Tag: money

Packrats Hooked on Freecycling

  • Aaron and Claire Liepman with an old faucet and garden owl they're hoping to give away on the Freecycle Network. Aaron Liepman moderates two freecycle groups in Michigan. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)

We all have things that we no longer use hidden in our closets, or stuffed away in the attic, or crammed into the garage. It’s not that we’ll ever use them, but we can’t bear to just throw them away. They’re still good. Now, a new service is matching up people who want to get rid of things with people who want those things. In part of an ongoing series called ‘Your Choice; Your Planet,’ the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams explores freecycling:

Transcript

We all have things that we no longer use hidden in our closets, or stuffed away
in the attic, or crammed into the garage. It’s not that we’ll ever use them, but we
can’t bear to just throw them away. They’re still good. Now, a new service is
matching up people who want to get rid of things with people who want those
things. In part of an ongoing series called ‘Your Choice; Your Planet,’ the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams explores freecycling:


I’m a packrat. I just wanted to make that clear right from the beginning. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll probably confess you’re a packrat too.


But even I know when there’s something taking up space in my house that HAS to go. In the back of my closet, there’s a large, heavy, men’s wetsuit.


You know, a SCUBA diving suit. A relative gave it to me when he moved away. Now, I’m not a diver. I’m not even really a snorkeler. But I’ve kept it for two years. You know, just in case.


I need a little help getting rid of things. So, when I heard about freecycling… I thought, “This is it. This will help me face my inner packrat.”


Freecycling uses email groups to connect people in their hometowns. It brings together one person with their broken telescope… and that one person who needs – or just wants it.


The only rule – everything has to be free. No money, no trading. And also, you meet the giver or taker in person.


It’s Deron Beal’s idea. He manages recycling crews for businesses in Tuscon, Arizona. One day a year ago, he found himself with a warehouse full of stuff.


“We had a lot of the businesses we recycle with
downtown giving us old desks or computers, saying, can you do something with this. I’ll be darned if we got so much stuff in, I figured, let’s open this up to the public and set up the freecycle network.”


Beal emailed some friends and nonprofits. At first, he says it was just he and his friends giving each other stuff. But in just a few months, freecycle turned into a verb. Beal set up a website, freecycle-dot-org. And put instructions up so people could start freecycling in their own cities. Now, more than 90-thousand people all around the world are doing it.


So… I went to see the freecycling guy in my area, Aaron Liepman. He moderates two freecycle groups. He makes sure everything stays free, and steps in if people start arguing. He also helps packrats like me freecycle.


(sound in, typing)


Aaron sets me up on his computer.


“So, let me sign out and you sign in. (clicking) So now you type in your subject, just like an email message.


RW: “Offer: wetsuit. What else?”


“Wetsuit, SCUBA wetsuit. (crinkles, zipper noise) Looks like it’s a size large, that’ll be useful information. It has a little hat to keep you warm in the water (laughs).”


(typing out)


We look over my post, and I click Send.


So, I’ve started cleaning out my closet. But I’m not totally converted to this freecycling idea. I mean, really, aren’t we just moving our stuff from one house to the next? That doesn’t really cut down on consumption, does it?


I turned to University of Michigan professor Raymond DeYoung. He studies people’s buying and recycling habits. He thinks freecycling probably won’t change our buying habits all that much.


“Because we’re never going to be able with freecycling to get the new, get the novel, get the big, because by definition it’s already been bought, it’s already old, it’s the smaller. So it can’t impact our entire consumption behavior.”


DeYoung says, for freecycling to really succeed, we’d have to stop getting bigger houses. And stop filling them up with more and more things. But it’s hard, even for people who want to try to get by with less stuff.


I guess a wetsuit is a good first step.


It’s been a couple days, and I’ve gotten four messages. The first came five hours after my posting. From Shawn… he wrote: “I’ll take the wetsuit.” But he didn’t sound that excited.


In freecycling, you can use “first come, first serve” to decide who gets your item. But you don’t always have to. And I kind of wanted my wetsuit to be appreciated… you know, actually get to see the water. So I waited a couple days. Then, I got Kelly’s message. She wrote: “WOW!” in all capital letters and said her son would love the wetsuit… for snorkeling.


So I emailed Kelly. And we set up a place to meet in downtown Ann Arbor.


