt a controversial policy for sewage treatment plants. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush reports:
The EPA was planning to sanction a practice known as sewage blending.
Sewage blending is used when treatment plants are hit with large volumes of
storm water. Partially treated sewage is blended with fully treated
sewage, and then released into nearby waterways.
Mike Shriberg is with the Public Interest Research Group. He says the
announcement is a positive step for clean water.
“What would’ve happened if this policy had passed is that sewage blending
would’ve become the end game. It would’ve been what wastewater treatment
plants do to treat sewage anytime that it rains. Now that option is gone.
So the plants that are doing it now have just been told that they need to
fully treat sewage in the future.”
The EPA said it dropped its proposal after receiving more than 98,000 public
comments. The announcement came shortly before Congress
was to vote on a bill to stop the sewage blending proposal.
Ford has started converting some of the traditional, gasoline-fueled engines into hydrogen-powered engines. (Photo by Szekér Ottó)
Automakers from around the world spent last week showing off their latest concepts and production cars at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Many car companies announced plans to begin producing more hybrid vehicles. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports other environmental technologies got some attention as well, including a new way to use hydrogen to fuel the vehicles of the future:
Transcript
Automakers from around the world spent last week showing off their latest concepts and production cars at the North American International Auto Show in Detroit. Many car companies announced plans to begin producing more hybrid vehicles. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports other environmental technologies got some attention as well, including a new way to use hydrogen to fuel the vehicles of the future:
Many automakers now say that cars ultimately will be powered by hydrogen fuel cells. Fuel cells consume hydrogen to generate electricity to power a motor, while leaving on water as waste. There are problems with cells. They’re really expensive right now. And there aren’t many hydrogen re-fueling stations. Ford Motor Company thinks it has a solution. It’s converting some standard gasoline engines to burn hydrogen. Ford’s chief engineer for the system, Vance Zanardelli, says the new engine is a necessary step.
“In order to get people familiar with hydrogen as a fuel, realizing it is a clean, safe fuel, in order to help spur the development of more hydrogen fueling stations, the development of revised codes and standards, and really lay the groundwork, so that when fuel cells are ready for primetime, the world is ready for them.”
Ford plans to begin testing some of the new hydrogen-burning engines in shuttle busses next year.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better
than burning fossil fuel to create electricity. But “green energy”
alternatives
can be controversial. Windmill farms are springing up all across the
nation.
Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others say windmill farms
can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers. In the second of a two-part series on wind energy, the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:
Transcript
Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better than burning fossil
fuel to create
electricity. But “green energy” alternatives can be controversial. Windmill farms
are springing
up all across the nation. Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others
say windmill
farms can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:
For 30 years, Matt Mauer raised crops and livestock on his farm about 10 miles from
the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Today, he’s in his backyard looking at the land now farmed by
his daughter
and son-in-law. Standing there, he feels a crop they’re not harvesting.
“The good Lord makes it windy all the time for us, so let’s use it, you know.
Because I’m like
everybody else. When I get up in the morning, I want lights.”
Mauer’s hoping to put four wind turbines on his family’s farm near Ludington,
Michigan. That
would power about 24-hundred homes. Nearby, a renewable energy company’s working with
other farmers to build a hundred turbines in the area. Mauer says many of his
neighbors want in
on the deal because they think wind energy could help save their farms.
“It’s hard to make a living just farming right now. And I consider the wind one of
the crops that
we could harvest. It will help keep farmers on the land. Like if, in this place, if
we could get
seven–thousand dollars a year, six-thousand dollars a year for four of them, that’d
make it a hell
of a lot easier to keep the people here and farm.”
The state government’s backing similar projects. It’s training financial advisors
to show farmers
how they can turn a profit with windmills.
But not everyone likes the idea. Some people who live in the area around the
planned windmills
say they’re worried the towers would destroy the region’s charm. That’s linked to
property values
and to tourism. And they don’t like the size of the proposed windmills. Each one
would be four-
hundred feet tall. The blades would have a diameter nearly as long as a football
field.
It’s a story that’s heard in many places. Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the prairies of
Illinois, and
around the Great Lakes. For example, a Michigan couple who wanted large-scale
turbines on
their property ended up losing a court-battle against local government that opposed
the plan. And
two turbines already in place in Mackinaw City – between Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron –
have some unhappy neighbors as well.
Thomas and Virginia Alexander’s home is about 15-hundred feet away from the windmills.
