Keeping Your Lawn From Bugging You

  • There's a movement to stop using pesticides and sprays on your lawn. (Photo courtesy of Horia Varlan CC-BY)

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush. We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs. But some people say it’s not necessary and could do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

Transcript

A lot of us have a love-hate relationship with our lawns. We love them when they’re lush. We hate them when they’re full of dandelions and
dead patches. It’s easy to have someone come out and spray pesticides to take care of weeds and bugs. But some people say it’s not necessary and could
do more harm than good. Rebecca Williams reports:

So, you might be using pesticides on your lawn right now. And of
course, the pesticide industry says that’s okay.

The industry says the chemicals are safe to use on the lawn if you use
them correctly.

Alan James is president of Responsible Industry for a Sound
Environment, or RISE. It’s a trade group for pesticide companies.

“If individuals or professional applicators read the labels and follow
labels, the likelihood of misuse of pesticides is virtually zero because the
labels provide all the information a consumer or professional needs to
apply products both efficiently and safely.”

But the problem is, not everybody reads the label.

Alan James says if you’re hiring someone to spray your lawn you should
make sure they’re certified and insured. You should also take your kids’
and pet’s toys off the lawn before they spray.

But a lot of people say there’s no point in using chemicals just to make
your lawn look good.

Jay Feldman is with the group Beyond Pesticides. He says of the 30
most common lawn pesticides, most of them are suspected by the
Environmental Protection Agency to cause cancer, birth defects or other health problems.

“There’s a range of adverse effects that are indicated as a part of the
pesticide registration program at EPA. EPA knows this information.
Why not remove pesticides from the equation, especially in light of the
fact that they’re not really necessary?”

There’s a movement to stop using pesticides in North America. Both
Ontario and Quebec have banned the sale and cosmetic use of
pesticides.

So if you’re not going to use pesticides, what do you do?

That’s a question Kevin Frank gets a lot. He’s an extension agent at
Michigan State University and an expert on lawns.

“I love to mow my lawn on the weekends because nobody can call me on
the phone or email me with questions.”

He’s been showing me green, healthy test plots of grass and some that
look sad and neglected. The scientists here have been working to find
ways to have good-looking lawns without a lot of chemicals.

Back in his office, Kevin Frank says he tells people they shouldn’t be
afraid to experiment.

“Do you have it in you to let it go for one season and see what happens?
And it could be ugly, so you’ve got to be prepared for that!”

He says a healthy, dense lawn is actually really good at fighting off
weeds and pests all on its own. So, how do you get a healthy, dense lawn
without a lot of chemicals? Frank says it might take a couple years to get
there. And it means going against conventional lawn advice.

“We’ve done a great deal of research here at Michigan State that runs
contrary to what I call ‘turf dogma’. You know: water deeply and
infrequently – and we’ve shown if you do it on a more frequent basis you
end up with a healthier plan overall.”

He recommends watering lightly – just 10 minutes – every day instead
of soaking the lawn once a week. Frank says it’s also good to fertilize
twice a year, use a mulch mower, and mow high instead of giving the
grass a buzz cut.

He says that could make your lawn so healthy, it might mean you won’t
need to spray or hire someone to spray your lawn.

He says the biggest adjustment in reducing pesticide use is managing
your expectations, and deciding how many weeds and bugs you can live
with.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Seagrass Beds Declining

  • Recent studies show about a third of all sea grasses have disappeared worldwide.(Photo courtesy of NOAA/Heather Dine)

The Gulf of Mexico is losing sea grass beds at an alarming rate. According to a new aerial survey, Mobile Bay has lost nearly 14-hundred acres of sea grass beds in the last few years. And as Tanya Ott reports, that could affect your dinner plate:

Transcript

The Gulf of Mexico is losing sea grass beds at an alarming rate. According to a new aerial survey, Mobile Bay has lost nearly 14-hundred acres of sea grass beds in the last few years. And as Tanya Ott reports, that could affect your dinner plate.

Americans love shrimp. And shrimp love sea grass beds. But as Tanya Ott reports sea grass beds are dying at an alarming rate.