(street sound up)


“Wetsuit!” (Oh, are you Kelly?) “yeah, I’m Kelly.. (Hi, I’m Rebecca. This is the wetsuit.) Great!”


Kelly’s been freecycling for a month. And she says she’s hooked.


And judging from the postings, a lot of people are. They seem to like getting other people’s beer can collections and turtle sandboxes.


But some on the list worry it’s getting to be too much of a good thing. People have started to ask for laptops, and houses… and a time machine, any condition.


“I think because it’s so new, some people are asking for funny things, like don’t we all want cash, and a Lamborghini (laughs). I just laugh at those and go on.”


Kelly says she thinks the network will probably get past that after awhile, leaving behind just the really devoted freecyclers.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

“24 Carrot” Farmers

According to the USDA, the number of farmers’ markets in the United States has increased nearly 80 percent in the past decade, with roughly 3,100 in operation. Like many other Midwesterners, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King buys much of her warm-weather produce from local growers. But King thinks those farmers grow something else that might be just as important as food:

Transcript

According to the USDA, the number of farmers’ markets in the United States has
increased nearly 80 percent in the past decade, with roughly 3,100 in operation. Like
many other Midwesterners, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King buys
much of her warm-weather produce from local growers. But King thinks those farmers
grow something else that might be just as important as food…


Not long ago, my ten-year-old daughter gathered her allowance, dropped her coins into a
see-through, polka-dot plastic purse and journeyed with me to our local farmers’ market.
Inside the old warehouse-turned-emporium, we strolled up and down the aisles. She
sniffed bars of soap and fragrant candles, poked bags of cheese bread and gazed at
almond croissants. But it was a large butternut squash that finally caught her eye.


She smiled and pointed at the unusual treasure. The farmer behind the counter called out
a price and I watched from a distance as she dug into her little plastic purse, pulling out a
quarter here, a dime there. As she calculated the numbers, her smile faded; she was fifty
cents shy of the total.


“Oh, you go ahead and take it anyway,” he told her. “It’s a little bit old, really.”


She paused, uncertain. I stepped into view and offered a dollar to the farmer, but he
stood his ground. He wanted to sell the squash to my daughter for the price she could
afford. He said it was a fair exchange. We thanked him repeatedly and my daughter took
the big pear-shaped vegetable in her arms like it was a baby doll.


It was not the first time one of the market’s farmers had put kindness before cash. Shop
there long enough and someone is bound to say, “Oh, take two, they’re small” or “This
one’s a little bruised; I’ll throw it in for free.”


These aren’t “blue light specials” or “supersaver sales;” they’re gifts from people who
never tire of the magic that springs from the earth. In a year of Saturdays, I’ve been
invited to marvel at the shape of a carrot, to behold the size of a potato, to delight in the
beauty of a snapdragon.


In a nation of box stores and billionaire wannabes, a nation where “excess” is master, the
men and women who labor in the soil offer a glimpse of something different. It’s a
commerce measured not only by what they gain, but also by what they give.


John Greenleaf Whittier put it best in his poem, “Song of Harvest”:


Give fools their gold, and knaves their power;
Let fortune’s bubbles rise and fall;
Who sows a field, or trains a flower,
Or plants a tree, is more than all.


HOST TAG: Julia King lives and writes in Goshen, Indiana. She comes to us by way of
the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.

Related Links

President’s Wetlands Plan Criticized

The Bush Administration has been under a lot of pressure from environmentalists, hunting groups, and state agencies to do something about wetlands protection. On Earth Day, President Bush responded by announcing a new initiative that he says will take wetlands protection to a higher level. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush takes a closer look at the President’s latest proposal:

Transcript

The Bush Administration has been under a lot of pressure from
environmentalists, hunting groups, and state agencies to do something about
wetlands protection. On Earth Day, President Bush responded by announcing a
new initiative that he says will take wetlands protection to a higher level.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush takes a closer look at the
President’s latest proposal:


In the last thirty years, urban sprawl and farming have destroyed millions of
acres of wetlands. Because of that, the past two Presidents called for a
policy of “no net loss of wetlands.” The current Bush administration says it also
supports that goal. And says it wants to go a step further.


On Earth Day, the President unveiled his latest plan to protect and restore
wetlands.


