The New South, With a Tinge of Green

  • Some are calling Alabama the future 'green hub of the South.' (Photo source: Wikimedia Commons)

When Forbes Magazine ranked states
by their “greenness” the usual
suspects topped the list – Vermont,
Oregon, and Washington – all progressive
states known for their environmental
movements. Maybe not surprisingly,
seven out of the ten “least green”
states were in the South – the land
of coal mines and timber plots.
But as Tanya Ott reports,
there’s a growing environmental
movement down south and some of
its members might surprise you:

Transcript

When Forbes Magazine ranked states
by their “greenness” the usual
suspects topped the list – Vermont,
Oregon, and Washington – all progressive
states known for their environmental
movements. Maybe not surprisingly,
seven out of the ten “least green”
states were in the South – the land
of coal mines and timber plots.
But as Tanya Ott reports,
there’s a growing environmental
movement down south and some of
its members might surprise you:

(sound of cars driving past)

I’m standing in a vacant lot in downtown Birmingham, Alabama. I see overgrown weeds and closed businesses, but James Smith sees something entirely different. He’s President of an international company called Green Building Focus. When he looks at this lot, he sees an uptapped market. He wants to build an eco-industrial park here.

“There are many companies out there in other parts of the country who want to have access to the southeastern market, they realize it’s one of the fastest growing markets in the country. And if you draw a 500 mile radius around Birmingham you hit every major developing area in the southeast. It’s really the ideal location geographically to become a regional manufacturing hub for sustainable products.”

Alabama, a green hub of the south? This is the land of mega-churches and Republicans, not environmentalists.

“The federal trend over the last 10 years, longer than that, no doubt has been if you’re a Republican you can’t be an environmentalist.”


That’s Gil Rogers. He’s an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center. He says nationally Republicans get a bad rap for denying climate change and trying to roll back the endangered species list. But at the state and local level, things are often different in the south.

“We have a lot of republican champions, as an example, in the Georgia legislature that are Republicans in terms of wanting lower taxes and less government intrusion into a lot of aspects of life. But then will go and realize that there needs to be more done in the way of environmental protection of water resources or of air quality. That those have real public health impacts.”

Rogers says these leaders often have strong ties their own piece of nature – maybe a stretch of land or a river.

“I’m a tree hugging, liberal – I mean a tree hugging conservative, Republican! (laughs) which I know some people may say is an oxymoron. But (laughs)”


But Charlie Houser loves Magnolia River.


(sound of boat motor)

He fires up his pontoon boat to give me a tour. Houser grew up here in Magnolia Springs, Alabama. When he moved back to retire, he worried about what he saw.


“I didn’t see the sea grass. We lost blue crabs, we lost pike.”

He blames agricultural runoff full of chemicals. So, Mayor Houser and the mostly republican town council passed really tough land use rules. All new buildings have to set back 75 feet from the river. New subdivisions have to keep their run-off on site. And it’s working. The brown pelicans are back and the river is less cloudy. The state has named Magnolia River an Alabama Outstanding Waterway.

Gil Rogers, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, says there are still big environmental threats in the south. Coal mining, timber, and other industries. But he’s optimistic.

“People have started to recognize that there’re some real threats from population growth, poor development patterns. So I think there is a movement here going on and it’s unique to the south, I think, in a lot of ways.”

Certainly, it’s creating some interesting alliances – like environmentalists teaming up with hunters. Rogers says, at least in the south, he’s seeing more cooperation than ever.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Polar Bear Protection Spurs Lawsuits

  • The polar bear is now listed as a threatened species (Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)

The federal government has announced that
it’s listing the polar bear as a threatened species.
Biologists say the rapid loss of sea ice from
the warming climate is putting the bears at risk.
Mark Brush reports the government is now facing
legal action from some conservative groups:

Transcript

The federal government has announced that
it’s listing the polar bear as a threatened species.
Biologists say the rapid loss of sea ice from
the warming climate is putting the bears at risk.
Mark Brush reports the government is now facing
legal action from some conservative groups:

In the announcement Secretary of the Interior Dick Kempthorne tried to make it clear –
the listing doesn’t mean the government is regulating greenhouse gases. He says the
listing can’t be used to stop oil and gas drilling or to go after industries for releasing
carbon dioxide.

