Tag: greens

Greening New Year’s Eve

  • The numerals for the New Year's Eve celebration on Times Square are brought in by pedi-cab. Just one of the many things that organizers say make this year's celebration more green. (Photo by Samara Freemark)

Tonight, thousands of people will
gather in Times Square in New York
City to ring in the new year. But
with all those lights and all that
confetti dropping, some people
are concerned about all that waste.
Julie Grant reports on efforts to
make the party in Times Square
a little greener this year:

Transcript

Tonight, thousands of people will
gather in Times Square in New York
City to ring in the new year. But
with all those lights and all that
confetti dropping, some people
are concerned about all that waste.
Julie Grant reports on efforts to
make the party in Times Square
a little greener this year:

(sound of pedicab)

When the seven-foot tall numerals 1 and 0 were delivered to Times Square earlier this month, they weren’t driven in on big gas guzzling trucks. They were pedaled in by human power – on pedicabs – which look more or less like a rickshaw.

That’s just one of the symbolic changes making new years greener.

The numerals themselves are saving energy.
There are more than 500 bulbs in the numbers. This year, the 40-watt halogen bulbs have been swapped out for 9-watt LED lights.

Susan Bloom is spokesperson for Phillips lighting – the company that made the switch. She says the numerals will shine even more brightly.

“Now they will deliver 80% greater energy efficiency, so, if you will, the times square ball numerals have gone greener than ever.”

Organiziers say the power for those lights is also greener – it’ll come from people pedaling stationary bikes in Times Square. Power from the bikes will be stored in batteries to light up the new year’s lights.

Oh, and about the ball.

In recent years, it’s been dropping its energy usage. Bloom says since 2007 they’ve doubled the number of lights, but since those are LEDs, the ball is still 80% more efficient.

Tim Tompkins is President of the Times Square Alliance. The Alliance is one of the event organizers. He says the time is right for the iconic celebration to go green.

“Times Square is always this place that’s kind of this mood ring for America that reflects whatever is going on. And certainly, in recent years, the country and world is getting greener and so it makes sense and is consistent with history that Times Square is going green in the way that the country is going green.”

There are a lots of other big entertainment events trying to reduce their environmental footprints.

Allen Hershkowitz is with the Natural Resources Defense Council. He’s been helping to green the Grammy’s, the Academy Awards, Major League Baseball’s World Series, and lots of other big events.

“When we talk about greening an event, like the Times Square event, New Year’s Eve in New York City, or the Oscars or the Grammy’s, we go category by category. Every category of operations, every purchase made, engenders an environmental impact.”

Hershkowitz looks for ways to reduce those impacts at each event – everything from finding fuel efficient transportation to get there, to buying paper products for the event made from recycled materials, to serving locally grown food. They’ve even started using recycled plastic to make red carpets.

But sometimes these efforts draw criticism. When the Democratic National Convention tried to go green in 2008,
press photos afterwards showed piles of trash outside the convention hall. People wondered if the recycling and other efforts really made any difference.

Hershkowitz says big events, such as the DNC or New Year’s at Times Square can make some environmental improvements. But their real impact is in the ideals they represent.

“Frankly, I think the biggest thing that Times Square can do on New Year’s Eve is what they’re doing – publicizing environmentalism. Saying, ‘hey, that ball is made with energy efficiency lighting’ to the 1-point whatever billion people that are watching that show.”

Hershkowitz hopes people look at that symbol and make changes in their own lives in 2010.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

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

Leafy, Irradiated Greens

  • The Food and Drug Administration has now approved irradiating iceberg lettuce and spinach to kill the bacteria. (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)

The government has cleared the way
to irradiate some produce. Lester Graham
reports if produce companies do use radiation,
it might reduce contamination of leafy greens:

Transcript

The government has cleared the way
to irradiate some produce. Lester Graham
reports if produce companies do use radiation,
it might reduce contamination of leafy greens:

The last few years a lot of people have gotten sick from salmonella and e.coli
contamination. The Food and Drug Administration has now approved irradiating
iceberg lettuce and spinach to kill the bacteria.

Dennis Olson is a scientist at Iowa State University. He says like irradiating meat,
people will accept this too.