“The old policy of wetlands was to limit the loss of wetlands. Today, I’m going to
announce a new policy and a new goal for our country: instead of just
limiting our losses, we will expand the wetlands of America.”


(Applause – fade under)


The Bush administration says its policy will restore, improve, and protect a
total of three million acres of wetlands in the next five years. In his speech, the
President gave a general outline of the plan, saying he’s going to increase support for a
number of programs already in place.


Ben Grumbles is an Assistant Administrator at the Environmental Protection
Agency. He heads up the water and wetlands programs for the EPA. He says
the President has called on many agencies to implement the new plan:


“The heart of the President’s new goal and commitment is to use
collaborative conservation-based programs to gain three million acres of
wetlands and to do so through USDA, Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, conservation programs and
partnerships with the private sector.”


While environmentalists approve parts of President Bush’s new plan, many of
them say it’s the wrong first step to take. Julie Sibbing is a wetlands
policy specialist with the National Wildlife Federation.


“Although it’s a great thing that they’re going to get a million acres of
wetlands restored, and a million acres enhanced, and a million acres
protected, it’s only a drop in the bucket compared to what’s currently at
risk due to their policies on protecting wetlands under the Clean Water
Act.”


And that’s the main criticism – environmentalists and some hunters say the
Administration is not doing its job in enforcing current federal laws. Laws that protect
rivers, lakes, and wetlands – and worse – they say the administration has
actively weakened laws that protect millions of acres of smaller, isolated
wetlands. These critics see this latest announcement by the Bush Administration
as an attempt to shore up its dismal record on the environment in general…
and on wetlands in particular.


The National Wildlife Federation’s Julie Sibbing says the Administration
would make better use of taxpayers’ money by reviewing some of its policies
and protecting wetlands that already exist:


“It’s just too hard to build new wetlands for us to ignore protecting what’s
there right now. We love the programs that restore former wetlands, but the
most important thing is to try to protect those wetlands that we still
have.”


Officials in the Bush Administration say they are serious about enforcing
the law. And they say they are protecting wetlands. They say they’re just
taking a different approach.


In his speech, President Bush said good conservation will
happen when people don’t just rely on the government to be the solution to
the problem, saying more people should look to private sector land trusts
and voluntary efforts by landowners to get the job done.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Interview: Carl Pope Criticizes Bush Administration

  • Carl Pope is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. (Photo courtesy of the Sierra Club)

As the political campaigns get into full swing this presidential election year, the environmental record of George W. Bush is being scrutinized. The big environmental groups are very critical of the Bush administration. In the first of two interviews about the Bush White House approach to environmental protection, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope. Pope and the Sierra Club are critical of the Bush administration’s record on environmental protection:

Transcript

As the political campaigns get into full swing this presidential election year, the
environmental record of George W. Bush is being scrutinized. The big environmental
groups are very critical of the Bush administration. In the first of two interviews about
the Bush White House approach to environmental protection, the Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham talks with the Executive Director of the Sierra Club, Carl Pope.
Pope and the Sierra Club are critical of the Bush administration’s record on environmental
protection:


POPE: “The biggest environmental problem this country faces right now is the policies of this
administration. It’s kind of stunning too, when you add it all up, just how much damage they
have quietly managed to set in motion in only three years.”


LG: “Now, we’ve listened to folks in the Bush administration who indicate that what they’re
really doing is bringing some balance to dealing with the economic issues the nation faces and
how it relates to the environmental issues that we face.”


POPE: “Well, let’s look at three trends. In 1980, when Ronald Reagan was President, we began
cleaning up toxic wastes dumps in this country with the Superfund. In 2003, for the first time
because the Bush administration both allowed the Superfund to run out of money and allowed
companies to start dumping new kinds of toxins on the landscape, the American landscape
became more polluted. We started going backwards after 20 years of progress.


1972, under Richard Nixon, another Republican, we made a national commitment under the
Clean Water Act to clean up our rivers and lakes. In 2003, because the Bush administration cut
funding for clean water clean-up and because they exempted large factory feedlots from clean
water regulation, EPA had to report for the first time in 30 years America’s waterways had gotten
dirtier.