Each American eats on average four pounds of shrimp a year. But a new aerial survey of the Gulf of Mexico finds the place where shrimp, crab and a lot of different fish find their food is disappearing. Scientists say agricultural runoff and sediment from development are killing off sea grass beds. Dauphin Island Sea Lab scientist Ken Heck says part of the problem is PR. Sea grass beds just are’t as sexy as some other ecosystems.

“Many people know about coral reefs and they know about tropical rain forests. But sea grass habitats are a bit under-loved and under-appreciated.”

Sea grass decline isn’t just a problem in the Gulf of Mexico. Heck is part of team doing a global sea grass census. He says worldwide a third of sea grass beds have disappeared.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Biofuels in Europe: Part 1

  • The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's cellulosic ethanol plant. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The US government is spending
millions of dollars to build bio-energy
plants. They’ll turn everything from
wood chips to algae into energy. But
these facilities are years behind what
they are already doing in Europe –
especially in Germany. In the first
part of our three-part series on biofuels
in Europe, Sadie Babits takes us to one
German plant that makes green energy
on a massive scale:

Transcript

The US government is spending
millions of dollars to build bio-energy
plants. They’ll turn everything from
wood chips to algae into energy. But
these facilities are years behind what
they are already doing in Europe –
especially in Germany. In the first
part of our three-part series on biofuels
in Europe, Sadie Babits takes us to one
German plant that makes green energy
on a massive scale:

We’re in Eastern Germany where crews work on what looks like brew vats.

(construction sound)

These monster tanks remind me of vats for brewing beer, except these vats will brew energy from fermenting rye, manure and bacteria.

“Basically, we’re standing here in front of the biogas and bio fertilizer production area. The big fermenter is for the biogas production.”

Oliver Lutke is our tour guide. He’s really a chemical engineer for Verbio. The company is one of Germany’s largest commercial producers of biofuels. Lutke’s been involved in turning this ethanol facility into a plant that makes ethanol and biogas. That’s methane.

“We convert everything into energy by using biological processes. This combination biogas and bioethanol production plant isn’t existing in the world.”

That’s what Verbio claims anyway. The company buys grain from some four-thousand farmers in the region. The grain gets turned into biogas and ethanol. Verbio then turns the minerals from making these biofuels into fertilizer.
That goes back to the farmers for their crops.

“We’re closing the loop to the farmer converting all the carbon to energy and the minerals going back to the farmers as fertilizer which is growing the plants used to extract the energy.”

Lutke says the company has the technology to make this industrial sized plant profitable. That baffles skeptics because it costs a lot to make green energy. You have to buy the grain. And the actual process of turning that grain into fuel can be really inefficient. By the time you’ve made one gallon of biofuel, that gallon of oil is cheaper.

Jan Liebetrau isn’t convinced Verbio has the answer. He researches bioenergy and its potential in Germany.

“If you put lots of energy into the system and you get bioethanol you’re putting more energy in than you get out.”

So making bio ethanol costs energy, which defeats the whole purpose of producing it in the first place. Lutke doesn’t see it that way. He says Verbio has the technology to make biofuels without losing energy. And because the company’s process is more efficient, Lutke says they’ve cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

“We emit 200,000 tons and the plants we are using will eat off 180,000 tons and that’s a closed cycle.”

It’s not perfect, but there’s less greenhouse gas being released than, say, from an oil refinery. Lutke is convinced bio energy will play a big role in cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Germany, and Europe for that matter, have become leaders on this. Germany wants to be the first industrialized nation to be powered entirely by renewable energy – a goal Germany could reach by 2050, well ahead of the U.S.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Related Links

Using Grass for Electricity

  • John Caveny operates a farm in central Illinois. He was one of the state's first cultivators of miscanthus gigantus, a type of grass that can be burned for heat or electicity generation. Caveny predicts biomass will start small but if properly managed and marketed, could become utility scale. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

Energy experts are thinking through
how to replace coal that’s burned
in American power stations. One
alternative is to burn plants,
because they can produce fewer
greenhouse gas emissions. This
is called biomass power. In the
Midwest, there’s talk of growing
millions of acres of grass for biomass.
Shawn Allee looks at whether
the region’s up to the challenge:

Transcript

Energy experts are thinking through
how to replace coal that’s burned
in American power stations. One
alternative is to burn plants,
because they can produce fewer
greenhouse gas emissions. This
is called biomass power. In the
Midwest, there’s talk of growing
millions of acres of grass for biomass.
Shawn Allee looks at whether
the region’s up to the challenge:

One Midwest farmer who grows biomass crops is John Caveny of Illinois. Caveny shows me some gigantic grass called miscanthus.

