More Oceanic Garbage Patches Found

  • Marine researcher Marcus Eriksen says the plastic packaging that wraps nearly all consumer products is killing some marine animals.(Photo courtesy of the NOAA Marine Debris Program)

A giant field of plastic debris is floating in the middle of the northern Pacific Ocean. Now researchers are finding more of these garbage patches in other Oceans. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

A giant field of plastic debris is floating in the middle of the northern Pacific Ocean. Now researchers are finding more of these garbage patches in other Oceans. Mark Brush has more:

Researchers say there are ocean currents that sort of swirl around like water in a toilet bowl. There called oceanic gyres.

The Algalita Marine Research Foundation was one of the groups that documented the problem in the North Pacific Ocean. This year they sailed to the gyres in the North Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean.

They found miles and miles of plastic fishing line, milk crates, spoons and forks, and bits of plastic bags.

Marcus Eriksen is with the group:

Eriksen: I challenge you to walk into Wal-Mart or a K-Mart and find a product that’s not made from plastic, packaged or labeled with plastic. And we’re finding more and more of this debris being lost onto the ground washing down rivers and streams out to sea.

Eriksen says the plastic is killing some marine animals. Fish, birds, turtles, and whales get tangled up in the mess – or they mistake it for food.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Subsidizing Solar Power

  • John Wakeman of SUR Energy says government and utility incentives have lowered the costs of a solar installation for consumers.(Photo courtesy of Mark Brush)

Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:

Transcript

Sources of renewable energy like wind, solar, and hydroelectric are still just tiny players in a world powered by fossil fuels. Most of the power for your light switch comes from burning coal and natural gas. Mark Brush reports the government is trying to change that. There are state and federal programs that will pay you to put solar panels on your house:

John Wakeman was laid off from his factory job eight years ago. So, for him it was, “well… Now what?” He’d always been interested in solar panels and wind turbines. So he decided to go into business helping homeowners put these things up. It’s been eight years, business was slow at first, but he says these days, business for solar panels is picking up.

“There are a lot of people that have always just dreamed of it. You know, they thought it was really cool, they looked into it in the ‘70s. In the 70’s it cost, you know, ten times as much for the same energy. The costs have really come down.”

But it’s still really expensive for a lot of people. Wakeman says a typical solar job costs around sixteen thousand dollars these days.

But now – you can get help from the government.

There’s a federal tax credit that will pay for 30% of the cost of new solar panels on your house. So you spend sixteen grand – you get $4,800 off your next tax bill. And on top of that, there are a bunch of state and utility operated programs that will help pay for the up-front costs.

In fact, more than half the states in the country are forcing utilities to make more renewable power.

So more utilities are paying people to install things like solar panels, wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps.

In many places, it costs less to install these things than it ever has.

Wakeman says these incentives have been good for his business.

“I can actually build a business somewhat on that. I can hire some people and get them trained. You know we can go out and sell some systems.”

But some say these subsidies are not a good idea:

“The sunlight may be free, but solar energy is extremely expensive.”

Robert Bryce analyzes the energy business for the Manhattan Institute. It’s a conservative think tank. Bryce says solar power is enjoying big subsidies from the government right now, but it’s not translating into a lot of power going onto the grid:

“Solar energy received 97 times as much in subsidies per megawatt hour produced as natural gas fired electricity; even though the gas-fired electric sector produced 900 times as much electricity as solar. So how much subsidy are we going to have to give them to make them competitive. And I think the answer is going to be… It’s going to have to be a whole, whole lot.”

Bryce agrees – there are some big environmental costs to traditional fossil fuel sources. Costs that are not always paid for. But in the end – he says renewable energy sources like solar just can’t compete with traditional fossil fuels.

But others say the subsidies for renewable power are boosting an industry that is trying to get a start.

Rhone Resch is the president of the Solar Energy Industries Association. He says the subsidies renewables are getting today just make the game fair:

“We’re starting to get the same kinds of support from the federal government that the fossil industry has enjoyed for the last 75 to 100 years. And when you do that, the cost of wind comes down, the cost of solar comes down, the cost of geothermal becomes more cost competitive.”

