Slash-And-Burn in Indonesia

  • Indonesia's peat forests are home to Sumatran tigers, Asian elephants and orangutans. (Photo by Ann Dornfeld)

Officials from every country in the
world have gathered in Copenhagen
this week to build the
framework for a global climate treaty.
One of the goals is to slow the
destruction of forests in developing
countries. Those forests process and
store massive amounts of carbon dioxide.
Ann Dornfeld reports:

Transcript

Officials from every country in the
world have gathered in Copenhagen
this week to build the
framework for a global climate treaty.
One of the goals is to slow the
destruction of forests in developing
countries. Those forests process and
store massive amounts of carbon dioxide.
Ann Dornfeld reports:

Preserving forests will be a huge debate in Copenhagen. Poor countries want wealthier countries to compensate them for not cutting the forests for lumber and to convert it to farmland. To find out why that might be important, you have to visit a place like this peat forest on the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

(sound of the forest)

Forests like this one are home to orangutans, Sumatran tigers and Asian elephants. But these forests may be more important for what lies beneath their marshy floors. The peat is composed of thousands of years’ worth of organic material. Indonesia’s peat forests are storage units for much of the world’s carbon. And they’re being destroyed at an alarming rate.

Not far down the road, Greenpeace Indonesia campaigner Bustar Maitar looks out on a charred landscape. You’d never know a forest stood here just a few months ago.

“Is the no more ecosystem here. No more forest here.”

Only a few burnt tree trunks are standing. Sour smoke curls up from the blackened ground. Maitar says this fire has been burning for a month.

“Fire is coming from not from in the top of the ground, but the haze is coming from inside. It means it’s the underground fire, especially in peatland. And underground fire is very difficult to handle.”

Indonesia’s peat forests are rapidly being logged, drained and burned in order to clear the land for tree farms and palm oil plantations.

The peat can be dozens of feet deep. When it’s burned, the carbon it’s been storing is released as carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. All of that burning peat has made Indonesia the world’s third largest emitter of CO2.

Until recently, industrialized nations topped the list of greenhouse gas emitters. Now the United States shares that shortlist with developing nations like China, India and Brazil. As these countries industrialize, demand for timber and open space has stripped many of their forests bare. But leaders of developing countries insist their nations should be allowed to do what it takes to build their economies – even if that leads to climate change.

Paul Winn works on forest and climate issues for Greenpeace. He says the only alternative is for wealthy countries to pay developing countries to slow their emissions.

“If the industrialized world is serious about climate change, it’s essential. It just has to be.”

Winn says wealthy countries have pledged 45 billion dollars so far to help poor countries reduce emissions. But he says that’s just a start.

“If you compare that to what the industrialized world spent on protecting its banks and its financial institutions during the financial crisis, it’s a pittance. And it’s far more essential that they do it now. Because these forests are threatened, and the emissions that go up into the atmosphere are going to come back and bite the industrialized world if they don’t fund its protection.”

Some of the funding plans on the table at Copenhagen would still involve drastic changes to the world’s forest ecosystems. The UN’s current plan would give pulp and paper corporations in Indonesia carbon credits to convert peat forests into acacia plantations.

Winn says that’s the opposite of what needs to happen. Greenpeace and other environmental groups want industrialized countries to fund a moratorium on logging.

One complicating factor is the rampant corruption in many developing countries.

“It is a concern. And I would imagine that’s why many of the industrialized countries haven’t committed to funding.”

Winn says a thorough verification process would ensure that if countries allowed logging, they’d have to repay donor nations.

Winn is in Copenhagen to promote forest protection in the developing world. He says he doesn’t expect anything major to come out of this conference – but hopefully it will lay some groundwork.

For The Environment Report, I’m Ann Dornfeld.