Caveny: ”You can get an idea of how big it is. It’d be eleven or twelve feet tall right now. and it’s still not done growing.”

Allee: ”It’s pretty sturdy stuff.”

(rustle)

Caveny: ”That’s the thing about it.”

(rustle)

Caveny says you can burn miscanthus and other energy grasses to make electricity. The idea’s to replace coal, which spews carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas.

”Unlike wind energy or solar that just dispalce fossil carbon use, these plants here, displace fossil carbon use, but in addition they take CO2 out of the air and store it in the soils.”

Energy experts say that’s true, at least for a while. But they say to do much good, lots of utilities need to burn energy grasses. Caveny would love that, but there’s a problem.

Caveny: ”There’s this whole concept of the valley of death.”

Allee: ”I haven’t heard this term. Valley of death?”

Caveny: ”Valley of death is you’ve got a user here and a producer here and you gotta get ’em to match up.”

This valley is a gap between supply and demand for energy grass. It exists because utilities won’t invest in biomass electrical equipment until farmers prove they can grow enough grass. Caveny says farmers will start small.

”You might want to heat a shopping mall or a small strip mall or something like that.”

Caveny says those kinds of projects will make utilities confident in the grass market – and then they’d cross that valley of death. They’ll invest, they’ll buy energy grass and they’ll power suburbs and cities with biomass. That’s his prediction, though.

At a Midwestern farm expo, I find people who say this valley of death is too wide.

Bryan Reggie is showing off equipment that squishes energy grass into briquettes.

Reggie: ”It’s roughly the size of a golf ball, but a cylinder in shape.”

Allee: ”Like a hockey puck almost.”

Reggie: ”Yeah.”

Reggie makes biomass equipment for farmers who want cheap heat, and these grass hockey pucks work.

Allee: ”What, you burn these?”

Reggie: ”Yeah, you burn these in biomass boilers.”

Allee: ”You’d want to heat a farm house or something?”

Reggie: ”Yeah, maybe a green house or larger space.”

Reggie says energy grass could be great for farms, but big-city electric utilities will not cross that “financial valley of death” Caveny talked about. They’d need too much biomass.

”When you get bigger scale, you have to start trucking in all your fuel from long distance. Biomass transportation costs are high, so you want to transport as little as possible. That’s a good reason to keep it small and keep everything local.”

After Reggie’s equipment demonstration, I bump into Steve Flick. He’s with Show Me Energy, a Missouri co-op. Flick is a kind of biomass celebrity because he actually got a coal-fired power plant to test-burn his energy grass. That test worked, but so far no utility has volunteered to give up coal. Flick predicts groups of Midwestern farmers will build tiny power plants.

Flick: ”We think these models would be every fifty to sixty miles apart and the producers that owned those organizations would benefit.”

Allee: ”You wouldn’t necessarily be lighting up St. Louis or lighting up Chicago, right?”

Flick: ”Presently, we’re not trying to settle all the world’s problems, just our little piece of it right now.”

Flick says forget that financial valley of death idea – only energy pundits dream of powering a metropolis with biomass, at least while coal is so cheap.

He says biomass can power a good chunk of rural America, and for now that’s good enough.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Subsidized Grazing

  • Ranchers have to pay to let their cows, sheep and goats eat plants on public land. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

The US Forest Service has
announced it will not increase
fees for ranchers who let their
animals graze on public lands.
Rebecca Williams reports that
makes some environmentalists mad:

Transcript

The US Forest Service has
announced it will not increase
fees for ranchers who let their
animals graze on public lands.
Rebecca Williams reports that
makes some environmentalists mad:

Ranchers have to pay to let their cows, sheep and goats eat plants on public land. This year, that monthly fee is staying put at $1.35 for each so-called “animal unit.” For example, that’s a cow and her calf, or five sheep.