“There are a lot of consumer activists groups that are opposed to the technology and
they get a lot of media attention that says consumers hate it or don’t want it. And yet, in
fact, when we’ve introduced the products – with some education – consumers are very
willing to accept it.”

Olson says the FDA should okay irradiating other produce too. It’s expensive, but it
might mean fewer costly recalls for produce companies, and means longer shelf life for
lettuce and spinach.

For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Safer Bags of Salad

There’s growing concern about the spinach and lettuce in your crisper. There have been
several recalls of bags of salad produce after they hit the grocery stores. The federal
government recently noted that food safety has become one of the biggest ongoing
problems facing agencies responsible for inspecting food. The result is a debate among
growers, food processors and conservation groups over how to better protect the food
supply. But environmental groups say some of the safeguards can harm wildlife. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

There’s growing concern about the spinach and lettuce in your crisper. There have been
several recalls of bags of salad produce after they hit the grocery stores. The federal
government recently noted that food safety has become one of the biggest ongoing
problems facing agencies responsible for inspecting food. The result is a debate among
growers, food processors and conservation groups over how to better protect the food
supply. But environmental groups say some of the safeguards can harm wildlife. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:


During the last year, people have died and hundreds of people have gotten sick because
of E. coli bacteria contamination of some produce. Farmers and food processors are
fighting in court over what officially caused the contamination. But in the Salinas Valley
of California, an area known as the nation’s Salad Bowl, the food processing industry is
trying to show consumers they can be confident about the safety of commercially-
produced leafy greens. Even processors who were not linked to last year’s E. coli scare
suffered a drop in sales. They’re anxious to show off their facilities and the safety
precautions they’ve taken.


Inside this large processing plant a million pounds of lettuce come through every day.
It’s washed in chlorinated water, some of it is mixed in with other raw vegetables and
packed into bags that are sent to grocery stores across the U.S. This plant is operated by
Fresh Express, a company owned by Chiquita Brands. Plant manager Phil Bradway says
the plant is sanitized daily:


“You generate organic material buildup and its extremely important on a regular and
consistent basis to remove that organic material before you continue to process a food
safe product and that’s why we’re rigorous about the seven-day-a-week sanitation activities in
our facilities.”


Fresh Express vice president Bill Clyburn says this salad bagging plant ships out a
product that is better protected than vegetables that are sent unbagged to the grocery
stores:


“We’re taking the precautions to wash the lettuce and make it clean. You take commodity
produce of any type, go into a grocery store and watch how many people pick it up,
breathe on it, put it back down and take another head of lettuce and how many people still
don’t wash that. You never hear about people getting sick on commodity lettuce ’cause
there’s no label to go back at.”


And Fresh Express says it’s not just conditions at the plant that they and other processors
are trying to control. In the last year, California growers came up with a voluntary
program to try to develop better agricultural practices. Things such as protecting farm
fields from contamination from animals. Fresh Express insists that its growers exceed the
standards so that no wildlife urine or fecal matter come into contact with the produce, but some farmers say the food processors have some unrealistic ideas.


(Sound of sprinkler)


A sprinkler waters crops at an organic farm. Grower Andrew Griffin says some food
industry giants want more fences around farms to help keep wildlife out of the fields. But
he says those won’t make a difference:


“Absolutely not. It’s ridiculous. You can’t fence out the birds. You can’t fence out the
sky… I mean I don’t know what they’re thinking.”


Griffin says a better solution would be reduce the growing concentration of agri-business
and not send so much of the Salad Bowl’s leafy greens through just a few processing
plants:


“So, if there’s a contamination of say the blade on the cutting machine, you have an
opportunity to contaminate salad that’s gonna feed a whole nation. Whereas if it was
diffuse, if we had a diffuse system and you had small farms in different places, you
wouldn’t have that same broad spectrum problem.”


And the skeptical farmers have allies in groups such as The Nature Conservancy.
Spokeswoman Chris Fischer says the new restrictions in the farm fields are affecting
wildlife habitat along streams and river. She says people across the nation who eat salads
should care about what happens to the environment of the Salinas valley:


“As both a consumer and a conservationist the sustainability of our farming and
watershed health and ultimately our water quality and public health is all wrapped up
together and unsustainable, unhealthy farm practices ultimately aren’t going to serve us
well.”