Related Links

Stopping Septic Seepage

  • Dan Jacin stands by his newly landscaped sewage tanks (Photo by Julie Grant)

There’s an underground threat to water that’s making it harder to clean up for drinking. Julie Grant reports – it all
depends on where you live and whether the people who live nearby are maintaining their septic systems:

Transcript

There’s an underground threat to water that’s making it harder to clean up for drinking. Julie Grant reports – it all
depends on where you live and whether the people who live nearby are maintaining their septic systems:

More than one of every four homes uses its own septic
system.

That means it’s not hooked up to a city sewer line. When a
toilet is flushed, the water doesn’t go to a central treatment
plant. Instead, it drains into a septic system buried in the
yard. It’s supposed to decompose using a natural process to
clean it up before going back to the environment.

The problem is – those septics don’t get enough attention.

When they fail, as about one-in-five does, that untreated
toilet water winds up in rivers, lakes and wells. In a lot of
places, that untreated sewage drains into our sources of
drinking water.

“Well obviously, there’s potential health risks, that’s the
number one.”

Nate McConoughey is the sewage program manager with
the Board of Health in Cuyahoga County, Ohio. He spends
a lot of his time inspecting home septics to see if they’re
working.

“We don’t want these pathogens getting out into the
environment and getting into the creeks and streams and
rivers that people come in contact with.”

Or get their drinking water from.

Even though he’s trying to protect water quality,
McConoughey is not a popular guy with homeowners.

“Nobody really wants to see you come out and take a look at
their system. Because most people with 40-plus year old
systems realize that they’re probably not working as good as
they should.”

It’s McConoughey’s job – and the other inspectors he works
with – to tell people when their system is leaking sewage,
and when it’s time to put in a new system.

“We’ve all seen people with different reactions. Whether it
be crying or very irate.”

People get so upset because replacing a septic system
costs big bucks.

Just ask Dan Jacin. Last summer he had to dig up his front
lawn and put in a new set of sewage treatment tanks.

“Oh yeah, it tears up your yard for a year and hits your wallet
pretty hard.”

But Jacin says he didn’t have a choice. His 43-year old
system was backing up atrocious-smelling sewage into his
basement.

“I wanted relief from sewage coming into my house, because
that’s just not a fun deal at all.”

Jacin also had sewage burping up in his yard.

If a septic is working right, sewage drains from the house
into a tank. And it’s slowly sent from the tank into an
underground absorption area – where it filters through the
soil.

But Jacin’s septic wasn’t working anymore. The sewage
was draining off his property into a nearby stream.

(sound of a stream)

This stream runs into the Cuyahoga River, which runs into
Lake Erie – a major source of drinking water. Jacin felt
badly about causing that pollution.

But he felt even worse about paying for his new septic
system. It cost more than $20,000!

“And just fortunately I had enough money to replace it at the
time. I don’t know what I would have done if I didn’t have the
money. Who’s going to give you a loan to replace your
septic tank?”

Now Jacin’s lawn has grown back, he’s landscaped to hide
the treatment tanks. And he’s glad he’s no longer polluting
the waterways.

But he still isn’t happy about spending all that money.

Inspector Nate McConoughey understands. But he says
there are low-interest loans available for new septics – and
they’ve got to be maintained – so the water is clean for
drinking and other uses.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Underground Co2 a Long Way Off

  • Corn-processing giant Archer Daniels Midland creates excess carbon dioxide while brewing ethanol and other alcohols from corn. The company is donating carbon dioxide from a plant in Decatur, Illinois. Scientists will bury the CO2 deep underground and test whether the local rock can hold it there indefinitely. If it can, the government may encourage coal-fired power plants and other carbon sources to sequester their carbon underground. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One of the cheapest, easiest ways to make

electricity in America is to burn coal, but there’s

this little problem of global warming. The coal power

industry is a major offender because burning coal

gives off carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas.

It’s enough to make you think – should we burn coal at all?

Shawn Allee reports some scientists hope to prove

we can put coal emissions out of sight, out of mind:

Transcript

One of the cheapest, easiest ways to make electricity in America is to burn coal. But there’s this little problem of global warming. The coal power industry is a major offender… because burning coal gives off carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas. It’s enough to make you think – should we burn coal at all? Shawn Allee reports some scientists hope to prove we can put coal emissions out of sight, out of mind:


A big part of our global warming problem starts right in coal country. Recently, I recorded this coal train leaving a coal mine, destined for some power plants.