If you look at the numbers, traditional power sources have always gotten more money from the government. In 2007, the federal government gave out 6.7 billion dollars in subsidies to support electricity production. Most of it went to coal, natural gas, and nuclear.

Today, renewable energy sources, like solar, are getting a little more help. And supporters hope that help doesn’t disappear – like it has in the past – when the political winds change.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Prairie Dog Wars

  • Keith Edwards, a rancher in Kansas, is in favor of poisoning the prairie dogs. (Photo by Devin Browne)

Often we hear stories about
the government trying to get
farmers and ranchers to do
things that are better for
the environment. But Devin
Browne has a story about a
rancher trying to do something
better for the environment
and getting in trouble with
the government:

Transcript

Often we hear stories about
the government trying to get
farmers and ranchers to do
things that are better for
the environment. But Devin
Browne has a story about a
rancher trying to do something
better for the environment
and getting in trouble with
the government:

In western Kansas, there’s a war going on. People are suing each other and threatening each other and there’s poisons and noxious gasses involved. They all call it the ‘prairie dog wars,’ but few of them agree on what it is they’re really fighting about.

Some people say this is about a bad neighbor who’s ruining things for other ranchers. Some say it’s about whether you can let wildlife live on your land. And still, other people say that the conflict in Kansas is about whether the government gets to tell you what you can do on your own land.

(sound of prairie dog barking)

Prairie dogs about a foot tall, in the squirrel family, though technically rodents. Ranchers hate them because they eat grass that’s meant for cows. But biologists love them because where there are prairie dogs there are also all the other animals that need them for food or shelter – hawks, foxes, badgers, owls, and maybe most importantly – the black footed ferret, one of America’s most endangered mammals. We’ll tell you more about the ferret in a moment.

“It’s been said that prairie dogs are the most important animals on the plains and I agree with that.”

At the center of all this controversy is Larry Haverfield He’s a bearded guy in bib overalls, a born and bred Kansas rancher. Four years ago, he stood up at a county meeting and said he liked prairie dogs. And he wasn’t going to kill them anymore.

Ever since then his neighbors have been organizing against him.

Keith Edwards is one of them.

“We’ve had county meetings, we’ve had a petition, we’ve filed the legal complaints that you can go through the county, and we’ve done that several times.”

Second, third, fourth generation ranchers will tell you so in no uncertain terms they’ve been fighting a war against the prairie dogs. But now these ranchers are fighting against one of their own, Larry Haverfield. It’s gotten ugly. Some might even say petty.

Again, Larry Haverfield.

“Well, they’ve threatened to come in on us, and they have, we haven’t paid all the bills yet either.”

When he says come in on us, he means come in onto his property. Exterminators hired by the county to poison the prairie dogs, the one or two days a year when he’s not home – when he and his wife are in court, in Topeka, battling lawsuits. And then, not only the poisoning, but the bill for the poisoning – for thousands of dollars.

This might sound like illegal trespassing, but, in Kansas, there’s nothing illegal about it. An old law, from 1901, says that the government can poison varmints on your land & then bill you if you don’t kill them yourself.

Haverfield says it’s not just the prairie dogs that are affected by the poisoning. The endangered black footed ferrets eat prairie dogs to survive. Since there are so many prairie dogs on the Haverfield’s land, it was decided that they should host one of the first re-introductions of the ferrets. Since it’s endangered, it can’t be legally poisoned.

But the ferrets didn’t stop the county. Haverfield says the state law and the federal Endangered Species Act are working against each other.

“That’s quite a conflict, we think the endangered species act will rule in that argument.”

And an environmental group thinks Haverfield should be able to do what he wants on his land. Ron Klataske is with the Audubon of Kansas.

“Basically, the conflict in western Kansas is: are landowners allowed to have native wildlife on their land?”

Ironically, ranchers such as Keith Edwards say they’re worried about being able to do what they want on their land too.

