<>Sen. Bob Corker came out swinging against the climate bill that the House passed in June.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
how will key senators vote on a climate bill?
Bob Corker came out swinging against the climate bill that the House passed in June.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
“I didn’t think it was possible, but the Waxman-Markey climate bill appears to be even more problematic than the climate bill that tanked in the Senate last spring,” he said, referring to the Lieberman-Warner bill that he voted against in 2008. “I don’t know of many special interests that don’t receive a pay-off in this [Waxman-Markey] legislation, and if it comes to the Senate floor in this form, I’ll vote against it.”
Yet Corker understands that climate change is a problem and has called for legislation to address it. In 2007, he traveled to Greenland with a bipartisan group of senators to observe the impacts of climate change, noting upon his return that the U.S. has “a unique opportunity to marry concerns ... like carbon dioxide emissions and energy security.” He said he was “leaning in the direction” of supporting a carbon-trading program.
Lately Corker has been insisting that he won’t accept anything short of a climate plan that auctions 100 percent of pollution permits and returns the money directly to Americans, and his preferred approach would be a carbon tax.
“I want to tell you that I wish we would just talk about a carbon tax, 100 percent of which would be returned to the American people. So there’s no net dollars that would come out of the American people’s pockets,” Corker told Al Gore during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee earlier this year.
When the Obama administration rolled out its first budget this year with a framework for a cap-and-trade plan that would have returned roughly 80 percent of the revenues from pollution permits to citizens, Corker bashed it. He called the proposal “slight of hand” and said it is a “massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.”
His office put out a press release shortly thereafter, noting, “Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.”
So it looks like Corker won’t accept anything short of a complete cap-and-dividend approach, which doesn’t seem to have much traction with most other members of Congress. Don’t count on him for a “yes” vote on whatever climate bill emerges from the Senate.
Friday, July 31, 2009
The Food, Energy and Environment ‘Trilemma’
At the 2009 Bio World Congress on Industrial Biotechnology, held in Montreal last week, industry players and scientists found themselves pondering two seemingly contradictory concerns.
One focused on how rapid advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology can expand the market for cellulosic ethanol and other “second-generation biofuels,” which are touted as low-emission substitutes for corn ethanol (itself a partial substitute for gasoline).
The other involved the problem of ensuring that exponential growth in the global biofuel market — which is projected to grow 12.3 percent a year through 2017, according to one recent study of the industry — will not hurt the environment and divert vast tracks of arable land needed for food or grain production.
A paper published in Science earlier this month, referred to the triple challenges of energy, environment and food as the biofuel “trilemma.” The authors identified five “beneficial” sources of biomass: perennial plants grown on abandoned farm fields, crop residue, sustainably harvested wood residue, double or mixed crops, and industrial/municipal waste.
“In a world seeking solutions to its energy, environmental, and food challenges, society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse-gas emission reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when biofuels are done right,” the authors state. “However, society also cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.”
Another assessment, from a biofuels study group established by Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, part of an international science body, discusses the challenge of dedicated energy crops:
A small number of food-crop species like corn, sugarcane, oil palm and rapeseed are currently used globally to produce biofuels. Their continued use as biofuel feedstocks in light of increasing food demand, limited land resources, and stagnant agricultural yields is problematic. Dedicated energy crops like switchgrass in temperate areas and jatropha in the tropics have been proposed as a way to produce energy without impacting food security or the environment. However, such special energy crops require land, water, nutrients, and other inputs, and therefore compete with food crop for these resources. This competition contributes to conversion of grasslands, to deforestation, to and other land-use changes, with the associated adverse environmental effects.
The paper, which was published last year, estimates that if biofuels account for 10 percent of transportation fuels, as some governments hope, production could eventually account for at least 8 percent of the world’s supply of arable land and perhaps much more, as well as consume large quantities of water.
One focused on how rapid advances in genetic engineering and biotechnology can expand the market for cellulosic ethanol and other “second-generation biofuels,” which are touted as low-emission substitutes for corn ethanol (itself a partial substitute for gasoline).
The other involved the problem of ensuring that exponential growth in the global biofuel market — which is projected to grow 12.3 percent a year through 2017, according to one recent study of the industry — will not hurt the environment and divert vast tracks of arable land needed for food or grain production.