Fischer says some of the new restrictions on growers are based on the best available
research, but she’s concerned food processors are adding extra requirements that aren’t
based on good science. Recently news reports added to the debate about safety of leafy
greens that end up on your table. The Associated Press reported federal inspections of
both growers and processors of salad greens only happen about once every four years.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Defining Protected Wetlands Gets Mucky

Developers are feeling encouraged by last month’s US Supreme
Court ruling on wetlands. The High Court was deciding on which wetlands deserve protection under the Clean Water Act. Some say it’s more likely
they’ll get their building permits now. Defenders of the Clean Water Act
think those high hopes are premature. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton takes
us to the wetland where the fight began:

Transcript

Developers are feeling encouraged by last month’s U.S. Supreme Court
ruling on which wetlands deserve protection from development under the
Clean Water Act. Some say it’s more likely they’ll get their building
permits now. Defenders of the Clean Water Act think those high hopes are
premature. The GLRC’s Tracy Samilton takes us to the wetland where the
fight began.


Wetlands are supposed to be wet, right? Certainly wetter than this mucky little forest in
a township in Southeast Michigan, surrounded by subdivisions and strip malls. Tim Stoepker
leads the way through battalions of attacking mosquitoes. He points at a big puddle:


“Basically, you have a forested wetland here, with no diversity of plant life because you have
such a thick canopy of trees and you don’t typically have all your wetland,
typical wetland plants on the interior here because of that and because there’s no standing
water, you don’t have any of your aquatic species.”


Stoepker’s business suit trousers are getting streaked with mud but he keeps going. Next stop
is a drainage ditch at the edge of the property. It’s pretty dry:


“Now, if we were to come out here in August or July, I mean, that ditch would even be, there
would be nothing in that ditch.”


Stoepker has represented landowner Keith Carabell since the mid-1980s. Carabell was denied a permit
to build senior condos on his property. He appealed it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Stoker thinks if the nine Supreme Court Justices had seen this ditch in person, last month’s
wetlands decision would have been different. A majority would have ruled that the test for
Clean Water Act protection is permanent surface water flowing into a navigable water. Even so,
he’s optimistic. Five Justices reaffirmed that the Clean Water Act pertains only to wetlands
with a “significant nexus,” or connection, to navigable waters. He says that’s not the case
here:


“It’s hydrologically isolated from receiving and sending waters.”


But the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers sees it differently. The Corps is the agency that decides
if a wetland falls under the Clean Water Act. If so, it then issues or denies building permits.
The Corps told field officers not to talk to reporters about this or any case pending guidance
from headquarters. But a source familiar with Corps regulations says water from this wetland
does flow into the ditch. From there, it empties into a drain, which dumps into a stream and
then leads to Lake St. Clair a mile away, one of the most polluted bodies of water in the Great
Lakes region. The source says the wetland also connects to the drain on another side of the
property, and it will meet the significant nexus test when the case goes back to the lower
court.


Environmentalists like Jim Murphy of the National Wildlife Federation hope that’s true.
Murphy says small wetlands like this one need to be protected, despite their lack of surface
water and showy aquatic species:


“I think we make a mistake when we just feel that the only thing we need to protect are
charismatic wetlands, for a number of reasons. For one, even wetlands that don’t necessarily look that pretty
that pretty are oftentimes performing enormous functions, whether it be habitat, flood control,
water filtration….”


All functions that Army Corps of Engineers mentioned when it denied a permit in this case.
Murphy says the looming question now is, how will the agency react to the ruling? If they pull
back, he thinks we will lose wetlands at a much quicker pace. Or the Corps could interpret
the ruling as broadly as possible:


“We feel that if the Corps is willing to stand firm and be aggressive, that they can still
maintain protection for a good number of waters.”


Murphy thinks even at best, the Supreme Court ruling will encourage even more developers like
Keith Carabell to challenge permit denials in court. That may be true, but Tom Stoepker, the
attorney for Keith Caraball, says all that most developers want are more thoughtful decisions
from the Corps, and they want the Corps to back off from places it ought not to be. He says
that includes this wetland where anyone can see the water in it isn’t going anywhere.