They’re in their eighties and they both wear hearing aids… but even without them,
they say the
windmills are loud…
Tom Alexander: “There’s things about it we don’t appreciate, at times the noise –
not always –
depending upon the wind and the direction.
Virginia Alexander: “Yesterday. Very noisy yesterday. The wind was high and they,
you could
really hear them.”
Tom Alexander: “Just a continual swish, swish, swish, swish, swish.”
Windmill developers say the sound is no louder than normal speech. But this noise is
different. It
goes beyond the frequencies of normal speech. The sound can travel long distances
through both
the ground and the air. They keep Virginia Alexander awake some nights.
Tom and Virginia Alexander’s son Kelly lives next door with his family. He calls
himself a
windmill victim. He has this advice for others:
“Don’t let them go in your backyard. There are places they can go. You don’t just
put those in
somebody’s backyard. I don’t think it’s right.”
A lot of people agree with the Alexanders. Even wind energy boosters concede that
location is
key to successful projects. David Johnson heads up the program for the state of
Michigan that’s
encouraging farmers to allow windmills on their land. He says turbines should be
constructed
where there’s lots of wind and few neighbors. But he says when people say ‘no’ to
windmills,
they should consider the alternative.
“So, does that mean that you should build another big coal-fired plant? Is that the
preferable way
of doing it with the global warming impacts and the mercury pollution and so on that
go with
that? Is that the choice that the public wants to make?
States across the nation are struggling to find the right balance between clean
energy and the
beauty of an uncluttered landscape. Few regulations are in place right now. More
and more,
communities will be facing the decision of whether clean energy and keeping farmers
on the land
is worth the price of adding wind turbines to the scenery.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Linda Stephan.
Here’s a last-minute gift idea for a green-thinking loved one. A New York-based environmental group will retire a pollution credit in someone’s honor. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein explains:
Transcript
Here’s a last-minute gift idea for a green-thinking loved one. A New York-
based environmental group will retire a pollution credit in someone’s honor.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein explains:
The Environmental Protection Agency issues pollution credits to power
plants. Each one allows them to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide from their
smokestack.
Several years ago, one power company donated 10,000 of the credits to the
Adirondack Council. The group’s a non-profit working to reduce acid rain.
Instead of trading them on the open market, where they can fetch up to 800
dollars apiece, the Council decided to retire the credits. Spokesman John
Sheehan says for 50 bucks, the group will send someone a gift certificate.
“That certificate will show that that person has removed essentially one ton
of sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere permanently and that that pollution
will never go up a smokestack anywhere in the country, and it will help
clean up the Adirondacks and the rest of the United States at the same time.”
Sheehan says the Adirondack Council has about 3,000 credits left. His staff
will be around until Thursday to help people give the gift of cleaner air this
Christmas.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.
A new federal fund designed to clean up pollution hotspots along the Great Lakes is being underfunded. Money promised from Congress is coming in much smaller amounts than originally pledged. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
Transcript
A new federal fund designed to clean up pollution hotspots along the Great Lakes is being
underfunded. Money promised from Congress is coming in much smaller amounts than
originally pledged. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports:
The Great Lakes Legacy Act was passed by Congress in 2002… with a promise of 54 million
dollars a year for five years to clean up some of the 31 so-called “Areas of Concern”… the most
heavily polluted areas along the Great Lakes.
But in 2004, the first year money was allocated, only 10 million dollars was released by
Congress. Even so, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Scientist Mark Tuchman says this is
money available for clean up now… a change from the notoriously slow Superfund process.
“This is a focused program. The focus is on contaminated sediments at AOCs. So we’re
optimistic that this program can start making a significant dent in the contaminated sediment
problem in these Great Lakes sites.”
Congress is allocating 24 million dollars for Great Lakes clean up projects in 2005. That’s still
less than half the annual amount promised.
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.
Work is now being done to reduce mercury emissions. Pennsylvania pioneers an incentive program for the removal of mercury switches from cars. (Photo by Davide Guglielmo)
One of the nation’s top sources of mercury emissions is
scrap automobiles. U.S. automobiles built before 2003 used mercury in light and brake switches. When those cars are recycled, the mercury can escape into the air. Now one state in the region is working to prevent that from happening. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Brad Linder reports:
Transcript
One of the nation’s top sources of mercury emissions is scrap automobiles.