And finally, in 1902, Theodore Roosevelt, a third Republican, created Grand Canyon National
Monument. And every president since Theodore Roosevelt left us with more of the American
landscape protected than he found it. And in only three years uniquely, singularly and in the
violation of the entire trend of the entire 20th century, this President Bush has stripped
environmental protection from 235 million acres. It’s an area as big as Texas and Oklahoma that
is now open to development which was protected when George Bush became President. I don’t
think that’s balance.”


LG: “I assume that you’re not all that chummy with everyone in the White House these days….


POPE: “That’s a safe assumption.”


LG: …but I’m trying to get an insight into what you think the thinking might be behind some of
the decisions that the Bush administration makes.”


POPE: “Well, in 1970 we made a national compact in this country. It was a national
environmental compact which was: we were environmental optimists and we believed that as a
nation that we could clean up every waterway, we could modernize every power plant and we
could remedy every toxic waste dump. We said as a nation ‘You know, everybody in this country
is going to have water that’s safe to drink. Everybody is going to live in a community where the
air doesn’t give their kids asthma. And we’re going to take time to do it. The federal government
is going to help everybody. And we’re all going to do it as a community.’ I think the fundamental
problem with that compact from the point of view of this administration is the ‘everyone’ part of
it. They really don’t believe that the community should do very much. They believe individuals
should take care of themselves. If you want to have safe drinking water, get yourself your own
supply; buy bottled water. If you want to breathe clean air, move somewhere where the air is
cleaner. They really don’t believe in the idea that every American ought to enjoy certain basic
environmental amenities simply as a consequence of being an American.


And, I think what motivates them is their concern that if it’s the federal government that
is cleaning up our toxic waste sites, then people will have faith in the federal government. And
they don’t have faith in the federal government. In fact, one of their chief advisors says he wants
to shrink the federal government down to a size where he can drown it in a bathtub. And I think
it’s the fact that the environmental compact in this country was based on the idea of an
environmental safety net for everyone that they find antithetical to their view that we all ought to
be tough, we all ought to be competitive, we all ought to be self-reliant and on our own. And
they don’t like the fact that the environmental compact says wait a minute, we’re all in this
together and we’re going to solve it together.”


HOST TAG: Carl Pope is the Executive Director of the Sierra Club.

Related Links

Socially Responsible Investing Catches On

The amount of money invested in so-called socially responsible mutual funds continues to grow. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports, they’re still a small part of the big picture:

Transcript

The amount of money invested in so-called socially responsible mutual funds continues to grow.
But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports, they’re still a small part of the
big picture:


A report from the trade group the Social Investment Forum says holdings in socially responsible
mutual funds grew by eleven percent over the last couple of years. The amount now stands at
151 billion dollars. Todd Larsen is a spokesperson for the Forum. He says the industry has
grown dramatically since the group first added up the investments eight years ago.


“In our first report, we found there were 12 billion dollars in assets in socially responsible mutual
funds.”


Larsen says socially responsible funds have a variety of approaches. Some screen out entire
sectors of the economy.


“For example, perhaps, the oil industry might be screened out. In other funds, they’re doing a
best of class approach. So they’ll look at each industry and see which companies are the best within
that particular industry, and they’ll hold those companies.”


Even with the growth, socially responsible mutual funds are still only a tiny percentage of the
trillions of dollars invested in all funds.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.

Related Links

More Money for Great Lakes Cleanup?

The Bush Administration is seeking 45 million dollars from Congress to fund efforts to clean up parts of the Great Lakes. The money would go toward cleaning up four severely polluted sites. There are 26 such polluted sites located entirely within U.S. borders. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jerome Vaughn has more:

Transcript

The Bush Administration is seeking 45 million dollars from Congress to fund
efforts to clean up parts of the Great Lakes. The money would go toward
cleaning up four severely polluted sites. There are 26 such polluted sites
located entirely within U.S. borders. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Jerome Vaughn has more:


The 45 million dollars the Bush Administration is asking for in its 2005
budget proposal…more than quadruples the amount provided this year to
clean up contaminated sediments under the Great Lakes Legacy Act.


EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt traveled to Detroit to make the
announcement. He says the purpose of the increased funding is pretty
clear.


“Improving the quality of the water… and making certain the metals,
phosphates and any other pollutant that’s there now… can be taken out
before it becomes a bigger problem.”


The additional monies would be used to clean up four so-called “areas of
concern”… where pollution from PCBs and heavy metals are known to exist.


