Drilling for Climate Change

  • President Obama lifted the moratorium on offshore drilling last week, against the wishes of environmental groups. (Photo Courtesy of the US Minerals Management Service, Lee Tilton)

There’s been lots of speculation about why President Obama is allowing expanded gas and oil drilling offshore. Many environmentalists don’t like it. Lester Graham reports the move might be part of a larger strategy to get a climate bill passed in the Senate.

Transcript

There’s been lots of speculation about why President Obama is allowing expanded gas and oil drilling offshore. Many environmentalists don’t like it. Lester Graham reports the move might be part of a larger strategy to get a climate bill passed in the Senate.

President Obama never ruled out expanding drilling offshore, but it still caught a lot of people off-guard last week when he lifted the moratorium. John Prandato thinks he knows why he did. Prandato writes for the Partnership for a Secure America. In a recent article he argues it’s about the climate change and energy bill being pieced together by Senators John Kerry, Joesph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham. Senator Graham has said a carbon cap-and-trade scheme such as the one in the House climate bill… is dead in the Senate. But maybe not… now…

“Graham has been a proponent of offshore drilling and he has said any climate change and energy bill would have to include expanded offshore drilling, which Obama has now made that concession. So, with any luck, this concession could revive cap-and-trade in the Senate. But, we’ll just have to see.”

Senator Graham says offshore drilling should be expanded further. The White House says the President is not “horse trading” to get a climate bill out of the Senate.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Massachusetts Election and Climate Bill

  • The Massachusetts election puts the passage of a climate change bill in doubt. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:

For one, forget a climate change bill.

“Things are not looking good for this bill.”

Darren Samuelson is a reporter with GreenWire. He spent the day yesterday talking with Senators of every stripe.

A vote this year on a climate bill that included a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gases was already in doubt. Now Senators say Massachusetts taught them it’s all about jobs and the economy.

So the climate change bill will become an energy bill – more drilling, offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more natural gas leases.

Samuelson says, judging on what he’s hearing in the Senate, any chance for a climate change bill comes down to just a couple of things.

“It depends on how much of an emphasis President Obama puts on it in his State of the Union address and just how much the Democrats are willing to give the Republicans.”

But since the Republicans had already decided the climate bill was a jobs killer, the win in Massachusetts makes it unlikely the Democrats can give enough to the Republicans to get it passed.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Solar Shortages

  • (Photo by Lisa Ann Pinkerton)

Leaders in the solar power industry say the
market is on the brink of expansion. But shortages
of solar panels and electricians to install them
need to be addressed. Many states are seeing those
problems as a way to boost their lagging economies
and create a new sector of manufacturing jobs.
Lisa Ann Pinkerton Reports:

Transcript

Leaders in the solar power industry say the
market is on the brink of expansion. But shortages
of solar panels and electricians to install them
need to be addressed. Many states are seeing those
problems as a way to boost their lagging economies
and create a new sector of manufacturing jobs.
Lisa Ann Pinkerton Reports:


10-year-old Alex Hinkley is sitting at a picnic table watching the Cleveland Indians play
the Kansas City Royals. She’s eating a hotdog, oozing with ketchup, and she’s found
shade under a rather unique awning. It’s made up of 42 solar panels.


The Cleveland Indian’s is the only American League Ball Club to have solar panels and
it’s the only one to use its solar electricity at the park. The panels power 400 TVs at
Jacob’s Field and fifth grader Alex thinks it’s a cool way to introduce people, young and
old, to renewable energy:


“Some people don’t know what they are, but if they know what it is they’ll
wanna learn about it. Because a lot of kids go to the Indians games and I think they should learn a
lot about energy.”


Alex thinks if people are exposed to what solar panels can do, they’ll want them for
themselves. And the notion isn’t far off. High energy prices and state and federal
subsidies are expanding the market more and more each year. In 2006, the electrical solar
industry generated more than 1 billion dollars in revenue.


Exhibiting his products at a Solar Convention, Al Frasz of Ohio Dovetail Solar and Wind
thinks the solar business is on the brink of expansion:


“We’re projecting over 100 percent growth this year. So we’re expecting probably over
the next five years at least 300 percent.”