“Our question is: what will be able to do with our land when the black footed ferret becomes established? And we poison prairie dogs and it accidentally poisons a ferret? Does that leave us open for a lawsuit? Scares us to death.”

Edwards is afraid that this is only the beginning – that if he can’t poison what he wants on his own land, will he have any freedoms as a farmer at all?

Haverfield says he plans to stick to his principles and keep the prairie dogs & the ferrets on his land, no matter what it costs him.

For The Environment Report, I’m Devin Browne.

Related Links

Ethanol Goes to Court in Cali

  • California regulators want car fuels to come from sources that create fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That means corn-based ethanol will soon get a kind of penalty in California's fuel market. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The US government is steadily
increasing the amount of ethanol
used in our gasoline supply.
But Shawn Allee reports
that effort’s hit a roadblock
in the country’s largest gasoline
market:

Transcript

The US government is steadily
increasing the amount of ethanol
used in our gasoline supply.
But Shawn Allee reports
that effort’s hit a roadblock
in the country’s largest gasoline
market:

California regulators want car fuels to come from sources that create fewer greenhouse gas emissions. That means corn-based ethanol will soon get a kind of penalty in California’s fuel market.

Environmental groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council say ethanol should be at a disadvantage. The NRDC’s Roland Hwang says when we grow corn for fuel, farmers overseas plant more corn.

“Someone’s going to cut down a rain forest or convert pasture land or grass land to grow more food. Unfortunately, converting that land will lead to very dramatic increases in global warming pollution.”

Hwang wants the ethanol industry to stop using food crops for fuel.

Ethanol makers are not taking California’s rules sitting down, though; they’ve gone to court. They argue more lenient federal rules on ethanol should trump California’s.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Study: Ethanol Sucking Up Water

  • It can take a lot of water to make ethanol. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The ethanol industry and the government
want more ethanol to be produced. They
say the homegrown biofuel is a good way
to move away from foreign oil. But a new
government report says many ethanol
refineries are putting a strain on another
natural resource – water. Mark Brush has
more:

Transcript

The ethanol industry and the government
want more ethanol to be produced. They
say the homegrown biofuel is a good way
to move away from foreign oil. But a new
government report says many ethanol
refineries are putting a strain on another
natural resource – water. Mark Brush has
more:

When you fuel up at the pump, chances are you’re putting ethanol into your car. Nearly half of the gasoline in the U.S. is blended with ethanol. And that’s likely to increase as they build more refineries.

But the Government Accountability Office says these ethanol refineries should consider local water resources before they build. It can take a lot of water to make ethanol.

Anu Mittel follows water resource issues for the Government Accountability Office:

“Many of them are being built in areas where they are relying on groundwater aquifers for their water supply and that could have a devastating effect on the local community that is also relying on that same water source for all of its other needs.”

Refineries built in those areas often rely on irrigated corn to make ethanol. So it means drawing millions of gallons of water just to make the ethanol at the refinery.

And millions of gallons more to grown the corn.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Fuel From Abandoned Fruit

  • Every year, 20% of the watermelon crop never makes it to buyers. Wayne Fish hopes to turn some of this waste into ethanol. (Photo by Gail Banzet)

Every year in the US, more than 750-
million pounds of watermelon rot away
in the fields. Those left behind can’t
be sold because they’re sunburnt, diseased
or damaged, but now scientists in Oklahoma
are working on a way to use the abandoned
fruit. Gail Banzet reports:

Transcript

Every year in the US, more than 750-
million pounds of watermelon rot away
in the fields. Those left behind can’t
be sold because they’re sunburnt, diseased
or damaged, but now scientists in Oklahoma
are working on a way to use the abandoned
fruit. Gail Banzet reports:

Growers say it was a pretty fair season for watermelons in 2009. A lot of ripe, juicy
melons were enjoyed during the summer months, but, every year, 20% of the crop
never makes it to buyers.

(sound of driving)

Research chemist Wayne Fish steers his truck around the USDA’s agriculture research
laboratory in Lane, Oklahoma.

