Earlier this summer, a state agency gave a refinery permission to increase pollution in
the Great Lakes. Commentator Cameron Davis takes a look at lessons learned and
what they mean for the future of the nation’s waterways:
Transcript
Earlier this summer, a state agency gave a refinery permission to increase pollution in
the Great Lakes. Commentator Cameron Davis takes a look at lessons learned and
what they mean for the future of the nation’s waterways:
When the Indiana Department of Environmental Management gave approval for BP’s
refinery to pollute more in Lake Michigan, who would have guessed that within weeks
more than 100,000 people would sign petitions against the proposal?
The people of the region seemed to instinctively know that more pollution had to be
stopped. After all, millions of us rely on Lake Michigan for drinking water and recreation.
Of course, coverage of the pollution proposal took off, with the Chicago Sun-
Times calling for a boycott of BP gasoline. The New York Times and CBS
Evening News ran national pieces about the pollution increases. A bi-partisan coalition
of politicians from neighboring states cried foul, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley,
U.S. Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama, Representatives Rahm Emanuel, Mark Kirk, Jan
Schakowsky, Vern Ehlers and the entire Michigan Congressional delegation, among
others.
But while the media, elected officials, and even those of us in the conservation
community talked about the permit, the real story wasn’t about the permit. It wasn’t
about its allowance for 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more suspended
solids from treated sludge to be discharged.
It wasn’t even an argument about jobs versus the environment. That debate was discounted long
ago by the many businesses that decided or were mandated to pollute less and then
still prospered.
The real story was what you, the public, said and what you are saying now: how we
treat the Great Lakes is emblematic of how we treat our waterways all around the
country. You’re saying that you want a new standard of care for the nation’s waters. You
don’t want the standard to be “to keep things from getting worse.” You don’t want the
status quo. You want our waters to be proactively restored. You want it better.
Like those of us who used to be in the cub scouts, inspired to leave our campsites
better than the way we found them, you want the standard for our waters to be: leave
things better for the next generation.
HOST TAG: Cameron Davis is the president of the Alliance for the Great Lakes.
Farming is big business in America's heartland. Many farmers say they want to be left alone to run their farms the way they always have - and they don't want government regulators or researchers dictating to them. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Farm pollution is the biggest water contamination problem in the
nation. But government agencies often struggle with getting farmers to
use less polluting farming methods. Many farmers say they don’t want
outsiders telling them what to do. Rebecca Williams reports one
grassroots project is trying to encourage farmers to change, by relying
on peer pressure:
Transcript
Farm pollution is the biggest water contamination problem in the
nation. But government agencies often struggle with getting farmers to
use less polluting farming methods. Many farmers say they don’t want
outsiders telling them what to do. Rebecca Williams reports one
grassroots project is trying to encourage farmers to change, by relying
on peer pressure:
(Sound of birds and buzzing insects)
The corn around here is way over knee high, and there’s a whole lot of
it. This is Iowa, after all. So, pretty much everyone farms corn and
soybeans.
But there isn’t as much farming happening today. Dozens of farmers are
hanging out by a creek that meanders through farmland. They’re
checking out the day’s catch.
(Sound of splashing around in bucket)
“Now there’s one really bright-colored southern red belly in here, kind
of the prettiest fish we’ve got in this stretch.”
Biologist Dan Kirby just used an electroshocker. It stuns the fish and
they float to the top of the water. Now that he can see them, he can
get an idea of how many fish there are and how big they are. The
farmers are watching closely.
(Farmer:) “That’s a real good sign to see them that big, at this
point?”
(Kirby:) “Yeah, especially the southern red belly – they do classify
them a little bit different, they consider them to be a sensitive
species, so it’s a good thing to have them there at that adult size,
for sure.”
That’s better news than they might’ve been expecting. This creek
running along many of the farmers’ fields is in trouble. It’s on
Iowa’s impaired waters list. In this case, that means the fish and
other aquatic life in the creek are not doing as well as they should
be.
“In some of these streams we have had some rough times. Chronic issues
where fish were not even getting to size they could catch them or else
were just plain absent.”
Dan Kirby says farm pollution such as excess fertilizer and soil
erosion from farm fields can harm fish and other stream life. That’s
the kind of thing that put this creek on the government’s watch list
three years ago.