But the Solar Industry suffers from supply shortages, locally and internationally. Brad
Collins of the American Solar Energy Society says current federal subsidies make solar
competitive with fossil fuels. But entrepreneurs haven’t invested in solar panel factories
because they don’t want their products to collect dust on the shelves if those subsides
aren’t renewed in the future.


So now, he says states are starting to take the lead. He says the rustbelt of America in
particular has a lot to gain from this supply shortage. It’s got the manufacturing
infrastructure and the skilled workforce needed to build the nation’s photo voltaic solar
panels, known in the industry simply as PV. Collins says factories that make auto glass
could easily make the switch:


“There’s a lot of similarities between the production of auto glass and production
processes that could be modified to produce PV. It’s putting a film on a piece of
glass…And that’s the way we can compete.”


Even if states are successful at establishing solar product factories, Bernie Kotlier says
there may not be enough electricians to install the systems. He coordinates weekend
training sessions for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, in Los Angeles:


“What we feel is that the manufacturers are gearing up to supply the equipment but the
next bottleneck will be labor…What would happen if we don’t address it? Well, we’ll have a
shortage.”


In the next ten years, California wants 1 million roofs generating power from the sun.
Kotlier says to make that happen the state will need conservatively, more than 10,000 additional certified
installers than exist today, to make that happen. He says that number’s even bigger is you
look at how the solar market could grow nationally, and across the country certified
installers are already scarce:


“We have people from all around the country who are contacting us regularly saying
we’re getting interest in PV solar in Arizona, in Washington state, in New York, in
Massachusetts. So it is spreading…but it’ll take time. But actually, that’s a good thing because frankly we couldn’t
handle all that interest at once.”


If states continue to offer incentives that bring the cost of solar power down to where it’s
competitive with fossil fuels, Kotlier says solar manufacturing sectors will surely be
required to meet the demand. Where those manufacturing jobs are located and if there
will be enough certified installers nationally remains to be seen. But he says the states that offer
subsides and the people who invest in solar now, could see a huge return on their
investments. Those who delay could find themselves left behind.


For the Environment Report, I’m Lisa Ann Pinkerton.

Related Links

Invasive Reeds Help Treat Wastewater

  • Phragmites, or "common reed," is being used to treat wastewater in Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts. (Photo by Adam Allington.)

Nature is often full of practical solutions to real-world problems. Take the case of sewage and wastewater treatment: for decades engineers have used mechanical means to process wastewater before disposing of the end product in landfills. It turns out that phragmites, a robust wetland reed, can do the job just as quickly and for a fraction of the cost. Adam Allington has more:

Transcript

Nature is often full of practical solutions to real-world problems. Take the case of sewage and wastewater treatment: for decades engineers have used mechanical means to process wastewater before disposing of the end product in landfills. It turns out that phragmites, a robust wetland reed, can do the job just as quickly and for a fraction of the cost. Adam Allington has more:


Brandee Nelson is wearing knee-high rubber boots. She’s wading out into a tiny patch of reeds gently swaying in the wind. They’re planted in a goopy substance that appears to be mud, but is actually…


“Sludge. We’re standing ankle deep in sludge. Sludge is the leftover solids from the conventional sewage treatment process. Things that are very organic in nature, but thin enough that you can’t really scoop it out with your hand. It’s not the consistency of yogurt, it’s more like a thin milkshake.”


That thin milkshake used to be the solid stuff that you flush down the drain. Brandee is an environmental engineer working for the village of Tivoli, New York. Today she is monitoring the growth of two recently planted reed beds. The reeds are an invasive wetland species called “phragmites,” or “common reed”. In most places these reeds are a problem because they crowd-out native plants, but here they’re doing a job.


“The whole reason to have the reed beds is really to get the largest volume reduction of your waste product. Because the sludge tends to have so much water in it, and phragmites sucks up an enormous amount of water. This bed, we’re standing in it now, this bed will be totally dry in one day.”