A paper published in Science earlier this month, referred to the triple challenges of energy, environment and food as the biofuel “trilemma.” The authors identified five “beneficial” sources of biomass: perennial plants grown on abandoned farm fields, crop residue, sustainably harvested wood residue, double or mixed crops, and industrial/municipal waste.
“In a world seeking solutions to its energy, environmental, and food challenges, society cannot afford to miss out on the global greenhouse-gas emission reductions and the local environmental and societal benefits when biofuels are done right,” the authors state. “However, society also cannot accept the undesirable impacts of biofuels done wrong.”
Another assessment, from a biofuels study group established by Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment, part of an international science body, discusses the challenge of dedicated energy crops:
A small number of food-crop species like corn, sugarcane, oil palm and rapeseed are currently used globally to produce biofuels. Their continued use as biofuel feedstocks in light of increasing food demand, limited land resources, and stagnant agricultural yields is problematic. Dedicated energy crops like switchgrass in temperate areas and jatropha in the tropics have been proposed as a way to produce energy without impacting food security or the environment. However, such special energy crops require land, water, nutrients, and other inputs, and therefore compete with food crop for these resources. This competition contributes to conversion of grasslands, to deforestation, to and other land-use changes, with the associated adverse environmental effects.
The paper, which was published last year, estimates that if biofuels account for 10 percent of transportation fuels, as some governments hope, production could eventually account for at least 8 percent of the world’s supply of arable land and perhaps much more, as well as consume large quantities of water.
Activists cheer China's plan to move refinery
< China's decision to shift the location of a planned $5 billion oil refinery and petrochemical plant in the south after years of public outcry is a sign that environmental concerns can shape policy.
Wang Yang, the Communist Party chief of Guangdong, said the province would move the plant to an unnamed location because of opposition from the community and lawmakers. The project is a joint venture between China's Sinopec Corp. (0386.HK)(SNP.N) (600028.SS) and Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
"We only have one planet to live on, so whatever we do on this end will affect others on the other end," Wang told reporters at a news conference on Thursday.
Some environmental activists applauded the move, saying it reflected Beijing's commitment to tackling climate change after years of sacrificing the environment for economic growth.
"The decision by the government shows that they do consider the opinions from different stakeholders across the region, which is a positive sign," said Edward Chan, a Greenpeace campaign manager based in Hong Kong.
In recent years, Chinese citizens have scored some victories over local governments, which have shelved or delayed projects after vocal opposition about pollution and environmental worries.
These include a paraxylene chemical plant in the city of Xiamen that was scrapped on toxicity concerns and a delay over a planned hydroelectric power dam on the Nu river in Yunnan province.
Already the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has come under pressure from the international community to curb emissions.
But other experts stopped short of calling the decision a landmark victory for China's green activists, saying environmental practices and requirements were still unevenly enforced and in flux.
"Guangdong is a special province --- it is rich and the local community is very strong, that's not the same for other cities in China," said Ma Zhong, executive vice-dean of the School of Environment and Natural Resources at Beijing's Renmin University.
"I don't believe there's a real environment movement across the country. They (the local governments) are mainly concerned about their own interests."
RESIDENTS COMPLAIN
The Sinopec-Kuwait Petroleum refinery was to have been built in Nansha at the tip of the Pearl River Delta in South China's economic powerhouse of Guangdong.
Residents in Nansha, home to fish and shrimp farmers, have complained about the project, saying a smaller refinery in the area pollutes the air with a strong chemical stench on bad days. [ID:nHKG207067]
"We have spent much effort in considering Nansha's fragile ecology and also (the refinery's) impact on neighbouring provinces, in deciding to relocate," Wang said.
He declined to say where the plant would go, but a source with knowledge of the plans said it was most likely in Zhanjiang in western Guangdong, a less ecologically sensitive area.
"The environment is a significant factor, but I don't think we can yet say that it's the exclusive factor motivating these decisions to relocate these projects," said Beatrice Schaffrath, a Beijing-based lawyer who focuses on environmental regulation.
Other issues were concerns about feasibility, construction and foreign investment in general, she said.
Guangdong, which accounts for about 12 percent of China's economic output, is trying to upgrade its manufacturing sector and has pledged to relocate small and dirty factories away from the Pearl River Delta.
Despite Guangdong's decision, non-governmental groups said they still needed to keep polluters under surveillance.
