Tag: responsibility

Rainwater Toilets Caught in Red Tape

  • Jill Stites shows off a cistern that collects water from the roof of a welcome center for the Lake County Forest Preserve District of Illinois. An underground cistern collects water for fire protection and, come summer, toilets.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)

Sometimes we hear complaints that environmental regulations stop us from doing what we want with our property.
Environmentalists say there’s one issue where doing the green thing can attract a bunch of red tape.
Shawn Allee reports it’s about using rain water to flush our toilets.

Transcript

Sometimes we hear complaints that environmental regulations stop us from doing what we want with our property.
Environmentalists say there’s one issue where doing the green thing can attract a bunch of red tape.

Shawn Allee reports it’s about using rain water to flush our toilets.

This story starts at a forest preserve in Lake County, Illinois, north of Chicago.

Jill Stites is here to show off the forest preserve’s custom-built welcome center.

Stites: This building was built for people to come out and see what people could do in their own homes.

In other words, the idea was, we could do it, it didn’t break the bank entirely, here’s something you might want to try, that sort of thing?
Stites: yes, you can really do green building in a responsible way.

Stites shows me how the building collects rain water from the roof.
That keeps rain out of sewers.
That way, the local waste-water treatment plant doesn’t waste chemicals and electricity to purify rainwater.
After all, rainwater’s already clean and you can store it in cisterns, like this one.

Stites: It collects water off of the roof and goes directly in there. and there’s a spout on the bottom of the cistern that you can hook up a hose to and water your flowers with.

But Stites’ building wanted bigger bragging rights.
They wanted to prove people can collect rain water for more than just flowers.
You can use it for something more urgent: flushing your toilet.

Stites: you don’t need drinking water to flush your toilet. you’re saving the water from going to the storm sewers to be treated to come back as drinking water when that’s not necessary.

There was trouble, though.
The forest preserve district couldn’t get a permit to use rain water in the toilets.

It wanted a connection to city water, as a kind of backup.

But the state worried untreated rain water might somehow contaminate the city’s drinking water.

It took years to get special permission.

Stites: We’re bragging about it. It’s been in the paper about the possibility of it happening and we’re hoping by summer that it’s going to be a fact.

Well, the Lake County Forest Preserve District got its permit, but it won’t let the issue die.
It wants average homeowners to have an easier time, so do environmental groups.

Ellis: It’s a time-consuming process. If we’re going to have more individuals and business doing this, it’s just going to become a bureacratice mess if they have to get variances every time.

This is Josh Ellis.
He’s with the Metropolitan Planning Council in Chicago.
He wants rain collection for toilets to go mainstream in Illinois, but state law needs an update.

Ellis: It would just be a matter of course instead of a special process just to run your toilets a little bit differently.

He says engineers and plumbers have proven rain water collection can work for toilets, safely.

Ellis: We just need to upgrade the plumbing code and I think it will be smooth sailing from there.

Maybe smooth sailing … if you have the cash.
I ask an industry leader for specifics.
His name’s Joe Wheeler, and he’s with the American Rainwater Catchment Systems Association.
The U-S Environmental Protection Agency estimates, each year the average household spends just 200 dollars on water.
Wheeler says, for a rain water collection system …

Wheeler: You could do a really good job for about 4500 to 15,000 dollars. Every house is different. We’re not talking McDonald’s Big Macs here, we’re talking every one of them is a unique situation.

Wheeler says overseas, using rainwater for toilets is common and cheap.
Take Germany, for example.

Wheeler: Basically when you go into a home, you don’t know … you can’t tell the difference.

But Wheeler says German homes and businesses get pushed toward rain harvesting.

Wheeler: People would actually get a rebate on their waste water and that gave the whole market in Germany a critical mass.

