ENDERLIN, N.D. - With Christmas just weeks away, many North Dakotans are now deciding whether to buy a real tree or an artificial one. It's a choice with both environmental and economic consequences.

"Chucky" Hartl of Hartl Hollow Christmas Tree Farm, Enderlin, says getting a real tree is an environmentally friendly move - and she adds that, for many, it has become a yearly tradition.

"It was part of my family always to go and cut down our own tree. We'd take all our family pictures at that time and make our Christmas cards, and we'd have a nice, fresh smell inside with a fresh tree, also."

Picking out a real tree can be a family event, Hartl notes.

"What we sell more than anything is the family experience of coming to buy a tree. We've watched some of these kids from little tiny babies, and now some of them are in high school and starting college."

Bill Ulfelder, director of The Nature Conservancy, says as they grow, natural Christmas trees provide environmental benefits, such as capturing global-warming pollution and preventing erosion. On the other hand, he says, most artificial trees are manufactured abroad using polyvinyl chlorides (PVCs).

"Folks use an artificial tree for only about five or six years, so it's energy-intensive to produce, energy-intensive to ship, and then it just sits there in a landfill and doesn't biodegrade."

According to The Nature Conservancy, choosing a real tree not only helps the environment, it also helps the economy: Natural Christmas tree production is a $1 billion industry nationwide that provides 100,000 jobs at more than 12,000 tree farms. The group notes that twice as many Americans buy artificial trees as buy real trees, however, and those usually come from Asia.



get more stories like this via email

The Iowa Environmental Council has petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency to invoke emergency powers to protect sensitive soil and groundwater in northeast Iowa.

The council is holding a public webinar today and wants the EPA to address groundwater contamination in northeast Iowa's so-called Driftless region. The groundwater there has a well-documented history of nitrate contamination.

Alicia Vasto, director of water program for the council, said the highly porous and soluble karst soil prevalent in the region is susceptible to contamination from centralized animal feeding operations.

"We did some analyses of private well data and public water systems and found that there was a lot of contamination of nitrate in those drinking water sources," Vasto reported. "The state has really failed to take action meaningfully that would address those problems."

The state has said it is constantly working to upgrade groundwater quality standards and is in the process of taking public input on creating yet another set of rules.

Vasto emphasized since the state has failed to address the water safety concerns for decades, the council and a coalition of other environmental groups have, in effect, gone above the state's head to the EPA, asking the agency to implement an emergency stop gap on nitrate pollution the way the agency did in neighboring Minnesota last year.

"We're asking that at, at minimum, the EPA would require the state of Iowa to do what they required the state of Minnesota to do under the same petition," Vasto explained. "Because the geology of northeast Iowa is the same as of southeast Minnesota."

The council's recommendations include calling on the EPA to create a communications plan with residents whose water could be at risk, create a drinking water sampling plan, and establishing a thorough permitting process for centralized animal feeding operations.


get more stories like this via email

A Knoxville-based environmental group is advocating for the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act expansion, currently awaiting House approval.

It would provide compensation to more states such as Tennessee for radiation exposure from U.S. government nuclear activities such as weapons testing and uranium mining.

Tanvi Kardile, coordinator for the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, said the current act fails to compensate Tennesseans exposed to nuclear waste from the Y-12 weapons complex, a significant part of the Manhattan Project.

"This expansion bill does extend compensation to people in Tennessee," Kardile acknowledged. "It will directly affect us because it would allow people here to receive that compensation for being exposed to radiation from nuclear waste, which is a big issue here. "

Uranium miners, millers, and ore transporters may be eligible for a one-time payment of $100,000. The law would create a grant program for the study of epidemiological research. The research would focus on how uranium mining and milling affects the health of people directly involved, such as the families of miners and millers.

Kardile emphasized the importance of Tennesseans collaborating with lawmakers to work on expanding the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act since the existing program expires in less than sixty days.

"The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, has to bring up the vote in the House, and he hasn't done that yet," Kardile noted. "He has to bring it up by June, which is when RECA is set to expire. So we do want to urge people to call Speaker Mike Johnson."

Kardile added the U.S. Senate passed the reauthorization of The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act on March 7. However, current benefits are limited to specific regions, excluding areas affected by events such as the Trinity atomic test in New Mexico.

The State of Arizona has received $156 million to invest into solar systems for Arizona families.

Adrian Keller, Arizona program director for the nonprofit Solar United Neighbors, said the group is "thrilled" about the grant made available through the federal solar policy known as Solar For All. The policy sets out to expand or create new low-income solar programs, which the Environmental Protection Agency claims will enable more than 900,000 homes across the nation to benefit from.

Keller expects the funding will help between 10,000 and 11,000 Arizona families.

"These are all low- to middle-income families," Keller pointed out. "The state is projecting somewhere around 61 megawatts of new solar throughout the state of Arizona and there are a bunch of different funding pools and mechanisms to make sure that this funding is disbursed equitably and throughout communities in the state, not just hitting certain metro areas."

Despite Arizona ranking second for solar energy potential in the nation, Keller acknowledged there are still many in the Grand Canyon State who would like to transition to solar but cannot afford to do so. He stressed the federal funds are a step in the right direction. He added through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Solar for All will allocate $21 million to support clean-energy job creation and train workers.

Keller argued while there are significant federal dollars flowing into Arizona for solar systems and incentives, some of the state policies around solar energy are lackluster. Keller noted the Arizona Corporation Commission is in the process of determining how rooftop solar customers in the state will be compensated, but could end up lowering bill credits.

"We're kind of in this interesting place with the current landscape of solar in Arizona," Keller explained. "In some ways it's really good, because we've got these great federal policies, but at the same time the state is sending mixed signals, particularly the corporation commission about the value of solar in Arizona."

Keller considers Solar for All to be a "transformative opportunity" to change the narrative surrounding solar-energy accessibility and added his organization is eager to partner with the state to start rolling out the program later this year. He said 300 rural households will also benefit from solar plus battery systems for their homes, protecting them from electricity service disruption.