"Our worries now are that the residents (in the new area) are not as well-educated or informed, or may be more eager to look for economic development," Chan said.
"The story has not ended. It's really important for green groups to pay attention to where the project is moving to."
Wang Yang, the Communist Party chief of Guangdong, said the province would move the plant to an unnamed location because of opposition from the community and lawmakers. The project is a joint venture between China's Sinopec Corp. (0386.HK)(SNP.N) (600028.SS) and Kuwait Petroleum Corporation.
"We only have one planet to live on, so whatever we do on this end will affect others on the other end," Wang told reporters at a news conference on Thursday.
Some environmental activists applauded the move, saying it reflected Beijing's commitment to tackling climate change after years of sacrificing the environment for economic growth.
"The decision by the government shows that they do consider the opinions from different stakeholders across the region, which is a positive sign," said Edward Chan, a Greenpeace campaign manager based in Hong Kong.
In recent years, Chinese citizens have scored some victories over local governments, which have shelved or delayed projects after vocal opposition about pollution and environmental worries.
These include a paraxylene chemical plant in the city of Xiamen that was scrapped on toxicity concerns and a delay over a planned hydroelectric power dam on the Nu river in Yunnan province.
Already the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, China has come under pressure from the international community to curb emissions.
But other experts stopped short of calling the decision a landmark victory for China's green activists, saying environmental practices and requirements were still unevenly enforced and in flux.
"Guangdong is a special province --- it is rich and the local community is very strong, that's not the same for other cities in China," said Ma Zhong, executive vice-dean of the School of Environment and Natural Resources at Beijing's Renmin University.
"I don't believe there's a real environment movement across the country. They (the local governments) are mainly concerned about their own interests."
RESIDENTS COMPLAIN
The Sinopec-Kuwait Petroleum refinery was to have been built in Nansha at the tip of the Pearl River Delta in South China's economic powerhouse of Guangdong.
Residents in Nansha, home to fish and shrimp farmers, have complained about the project, saying a smaller refinery in the area pollutes the air with a strong chemical stench on bad days. [ID:nHKG207067]
"We have spent much effort in considering Nansha's fragile ecology and also (the refinery's) impact on neighbouring provinces, in deciding to relocate," Wang said.
He declined to say where the plant would go, but a source with knowledge of the plans said it was most likely in Zhanjiang in western Guangdong, a less ecologically sensitive area.
"The environment is a significant factor, but I don't think we can yet say that it's the exclusive factor motivating these decisions to relocate these projects," said Beatrice Schaffrath, a Beijing-based lawyer who focuses on environmental regulation.
Other issues were concerns about feasibility, construction and foreign investment in general, she said.
Guangdong, which accounts for about 12 percent of China's economic output, is trying to upgrade its manufacturing sector and has pledged to relocate small and dirty factories away from the Pearl River Delta.
Despite Guangdong's decision, non-governmental groups said they still needed to keep polluters under surveillance.
"Our worries now are that the residents (in the new area) are not as well-educated or informed, or may be more eager to look for economic development," Chan said.
"The story has not ended. It's really important for green groups to pay attention to where the project is moving to."
China accepts 1st environment lawsuit against govt
A court in southwest China has accepted the country's first lawsuit filed by an environmental group against a local government, a member of the group said Friday.
The All-China Environmental Federation, a group backed by the government, filed the suit on behalf of residents against the local land resources bureau in Qingzhen city in Guizhou province, which sold land to a drink and ice cream processing plant they allege is a threat to a scenic lake area.
The land resources bureau sold 8,600 square feet (800 square meters) of land to the owner of the plant in 1994, but construction was never finished. The group wants the government to take the land back and remove the construction materials.
The acceptance of the suit is a sign of greater public involvement and use of laws to hold the government accountable for environmental problems, experts said.
"If this leads to more NGOs (non-governmental organizations) bringing public interest litigation I think this is a very important breakthrough. It means China is going to open the door to more public involvement in environmental enforcement," said Alex Wang, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. environmental group.
Ma Yong, director of the legal service center at the federation, said the group received an acceptance note from the court on Tuesday. The case will open in early September.
Although the project had not been finished, Ma said it had to be stopped because its waste water would be a threat to the environment.
