Pesticide and Herbicide Use and Abuse

Risk = Hazard x Exposure

As an environmental professional who works in the hazardous materials field, I understand the power of a good toxin: both good and bad. As a homeowner with a yard that has an abundance of bugs and weeds, I try to find a balance between pesticide and herbicide use…and abuse.

Glyphosate is first on my mind. If you’re not sure what it is, let me tell you it’s more common name – Roundup. It’s one of, if not the most used herbicide for both industrialized agriculture and homeowners.

After spending hours during the spring and early summer hand pulling weeds, I broke down and sprayed the ground vines in my front and side mulch beds and it worked. I did not spray the backyard or the garden plot. That is where my family and dogs spend all of our time outside. We don’t hang out in the front yard.

I’m trying to find the balance between the toxin, my family and dog’s health, the out of control weeds, and the amount of time I have to spend hand pulling weeds. This is where I will apply the equation, Risk = Hazard x Exposure. I’m using a toxin, so I have both the hazard and exposure. My risk therefore can’t = 0. Now I have to manage the risk. I minimize the risk by limiting my exposure, which means only spraying the areas that I don’t spending much time around.

One issue with this is that weeds are not a primary hazard. It’s not like a wasp nest, mosquitoes, or carpenter ants that could harm my health or my home. Weeds are a merely a nuisance. So is it worth it to use the herbicide only for aesthetics?

Back to the toxin. Glyphosate is considered non-carcinogenic and can be transmitted to humans orally or through absorption. So wear gloves, wash your hands when you’re finished applying it, don’t walk through the applied area for hours after, and take off your shoes before you enter your house. It is considered low toxicity, does not bioaccumulate, and breaks down over days to weeks. It can build up in the storm water if over-applied or applied right before a storm. I fear it is over-applied quite often, particularly in commercial areas.

I’ll keep using glyphosate sparingly to control the weeds and I’ll always remain conscious of its toxicity. The small changes you make at home will benefit your immediate health and well-being. Until there are big policy and/or industrial changes, glyphosate will still end up in our storm water and other places we don’t want.

Limit your exposure to pesticides and herbicides to the minimum amount necessary to control the hazard from the pests and nuisance plants. The exposure to the pest can be worse than the exposure to the toxin. This article from the Environmental Working Group explains how the exposure to DEET is not as bad as being exposed to mosquito borne diseases, such as malaria, west nile virus, or zika.

The weeds before a glyphosate treatment.

The worst of the weeds after two treatments.

#1 Issue with Climate Change Skeptics

There’s a lot to wonder about why people are still skeptical of climate change, despite decades of research and evidence. There’s one thing about the skeptics that bothers me above all else, and that’s the huge insult it is to the researchers. Climate change skeptics are giving a big slap in the face to all of the scientists and researchers doing productive work.

Climatetologists, geographers, biologists, oceanographers, geologists, meteorologists, environmental scientists, and other earth scientist are working independently and cooperatively to determine the impacts, find solutions, or develop new technologies. It means nothing to the skeptics. What really stands out to me is the research that wasn’t intended to be climate change-based, but the conclusions support and contribute to the mountain of climate change evidence. Experts in their fields using the scientific method? It’s not enough for some people.

The concept of people not believing experts is not new. We’ve all been guilty of it. But this isn’t rating wine or movie reviews. It’s science and real research is not taken lightly. There are scientists who love nothing more than to disprove other scientist’s work (classy people). Paper after paper have been written over the past few decades and the research keeps mounting, despite the critical eye of other researchers.

The Department of Energy released a thorough paper, U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities To Climate Change and Extreme Weather. What I really like about it is that it’s not research to determine if climate change is happening. It’s research to determine what will happen. The team of scientist that researched and wrote this aren’t concerned with the “if” part of climate change. They’ve accepted it and are planning for it’s outcomes. There is a very good summary website of the paper, here.

Climate skeptics, stop stepping on other people’s hard work. It’s insulting to them and to you. Embrace it, try to appreciate the work, and enlighten yourself. Maybe to bring more mainstream attention to the issue, climate scientists need a TV show about lawyer-doctor-cop-models who solve earth science problems related to dead hookers and seedy politicians. Somebody get Fox on the line for me!

I can sum up this whole issue with one of my favorite political cartoons, from Joel Pett, published in USA Today in 2009. Perfect.

TNEP Profile: Charlie Yohe, Yohe Architecture + Design

Is a LEED certified architect an environmental professional? To get some insight on this I met with LEED AP+ certified architect, Charlie Yohe of Yohe Architecture + Design. Charlie lives and works in Lancaster, PA, but was in Denver for the 2013 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Convention, so we went to the Cruise Room in downtown to talk architecture, the environment, and passion about one’s work. Based on the opening sentence of his firm’s About Us page, I was hoping for good conversation. “Yohe Architecture + Design (YAD) provides high value, low impact, sustainable design that reflects each client’s vision, generates conversation and incorporates local and global environmental factors.”

Charlie in the YAD studio.

TNEP: As a LEED certified architect, do you consider yourself doing environmental work?