There are 320 acres of different crops and vegetables here, and one acre is dedicated
to watermelons. Workers have already picked the good ones. Those that are left are
discolored, misshapen or damaged by raccoons or birds.

“There’s one where a crow has pecked on it. That melon is over-ripe, so it has
two strikes against it.”

But Wayne Fish says that watermelon can still be used.

“It’ll still make ethanol fine.”

Four years ago, the National Watermelon Association started studying the ethanol
potential of watermelon sugars. When the project showed favorable results, a trial
process began at the research station in Oklahoma. Bob Morrissey is Executive Director
of the National Watermelon Association.

“If you’ve got that fully developed watermelon there, it has all of the components
– the water, the sugar and the fiber – to create ethanol.”

(sound of machines in a lab room)

Back at the research station in a lab, Wayne Fish and his team combine yeast with
watermelon sugars. Hours later, the mixture is fermented and placed in a still.

“By distilling that mixture, one drives the ethanol off together with a small
amount of water. That’s how we enrich the mixture to ultimately 95% ethanol.”

Fish says the project is not an attempt to replace sugar cane or corn for ethanol. This
pilot phase of testing shows wasted watermelons can add some ethanol to the overall
market.

Bob Morrissey at the National Watermelon Association says using the melons could
open up a whole new market for farmers. They could sell the good ones to people and
the bad ones to ethanol plants.

“That farmer could literally harvest his or her entire crop, send it to the ethanol
plant, and at least get something out of it to try and cover their cost instead of
taking a complete loss.”

There are a lot of growers across the country who are worried about wasting melons.

Jim Motes is from Oklahoma. Even though he’s not a huge farmer, he says he’s always
looking for ways to make the most of his crop.

“If they can find a large enough quantity to make it efficient, then it’s a good idea,
because there are a lot of watermelons laying there when the field disked up that
ought to find some use.”

Researchers say watermelon ethanol is drawing a lot of attention. A Texas-based
company Common Sense Agriculture is currently working on a mobile unit that would
process the melon sugars and produce ethanol right in the field.

For The Environment Report, I’m Gail Banzet.

Related Links

Atrazine in Our Water

  • Downstream view of Roberts Creek, IA, where USGS scientists conducted a study of the degradation of atrazine, a herbicide, in streams. (Photo courtesy of the USGS)

People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:

Transcript

People have been concerned
about farm chemicals getting
into drinking water supplies
for a long time. A recent report
showed that the chemical atrazine
peaks, in many areas, in concentrations
much higher than previously thought.
Julie Grant reports there are
things you can do to protect your
family. But, finding out if you
have a problem is harder:

Bob Denges is worried. His water is discolored. So he’s
called a water purification company to test it.

(sound of running water)

They’re running water in the basement utility sink. It’s kind
of orange-y looking. So, it’s an easy diagnosis: too much
iron.

“You can probably see in the toilet, upstairs just on the first
floor, that there’s some brownish, reddish discoloration
around the toilets.”

That’s not great. But at least you can tell when there’s iron
in the water. You cannot see or taste other water
contaminants such as weed killers like atrazine.

Tom Bruusema is the water filter expert at the National
Sanitation Foundation. They test and certify water filtration
devices. He says the first place you can check is your local
municipality – the folks that monitor water in your area.

“That would be the place to start. They are required, by
federal law, to measure a number of contaminants, produce
an annual report for their consumers.”

But recently an investigative report by the New York Times
revealed water contamination can spike in some places –
and local water officials might not even know about it.

That weed killer – atrazine – is applied on farm fields and, in a
lot of places, you also find a lot of atrazine in the water
during that time.

If you’re looking for it at the right time.

Sometimes it spikes for longer than a month. But some local
water officials only test for atrazine once a month, or only
once a year, and often it’s not during that peak application
season.

So people can’t really find out about atrazine levels for their
drinking water in those places.

Some water systems are spending lots of money to treat
drinking water to get atrazine levels down to what the federal
government considers safe levels.

But that might not be enough, according to some of the new
scientific evidence about atrazine.