"The case will serve as a warning for government departments and companies that damage the environment, as we're stepping up efforts to play a supervisory role," he said.
Ma said he hopes the case will pave the way for more organizations to file public-interest lawsuits.
The group also filed a public lawsuit earlier this month against a company that operates a container port in eastern Jiangsu province's Wuxi city for failing to control pollution. That case was accepted but has yet to go to trial.
The All-China Environmental Federation, a group backed by the government, filed the suit on behalf of residents against the local land resources bureau in Qingzhen city in Guizhou province, which sold land to a drink and ice cream processing plant they allege is a threat to a scenic lake area.
The land resources bureau sold 8,600 square feet (800 square meters) of land to the owner of the plant in 1994, but construction was never finished. The group wants the government to take the land back and remove the construction materials.
The acceptance of the suit is a sign of greater public involvement and use of laws to hold the government accountable for environmental problems, experts said.
"If this leads to more NGOs (non-governmental organizations) bringing public interest litigation I think this is a very important breakthrough. It means China is going to open the door to more public involvement in environmental enforcement," said Alex Wang, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a U.S. environmental group.
Ma Yong, director of the legal service center at the federation, said the group received an acceptance note from the court on Tuesday. The case will open in early September.
Although the project had not been finished, Ma said it had to be stopped because its waste water would be a threat to the environment.
"The case will serve as a warning for government departments and companies that damage the environment, as we're stepping up efforts to play a supervisory role," he said.
Ma said he hopes the case will pave the way for more organizations to file public-interest lawsuits.
The group also filed a public lawsuit earlier this month against a company that operates a container port in eastern Jiangsu province's Wuxi city for failing to control pollution. That case was accepted but has yet to go to trial.
Death by Mint Oil: Natural Pesticides
This summer, the pests around my house are dying of more natural causes.
One colony of wasps on my deck got neutralized by shots of mint oil. The cabbageworms shredding my broccoli plants were done in by an ingredient culled from seeds of trees native to India. And I annihilated several fire-ant compounds by enticing them to eat bait packed with a soil-dwelling bacterium that fried their tiny nervous systems.
Alamy (3)
Natural alternatives are available to kill aphids, cabbage loopers, carpenter ants and other pests.
Surprisingly, none of these products were hard to find. Increasingly, well-known insecticide manufacturers, retailers and even professional pest-control services are rolling out solutions derived from natural materials like animals, plants, bacteria and minerals, many of them considered potentially safer to humans, pets and the environment than their synthetic-chemical counterparts. Fueling the move is increased governmental scrutiny over what pesticides we spray in and around our homes, as well as a bid to satisfy more health-conscious consumers—especially women, who typically dictate household pest-solution purchases.
Targets include everything from carpenter ants and mosquitoes to the slugs, caterpillars and mites that feast on fruit trees and vegetable plants. For instance, Terminix, a large professional pest-control company and division of Memphis, Tenn.-based ServiceMaster Co., is introducing its first consumer product called SafeShield. The $9.99 indoor insecticide spray contains active ingredients thyme oil and “geraniol,” a substance found in geranium, rose, lemon and other plants.
Meantime, St. Louis-based Senoret Chemical Co. is expanding its line of Terro brand ant- and bug-bait products using a mineral containing the element boron, which is generally considered low in toxicity to humans and animals. And Lititz, Pa.-based Woodstream Corp. last year bolstered its Safer product line with an organic mosquito- and tick-control concentrate made in part from chrysanthemum flowers.
The biggest bellwether came earlier this year when lawn and garden giant Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., Marysville, Ohio, introduced a seven-product “EcoSense” line under its home pest-defense Ortho brand sold in major retailers such as Home Depot and Wal-Mart. Included in the EcoSense arsenal: an indoor insect-killer spray made from soybean oil and an insecticidal soap for vegetables and plants. EcoSense is on track to meet or exceed sales expectations, the company says.
“There are consumers who want a more natural product lineup,” says Jeff Garascia, Scotts senior vice president of global research and development. “A few years ago, we decided that even though the performance didn’t meet our traditional products, we would push through anyway. Now we are starting to see efficacy there.”
