‘World’s Biggest Company’ in Crisis

  • The Black-and-White Ruffed Lemur, threat category: Critically Endangered (Photo by Jean-Christophe Vié, courtesy of the IUCN)

There’s a new report out on the
state of the world’s creatures.
It’s called the Red List of Threatened
Species. And, as you can imagine,
the Red List is not a good list to
be on. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

There’s a new report out on the state of the world’s creatures. It’s called the Red List of Threatened Species. And, as you can imagine, the Red List is not a good list to be on. Mark Brush has more:

This report is put out by the International Union for Conservation of Nature. They cataloged about 45,000 species worldwide. They say about 38% of those are threatened with extinction.

Species sometimes naturally go extinct. But, the researchers say, today’s extinction rates are happening a lot faster – mostly because people are destroying habitat.

Jean-Christophe Vié is the senior editor of the report.

“If you think of nature as a company, it’s the largest in the world. So now we are in this economic crisis, if there was one company to save, it’s not the car industry, or saving a bank – it’s saving nature, because it’s for the benefit of all of us.”

Vié says they were only able to report on about 3% of all the known species around the world.

But, they still feel they have a pretty good idea of the overall trend. And it’s not a good trend.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Hospitals Go for a Greener Clean

  • Even in hospitals, the same clean can be achieved without the harsh and dangerous chemicals (Photo courtesy of the National Institutes of Health)

You might have noticed some
new choices for environmentally-friendly
cleaners on supermarket shelves. Most
people pass them over. They worry
natural cleaners won’t do the job as
well as the regular stuff. But, the
places that need to be the cleanest,
the most sterilized, are finding that
green cleaners are more effective.
Julie Grant reports that hospitals
have started replacing the old chemical
cleaners with natural products:

Transcript

You might have noticed some
new choices for environmentally-friendly
cleaners on supermarket shelves. Most
people pass them over. They worry
natural cleaners won’t do the job as
well as the regular stuff. But, the
places that need to be the cleanest,
the most sterilized, are finding that
green cleaners are more effective.
Julie Grant reports that hospitals
have started replacing the old chemical
cleaners with natural products:

It used to stink whenever the cleaning guys at the Cleveland
Clinic needed to strip the floors. The patients, doctors and
nurses would complain about the chemical vapors. So, they
started clearing areas of the hospital on floor cleaning days.

(sound of cleaning machine)

Today Dennis Casey says they drive around on a new
scrubbing machine.

“That’s an automatic stripper, it’s called an orbital scrubber.
And it strips the floors without the use of chemicals – only
water.”

The new-fangled machine looks kind of like a riding mower.
They run over the hospital floors spraying cold water and the
machine scrubs. Casey says it works just as well as the old
chemicals – but it doesn’t smell and takes a lot less time.

That’s music to Christina Ayers’s ears. She’s environmental
coordinator at the Cleveland Clinic. Ayers says the most
important part of picking cleaners and tools – is to make sure
they’re going to work.

Of course, water alone isn’t enough for every job. Hospitals
need disinfectants. Ayers says the Environmental Protection
Agency helps with that.

“EPA actually certifies disinfectants, and all products that are
used as a disinfectant have to go through the same rigorous
testing to ensure their efficacy. But what we’re buying when
we’re buying the products is the efficacy of the product, not
all the additional chemicals and perfumes and other
elements that are not necessary for the product to function
well.”

Ayers says lots of people are used to that ‘hospital smell.’
But that’s often just a cocktail of cleaning chemicals – and
doesn’t create the healthiest environment for patients and
staff.

They still use bleach at the Clinic – it’s a great disinfectant –
but only in specific places – door handles and other high
traffic areas. Ayers says other places, like windows and
bathrooms, can get just as clean without other harsh
chemicals.

At first, it was tough for some folks on the cleaning staff to
accept the new, fragrance free products. Those strong
smells signaled a clean room. Ayers says some would use
the natural cleaners – but then spray chemical air fresheners
just to make sure the rooms smelled clean.

“That’s a bridge we have to cross. We have to help people
understand that clean smells of nothing. And that when
you’re smelling all of those smells that are associated with
clean, that chemical smell, the smell of bleach, those
perfumes, all those volatile organic compounds that come
out of the cleaning products – you don’t want to be inhaling
all of that product. You really want it to be working, you want
to purchase the efficacy of the product and not all of that
extra stuff that goes into our air.”

Ayers says people with asthma and other breathing
problems understand that right away. And, often, others just
need a little explanation.