Reed Hopper is the principal attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation – a conservative
public interest group. He says he still expects lawsuits from environmentalists. And that
the Secretary can’t control how the courts will interpret the new listing.

“If the activists are able to use this as they intend, to challenge industrial activity in the
United States, the ultimate effect on the average person is going to be an increase in
energy costs, transportation, fuel, food and housing.”

Hopper says his group is planning to go forward with a lawsuit of their own – opposing the listing.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Canada’s Co2 Plan Called Scam

Canada’s conservative government recently unveiled the final details of
its long awaited policy on fighting climate change… and it says it
will not meet its Kyoto targets. And as Dan Karpenchuk reports, so far
the proposed eight billion dollar policy has been a tough sell:

Transcript

Canada’s conservative government recently unveiled the final details of
its long awaited policy on fighting climate change… and it says it
will not meet its Kyoto targets. And as Dan Karpenchuk reports, so far
the proposed eight billion dollar policy has been a tough sell:


Canadian Environment minister John Baird, laid out the details of the
framework policy called Turning the Corner, something he described as
the most ambitious environmental plan ever tabled in Canada:


“Canadian industry is today served notice that it will have to become
more efficient in order to both reduce its greenhouse gasses and to
reduce air pollution. We will do this by mandating strict targets for industry.”


Under the new green plan, the government hopes to reduce current
emissions 20% by the year 2020. It calls for industries to make
in-house reductions, participate in domestic emissions trading, buy
energy offsets and invest in a technology fund.


But there are no specifics. Canada’s oil industry, one of the biggest
polluters, is breathing easier, relieved there will be no hard caps on
emissions.


But environmentalists say it doesn’t even match the commitments made by
some other countries. And the liberals call it a scam.


For the Environment Report, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Commentary – Preach Truth About Global Warming

Some Christians take issue with their conservative brothers in faith when it comes to global warming. Commentator Gary Schlueter says he’s a Christian, but he doesn’t see anything wrong with believing in the science that indicates global warming is partly caused by human activity:

Transcript

Some Christians take issue with their conservative brothers in faith when it
comes to global warming. Commentator Gary Schlueter says he’s a Christian,
but he doesn’t see anything wrong with believing in the science that
indicates global warming is partly caused by human activity:


In Charles Dickens’s A Christmas Carol, we are warned to beware of the two
children under Father Christmas’ long red robe, this boy ignorance and this
girl want, but especially beware of this boy. Race forward a century or so and
we have Reverend Jerry Falwell concluding, “I believe that global warming is a myth.”
I repeat, beware this boy, ignorance!


Reverend Falwell, an influential evangelical Christian leader, is not alone among
his contemporaries in preaching that global warming is a myth, or worse: some clerical
leaders say to believe otherwise could jeopardize one’s salvation.


The Interfaith Stewardship Alliance, the ISA, is a mixed bag of religious leaders,
scientists and policy experts who, through a dark glass, shine a Biblical light on the
issues of environment and development. According to the ISA, “most U.S. evangelicals do not
back the call for regulating greenhouse emissions.” I repeat, beware this boy!


Recently, a group of more moderate Christian evangelical leaders joined together to
form the Evangelical Climate Initiative. They say global warming is real, that humans are
causing it, and that we need to do something about it. The ISA stands firmly against them.
The question is, why?


Why, in the face of hard warnings on the cover of the conservative Time Magazine with headlines
that read to “be worried. Be very worried” about global warming? Why, when the NASA scientist who
warned us 25 years ago that human activity was changing the Earth’s climate now warns
us we have a decade before we pass the point of no return? Got that? Point of no return.
Ten years! Why, against the growing tide of public and clerical opinion that mankind’s
contribution to global warming must be stopped, do they tell their flock to be like
Mad Magazine’s Alfred E. Newman and not to worry?