U.S. automobiles built before 2003 used mercury in light and brake
switches. When those cars are recycled, the mercury can escape into the
air. Now one state in the region is working to prevent that from
happening. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Brad Linder reports:
Mercury is a neurotoxin that can be found in the air, water, and soil.
Pregnant women who eat fish with high levels of mercury might see
developmental delays in their children after they’re born.
Pennsylvania is the first state in the nation to offer a bounty on mercury
switches from cars. This month, the state started offering a dollar per
switch to automobile recyclers.
Kathleen McGinty heads the state’s Department of Environmental Protection.
She says the goal is to reclaim 350-thousand switches, or nearly 600
pounds of mercury over the next two years. The material will be sent to
mercury recyclers.
“They safely take that mercury, they clean it up, they put it back into some products where it is still essential that we still use mercury.”
McGinty says the mercury can be reused in products ranging from
fluorescent lighting to dental fillings. She says mercury emissions from scrap automobiles are second only to coal-burning power plants in Pennsylvania.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Brad Linder.
Many groups, including environmentalists and industry lobbyists, are scrutinizing the presidential candidates' opinions on environmental policy. (Photo courtesy of georgewbush.com)
The presidential candidates haven’t spent a lot of time talking about conservation or the environment. On the campaign trail, nature has taken a backseat to the economy and security. In the first of four reports on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the environmental record of President George W. Bush:
Transcript
The presidential candidates haven’t spent a lot of time talking about conservation or the
environment. On the campaign trail, nature has taken a backseat to the economy and security. In
the first of four reports on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at the environmental record of President George W. Bush:
President Bush doesn’t often use the words “environment” or “environmental.” He prefers
“conservation.” It’s part of his philosophy. He believes we should manage resources and believes
the government has tipped the scales too far in favor of preservationists at the expense of business and agriculture. On his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush likes to exercise by cutting brush to manage nature. It’s could be a metaphor for how he sees the larger issue. It seemed that way when he talked about his approach to the environment during the second debate.
“I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land. The quality of the air’s cleaner since I’ve been the President. Fewer water complaints since I’ve been the President. More land being restored since I’ve been the President.”
While President Bush believes he’s striking the right balance between conserving natural
resources and not regulating business excessively, many environmentalists think the Bush
Administration’s approach to environmental issues is way out of whack.
Betsey Loyless is the Vice President of Policy for the League of Conservation Voters. The LCV
keeps track of votes and issues and grades politicians on their decisions.
“League of Conservation Voters gave George Bush an “F,” the first “F” we’ve ever given out in
modern history to a president because his policies of anti-environmentalism spread across the
board of dirty air, dirty water, degrading our public lands and jeopardizing our energy future by
focusing on 19th century energy policies that don’t meet our 21st century needs.”
President Bush largely ignores criticism from environmental groups. He sees them as extremists.
On the campaign trail, he frames the debate about the environment in terms of finding a better
balance between the protecting the environment and keeping jobs.
“If we want to keep jobs here in America and expand the job base, America must be the best place
in the world to do business. That means less regulations on our business owners.”
You would think that would make business and industry-types happy. But even there, the
President has his critics. The free-market supporters are disappointed in George Bush. They feel
he should have stuck to the ideas he had when he was running for president four years ago: Roll
back regulations that some businesses say cost a lot of money with little benefit to the
environment. The Property and Environment Research Center – self-described as the center for
free market environmentalism – gave the President a “C-minus” grade on his mid-term report card
because the free-market thinkers believe the Bush Administration compromised its original
proposals to please environmentalists and ended up pleasing no one.
Even some in President’s own party are unhappy with the Bush administration’s dealings with the
environment. The group, Republicans for Environmental Protection, backed by former Republican
EPA Administrators and other prominent Republicans say the President got it wrong. Jim DiPeso
is the group’s Policy Director. His group believes the Bush administration could have done more to
protect the environment.
“Well, our board took a look at the issue and decided that President Bush had not earned our
support based on his record over the last four years. So, because we have a policy of not
endorsing Democrats, the only alternative that we had in order to express our disappointment was
simply to withhold an endorsement for the presidential race this year.”
But the majority of Republicans say the President is making progress on environmental issues.
Lynn Scarlett is one of the architects of the Bush environmental policy. She is Assistant Secretary
of the Department of Interior’s Office of Policy Management and Budget.