Some environmental groups… applaud the Bush Administration’s move… but say
more resources are still needed to address other issues… like invasive
species and vanishing wildlife habitats.


The Great Lakes Legacy Act was signed into law in 2002… but the program has
not previously been fully funded by Congress.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium. I’m Jerome Vaughn in Detroit.

Related Links

GOVERNMENT AIMS TO REMEDY GULF ‘DEAD ZONE’ (Short Version)

  • Although government programs offer incentives for farmers to plant grassy buffers between farm fields and waterways, many farmers don't bother with the voluntary efforts to reduce nitrogen. A new push to reduce nitrogen runoff is in the works in an effort to reduce the size of a 'Dead Zone' in the Gulf of Mexico believed to be caused by excess nitrogen runoff from Midwest farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)

A government task force is trying to find ways to reduce fertilizer pollution from Midwest farms because it’s causing environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

A government task force is trying to find ways to reduce fertilizer pollution from Midwest farms
because it’s causing environmental damage to the Gulf of Mexico. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The task force is looking at ways to stop excess nitrogen from getting into waterways. It hopes to
persuade farmers to reduce the amount of nitrogen they use or plant grassy buffer strips or
artificial wetlands to take up the nitrogen. The idea is to stop so much nitrogen getting into the
Gulf of Mexico. Once there it causes an algae bloom that then dies and depletes the water of
oxygen, causing a ‘dead zone.’


Don Scavia is with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Ocean
Service. He says offering farmers money to sign up for conservation programs is likely the best
route.


“The idea is to try to make the social benefit of reducing the nitrogen load work in favor of the
farmers.”


Right now, many row crop farmers pay the cost of applying more nitrogen than needed in hopes
of getting a better crop. Experts say it’s a gamble that rarely pays off and ultimately adds to the
problem in the Gulf.


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

Related Links

Government Aims to Remedy Gulf ‘Dead Zone’

  • Although government programs offer incentives for farmers to plant grassy buffers between farm fields and waterways, many farmers don't bother with the voluntary efforts to reduce nitrogen. A new push to reduce nitrogen runoff is in the works in an effort to reduce the size of a 'Dead Zone' in the Gulf of Mexico believed to be caused by excess nitrogen runoff from Midwest farms. (Photo by Lester Graham)

The government is looking at programs to reduce the amount of fertilizer runoff from farms that ends up in streams and rivers. It’s necessary because 41 percent of the continental U.S. drains into the Mississippi River and all that runoff is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. There, it’s causing a ‘dead zone’ where fish and other aquatic life can’t live. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The government is looking at programs to reduce the amount of fertilizer runoff from farms that
ends up in streams and rivers. It’s necessary because 41-percent of the continental U.S. drains
into the Mississippi River and all that runoff is dumped into the Gulf of Mexico. There it’s
causing a ‘dead zone’ where fish and other aquatic life can’t live. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


Each year about one-and-a-half million metric tons of nitrogen is dumped into the Gulf of
Mexico. Plants feed on nitrogen, so there are huge algae blooms, far more than the tiny aquatic
animals that feed on algae can eat. The algae eventually dies and begins to decompose. That process
depletes oxygen from the water. Fish and other marine life need oxygen to live. So they leave
the oxygen-depleted area or die. It’s called a ‘dead zone.’ In recent years that ‘dead zone’ in the
Gulf of Mexico has been as large as the state of New Jersey.


Don Scavia is Chief Scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Ocean Service. He says it looks as though much of that nitrogen comes from farms in
the Mississippi basin.


“The most significant change in the nitrogen load into the basin is actually coming from
agricultural application of fertilizer. That application rate has more than tripled since the 1950’s,
corresponding to almost a tripling of nitrogen loss from that system into the Gulf.”


Farms that are hundreds of miles from the Mississippi River drain into the Mississippi River
basin. The basin stretches from Montana to the southwest tip of New York. It includes all or
parts of 31 states.


Nitrogen exists naturally in the environment. But growing corn and some other crops on the
same land year after year depletes nitrogen. So farmers fertilize the land to bolster nitrogen
levels. Sometimes they use animal manure, but often they use man-made fertilizers such as
anhydrous ammonia.


David Salmonsen is with the American Farm Bureau.