One of the farmers, Jeff Pape, remembers hearing about that. For him it was a big
red flag:
“We knew there was an impaired waterway and it was running through some
of the land I rent and obviously I don’t want that to shine on me… I
didn’t want the DNR – not that they would or have the time to do
it, but I didn’t want them to come in and say hey, you will be doing
this, or you will be doing that.”
Pape says the fear of being dictated to by the government was a strong
motivator for him and a few of his neighbors. In late 2004, Pape
formed a watershed council with nine of his farming neighbors.
Now there are nearly 50 farmers in the group. Pape says there are some ground
rules: No finger pointing. And everyone gets equal say:
“That’s nice with this group – nobody’s telling them they have to do
anything – they do what they want when they want and that’s it. You
know, they don’t do any more than they want to.”
Pape says he’s proud of what he and his neighbors have gotten done.
They’re installing grass strips along ditches and creeks to filter
water rushing off fields. They’re putting in fences to keep cattle
from tearing up stream beds and banks. They’re being more careful
about how much fertilizer they apply.
Maybe most importantly, they’ve gotten a lot of their neighbors to join
them. Jeff Pape says cash incentives help – farmers are paid for the
conservation projects they do. It’s not as much money as some of the
government’s conservation programs, but it keeps the government out of
their hair.
Pape says this program works because there’s an even stronger
motivation:
“That guy’s looking over your fence – he sees you ain’t got a waterway
and you’re thinking about it, so that peer pressure thing does make a
difference too. You know everybody’s watching each other in this
watershed – not pointing fingers at nobody but everybody’s watching
each other and that keeps people on their toes – they want things to
look right, too.”
Other farmers here agree that a farmer-to-farmer project is going to be
much more effective than anything government regulators or researchers
say.
John Rodecap is with Iowa State University Extension Service. He’s
been helping these farmers clean up the creek. He says it’s remarkable
that more than half of the farmers in this 23,000-acre watershed have
signed on.
“The trials that they do, they talk about it at their coffee shop, they
talk about it over the fence… If the trial’s done 50, 60, 100 miles
away, that’s not good enough. They want to know how it’s gonna work on
my farm.”
Rodecap says if you see your neighbor making a change first, you’re
going to feel a little more comfortable giving it a try yourself. And
knowing your neighbor’s watching you over the fence… that’s a powerful
incentive all its own.
A new report says true wilderness is vanishing. The authors say we
might need to rethink conservation. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A new report says true wilderness is vanishing. The authors say we
might need to rethink conservation. Rebecca Williams reports:
The report in the journal Science says we might need to think
differently about how we protect wild areas. There are very few places
left on Earth that haven’t been touched by people.
The authors say that as of 1995, only 17% of the planet’s land area had
remained untouched. They’re defining true wilderness as places without
any people, roads, crops or lights detectable at night by satellite.
They say there’s some land set aside in wilderness preserves…
but it’s just 1% of Earth’s land area.
The authors of the report include two Nature Conservancy scientists.
They say population growth might make traditional views of conservation
unsustainable.
They argue we might have to focus more on managing nature and the
services it provides… instead of trying to keep people out of
wilderness areas.
The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The bald eagle population in the US has recovered, but critics worry
that without Endangered Species Act protection some landowners and
developers could carelessly harm a lot of the large birds. So, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a permit that would authorize
very limited killing or harming of eagles during otherwise lawful
activity.
Service Director Dale Hall says the permit would also let eagle nests
be moved if they pose a threat to human safety, such as near airport
runways:
“We expect to issue very few of these permits, since they would only be
available for safety emergencies.”
Conservation groups pushed the government for clearer plans to protect
the bald eagle, and generally welcome the new language. But a public
comment period could bring additional changes.
A program is trying to save another
native tree that’s being wiped out by an invasive
fungus. People who like the butternut are hoping
that by planting more seedlings, and tracking
mature trees, they’ll find some are resistant
to a blight that’s killing the butternuts.
Lucy Martin reports:
Transcript
A program is trying to save another
native tree that’s being wiped out by an invasive
fungus. People who like the butternut are hoping
that by planting more seedlings, and tracking
mature trees, they’ll find some are resistant
to a blight that’s killing the butternuts.