It doesn’t work like that here, so in the U-S, rain harvesting for toilets is nowhere near critical mass.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Spit Polishing Military Sites

  • The US Military claims that it is exempt from cleaning up polluted former military sites. Neighbors contest this claim. (Image courtesy of the US Department of Defense)

The military has long gotten breaks on some environmental laws. Chuck
Quirmbach reports Congress might put a limit on those exemptions for the
military:

Transcript

There are thousands of old military sites in need of environmental cleanup. But, work on many has been slow partly because of disputes over the defense department getting waivers from some
environmental laws.

More than 80 community groups are supporting the so-called Military Environmental Responsibility Act. The measure would eliminate the long-term breaks from environmental laws. Laura Olah lives near a former army ammunition plant. She says the bill would force the military to act faster in cleaning up the properties.

“It’s a win-win. I mean, it’s gonna save a lot of tax dollars because it’s
gonna motivate clean ups in a timely manner and that’s when we save money.”

Olah says it saves money because once the land is cleaned up, it can be
reused.

The US military has said the long-term exemptions are needed for national
security.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

A Cup of Conscience

  • Dennis Macray of Starbucks speaks about the coffee company’s social and environmental efforts. He was the keynote speaker for the annual George McGovern lecture for United Nations’ employees. (Photo by Nancy Greenleese)

People who work to help people in poor countries have always had big hearts. Some of
those helping these days have fat wallets as well. Multinational corporations are helping
the people who grow raw materials for those companies. They’re protecting the
environment, building schools, trying to improve living conditions – just like charities.
Nancy Greenleese reports there’s controversy over the businesses’ motives. But there’s
no denying they’re changing how help is given in poor countries:

Transcript

People who work to help people in poor countries have always had big hearts. Some of
those helping these days have fat wallets as well. Multinational corporations are helping
the people who grow raw materials for those companies. They’re protecting the
environment, building schools, trying to improve living conditions – just like charities.
Nancy Greenleese reports there’s controversy over the businesses’ motives. But there’s
no denying they’re changing how help is given in poor countries:

(sound of steaming milk and cups clanking)

At a Starbucks in Germany, customers are clamoring for their daily fix of caffeine.

“My name is Ellen Sycorder and I’m from Bonn. And I’m drinking a black coffee.”

What she doesn’t realize is that it’s coffee with a conscience.

Starbucks buys the bulk of its coffee from farmers in its program called Coffee And
Farmer Equity or CAFÉ. The farmers agree to grow quality coffee without jeopardizing
the environment. They pledge to take care of their workers and pay them fairly. Ellen
can drink to that.

“I think the idea is positive and I think I would drink more coffee here than somewhere
else.”

That’s exactly what Starbucks ordered a decade ago when it teamed up with the
environmental group Conservation International. They started by helping farmers in
Chiapas Mexico grow premium beans while protecting the region’s famous cloud forest.
CAFÉ practices grew from there. Starbucks and its non-profit partners are working with
farmers now from Costa Rica to East Timor.

Dennis Macray of Starbucks says the environmental advice is paying off.

“We’ve had farmers come to us and say these practices helped me weather a hurricane
for example, where neighboring farms had mudslides.”

Starbucks’ director of global responsibility says the company sometimes even
discourages farmers from growing beans. That might seem like a grande step backwards.
But Macray says keeping the farmers in business is the goal and sometimes that means
diversifying.

He recently found out how well it was working when he visited the mud hut of a Kenyan
farmer .

“In this case, the farmer was really proud of all the fruit and other vegetables that he had
on his farm. So he walked around and showed us how interspersed in-between the coffee
and providing shade for the coffee which is very important were a number of other crops
and fruits and things that he could either sell or his family could feed itself.”

Starbucks is among a growing list of multinational companies that are pouring money
into the developing world. Veteran international aid worker Carl Hammerdorfer says
working with big corporations made him pause at first.

“I’m a pretty skeptical, maybe even cynical, person about the motives of business. I
would have said 5 years ago that these Fortune 500 companies are only talking about
environmental and social concerns for marketing purposes, so they would improve their
image and sell more product.”

But he says global climate change prompted the companies to take their mission more
seriously. Any changes to the climate that shrink the rain forest, parch or flood land
would drastically affect their supplies of raw materials.