Efficacy is tantamount to survival. Manufacturers know there’s often disconnect between what consumers say we want (natural products) and what we really want (dead bugs, now!). Plus, pests can transmit illnesses such as West Nile virus and Lyme disease that can be more harmful than some potential side effects from pesticides. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., for instance, launched a Raid “Earth Options” product in 2006, then discontinued it the next year due to low consumer acceptance. Spectrum Brands Inc. offers a lemon-eucalyptus version of its Cutter mosquito repellent without DEET (a common chemical repellent) but says it doesn’t sell very well.
Still, the category continues to draw investment dollars. Next year, Spectrum plans to launch a natural indoor bug killer to go along with its Hot Shot and Spectricide insecticides. “There’s just a lot of movement out there now to use safer chemicals,” says Jay Matthews, a business director at Spectrum.
Meantime, sales of organic and natural products in the past 18 months have risen 30% to 40% at the Web site DoMyOwnPestControl.com, run by P&M Solutions LLC in Norcross, Ga. Best-selling natural items include “MotherEarth D,” a powder made of diatomaceous earth (ground fossils) that triggers dehydration and death in bugs, as well as an “EcoExempt IC-2” spray made from botanical oils such as spearmint and rosemary. The latter targets a wide range of pests from mosquitoes to bedbugs.
Even the $6.6 billion professional pest-control industry, where efficacy directly affects profit margins, is adopting more natural alternatives. For instance, Mesa, Ariz.-based Bulwark Exterminating LLC, which operates 11 branches in eight states, uses only botanical sprays and boric-acid products (also derived from boron) whenever customers request all-natural solutions and often includes them as part of an overall treatment plan even when they don’t.
“About 35% of people who call now ask us, ‘Will this hurt my kid or dog?’ ” says Bulwark founder Adam Seever. One customer, Carol Kidd, lives in a rural suburb of Phoenix and recently rang Bulwark to cancel her service because she was experiencing hormone imbalances and had read pesticides might be a contributing factor. Bulwark instead switched her to an all-natural service, employing botanical oils and boric-acid bait around her foundation instead of a synthetic solution, and didn’t raise her $44-a-month price.
“I’ve seen no excess insects since switching,” 39-year-old Ms. Kidd says, “and I’ve got bugs in the yard around my chicken coop, but not on my patio or in my house.”
The Environmental Protection Agency registers pesticides—an umbrella term for products that kill insects, fungi and weeds—for use in the U.S. The agency says general health issues from exposure to pesticides may range from simple skin or eye irritation to hormonal and endocrine disruption, cancer and other illnesses.
For instance, a study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American Medical Association with research from Stanford University found that in-home use of insect-killing chemicals was associated with a 70% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, compared with no use of pesticides. And in April, the EPA said it will intensify evaluation of spot-on pesticide products used in pet flea and tick control due to increases in reported problems ranging from skin irritation to seizures and death of the animals. Some of the active ingredients also are found in household insecticides.
Over the years, the EPA has banned some insecticides considered too risky from use in the home market, such as diazinon and chlorpyrifos. It also now maintains a list of active ingredients used in what it dubs “minimum risk” pesticides. “It’s a pretty good bet it’s a safe product if it’s on that list,” says John Kepner with Beyond Pesticides, a not-for-profit group based in Washington, D.C.
Today, the most commonly used synthetic residential insecticides fall into a broad category called pyrethroids—common names include permethrin, cypermethrin and tetramethrin—which are essentially juiced up, longer-lasting human-made versions of the natural chrysanthemum “pyrethrins” used in some natural products. Both affect an insect’s central nervous system; both can be harmful to aquatic life and honeybees. The EPA will re-evaluate pyrethroids’ and natural pyrethrins’ risks starting next year.
To be sure, natural products can trigger health concerns as well. Citric sprays, for instance, can hurt the eyes, and there have been questions about the safety of inhaling powders made from diatomaceous earth or boric-acid powders, Mr. Kepner of Beyond Pesticides notes. “There are plenty of things from nature that can hurt us—like nicotine.”
In general, though, the EPA says biopesticides are usually “inherently less toxic” than conventional pesticides and decompose more quickly, thereby resulting in lower exposures and largely avoiding pollution problems caused by conventional pesticides. What’s more, the agency says, they often primarily harm only target pests, which can help protect beneficial bugs and other animals. (See sidebar.)