Are these Mad Magazine evangelicals antagonistic toward science because science brought
us the concept of evolution? Can they be so petty? Or do they see global warming as a way
to fulfill their direst prophecies of gloom and doom? Can they be so proud? Or is it their
sheer greed to gobble up Earth’s resources that brings them smiling sanguinely to the brink of
a disaster so profound the habititability of our entire planet is at risk? Can they be so selfish?
Selfish, proud, petty? Beware this boy!


This Earth is our only real sanctuary, it is a gift of God, how can it be of so
little concern to these anti-Earth evangelicals that they can continue to preach against it,
preach against God’s gift? I conclude, beware this boy, ignorance!


Host tag: Gary Schlueter is a former president of the Virgin Island Conservation
Society.

Related Links

Al Gore Movie: Hot!

Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth” is reportedly drawing steady crowds at theatres in many parts of the U.S. But the film about global warming is bringing out both believers and skeptics. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is reportedly drawing steady
crowds at theaters in many parts of the US. But the film about
global warming is bringing out both believers and skeptics.
The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


An Inconvenient Truth is the kind of movie that seems to provoke
discussion and debate. Liberal and conservative talk shows, bloggers
and pundits are duking it out. Sometimes the debate is within the
same household. Chun Yuan says after seeing the
movie and learning about all the carbon emissions, he’ll keep a closer
eye on his home’s thermostat.


“…Try to be more aware of like adjusting the heater….(laughs) ”


But Yuan’s wife, Yaphen Chen says An Inconvenient Truth
sometimes seems more like a lecture than entertainment. She says the
movie might help Al Gore as much as the environment.


“I think American people adore movie stars, so maybe this will help Al
Gore get elected. (laughs)”


Gore denies he’s trying to use An Inconvenient Truth to revive his
political career.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

U.S. Cuts Tariffs on Canadian Softwood Lumber

Canadian officials say they’ve been vindicated after the U.S. commerce department recently announced it would drastically cut duties on imports of Canadian softwood lumber. But the U.S. hasn’t entirely given in. And as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Dan Karpenchuk reports, it’s now become an issue in Canada’s national election:

Transcript

Canadian officials say they’ve been vindicated after the U.S. commerce department
recently announced it would drastically cut duties on imports of Canadian softwood
lumber, but the U.S. hasn’t entirely given in, and as Dan Karpenchuk reports, it’s now
become an issue in Canada’s national election:


Just before a NAFTA deadline, the U.S. commerce department said it would cut duties on
Canadian softwood from just under 19 percent to just under one percent, but it also said
even though it was complying it doesn’t agree and adds that the case is not final.


Since 2002 the U.S. has collected more than 3-and-a-half billion dollars in duties. Duties,
which the Canadians say are illegal, and want returned.


Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in launching his election campaign this week
lambasted his main opponent, Conservative leader Stephen Harper, on the issue.


“He has been silent, he has been silent as we have defended Canadian workers against the
Americans on softwood lumber, such a vital issue, and yet Stephen Harper has had
nothing to say.”


Washington has said it wants a negotiated settlement, but with NAFTA ruling five times
in Canada’s favor and thousands of jobs lost in the country’s forestry industry the mood
north of the border appears uncompromising.


For the GLRC, I’m Dan Karpenchuk.

Related Links

Kyoto in Canada Hits a Roadblock

  • Canada's action to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Agreement is being slowed as groups are threatening to vote against a budget bill that includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. (Photo by Kenn Kiser)

Canadian environmental groups fear political opposition may kill the Liberal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

Canadian environmental groups fear political opposition may kill the Liberal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


Canada’s opposition parties have created an uproar over an amendment to the government’s latest budget bill. The amendment would change Canada’s environmental protection act. It would allow nontoxic gases which heat up the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, to be regulated.


It’s the first step in Canada’s plan to comply with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. But it’s hit a major roadblock. The Conservatives say they’ll vote against the bill unless that proposal is removed. And if they vote against the budget, the Liberal government may fall.


The Sierra Club’s John Bennett says their aggressive tactics may make it difficult for Canada to make any changes to environmental laws.


“I’m very concerned that because of this, we may actually lose the ability to regulate greenhouse gases in Canada for a long time to come. And that’s the real danger here.”


Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next seven years. But Bennett says it won’t happen without new regulations.