Lucy Martin reports:
Butternuts are rich in history. Native Americans used the tree for
medicine and dye. They ate the nuts. During the Civil War, so many
Confederates used the tree’s yellow-brown dye to make home-spun
uniforms that their army picked up the nickname “butternuts.”
Wood ducks, finches and songbirds eat the tree’s spring buds. The fall
nut crop feeds woodpeckers, turkeys, squirrels and other wildlife.
The tree’s hard wood resembles walnut, but with a lighter, golden tone.
That’s why it’s sometimes called “white walnut.”
The trees are seriously threatened by butternut canker, an invasive,
airborne fungus. The blight was first noted in Wisconsin in 1967. In
some states, up to 90% of all butternuts are now affected, but there’s
work underway to try to save the butternut before it’s wiped out.
Tucked in an old orchard, a cold-storage room serves as a distribution
station. Each spring, this is where the Rideau Valley Conservation
Authority gives away seedling trees to the public. Project technician
Rose Fleguel gave me the tour:
“So, I think there’s about 100,000 seedlings here. These are boxed or
bagged so that the trees stay moist and dark. We’ve already spent two
days re-packing into individual landowner tree orders.”
At this time of year, the dormant seedlings just look like twiggy
sticks. Many are still wrapped in brown paper sacks. Conservation
agencies plant all kinds of trees. But sometimes they target very
specific problems, like butternut canker.
“My thing is the Butternut Recovery Project, whatever amount of land
can sustain 10 seedlings, then you’re free to take the seedlings and
plant them out. ‘Cause what we’d like to do is get the seedlings out on
the landscape, get them growing. Replace the ones that have been killed
by this disease, already, and that continue to be killed, and hope for,
I mean, it’s going to be, it’s going to be a shot in the dark, but hope
that maybe some of these seedlings might be resistant.”
“Hope” is the key word. It’s not clear whether any butternuts are
resistant to the canker blight. The seedlings being handed out are
from trees that are still healthy. This recovery program also maps
mature trees and keeps track of the ones that still seem to be canker-
free. It’s a long shot, called “find the resistance.”
Rudy Dyck is the Director of the local Watershed Stewardship Services.
He says you can usually see if a butternut has been attacked by the
disease:
“Look for black patches, black streaks, black sooty areas on
the main stem, at the root collar, and always look on the underside of
the large branches, because that seems to be where the canker first
infects.”
“And if you notice that, is there anything to be done?”
“No, there’s nothing you can do. We’re asking people to keep them, as
long as they can. But one of the reasons that butternut is in such
extreme danger of extinction is that it just does not regenerate very
well.”
Dyck says that’s why it’s important to conserve existing trees.
Butternuts don’t bear seed each and every year. And when they do, the
nuts tend to get gobbled up. Growing new butternuts takes a few tricks:
“You have to stratify them, or prepare them for growing, the next
spring. So they have to spend a few months in kind of freezing
temperatures, an un-insulated garage in a pot of peat moss, or
something. Another strategy some people do, is they bury the nuts in
the fall, and they cover them with chicken wire, and then that protects
them from squirrels during that fall period and, as they start to grow
next spring, you can transplant them.”
Dyck says US and Canadian agencies are sharing ideas and results
because diseases don’t stop at borders:
“There’s literally thousands and thousands of heavily cankered, dying
butternuts out there, and we really want to focus on looking at
healthy, canker-free trees. Because those are the trees we want to get
into our geo-data base, for future seed collection, those are the trees
that may hold some resistance and those are the trees we want to
track.”
Butternut canker isn’t a well-known problem. The beautiful trees are
too big for most yards. They’re usually sparsely scattered in forests,
or old farmsteads. But Dyck says the butternut has an important place
in nature.
“There’s no question, bio-diversity and having many, many types of
ecosystems, habitats, species. They all interact, they all count on
each other, and it all makes for a healthier environment and place for
us all to live.”
Many native trees such as the chestnut, elm, and now the ash, are under
attack from invasive diseases or pests. The butternut is yet another
tree biologists want to save for future generations.