(sound of coal train)


It was a long train … and across the country, hundreds like it run constantly. The coal power industry generates half our electricity. And that’s responsible for nearly forty percent of the carbon dioxide, or CO2, we chuck into the atmosphere.


Well, wouldn’t it be great if we could reverse some of this? So, when we pull coal out of the Earth and then burn it … we could just send some of the carbon dioxide gas underground?


That’s getting tested by scientists.


I found one.


ALLEE: “What’s your name, sir?”


FINLEY: “Robert Finley. I’m the director for the center for energy and earth resources at Illinois State Geologic Survey.”


Finley wants to take carbon dioxide and bury it deep under the town of Decatur, Illinois.


He says the rock has to be just right.


One layer needs to absorb the carbon dioxide, while other rock has to keep it put.


“In order for the CO2 to remain in the subsurface, to not leak back in the atmosphere, we have to have an excellent seal.”


Finley calls this geological carbon sequestration, and he says it’s worked … in small tests. His experiment and six others across the country are much larger. Finley says the technology is promising, but needs testing.


“Decatur involves two years of characterizing the site and drilling wells before we even inject CO2. Three years of CO2 injection, then two more years of study of the site. So, that in total is a seven year effort.”


Again, he’s gotta make sure the carbon dioxide stays underground … and that it won’t hurt water or other underground resources. But while Finley experiments, coal plants continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere. That’s got some environmental groups a little impatient.


“The best way to avoid emissions from burning coal is to not burn it in the first place.”


This is Ron Burke, the Midwest Director for The Union of Concerned Scientists.


“We can meet most of our energy needs by substantially increasing the use of energy efficiency and renewable energy.”


Allee: “But when you listen to Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain, it seems that both of these candidates seem to want to make it work, when Mr. Finley and others doing work on the ground say I won’t even have my data until 2014.”


Burke: “It’s clear that a lot of elected officials share this aspirational goal to commercially develop so-called clean-coal technology. But right now we can’t depend on it. We shouldn’t be developing plans to mitigate greenhouse gases assuming that technology’s going to be available.”


Geologist Robert Finley says we cannot rely on carbon sequestration exclusively.


Even if CO2 can stay underground forever, there’s no guarantee we can afford to send it there.


“One could argue we should have been doing this five years ago or earlier, but we can’t go forward and simply drill a well next year and move forward without these kinds of studies, because that would be reckless in my view.”


Finley doesn’t apologize for the pace of science.


He says he’s confident it can answer questions about carbon sequestration…. he just hopes it’s in time to make a difference for the global warming problem.


For the Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Epa Plans for Co2 Underground

  • The EPA is looking into storing CO2 emissions underground (Photo by Lester Graham)

The US Environmental Protection
Agency is looking at ways to make sure
carbon dioxide can be stored underground.
The agency is proposing rules that would
keep CO2 from seeping out of the ground or
cause problems for ground water. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The US Environmental Protection
Agency is looking at ways to make sure
carbon dioxide can be stored underground.
The agency is proposing rules that would
keep CO2 from seeping out of the ground or
cause problems for ground water. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:

Some coal-fired power plants are looking into storing their carbon dioxide emissions
underground.

If the system works, it’d be a way to slow down climate change.

But EPA water administrator Ben Grumbles says injecting large volumes of CO2
to underground storage wells is a concern. So, he says the proposed rule calls for
extensive testing and monitoring.

“So that the CO2 doesn’t migrate. If it did, it could also push other fluids, like
salts, into that underground source of drinking water.”

Grumbles says if there was contamination, companies could be ordered to stop
injecting the gas. He says the rule also aims to make sure the CO2 doesn’t seep
from the ground into the air.

The EPA will take comments on its proposed rule until mid-November.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links