Taylor McKinnon is with the Center for Biological Diversity. He says livestock grazing is one of the reasons species like the desert tortoise and Mexican gray wolf are in trouble. And he says taxpayers are subsidizing livestock grazing, and then paying to fix the damage it creates.

“We have the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service whose recovery programs are spending tremendous amounts of money to recover species who have been imperiled by livestock grazing.”

McKinnon says raising grazing fees would increase costs for ranchers.

No one at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association was available for comment.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Greening the Golf Course

  • Audubon International estimates the average American golf course uses 312,000 gallons of water a day. (Photo source: Easchiff at Wikimedia Commons)

This time of year, golfing might be
the furthest thing from your mind.
But during the off-season, golf course
managers get to strategize how to best
treat their million dollar turf. Some
golf courses have a bad rap with
environmentalists. But, as Tanya Ott reports, there’s a budding
green movement in the golf industry:

Transcript

This time of year, golfing might be
the furthest thing from your mind.
But during the off-season, golf course
managers get to strategize how to best
treat their million dollar turf. Some
golf courses have a bad rap with
environmentalists. But, as Tanya Ott reports, there’s a budding
green movement in the golf industry:

Golf courses take knocks for using too many chemicals and too much water. Audubon International estimates the average American golf course uses 312,000 gallons a day.

Gil Rogers is with the Southern Environmental Law Center. He says that’s a boatload of water.

“In Georgia, they’re defined as agriculture – which doesn’t make any sense – but that allows them to use a lot more water than they would otherwise be able to.”

That can be a problem, especially in places with water shortages. Places like Atlanta, where a federal battle over water rights might soon leave the city high and dry.

(sound of rain hitting metal roof)

Of course, on this day, water doesn’t seem like much of a problem. It’s been raining all night. I’ve come to the Stone Mountain Golf Course, just outside Atlanta, to talk to superintendent Anthony Williams. He won golf’s highest environmental stewardship award this year.

(sound of power screwdriver)

Technicians raise the reels on the mowers to help protect the wet turf. Williams says it’s been a tough fall. In October, a big storm – they call it the 500 year storm – dropped 16 inches of rain on Stone Mountain in one day. Williams says the only thing that saved his course were the acres of native plants.

“When that flood – literally – came into the property, those plants did exactly what nature created them to do. They fluffed out. Fanned out and really just acted like a sponge.”

When Williams took over a few years ago he ripped out the non-native ornamentals and replaced them with native perennials that don’t require any additional watering. Just rain.

(sound of rain on roof)

Stone Mountain isn’t just using less water. It’s also using fewer chemicals. Williams’ crew is creative. Take, for instance, one of their big problems: wild geese. They can do a lot of damage to million dollar turf.

“We refer to it as the in-and-out damage. The ‘in damage’ is when they’re actually eating the grass and physically tearing the green up. The ‘out damage’ is as they’re walking, well, (laugh) the eaten grass becomes, well, goose droppings and then the cleanup is very, very difficult.”

Conventional golf courses spray foul-tasting chemicals on the grass or light fireworks overhead to scare the geese. But at Stone Mountain, their secret weapon is a 13 year old hound dog named Cushman. When the geese see Cushman coming, they think he’s a predator. Williams says it works like a charm!

This focus on environmental stewardship is paying off financially. Anthony Williams says they’re using significantly less fertilizer and insecticides. He estimates they’ve saved nearly $50,000 on chemicals in the last two years.

How confident is he about the health of his golf course? I asked him if he was willing to put his course to the test. Apparently, some old-school players still lick their golf balls to clean them. Not a good idea when there’re pesticides on the grounds. Would Williams do it now?

“There’s a lot of things in nature that you probably wouldn’t want to eat or put in your mouth. So the golf ball’s going to encounter a lot of those along the way. I would definitely line up with the ‘do not lick your balls.’ I’m gonna be on that side of the fence.”