For the GLRC, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Interview: Lynn Scarlett Defends Policies

  • Lynn Scarlett is the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior's Office of Policy, Management and Budget.

As the campaigns for President advance, President George W. Bush’s environmental policies are being examined. The Bush administration has been criticized by many of the large environmental groups. But Bush supporters say the White House approach to environmental protection is working well. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talked with one of the architects of the Bush environmental policy, Lynn Scarlett. She is Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior’s Office of Policy Management and Budget. Scarlett says the Bush approach to the environment goes beyond just punishing polluters, but encourages everyone to do more:

Transcript

As the campaigns for President advance, President George W.
Bush’s environmental policies are being examined. The Bush
administration has been criticized by many of the large environmental
groups. But Bush supporters say the White House approach to
environmental protection is working well. In the second of two
interviews, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
talks with the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Interior’s
Office of Policy, Management and Budget, Lynn Scarlett. She’s one
of the architects of the Bush environmental policy. Scarlett says the
Administration’s approach to the environment goes beyond just
punishing polluters, but encourages everyone to do more:


SCARLETT: “You know, our vision is one of cooperative conservation. Some years ago the
great conservationist Aldo Leopold talked about a nation of citizen-stewards, that we can’t get the
conservation job done and the environmental job done unless each person in their own backyards
and working together engage in conservation and environmental entrepreneurship, if you will.
So, for us, we’re trying to seek those partnerships, partnered problem-solving, we’re trying to
emphasize innovation and what I like to call environmental entrepreneurship, the imagination of
many minds creatively figuring out how to reduce our environmental footprint and then working
in cooperation across a mosaic of landscapes, public lands, with private landowners and across
the country.”


LG: “It would seem that an approach like that would require a lot of volunteerism in the private
sector and many times that volunteer effort has been lacking. It seems that we need some kind of
regulation from the federal government or from the state governments to make sure that the
environment is protected.”


SCARLETT: “You know, the vision is a multi-faceted one. Of course, we have, since Earth Day
1970, a whole suite of environmental laws that were unfurled, our banner environmental statutes,
and we are very committed to ensuring compliance with those statutes. So, the question is really
a matter of emphasis. As we go forward in the 21st century, I think the question we all have to
ask is: ‘How do we get to that next step of environmental progress?’ We build upon the
regulatory achievements, but we have to begin to ask ourselves ‘How can we work together to get
that next increment of progress. And when you look at what’s actually going on in the nation,
you see tremendous cause, I think, for optimism.”


LG: “There are no doubt some innovative ideas popping up out of the private sector to deal with
environmental concerns, but the Big Greens, the environmental organizations, are issuing scathing
reports about the record of the Bush administration. And they would disagree with your
characterization that we’re making progress. They would indicate that we’ve lost ground in
environmental protection.”


SCARLETT: “You know, I think that we have to look at the actual results on the ground.
There’s always politics at play, of course, in conversations about environment, but the real test of
success is on the ground and also the kinds of commitments that we’re tangibly making. I like to
say environmental progress is a journey not a destination. There’s always more to be done. But,
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
a landowner incentive program. It’s one patterned after what he had done in Texas to try to
stimulate and engage people to participate in species protection, particularly ‘at risk’ and
‘threatened’ and ‘endangered’ species. He inaugurated a private stewardship grant program with a
similar focus. So there’s an awful lot that is occurring that is getting results on the ground.”


LG: “Well, let’s try to get to the nut of the philosophical difference between the Bush
administration and many of these environmental groups who find great fault with the Bush
administration’s approach to environmental protection. What do you think the key differences are
between the White House perspective on the environment and these environmentalists?”


SCARLETT: “I think the fundamental difference, the major reorientation of philosophy is to say
‘You know what? Real success doesn’t reside necessarily in numbers of enforcement actions
taken, but rather results on the ground.’ And that there are a whole array of tools to achieve that,
many of which are outside Washington. All Americans want clean air. They want clean water.
And real success resides in inspiring them and working with them and partnering with them. And
I think the record will tell a very good tale.”


HOST TAG: Lynn Scarlett is Assistant Secretary of the Department
of Interior’s Office of Policy, Management and Budget.

Related Links