Corn requires more fossil fuel-based nitrogen fertilizer than many other crops. Tanks of pressurized anhydrous ammonia fixes nitrogen in the soil, but heavy rains can wash nitrogen into waterways. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Farmers are paid to put grassy strips to act as buffer zones along waterways. Some farmers don't sign up for the program. With higher corn prices and a moratorium on the program, more farmers might be tempted to plow right to the edge of streams. (Photo by Lester Graham)
In the fall and spring, farmers incorporate nitrogen into fields to fertilize crops. However, some of the nitrogen ends up polluting waterways. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Pressure to plant more corn for ethanol will mean about 12 million acres more corn this year. It will also mean more pressure to put land into production that should be set aside to protect the environment. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Government-funded programs that pay for
conservation on farmland have done a lot to
improve the environment over the past twenty
years. The federal government has paid farmers
to take some cropland and set it aside to protect
waterways and wildlife habitat. In the second of
our two-part series on ethanol, Julie Grant reports
that some of that conservation is being stalled:
Transcript
Government-funded programs that pay for
conservation on farmland have done a lot to
improve the environment over the past twenty
years. The federal government has paid farmers
to take some cropland and set it aside to protect
waterways and wildlife habitat. In the second of
our two-part series on ethanol, Julie Grant reports
that some of that conservation is being stalled:
A good hard rain can wash a lot of valuable soil off a farm field.
John Wallbrown grows corn and soybeans on his farm. He says losing
soil is just like losing money. The soil carries with it all the
nutrients he’s put in the fields to help the crops grow, things such as
nitrogen and phosphorous. Wallbrown says he’s put in a good number of
grass waterways through the fields to help filter the water and hold on
to that soil:
“And so when you put in a grass waterway, it dramatically reduces the
amount of erosion. And it is just better for the water supply, better
for our crop. We’re keeping our soil in our field as opposed to it
getting put away.”
What Wallbrown calls nutrients in the field are considered pollution
once they wash into rivers and lakes. So Wallbrown says planting grass
near waterways is good for everyone. Except it means he’s got to use
land that otherwise could be growing crops, and that’s a loss of
income.
Wallbrown has gotten various government assistance to offset those
losses. The largest program, is called the Conservation Reserve Program, known as the
CRP for short.
John Johnson is with the US Department of Agriculture. He says when
you add up all the farms like John Wallbrown’s around the country, the
CRP is making a huge difference in reducing agricultural runoff into
waterways:
“Over 450 million tons of topsoil annually are prevented from eroding
because of CRP. We’ve got lots of really good benchmarks and measurements of
success of CRP, in both water quality, soil erosion and wildlife
habitat.”
But that set-aside land is in demand these days. There’s been a huge
call for bio-fuels to help reduce American dependence on foreign oil.
Bio-fuels are made from crops such as soybeans and corn, especially
corn. So Johnson says the government has decided to stop enrolling
new farmland into the conservation program:
“The overriding concern was that there is a need for a larger supply of
corn and soybeans and wheat production right now, so given the need for
that production, let’s just take a pause right now from enrolling large
acreage of additional farmland into the CRP.”
Corn is used to make ethanol, a fuel that’s now commonly blended with
gasoline. That’s caused corn prices to nearly double so farmers say
they’re planting 12 million acres more corn this year than last year.
That’s the most corn grown in the US in more than 50 years.
Ralph Grossi, director of the American Farmland Trust, says corn needs a
lot more nitrogen fertilizer than other crops. And when it rains,
nitrogen moves quickly from the fields to the waterways. That’s
especially true when grass strips don’t filter the runoff.
Grossi says that nitrogen drains into creeks and rivers from 36 states
into the Mississippi River and eventually to the Gulf of Mexico. There
it causes huge algae blooms that then die, sink, and the decaying
matter causes low oxygen in the water called hypoxia. That’s why the
Corn Belt has been blamed for creating a huge dead zone in the Gulf of
Mexico each year:
“If you increase corn production and don’t add the conservation practices
it will add nutrients and exacerbate problems in the gulf with hypoxia.
But it’s not just in the gulf, it’s problems for every local water
district that has to purify water for drinking and other urban
purposes. As they have to contend with more nutrients, that increases
their costs of cleaning the water.”
Grossi says the best place to clean the water is at the source. He
says that’s why the government must continue to help farmers pay for
grass waterways and buffer strips – those things prevent farm nutrients
from getting into the water in the first place. He says the need for
grass waters is even greater now that so much farmland is being planted
in corn to meet the demand for more ethanol.