Generally, my own pest issues have disappeared using only natural products. One exception: carpenter ants, likely a byproduct of multiple firewood piles around the property and a recent roof leak (the ants like moisture). To wage war, I carefully applied a tiny bit of a synthetic pyrethroid dust inside crevices around my ceiling beams where no children or pets could reach—and where the bugs had left traces of activity. (At the time, I didn’t have the botanical version on hand.) Elsewhere, I’ve used all natural controls, including a mint and herbal oil spray along the backyard foundation where my dog roams and MotherEarth’s and Terro’s boric-acid bait near woodpiles and the front door where I saw ants marching. So far, it’s working pretty well.
One day, however, my dog Dolly got free from her fence and gobbled up a mouthful of the boric-acid bait. Panicked, I called a pet poison control hotline (800-213-6680) and was told not to worry, that the active ingredient was “very safe” with low concern for toxicity, and Dolly would be fine. That was the most compelling sales pitch for naturals yet.
One colony of wasps on my deck got neutralized by shots of mint oil. The cabbageworms shredding my broccoli plants were done in by an ingredient culled from seeds of trees native to India. And I annihilated several fire-ant compounds by enticing them to eat bait packed with a soil-dwelling bacterium that fried their tiny nervous systems.
Alamy (3)
Natural alternatives are available to kill aphids, cabbage loopers, carpenter ants and other pests.
Surprisingly, none of these products were hard to find. Increasingly, well-known insecticide manufacturers, retailers and even professional pest-control services are rolling out solutions derived from natural materials like animals, plants, bacteria and minerals, many of them considered potentially safer to humans, pets and the environment than their synthetic-chemical counterparts. Fueling the move is increased governmental scrutiny over what pesticides we spray in and around our homes, as well as a bid to satisfy more health-conscious consumers—especially women, who typically dictate household pest-solution purchases.
Targets include everything from carpenter ants and mosquitoes to the slugs, caterpillars and mites that feast on fruit trees and vegetable plants. For instance, Terminix, a large professional pest-control company and division of Memphis, Tenn.-based ServiceMaster Co., is introducing its first consumer product called SafeShield. The $9.99 indoor insecticide spray contains active ingredients thyme oil and “geraniol,” a substance found in geranium, rose, lemon and other plants.
Meantime, St. Louis-based Senoret Chemical Co. is expanding its line of Terro brand ant- and bug-bait products using a mineral containing the element boron, which is generally considered low in toxicity to humans and animals. And Lititz, Pa.-based Woodstream Corp. last year bolstered its Safer product line with an organic mosquito- and tick-control concentrate made in part from chrysanthemum flowers.
The biggest bellwether came earlier this year when lawn and garden giant Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., Marysville, Ohio, introduced a seven-product “EcoSense” line under its home pest-defense Ortho brand sold in major retailers such as Home Depot and Wal-Mart. Included in the EcoSense arsenal: an indoor insect-killer spray made from soybean oil and an insecticidal soap for vegetables and plants. EcoSense is on track to meet or exceed sales expectations, the company says.
“There are consumers who want a more natural product lineup,” says Jeff Garascia, Scotts senior vice president of global research and development. “A few years ago, we decided that even though the performance didn’t meet our traditional products, we would push through anyway. Now we are starting to see efficacy there.”
Efficacy is tantamount to survival. Manufacturers know there’s often disconnect between what consumers say we want (natural products) and what we really want (dead bugs, now!). Plus, pests can transmit illnesses such as West Nile virus and Lyme disease that can be more harmful than some potential side effects from pesticides. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., for instance, launched a Raid “Earth Options” product in 2006, then discontinued it the next year due to low consumer acceptance. Spectrum Brands Inc. offers a lemon-eucalyptus version of its Cutter mosquito repellent without DEET (a common chemical repellent) but says it doesn’t sell very well.
Still, the category continues to draw investment dollars. Next year, Spectrum plans to launch a natural indoor bug killer to go along with its Hot Shot and Spectricide insecticides. “There’s just a lot of movement out there now to use safer chemicals,” says Jay Matthews, a business director at Spectrum.
Meantime, sales of organic and natural products in the past 18 months have risen 30% to 40% at the Web site DoMyOwnPestControl.com, run by P&M Solutions LLC in Norcross, Ga. Best-selling natural items include “MotherEarth D,” a powder made of diatomaceous earth (ground fossils) that triggers dehydration and death in bugs, as well as an “EcoExempt IC-2” spray made from botanical oils such as spearmint and rosemary. The latter targets a wide range of pests from mosquitoes to bedbugs.
Even the $6.6 billion professional pest-control industry, where efficacy directly affects profit margins, is adopting more natural alternatives. For instance, Mesa, Ariz.-based Bulwark Exterminating LLC, which operates 11 branches in eight states, uses only botanical sprays and boric-acid products (also derived from boron) whenever customers request all-natural solutions and often includes them as part of an overall treatment plan even when they don’t.
“About 35% of people who call now ask us, ‘Will this hurt my kid or dog?’ ” says Bulwark founder Adam Seever. One customer, Carol Kidd, lives in a rural suburb of Phoenix and recently rang Bulwark to cancel her service because she was experiencing hormone imbalances and had read pesticides might be a contributing factor. Bulwark instead switched her to an all-natural service, employing botanical oils and boric-acid bait around her foundation instead of a synthetic solution, and didn’t raise her $44-a-month price.
“I’ve seen no excess insects since switching,” 39-year-old Ms. Kidd says, “and I’ve got bugs in the yard around my chicken coop, but not on my patio or in my house.”
The Environmental Protection Agency registers pesticides—an umbrella term for products that kill insects, fungi and weeds—for use in the U.S. The agency says general health issues from exposure to pesticides may range from simple skin or eye irritation to hormonal and endocrine disruption, cancer and other illnesses.
For instance, a study published in 2000 in the Journal of the American Medical Association with research from Stanford University found that in-home use of insect-killing chemicals was associated with a 70% increased risk of Parkinson’s disease, compared with no use of pesticides. And in April, the EPA said it will intensify evaluation of spot-on pesticide products used in pet flea and tick control due to increases in reported problems ranging from skin irritation to seizures and death of the animals. Some of the active ingredients also are found in household insecticides.
Over the years, the EPA has banned some insecticides considered too risky from use in the home market, such as diazinon and chlorpyrifos. It also now maintains a list of active ingredients used in what it dubs “minimum risk” pesticides. “It’s a pretty good bet it’s a safe product if it’s on that list,” says John Kepner with Beyond Pesticides, a not-for-profit group based in Washington, D.C.
Today, the most commonly used synthetic residential insecticides fall into a broad category called pyrethroids—common names include permethrin, cypermethrin and tetramethrin—which are essentially juiced up, longer-lasting human-made versions of the natural chrysanthemum “pyrethrins” used in some natural products. Both affect an insect’s central nervous system; both can be harmful to aquatic life and honeybees. The EPA will re-evaluate pyrethroids’ and natural pyrethrins’ risks starting next year.
To be sure, natural products can trigger health concerns as well. Citric sprays, for instance, can hurt the eyes, and there have been questions about the safety of inhaling powders made from diatomaceous earth or boric-acid powders, Mr. Kepner of Beyond Pesticides notes. “There are plenty of things from nature that can hurt us—like nicotine.”
In general, though, the EPA says biopesticides are usually “inherently less toxic” than conventional pesticides and decompose more quickly, thereby resulting in lower exposures and largely avoiding pollution problems caused by conventional pesticides. What’s more, the agency says, they often primarily harm only target pests, which can help protect beneficial bugs and other animals. (See sidebar.)
Generally, my own pest issues have disappeared using only natural products. One exception: carpenter ants, likely a byproduct of multiple firewood piles around the property and a recent roof leak (the ants like moisture). To wage war, I carefully applied a tiny bit of a synthetic pyrethroid dust inside crevices around my ceiling beams where no children or pets could reach—and where the bugs had left traces of activity. (At the time, I didn’t have the botanical version on hand.) Elsewhere, I’ve used all natural controls, including a mint and herbal oil spray along the backyard foundation where my dog roams and MotherEarth’s and Terro’s boric-acid bait near woodpiles and the front door where I saw ants marching. So far, it’s working pretty well.
One day, however, my dog Dolly got free from her fence and gobbled up a mouthful of the boric-acid bait. Panicked, I called a pet poison control hotline (800-213-6680) and was told not to worry, that the active ingredient was “very safe” with low concern for toxicity, and Dolly would be fine. That was the most compelling sales pitch for naturals yet.
China Cities Raise Water Price in Bid to Conserve
Cities across China are raising the price of water, in moves that try to balance the need to conserve an increasingly scarce resource with the effects on a public used to low fees.
The city government of Luoyang, in central Henan province, prepared to hold a public meeting Friday to argue for a proposed water-price increase of 40% to 48%. Water prices in the dry region haven't risen since 2003, which the government says is exhausting meager supplies and keeping the local water utility in the red. At least half a dozen other major cities have raised water prices in the past few months.
The changes reflect a growing official consensus that low prices are part of China's water-shortage problem, since they give companies and households little incentive to use water carefully. The government is also spending billions of dollars on a controversial system of canals to divert water from the flood-prone south to the dry north.
The amount of water available per person in China is just one-quarter of the world average. The World Bank has estimated that water shortages cost China about 1.3% of its annual economic output, with a further 1% lost to water pollution.
"Given the underpricing of water in China and its environmental consequences, I feel it is wise for governments to take the opportunity of low inflation pressure to adjust the water tariff," said Jian Xie, a senior environmental specialist at the World Bank.
Shanghai raised residential water prices 25% in June and plans a 22% increase in November 2010. The central city of Zhengzhou raised water fees 25% in April, and officials say prices will have to change more rapidly in the future.
There has been "strong public reaction" to the price increases in some cities, the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice in early July. Some local news reports have suggested the price increases are being driven more by corporate greed than a real need to conserve water. The agency, which supervises the prices of regulated goods like water, said local governments need to take public concerns into account as they plan for necessary price increases.
The eastern city of Nanjing raised residential water prices 12% in April but also rolled out subsidies to reduce the impact on low-income households.
The rise in water bills has upset consumers even in cities where rates haven't been rising. Zheng Hong, a lawyer in Beijing who lives with seven family members, says his household spends 60 yuan to 70 yuan ($8.78 to $10.25) a month for tap water. He is against any price increases. "The lower, the better," he says. "Compared to my hometown in Henan province, the water prices in Beijing are already pretty high."
China's water prices are still low by global standards, even with the average residential water fee in major cities now up 3% since the end of 2008, to 2.44 yuan per ton. Average water prices in Europe are anywhere from four to 10 times higher, according to Deutsche Bank estimates
The city government of Luoyang, in central Henan province, prepared to hold a public meeting Friday to argue for a proposed water-price increase of 40% to 48%. Water prices in the dry region haven't risen since 2003, which the government says is exhausting meager supplies and keeping the local water utility in the red. At least half a dozen other major cities have raised water prices in the past few months.
The changes reflect a growing official consensus that low prices are part of China's water-shortage problem, since they give companies and households little incentive to use water carefully. The government is also spending billions of dollars on a controversial system of canals to divert water from the flood-prone south to the dry north.
The amount of water available per person in China is just one-quarter of the world average. The World Bank has estimated that water shortages cost China about 1.3% of its annual economic output, with a further 1% lost to water pollution.
"Given the underpricing of water in China and its environmental consequences, I feel it is wise for governments to take the opportunity of low inflation pressure to adjust the water tariff," said Jian Xie, a senior environmental specialist at the World Bank.
Shanghai raised residential water prices 25% in June and plans a 22% increase in November 2010. The central city of Zhengzhou raised water fees 25% in April, and officials say prices will have to change more rapidly in the future.
There has been "strong public reaction" to the price increases in some cities, the National Development and Reform Commission said in a notice in early July. Some local news reports have suggested the price increases are being driven more by corporate greed than a real need to conserve water. The agency, which supervises the prices of regulated goods like water, said local governments need to take public concerns into account as they plan for necessary price increases.
The eastern city of Nanjing raised residential water prices 12% in April but also rolled out subsidies to reduce the impact on low-income households.
The rise in water bills has upset consumers even in cities where rates haven't been rising. Zheng Hong, a lawyer in Beijing who lives with seven family members, says his household spends 60 yuan to 70 yuan ($8.78 to $10.25) a month for tap water. He is against any price increases. "The lower, the better," he says. "Compared to my hometown in Henan province, the water prices in Beijing are already pretty high."
China's water prices are still low by global standards, even with the average residential water fee in major cities now up 3% since the end of 2008, to 2.44 yuan per ton. Average water prices in Europe are anywhere from four to 10 times higher, according to Deutsche Bank estimates
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)