“Well, for several crops, especially out into the upper parts of the Mississippi River basin, the
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, southern Minnesota, the great Corn Belt, you need nitrogen as a basic
additive and basic element to grow, to grow these crops.”


But often farmers use more nitrogen than they really need to use. It’s called an “insurance”
application. Farmers gamble that using an extra 10 to 20 pounds of nitrogen fertilizer per acre
will pay off in better crop yields – more corn. A lot of times, that gamble doesn’t pay off because
rain washes the extra nitrogen off the field. Salmonsen says slowly farmers are moving toward
more precise nitrogen application.


“Try and get away from what, you know, for years has been a practice among some people, they
say ‘Well, we’ll do what they call insurance fertilization. We got to have the crop. It may be a
little more than what we need, but we’ll know we have enough,’ because they just didn’t have the
management tools there to get this so precisely refined down to have just the right amount of
fertilizer.”


Salmonsen says with global satellite positioning tools, computers, and better monitoring farmers
will soon just be using the nitrogen they need. But, it’s not clear that farmers will give up the
insurance applications of nitrogen even with better measurements.


The government is getting involved in the nitrogen-loading problem. A task force has been
meeting to determine ways to reduce the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Gulf of Mexico.
Among the strategies being considered are applying nitrogen fertilizer at lower rates, getting
farmers to switch from row crops to perennial crops so they don’t have to fertilize every year,
planting cover crops during fall and winter to absorb nitrogen, establishing artificial wetlands in drainage areas to absorb nitrogen and getting
farmers to plant buffer strips of grass between farm fields and nearby waterways to filter out nitrogen.


Tom Christiansen is with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. He says while the government task
force is considering recommending some specific basin-wide reductions in nitrogen use the
USDA is only looking at the problem farm-by-farm.


“We get good conservation on the land, good water quality in the local streams and that will
benefit the Gulf. So, we’re working on a site-specific basis. We haven’t established any kind of
nation-wide goal for nutrient reduction.”


Unlike other industries, the government is reluctant to mandate pollution reduction. Instead of
regulations and fines used to enforce pollutions restrictions with manufacturing, agriculture is
most often encouraged to volunteer to clean up and offered financial incentives to do that. But in
the past farmers have complained that there wasn’t enough money in the programs. Christiansen
says the new farm bill has more money for conservation efforts and that should make it more
appealing for farmers to reduce nitrogen pollution.


“It falls back to good conservation planning, using the correct programs and then providing the
right kind of incentives and benefits to producers because they are taking land out of production
in many cases.”


The government is assuming the voluntary programs will be enough to reduce the nitrogen flow
into the Gulf of Mexico. No one expects the ‘dead zone’ will be eliminated. The best that
they’re hoping for is that it will be significantly reduced.


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

Related Links

Midwest Fertilizer Use Causing Gulf Dead Zone?

  • Commercial shrimpers and fishers in the Gulf of Mexico cannot find anything alive in the 'dead zone.' Research indicates fertilizer runoff from Midwest farms causes the 'dead zone.' (Photo by Lester Graham)

Farmers and lawn care companies in the Midwest use fertilizer to grow better crops and greener lawns. But excess fertilizer is washed downstream by rain, eventually reaching the Gulf of Mexico. Scientists say once in the Gulf, it triggers a process that causes a so-called ‘Dead Zone.’ The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Farmers and lawn care companies in the Midwest use fertilizer to grow better crops and greener
lawns. But excess fertilizer is washed downstream by rain, eventually reaching the Gulf of
Mexico. Scientists say once in the Gulf, it triggers a process that causes a so-called ‘Dead Zone.’
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


To get better crop production farmers use anhydrous ammonia to increase nitrogen levels in the
soil. To get greener lawns, homeowners use fertilizers that also can increase nitrogen and other
nutrient levels. But excess nitrogen gets carried away by rainstorms. For all or parts of 31 states,
that nitrogen is washed into ditches and creeks and rivers that are all part of the Mississippi River
basin. All of that land drains into the Mississippi and the Mississippi drains into the Gulf of
Mexico.


Tracy Mehan was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for
Water. Mehan points out that’s a lot of runoff that ends up in one place…


“It affects most of the inland drainage of the United States from Minnesota, from Ohio, from
Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois all the way down to the Gulf of Mexico. So, we’re dealing
with a tremendously broad system here and with tremendous challenges to protect the Gulf of
Mexico.”