More golf courses are starting to look at their environmental impact for the first time. They’re planting different grasses.

And nearly 1,000 US golf courses use recycled or reclaimed water. Another reason not to lick your balls.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tanya Ott.

Related Links

Green Roofs Greener Than Thought

  • The rock, soil and tiny plants in a green roof help insulate a building. That can cut heating and cooling costs. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Green roofs are a popular, but
expensive, way for building owners
to prove their green credentials.
Shawn Allee reports some
researchers feel they might do even
more environmental good than they
thought:

Transcript

Green roofs are a popular, but
expensive, way for building owners
to prove their green credentials.
Shawn Allee reports some
researchers feel they might do even
more environmental good than they
thought:

The rock, soil and tiny plants in a green roof help insulate a building.
That can cut heating and cooling costs.

Researchers at Michigan State University think they’ve found another
benefit, too.

Brad Rowe says the tiny plants absorb carbon from the air. Rowe says the
plants are small, so this carbon sequestration effect is small, too. But
he says green roofs are still better than plain-jane roofs.

“You have all these roofs everywhere and basically, they’re doing nothing
– they’re essentially dead. So, putting plants on them is one way to
sequester carbon above ground, in the leaves and stems, the roots, and even
in the soil that’s on top of the roof.”

Rowe says if Congress ever puts a price on carbon emissions, green roof
owners might get credit for sequestering carbon – and that could cut a
green roof’s high price tag.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Parks in Parking Spaces

  • Every other day of the year, this little green oasis in Brooklyn is a parking space. (Photo by Norah Flaherty)

On September 18th, thousands of
people around the world will spend
the day sitting in parking spaces –
without their cars – as part of an
annual event called “Parking Day.”
The idea is to spark a conversation
about how we’re using our public spaces.
Nora Flaherty attended
last year’s Parking Day, and here’s
what she found:

Transcript

On September 18th, thousands of
people around the world will spend
the day sitting in parking spaces –
without their cars – as part of an
annual event called “Parking Day.”
The idea is to spark a conversation
about how we’re using our public spaces.
Nora Flaherty attended
last year’s Parking Day, and here’s
what she found:

(sound of park)

Last year at about this time, this little park on a busy Brooklyn
corner was packed. Packed with people like freelance writer Karen
Sherman. She was sitting cross-legged in the grass and just
beaming.

“Amazing! And the sun’s out and it’s this beautiful fall day and I
wish we could do it every day.”

But she couldn’t have done it every day— that little park was
temporary. Every other day of the year it’s a parking space.

In New York City last year, there were more than 50 parking day
parks – some with grass and fences, some with tents and lawn
chairs. And they didn’t just spring up overnight – as much as it
might have looked that way.

A few days before last year’s parking day, planning was underway
at a Brooklyn coffee house.

“So how long do we think it’s going to take to set up?”

Sod needed transporting, city permits needed confirming, and—
because of New York City’s unusual parking regulations—the
parking place had to be staked out at 3 am.

Anne Pope is the director of Sustainable Flatbush – the
organization that put together the parking-spot park in Brooklyn.
She says although Flatbush is one of the greenest neighborhoods in
Brooklyn, there aren’t a lot of public, green places where people
can just go and hang out.

“If you walk around the neighborhood you’ll say, ‘wow there’s so
much greenery and green space,’ but if it doesn’t happen to be
attached to a house you own you can’t access it.”

(sound of child fingerpainting)

So on Parking Day last year, parking spaces did become a place to
hang out, for adults, and for kids like brother and sister Quinn
Isreal and Yusuf Francis.

Quinn: “Whoa, Yusuf, you’re pushing me.”

Yusuf: “Whoopsie, sorry.”

Quinn: “It’s okay.”
They had just moved here from Georgia, and Quinn said this park,
with its soft grass, was a nice change from New York’s mostly
concrete playgrounds.

“‘Cause usually in parks when you fall you hurt yourself, but in
this park you don’t hurt yourself if you fall down, you’re going to
fall down on the grass.”

Now, finding a parking space on any day in New York City is
competitive.