Even though Tivoli is relatively small at about 1000 residents, the village still produces 100,000 gallons of waste water every day. That waste water translates into a whole lot of sludge, which Tivoli then has to haul to landfills.


“We’ll probably be saving about $45,000 on hauling fees.”


Tom Cordier is deputy mayor for the village of Tivoli.


“At one point we had drying beds, and it took about a week for them to dry, and then we would come in with our backhoe and take out the dried material. But every time we got ready to do that, it would rain and we would have to start the whole process over again, and then in the wintertime it was always freezing, and finally we got to the point where we had to have it trucked away.”


Before they planted the reeds, Tivoli had to remove their liquid sludge once a month. When the reeds are fully grown, the village won’t need to haul anything away for over 10 years. But if reed bed technology is so efficient, why isn’t everyone using it?


The answer has a lot to do with the predictability of mechanics, versus the variables of biology.


“One of the issues with the reed beds is it’s a biological process. Engineers like to typically do things that are mechanical, things that fit into formulas.”


Dan Fleuriel is director of the wastewater treatment for the town of Shelburne Falls, Massachusetts. Shelburne Falls began experimenting with reed bed technology back in the early 1990’s. Unlike the short 3 foot reeds in Tivoli, the mature reeds in Shelburne Falls tower some 6 feet over us as we walk through them.


“We’ve been applying to these reed beds since 1993. It’s been very good for us because we’ve gone from a very time consuming process of de-watering sludge to something that we pretty much leave hands-off that we can rely on.”

Functionality and reliability: they’re fundamental to any civil engineering project. But Brandee Nelson notes that Tivoli’s reed beds also make sense from an environmental perspective.


“This waste product, 150,000 gallons of it, used to go to a landfill somewhere else and it wasn’t our problem any more. Now what we’re able to do is manage that waste product here on site in a relatively small footprint using a natural technology, a very low-energy technology, and in the end we’ll end up with a product that we can use for village landscaping projects.”


Tivoli’s reed beds are expected to reach full maturity by next summer. Success of the project is being followed closely by neighboring towns, who are also considering a switch to reed bed treatment plants.


For the Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links

Untapped Power in Offshore Wind Turbines?

  • Developers want to put wind turbines in offshore locations like Lake Ontario and off the coast of Massachusetts. (Photo by David Orsborne)

The U.S. Department of Energy wants 20 percent of the country’s electricity supply to eventually come from wind power. Some of that power could come from wind turbines located on the water. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports some power companies are hesitating:

Transcript

The U.S. Department of Energy wants 20 percent of the country’s
electricity supply to eventually come from wind power. Some of that
power could come from wind turbines located on the water. The
GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports some power companies are hesitating:


Until recently, the strength of the wind on the water was mainly of
interest to the shipping industry, anglers, and to people who like
to sail.


(Sound of sail ruffling and folding)


Lee Konczak is folding up the sail on a small sailboat that he often
takes out into Lake Michigan. Konczak says he likes the serenity of
riding on the wind and the beautiful view from offshore. Even so, he
says he wouldn’t mind if the view included a few wind turbines:


“With energy certainly being at the top of the news practically on a
daily basis right now, and with limited resources, I think an
experimental kind of thing with wind turbines would be excellent.”


Some wind power companies are planning more than a small
experiment. An effort is underway to put up 140 wind turbines in Lake
Ontario and another developer wants a wind farm off the coast of
Massachusetts. The industry would like to develop more projects. It
says the US is behind some European countries when it comes to
going offshore for wind. Compared to the US, European countries are
short on fossil fuel supplies and they don’t have as much land. So
they began placing turbines offshore a few years ago.


John Dunlop is with the American Wind Energy Association. He says the land-based
wind turbines in the US and Canada are important but often trigger local
disputes over new overhead transmission lines. Dunlop says lake-based
wind turbines would avoid some political squabbles by being close to
many cities:


“We enjoy living next to water, so consequently our population centers
tend to be close to the water which means a lake-based installation
may be no more than 10-20 miles away from that load center. Now, to get
that energy, that electricity from that wind project back to the city
you do need to have underwater cabling, but that’s a fairly common
technology so that’s not a huge impediment or a huge cost.”