“And once you explain that to people – that you’re using a
product that’s safer for the indoor air quality of our hospital –
It’s an easy step, people understand it. And they quickly
grow accustomed to the new smell of clean, which is a much
more mild and fresh and less chemical smell than what you
might be familiar with – even in your own home.”

In fact, I talked with one woman on the cleaning staff who
says, since the hospital switched to more natural products,
she’s seen how well they work and has started using green
cleaners at home.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Army Corps to Expand Mississippi Locks

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with
recommendations to expand locks on the Mississippi River despite
an earlier report that found the Corps’ calculations in making a similar
plan were wrong. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is moving ahead with recommendations to expand
locks on
the Mississippi River despite an earlier report that found the Corps’ calculations
in making a
similar plan were wrong. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The Corps of Engineers proposes spending 8.3 billion dollars to expand navigation
locks for
heavier barge traffic and restore the ecosystem of the upper Mississippi River. The
National
Research Council was highly critical of an earlier plan, saying the Corps’
projections of greater
traffic on the river were flawed. In a statement, the Corps says this new plan
balances the need
for economic growth and environmental sustainability.


Environmentalists say it’s still wrong. Melissa Samet is with the group American
Rivers.


“The Corps has done a great disservice to the nation by recommending this project.
We have
other needs. It’s a significant amount of money. The recommendation is based on
unsound
science and unsound economics. And that’s just not the way a federal agency should
be working.
It’s certainly not serving the American people.”


Critics say they expect the Corps of Engineers to lobby Congress hard for funding
the expansion
of the locks and not as hard for the environmental restoration.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Methyl Bromide Use to Increase

Starting January first, the U.S. will let farms and certain
other businesses use more of the pesticide methyl bromide. But
environmentalists may go to court over the issue. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Starting January 1st, the U.S. will let farms and certain other businesses use more
of the pesticide
methyl bromide. But environmentalists may go to court on the issue. The Great
Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Methyl bromide is used to sterilize soil before planting and to fight invasive
insects that come
into the U.S. on wooden pallets. But scientists say emissions of methyl bromide
harm the ozone
layer. In the 1980s, the U.S. agreed to phase out use of the compound, except for
critical cases
where there are no feasible alternatives.


Methyl bromide use is only a third of what it was in 1991. But the Bush
administration wants to
let that figure rise to 37 percent this coming year. David Doniger is with the
Natural Resources
Defense Council. He says he doubts whether more methyl bromide is needed.


“The problem is the critical use exemptions have mushroomed… way out of control.
So we’re
going backwards.”


The U.S. has agreed to reduce use of methyl bromide in 2006… but critics say that
promise may not be kept. The NRDC says it’s likely to challenge the 2005 plan in
court. An
Indiana company is one of the nation’s largest suppliers of methyl bromide.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Greens React to Bush Re-Election

  • The re-election of George W. Bush has many environmental groups worried. (Photo by Judi Seiber)

Environmental groups worry that the Bush administration will further dismantle environmental protection laws during its next term. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Environmental groups worry that the Bush administration will further dismantled environmental protection laws during its next term. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The big environmental groups have been very critical of George W. Bush’s first term in office. Despite speculation that the President will take more moderate positions in this next term, environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council are skeptical. Greg Wetstone is the NRDC’s Director of Advocacy.


“We have to prepare for the worst and we’re hoping for something better. We would like to see this president use the election as an opportunity to embrace more broadly the support for environmental protection held across the public. But, we can’t be naïve.”


In a letter to NRDC’s members, the group’s president took it a step farther, writing that -quote- the White House attacks of the past four years are but the leading edge of a much broader assault that will come in a second term. Other environmental groups are expressing similar skepticism.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

States Ready for Wolf Delisting?

  • Once hunted nearly to extinction, the gray wolf has recently rebounded under the protection of the Endangered Species Act. Now, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to take the wolf off of the Endangered Species List and hand wolf management back to the states. (Photo by Katherine Glover)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:

Transcript

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wants to remove the eastern population
of the gray wolf from the Endangered Species List and turn over wolf management
to state control. But not everyone thinks the states are up for it. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Katherine Glover has the story:


(sound of wolves howling)


The image of the wolf has always had a powerful effect on people. Wolves seem dangerous,
mysterious, romantic. They are a symbol of the untamed wilderness. Before Europeans came
to America, wolves roamed freely on every part of the continent. In 1630, the colony of
Massachussetts Bay started paying bounties to settlers for killing wolves. Over the next
300 years, wolf killing spread across the country, until all that was left was a few small
pockets of surviving wolf packs.


When the Endangered Species Act passed in 1973, the only wolves left to protect in the
Midwest were in Northern Minnesota. By some estimates, there were as few as 350 of them.


Today, Minnesota has a healthy wolf population of around 2400 animals, and smaller populations
are growing in Wisconsin and Michigan. Becaue of this success, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has proposed removing the animals from the Endangered Species List. This would mean wolves would
no longer be federally protected – it would be up to the states.


(sound of gate opening)


Peggy Callagan works with captive wolves at the Wildlife Science Center in Minnesota. She’s the
Center’s co-founder and executive director. She and her staff research ways to minimize
conflicts between wolves and people. Callahan is looking forward to seeing the wolf taken off
the Endangered Species List.


“It’s a good thing for the Endangered Species Act, to take a wolf off or an eagle off or a
peregrine off when it has recovered. The act was not established to provide a permanent
hiding place. It was established to protect a species until such time that they could be
managed in a different way.”


Wisconsin and Michigan have wolves because young born in Minnesota have migrated east to start
their own packs. Callahan says how Minnesota manages its wolves will affect wolf numbers in the
Midwest. And she isn’t crazy about Minnesota’s current wolf management plan, which has different
rules for different parts of the state.


“Now, there’s a boundary; there’s a boundary called a wolf zone, and there’s a boundary that’s
called the ag zone. And nobody likes it. We went backward.”


In Northeastern Minnesota, where the majority of wolves are, landowners can only kill wolves
if they can demonstrate an immediate threat to pets or livestock. In the rest of the state, where
there is more agriculture and more people, the rules are more lenient. On their own property,
landowners can kill any wolf they feel is a danger, without having to prove anything to the state.


The Sierra Club is opposed to taking the wolf off the Endangered Species list, largely because
of Minnesota’s management plan. Ginny Yinling is the chair of the Wolf Task Force of the Sierra
Club in Minnesota.


“They’ve pretty much given carte blanche to landowners, or their agents, to kill wolves
pretty much at any time in the southern and western two thirds of the state; they don’t even
have to have an excuse, if a wolf’s on their property they can kill it. Instead of this being
what should have been a victory in terms of wolf recovery and the success of the Endangered
Species Act, instead we’re afraid it’s going to turn into something of a disaster.”


Yinling is also concerned with the protection of wolf habitat, such as den sites, rendezvous
sites, and migration corridors.


“The current management plan protects none of those areas; it leaves it entirely up to the
discretion of the land managers.”


But wildlife managers say these are not critical for a large wolf population
like Minnesota’s. Mike DonCarlos is the wildlife program manager for the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources.


“As you look at the range of species that are threatened by habitat change, ironically the wolf
in Minnesota is not one of them. As long as there’s a prey base that continues, wolves should
do just fine. The key is mortality rates and availability of food.”


In Wisconsin and Michigan, where there are fewer wolves, state laws will continue to protect
wolf habitat. Peggy Callahan says she has faith that the wolves will be fine, even if the
Minnesota state plan is not perfect. But at the Sierra Club, Ginny Yinling says they have
plans to challenge wolf delisting in court.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Katherine Glover.

Related Links

Canadian Groups Concerned About Water Withdrawals

  • Groups like the Pembina Institute worry about water sustainability as the Great Lakes receive little new water and government officials both in Canada and in the U.S. discuss Annex 2001. (photo by Jenn Borton)

Canadian environmental groups are concerned that a new plan to regulate water withdrawals from the Great Lakes basin would allow too much water to be removed. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:

Transcript

A Toronto researcher says most communities are underestimating a potential source
of cheap electricity – raw sewage. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:


University of Toronto professor David Bagley collected waste water at a North
Toronto water treatment plant. He took the sewage into his lab, dried it and
then burned the solids to see how much energy they produced. He estimates the
energy produced from sewage at three treatment plants could produce more than
100 megawatts of electricity. That could be enough to keep a small town going
for a year. But Bagley says few take advantage of this resource.


“Our measurements show that there’s enough energy that we should be able to
completely offset the electricity needed to run the plant, and have extra
left over the send back to to the grid.”


Bagley finds communities are reluctant to invest in the equipment they’d
need to convert sewage into power. But he’s hoping to to design a cheaper
and more efficient system so more people can get the most out of their sewage.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links