FALL 2007 • Vol. 37, No. 4
Protecting our Great Lakes is good for Wisconsin’s economy Melissa Malott
W
hile lobbying one of our state representatives recently, I was confronted with the typical false dichotomy that any environmental regulation is bad for business and specifically, that the Great Lakes Compact will negatively effect Wisconsin’s economy. How, I wondered, could protecting our state’s greatest resource –the cradle of our economy- be harmful towards our businesses? Now, this assemblyman was drawing on an extreme ideological line of thinking that all regulations on resources impede our economy. True, regulations are limitations. But some limitations are good, especially when they keep our precious resources from being stolen or abused. The Brookings Institute recently did a study on the future of the Great Lakes region. A major component of this research was recognizing the amazing value the Great Lakes offer our region. The Great Lakes: Cradle to the Wisconsin Economy Wisconsin’s three biggest industries are manufacturing, tourism and agriculture. A large part of the manufacturing sector is forestry and paper mills. Many of these industries directly rely on Great Lakes basin waters. For instance, imagine what our paper industry would amount to without the Fox Valley. Or how Wisconsin’s $12 billion per year tourism industry would be diminished without Door County and the area around the Apostle Islands. Truly, our Great Lakes are natural amenities without which our three major industries would be much smaller. Clearly, preserving the Great Lakes helps preserve our economic future. The Great Lakes Compact: Growth for Our Economy and Communities Looking at Wisconsin’s major industries, two assets stand out – our natural resources and our way of life. Our Great Lakes sustain
Clean Wisconsin 122 State Street Suite 200 Madison, WI 53703-2500 Return Service Requested
these assets; they provide water vital for our economic engine and they are the basis for our beloved way of life, whether found in aesthetics or in the ability to spend time on the water with family and friends. In order to continue to grow our economy we need a strong workforce and business resources. The Great Lakes are at the heart of both. Stopping the Brain Drain We are beginning to hear Wisconsin is experiencing a brain-drain, wherein highly educated graduates of our world-class universities and entrepreneurs are moving to other states. These graduates are mobile and looking for locations that offer a high quality of life; many of them are looking for locales where they can be closer to nature and be involved with outdoor activities. Wisconsin, like Colorado and Oregon, offers beautiful back-to-nature experiences and outlets for outdoor activities. Protecting our natural resources can help Wisconsin become the Midwest outdoors mecca that people will flock to and help build strong Wisconsin communities. Protecting the natural places in Wisconsin, many of which are in the Great Lakes Basin, requires passage of the Great Lakes Compact. Protecting Our Greatest Economic Resources Wisconsin’s Great Lakes are the backbone of our economy, providing water for forestry and agricultural products and beautiful places to boat and spend time with family and friends. Yet, this resource is threatened with depletion from outsiders in the form of a huge pipe or more subtle, “death by a thousand cuts” multitude of smaller pipes. Without Great Lakes protections we are risking our most important economic asset, and thereby our economy. Fortunately, the Great Lakes Compact will go far to combat these threats. The Great Lakes Compact will outlaw outsiders from taking our Great Lakes water and will require those allowed to tap the Great Lakes to implement water conservation standards so as not to waste it.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 6
Nonprofit Org. U.S. Postage PAID Permit No. 1291 Madison, WI
INSIDE Taking charge and taking action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 The unsustainable cost of nuclear power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Green-collar jobs; Cost of global warming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Slow down; Wisconsin environmental victory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Great Lakes cover story continued; Great Lakes Compact . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Protecting our lakes; Thanks Will Fantle; Data sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Price is right; Energy miser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Eco-news from around the state; Welcome Carl Sinderbrand. . . . . . . . . 9 Clean Wisconsin’s great volunteers; Contributor thanks . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
In this issue In this issue you will notice a focus on the economics of our campaign issues. Whether it is the outright costs of nuclear power plants or the potential economic losses of a poorly managed Great Lakes system, environmental issues directly affect Wisconsin’s economy and taxpayers’ wallets. We hope you enjoy reading the articles as much as the staff enjoyed writing them. Shauna Cook Editor
Taking charge and taking action Help save the Great Lakes from invasive species. Support the Ballast Water Bill – say yes to SB 199 and AB 86 On May 23, 2007 the Senate Environment and Natural Resources committee heard the public’s concern about this important topic. While public sentiment strongly favored the proposed bill, the shipping industry chose to oppose it, citing the compliance costs they will incur. Contact your legislators and tell them you support SB 199 and AB 86. Call 1-800-362-9472 or visit www.legis.state.wi.us/waml. For more information, visit the Take Action page on our website http://cleanwisconsin.org/action/wateraction_060107.html.
122 State Street Suite 200 • Madison WI 53703-4333 Phone: (608) 251-7020 • Fax: (608) 251-1655 www.CleanWisconsin.org Clean Wisconsin, an environmental advocacy organization, protects Wisconsin’s clean water and air and advocates for clean energy by being an effective voice in the state legislature and by holding elected officials and corporations accountable. Founded in 1970 as Wisconsin’s Environmental Decade, Clean Wisconsin exposes corporate polluters, makes sure existing environmental laws are enforced, and educates citizens and businesses. On behalf of its 10,000 members and its coalition partners, Clean Wisconsin protects the special places that make Wisconsin such a wonderful place to live, work and play.
STAFF Executive Director Mark Redsten
Program and Communications Program Director Keith Reopelle
Correction In the last issue of The Defender we reported on mercury in compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. There is a positive net reduction of mercury released into our environment by using CFLs and we strongly encouraged people to use them and properly dispose of them to further reduce the amount of mercury released into the environment. We incorrectly noted that recycling CFLs at Clean Sweep programs was a sure-fire way of disposal. However, we were informed that not all Wisconsin Clean Sweep programs accept CFLs. Given this, we suggest you contact your local hazardous waste collection site (or Clean Sweep program) and inquire about their policy on accepting and recycling CFLs.