Several environmental groups are getting on board with the idea of
putting wind farms in waterways. Charlie Higley is with the Citizens’
Utility Board in Wisconsin. He says there are already many coal and
nuclear plants near the water:


“Both of those have huge environmental and economic costs
associated with them, so we’re supportive of the development of
wind, not only on land but we really think the time is now to
start looking at developing wind resources on Lake Michigan.”


Higley acknowledges some people may not like the look of wind
turbines if they’re installed within view of the shoreline. Other
supporters concede there also needs to be more study of wind speeds
over the water. They also say there needs to be a cheaper way to fix
turbines that break down in waters dozens of feet deep.


Walt Musial helps oversee offshore wind projects at the National Renewable Energy
Lab. He says getting to a turbine in water is no easy task:


“You can’t drive a truck, so you have to drive a boat, or perhaps a helicopter like they do
in Europe. These add costs as well, and so these methods of accessing turbines have to be
developed and minimized.”


Still, Musial says because the Energy Department’s long-term goal is
to promote more wind production, he predicts some of that wind power
will come from offshore. But for now, the uncertainties have many
power companies rooted in inland turbines.


Kim Zuhlke is with Alliant Energy. He says his firm prefers a place
like Iowa, where there are already 800 wind turbines and a
desire from public officials to have more:


“You couple the acceptance, the economic growth, existing
transmission, all of those things together make it a logical place
for us to go.”


Still, Zuhlke says offshore wind turbines in the U.S. may become
a reality. He says engineers have to perfect a turbine that provides a big
enough payback for the additional expense of putting something way out in
the water.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

Genetically Modified Salmon on the Market?

A biotech company is hoping to cash in on a genetically modified salmon. If the F-D-A approves the fish, it would be the first transgenic animal species available for human consumption. The Great Lake Radio Consortium’s Nancy Cohen reports:

Transcript

A biotech company is hoping to cash in on a genetically modified
salmon. If the FDA approves the fish, it would be the first transgenic
animal species available for human consumption. The Great Lake Radio
Consortium’s Nancy Cohen reports:


Aquaculture firms are developing fish that are resistant to disease,
consume low-cost diets and grow faster. The Massachusetts-based Aqua
Bounty Technologies took part of the genetic code from a fish called the
ocean pout, and added it to the Atlantic salmon. The ocean pout’s
genetic material acts as a kind of switch that turns on the salmon’s
growth regulators.


Joe McGonigle is with Aqua Bounty. He says the result is a salmon that
grows twice as fast as other farmed salmon.


“You can get more heart healthy omega 3 protein on the market at a
lower price, you can produce fish more quickly, you can use fewer
resources and you can manage water quality and fish health, in a much
better way than under current conditions.”


But critics are concerned about the environmental impact on native fish
populations if genetically modified fish were to escape into the wild.


For the GLRC, I’m Nancy Cohen.

Related Links

Affordable Housing Goes Green

  • Here is what a solar electric system looks like when it is mounted on a home. The panels are grid-connected and the system has backup battery. (Photo courtesy of NREL)

Often only pricey homes benefit from energy efficient and environmentally friendly technologies such as solar panels and completely non-toxic materials, but that kind of green technology is finding favor with non-profit groups that provide affordable housing.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at why many non-profits are trying to do good by building green:

Transcript

Often only pricey homes benefit from energy efficient and
environmentally friendly technologies such as solar panels and
completely non-toxic materials, but that kind of green technology is
finding favor with non-profit groups that provide affordable housing.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee looks at why many
non-profits are trying to do good by building green:


Holly Denniston’s got a tough job. She’s the real-estate director for a
non-profit housing agency. Denniston’s got not one, but two, bottom
lines to watch. On the one hand, she’s trying to build affordable housing
for thousands of low and moderate-income families in Chicago. On the
other hand, it’s not enough to develop a cheap house and walk away.


As a nearby commuter train rolls by, Denniston explains she’s got to
make sure families can afford to stay in these homes.


