Living Without Plastic
Cheryl Lohrman victorious after finding a specialty deli that would sell her cheese and put it, plastic free, in her steel tin. (Photo courtesy of Sadie Babits)
We use a lot of plastic. Every year some 30 million tons of plastic in the U.S. from diapers to bottles get tossed in landfills. One woman wants to change those numbers. She's trying to live her life without plastic. Sadie Babits caught up with her to find out if that's really possible.
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/100527_babits_feature.mp3
When Cheryl Lohrmann comes to the grocery store all she sees is plastic. Plastic yogurt containers, cheese wrapped in plastic shrink-wrap, juice bottles, plastic bags. She doesn't want this stuff in her life. So Lohrmann decided she'd vote with her wallet by refusing to buy anything with plastic.
"We're at cherry sprouts grocery store in Portland, OR where I'm going to purchase some cheese and some eggs."
Eggs are no problem. She just puts them in her used egg carton. But cheese is a different story. She has a small steel tin that looks like it belongs with her camping gear – not the grocery store. And Lohrmann has a special request for the guy behind the counter.
"And that is if I get the cheese not wrapped up in plastic but just in this container or maybe you could put this on paper."
"Aahhh. I don't think we can do that because it needs to be wrapped up."
Lohrmann gets that reaction a lot. So she won't buy cheese here. It means a trip to another shop – this time a high-end specialty deli.
LouAnne Schooler owns this store. She explains to Lohrmann why they use plastic.
"Plastic, it's the unfortunately simplest choice because we wrap and re-wrap continuously throughout the day and it can't be left unwrapped and people need to see the cheese so that precludes it from being wrapped in most papers."
But Schooler says she's only too happy to help people like Lohrmann who don't want their cheese shrink- wraped. So she drops the cheese –plastic free – into Lohrmann's tin.
"That's a good chunk of cheese. Magical moment here–thanks for letting me do that"
Lohrmann started going plastic free a couple of years ago after reading Elizabeth Royte's book Garbageland. The author tracked her trash to find out where it ended up. The chapter on plastic struck a nerve with Lohrmann.
"I think it's been taken too far when you have toothpicks individually wrapped in plastic. You know you just start to think is that really necessary given the fact that this is such a toxic material that doesn't have high enough recycling rights to really justify having it."
Lohrmann also gets miffed that you end up paying for plastic three times. You pay for it at the grocery store and again to have it hauled to the landfill. Finally, she says we pay for it environmentally – plastic doesn't disappear. So you might think it's a little nuts to even think about living a life free of plastic. Lohrmann gets that.
"It is hard right now to feel like you can maneuver to get whatever you want without plastic."
"Ok, so on a scale of one to ten–ten being plastic free–where are you?"
"I would say probably a nine."
That's a nine when it comes to buying groceries. Because let's face it. Plastic is everywhere even in Lohrmann's home. There's her computer, picture frames, even the parts on her bike. She realizes going plastic free is nearly impossible but she's willing to try to send a message especially to businesses that we need to reduce the amount of plastic in our lives.
For The Environment Report, I'm Sadie Babits.
Learn more about Create Plenty
The EPA's website on plastic
Author Sadie BabitsPosted on May 27, 2010 Categories FeaturesTags american, cheese, disposal, groceries, grocery, gyre, life, live, living, meat, pacific, package, packages, packaging, plastic, plastics, store, tons, uses, using, waste, wrapping
Studying Cancer Near Nuke Plants
The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.(Photo courtesy of the Rancho Seco Reactor)
For decades, the federal government has said it's safe to live near nuclear power reactors and it points to a particular cancer study to back that up. Shawn Allee reports, lately, the government worries that study's out of date and it wants scientists to take another look.
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/100505_allee_feature.mp3
The federal agency that's looking for an up-to-date cancer study is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or NRC.
It's asked the National Academy of Sciences to do that study, but the Academy hasn't made up its mind. The academy asked the NRC, the nuclear power industry, and the public to explain why a new study's even needed.
It broadcast the hearing over the Internet.
"Our first speaker is Sarah Sauer, private citizen."
Sarah Sauer is 16, but looks much younger.
"I am one of the statistics you'll be studying. When I was seven years old, I was diagnosed with brain cancer. I hope in this study you will remember who you're doing this for."
"Thank you Sarah, let me invite your parents to say something if they'd like to."