Five studies published in peer-reviewed journals recently
have found evidence suggesting that small amounts of
atrazine in drinking water causes health problems. Even at
levels considered safe by federal standards, atrazine might
be associated with birth defects. Things like low birth
weights in newborns. Skull and facial malformations and
misshapen limbs.

Forty-three water systems in six states — Illinois, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi and Ohio — recently sued
atrazine’s manufacturers. They want to force the company
Syngenta and its partner Growmark to pay for removing the
chemical from drinking water.

Steve Tillery is an attorney in the lawsuit.

“Some of them have gone to the expense to cleaning it
completely out of their water supplies, so that it doesn’t exist
at all. And they should, in our view, be entitled to
reimbursement of expenses for cleaning it completely out of
their water supplies.”

But, some water systems are not cleaning out atrazine
completely. And, as we mentioned, there are times when
some don’t know they exceed the federal safe drinking water
levels.

There is something pretty easy you can do if you’re worried
about your water.

Tom Bruusema of the National Sanitation Foundation says a
simple carbon filter can remove atrazine. Those are the
filters you can attach to the faucet or the pitchers you refill.

“So it’s a good investment. Certainly can help them if they
have those kinds of concerns, and particularly those living in
an area that’s known to have potential contaminants in the
water supply.”

But first people have to be aware of a possible problem.
And, too often, they are not.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Lawn Chemicals Cause Concern

  • Nationwide, farms use the bulk of chemicals. But one expert says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

New laws restrict pesticides and fertilizers in some cities. In recent years, farms have cut the use of chemicals. But, Rebecca Williams reports, some environmentalists say there are still far too many chemicals polluting streams and lakes:

Transcript

New laws restrict pesticides and fertilizers in some cities. In recent years, farms have cut the use of chemicals. But, Rebecca Williams reports, some environmentalists say there are still far too many chemicals polluting streams and lakes:

There are 40 million acres of lawns and sports fields in the US. That’s only one-tenth of the amount of cropland.

But some experts say lawn pesticides and fertilizers can be more of a problem.

Charles Benbrook is the Chief Scientist with the Organic Center. It’s a non-profit research group in Oregon.

“While there are many more acres of corn and soybeans and cotton treated with pesticides than there are lawns, the rate of application on lawns in urban areas often is far higher than on the farm.”

And, he says people are more likely to get exposed to chemicals on lawns.

“There’s many more opportunities for significant exposures, particularly for children and pregnant women in urban areas.”

Nationwide, farms do use the bulk of chemicals. But Benbrook says homeowners are more likely to overuse pesticides and fertilizers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

EPA Rules on Pesticide Residue

  • One crop that Carbofuran was used on is potatoes (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)

The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency says no amount of the pesticide carbofuran is safe on food. Mark Brush has more on the new EPA rule:

The EPA has been phasing out this insecticide, but it’s still used on some crops like rice, corn, and potatoes.

When people are exposed to carbofuran, it can cause damage to the nervous system. And the EPA is particularly worried about kids exposure when eating food or when drinking water near treated farm fields.

Potato farmers say they use carbofuran to kill bugs that resist other pesticides.

John Keeling is the CEO of the National Potato Council. He says they were hoping the EPA would let them keep using it.

“We had tried to work with the agency to modify use patterns, or limit the use to particular areas, so that we could continue to use the product – but they obviously didn’t continue in that direction.”

FMC Corporation makes the chemical. Officials there issued a statement saying they’ll fight the EPA’s new rule.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Farmers to Help With Flooding

  • Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of the USDA)

Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:

Transcript

Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports that the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:

The federal stimulus package has 145-million dollars to buy easements on farmland.

Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water.

Land that’s flooded within the last year or twice in the last decade is eligible.

Don Baloun is with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. He says farmers would eventually stop growing some crops and instead allow the planting of water-absorbing trees or grasses.

“If it has been obstructed and farmed let’s say with a dike or levee, we would breach that dike or levee and open up the floodplain, the field in particular, to store floodwaters and relieve the downstream damages.”

Baloun says allowing more water back into floodplains might reduce the threat of flooding to towns and cities along rivers.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links