The US government will begin phasing out higher wattage incandescent bulbs in 2012. (Photo by Lester Graham)
One out of every five light bulbs sold in the U.S. is a compact fluorescent. That’s
according to new market data put out by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mark
Brush reports:
Transcript
One out of every five light bulbs sold in the U.S. is a compact fluorescent. That’s
according to new market data put out by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mark
Brush reports:
It appears the days are numbered for Thomas Edison’s most famous invention. That’s because fewer people are buying incandescent light bulbs. The EPA says that compact fluorescent light bulbs made up 20% of the overall light bulb
market last year. That’s more than double than the previous year.
Maria Vargas is with the EPA’s Energy Star Program. She says the compact fluorescent
bulbs – or CFLs – are more expensive to buy, but when you do the math, they’ll save
you money in the long run:
“A CFL lamp will save you about $30 or more in electricity costs over each bulb’s
lifetime. They use about 75% less energy and they last up to about ten times longer.”
The U.S. government will officially begin phasing out the higher wattage incandescent
bulbs in 2012.
Sister Pat Siemen (pictured) leads a seminar on earth jurisprudence at Barry Law School in Orlando, Florida. (Photo by Jennifer Szweda Jordan)
Some lawyers believe it’s time to stand for the rights of nature. They want to represent trees. They want to defend the rights of birds and lakes, and all of nature.
They’re trying to put into practice a theory called earth jurisprudence.
Jennifer Szweda
Jordan has the story:
Transcript
Some lawyers believe it’s time to stand for the rights of nature. They
want to represent trees. They want to defend the rights of birds and
lakes, and all of nature. They’re trying to put into practice a theory
called earth jurisprudence. Jennifer Szweda Jordan has the story:
A law seminar on defending the rights of nature is probably not what
you expect, at least not at first. The start of Roman Catholic Sister
Pat Siemen’s law seminar on earth jurisprudence is unorthodox and Zen
like:
“We’re gonna start with our reflection time. And what I’d like you to
do is close your computers.”
Siemen taps a handheld chime in a classroom at Barry Law School in
Orlando, Florida. She has the law students practice slowing down so
they’ll notice what’s going on around them in nature, and they’ll take
the time to really think about arguing for the rights of nature in the
courtroom.
The legal system doesn’t recognize the rights of nature just yet.
Courts interpret the Constitution as protecting needs and rights of
humans. So only humans, or say, groups of humans such as corporations
can sue. The rights of bunnies and trees aren’t entitled to a voice in
courtrooms. Siemen says the emerging field of earth jurisprudence wants
to change that.
Part of the whole thought of earth jurisprudence is that other beings
actually be given their rights -legislatively – to come into court
through the understanding that someone as a guardian or trustee stands
in their right.
Besides teaching this new area of law, Siemen directs the Center for
Earth Jurisprudence. The center’s just wrapped up its first academic
year. Siemen’s early legal work focused on advocating for people who
were poor, minorities, or otherwise marginalized.
Siemen moved in a different direction when she was influenced by
ecotheologian Thomas Berry. Berry says that if the animals and trees
had a voice, they’d vote humans off the planet. Siemen was shocked:
“I had spent my whole life – at least adult life – ministerially trying
to stand in positions of empowerment of others, and furthering the
rights of others and I had never once really thought about what it
meant to be – whether it would be rivers or endangered species – what
it would mean to have to live and exist totally by the decisions of
humans.”
Siemen was also influenced by University of Southern California Law
School professor Christopher D. Stone. Stone wrote an article entitled
“Should Trees Have Standing?” In 1972, Supreme Court Justice William
Douglass agreed that inanimate objects should have rights. But that
view hasn’t gotten very far in American courtrooms.
The idea that ecosystems should have legal rights is problematic in the
view of free-market advocates. Sam Kazman is General Counsel for the
Competitive Enterprise Institute. He calls the theory of earth
jurisprudence gibberish.
“It is impossible to lay out what is in the best interest of an
ecosystem unless you lay out just what you as someone who owns that
ecosystem, or enjoys it, or appreciates it from a distance, what you
hold important.”
In other words, the owner will decide what’s best for the ecosystem.
Some legal experts believe giving nature rights would take nothing less
than a constitutional amendment.