Energy Program Director Katie Nekola
Water Program Director Melissa Malott
Communications Director Joyce Harms
Communications Creative Manager Shauna Cook
Water Specialist Will Hoyer
Protecting Wisconsin’s environment for future generations
W
e owe it to our children and grandchildren to pass on a world that has clean water, clean air and clean energy. Let’s face it; protecting our natural resources and the environment is a long-term battle. Clean Wisconsin is preparing for the future to make sure we have the resources to reach our long range goals. To do this, Clean Wisconsin has created an “Acorn Fund” at the Madison Community Foundation. With the support of our members we hope to grow this seed into a full endowment fund. An endowment will provide Clean Wisconsin with a steady source of funding in future years and will help us protect our beautiful state for generations to come. We very much appreciate our members’ annual support which is helping us take on today’s environmental challenges. If you are also interested in making a special contribution to the Clean Wisconsin Acorn Fund, please contact Paul Houseman of the Madison Community Foundation at (608) 232-1763 Is the mercury in compact-florescent lightour bulbs a deterrent extension 226. Ourcontained future endowment fund will support statewide advocacy, and you do not need to using them? NO. out why on page be atoMadison resident toFind contribute to this fund.5 of this issue.
The Defender is owned and published quarterly by Clean Wisconsin, 122 State Street Suite 200, Madison, Wisconsin 53703, (608) 251-7020. Founded in 1970, Clean Wisconsin is a statewide, non-profit environmental advocacy organization. A one-year subscription membership is $30. Please direct correspondence to the address above. Volume 37, No. 4 Issue date: October 2007 ©2007 Clean Wisconsin. All rights reserved Printed with soy ink on unbleached, recycled paper. ISSN # 1549-8107
2
Staff Scientist Peter Taglia
Grassroots Organizer Ryan Schryver
RE-AMP Coordinator Elizabeth Wheeler
Membership and Development Development Director Brian Kelly
Membership & Development Manager Becky Weber
Development Assistant Bridget Barry
Administration Office Administrator Laurie Maloney
BOARD Pam McGillivray – Chair (Madison) Susan Greenfield - Co-Chair (Racine) Gof Thomson – Treasurer (New Glarus) Mark Gill (Milwaukee) Kate Gordon (Madison) Gary Goyke (Madison) Paul Linzmeyer (Green Bay) Carl Sinderbrand (Madison) David Wandel (Madison) Guy Wolf (Stoddard)
The Defender, Fall 2007,Vol. 37, No. 4
The unsustainable cost of nuclear power Katie Nekola
N
uclear power is getting attention as a potential solution to global warming, since the nuclear fuel cycle emits less greenhouse gases than coal plants do. Nuclear proponents say that we should invest in new nuclear power plants as an alternative to coal, and in Wisconsin, some advocate repeal of a state law that requires that any new nuclear power plant proposed must be economically beneficial to ratepayers. This law was enacted over twenty years ago, when the cost to build new nuclear plants was several orders of magnitude higher than for any other technology. Today, the gap has widened much further and the cost of new nuclear plants would be astronomical. Here are some facts about the true cost of nuclear power.
Fuel Supply and Cost of Uranium and Enrichment: The U.S. faces stiff global competition for nuclear fuel. We import 65 percent of our oil, but 90 percent of our uranium. At a time when state and federal leadership has set goals for “energy independence,” reliance on nuclear power would mean depending on technology that requires fuel imported from overseas. Moreover, according to MIT scientists, there is less global supply
of enriched uranium than commonly projected and the price has increased more than tenfold over the last five years.
Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects. In contrast to the vast money pit required by nukes, every dollar invested in energy efficiency programs returns three dollars in electricity savings to Wisconsin customers.
Repairing Aging Nuclear Reactors Wisconsin’s nuclear reactors were built in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s and have required major capital expenditures to keep operating. Wisconsin households paid a total of approximately $125 million for a steam generator replacement project at Kewaunee in 1998. Point Beach has replaced steam generators at both of its units, the most recent in 1996.
Security Costs After September 11, 2001, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission upgraded its security requirements for nuclear power plants, mandating millions of dollars of capital expenditures for each facility. Even with these measures, however, there is uncertainty as to whether nuclear facilities are truly safe from terrorist attacks. A report from Argonne National Lab concluded that aircraft crashes could subject nuclear plants to numerous multiple failures that could lead to “total meltdown” even without direct damage to the containment structure. In addition, spent fuel that is stored in fuel pools or dry casks is less protected than the reactor itself, and since spent fuel is being stored on site, near nuclear reactors, there is a risk of radiation leaks from those sources as well. As Peter Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner, pointed out, “Private investors saw Three Mile Island transform from a $2 billion asset to a $1 billion cleanup job in about 90 minutes.”
Waste Disposal Costs Part of our electric rates go to payments to the federal Nuclear Waste Fund, which is intended to fund the construction of the Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada and pay for transportation of waste to the proposed disposal site. To date, Wisconsin customers have paid about $600 million into this fund. Although Yucca was scheduled to begin accepting waste in 1998, the date has been repeatedly postponed, and it is now estimated that Yucca won’t open until 2020, if ever. In addition, there are also costs associated with disposing of low-level radioactive waste. Between 1993 and 2003, these costs increased at a rate of about 20 percent per year in the U.S.
Clean Wisconsin
Decommissioning Nuclear plant owners are responsible for costs to dismantle retired units, dispose of waste, and decontaminate the site. Each unit has its own decommissioning trust fund, paid for by customers. Wisconsin ratepayers have spent $1.5 billion for the eventual decommissioning of the Point Beach, Kewaunee, and Genoa plants.
Cost to Build New Nuclear Power Plants Estimates of the cost to construct nuclear power plants are as high as $4,000 per kilowatt, as compared to about $1,400 per kilowatt for wind projects.
Federal Subsidies Some people object to government subsidies for renewable energy projects. What they might not know is that new nuclear plants are being underwritten by tax dollars in amounts infinitely larger than any support being offered to clean, safe energy sources. For example, the federal Energy Policy Act of 2005 included a loan guarantee program for nuclear plant developers, risk insurance that protects corporate investors against costs associated with delays in licensing, and federal tax credits. The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident.
The nuclear industry has long enjoyed limited liability for nuclear accidents under the Price-Anderson Act, which ensures that taxpayers, not industry, will pay for damages in the event of a serious accident. Conclusion: It’s Time for Smart Investments Clean Wisconsin opposes new nuclear power for many reasons, including the fact that there is nowhere to dispose of radioactive waste, safety concerns, and cost. Cost becomes an environmental issue when the state decides to spend taxpayer money to support dirty and dangerous technologies. Every dollar that goes to subsidize nuclear power is a dollar that could be used to develop renewable energy and energy efficiency. In contrast to the vast money pit required by nukes, every dollar invested in energy efficiency programs returns three dollars in electricity savings to Wisconsin customers. There is no waste, radioactive or otherwise, and efficiency is not a terrorist target. There is no multi-billion dollar decommissioning fund necessary, and no money is needed to plan and build a permanent radioactive waste storage facility that may never open. Fuel supply and price will never be an issue for energy efficiency or renewable power. And the fact that energy efficiency technology components need replacement from time to time actually presents economic opportunity for Wisconsin manufacturing, rather than the economic drain created by maintenance of aging nuclear plants. California has made a commitment to reducing its energy use by investing much more in energy efficiency than Wisconsin does, and its per capita energy use is about half of Wisconsin’s as a result. It has made real commitments to stopping global warming without building more nuclear plants, and is keeping the lights on and industry humming along just fine. Wisconsin would be wise to follow its example.
3
“Green-collar” jobs in the new energy economy Kate Gordon
I
t should come as no surprise to Defender readers that we are at the cusp of a new energy future. Some combination of 9/11, Middle East and African instability, Hurricane Katrina, and Al Gore’s movie – as well as decades of warnings from environmentalists and scientists – has awakened the American public to the dangers of global warming and dependence on foreign oil, and the need to do something about it. With a new energy future comes the promise of a revitalized American economy. The new energy economy will need new “green-collar” workers to manufacture new energy systems like wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel plants, and efficient appliances. It will need workers to install and maintain these systems, to build “green buildings” using new construction techniques, and to retrofit existing structures to make them more efficient. At the higher-skilled end of the labor market, it will need environmental engineers, auditors, surveyors, scientists, and a host of other professionals working hard to make renewable and efficient energy systems even better and more accessible than they are today. Wisconsin workers are particularly poised to take advantage of job opportunities in the new energy economy. The state has vast agricultural and forest resources which, if managed sustainably, can be used to grow and harvest renewable crops for biofuels and bioenergy. The University of Wisconsin is recognized worldwide for its focus on scientific advancement and innovation, and several of our universities have well-developed environmental policy and engineering programs. We have a manufacturing infrastructure in place, full of well-trained workers who may already possess the necessary skills to produce energy technologies. And we have a robust workforce development, Technical College, and union apprenticeship
system to help train workers to enter the new energy economy and to move up through it toward better, family-supporting jobs. But none of this will happen in a vacuum. Just as environmental groups have fought for years to pass policies to put global warming at the forefront of national consciousness, so must we now fight to ensure that the economic benefits of the new energy future are shared equitably across our communities. Merely pushing for better energy policies is not enough. We need to push for workforce training systems that focus on moving workers from traditional energy systems (like pulverized coal plants) into renewable energy jobs. We need to help factories retool to become more efficient and/or start producing parts for renewable energy or energy efficiency systems. We need to help rural communities reap the benefits of
the new energy economy by pushing for cooperative ownership of wind farms, anaerobic digesters, and biofuel plants. And we need to push for any state subsidies for energy projects to include labor requirements such as living wages and on-the-job training. We have made incredible strides in the past few years toward greater public understanding of and commitment to a clean energy future. Now we need to widen our focus to include the workers that will make that future possible. Kate Gordon is a Clean Wisconsin board member and executive director for the national Apollo Alliance.
The cost of global warming
Ryan Schryver
I
n the most recent efforts to derail efforts to address global warming, anti-environmental voices in the media have begun to recycle the argument that the financial costs of addressing global warming will be too great for society to pay. This argument would have one believe that if the United States were to get serious about reducing our global warming pollution we could risk a complete economic collapse. Unfortunately, this is one of the oldest and
4
most inaccurate arguments used to distract the public from the real consequences of climate change. It is regrettable that this argument is continually trumpeted by pundits and TV’s talking heads, when in fact, the exact opposite is true. A mountain of evidence suggests that the financial costs of addressing global warming are far surpassed by the financial repercussions associated with future climate change. To explore the financial costs of addressing global warming, the former chief economist and senior vice president of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern, compiled a report comparing the costs of addressing global warming using current technologies versus the potential costs of leaving global warming unchecked. Stern’s report suggests that if nothing is done to curb global warming emissions, the consequences of climate change could trigger the greatest and widestranging market failure ever seen. Stern concludes that one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per year needs to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. The report also finds that if left unmitigated, the consequences of global warming could result in a 20% drop in global GDP. Stern states, “Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity... on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century.” The Stern review left little doubt that relatively modest financial investments today to cut
global warming emissions could help avoid potentially devastating economic consequences for the future. In April of 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their Fourth Assessment Report on global warming, which states that “the benefits of mitigating global warming far outweighed the costs necessary to do so.” The IPCC features over 2,000 of the world’s leading researchers, economists and scientists from over 120 countries. The IPCC is considered the authoritative source for information on global warming and their startling conclusions about the financial ramifications of global warming can not be dismissed. The studies are done and the facts are in. We already have the technological prowess and economic strength to address global warming. Now it will take the courage of everyday citizens like you to help counter the inaccuracies and myths about the financial repercussions of addressing global warming. Please consider writing a letter to the editor of your local paper to let them know that we can’t afford to wait. We need to start addressing global warming today! For sample letters to the editor please contact Ryan Schryver, Grassroots Organizer at rschryver@cleanwisconsin.org or call (608) 251-7020 extension 25.
The Defender, Fall 2007,Vol. 37, No. 4
Slow down global warming by...slowing down! Joyce Harms
I
n researching energy issues recently, I started drawing the lines between maximizing a car’s fuel efficiency and the resulting decrease in global warming pollution. Although, there has been a lot of rhetoric flying around about Congress mandating automakers to increase the efficiency of the cars they produce, I won’t be in the market for a new car for another nine years, so I wondered what I could do to increase my car’s efficiency now (read: more miles per gallon, decreased global warming pollution, and increased savings at the pump). It was then that I happened on the U.S. EPA’s website that contains the following information: While each vehicle reaches its optimal fuel economy at a different speed (or range of speeds), gas mileage usually decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph. As a rule of thumb, you can assume that each 5 mph you drive over 60 mph is like paying an additional $0.20 per gallon for gas.
55 mph. The results were once again dramatic: my car gained another 3 mpg increase in fuel efficiency, averaging 40 mpg including highway and urban driving. Over the course of a year, by driving no faster than 55 mph or below, I will cause the following changes: • Decreased global warming pollution – 2,470 pounds of CO2 • Fuel cost savings - $282 If, however, you are in the market for a new car, according to the U.S. EPA website, selecting which vehicle to purchase is the most important fuel economy decision you’ll make. The difference between a car that gets 20 mpg and one that gets 30 mpg amounts to $744 per year (assuming 15,000 miles of driving annually and a fuel cost of $2.97). That’s $3,720 extra in fuel costs over five years!
It was at that point that I decided to try an experiment with my own car by committing to drive no faster than 60 mph for an entire tank of gas. The results were dramatic: previously the best gas mileage I had calculated for my car (2006 Toyota Matrix) was 34 miles per gallon (mpg), but my car’s efficiency shot up to 37 mpg when I kept my maximum speed at 60 mph. Instead of getting 340 miles to the tank, I was now squeezing 370 miles out of ten gallons of gas before having to make the next painful trip to the pump. As one who often ascribes to the philosophy of if a little is good, more will be even better, for the next tank of gas I ratcheted down my maximum speed to
Cars and light trucks account for 20% of the nation’s global warming pollution. By making our cars and trucks go farther on a gallon of gas, Americans can save billions of dollars at the pump, curb global warming pollution, and quench our thirst for oil.
More tips on maximizing your car’s fuel efficiency: 1. Remove Excess Weight Avoid keeping unnecessary items in your vehicle, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your mpg by up to 2%. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle’s weight and affects smaller vehicles more than larger ones.
Fuel Economy Benefit: 1-2%/100 lbs Equivalent Gasoline Savings: $0.03-$0.06/gallon 2. Avoid Excessive Idling Idling gets 0 miles per gallon. Cars with larger engines typically waste more gas at idle than do cars with smaller engines. 3. Use Cruise Control Using cruise control on the highway helps you maintain a constant speed and, in most cases, will save gas. 4. Use Overdrive Gears When you use overdrive gearing, your car’s engine speed goes down. This saves gas and reduces engine wear. The U.S. is the world’s largest global warming polluter. If, however, all of the vehicles in the U.S. averaged 40 mpg we would cut global warming pollution by 600 million tons a year, save consumers more than $45 billion each year at the gas pump, and save over 3 million barrels of oil each day.
Another major victory for Wisconsin and the environment
Wisconsin congressional representatives help pass a Renewable Electricity Standard at the federal level Ryan Schryver and Becky Weber
C
lean Wisconsin, which mostly focuses on Wisconsin environmental policy, recently teamed up with a national organization to fight for a new law addressing renewable energy at the federal level. Last August a major victory for Wisconsin and the environment occurred when the legislation was passed. After hundreds of Clean Wisconsin members across the state urged their representatives to support a federal Renewable Electricity Standard, the majority of Wisconsin’s representatives in Washington DC voted to support clean energy.
Clean Wisconsin
The Renewable Electricity Standard will help raise the bar for renewable energy by requiring utilities to produce 15% of their power from renewable resources by the year 2020. This law will ramp up the standards of Wisconsin’s current state law which only requires our local utilities to produce 10% of their energy from renewable resources by 2015. The environmental impact of this legislation will be felt even stronger throughout the country in states where utilities are currently providing very little of their power from renewable energy. With Wisconsin’s abundance of natural resources and strong manufacturing base, Wisconsin is uniquely poised to profit from this dramatic shift toward re-
newable energy. The Renewable Electricity Standard could create thousands of new jobs in Wisconsin and help stimulate billions of dollars in new income for farmers and rural landowners nation-wide. To help continue our efforts fighting for clean water, clean air, and clean energy please make a taxdeductible donation to Clean Wisconsin. You can remit a donation using the envelope provided in this issue or you can log onto www.CleanWisconsin.org and donate using our secure service. Thank you for your support.
5
CONTINUED FROM FRONT PAGE
Wisconsin’s Economy Tidbits
The Great Lakes Compact: Economic Security for Wisconsin The Compact limits withdrawals from the Great Lakes, thus providing security to our businesses and communities knowing that the preservation of, and access to, our greatest asset is in place. Often we hear business talk about the danger of uncertainty of rights and resources. With the Compact, we will know exactly who has access to Great Lakes water and who doesn’t. This will provide the certainty needed to continue in our plans to grow our communities and businesses. A Strong Great Lakes Compact for a Strong Wisconsin The Great Lakes Compact will help Wisconsin’s economy by protecting our biggest environmental and economic asset. However, we have the opportunity to shape the Compact to better fit Wisconsin’s needs. Tailoring the Great Lakes Compact through strong implementing language will help us better protect and responsibly use our natural resources, and will strengthen our state. Clean Wisconsin is working to strengthen the compact in six ways: 1. Thresholds for increased uses will require monitoring and regulations for large water users. 2. Strong conservation language for responsible use of our vulnerable water resources. 3. Return flow requirements so that water diverted out of the Basin will be treated and returned back to the Basin in a clean and sustainable way. 4. Fixed boundaries for who does and doesn’t qualify for Great Lakes water. 5. Eliminate the bottled water loophole so multinational corporations won’t abuse our Great Lakes for their own profit. 6. Public Participation opportunities because YOU should have the right to know how decisions are being made about your Great Lakes water. Strengthening the Compact will help strengthen Wisconsin because it will better protect the resources we rely on for life. To get more involved in the Compact, please contact Melissa Malott at (608) 251-7020, extension 13.
• Between 2000-2004 one of few Midwestern states to gain population • Since 2003 gained 179,000 jobs • 75,000 were high paying professional jobs • Thousands were in manufacturing, while OH, IL, IN, MI, and the overall U.S. lost jobs • Major R & D and corporate decision center • University of Wisconsin ranks among top in nation’s R&D spending • 34% increase in Wisconsin technological exports in 2005: increased to $3.5 billion • Technological exports make up 23% of all Wisconsin exports • Great Lakes states and Ontario combined = 3rd largest economy in world • Growing in global trade: • 7.6% increase in Wisconsin, while nation only increased 10.6%
Economic Benefits of Protecting the Great Lakes
* The Great Lakes help produce a high quality of life * A high quality of life attracts people and businesses * Businesses maintain and grow our economy •Traditional industries strengthen •Industries expand •Global trade expands (and is quite literally linked to the shipping goods on the Great Lakes) •Recreational opportunities expand
Longtime Clean Wisconsin member Sudie Burnham and her dog Rita enjoying Lake Michigan in Door County.
Photo Credit: Clean Wisconsin
Great Lakes Study Committee disbands
Opens opportunity for legislators and Governor’s group to take the leadership to protect Wisconsin’s waterways
I
n September, the Legislative Study Committee on the Great Lakes Compact was disbanded by its Chair, State Senator Neal Kedzie (R-Elkhorn), because it was unable to reach agreement on recommendations for a strong compact for Wisconsin. The committee had reached consensus on a number of issues such as conservation and public participation. Unfortunately, several committee members with parochial interests back-tracked on these issues, creating an impasse. While the failure of this study committee slows down the process of passing a strong Compact for Wisconsin, it does increase the urgency for a working group convened by Governor Jim Doyle to craft a set of recommendations that will lead to strong, implementing legislation. The Compact is designed to encourage water conservation and thoughtful water management throughout the Great Lakes region. Wisconsin is one
6
of eight Great Lakes states whose governors approved a Compact draft in 2005 in Milwaukee and forwarded it to their states for legislative approval. While most other Great Lakes States have drafted legislation and some have passed it, Wisconsin continues to drag its feet on getting the Compact implemented. Wisconsin conservation and environmental organizations, through the Coalition to Protect the Great Lakes, continue to press for legislation that supports their platform, A Strong Compact for a Strong Wisconsin, which includes passing the baseline Compact with the following improvements: • Closing a loophole in the Compact that permits unregulated exports of bottled water from the Great Lakes; • Encouraging measurable, meaningful water conservation;
• Requiring waters of the Great Lakes Basin that have been diverted to communities outside the boundaries of the Basin to be returned in an environmentally sound manner; • Tightening standards that govern large water users inside the boundaries of the Great Lakes Basin; • Establishing boundaries for communities seeking to divert water from the Great Lakes Basin; • Allowing the public in an open process to play a role in determining whether diversion requests are approved and providing public enforcement options. Developing a strong Great Lakes Compact protects the waters we rely on for life and enjoy in recreation.
The Defender, Fall 2007,Vol. 37, No. 4
Protecting our investments – protecting our lakes Will Hoyer
A
s Wisconsin wraps up another vacation season, many vacationers from across the region have returned home with lasting memories of Wisconsin’s beautiful lakes. Some people may even be considering making the lakes a permanent part of their lives by investing in lakefront real estate. Better water quality makes for a better investment so spending money to improve water quality is a long-term investment in the health of Wisconsin’s communities. Many studies have shown that clean water improves property values. A 2003 study of Minnesota lakes showed that a one meter increase in water clarity could result in increases in lakeshore property values of millions of dollars. A study of Vilas County lakes in Wisconsin showed that being able to see one foot further down in the average lake would increase property values by almost four percent. An examination of lakes in Maine showed similar findings where one meter greater clarities in lakes predicted property values to be three to seven percent higher. As Wisconsin’s shorelines become more and more developed the tendency is for water quality to decrease. More chemicals running into the lakes, less natural vegetation along shorelines, and less groundwater recharge are all typical of development and all can reduce water quality. Many people who are investing in new or second homes along lakes because they love being on the water do not realize that by building a home and landscaping in a “typical” suburban fashion they are hastening the decline of the lake they love. Fortunately homes can be built or renovated and properties landscaped in ways that will protect people’s investment as well as maintain the natural beauty that probably drew many people to the lake in
the first place. The current zoning rules that govern development along Wisconsin’s lakes were written back in the 1960s when the family cabin up north was just that – a cabin that maybe shared lakeshore space with a couple other family cabins. As homes have gotten bigger, their impacts have gotten bigger, too. Unfortunately the costs of those impacts are borne by everyone – lakefront homeowners, vacationers and those who have never had the good fortune to visit the lakes. Updating shoreland development standards (NR
115) and implementing many best management practices will protect Wisconsin’s lakes and protect property owners’ investments. The DNR held hearings across the state in July and August on their proposed rule update and Clean Wisconsin submitted formal comments in support of stronger shoreland protections. Cleaner lakes and more beautiful shorelines are critical to a healthy long term financial future.
Our deepest gratitude goes to Will Fantle
W
ill Fantle has been an environmental activist since the mid 1970’s and a Clean Wisconsin board member since 1990. In addition to being a fantastic board member for Clean Wisconsin, his contributions to Wisconsin’s environment have taken different, important forms, such as environmental reporting for a variety of magazines and big city weekly newspapers, and staffing and directing environmental organizations. After serving 17 years as a Clean Wisconsin board member, Will Fantle has resigned in an effort to focus more efforts on his current job, other volunteer endeavors and to spend more time with his wife! Will states, “I have enjoyed my time on the board and am pleased to have been a part of the organization’s growth and development. We have made progress on a number of issues and we have been a key player on important [environmental] decisions during my time on the board.” Clean Wisconsin extends our deepest gratitude for all of Will’s service to our organization. He has inspired many of us with his dedication to keeping Wisconsin such a great place to live, work and play. Best of luck to you and your family!
Keep your eye on this emerging issue...
Watch for more news on the expansion of the Murphy Oil refinery on the shores of Lake Superior in Superior, Wisconsin. Murphy Oil Company is contemplating a sevenfold expansion to process oil sands, which will exacerbate global warming gases and pollute our cleanest Great Lake, Lake Superior.
Data sought for the Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Research Inventory
T
he International Joint Commission (IJC) is inviting Great Lakes researchers to submit or update information on their projects for the online Great Lakes – St. Lawrence Research Inventory. The Inventory depends for the most part on voluntary participation from scientists and agencies willing to share some time and information in a spirit of collaboration serving the best interests of the Great Lakes ecosystem. With information on approximately
Clean Wisconsin
1,200 projects, 1,000 principal investigators and 300 funding organizations, the database represents a valuable information resource for Great Lakes researchers, managers and policymakers. Originally developed to help the IJC assess how research activities support the goals of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Research Inventory recently created direct links and data sharing agreements with the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, the U.S./Canada Great Lakes
Monitoring Exchange and the Great Lakes Regional Research Information Network. This move towards a more widely distributed network will continue to make this important tool available to a growing number of users. The Research Inventory is available online at http://ri.ijc.org. Contact: Mark Burrows, International Joint Commission - Great Lakes Regional Office, burrowsm@windsor.ijc.org.
7
The price is right Will Hoyer
I
t does not take an economics degree to know that when prices rise, consumption falls and when prices fall, consumption increases. It is surprising to many people that, for one item that is used everyday, is incredibly valuable and is increasingly vulnerable, in most of Wisconsin the more they use the cheaper it gets. For the state’s water users there is very little economic incentive to conserve because additional units of water get cheaper. Fortunately, these perverse incentives to use more water are beginning to change. In May Wisconsin’s Public Service Commission (PSC), which regulates all utility rates in the state, gave their approval to the city of Waukesha to implement a conservation rate structure that increases the marginal water rate, meaning additional units of water get more expensive, not less. Waukesha’s conservation rate structure is the first in Wisconsin, though other communities are looking into it. Communities in the western U.S. have used conservation rates for years, but they are slowly becoming more common in the eastern U.S. as water supplies dwindle in more and more areas of the country. Under the new Waukesha plan residential customers would pay $1.95 per 1,000 gallons for their first 30,000 gallons used in a quarter. For water use between 30,000 and 40,000 gallons the cost would rise to $2.20 per 1,000 gallons. Over 40,000 gallons the cost would increase to $2.70 per 1,000 gallons. Unfortunately, the old declining blocks, where water gets cheaper as more is used, still exist for Waukesha’s industrial users and for most everyone else in the state.
Setting water rates is tricky business. Utilities need to be assured of a certain income to cover their expenses and conservation can decrease that certainty. Some amount of water must be cheap enough to cover basic needs, like cooking and bathing, for low income people. If industrial rates go up some companies may choose to opt out of municipal water supplies and drill their own wells. Setting conservation rates is also only likely to help if consumers have access to timely information about their water usage. Conservation rates applied to water bills that are only sent out twice or four times a year are not likely to reduce water usage since consumers will get their bills well after they have used the water. The PSC should be applauded for beginning to get serious about water conservation. They recently hired a water conservation coordinator to work with utilities throughout the state. In their approval of Waukesha’s proposal the PSC instructed Waukesha to evaluate their rates’ impact on low-income families and the effectiveness overall and to come back with another proposal to improve on their rates at the end of 2008. Using price signals to reduce the amount of water that people in Wisconsin use will undoubtedly play a role in reducing our impacts on the lakes, rivers and groundwater aquifers that continue falling in parts of the state. Conserving water will protect recreational opportunities, human health, and habitat and will help reduce the energy consumed and global warming pollution produced by pumping ever-increasing amounts of water.
Saving money and the environment: Lessons from a self-proclaimed energy miser Shauna Cook
A
s we head into the winter heating season, I wanted to share thoughts from a self-pro claimed energy miser...me. When I bought my home six years ago I had no idea what to do to save energy other than placing plastic over the windows. I slowly discovered and implemented various actions that have placed me in Madison Gas & Electric’s (MGE) “excellent” rating for energy use for a home my size. The MGE rating includes 30,000 Madison homes of all ages – many newer and with more sophisticated efficiencies than mine. (My home is 45 years old and has its original windows.) When considering energy savings, I wanted to take steps giving me the biggest energy savings for the buck. I’ve been slowly ticking things off my list ever since. Here are the ways I’ve earned the “excellent” rating: 1. I performed an energy audit and implemented the following things: a. Improved my attic insulation to R-44 (Focus on Energy gave me a $300 rebate for this action). b. Performed air sealing around the chimney, plumbing stacks, windows, doors and other parts of the attic. c. Insulated the exhaust vent. d. Discovered that even though my windows were drafty, I simply needed to replace the locking mechanisms with a lock that pulls the panes closer together. The
8
energy auditor said many times people think they need to replace their windows, when in fact changing the locks typically does the trick.
• Replace those fuzzy pad strips on the storm windows to create a better seal. • Keep looking for newer and more innovative products and services to help me maintain my energy miser status!
2. I replaced my front door with an insulated version. 3. Every year I place rope caulk around my windows before sealing them in plastic. I also learned it is incredibly cheaper to buy the large rolls of plastic (similar to wrapping paper rolls) and the special tape separately, than to buy the pre-made window or door kits. You get more for your money and there is less waste. 4. My sun room is comprised of three walls of glass, one being an exterior patio door that has poor seals. Some day I’ll be able to afford replacing the door entirely. But for now I affix a thicker gauge plastic to the outside which helps break the wind and cold. 5. I installed a programmable thermostat which is set at 58 degrees on winter nights, holds steady at 62 degrees during the day when I’m away, and rarely goes above 65 degrees when I am at home. As time and money allow, I’ll accomplish the other items still on my “to do” list: • Replace my back door with an insulated variety. • Replace my garage doors and window with insulated varieties.
The Defender, Fall 2007,Vol. 37, No. 4
Eco-news from around the state Allison Havey and Laurie Maloney
Invasive fish disease presents new threat to fishing economy Lake Winnebago On May 17, a fish infected with viral hemorrhagic septicemia (VHS) was found in Lake Winnebago. VHS is a virus that causes terminal bleeding in fish and is transferred through bodily fluids. This disease is immensely destructive because it can kill up to 25 species of fish, even though it is not harmful to humans. If this disease spreads through our lakes, it could impact the state’s fishing economy by millions of dollars, which directly affects state tax revenues. (The DNR reported in 2006 that the fishing industry brought in $90 million in state tax revenues.) VHS is not the only invasive species found in our lakes affecting fishing and water quality throughout the state and costing tax payers millions annually in clean up and control. In response, State Senator Wirch (D-Kenosha) and Representative Molepske (D-Stevens Point) have introduced legislation in the Senate (SB 199) and Assembly (AB 86) to regulate ballast water from Great Lakes ships. As heavy fuel is depleted during transportation, the ship takes water into the ballast (bottom) to stabilize its voyage. Currently it is legal for ships to collect ballast water from one lake and dispose of it in another, allowing diseases and invasive species to move from one lake to another. Will Hoyer at Clean Wisconsin points out, “on average new invasive species enter the Great Lakes every 6-8 months and ballast water is the main source. These new invasive species...cost our economy billions of dollars.” The Ballast bill would prohibit this exchange of water and help reduce the movement of invasive species. On May 23rd, the Senate Environment and Natural Resources committee heard the public’s concern about this important topic. While public sentiment strongly favored the proposed bill, the shipping industry chose to oppose it, citing the compliance costs they will incur. Please contact your legislators and ask them to support SB 199 and AB 86. Call 1-800-362-9472 or visit www.legis.state.wi.us/waml to identify your legislators. For more information, visit the Take Action page on our website http:// cleanwisconsin.org/action/wateraction_060107.html. For more information on VHS visit the WDNR website http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/pages/vhs.html.
Economic impacts of the gypsy moth invasion Baraboo Many forests in Wisconsin and the eastern United States have been invaded and harmed by gypsy moths and are costing taxpayers, landowners, municipalities, and businesses countless dollars in: suppression efforts, control programs, timber losses, property value decreases, and water quality and supply issues. The recreation-tourism sector was recently hit as well; in late June the state closed Rocky Arbor State Park near Baraboo in order to prevent park visitors from accidentally transporting the moths to other parts of the state. Defoliation in certain areas of the park was prominent. The gypsy moth is an invasive species, originally found in Europe and Asia and eats over 250 species of trees, which include oak, birch and aspen. According to the WDNR web site “Gypsy moths have been found in nearly every county and the eastern half of the state is recognized as infested. Quarantines have been placed on wood product exports from those counties and many participate in an annual suppression program to keep potential defoliation at a minimum.” According to Andrea Diss-Torrence, the statewide coordinator of the Gypsy moth program, this year central Wisconsin is seeing an outbreak, and she advises people vacationing in that area to help prevent the spread of eggs by not moving firewood away from the
There are a number of bristly, or tufted, caterpillars that are often mistaken for the gypsy moth. Distinctive markings for the gypsy moth caterpillar include five pairs of blue dots followed by six pairs of red dots down the length of the back.
Photo Credit: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
area and washing your camper after a stay. For more information on the history, biology, impacts, and programs to assist in the control of gypsy moths check out these websites: http://gypsymoth.wi.gov/; http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/forestry`/fh/GM/index.htm; and, http://datcp.state.wi.us/arm/environment/insects/gypsy-moth/index.jsp.
Bayfield area investing in a cleaner future Bayfield Bayfield, Wisconsin recently declared itself an Eco-Municipality, following neighboring Ashland and Washburn. What makes Bayfield a unique Eco-Municipality is its new Greater Bayfield Wastewater Treatment Plant, a near zero discharge treatment facility, which is the first in Wisconsin, and the cleanest facility on Lake Superior. In order to build this plant, the city of Bayfield and the Pikes Bay sanitary district relied partially on grants from the Governor and the Great Lakes Protection Fund. The new facility releases wastewater that contains 70% fewer pollutants than a normal plant, is able to handle around 1,600 people, and took into account the plants’ economic impacts for operations now and in the future. According to Jane Carlson of Strand Associates, the project’s engineers, “The plant was designed to have low operation and maintenance costs as there are several features designed into the plant to reduce electricity, fuel consumption, and chemical use, and the plant only requires one full-time operator to run it. In addition, the plant offers economic advantages in the long run because it is sized for the current flows and loads plus some reserve capacity for future growth, and it can be easily expanded for double and eventually triple its current size, all on the existing site.” The project itself was given the US Environmental Protection Agency’s Pisces Award for Innovation and Effectiveness of State Revolving Loan Fund Program, and Strand Associates was awarded the Grand Award of Best of State by the American Council of Engineering Companies.
Clean Wisconsin welcomes Carl A. Sinderbrand to its board of directors
C
lean Wisconsin welcomes Carl A. Sinderbrand to its board of directors and looks forward to the many contributions he can make to Wisconsin’s environment. Sinderbrand is a partner at the law firm of Axley Brynelson, LLP. His practice focuses on representing municipalities and businesses, including public and private owners, contractors and design professionals, on a wide range of construction, commercial, environmental, and regulatory matters. He has represented parties before regulatory agencies, in arbitrations and trials, and in appellate courts, including several cases in the Wisconsin Supreme Court. He also serves as an arbitrator and mediator. Mr. Sinderbrand received his B.A. from Oberlin College and his J.D., cum laude, from the University of Wisconsin Law School. Before entering private practice, he served as an Assistant Attorney General, primarily practicing environmental law. He is a member of the Wisconsin State Bar Association: Environmental Law Section (Treasurer, Board of Directors), and Dane County Bar Association: American Arbitration Association (arbitrator and mediator). He recently completed three terms (eight years) as a member of the Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission.
Clean Wisconsin
Clean Wisconsin’s Wish List • 8-10 Gently used, matching conference room chairs • Subscriptions to Wisconsin State Journal and Milwaukee Journal Sentinel • Gift certificates for Kinkos • First class postage stamps To coordinate any of these contributions, please contact Laurie Maloney at (608) 251-7020, extension 19 or email her at lmaloney@CleanWisconsin.org. Thank You!
9
Clean Wisconsin’s incredible volunteers
C
lean Wisconsin’s volunteer program is going strong in 2007, in part due to staff volunteer coordinators Becky Weber and Laurie Maloney, who have taken the program to the next level of professionalism and organization. The program provides opportunities for people to get involved by volunteering in a variety of capacities. Whether it’s sealing envelopes or coordinating federal issues research, we appreciate the incredible contribution all volunteers make. More than a dozen volunteers in 2007 have put in countless hours helping Clean Wisconsin monitor environmental policy, craft and push important legislation and keep Wisconsin a cleaner, safer place. For more information on how you can get involved visit our website www.cleanwisconsin.org/volunteer.html or contact Laurie Maloney at lmaloney@cleanwisconsin.org or (608) 251-7020 extension 19.
Thanks to our 2007 Volunteers! Damon Clark Doug Cowgill Roslyn Danford Allison Havey Caitlin Kelly Elsa Nekola Aaron Prevost Miri Pogoriler Ralph ‘Cal’ Rea Geneveve Rosay Karen Stevenson David Vitse Travis Weller
Renewable Energy Program Researcher Program Researcher Water Intern - Legislative Research Project Assistant Membership and Development Assistant Membership and Development Assistant Database Guru Lobby Reporting Specialist Lobby Reporting Specialist Water Program Assistant Energy Program Assistant Energy Law Clerk Water Program Researcher
A fond farewell and many thanks to Miri and Roslyn We want to specially thank two volunteers who recently left the organization after contributing an incredible amount of work. Miri Pogoriler volunteered weekly for a year as our Lobby Reporting Specialist and has moved on to Harvard law school. Roslyn Danford volunteered as a Water Program Intern three days a week for the entire summer and has gone back to school in De Pere, Wisconsin where she is majoring in Business, Political Science and Environmental Policy. Thanks for making a difference and best wishes to both of you on your journeys!
Miri Pogoriler
10
Roslyn Danford
The Defender, Fall 2007,Vol. 37, No. 4