The former Peace Corps country director says his views have changed as he’s watched
companies such as McDonalds help farmers build more stable businesses.

“The evolution of their consciousness about social and environmental bottom lines is all
good. It’s a net gain for all of us who care about these enduring gaps.”

But there are concerns that the collapse of the economy will make the companies’
generosity shrivel up. There’s not a lot of evidence of that so far. While Starbucks is
closing 900 stores, the CAFÉ program is expanding. The company says it’s vital to its
long-term success to keep grinding on.

“Grande Cafe Latte!”

(sound of milk foaming)

For The Environment Report, I’m Nancy Greenleese.

Related Links

Interview: Economics and Environment

In the last few decades the economy of the
US has grown faster than ever before. Corporations
work hard to expand and to drive share prices higher.
The author of a new book ‘The Bridge at the Edge of
the World’ says in this process of growth, capitalism
is not paying for its consequences. Lester Graham
talked with Gus Speth, the dean of the School of
Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale. Speth
says since the environmental movement began in the
1970’s, we’ve dealt with many of the symptoms of
environmental damage, but not many of the causes:

Transcript

In the last few decades the economy of the US has grown faster than ever
before. Corporations work hard to expand and to drive share prices higher.
The author of a new book ‘The Bridge at the Edge of the World’ says in this
process of growth, capitalism is not paying for its consequences. Lester Graham
talked with Gus Speth, the dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental
Studies at Yale. Speth says since the environmental movement began in the
1970’s, we’ve dealt with many of the symptoms of environmental damage, but
not many of the causes:

Gus Speth: “We did do some cleaning up, and certainly rounded out a lot of the
rough edges, but despite that, we are in a very dire situation now, I believe. The
global warming issue, disruptive climate change coming at us, is the most potent
environmental threat that we’ve ever experienced. Meanwhile: we’ve been losing
an acre a second of tropical forest for decades now, we’re consuming vast
quantities of fresh water from our streams and rivers, a flock of rivers no longer
reach the ocean in the dry season around the world, we’re over-fishing 75% of
the marine fisheries, 90% of the large predator fish in the oceans are gone, half
of the wetlands are gone, we’re extinguishing species a thousand times the rate
of natural extinction. So, these are very serious problems.”

Lester Graham: “You suggest in your book that tackling environmental problems
will require us all to stop looking at things with such a narrow view. The
environment is connected and affected by business, and government, and
lifestyle – or, in other words: capitalism, democracy, and consumerism. Do you
want to change the world? Is that what it is going to take?”

Speth: “Well, I think, quite literally, we have all got to be out to save the world at
this point. And I think these issues are linked. We forget sometimes that the real
thing that is undermining the environment is economic activity. And this growth
carries with it enormous potential for increased environmental destruction. Now,
the problem is, companies have enormous incentive not to pay their
environmental costs, to push these costs off on to other people and on to future
generations. The result is that the prices for their products are environmentally
dishonest.”

Graham: “Can you give me an example of a case like that?”

Speth: “Well, I would say any oil or coal company, and us in using the oil and the
coal in our electricity and in our homes or whatever. We’re paying nothing
compared with the environmental cost that the use of the fossil fuels is imposing
on our environment and on our own human health. And that basic arrangement
is buttressed by enormous power, now, on the part of the corporate sector. Not
only are they the principle economic actors in our system, but they are the
principle political actors in our system, now. It is buttressed by our own
consumerism, our own pathetic capitulation to the advertising machine that we
face everyday. And it’s buttressed by government, which is really wholly
dependant now on growth for raising extra taxes without having to raise tax rates,
and for holding out the promise of better lives which don’t materialize.”

Related Links

A Bloomin’ Solution for Cell Phone Waste?