University of Pittsburgh Law Professor Tom Buchele disagrees. He’s an
environmental lawyer who’s used the standing concept – unsuccessfully –
in arguing for a forest. He says that the Supreme Court could, if it
chose, interpret the constitution as allowing nature to have legal
standing:
“There’s certainly nothing in the constitution that says a case or
controversy has to have a person as the entity. It’s just that current
case law doesn’t do that.”
Buchele and Siemen know changes in court decisions are a long way away.
But if teaching about earth jurisprudence can make tomorrow’s corporate
counsels, real estate lawyers, and governmental officials consider the
trees and the water in their work, Siemen feels she’ll have made some
progress.
And getting law students to think about the rights of nature along with
the rights of humans might be the start of the legal revolution Siemen
wants to see.
For the Environment Report, this is Jennifer Szweda Jordan.
Businesses are beginning to talk about climate change in different
terms. Instead of debating whether humans are causing it, there’s a
lot more talk about what climate change might mean to the business
climate. Lester Graham reports there are questions about what might
happen to affect business as global temperatures and weather patterns change:
Transcript
Businesses are beginning to talk about climate change in different
terms. Instead of debating whether humans are causing it, there’s a
lot more talk about what climate change might mean to the business
climate. Lester Graham reports there are questions about what might
happen to affect business as global temperatures and weather patterns change:
For the last couple of decades, the people who’ve been arguing that we
have to do something to reduce the greenhouse emissions causing global
warming avoided one subject:
“People did not want to talk about adaptation or coping with climate
change because that was seen as a cop-out.”
That’s Rosina Bierbaum. She was a science advisor during the Clinton
administration and is now the Dean of the School of Natural Resources
and Environment at the University of Michigan.
The fear was, if you could figure out a way to cope with global
warming, you wouldn’t do anything to reduce the emissions causing it.
But Bierbaum says with concensus among the majority of the scientists in
the world that global warming is happening and humans are contributing,
the point has been made. Time to move on:
“It’s only really been, I would say, in the last two years that the
science has become so clear, that the changes are occurring so fast.
And we’re seeing them already… that society is realizing we’ve got to
cope with those changes now and there are more in store for us.”
Actually, Bierbaum thinks we’re really kind of behind in thinking about
the consequences of global warming. It’s not just the polar ice caps
melting and the rising sea levels. There are a lot of everyday sort of
things that will likely change.
For instance, what kind of plants should you put in your home
landscaping? Will the tree you plant today survive in the changing
climate? How flexible is your business if the climate changes weather
patterns?
Thomas Karl is the Director of the National Climatic Data Center at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He says people have
to start thinking about things like that. And Karl says it’s not just
higher temperatures, but sudden dramatic changes, such as maybe no snow
in the Northern states for a couple of years at a time. Or dry spells
that could make rivers so low that barges can’t travel up and down
them:
“What really has important impacts are the extreme events. I think the
questions being asked along these lines are ‘How vulnerable am I to
these episodic conditions?’ and ‘What do we need to do to prepare
ourselves for the possibility that things may not change gradually, but
could be quite abrupt change?'”
Some of those extreme events are heavier storms. As hurricane Katrina
showed, that could affect a lot of things. For example, the oil
industry is looking at its refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. With more
and more intense hurricanes, could it be worth building
refineries somewhere else?
There’s a lot at risk.
Franklin Nutter is the President of the Reinsurance Association of
America: the insurers of the insurance companies. He says with more
forest fires in the West, and unpredictability in agriculture, and more
violent storm surges on the coasts… all due to climate change, it’s
going to cost:
“Someone has to pay for the repair and recovery. If the insurance
mechanism is going to be the intermediary that translates those costs
into people’s premiums, then the answer is insurance premiums are going
to have to match those.”
And that means we’re all going to pay higher insurance costs because
some people and businesses are going to ignore, or miscalculate, how
climate change is going to affect them:
“The Association of British Insurers did a study looking at just the
effect of climate change on insurability and held steady population
growth, property values, all of those things. And they concluded that
you could see insurance premiums rise by 60% by mid-century just as a
result of climate change.”
That means if nothing changed: no inflation, no currency change…
nothing except global warming, insurance rates go up 60% during the
next 30 to 40 years. You’re already seeing it.
Some climate change experts say we can slow the impacts of global
warming by reducing greenhouse emissions now. But we’re already
seeing change… and we will see more.