“We want affordable housing in the long run. When heating costs rise, when
electricity costs rise, we don’t want our homeowners to have to move
out. We want them to live in these houses for thirty years or for as long
as they want and be able to raise a family here without spending all of
their dollars on housing.”


That means the best fit for struggling families are homes that are cheap
to buy and cheap to live in.


Denniston leads me up the stairs of a nearly-finished town home she says
fits that bill.


(Sound of steps and door)


Inside, it’s not much different from high-priced town homes sprouting up
in most cities, but Denniston says I probably missed the most notable
feature of the building: a roof made of solar shingles.


“If you would take down the ceiling from the second floor, you would
see a spider web of lines coming down, leading down to the back of the
house, and then leading to an inverter in the basement.”


The shingles and power inverter generate electricity. The system’s
simple and needs almost no intervention by the occupants, but more
importantly, it’ll save the family thousands of dollars in power
bills in the next few years, and Denniston says this isn’t even their most
efficient home.


Some of their homes consume less than three hundred dollars worth of
energy per year – even with cold Chicago winters, but building homes
like this isn’t cheap.


The solar shingle system added thousands of dollars in up-front building
costs. So, how do groups like Bethel build green while trying to keep
their own costs down?


Well, usually, they get help.


“Basically I think we can say that all of the affordable housing projects
that are doing this are doing it because they’re subsidized by either state
or utility programs.”


Edward Connelly is with New Ecology Incorporated, a group that studies
and promotes green affordable housing.


“The up-front cost is generally not in within the budget of an
affordable housing developer for photo voltaics, because they tend to be
expensive.”


Reliance on government or utility company subsidies can cause
problems. Connelly says some states make these subsidies available to
everyone, not just non-profits.


That means non-profits have to compete with traditional homebuilders
for the money to build green, and the subsidy programs sometimes
run short of demand.


“The utilities this year have run out of money for the energy star rebates
in Massachusetts because so many people took advantage of them, and
that’s not just in the affordable realm.”


Affordable, green housing faces other problems, too.


These projects sometimes move at a snail’s pace. That’s because
agencies often have to juggle several funding sources. Each government
agency or utility adds its own requirements, and managing all of them
consumes a lot of time. That means people who need affordable housing
have to wait longer, but when these groups do get the required funds, the
long-term benefits for low-to-moderate income families are impressive.


Chicago architect Susan King’s developed several green affordable
housing projects. She says non-profit projects benefit from energy
efficient technology, but their social missions push them even further.
They include features that go beyond just saving money.


“It’s an easy sell because they really do care for the life of the building,
whereas the for-profit developer just cares about that bottom line.”


She saw that attitude develop in her latest building.


It’s energy efficient and has solar power, but the non-profit also wanted
paint that wouldn’t pollute indoor air. King says, for now, housing
groups build more environmentally friendly homes than market rate
homebuilders with similar budgets, but she predicts that gap will narrow.
Average homeowners will soon demand more environmental amenities.


“I think the not-for-profits are setting an example that the for-profits are
going to follow, but they’re not going to follow it because they’re shamed into it.
I think they’re going to follow it because in the end, it’s going to make economic sense.”


Back at the energy efficient and environmentally friendly town-home,
Holly Denniston says some day, most of the features here will be
standard in the home industry, but she says non-profits will keep adding
additional value to homes even if that means spending more money up
front.


“To non-profits, that’s alright; we’re not looking for the highest return,
we’re looking at sustainable community.”


So, Denniston says a project like this shows affordable housing isn’t
about cheap housing. It’s about building homes where people can afford
to live.


For the GLRC, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Phthalate Concerns Cause Company Makeovers

  • Women marching on behalf of a campaign to remove phthalates and other chemicals from cosmetics. (Photo courtesy of the Breast Cancer Fund)

There are new concerns that products we use every day to keep us clean and make us beautiful may contain toxic chemicals. The targets are things like shampoos, deodorants, hair dyes and cosmetics. Some companies are taking these concerns seriously and giving themselves a makeover. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert has this story:

Transcript

There are new concerns that products we use every day to keep us clean and make us beautiful may contain toxic chemicals. The targets are things like shampoos, deodorants, hair dyes and cosmetics. Some companies are taking these concerns seriously and giving themselves a makeover. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Julie Halpert has this story:


(Sound of woman and child talking)


Teri Olle is playing dress-up with her two-year-old daughter, Natalie, in the family’s bathroom. Teri is applying lotions to her daughter’s chubby cheeks, while Natalie puts lipstick on her mother.