  • Researcher Dr. Kerry Kirwan is experimenting with a cell phone case that will biodegrade. The case contains a flower seed. As the material breaks down, the seed is allowed to germinate and become a flower. (Photo courtesy of The University of Warwick)

Researchers in England have an idea for your old mobile
phones – bury them and grow a flower. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner explains:

Transcript

Researchers in England have an idea for your old mobile phones – bury them and grow a
flower. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner explains:


Most people have one – if not several – cell phones they’ve outgrown. Some keep them
around for no good reason, some just throw them away, and some people actually recycle
them.


Kerry Kirwan at the University of Warwick in England wants to take that idea further.
He’s developing a biodegradable cell phone case that could be buried and would grow
into a flower when you’re ready to upgrade your phone.


“We thought it’d be a rather unique way of getting people to take responsibility of the
disposal of their mobile phones, but also, a way for moving a lot of plastic waste from the
waste stream so it didn’t have to be dealt with.”


Kirwan says he’d like to have the product on the market in a few years. He says the
phone cases would contain a wide range of flower seeds, based on what would grow best
in your climate.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Erin Toner.

Related Links

Containing Chronic Wasting Disease

  • An elk showing symptoms of chronic wasting disease. CWD affects elk, white-tailed deer and mule deer. It's not known to be naturally transmissible to livestock or people. (Photo by Dr. Beth Williams, University of Wyoming, courtesy of CWD Alliance)

Throughout most of the Great Lakes region,
there are huge numbers of white-tailed deer. Deer don’t have the natural predators that they once did… so states rely on hunters to manage the deer herds. Recently, that’s become even more important with the discovery of a fatal disease. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams reports there’s extra pressure on hunters to keep the disease from spreading:

Transcript

Throughout most of the Midwest/Great Lakes region, there are huge numbers of
white-tailed deer. Deer don’t have the natural predators that they once did…
so states rely on hunters to manage the deer herds. Recently, that’s become even
more important with the discovery of a fatal disease. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams reports there’s extra pressure on hunters to keep the disease from spreading:


“How are you today? Successful morning, or are these from yesterday? This
morning… oh okay…”


Hunters are bringing their deer into a check station. Department of Natural Resources staff
determine the age of the deer by looking at their teeth. If it’s an adult deer, a technician
saws the head off so brain tissue and lymph nodes can be tested for chronic wasting disease.


(sound of deer head being cut off)


Chronic wasting disease, or CWD, affects white-tailed deer, mule deer and elk. It’s always
fatal. So far, there’s no evidence that CWD can hurt people or livestock. For now, most wildlife
managers are just worried about the health of the deer herds.


Western states such as Colorado and Wyoming have been dealing with CWD for decades. Wisconsin
found the disease in wild deer in early 2002. Illinois found the disease later the same year.
So far, it hasn’t shown up in wild deer in neighboring states, such as Indiana, Michigan or
Minnesota.


Wisconsin has a lot of deer crowded into a relatively small space, and that worries state
officials. Tami Ryan is a wildlife supervisor with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.


“Some of the genetic research that’s been done to date on Wisconsin deer, they are not
resistant to CWD. It could be severely detrimental to the herd, which is why we feel so
strongly about trying to contain the disease where it exists and prevent it from spreading.”


Wisconsin’s attempting what state officials call aggressive herd reduction. At first, the
state wanted to kill all the deer in the heart of the disease eradication zone. Now, the state
wants to kill five of every six deer in those zones. That means reducing the deer to fewer than
five per square mile.


The Department of Natural Resources is trying to do this by making hunting seasons longer
and handing out more permits. In the disease eradication zones, people can hunt on private
land all fall and all winter – September to March.


Many hunters say they like the opportunity to take a few extra deer. Mike Snodgrass hunts
regularly in one of the areas where the state’s trying to reduce the herd.


“From just being out and observing the deer, there’s a huge number of deer out in the woods.
I’ll do my part, I enjoy the venison, and so I’ll take a couple of does out, no problem.”


The Department of Natural Resources says hunter participation is crucial for controlling
chronic wasting disease. That’s because the state doesn’t have nearly enough wardens to kill
all those deer.


State officials worried at first that CWD would turn hunters off from the sport. But from some
recent surveys, it’s been clear that most hunters say they understand the problem and they still
want to hunt where they’ve hunted every year – whether or not there are sick animals in those
areas.


The state’s also reaching out to private landowners. Most of the land in the disease zones is
privately owned. The state’s encouraging landowners to open up their land to more hunters.


Mike Albert is a landowner who hunts. He owns 275 acres near where the first three infected
wild deer were found. Albert says he’s hesitant to open up his land to strangers, but he does
let friends and family hunt on his land. He says something has to be done about chronic wasting
disease, but he says he’s afraid the state’s going too far.


“It’s not that I don’t feel a responsibility to help. As an ethical hunter when you’re asked to
just blatantly shoot every deer you see no matter how, it’s hard to overcome that. They’re asking
us to totally devastate our herd, ruin our tradition, and do all this stuff before we know for
sure whether it’s the right thing to do.”


Albert says more of the effort should be focused on understanding the disease before acting.
Researchers are still asking many questions about the disease itself. It’s still not known
exactly how the disease is transmitted.


Beth Williams is a veterinarian at the University of Wyoming. She’s also a leading expert on
CWD. Williams says there aren’t any proven methods for stopping CWD. She says killing off
much of the deer herd is controversial, but the state’s options are limited.


“I think it was a good idea for Wisconsin to see whether or not taking fairly radical steps
like they have to do their herd reduction, whether or not that might stop CWD. The alternative
is, based on everything that we know, if you don’t try and do something, the disease is then
going to spread.”


Williams says it’ll be years before anyone can tell whether reducing the deer herds
will help. But many people agree chronic wasting disease needs to be stopped as soon
as possible, before it spreads to deer herds in neighboring states.


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

Related Links

Vice Presidential Profile: John Edwards

  • Many environmental groups say that Edwards is doing a great job of supporting environmental issues, but some are arguing that his voting record says otherwise. (Photo by Dave Scull, courtesy of johnkerry.com)

With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Here’s a look at Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards:

Transcript

With concerns about the economy, the war on terror and the war in Iraq, politicians have not
spent a lot of time on topics such as the environment. As part of a series of profiles on the
presidential and vice presidential candidates, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports that the candidate with the shortest record of public service is the candidate who talks
the most about the environment on the campaign trail. Heres’a look at Democratic vice presidential
candidate John Edwards:


Senator Edwards thinks the Bush campaign is vulnerable on environmental issues. When asked about
his positions on the environment, he often begins by talking about the things he feels are at risk
under Bush administration.


“Over and over and over, whether it has to do with protecting our air, protecting our water,
whether we’re going to become energy independent in this country, protecting our natural
resources, making sure that we protect our lands, our national forests – all these issues
that are so important – making sure we don’t drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, all these
things are important because we have a responsibility to our children and our grandchildren
to leave this planet better than the way we found it. And that’s what we’ll do when John Kerry’s
our President.”


Although John Kerry has not spent a lot of time talking about the environment himself, Senator
Edwards knows that over 20 years in the U.S. Senate Kerry has a lifetime approval rating from the
League of Conservation Voters of 92 percent. The average Democrat has an approval rating of 70
percent… the average Republican an approval rating of 13 percent.”


Betsey Loyless is the League of Conservation Voters vice president of policy. She says
Edwards’ own record on the environment is not nearly as extensive.


“Senator Edwards has a short record on the environment because he’s been in the Senate only
one term, but his record has been, I think, has been quite good for a one-term senator. And,
he has been a leader on clean air issues. This administration, the Bush administration, had
pushed to weaken Clean Air Act standards as they apply to these old grandfathered power plants
that are the biggest of polluters. Senator Edwards led the charge to tell the Bush administration
to stop that policy on behalf of power plant operators and utilities.”


Senator Edwards did not get that job done. The Bush policy to allow power plants to make
improvements without updating pollution control equipment was put into place.


John Edwards talks about that losing battle while he’s on the campaign trail. He says he –
at least – wanted studies to see if the experts thought the changes in the regulations on the
old coal-fired power plants would affect human health.


“I mean, the laws had been there for 25 years. Can’t we take six months to figure out if you
change them what it’s going to do to people? And they refused to do it. Here’s why: they know
the answer. They know exactly. They were for it because the big energy companies are for it.
It’s just no more complicated than that. And so, that’s one example of the fight.”


Senator Edwards’ fight hasn’t been going on very long. Before his election to the U.S. Senate,
he held no legislative seat.


Jack Betts is an editorial writer and columnist for the Charlotte Observer. He’s followed
Edwards’ political career for the last few years. Betts says the environmental groups in
Edwards’ home state of North Carolina seem to approve of the senator’s positions.


“John Edwards in his Senate campaign six years ago was identified as the more likely
to be a strong advocate for the environment. And I think that helped him to election then.
And I don’t think he’s done anything to reverse those expectations about how he would stand
on the environment in the future.”


Senator Edwards’ critics say really it’s hard to say how he’d stand on any issue. They point to
his voting record for the last couple of years, noting that he was often absent. He’s missed
votes while on the road campaigning to be the Democrats’ presidential nominee… and now
campaigning as vice presidential candidate. But the environmental groups seem confident
that as vice president, John Edwards would fully support what they would expect to be a
pro-environment Kerry administration.


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

Related Links

Return to Sender

The fast food and beverage industries spend billions of dollars annually to create an image for their products. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that some of that money would be better spent educating the public about what to do with the leftovers:

Transcript

The fast food and beverage industries spend billions of dollars annually to create an image for their products. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Suzanne Elston says that some of that money would be better spent educating the public about what to do with the leftovers.


I was walking my dog the other day when she found a real treat right in the middle of the road. Some clown had pitched the remains of a Burger King dinner out their car window – fries, burger, napkins, and drink container – the works. And while Jessie couldn’t wait to roll around in the smashed French fries and burger bits, I was wishing I could find the rightful owner and return it.


Since I couldn’t hope to find the culprit, I decided to do the next best thing. I called the nearest Burger King restaurant and asked to speak to the manager. I told her that I had found something that belonged to her store, and asked if someone could please come and pick it up. She wondered exactly what it was, so I told her.


She said, “Just because our name’s on it, doesn’t mean that it’s our responsibility.”


I am quite sure that the employee who made that statement had no idea how profound it really was. From what I’ve seen, the vast majority of the garbage that makes its way into ditches along our roads is either fast food leftovers or beverage containers. The cheap, disposal nature of carryout packaging has made the entire fast food industry possible. The same can be said for the soft drink industry. They both benefit from the disposability of these items, and yet they appear to bear no responsibility for them.


More importantly, they don’t seem to care. And that’s what I find so interesting. The fast food and soft drink industries spend billions of dollars every year on advertising and promotion. They aren’t just selling products – they engage some of the brightest minds in advertising to help sell an image. What’s so astounding is that none of these marketing geniuses has made the connection between that carefully crafted image and what happens to it when it ends up squashed in a ditch or smeared all over the road. It strikes me that this is really bad public relations.


I understand that the very nature of fast food makes a certain amount of disposable packaging necessary. It’s also understood that it isn’t Burger King or McDonalds or Coca-Cola that’s pitching all this trash in the ditch. But the truth is that they aren’t doing much to discourage it, either. And maybe that’s the point.


The whole convenience food industry needs to work on educating the public about responsibly disposing of their packaging. Rather than packing food into bags at the drive-thru window or take-out counter, fast food restaurants should use litterbags instead. Maybe then consumers would actually think before they roll down the window and pitch.


Somewhere along the line both the fast food restaurants and the consumers have accepted the idea that a tremendous amount of garbage and littering is the price we have to pay for all that convenience. It’s time to re-visit that perception.


From here on, when I see a squashed coffee cup, a flattened Coke can or Big Mac wrapper in the street, I think I’ll be calling the advertised owners and asking them to come and pick up their stuff.