There will be winners in global climate change. Some growing seasons
will be extended. Some areas will get more precipitation. But there
will likely be a lot more losers as businesses and people either can’t
or won’t adjust to the changing climate of their region.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
President Bush and others are promoting more use of plant-based
material to fuel our vehicles. Scientists say they’ve taken an
important step toward more efficient production of bio-fuels. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
President Bush and others are promoting more use of plant-based
material to fuel our vehicles. Scientists say they’ve taken an
important step toward more efficient production of bio-fuels. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Biofuel producers say they need to get a common plant sugar called
xylose to ferment to get an efficient conversion of plant material into
fuels like ethanol.
Researchers from the US Forest Products Lab and the Department of
Energy are working on the problem. They say they’ve now completed a
genetic map of a yeast that helps xylose ferment faster.
Micro-biologist Thomas Jeffries says with the new information about the
yeast, researchers plan to do more genetic tweaking:
“Well, we’ve been able to increase the specific fermentation rate of
this organism with one of our mutations, we’ve been able to increase it
by 50%, we really are aiming to get a four-fold increase.”
But Jeffries cautions there are still many steps before the work with
the yeast might pay off at your local gas station.
Planting hazelnut, red oak and other native species will produce nuts and acorns that many different kinds of animals will eat. Migration corridors connecting larger natural areas are critical for many kinds of animals.
(Photo by Lester Graham)
Landowners such as Ed Harris (orange jacket) are working with not-for-profit organizations such Conservation Resource Alliance to protect and restore wildlife habitat corridors. (Photo by Lester Graham)
There is growing concern about the loss of wildlife habitat. For decades, development has been spreading into areas that were once home to many different kinds of animals. The land has been cleared or altered so that a lot of the food sources have disappeared. The government has tried to set aside some parks and preserves, but biologists say many species of wildlife need much more space. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports that’s why more and more groups are approaching private landowners:
Transcript
There is growing concern about the loss of wildlife habitat. For decades
development has been spreading into areas that were once home to many
different kinds of animals. The land has been cleared or altered so that a
lot of the food sources have disappeared. The government has tried to
set aside some parks and preserves, but biologists say many species of
wildlife need much more space. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports
that’s why more and more groups are approaching private landowners:
(Sound of tree planting)
Ed Harris is digging into the dirt with a dibble bar… a tree planting tool.
“We’re planting American hazelnut seedlings. They grow vigorously
and produce nuts in about five years for white tail deer, turkey, grouse,
and even black bear.”
Harris owns this piece of land. He and his wife Elaine are getting a little
help planting the hazelnuts. A couple of young guys from neighboring
property are here, and a couple of guys from a not-for-profit organization
called Conservation Resource Alliance are working too. Ed Harris says
he’s in a partnership with that group…
“We wanted to improve the wildlife habitat. That was one of our goals
and that was one of the reasons we got together with Conservation
Resource Alliance to enhance the area. You know, you hear of so much
development now and taking trees and cutting them and bulldozing. Do
we want to see the land in condominiums or rather see it in a natural
state? And that was an easy choice for us.”
But it’s not so easy for some other private land owners. It’s really
tempting to sell scenic land like this to developers who offer big bucks.
Those who don’t sell often want to improve the land for wildlife, but that
can be expensive. There are government programs… but, a lot of the
time private landowners are reluctant to sign up. They don’t like the
bureaucratic red tape… and some don’t like idea of a government agency
telling them what they can or cannot do with their own land.
Groups like the Conservation Resource Alliance – the CRA for short –
are aware of that reluctance and that’s why they approach landowners
carefully.
Jeff Brueker is with the CRA. He says they don’t come in with a plan…
they sit down with the landowner. He’s been working on a plan with Ed
Harris for a couple of years.
“And when we can meet with a landowner that has some of those same
goals in mind and we can come to an agreement on some of their goals
matching with our goals, then we’ll go into a partnership together and
work at that.”
The goals include keeping certain wildlife travel areas – especially along
streams – inviting to wildlife so animals such as black bears, otters and
bobcats can migrate from one large natural area to another.
Brueker says this approach works because his organization and the
landowner work together to make it happen… including spending days
like this… planting hazelnuts and American red oak trees that will
provide food for wildlife for years to come. Brueker says this kind of
effort will probably mean long term protection of the property…
“In other words, if we help a landowner plant a hundred oaks on his land,
he’s looking at those 20 years later, showing that to his heirs, saying
‘Look, I planted those trees; I’ve been watching how they’ve been
growing,’ it just helps leave a legacy on the land.”
