CHEYENNE, Wyo. - Many Wyomingites will be making the big decision this weekend: whether to buy an artificial or real Christmas tree – or perhaps cut their own from a local forest.

There are merits for all options, but Bill Ulfelder at The Nature Conservancy says natural Christmas trees are best. He cites environmental benefits - because trees capture carbon pollution and provide animal habitat, and can be recycled at the end of the season. While 'fake' trees can be used year after year, he says they have a limited lifespan.

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

Ulfelder adds that most artificial trees come from Asia, while most real trees are grown in the United States.

Cutting your own tree just about guarantees that it's natural. Christmas tree permits are available for between $8 and $10 for the Big Horn, Medicine Bow and Shoshone National Forests. Ulfelder says a tree from a Christmas tree farm is an option, as well.

"My family and I, we're always looking to make sure we get a local tree. The other thing that's starting to happen is more and more organic Christmas trees - trees produced with no pesticides or herbicides, also better for the environment."

He says natural Christmas tree production is a $1 billion industry in the U.S., providing 100,000 jobs around the country. The National Christmas Tree Association has additional details and farm listings online, at www.ChristmasTree.org.



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.