For the GLRC, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Vice Presidential Profile: Dick Cheney

  • Opinions vary on Cheney's environmental policy. Some say he's done well, some say he hasn't done enough. (Photo courtesy of georgewbush.com)

The political campaigns have been preoccupied with war, jobs, and health care. There’s been little mention of another issue that some Americans also find very important: the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates’ records on the environment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at Vice President Dick Cheney:

Transcript

The political campaigns have been preoccupied with war, jobs, and health care. There’s been
little mention of another issue that some Americans also find very important: the environment.
As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates’ records
on the environment, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham looks at Vice President
Dick Cheney:


This fall, during a campaign stop, Vice President Cheney was asked about his concerns and
philosophy on the preservation, conservation, and sustainability of water and natural resources.
The Vice President told his audience that he shared their concerns about the environment.


“Anybody who spends any time on waters, fishing, as I do – steelhead in northern British Columbia
when I get a chance and for trout in Wyoming and various places – it’s a fantastic resource. And
we really have an obligation to try to improve it and pass it on to the next generation in better
shape than we found it. I think we’re doing, as a general proposition, we’re doing pretty well.
Better than we used to.”


But most environmental groups are concerned Vice President Cheney is leading the effort to roll
back many environmental protections. Group after group is critical of the Vice President’s
actions.


“Cheney’s role has really been to be the front guy to fight for the industry’s agenda.”


Greg Wetstone directs the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Action Fund. Wetstone says Cheney
has become an easy target for criticism by the environmental movement. Wetstone says it’s clear
that Dick Cheney has wielded more power than most vice presidents have in the past.


“Well, the Vice President has clearly played a huge role in shaping this administration’s
policies on the environment and especially energy policy. It was Vice President Cheney who
led the Energy Task Force that met secretly with top industry lobbyists and shaped the policies
that were proposed by this administration while shutting out the advocates for a cleaner
environment. The polluters basically all but held the pen in crafting this administration’s
energy policy.”


The Natural Resources Defense Council sued the Bush White House, calling for the release of
documents related to the secret meetings. The courts ordered some documents to be released.
And the environmentalists say those papers confirmed the role of gas and oil industry lobbyists
in drafting the Bush energy policy.


Chris Horner says he took part in some of those meetings. Horner is a Senior Fellow at the
free-market think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He says the Vice President
worked hard to include environmentally friendly approaches when drafting the policy for energy.


“He pushed heavily in his energy plan for windmills, solar panel, transition to gas even more.
He didn’t just consult with free-market groups like ours. The reportage notwithstanding, I went
in several times to meet with these people and I passed very hard left-leaning groups on the way,
in the waiting room on the way out. The administration met with greens. They met with
free-marketers. They met with everyone.”


But the environmental groups argue the gas and oil industry had too much influence on the plan
that is supposed to regulate them.


The League of Conservation Voters has given the Bush administration failing marks for its
handling of environmental issues. Betsey Loyless is the group’s vice president of policy. She
says the energy task force is a good example of how Vice President Cheney contributed to what
her group sees as failure.


“We have an energy bill that wants to open sensitive public lands to drilling. That’s part of
the Cheney philosophy. We have a secret energy task force that wants to subsidize, at the
taxpayers’ expense, the coal, oil, and gas industry. That’s at Cheney’s behest. I mean,
Cheney has been the real leader.”


Vice President Cheney’s defenders say he’s only being realistic and practical. They say the
nation’s energy security should not be put at risk because of a few environmental extremists.
While Cheney is villified by the environmentalists, it doesn’t appear that all voters view him
in quite the same terms.


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

Related Links

Nature’s Complete Food Source

Just in case you’re ever stranded in the wilderness, it’s good to know
how to forage for food. But many people are learning that you don’t
have to be in dire circumstances—nor do you even have to leave home—to
go scouting out a free meal. In fact, one of nature’s most complete
food sources may be right underfoot. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Wendy Nelson reports:

Nature’s Complete Food Source

Just in case you’re ever stranded in the wilderness, it’s good to know how to forage for food. But many people are learning that you don’t have to be in dire circumstances-nor do you even have to leave home-to go scouting out a free meal. In fact, one of nature’s most complete food sources may be right underfoot. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Wendy Nelson reports: