CLE ELUM, Wash. – With the holiday season here, many Washingtonians have an important decision to make:
Should they buy a real or artificial Christmas tree?
While it may seem as though cutting down a tree is not a green decision, there are actually benefits for the environment and local communities.
Darcy Batura, Central Cascades community coordinator for The Nature Conservancy of Washington, says artificial trees typically are manufactured in China, take a lot of resources to transport here and are made from a material that is not biodegradable, meaning once it ends up in a landfill, it stays there for centuries.
"The reason for a real tree is that while it's alive it's storing carbon, it's providing habitat and producing oxygen, and then after we enjoy it, it can be chipped and used as compost that then feeds the soil for years," she explains.
Washington ranks fourth in the nation for Christmas-tree production, with about 400 farms across the state.
Batura says families run most of the farms, so buying from them supports small businesses. It's an $18 million dollar industry.
There are other ways to get real trees and help the environment as well. Washingtonians can purchase a $5 permit from the U.S. Forest Service to cut down their own.
Batura says folks might feel guilty about cutting a tree in the forest.
"However, here in Washington state, there are 2.7 million acres of public forest land that is in desperate need of restoration thinning,” she points out. “So when you go out and select a tree that's part of a clump where they're just too dense, you're actually doing the forest and the trees a favor but thinning that tree and taking it home."
Batura adds that some people may choose artificial trees because they're affected by allergens from real trees.
In that case, she advises people to keep it around for a long time. It takes 20 years to offset the environmental impact of manufacturing and shipping that tree.
Batura says Washingtonians can be even greener by using LED lights, which consume less power, and making their own ornaments.
get more stories like this via email
A Knoxville-based environmental group is voicing concerns over what it sees as an increasing financial strain imposed on taxpayers by nuclear weapons projects. Expenses for the Y12 Uranium Processing Facility in Oak Ridge are expected to increase as it ages.
Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said the National Nuclear Security Administration requested an extra $810 million for the Y12 complex. That pushes its total cost to $9 billion, which is $2.5 billion more than the initial estimate.
Kardile suggested this money could be better spent on other state priorities.
"It would just be so great for the state to up their health care, up education. We don't have public transportation here. That can be something great for us - but instead, we're paying towards nuclear weapons," Kardile suggested.
Kardile added the Biden administration total weapons budget for the nation is $19.8 billion. She pointed out delays in construction of the Uranium Processing facility mean it won't be completed until 2029, several years behind schedule.
She said her group is also concerned with the ongoing environmental hazards and public health risks tied to enriching uranium and other activities at the weapons complex. But proponents of the plant point to the jobs and economic impact it has for the local area. Kardile said that wouldn't necessarily go away if the facility closed.
"If the plant were to shut down operations, they would still have to be cleanup, because there is a lot of contamination and radiation from the plant. So, it would still provide jobs for years to come, because that contamination is not going to go away in our lifetime," Kardile added.
She emphasized the importance of Tennesseans collaborating with lawmakers to find the best path to allocate their tax dollars.
Disclosure: Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance contributes to our fund for reporting on Environment, Nuclear Waste, Peace, Social Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
New Mexico has one of the nation's last "wild" rivers, free of human-made structures and community representatives will be back in the nation's Capitol this week to advocate for its protection.
A delegation of tribal leaders, local elected officials, veterans and community leaders will urge members of Congress to pass the M.H. Dutch Salmon Greater Gila Wild and Scenic River Act. Passage would protect nearly 450 miles of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and their tributaries.
Harry Browne, a commissioner in Grant County, said local residents have championed the legislation for nearly a decade.
"This region is among the nation's most economically challenged," Browne pointed out. "We deserve the benefits of Wild and Scenic Designation, increased tourism, increased investment by small businesses in outdoor recreation activities."
After four introductions, the bill passed out of a Senate committee last year with bipartisan support. As negotiated, it would allow grazing operations to continue on surrounding areas. Nonetheless, some landowners oppose the bill, worried it might restrict their Gila water use and lead to lawsuits.
In 2011, the Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico won the right to establish a reservation on homelands in southern New Mexico.
Pamela Eagleshield, vice chair of the tribe in Oklahoma, said many of the remaining 800 members hope to return and enjoy the pristine environment.
"Because our petroglyphs, our carvings, our culture, our history; everything that we have is there," Eagleshield emphasized. "If it's changed in any way, that's something that directly affects the spirituality of our people."
Browne noted the Grant County community-driven proposal will benefit people of all kinds.
"That is why my family and I moved here back in the early '90s," Browne stressed. "It would be devastating to see what we have here diminished by un-careful development."
New Mexico's outdoor recreation industry generates just over $2 billion in consumer spending by directly employing 28,000 people.
get more stories like this via email
The Supreme Court's decision in 2023 to roll back the Clean Water Act has meant less federal oversight in protecting the country's wetlands.
Illinois does not have a standalone program, and one organization hopes state legislators will pass measures to change this. Wetlands clean the water, reduce flooding and provide fish and wildlife habitat.
David McEllis, Illinois legislative director for the Environmental Law and Policy Center, said Senate Bill 3669 and House Bill 5386 have passed out of their respective committees, but he expects future amendments.
"This would create, through the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, a permitting process for when a landowner wants to destroy or fill in or work on wetlands in the state," McEllis outlined. "That covers the gap that was created by the Supreme Court decision."
The department believes landowners can play an important role in protecting the state's nearly 54,000 species of insects, birds, mammals, frogs and fungi by providing nesting and roosting places for habitat and making clean water accessible. The agency warns the state's natural areas are being lost to urban development and agricultural and industrial interests.
McEllis believes a wetlands standalone program would continue where the court's ruling left off and protect the state's remaining untouched and unprotected wetlands. The center's fact sheet said Illinois has already lost 90% of its wetland acreage and the status of the remaining 10% is unknown.
He pointed out the destruction of wetlands has taken place in Illinois for hundreds of years, since the state's establishment in the 1800s.
"There are some existing protections in the state in Cook County and some of the suburban counties, so those wetlands have some protection," McEllis acknowledged. "There are multiple rivers in downstate Illinois, and also wetlands areas throughout the state."
McEllis noted millions of wetlands have already been used for farming purposes, resulting in a loss for the state. A report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said wetlands currently cover nearly 6% of the land in 48 states. An estimated 95% of wetlands are freshwater; the rest are marine.
get more stories like this via email