Challenges because the nitrogen and other nutrients cause a problem.


Nancy Rabalais is a professor with the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium. She says the
nitrogen causes a huge bloom of algae…


“Well, the nutrients stimulate the growth of plants just like fertilizers stimulate the growth of a
corn plant. But the plants in the Gulf are microscopic algae.”


Some of the algae is eaten by tiny aquatic animals and fish. But, with a huge algal bloom… some
of it just dies and sinks to the bottom. Those algae cells are consumed by bacteria that also
consume oxygen. Rabalais says that depletes the oxygen in the surrounding water…


“So what basically happens is that the production of algae is just too much for the system to
handle.”


This oxygen starvation is called hypoxia. Marine life can’t live in a hypoxic area. Fish avoid it if
they can by swimming away. Other life that can’t move that fast dies. The size of the hypoxic
zone varies from year to year. Weather across the nation affects the amount of runoff that ends
up in the Gulf, but the trend has been a dead zone that’s gotten bigger over the past twenty
years… and according to Rabalais’ research it has doubled in size since the 1950’s when nitrogen
started being used extensively in agriculture.


(sound of boat engine starting up)


In Louisiana, the commercial fishers and shrimpers are concerned about the ‘dead zone.’ Some of
the smaller operations find it difficult to travel the longer distances to find fish outside the ‘dead
zone.’


Nelwyin McInnis is with the environmental organization, the Nature Conservancy. Walking in a
marsh area in Louisiana, she talked how important it was to that region that farmers and
homeowners in the Midwest do something to try to cut back on the amount of fertilizer that ends
up in the Gulf of Mexico.


“Certainly any ways that you can reduce the fertilizer runoff would certainly be of value. And I
know each farmer can’t imagine their impact hundreds of miles away in the Gulf of Mexico, but
each one adds up and has an effect.”


But powerful agricultural interests say the ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico is not caused by
nitrogen fertilizers in the farm belt. The American Farm Bureau has kept up a steady campaign
of denial of responsibility. Reports and essays published by the Farm Bureau question researcher
Nancy Rabalais’ findings. Rabalais says the Farm Bureau can question her all it wants. Her
published work has been reviewed by other scientists in close to a dozen major scientific journals.


“We don’t believe in collecting data and putting it on a shelf. We get it to the scientific public and
we also try to translate it so that the public, including the agricultural community can understand
what it’s saying.”


Whether the agriculture community wants to hear what those data are saying is another question.
However, the government is taking it seriously and is looking at ways to reduce the amount of
nutrients being washed into the Gulf of Mexico.


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

Related Links

MIDWEST FERTILIZER USE CAUSING GULF DEAD ZONE? (Short Version)

  • Commercial shrimpers and fishers in the Gulf of Mexico cannot find anything alive in the 'dead zone.' Research indicates fertilizer runoff from Midwest farms causes the 'dead zone.' (Photo by Lester Graham)

The commercial fishers in the Gulf of Mexico are hoping the farmers in the Midwest help them solve a problem. The fishers and shrimpers say the farmers could help reduce a so-called ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

The commercial fishers in the Gulf of Mexico are hoping the farmers in the Midwest help them
solve a problem. The fishers and shrimpers say the farmers could help reduce a so-called ‘dead
zone’ in the Gulf. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The ‘dead zone’ in the Gulf of Mexico varies in size from year to year, sometimes getting larger
than the state of New Jersey. Scientists say excess nitrogen and other nutrients used to grow
crops and lawns in the Midwest are drained from the Mississippi, Missouri, and Ohio river basins
and into the Gulf. Nancy Rabalais is a researcher with the Louisiana Universities Marine
Consortium. She says the result is a huge algae bloom in the Gulf…


“The nutrients stimulate the growth of these algae and they’re either eaten by zooplankton or fish
and become part of the marine food web or they die and sink to the bottom. It’s the cells that sink
to the bottom that eventually lead to the consumption of oxygen by bacteria.”


Fish and shrimp can’t live in the oxygen-starved area. The researchers say the only thing that can
reduce the size of the ‘dead zone’ is to reduce the amount of nitrogen from the Midwest that drains
into the Gulf of Mexico.


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

Related Links