Little girls like Natalie have been playing dress-up for generations. But Natalie’s game is slightly different. She’s using nail polish, lipsticks and creams made without man-made chemicals.


That’s because her mother is an environmental activist who lobbies against toxic chemical use. With cosmetics, her biggest fear is a group of chemicals called phthalates. Phthalates increase the flexibility of plastic and keep nail polish from chipping.


“Phthalates are testosterone-suppressing synthetic hormones, essentially. And they’ve been linked with all sorts of developmental problems, including, most dramatically, a set of male genital defects that show themselves as birth defects in infant boys.”


Last month, scientists released the first study on male babies. They found a strong link between high levels of phthalates exposure in pregnant women and damage to their sons’ reproductive tract. Studies like this, and others on lab animals showing possible links to reproductive problems, prompted the European Union this past March to ban two types of phthalates from all products sold in Europe. The states of California, New York and Massachusetts are also considering similar plans.


Olle is five months pregnant with her second child. She doesn’t know if she’s carrying a boy, but she says chemicals in cosmetics could be risky for any fetus. So she’s not taking any chances.


“For me, as a person, if someone said to me, ‘You can either use this product that may cause a genital defect in your baby boy or not’, I would think most people would go, ‘Really, we probably shouldn’t be using these products.'”


And it’s not just phthalates that could be a problem. Environmentalists say that the ingredients in cosmetics haven’t been evaluated for health or safety effects. The Food and Drug Administration doesn’t do that kind of testing. And in 60 years, it’s banned only nine ingredients. So there are other chemicals, like coal tars used in hair dyes and formaldehyde used in nail polish, that might cause health problems as they’re absorbed by the skin into the bloodstream.


Because of these concerns, a group of environmentalists called the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics has convinced 136 natural cosmetics companies to sign a pledge to check for potentially toxic chemicals and eliminate them.


One of those companies is Avalon Organics. Over the past year, Avalon’s spent two and a half million dollars to reformulate their products and switch to more natural alternatives. Gil Pritchard is the company’s President and CEO. He says the jury’s out on whether these chemicals definitely cause harm. Even so, he didn’t hesitate to make the investment.


“It’s convincing enough for me and our company to exercise what we call a precautionary principle – to adopt it and say look, we may not have direct scientific evidence, but there’s enough evidence here to say whoa, I can feel the heat from the stove. I don’t need to put my finger on and burn myself to know that that’s one of the likely outcomes.”


But not all companies feel this way. Procter & Gamble, in Cincinnati, Ohio, has not signed the pledge. Nor have any other major cosmetic companies. Tim Long is a company spokesman. He says environmentalists are blowing this issue way out of proportion.


“The amounts of most of these ingredients that the activists have concerns about are, in fact, extremely small and at the doses used in our products, there’s no scientific evidence to support that they’re resulting in any harm to consumers.”


Long says Procter & Gamble complied with the EU directive and took the banned phthalates out of all of its products both in Europe and the U.S. But he says that wasn’t necessary, since phthalates, along with all other cosmetic ingredients, simply aren’t dangerous. He says his company wouldn’t be using them if they were. And the FDA says that these cosmetics are safe.


Environmentalists say that more research needs to be done to better understand the effect of chemicals used in cosmetics on the body. But Teri Olle says that with so many natural alternatives available, it makes sense to be careful.


“When I became pregnant, I definitely became more conscious of what I was putting on my body. I mean, if you’re supposed to avoid soft cheeses and cake batter, it certainly can’t be good for you to be spraying petrochemicals on your body. That definitely can’t be good for the baby.”


So when the baby’s born this September, instead of using products with man-made chemicals, Teri Olle will be spreading diaper rash ointment with beeswax and apricot oil on her newborn baby.