But getting one landowner to establish better wildlife habitat is not
enough. These kinds of groups are trying to build larger wildlife
corridors. That means they want Ed Harris… and they want his
neighbors… and their neighbors… to establish a huge area of food and
habitat for wildlife.
Programs across the country go by a lot of different names. The CRA
calls its program “Wild Link.”
Jeff Brueker’s colleague, Matt Thomas, says it’s connecting the dots
between properties, and… getting the private landowners on board takes
time…
“It’s kind of a door-to-door, kitchen table sort of recruitment. We start
by literally knocking on doors, doing presentations to groups that can
maybe share that information. We rely heavily on neighbor-to-neighbor
contact, where one landowner is having some successes and some
excitement about participating with Wild Link, they’re inclined to tell
their neighbors that ‘Hey, the connections work, if you can participate
too.'”
Groups like the Conservation Resource Alliance note that working with
private landowners is a critical piece of the puzzle in restoring wildlife
habitat. Of the one-point-nine billion acres in the lower 48 states, one-
point-four billion is in private hands. That’s 72 percent… nearly three
out of every four acres on average. Without private landowners lending
a hand… habitat for wildlife would be limited to isolated pockets in
government owned parks.
Most of the land that sustains wildlife is in private hands. Some organizations have identified key areas that are important to wildlife migration. They’re now working with private landowners to try to enhance those areas for wildlife. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Most of the land that sustains wildlife is in private hands. Some
organizations have identified key areas that are important to wildlife
migration. They’re now working with private landowners to try to
enhance those areas for the wildlife. The GLRC’s Lester Graham
reports:
While there are large public parks and preserves, some wildlife leave to
migrate from one area to another, crossing private land. Migration is
sometimes part of finding food or mating. Across the nation, not-for-
profit organizations are letting landowners know if their property is part
of a migration corridor. Landowners can get help to plant trees and
shrubs good for the animals… and help managing the resources for
wildlife on their property.
Matt Thomas is with one of those groups, Conservation Resources
Alliance…
“When we identify landowner-to-landowner, larger tracts where the buy-
in will create a dramatic and long term, sustainable difference for the
entire corridor and community, then we’re going to have some results.”
Because there’s less red tape and no regulations to follow many
landowners prefer working with not-for-profits rather than
government programs to enhance wildlife habitat.
The sea lamprey, up close. (Photo courtesy of USFWS)
This is an example of what the invasive species, sea lamprey, will do to a lake trout. The mark left on the lake trout shows how sea lamprey attach to their victims and suck their blood. (Photo courtesy of USFWS)
One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is the decline of many of the native species. The lake trout has been in trouble from over-fishing and because of an invasive species called, the sea lamprey. Conservation agents use a pesticide to keep the lamprey down, but it’s expensive, and sometimes it kills other fish. Now, researchers have discovered a lamprey pheromone that could help the fight against the sea lamprey. Stephanie Hemphill has that story:
Transcript
In our next report in the series Ten Threats to the Great Lakes we hear about how a native
fish has been hurt by an invasive species that swam into the lakes through a canal. Lester
Graham is our guide through the series.
One of the Ten Threats to the Great Lakes is the decline of many of the native species.
The lake trout has been in trouble from over-fishing and because of an invasive species
called, the sea lamprey. Ever since it invaded the Great Lakes, scientists have been trying
to keep the invasive sea lamprey under control.
Conservation agents use a pesticide to keep the lamprey numbers down, but it’s expensive,
and sometimes it kills other fish. Now, researchers have discovered a lamprey
pheromone. They think the chemical attractant could be a big help in their fight against
one of the most destructive invasive species in the Great Lakes. Stephanie Hemphill
has that story:
The sea lamprey came into the Great Lakes through canals more than a hundred years
ago. The slimy parasites attach themselves to big fish and feed on them until they die.
Each lamprey can kill 40 pounds of fish in its lifetime.
Between sea lampreys and over-fishing, the big native fish, the Lake Trout, was wiped out
in the lower Great Lakes. Only a few survived in small pockets in Lake Huron. Lake
Superior is the only place Lake Trout survive in healthy numbers.
There’s an aggressive 15-million dollar a year program to keep sea lamprey numbers
down. Part of the effort is using a chemical called TFM that kills the lamprey.
Wildlife managers spread the lampricide in streams in the spring. It kills some of the
young lamprey as they swim down into the lake.
University of Minnesota biologist Peter Sorensen says he and other scientists noticed that
TFM kills not just the juveniles, but the larvae that live in the streambed too. They also
realized, after a stream is treated, very few adult lamprey come back to the stream to
spawn, or lay new eggs.
“And this led to an observation decades ago, which was key, that adult lamprey must be
selective in how they pick streams. They only pick a few, and if you remove the larvae
they don’t seem to go in there.”
Scientists suspected the larvae might play a role in the spawning migration of adults.
That might mean the larvae are putting out a pheromone that tells the adults it’s a good
place to spawn. Just one larva attracts a lot of adult lamprey, indicating the pheromone
is very potent.
It was up to Jared Fine to determine what the chemical is. Fine is a PhD student working
with Peter Sorensen. For two years he sifted through the water in tanks holding lamprey
larvae.
“Separating the different chemical compounds, testing them biologically, seeing which
ones have activity, coming back to the active ones, further separating them, and just
repeating this until you get down to the one or two or three compounds that have the
activity.”
Fine narrowed it down to three compounds. He purified them and gave them to a colleague in the chemistry department, Thomas Hoye. Hoye created a synthetic version of the most potent pheromone. He says it should be possible to produce it on a large scale, and that means it could be used to treat the
Great Lakes. The question is, how much would he need?
“You know, would it be a tank car load, would it be a football field, would it be a dump
truck? It’s none of those. Would it be a barrel? No. Is it a bucket-full? No. In
fact it’s only about 500 grams, that’s just one pound, would treat all that water for a
month.”
And that’s all it would take, because the lamprey only spawn for a month, but the
treatment would have to happen once a year. Peter Sorensen says when lamprey
approach a stream to spawn, their clock is ticking. They have a powerful urge to lay
eggs, and once they’ve done that, they die.
“They are driven animals. Frankly they’re kind of on autopilot and pheromones are
what’s driving that autopilot to a very large extent, and now that we’ve got it, I think we
can really powerfully use that to our advantage.”
Sorensen says fisheries managers could use the pheromone to attract more lampreys to
streams outfitted with traps.
“You know the key here is the fact that this pheromone is natural, safe, and should be
very inexpensive to add.”
Fisheries managers hope the pheromone will help reduce the cost of controlling the
lamprey and add a new weapon to their arsenal.
The news on lamprey couldn’t have come at a better time for wildlife managers
around Lake Superior. After years of relatively constant numbers, the lamprey
population jumped dramatically this year. Scientists say lamprey may be finding new
spawning grounds in the mouths of streams, where lampricide is less effective. They’re
hoping they can use the pheromone to draw the lamprey to traps further upstream.
Water use in the Great Lakes basin hasn’t changed much
in recent years, according to a new report. The Great Lakes Regional Water Use Database tracks how water is used throughout the basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
Water use in the Great Lakes basin hasn’t changed much in recent years, according to a
new report. The Great Lakes Regional Water Use Database tracks how water is used
throughout the basin. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
The database includes water use information from the eight Great Lakes states and two
Canadian provinces. It shows that total water withdrawals for the year 2002 were
about 43 billion gallons a day. That number does not include water used for
hydroelectric power. Most of that water is returned to the basin.
Thomas Crane is interim executive director of the Great Lakes Commission, which
compiled the database. He says over the past few years, Great Lakes water use has
remained fairly steady.
“The fact that water use is not increasing significantly over time, at least in terms of what
we’re seeing with the database, I think speaks to the fact that we’re probably seeing more water
conservation.”
The database outlines water use by state and by industry, including municipal water
systems, agricultural irrigation, manufacturing and mining.
One in four Americans infected with HIV each year are under the age of twenty. In a recent study in the journal "Science," thirty-five percent of male teenagers reported they had intercourse while they were drunk or high and six percent say they use crack or cocaine. In every city and town, there are teenagers at risk. But getting them to seek help is often an uphill battle. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, a growing number of agencies are taking their services to the streets:
The US government will begin phasing out higher wattage incandescent bulbs in 2012. (Photo by Lester Graham)
