Joseph DeSimone, founder and chairman
of Micell Technologies, explains the
cleaning process that clothes undergo in his Hanger’s store in
Morrisville, NC.
Consumers may not realize it, but the simple act of dropping off clothes at the cleaners could end up harming the environment. For decades, dry cleaners have used a toxic solvent to clean clothes. Now there are many contaminated former dry cleaning sites across the country. But a solution to the dry cleaning problem may now be available. A new chain of cleaners is touting a “greener” system that uses a non-toxic everyday substance. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Patty Murray has more:
More and more Americans have been taking recycling seriously over the last two decades. So much so that today, the EPA says about 30% of the trash Americans produce in their homes is recycled. And the recycling rate for most Midwest states is near that average, but while the agency expects that number to continue to rise, not everyone thinks more recycling is better for the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie takes a look at the economics of recycling:
Transcript
More and more Americans have been taking recycling seriously over the last two decades. So much so that today, the EPA says about 30 percent of the trash Americans produce in their homes is recycled. And the recycling rate for most Great Lakes states is near that average. But while the agency expects that number to continue to rise, not everyone thinks more recycling is better for the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brodie takes a look at the economics of recycling.
A small bulldozer collects materials that have sprawled out across the floor of this recycling center…. it then pushes the mound up against a wall. The glass and plastic pile up almost to the ceiling of the building … some ten feet in the air. Welcome to the tipping floor, where workers collect and sort recyclables from the Albany, New York area. Joe Gieblehaus is the solid waste manager for the city. He says Albany officials hope to recycle between 30 and 35 percent of the city’s waste…
“The 30 to 35 gives us I guess the best bang for our buck, basically, recycling is a situation of declining marginal returns. If we try to go after another product in the waste stream, it just costs us more money, and more money, and more money and more money. 30 to 35 seems to give us an economic benefit, the best economic benefit available.”
Albany’s recycling target is similar to that put out by the EPA… and is about the limit that one former EPA assistant administrator says is necessary. Doctor J. Winston Porter was instrumental in starting curbside recycling in the United States in the 1980’s…. but now he says people are taking a good thing too far.
“The last few years, I’ve been somewhat concerned that people are, if anything, aiming too high. You know, I set a 25% goal and there’s nothing wrong with going to 30 or 35 or 40% if you can. But I think many states have set goals of like 50% and I think what we’re doing, we’re getting into an area that’s very non-cost effective and may even hurt the environment because you’re in effect trying to use too much energy and too much processing to recycle too much trash.”
One of those states that’s right about at porter’s limit is Wisconsin. Greg Swanson of the state’s department of natural resources says Wisconsin recycles about 40 percent of its waste. He says the state’s laws call for beneficial re-use. That means the state does not want to spend more energy recycling something than it took to make it in the first place. Swanson says that makes decisions about what to recycle and what not to recycle a little easier.
“You’d like to be able to recycle everything that’s recyclable, but you have to keep in mind the political and economic realities of being able to actually do something with it once you collect it.”
Swanson says that end result is crucial for recycling programs to survive. He says Wisconsin has budgeted more than 24 million dollars for recycling programs this year. That money goes to pay for trucks, drivers, and people who sort the recyclables, among other things. If a state or city recycles something, it has to be able to sell it. If the costs of recycling are higher than the profits from selling the materials, the city or state loses money on the deal. But not everybody believes more recycling hurts the economy. Will Ferrety is the executive director of the national recycling coalition. He says the more Americans recycle, the better it is for both the environment…. and the economy.
“At its fundamental basis, recycling is helping us eliminate the notion of waste because if we can turn what would otherwise be a discarded product into a useful product, we’re making for a more efficient system.”
Ferrety says states should try and recycle as much as possible. He says it’s preferable to many of the alternatives.
“When you look at that entire system, and compare that to what I would call a one-way system where we extract resources, make a new product, use them up, and simply throw them away in a landfill, hands down, there’s less energy used, there’s fewer air pollutants, there’s fewer water pollutants that result from that recycling system when compared to that one way system.”
Among Great Lakes states, Minnesota and New York have the highest recycling rates…at more than 40 percent each of their total waste. The EPA says other Great Lakes states recycle between 20 and 29 percent. Albany, New York’s Joe Gieblehaus says even though many officials on the state and local level would like to recycle more…. the green of the environment sometimes has to take a back seat to the green in the wallet. He says the market drives decisions about whether or not to recycle something. He says the city can only recycle materials that can then be sold to offset the cost of collecting them in the first place.
“There are so few end uses to close the loop; it’s hard for us at the beginning of the loop to find a market for this material…a sustainable market for this material.”
Gieblehaus says his trucks collect about 13 thousand tons of recycled materials a year. He says that’s just enough to help keep the environment green…. without putting the city into the red. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brodie.
Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives, but Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America:
Transcript
Liberals often claim the environment as an issue that gives them leverage over conservatives. But Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Mike VanBuren says conservatism should equally embrace environmental protection as a fundamental part of its vision for America.
Rush Limbaugh calls me an “environmental whacko.” I’m one of those people who believe in saving energy, preserving wild areas, and treating the earth as a finite resource that should be handled with care. I get alarmed when I hear about air pollution, food contamination, and oil drilling under the Great Lakes.
Rush seems to hate this. He likens me to a nazi extremist. He says I don’t understand the world’s bounty, or the simple principle of supply and demand. Worse yet, he’s convinced I’m one of those “whining liberals” who use environmental scare-tactics to push big government.
The funny thing is, when it comes to most social issues, I’m a fairly conservative guy. There are few so-called “liberal” ideas that I support. Yet, I often find myself walking hand-in-hand with left-leaning Democrats in battles to protect our natural heritage.
I wonder why that is. Shouldn’t Republicans join the fight? After all, there are few things more “conservative” than trying to conserve our resources for future generations.
I know there are some members of the so-called “political right wing” – whatever that is – who feel as I do. REP-America, for example, is a national grassroots organization that claims to be “the environmental conscience of the Grand Old Party.” Members believe we can preserve our environment – and boost our economy at the same time.
But many Republican leaders don’t seem to be listening. They want to scrap laws that have cleaned up air and water, preserved natural areas, and prevented the extinction of native species. What’s that all about?
Anybody with the smarts to get elected ought to be able to see that more – not less – needs to be done. While significant environmental progress has been made during the past few decades, we can still benefit from cleaner air, water, soil and food supplies. And reducing wasteful consumption today will bring greater benefits tomorrow, including greater economic performance?
You’d think more conservatives would be leading the way to safeguard these natural resources – rather than fighting against the liberals who are. If ever there was a bipartisan issue, this is it. Few modern social concerns are as vital to our health, recreation and economic prosperity.
Human progress should not be measured solely on the basis of dollars and development, but also on what we have preserved and protected.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt called conservation “a great moral issue, for it involves the patriotic duty of ensuring safety and continuance of the nation.”
Roosevelt, of course, may have been the first “environmental whacko” to be elected President of the United States. Maybe it’s time for another one – along with several others at all levels of government.
And there’s no good reason they couldn’t be conservatives.
College campuses were once thought to be hotbeds for environmental activism. Now rather than activism, many people see universities as the primary location for both research and courses on the environment, as well as projects that show how a large institution can be environmentally sensitive. But a new report is giving mixed reviews of U.S. college’s environmental efforts. In the first of a two-part series, The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl explores the issues of greening a college campus:
Transcript
College campuses were once thought to be hotbeds for environmental activism. Now rather than activism, many people see Universities as the primary location for both research and courses on the environment, as well as projects to show how a large institution can be environmentally sensitive. But a new report is giving mixed reviews of U-S college’s environmental efforts. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports.
(Ambient sound – physical plant)
This coal-fired power plant is the primary source of power at Ball State University in Munice, Indiana. Like many college campuses, Ball State relies on this less than clean source of energy to power dozens of buildings for thousands of students and faculty. But unlike many other schools, Ball State has a team of people working on ways to clean up this plant. Team members are also working on other environmental problems the school faces. John Vann is Ball State’s Green Initiatives Coordinator. That’s a new position at the school this year. He says his title has already made things easier for those in the campus community who are looking to improve the environment.
“If I were just another faculty member that said, ya know you should really program your computer to shut down the monitor, it doesn’t carry the same weight if I am dealing with a Dean or with someone else that having this position does. So that really helps to facilitate my implementation of the initiatives.”
Vann’s position is not common among colleges and universities. A new report by the National Wildlife Federation shows that less than ten percent of campuses have a position similar to his. That’s one finding in the wide-ranging survey that looked at about a thousand campuses across the country. The Federation developed a report card to assess how well schools are doing in several areas. The NWF is giving schools a C minus for Transportation issues, largely because schools tend to buy large gas guzzling cars for faculty to use on road trips, and inefficient trucks for campus work fleets. The report card also includes a B minus for landscaping efforts. The report says most campuses are still using massive amount of pesticides and fertilizers to create those flowerbeds of school colors found around campus. Few are using native plants that require less water and fewer chemicals. Kathy Cacciola is the Campus Ecology Coordinator for NWF. She says things are not completely bleak. Schools are receiving A’s in some important areas.
“Energy conservation measures and efficiency upgrades are a key area where there has been improved environmental performance, with 81 percent of colleges and universities instituting lighting efficiency upgrades and 20 percent having plans to do more. That really demonstrates that higher education institutions have taken the lead on really making advances toward a sustainable future.”
But Cacciola points out that cost savings are likely the motivating factor for those areas of improvement. With high-energy prices, a campus wide program to purchase more efficient lighting, for instance, is often more about money than about the environment. She says in other areas where the financial benefit may not be so great, campuses did not do as well.
The National Wildlife Federation hopes the study will encourage colleges to take a closer look at their environmental practices. Tom Lowe agrees. He’s a Dean and assistant Provost at Ball State. He says there is many things colleges should be doing to improve their sustainability. He says one example would be to use more of the multi-million dollar budgets of colleges to buy recycled and environmentally sensitive items.
“And if we could just direct a small portion of those purchases toward sound environmental items, we could stimulate a market in those items, plus we could enable small businesses what are starting up producing those items to make a profit.”
Lowe says colleges have a responsibility to lead the way for other large institutions such as corporations and medical facilities. He says campuses can be showcases for how to be environmentally friendly in an economically practical way. The report from the National Wildlife Federation shows some campuses are already on that track. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
A new report is giving mixed reviews to the environmental efforts on college campuses. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl has more:
Transcript
A new report is giving mixed reviews to the environmental efforts on college campuses. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports.
The report card from the National Wildlife Federation gives A’s to schools for their work on energy efficiency and water conservation. But the schools receive B’s and C’s for poor landscaping practices and transportation issues. Tom Lowe is a Dean at Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana. He says campuses must be models for environmental improvements, especially those that can save money in the long run.
“For a corporation, the idea that you could make money by greater environmental stewardship is sort of counter to what they traditionally think. So we have to be the model for that to demonstrate that it is possible.”
The report also shows schools are doing a good job at recycling, but a poor job in making sure they buy recycled products. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.
Small-scale on-site power generation technologies help protect the environment. Will they also help to protect us against terrorism? Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Byron Kennard argues that they can:
Transcript
Small-scale on-site power generation technologies help protect the environment. Will they also help to protect us against terrorism? Our commentator Byron Kennard argues that they do.
Like every American, I am mourning the tragic losses that terrorists have inflicted on our nation. But I mourn too because I fear that in the aftermath of these attacks, environmental protection efforts will be sacrificed to the awful necessities of war. I am reminded of a remark Tolstoy once made to a young friend, “You may not be interested in war,” Tolstoy warned,” but war is interested in you.” War’s interest in the young is fully matched by its interest in the environment.
Apart from what the US does to go after bin Laden, we must also pursue peaceful solutions to this challenge. The best of these options is to vastly increase economic opportunity for the world’s poor. After all, it’s their desperation that provides the breeding grounds for fanaticism. As Jessica Stern, author of The Ultimate Terrorists, observes: “Force is not nearly enough. We need to drain the swamps where these young men thrive. We need to devote a much higher priority to health, education, and economic development or new Osamas will continue to arise.”
Economic development will be hard to achieve and will take much time. But in it environmentalists can find some solace. There are environmental ways to develop economies and often these make the most sense for the world’s poor. For example, two billion people in the world have no access to electricity. Providing them electricity for lighting, clean water, refrigeration and health care, and radio and television is perhaps the best single way “to drain the swamps.” The best way to make electricity available to the world’s poor is through on-site generating technologies that are the environment friendly.
These “micro power” devices generate electric power on a small scale close to where it is actually used. They include fuel cells, photovoltaics, micro generators, small wind turbines, and modular biomass systems. For instance, a micro generator the size of a refrigerator can generate 25 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power a village in the developing world.
The environmental approach toward energy sufficiency in developing nations has been to utilize micro credit. That means providing poor people with affordable mini-loans to purchase on-site energy generators, or micro generation. Currently the US leads the world in exporting solar electric, small wind, fuel cells, and modular biomass systems to the developing world. Such exports of energy generation have become a $5 billion per year market, so this environmentally benign strategy is also economically productive. In short, electrifying the poor regions of the world will benefit our people, our planet and the cause of peace.
The House of Representatives recently approved a bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Although the Senate is not expected to follow the lead, the bill’s passage in the House demonstrates the fragile and often complex alliances that come together – and fall apart – when passions run deep. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King suspects that it might just be time to re-examine old political friendships:
Transcript
The House of Representatives recently approved a bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge. Although the Senate is not expected to follow the lead, the bill’s passage in the House demonstrates the fragile and often complex alliances that come together – and fall apart — when passions run deep. Great Lakes Radio commentator, Julia King, suspects that it might just be time to re-examine old political friendships.
Labor unions have a proud history of righting some of the many wrongs inherent in capitalism. One of those “wrongs” is the tendency to put the pursuit of economic gain ahead of almost everything else. Labor unions have worked tirelessly in this country — and throughout the world — to shift attitudes about working conditions and living wages and to create a balance between profit margins and social justice. For this, they should be applauded.
But recently they took a giant step backwards when unions lobbied heavily in favor of (and helped to pass) a House bill that would allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The Teamsters say that the drilling will create some 700,000 domestic jobs. A lobbyist for the Teamsters was quoted as saying, “What environmentalists fail to realize is that we are not an environmental organization… Our responsibility is to grow the work force.” And for some key Democrat players, such as Representative Dick Gephart, environmental concerns eroded under the pressures of long-held loyalties to working class Americans.
But by supporting Bush’s energy plan, labor will undercut not only the environment, but it’s own hard-won credibility. Labor will cease to be a voice for progress, and instead become a voice of conspicuous self-interest. For unions, pitting economics against the environment is a dangerous game: if decisions are made based on jobs and dollars without attention to broader social concerns, then we’re back where we started — a place where profits trump everything, including the needs of the working class.
From coalmines to vineyards, labor leaders have shown the world – usually with great resistance from business owners — that businesses can thrive even when they respect their workers. The economic sky doesn’t fall when employees are given their fair share. Yet now the Teamsters are using the same tactics that businesses have used for years. They want to add up the dollars in the Arctic Refuge and declare the equation complete without regard to the broader implications.
Under any scenario, the oil that’s in the refuge is finite. Any jobs that are created by the drilling will eventually disappear because the practice is not sustainable. Instead of clinging to Old Guard energy policies in an effort to squeeze the last pennies out of a dying industry, unions would be wise to use their considerable political clout to help usher in a new era of clean, sustainable energy production. And if organized labor is unable to support wise, long-term energy plans, it’s time for politicians to question NOT good environmental policy, but their loyalties to labor.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the right of Canadian municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries. The decision marks the end of a 10 year lawsuit between the town of Hudson, Quebec and two companies – Chemlawn and Spraytech. The companies had sued the town, claiming municipalities did not have the power to control pesticide use. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that Canada’s unique political structure has set a challenging precedent:
Transcript
The Supreme Court of Canada recently upheld the right of Canadian municipalities to restrict the use of pesticides within their boundaries. The decision marks the end of a 10-year lawsuit between the town of Hudson, Quebec and two companies – Chemlawn and Spraytech. The companies had sued the town, claiming municipalities did not have the power to control pesticide use. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that Canada’s unique political structure has set a challenging precedent.
In Canada we have so many different levels of government each with its own area of responsibility. The problem is these areas frequently overlap, causing a bureaucratic nightmare. This particularly Canadian phenomenon has been dubbed jurisdictional gridlock.
Look at how we handle pesticides. They have to be registered federally in order to be manufactured and marketed. Provincial permission is required for companies to sell or apply them. And at the local level, municipalities can enact by-laws concerning their application.
In the U.S., by contrast, the handling, distribution and licensing of pesticides all falls under federal jurisdiction. So at least you only have to deal with one level of government, which should save time and effort.
But a recent victory by the town of Hudson, Quebec has demonstrated that sometimes a lot of red tape can actually be a good thing. The town’s battle to control the use of pesticides within its borders went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The court not only upheld their right to protect local health and the environment, it also encouraged other municipalities to follow the Hudson example within the broad domain of Canadian and international law.
This wasn’t just a victory for community activists in Hudson. The Supreme Court decision gave all Canadian communities the power to take action on their own behalf. And believe me, they’re seizing that power. In the wake of the Hudson decision, towns and cities right across the country are in the process of enacting legislation that would severely restrict the use of pesticides within their borders.
This is a remarkable turn of events. And it clearly demonstrates the power that one small community can have. Jurisdictional gridlock may be a pain to wade through, but in light of what happened in Hudson, it can also be a really good thing.
Businesses and environmental groups are closely watching a case now
before a U-S appeals court. The case could mean major changes in how
environmental laws are enforced. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports:
As a child you probably had a hiding place – a nook under the eaves of
your house or a hideout in the backyard. But today’s kids have fewer
chances to play in these places than earlier generations did. As the
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports there are some
designers at the University of Michigan who are starting to pay
attention to what children want when they play:
Joseph DeSimone, founder and chairman of Micell Technologies, explains the cleaning process that clothes undergo in his Hanger’s store in Morrisville, NC.