Scientists warn that we’re in the middle of a mass extinction. Frogs,
toads and other amphibians are dying off at an alarming rate. Rebecca
Williams reports a group of scientists wants to build an ark to stop
the extinctions:
Transcript
Scientists warn that we’re in the middle of a mass extinction. Frogs,
toads and other amphibians are dying off at an alarming rate. Rebecca
Williams reports a group of scientists wants to build an ark to stop
the extinctions:
In the last few decades, hundreds of amphibian species have gone
extinct. And several thousand more are on the verge of extinction.
One major threat is a killer fungus that’s wiping them out. Other
threats are habitat destruction and pollution.
A group called Amphibian Ark has announced a 40 million dollar plan.
They want to build special facilities at zoos and aquariums around the
world to take in endangered amphibians and keep them alive.
Kevin Zippel is the group’s amphibian program officer:
“The amphibian extinction crisis is probably the greatest species
conservation challenge in the history of humanity in terms of the
number of species in one group that’s being impacted.”
Zippel says putting frogs and toads into zoos is not a solution. But
he says he hopes it will buy time for more research… and eventually
get the animals re-established in the wild.
These polar bears lives at the Pittsburgh zoo where food is plentiful. In the wild, however, global warming might be making it harder for the bears to find food.
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
(Photo by Reid Frazier)
If global warming is represented by one symbol, it
might be the polar bear. It’s an icon of the North
Polar region. Now, federal biologists have asked that
polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. They’re the first species to be considered
for protection because of global warming. Reid Frazier
reports that the polar bear might help connect the
abstract idea of global warming with the concrete
actions of people in their homes:
Transcript
If global warming is represented by one symbol, it
might be the polar bear. It’s an icon of the North
Polar region. Now, federal biologists have asked that
polar bears be listed as threatened under the Endangered
Species Act. They’re the first species to be considered
for protection because of global warming. Reid Frazier
reports that the polar bear might help connect the
abstract idea of global warming with the concrete
actions of people in their homes:
(Sound of kids talking to polar bears)
Parents and children gather around a large window to watch Nuka and
Koda frolick in the aqua water tank. The polar bears are having a
blast. They splash and dive, play with foam toys, and duck their heads
underwater to look around. The young brothers are only two-years-old
and already they weigh 600 pounds each. These bears, born and raised in
zoos, eat about 18 pounds of food a day. But, their cousins in the wild
are finding food much harder to come by these days.
Henry Kacprzyk is a curator at the Pittsburgh Zoo. He wants crowds to
know just how fragile the bears’ situation is. Walking along a
boardwalk near the exhibit, Kacprzyk points to a sign. It welcomes
visitors to “Piertown,” a replica village designed to resemble a
growing Alaska fishing town:
“The thing to note here is the human population has increased from 110
to 1,712, on the other side the bear population has declined, from 1,784
to 368, which, the message there is, as humans increase in population in some
of the bears’ habitat, the bears go down. It’s a sad but true fact.”
The situation for the world’s 25,000 polar bears is increasingly dire.
Besides people crowding them out, overfishing has depleted arctic
waters of fish for seals to eat, and seals are the bears’ main source
of food.
But here’s the biggest problem: the polar ice cap is melting. That’s
depriving the bears of a main hunting ground. The vast majority of
scientists attribute this to global warming. They say the warming is
caused by a buildup in the atmosphere of greenhouse gases from burning
fossil fuels.
Scott Schliebe is a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service. His
team recommended polar bears be added to the protected list because
they’re losing their habitat. Schliebe says the bears need sea ice to
hunt seals. No sea ice means no food for the bears:
“They will wait at a breathing hole for a seal and wait until the seal comes up
and then catch the seal. They’re not effective at hunting seals in open
water, seals have the severe advantage of being able to outpace the polar bears in that environment.”
In areas with receding ice, polar bears are already hurting. Scientists
see the world’s polar bear population shrinking by a third in the next
50 years.
Back at the Pittsburgh zoo, the polar bears are a big hit with
visitors. They helped the zoo break an attendance record last year.
Curator Henry Kacprzyk hopes visitors tie their own behavior with the
plight of the arctic:
“It’s sometimes little things, as a general family, for instance, what you
can do is conservation of fuel and energy, keeping your lights off,
maybe living closer to work is a great idea. By choosing conservation
you can make a difference.”