“This administration has the highest dollars ever expended by any administration going towards
environmental protection whether it’s on the pollution side and pollution clean up or on the land
management and conservation side. We have a number of new programs the President initiated.
So, there is an awful lot that is occurring that is getting results on the ground.”
President Bush believes the government should be partners with private landowners and
industry… encouraging them to be more environmentally friendly instead of relying on regulations
to mandate less pollution and better stewardship of the land. Environmentalists say that leaves too much to chance and the potential cost to the planet is too dear.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
As Kerry and Bush battle it out, different groups examine the candidates' views on the environment. (Photo by Sharon Farmer courtesy of johnkerry.com)
The candidates for president and vice president have spent a lot of time talking about security, the economy, and health care. They have not spent much time talking about the environment. As part of a series on the records of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry:
Transcript
The candidates for president and vice president have spent a lot of time talking about security, the economy, and health care. They have not spent much time talking about the environment. As part of a series on the records of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry:
Senator Kerry considers himself an environmentalist. Kerry’s Senate office website indicates that
30 years ago, he spoke at his home state of Massachusetts’ first Earth Day. The Senator says he
called for “fundamental protections that became the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Superfund.” However, he doesn’t often talk about how he
would handle the environment. Early in the campaign in this speech in Minnesota, he promised to
be a guardian of the environment and he briefly outlined his energy plan…
“I will set a goal as president that 20 percent of all of our electricity will be provided from
alternatives and renewables by the year 2020. And I will set this country on the course by creating a hydrogen institute, by putting a billion dollars into the effort of conversion of our autos, by moving to a 20 billion dollar support for the conversion of our industry, we are going to guarantee that never will young American men and women in uniform be held hostage to our dependency on Mideast oil. We’re going to give our children the independence they deserve.”
When the topic of the environment came up during the second presidential candidates’ debate,
Senator Kerry didn’t outline his own plans, but instead responded to President George Bush’s
claims that the environment was cleaner and better under the Bush administration.
“They’re going backwards on the definition for wetlands. They’re going backwards on water
quality. They pulled out of the global warming. They declared it ‘dead.’ Didn’t even accept the
science. I’m going to be a president who believes in science.”
During the negotiations on the Kyoto global warming treaty Senator Kerry went to Kyoto and
worked to craft a plan to reduce greenhouse gases that could pass political hurdles in the U.S. He
was a leader in the effort to stop a Bush proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Environmental groups like what they see and have been enthusiastic about their support for the
candidate. Betsey Loyless is with the League of Conservation Voters…
“Senator Kerry, who has, by the way, a 92 percent lifetime LCV score, has quite a remarkable
overall consistent record of voting to protect clean air, clean water and protect our natural
resources.”
But while the environmentalists like John Kerry, some business and industry groups that feel the
federal government’s environmental protection efforts have become burdensome and ineffective
aren’t that impressed…
“Well, John Kerry – yeah, he got a stronger LCV rating than even Al Gore. Now, pause and think
about that, okay?”
Chris Horner is a Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank. Horner says he doesn’t like many of Kerry’s positions, but adds he doesn’t think Senator Kerry’s environmental record is as strong as the support from environmental groups might indicate…
“Let’s just say that a lot of the support that comes for Kerry is not through leadership he’s shown in the Congress because he really hasn’t. It’s that he says the right things and that his wife certainly puts the money in the right place.”
Horner suggests that Teresa Heinz Kerry has given large sums of money to environmental
groups… and Horner thinks that’s helped her husband’s political career. Whether you give
credence to those kind of conspiracy theories or not… it’s clear that the environmental groups
prefer Kerry over Bush. The Kerry campaign’s Environmental and Energy Policy Director,
Heather Zichal, says the environmentalists like him… because of his record.
“He’s been called an environmental – dubbed an “environmental champion” and has received the
endorsements of everybody from the Sierra Club to Friends of the Earth. And for him, you know,
environmental protection is not only a matter of what’s in the best interest of public health, but it also is what’s in the best interest of our economy going forward. George Bush has given us the
wrong choices when he says you have to have either the environment or a strong economy. John Kerry believes we can have both.”
But the environment has not been a major issue in the campaign. Conventional wisdom seems to
indicate those who are prone to support pro-environment candidates are already on-board with
Kerry… and the undecided voters have weightier issues on their minds.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
Some say that the use of air-friendly gas blends causes prices to increase. (Photo by Pam Roth)