Matt Shafer is with the Trust for Public Land – they were one of
the major sponsors of last year’s Parking Day. He says that not
everyone is thrilled to find they can’t find a place to put their car
because people are hanging out in parking spaces.

“Some people don’t quite grasp the concept of parking day; that’s
perfectly fine. In most cases it’s, ‘why are you taking up our
parking space?’”

For some people, though, the biggest disappointment is that the
little parking space park is gone the next day. Keka Marzigal is
with Sustainable Flatbush.

“A kid came by after school and he said, ‘this is so fun, we can
come here tomorrow and do our homework!’ and it really got me!”

There was no tomorrow for that little park. But, that kid might just
find another one this year as more people convert parking spaces
into parks for a day.

For The Environment Report, I’m Nora Flaherty.

Related Links

Whose Grass Is Really Greener?

  • Molly Aubuchon and Stefan Meyer survey their lawn. (Photo by Julie Grant)

Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:

Transcript

Many Americans love full, lush
lawns. Fertilizers and herbicides
might help. But there’s concern
about water pollution from lawn
chemicals. Julie Grant reports
that some experts say you can use
them, just don’t over-use them:

Molly Aubuchon and her husband Stefan Meyer aren’t sure
what they’re going to do. Their two little kids are running
around the yard. Stefan wants a lawn of thick, soft grass for
them to play on. But that’s not what he’s got.

Stefan: “As you can see, there’s no grass here.
I don’t know what some of this stuff is. Some kind of moss.
I think even the moss died, so now we have dead moss
that’s like yellow and brown.”

Molly: “It’s not attractive dead.”

Stefan: “No. I just think, when I’m out here cutting my grass,
I’m like, man, if I lived across the street, I’d be like, ‘hey look,
they’re cutting absolutely nothing again. They’re just running
that lawn mower over bare spots.’”

They see their neighbors, with those thick, green lawns,
spreading chemicals a few times a year. Molly and Stefan
don’t want to do that.

Molly: “Well, the fact that I’ve got kids running around here
all day. And the fact that it seeps into the water supply and
the rivers, that’s a concern to me.”

There are lots of people who are concerned about lawn
pollution. Lawns have gotten a bad wrap in some places –
because of the fertilizers and other chemicals people use on
them. In much of Canada, lawn chemicals have actually
been banned.

Lou DiGeranimo is General Manager of Water in Toronto.
He says lawn chemicals were damaging the water quality.

“People were over-fertilizing, they were using commercial
pesticides. That chemical ended up in the rivers and ended
up in the lake. We passed a bylaw that prohibited that.”

But some experts say the chemical bans in Canada are
extreme.

David Gardner is professor of turf grass at the Ohio State
University. He doesn’t think banning lawn chemical will do
anything to improve the environment.

“Based on the work that I have seen, based on the research
that has been conducted, I believe that if there is a unilateral
ban on the use of pesticides it will make absolutely no
impact on our environmental footprint.”

Gardner says compared to
other sources of pollution, like cars and over-use of
chemicals on farms, the impact of lawn care is miniscule.

Still, Gardner says people like Molly and Stefan can keep
nice lawns – without using a lot of chemicals.

He says you’ve got to cut the grass and water regularly.
He also recommends fertilizing lightly in the spring and more
heavily in the fall.

That’s what Gardner does at his house – and he uses only 6
to 8 ounces of herbicide a year.

“Putting it another way, if I were to go to a store and buy one
of those gallon jugs of ready-made herbicide, that would be
enough to last me for about 16 years.”

Gardner says the herbicide will hit its expiration date before
he has a chance to use it all.

But Molly and Stefan just aren’t sold. They don’t want to use
lawn chemicals just to appease the neighbors.

Stefan: “I just want to feel good about the way my yard
looks for my own satisfaction. I would like to cultivate some
grass that looks good, you know, with my hands.”

Besides, Stefan says, they don’t have the worst looking lawn
on the street and they’d just rather not add unnecessary
chemicals into the environment.

Stefan: “We don’t have the worst lawn on the street. Our
street is not that long. It’s only four blocks, five blocks long –
there’s a house down there and their yard looks worse than
ours.”

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