For the GLRC, I’m Julie Halpert.

Related Links

Wind Turbines Stir Up Neighbors (Part 2)

Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better
than burning fossil fuel to create electricity. But “green energy”
alternatives
can be controversial. Windmill farms are springing up all across the
nation.
Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others say windmill farms
can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers. In the second of a two-part series on wind energy, the Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:

Transcript

Most people think renewable energy is a good idea. It’s better than burning fossil
fuel to create
electricity. But “green energy” alternatives can be controversial. Windmill farms
are springing
up all across the nation. Some people think the windmills are eyesores. But others
say windmill
farms can help preserve the agricultural landscape by supplementing the income of
farmers.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Linda Stephan reports:


For 30 years, Matt Mauer raised crops and livestock on his farm about 10 miles from
the Lake
Michigan shoreline. Today, he’s in his backyard looking at the land now farmed by
his daughter
and son-in-law. Standing there, he feels a crop they’re not harvesting.


“The good Lord makes it windy all the time for us, so let’s use it, you know.
Because I’m like
everybody else. When I get up in the morning, I want lights.”


Mauer’s hoping to put four wind turbines on his family’s farm near Ludington,
Michigan. That
would power about 24-hundred homes. Nearby, a renewable energy company’s working with
other farmers to build a hundred turbines in the area. Mauer says many of his
neighbors want in
on the deal because they think wind energy could help save their farms.


“It’s hard to make a living just farming right now. And I consider the wind one of
the crops that
we could harvest. It will help keep farmers on the land. Like if, in this place, if
we could get
seven–thousand dollars a year, six-thousand dollars a year for four of them, that’d
make it a hell
of a lot easier to keep the people here and farm.”


The state government’s backing similar projects. It’s training financial advisors
to show farmers
how they can turn a profit with windmills.


But not everyone likes the idea. Some people who live in the area around the
planned windmills
say they’re worried the towers would destroy the region’s charm. That’s linked to
property values
and to tourism. And they don’t like the size of the proposed windmills. Each one
would be four-
hundred feet tall. The blades would have a diameter nearly as long as a football
field.


It’s a story that’s heard in many places. Cape Cod, Massachusetts, the prairies of
Illinois, and
around the Great Lakes. For example, a Michigan couple who wanted large-scale
turbines on
their property ended up losing a court-battle against local government that opposed
the plan. And
two turbines already in place in Mackinaw City – between Lake Michigan and Lake
Huron –
have some unhappy neighbors as well.


Thomas and Virginia Alexander’s home is about 15-hundred feet away from the windmills.
They’re in their eighties and they both wear hearing aids… but even without them,
they say the
windmills are loud…


Tom Alexander: “There’s things about it we don’t appreciate, at times the noise –
not always –
depending upon the wind and the direction.
Virginia Alexander: “Yesterday. Very noisy yesterday. The wind was high and they,
you could
really hear them.”
Tom Alexander: “Just a continual swish, swish, swish, swish, swish.”


Windmill developers say the sound is no louder than normal speech. But this noise is
different. It
goes beyond the frequencies of normal speech. The sound can travel long distances
through both
the ground and the air. They keep Virginia Alexander awake some nights.


Tom and Virginia Alexander’s son Kelly lives next door with his family. He calls
himself a
windmill victim. He has this advice for others:


“Don’t let them go in your backyard. There are places they can go. You don’t just
put those in
somebody’s backyard. I don’t think it’s right.”


A lot of people agree with the Alexanders. Even wind energy boosters concede that
location is
key to successful projects. David Johnson heads up the program for the state of
Michigan that’s
encouraging farmers to allow windmills on their land. He says turbines should be
constructed
where there’s lots of wind and few neighbors. But he says when people say ‘no’ to
windmills,
they should consider the alternative.


“So, does that mean that you should build another big coal-fired plant? Is that the
preferable way
of doing it with the global warming impacts and the mercury pollution and so on that
go with
that? Is that the choice that the public wants to make?