The bears are popular with Cindy Jagielski, who’s visiting the zoo with
her small grandchild. Jagielski’s worried the bears will one day become
extinct but she admits she doesn’t know much about global warming:
“Maybe it’s just the Earth’s changing. I don’t know that industry has
anything to do with the melting of the ice there. Maybe it’s just a
natural occurrence.”
Despite some lingering doubts over what causes global warming,
polar bears are a popular cause. The Fish and Wildlife Service has
already received 40,000 emailed comments since it proposed protecting
the species. The Service will make its final decision on protecting
polar bears by next January.
Jamie Juenemann invested in equipment to produce energy at his home in northern Minnesota. He says the government should offer more consistent incentives for renewable energy. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
The Juenemann family has a carbon-neutral home - they produce as much energy as they use. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Americans are thinking more about energy. We’re facing higher prices. There’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:
Transcript
Americans are thinking about energy more. We’re facing higher energy prices, there’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:
This winter, a handful of people around the country won’t have to worry about oil or gas prices. Jamie Juenemann is one of them. He lives out in the country in northern Minnesota, and he’s installed his own energy plant.
Behind the house, there’s a pole reaching above the trees. At the top, a modern windmill turns as it catches the wind. There’s also a solar hot water heater, and a geothermal heat pump, that brings underground heat into the house.
“This was the final phase in our goal to become carbon neutral; essentially producing as much energy as we’re consuming.”
Carbon neutral means not using fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, believed to be a greenhouse gas, and warming the planet.
Of course these systems aren’t cheap. Juenemann took out a second mortgage to pay for them. It was a big decision, but he says he’s doing what he can to make sure his young daughters will inherit a livable world.
“It’s all about choices. We have the choice to either purchase a Chevy Suburban, or we can use that same outlay, that same expense and put in some renewable energy systems.”
Eventually these systems will pay for themselves, and the Juenemann family will have free hot water, electricity, and heat.
The government helps pay for some of these systems; as much as three-quarters of the cost can be covered by tax-breaks and rebates. The trouble is one of the major federal subsidies ends next year, and others are limited to the first few buyers in a fiscal year. Businesses that sell renewable energy systems say that on-again, off-again subsidy approach by the government makes it difficult to stay in business to provide the alternative systems.
Politicians have been sending mixed messages about energy. Last year’s energy bill offered subsidies for nearly every energy source, without sending a clear message favoring one over another. Congress even offered subsidies for fossil fuels.
And that makes sense to John Felmy. He’s chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. He says the country depends on traditional sources — including the 40% of our total energy budget that comes from oil. He says the government should subsidize exploration and research on fossil fuels.
“You have to say where can you get the biggest impact from encouraging additional supplies, and those numbers of 40% clearly dwarf what you have from the alternatives.”
He says to keep the economy strong, the government should make it easier to drill for oil and gas, and to bring energy to where it’s needed.
Another government approach to the challenge of energy is to reduce the demand. Some groups predict conservation could cut energy needs as much as thirty percent.
J. Drake Hamilton is a scientist with Fresh Energy, a non-profit organization. She says conservation is cheaper and cleaner than producing more energy.
“Every time you cut energy use, you cut pollution. Every time you increase it, you increase pollution.”
And some people regard pollution as a hidden cost of traditional fuels. They say if consumers directly paid for the environmental and health costs of burning coal and oil and gas, the prices would be a lot higher. Economists call these “external costs,” and they argue over how to set a price on them.
Environmentalists say we should start charging an extra tax on fossil fuels because they contribute to global warming. At the same time, we could reduce the income tax, so the shift would be revenue-neutral, but the idea is still likely to be politically unpopular. A higher tax on fossil fuels would mean higher prices, which would make renewable energy systems more competitive.
There’s nothing new about taxing things that are bad for us, and subsidizing things that are good. But so far, when it comes to energy, Congress hasn’t been able to agree on what to discourage, and what to encourage.
For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.