"I am Cynthia Sauer, Sarah's mom. For my family and i this study is long overdue. nine years ago today, Sarah was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. The pain has been so shattering that we still cannot give it words."
Cynthia Sauer tells the National Academy how her family once lived near the Dresden nuclear power station, about 50 miles Southwest of Chicago.
She'd learned that power plant leaked radioactive water years ago.
Cynthia Sauer can't say for sure the plant caused Sarah's cancer, but she wonders … because other kids were diagnosed with cancer, too.
"I began searching for answers to my questions regarding the leaks and the numbers of children diagnosed with cancer in our small town."
Cynthia Sauer turned to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The NRC tells people that living near nuclear power plants does not pose extra risk for cancer, and it points to a particular study, finished twenty years ago.
"The scientists in the ad hoc committee statement clearly stated the study was flawed and that further monitoring and investigation was needed."
What are the flaws? For one, the old study concluded people living near nuclear power plants do not face extra risk of dying from cancer … but it didn't answer whether they're at risk of getting cancer.
It ignored cancer survivors or people who moved before dying of the disease.
Sauer tells the academy that … this is why we need a new cancer study – we just can't be confident in the old one.
And that's a problem because at least three million people live within ten miles of a nuclear power plant.
Some US Congressmen want the safety issue settled, and in fact, so does the nuclear power industry.
Ralph Anderson is with The Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group.
He says other studies suggest power plants are safe … so the industry has nothing to worry about from a new study – unless the Academy misinterprets results:
"There have been studies where people simply collect the data and let the computer go to work to bend the data in a wide variety of ways. We have been the victim of a number studies that have done precisely that. So, you end up with weird age groups and things like that because the data's carefully selected to prove the point. That's what we'd like to see avoided."
So the public, the government and industry want some kind of follow-up study on cancer rates near nuclear power plants.
But that might not be enough for The National Academy of Sciences to move forward.
Many scientists say we can't begin good studies, because it's hard to collect the necessary data.
In fact, one group that says that … is the same group that conducted the original cancer study twenty years ago.
For The Environment Report, I'm Shawn Allee.
Read the NRC press release
A related article from the Institute for Southern Studies
Learn more from the National Cancer Institute
Author Shawn AlleePosted on May 5, 2010 Categories FeaturesTags cancer, close, commission, concern, concerned, effects, federal, government, health, live, living, national, nuclear, nuke, plant, plants, power, rate, rates, reactor, reactors, regulatory, safe, safety, science, sciences, scientists, studies, study, survivors
On Board 'The Waterpod'
The pod docked at the Worlds Fair Marina in Queens. (Photo by Samara Freemark)
Mary Mattingly and Ian Daniels working inside the covered dome they built as common space on the pod. It's made of a steel structure covered with old, salvaged billboards. Hence the big faces on the walls. (Photo by Samara Freemark)
Solar panels and a power-generating stationary bike provide energy – enough to power the lights and the fridge and their laptop computers. (Photo by Samara Freemark)
The artists been surviving almost entirely on what they can make, grow, or gather on the 3000 square foot barge. (Photo by Samara Freemark)
So, maybe you think you do good
by the environment. Maybe you buy
local, maybe you go to the farmers'
market, maybe you even walk to work.
But you've probably got nothing on
the crew aboard the Waterpod – a
converted barge anchored in New York
City. Samara Freemark
went to the Pod to see just how
sustainably people can live:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/feature_freemark_103009.mp3
When I caught up with the Waterpod barge, it was docked at a marina right next to
Laguardia Airport.
(sound of a plane)
That's the sound of people and products moving all around the world.
But on board the Waterpod, four artists have spent the summer living locally – about as
locally as a group of people can possibly live. They've been surviving almost entirely on
what they can make, grow, or gather on a 3000 square foot barge.
Which is where I found artist and Waterpod creator Mary Mattingly.
Last spring, Mattingly and some friends rented the barge and spent a month converting it.
They built a kitchen, 4 bedrooms, gardens, and a whole lot of alternative energy and
water systems. They wanted to see whether they could create a floating self-contained
ecosystem – one that could adapt to a future where resources were scarce and rising sea
levels had swamped coastal regions.
"We're probably going to need to find new ways to make land that's usable. So can you
just recreate it on a platform like this? So what's the answer? I think so."