States across the nation are struggling to find the right balance between clean
energy and the
beauty of an uncluttered landscape. Few regulations are in place right now. More
and more,
communities will be facing the decision of whether clean energy and keeping farmers
on the land
is worth the price of adding wind turbines to the scenery.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Linda Stephan.

Related Links

Presidential Profile: John Kerry

  • As Kerry and Bush battle it out, different groups examine the candidates' views on the environment. (Photo by Sharon Farmer courtesy of johnkerry.com)

The candidates for president and vice president have spent a lot of time talking about security, the economy, and health care. They have not spent much time talking about the environment. As part of a series on the records of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry:

Transcript

The candidates for president and vice president have spent a lot of time talking about security, the economy, and health care. They have not spent much time talking about the environment. As part of a series on the records of the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports on Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry:


Senator Kerry considers himself an environmentalist. Kerry’s Senate office website indicates that
30 years ago, he spoke at his home state of Massachusetts’ first Earth Day. The Senator says he
called for “fundamental protections that became the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Superfund.” However, he doesn’t often talk about how he
would handle the environment. Early in the campaign in this speech in Minnesota, he promised to
be a guardian of the environment and he briefly outlined his energy plan…


“I will set a goal as president that 20 percent of all of our electricity will be provided from
alternatives and renewables by the year 2020. And I will set this country on the course by creating a hydrogen institute, by putting a billion dollars into the effort of conversion of our autos, by moving to a 20 billion dollar support for the conversion of our industry, we are going to guarantee that never will young American men and women in uniform be held hostage to our dependency on Mideast oil. We’re going to give our children the independence they deserve.”


When the topic of the environment came up during the second presidential candidates’ debate,
Senator Kerry didn’t outline his own plans, but instead responded to President George Bush’s
claims that the environment was cleaner and better under the Bush administration.


“They’re going backwards on the definition for wetlands. They’re going backwards on water
quality. They pulled out of the global warming. They declared it ‘dead.’ Didn’t even accept the
science. I’m going to be a president who believes in science.”


During the negotiations on the Kyoto global warming treaty Senator Kerry went to Kyoto and
worked to craft a plan to reduce greenhouse gases that could pass political hurdles in the U.S. He
was a leader in the effort to stop a Bush proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.


Environmental groups like what they see and have been enthusiastic about their support for the
candidate. Betsey Loyless is with the League of Conservation Voters…


“Senator Kerry, who has, by the way, a 92 percent lifetime LCV score, has quite a remarkable
overall consistent record of voting to protect clean air, clean water and protect our natural
resources.”


But while the environmentalists like John Kerry, some business and industry groups that feel the
federal government’s environmental protection efforts have become burdensome and ineffective
aren’t that impressed…


“Well, John Kerry – yeah, he got a stronger LCV rating than even Al Gore. Now, pause and think
about that, okay?”


Chris Horner is a Senior Fellow with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank. Horner says he doesn’t like many of Kerry’s positions, but adds he doesn’t think Senator Kerry’s environmental record is as strong as the support from environmental groups might indicate…


“Let’s just say that a lot of the support that comes for Kerry is not through leadership he’s shown in the Congress because he really hasn’t. It’s that he says the right things and that his wife certainly puts the money in the right place.”


Horner suggests that Teresa Heinz Kerry has given large sums of money to environmental
groups… and Horner thinks that’s helped her husband’s political career. Whether you give
credence to those kind of conspiracy theories or not… it’s clear that the environmental groups
prefer Kerry over Bush. The Kerry campaign’s Environmental and Energy Policy Director,
Heather Zichal, says the environmentalists like him… because of his record.


“He’s been called an environmental – dubbed an “environmental champion” and has received the
endorsements of everybody from the Sierra Club to Friends of the Earth. And for him, you know,
environmental protection is not only a matter of what’s in the best interest of public health, but it also is what’s in the best interest of our economy going forward. George Bush has given us the
wrong choices when he says you have to have either the environment or a strong economy. John Kerry believes we can have both.”


But the environment has not been a major issue in the campaign. Conventional wisdom seems to
indicate those who are prone to support pro-environment candidates are already on-board with
Kerry… and the undecided voters have weightier issues on their minds.


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

Related Links