GM will build three new crossover SUVs at the Lansing plant. Production will start this fall. (Photo by Dustin Dwyer)
GM chose materials inside the Lansing Delta Township Assembly Plant to minimize indoor air pollution. (Photo by Dustin Dwyer)
GM says its new Lansing Delta Township Assembly Plant is the first auto manufacturing plant in the world to get a gold certification from the U.S. Green Building Council. (Photo by Dustin Dwyer)
A new assembly plant from one of Detroit’s Big Three car companies is getting attention for its “green” qualities. Big Three automakers may not rank at the top of most environmentalists’ list for companies of the year. But some say the new auto plant is a sign that environmentally-sensitive manufacturing has finally gone main-stream. It’s not just because building green plants is the right thing to do. Really, it comes down to a different kind of green. The GLRC’s Dustin Dwyer has the story:
Transcript
A new assembly plant from one of Detroit’s Big Three car companies is getting attention
for its “green” qualities. Big Three automakers may not rank at the top of most
environmentalists’ list for companies of the year. But some say the new auto plant is a
sign that environmentally-sensitive manufacturing has finally gone main-stream. It’s not
just because building green plants is the right thing to do. Really, it comes down to a
different kind of green. The GLRC’s Dustin Dwyer has the story:
The first thing you notice about the smell of General Motors’ newest plant is how much
you don’t notice it. The plant smells like nothing at all. Not paint, grease or even that
new car smell. GM says it specifically selected materials for its new Lansing Delta Township
Plant in Michigan to limit indoor air pollution. And there’s a lot more to not notice about the plant.
Like how much space it doesn’t use.
On a tour with reporters, GM Environmental Engineer Bridget Bernal points out that less
than half of the plant’s 1,100-acre lot has been developed. The rest is left green, including
75 acres for habitat preservation:
“And basically in that 75 acres, we have a couple of pretty large wetlands, along with
some smaller wetlands. We have a rather large wood lot. And we’ve got a significant area
that’s being developed as native prairie.”
GM says it only planted native species on the site. And it planned ditches and culverts to
help filter water as it drains into other areas. A quarter of the materials used to build the
facility was recycled. The plant uses 45 percent less total energy than a traditional plant.
And, on the day GM gave reporter tours, it rained. Even that gets used. The water is
collected in cisterns, and used for flushing. GM says the plant saves a total of more than 4
million gallons of water per year.
Put together, all these elements were enough to win GM a LEED Gold Certification from
the U.S. Green Building Council.
Kimberly Hoskin is director of the council’s new construction program. She says she’d
been traveling a lot for work when one of her colleagues asked if she’d be willing to take
a trip to an event Lansing, Michigan.
“And I said, ‘Well, who’s it for? And she said, well, General Motors.’ General Motors, a
factory, is getting a LEED Gold Certification? Yes, I’ll go. Of course I’ll go. This is really
exciting.”
GM is not the first auto company to use green elements in an auto plant design. Ford’s
Rouge Plant in Dearborn, Michigan was built earlier this decade with a 10-acre “living”
roof that helped manage storm water runoff.
But Hoskin says, out of about 560 buildings in the nation that have been certified by the
Green Building Council, only five are manufacturing facilities, and GM says the Lansing
facility is the first auto assembly plant to get Gold, the agency’s top rating.
But for GM, the green elements of the Lansing Delta Assembly Plant aren’t just about the
environment. They’re about cold, hard cash. The lower energy use alone will save GM a
million dollars a year. That gives people like Hoskin comfort that the plant isn’t just a
public relations move by GM and it increases the chances that we’ll see more green plants
in the future.
Sean McAlinden is Chief Economist with the Center for Automotive Research:
“As we slowly replace our old big 3 plants, many of which are very elderly, they’re all
going to look like this. They’re all going to be green plants. In fact, some of them will
keep getting greener.”
That’s good news for places where there’s a lot of auto manufacturing, but many people
are not ready to absolve GM of all of its environmental sins.
David Friedman is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says a green plant is nice,
but the real problem is still the product:
“Over eight times the impact on the environment when it comes to global warming is
once that vehicle leaves that plant. That’s the biggest step that we need automakers to
take and to improve the fuel economy of all of their cars and trucks.”
GM, and other automakers, say they are working to make cars cleaner. High gas prices
may force even more changes as sales of big pickups and SUVs drop off. Ultimately, car
makers’ profits could depend on building cleaner cars, just as keeping manufacturing
costs down will depend on having cleaner plants.
That could change the way auto companies think about environmental improvements
because going green will be about more than just doing the right thing, or protecting the
brand image. It will be about protecting the bottom line. What’s sustainable for the
environment will also be sustainable for the business, and both will show a lot more
green.