Waterpod launched in June. It's been traveling to docks in the New York City area since
then. The barge is towed around by tugboats – not exactly a sustainable energy source,
true, but the crew does pretty well producing just about everything else."
We have 33 vegetables and 2 fruits. In this garden we're growing kale, potatoes,
tomatoes."
There's also a coop for 4 chickens, which each produce an egg a day.
"Their names are Gilly, Rizzo, Marble and Bonzai."
Between the chickens and the gardens, Mattingly says Waterpod is almost self-sufficient
for food. The barge gets its water from collected and purified rain.
"We get enough water barely. We are very close to not having enough water. We only
use a 55 gallon jug of water a day. So split between four people that's about maybe 10
gallons a day at the most. So we're taking really short showers."
Solar panels and a power-generating stationary bike provide energy – enough to power
the lights and the fridge and an impressive collection of laptop computers. The crew uses
those to collect and analyze data on how their various survival systems are functioning.
Crew member Ian Daniels says the data could eventually be used not just by people
embarking on radical living experiments – but also by regular folks who just want to
make their homes a little more sustainable.
"We have 3000 square feet here. So what would happen if you cut that in half? Or a
third? What can I use that space for? Maybe you're growing food on your roof or in your
window. Maybe you just take this example and take it down a notch, just do what's
plausible in your own world."
The Waterpod experiment is ending. So, I asked the crew for the biggest lesson they
learned this summer about living sustainably. Was it about energy conservation? Or, a
new method for collecting rainwater? Actually, Mattingly told me, it was mostly about
getting along with other people.
"I guess I didn't really consider what it would be like to live in such a small space for
such a long time with other people and the psychology of that became a really interesting
part of the day to day life, and how we managed to make that work and how we would
have to have that dinner every night to reconnect and get back together."
Which, she says, is a lesson that translates pretty well back on land.
For The Environment Report, I'm Samara Freemark.
The Waterpod
A blog post on the Waterpod
Author Samara FreemarkPosted on October 30, 2009 Categories FeaturesTags artist, artists, barge, barges, change, climate, experiment, experimental, garden, gardens, global, inhabit, land, lands, level, levels, lived, living, survival, sustainability, sustainable, warming, water, waters
The 'Burbs Aren't Very Green
Some experts in the study say the U.S. could reduce emissions by up to 11% in the next 40 years - just by building housing closer together. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
When the Senate picks up debate on
the climate change bill, we're sure to
hear a lot about how power plants and
cars are contributing to the problem.
But a new study finds that we should
also be considering where we live. Julie
Grant reports that living in the suburbs
can create extra carbon emissions:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/spot_grant_092409.mp3
Most Americans live in or near big cities – but those in the suburbs have to drive a lot.
The National Research Council completed a study for Congress. It finds that building housing closer together near urban centers could reduce the amount people drive. That would save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Marlon Boarnet is a professor at the University of California, Irvine. He was on the study committee.
"The best evidence out there leads us to believe that people who live in more dense development do in fact drive less. And we feel that the evidence can conclude that that's a causal relationship."
Even if single-family homes were built closer together, it would mean less greenhouse gases.
Some experts in the study say the U.S. could reduce emissions by up to 11% in the next 40 years – just by building housing closer together.
For The Environment Report, I'm Julie Grant.
Another story on emissions from TER
Author Julie GrantPosted on September 24, 2009 Categories News SpotsTags cities, city, commute, commuter, commuters, density, drive, drives, driving, drove, emission, emissions, gases, gasses, greenhouse, home, homes, house, houses, live, lived, lives, living, suburb, suburbs, town, towns, transportation
Smaller Homes Being Built
A national survey of home builders found 59% are already building smaller homes or planning to build smaller homes in the near future. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
This week, the US Department
of Commerce announced new
construction for single-family
homes increased 1.7% since June. Lester Graham
reports… what the announcement
didn't say is that, on average,
those new homes are smaller:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/spot_graham_082009.mp3
For the past 35 years, houses have gotten bigger and bigger. The square footage has increased 53%.
But, starting in the second half of 2008, that changed. And the trend to smaller houses is continuing this year.
Steve Melman monitors trends for the National Association of Home Builders.
He says, during past recessions, new house sizes decreased because smaller was more affordable. As soon as the economy recovered, the trend toward larger homes continued.
He says that might not be the case this time.
"This could be a change in that the homes might incorporate better design, better energy features, green features, but not necessarily increase in size."
A national survey of home builders found 59% are already building smaller homes or planning to build smaller homes in the near future.
An article on the housing market from Bloomberg
Another article on the market from the Wall Street Journal
The National Association of Home Builders
Author Lester GrahamPosted on August 20, 2009 Categories News SpotsTags build, building, builds, built, construct, constructed, construction, cost, costs, families, family, home, homes, house, houses, housing, live, living, money, neighborhood, neighborhoods, price, prices, size, sized, sizes, small, smaller
A Battle Over the Treatment of Livestock
The treatment of laying hens is one part of the issue getting a lot of attention in Ohio. (Photo source: LEAPTOUY at Wikimedia Commons)
Recently, six states have changed their laws to require
better conditions for farm animals. But there's a battle
brewing in one state that's putting a new spin on the debate.
Julie Grant reports:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/feature_grant_081009.mp3
The Humane Society of the United States says it's shameful
the way animals are treated on many American farms. Paul
Shapiro says veal calves, pregnant pigs, and egg-laying
hens are all kept in cages so small – it's cruel.
"Hundreds of millions of egg-laying hens in the nation are
confined in tiny battery cages that are so restrictive the birds
are unable even to spread their wings."
Shapiro says some farms house millions of hens, all
squished into tiny cages, and none of them get the chance to
nest, or act in any way like natural chickens. The Humane
Society has spent millions of dollars pushing for change in
California and other states.
But when the Humane Society hit Ohio with its campaign,
the state Farm Bureau Federation pushed back.
Keith Stimpert is spokesman for the Ohio Farm Bureau. He
says there's a reason cages are a certain size for hens,
calves, and pigs: the animals' safety.
"You can expand space, but you're going to increase
aspects of fighting or cannibalistic behavior, or the chance
for that sow to fall down while she's pregnant."
Stimpert says the Humane Society doesn't understand
livestock.
So instead of negotiating with the Humane Society, the Ohio
Farm Bureau is proposing something new: a state board to
oversee the care of livestock.
"I think we, in this case, can get to a better resolution on
animal care by organizing this board."
The board would include family farmers, veterinarians, a
food safety expert, and a member of a local chapter of the
Humane Society, among others.
Voters will probably be asked in November to decide
whether to change the state constitution to create this board.
But the Humane Society's Paul Shapiro says the board will
be stacked by the Farm Bureau. He calls it a power grab by
big agriculture.
"Keep in mind that these are people who have opposed,
tooth and nail, any form of agricultural regulation for years,
and now, all of a sudden, in just a few weeks, they've gotten
religion and feel grave urgency to enshrine in the state' s
constitution their own favored system of oversight."
Shapiro says this board will only protect the status quo. And
that's not good for the animals.
Egg producer Mark Whipple runs a small farm in Clinton,
Ohio. He's got about 1,500 hens. We caught up with him
delivering eggs at a local health food store.
He says his hens are free range.
"There ain't no cages, really. They go in the box, lay their
egg, and go out and run around with the rest of 'em, go eat,
drink, I don't know, just be free."
Whipple says he was never inclined to cage the hens.
You might expect him to side with the Humane Society on
this debate. But he doesn't trust them to make decisions for
farmers.
"I don't know that they really know where their food comes
from – other than they go to the grocery store or they go to
the refrigerator. Unfortunately, that's a lot the mentality of
the world right now, so far removed from the farm at all,
knowing about livestock."
Whipple says there are good producers and bad producers
out there – just like any business. He would rather see a
board like the one proposed by the farm bureau than a
mandate on cage sizes from a Washington DC-based
lobbying group.
But the Humane Society says the board proposed by the
Farm Bureau won't make things better. If it's approved by
voters this November, the Society plans to place its own
initiative on animal treatment on the ballot next year.
Meanwhile, other farm states are considering the Ohio Farm
Bureau's approach and might soon have their own advisory
boards on how to treat animals.
Read the proposed legislation
A related article on the situation in Ohio
Another related article on the debate
Author Julie GrantPosted on August 10, 2009 Categories FeaturesTags agriculture, animal, animals, barn, barns, bird, birds, cage, caged, cages, chicken, chickens, condition, conditions, creature, creatures, eggs, farm, farmer, farmers, farming, farms, food, foods, hens, humane, humanity, life, live, livestock, living, poultry, range, society, treatment, wildlife
Big Name Design With a Green Twist
New York fashion designer Issac Mizrahi during a fitting session. Mizrahi used salmon leather to create an ensemble that includes a dress, jacket and shoes. (Photo by Mackenzie Stroh, courtesy of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum)
New York fashion designer Issac Mizrahi used salmon leather to create a dress, jacket and shoes. (Photo by Mackenzie Stroh, courtesy of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum)
Fishermen catch salmon in southwest Alaska. (Photo by Ami Vitale, courtesy of the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum)
You might not have heard of the design firm Pentagram, but more than likely you've seen
its work. Pentagram designed the shopping bags for Saks Fifth Avenue, the logo for
Citibank, the layout of the New York Times Magazine. In short, its designers make
things look pretty. Recently, Pentagram got a call from the nonprofit Nature
Conservancy. As Hammad Ahmed reports, it wasn't the usual request for a nice new logo
or packaging:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/feature_ahmed_070609.mp3
The Nature Conservancy wanted Pentagram to issue a challenge to big name designers.
And the challenge was this: design environmentally friendly stuff. In other words, you
have to use renewable, abundant, and natural materials… instead of plastic.
Pentagram stepped up the challenge, recruited some designers, and, now, I'm here to see
what they came up with.
Curator Abbott Miller and I are standing at the Smithsonian Design museum in
Manhattan.
"The exhibition actually goes, um, this way."
The exhibition is called "Design for a Living World." And honestly, it looks like a
Pottery Barn. Bowls, chairs, and rugs. When you look closely though, you see all this
stuff is made from really interesting materials. For example, salmon leather.
Miller: "Salmon leather is stripped away from salmon in the process of canning and
literally was considered waste, but is actually an incredible material."
Ahmed: "So this is just like salmon scales?"
Miller: "It's the skin of salmon that's been preserved."
Working with the preserved salmon skin fell upon big-name fashion designer Isaac
Mizrahi, who's more used to designing with silk and satin.
"If you're weighing like sort of you know ecology and glamour, I think they weigh the
same to me, sorry to say that."
Ecology or glamour, huh? Well, Mizrahi took this salmon leather and he turned it into a
dazzling pair of high heels you'd expect to see on the red carpet.
"For some people, that kind of product, represents a negative."
Gary Bamossy is a marketing professor at Georgetown's Business School.
"These very expensive green items that are really just sort of 'fashionista' kinds of
acquisitions, they see that as frivolous and maybe even as a waste of money."
So, not exactly a 'green ethic.'
And this makes me wonder which way of being green is better. Buying more shoes made
from salmon leather? Or not buying more shoes at all?
Abbott Miller admits it's a valid question.
"That whole question of should we buy less, I think the answer is probably yes. You
know everyone knows that we're an over-consuming culture."
So if the real problem is over-consumption, what's the point of green design?
When I ask Gary Bambossy, the marketing professor, he comes back with another
"Green design as it relates to museum and as fashion? Or green design as part of a
business model process?"
And that question makes me realize green design isn't just a new look for the same
products. It's a new way of making those products, and educating the consumer.
Abbott Miller says we really ought to know more about what we buy, what is used to
make it.
"We may come to a point of such hyperawareness of the materials that we use that that's
part of the story of why you buy something."
Miller and Bambossy agree that buyers increasingly want to know more. And that could
lead to products being more sustainable.
But, the thing is, all this awareness isn't free. So, you're left with one last question: are
you willing to pay more for knowing more about the things you buy?
For The Environment Report, I'm Hammad Ahmed.
Info from the Cooper-Hewitt National Design Musem
An article and photos from Pentagram
Author Hammad AhmedPosted on July 6, 2009 Categories FeaturesTags challenge, clothes, conservancy, create, created, creation, creations, design, designer, exhibit, exhibits, fashion, furniture, kate, living, material, materials, museum, museums, nature, smithsonian, spade, world
Climate Change and Civil Rights
A climate change bill will mean more expensive energy until the nation can transition from fossil fuels like coal and oil to renewable energy such as biofuels, wind, and solar. (Source: Atmoneytota at Wikimedia Commons)
Eventually a climate change bill will work its way through Congress and President Obama has indicated he'll sign it. But a civil rights group says a climate change bill will hurt the working poor. Lester Graham reports:
A climate change bill will mean more expensive energy until the nation can switch from fossil fuels like coal and oil to renewable energy such as biofuels, wind and solar.
Roy Innis is the Chairman of the civil rights group Congress of Racial Equality. He says higher energy costs will hit the working poor hardest.
Democrats say they'll get tax rebates to offset the higher costs. Innis doesn't like the idea.
"We don't want energy welfare. This is our new civil rights battle: how to have abundant and available, reliable energy at a reasonable cost."
And Innis says we have that now with fossil fuels.
The Obama Administration says climate change legislation will eventually lead to cheaper energy for everyone and reduce the cause of global warming —which, in the end, could cost people a lot more.
A related article from Yahoo!
The Congress of Racial Equality
Author Lester GrahamPosted on June 22, 2009 Categories News SpotsTags affordable, bill, bills, change, climate, communities, community, cost, costs, energy, fund, global, income, legislation, level, levels, living, money, poor, poverty, power, rights, standard, standards, utilities, utility, warming
Sea Levels Threaten Coastal Towns (Part One)
The boardwalk in Ocean City, Maryland. Before beach replenishment, you could get your feet wet standing underneath the boardwalk. Now, as you can see, the water is 200 feet away. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
A dune piled high with sand helps protect Ocean City from the sea. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
A wide stretch of beach separates homes and hotels in Ocean City from the water. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
Condos in Ocean City once had water washing into their ground level parking lots. Not anymore. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
It's beach weather – and along the mid-Atlantic one of the most popular beaches is Ocean
City, Maryland. For years, engineers have been battling back the ocean to save the beach
and the town. And as Tamara Keith reports, that fight is only going to get tougher and
more expensive if predictions of sea level rise from climate change become a reality:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/feature_keith_061509.mp3
When the sea level rises, Ocean City feels it. It's on the front lines – a barrier island on
the edge of the Atlantic.
(sounds of water)
Terry McGean is the city engineer for a town he describes as a working class resort.
"Our industry is tourism, and the real reason people come here is the beach."
But in the 1980s, that beach was reduced to a narrow strip. Not so today, all thanks to a
massive, and expensive, beach replenishment project. In 1991 countless tons of sand
were brought in, dunes were built. But that wasn't the end of it.
To keep up with erosion, McGean says the beach here at Ocean City has already been re-
nourished 4 times.
"Approximately every 4 years we're doing a re-nourishment project. To give you an idea
of the scale, that's 100,000 truck loads of material that we'll put on here. Though it
doesn't actually come on a truck? No. It's pumped in a dredge from out in the ocean."
It is a constant fight, because the waves keep coming, keep pulling the sand back out to
sea. Scientists say this is partially just normal erosion. But some of it at least can be
blamed on global climate change and sea level rise. Over time, they say, the share of the
problem caused by climate change will grow.
"If you hadn't done the beach replenishment do you have any sense of what this would
look like right now. There probably would have been no public beach left in many of
these areas."
So far fending off the sea has cost $90-million, split amongst local, state and federal tax
dollars. But engineers estimate some $240-million in storm damage has been prevented.
"Holding back the sea is an economic proposition. If you're willing to spend the money,
the sand exists to elevate any given barrier island."
Jim Titus is the project manager for sea level rise at the Environmental Protection
Agency. And he's been sounding the alarm about climate change for years. And he says
policy makers and the public will eventually have to decide which beaches, which
communities are worth saving.
"The challenge for communities like Ocean City is to persuade everyone else that they
are one of those cities that are too important to give up. And then to get their residents to
cooperate in doing what it takes to do to gradually elevate the entire community with a
rising sea."
But if you think in geologic time, like University of Maryland professor Michael Kearney
does, there isn't a whole lot of hope for barrier islands like Ocean City.
"It's essentially a pile of sand. There's really nothing permanent about it."
Kearney studies coastal processes.
"The long term prospect of any barrier surviving the projected rates of sea level rise, even
at the moderate rates – the so-called moderate rates, that the IPCC predicted is pretty
slim."
Ocean City engineer Terry McGean just isn't buying it. He thinks Ocean City can survive
sea level rise.
"I think that we can design towards it and we can probably build towards it and with
responsible actions we can live with it."
As long as there's enough sand and money to keep it going.
Info on the beach renourishment project
A report on sea levels and Ocean City
Author Tamara KeithPosted on June 15, 2009 Categories FeaturesTags beach, beaches, cities, city, coast, coastal, coasts, dune, dunes, erode, erosion, flood, flooding, floods, level, levels, live, living, ocean, oceans, people, population, rise, rising, sand, sandy, seas, tidal, tide, tides, town, towns, wash, washed, water, waters, wave, waves
Sea Levels Threaten Coastal Towns (Part Two)
A living shoreline near the Chesapeake Bay in Maryland. The native grasses and sandy shore provide habitat for terrapins, the University of Maryland mascot. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
A bulkhead near Kent Island in Maryland. Bulkheads are popular with property owners, but bad for habitat. (Photo by Tamara Keith)
Stephen Hult, who coordinated the planting of native grasses at this living shoreline project in Woodland Beach (Photo by Jana Davis, of the Chesapeake Bay Trust)
The community is trying to restore the beach with rock and dirt and sand and grasses to hold it all together. This is what's called a living shoreline. (Photo by Jana Davis, of the Chesapeake Bay Trust)
Scientists are pretty certain climate change is going to cause the sea level to rise. It's
happening already, actually. In communities around the Chesapeake Bay, people are
getting a sneak preview. Tamara Keith reports some people there are trying to work with
nature rather than resist it:
https://environmentreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/feature_keith2_061509.mp3
(sound of kids planting)
It's been raining in Woodland Beach. The community is just off of the Chesapeake Bay
in Maryland. The ground here is so soft you sink into it. Mud is everywhere. And that's
just fine with the volunteers planting native grasses on a sloping hillside.
Stephen Hult is trying to keep things in order.
"And when we plant them we want them all the way down. I'm telling everyone twice."
Hult heads up shoreline restoration projects for the local property owners association.
And there's a lot of shoreline to restore.
"The shoreline, in parts of the community since the 1930s, have eroded 20 feet. Year to
year, one barely notices, but if you look at aerial maps of what it used to be like
compared to what it is, it really is quite dramatic."
There's been tons of erosion here. The land all along the mid-Atlantic coast is also
slowly sinking. Combine that with global sea level rise and you get erosion in overdrive.
Hult says the community is trying to restore the beach with rock and dirt and sand and
grasses to hold it all together. This is what's called a living shoreline.
"We have now, with this project it will be well over half a mile of living shorelines that
we've installed."
It's a relatively new concept, a more natural approach to the gnawing problem of
shoreline erosion. Living shorelines create buffer between the water and homes. They are
kinda like the tidal wetlands that used to be here – before property owners started building
sea walls, also called bulkheads.
Jana Davis is associate director of the Chesapeake Bay Trust. It's one of the organizations
funding this shoreline restoration. And Davis also happens to live here.
"It's a wonderful alternative that provides just as good shoreline protection while also
providing a lot of really important habitat benefits that a bulkhead or rock sea wall does
not provide."
Good for wildlife, and she says, it's adaptive in the face of sea level rise.
"If sea level were to rise another foot, for example. The marsh could kind of migrate
inland, whereas if you had a bulkhead obviously there's no migration because it can't
move."
But most of the people with bulkheads are NOT buying it. They want to protect their
property from the sinking land and rising water, and a lot of them don't think a bunch of
rocks and grass are going to cut it.
Kevin Smith is chief of restoration services for the Maryland Department of Natural
"There's many places you can go and look at miles of shoreline and not see any natural
shoreline at all. It's all armored off."
Smith met me at a nature center along the bay. A few years ago, a stretch of bulkhead
here was replaced with a living shoreline. The natural ebb and flow of these shorelines
has made some property owners skeptical. They want the shoreline to stay put.
"If these types of projects don't protect that shoreline from erosion, then homeowners are
not going to want to do it."
But Smith insists these projects do work, and long term they're going to be more
sustainable and more flexible than bulkheads – which over time will lose the battle
against the constant pounding of the rising sea.
The first part of this series
Info on living shorelines from the Maryland DNR
The Chesapeake Bay Trust
Author Tamara KeithPosted on June 15, 2009 Categories FeaturesTags beach, beaches, cities, city, coast, coastal, coasts, grass, grasses, level, levels, living, natural, ocean, oceans, people, plant, plants, population, property, rise, rising, seas, shore, shoreline, shorelines, shores, tidal, tide, tides, town, towns, water, waters