Charlie: I would say that it’s more of a responsibility of an architect to design responsibly. I wouldn’t necessarily call myself an environmentalist.

TNEP: You said, “design responsibly.” Do you get requests from your clients to meet LEED standards?

Charlie: It varies across the architect profession. For me personally the only time I’ve seen those requests, unfortunately, is when the project is for a government project or it’s for a marketing edge from a private business. But you’re not seeing as much as I’d like to see from people just looking to do the right thing from a building perspective.

A lot of the problem is what drives the construction industry is the first cost and you have all these people racing to the bottom line and unfortunately that’s all they’re getting, a cheap building. And they’re paying for it in the long run.

It generally comes from the owners. If it comes from the architect, it’s generally deemed an agenda item, that the architect is pushing an agenda. At the risk of sound negative of the community that I live in, I would say that they don’t push for it.

What’s really cool about where I’m from is people are very pragmatic, with the Amish and Mennonites. So their whole livelihood is based on being sustainable. They understand the importance of it without us having to preach to them. It’s more the private side, the private business owners and for-profit developers.

TNEP: You said, “marketing”, and what I think you’re saying is a business is designing a building to say, “Hey come look at our building.”

Charlie: Yeah, it can portray a company in a good light as stewards of the environment to put their money where their mouth is.

TNEP: Do most architects get the LEED certification or feel obligated to get it?

Charlie: It comes down to marketability from a professional standpoint. There is definitely an edge when you’re applying for a job as an architect and a lot of firms are starting to market the LEED accreditation as part of their mission, so they might list the percentage of LEED accredited architects they have on staff.

It’s a little over a year ago that I started my own office and at the time I was one of the only owner LEED accredited professionals in the area.

TNEP: Do some firms or architects solely focus on LEED buildings?

Charlie: Because of the LEED process being as technical as it is, there’s a lot of architects that are specializing in LEED certification. Some firms are just hiring people with LEED experience because it is so specialized.

There’s a lot of documentation and basically the LEED process makes you prove that your building is a green building or a sustainable building. That proof takes a lot of documentation. Even though you go through the process of becoming a LEED accredited professional, until you’ve gone through the process it’s still kind of a mystery how it all gets done.

TNEP: What I’m picking up is that you have that environmental attitude.

Charlie: I do. Even when the owner is not looking for a higher level of design, it’s important for architects and building professionals to take the attitude of, ” It’s my responsibility to provide it whether they’re looking for it or not.” There are simple things you can do when designing a building that can work to save energy.

TNEP: Are you passionate about the LEED process?

Charlie: I wouldn’t say I’m passionate about the LEED process. I’m passionate about my responsibility to improving the efficiency of buildings.

Every 3 years the building codes are becoming more in line with sustainable building practices, so it makes it easier for us to make our argument to owners to step it up.

TNEP: When a building is designed to a LEED standard, it does so much more that what an “environmentalist” might do.

Charlie: It’s huge. When you consider that buildings use 40% of the energy produced and you can prove through the LEED process that your building is saving 40, 50, 60% over baseline building codes. That’s huge! That’s a big movement.

TNEP: Thanks, Charlie. Although you don’t consider yourself an environmental professional, I think architects designing LEED certified buildings are doing significant environmental work. Your work fits right in to this website. Go ahead, call yourself an environmentalist.

From there, our conversation veered off into passion, convention speakers, and cocktails, as any good conversation at the Cruise Room should.

To contact Charlie and Yohe Architecture + Design, go to http://yohearchdesign.com/.

For information about the LEED certification, check out the US Green Building Council.

EP Profile: Eric Johnson, Environmental Scientist

Living the environmental professional lifestyle!

Environmental Consultant, Environmental Manager, Environmental Specialist, Environmentalist, they’re all titles that don’t really describe the work and life of an environmental professional. Unfortunately those of us working in this field have all probably been called one of them more than once. Eric Johnson is all of those things, but he’s also an Environmental Scientist, which I think is a great title and descriptor for Eric and the work he’s doing.

I’ve worked with Eric for a few years and caught up with him over the phone to talk about his work and life as an environmental professional. He has worked in environmental labs, at a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), consulted with the government, and solved a lot of environmental problems for people who needed his help. Eric currently works as an environmental consultant in Chicago, IL as an Area Environmental Protection Specialist, but let’s just say he does environmental science. Eric also writes about Indiana University hoops for Inside Indiana magazine.

TNEP: Tell me what drew you to this field?

Eric: I was thinking of going into more of a wildlife biologist career path, when I took a CERCLA class. One semester just on CERCLA. The instructor for the class was working for the EPA out of Region V, so there was a lot of real world experience, real world stuff. That’s kind of when I got into the hard side of the environmental science; looking at the nastier stuff. Actually identifying these chemicals and cleaning them up. It really drew me in. Especially growing up in northwest Indiana, which environmentally was kind of a pit. It hit me that, “Hey there’s regulations out there that, 1. stop these things from happening, and 2. work on cleaning up these areas that were torn apart by industry over the years.” Seeing that it would apply to stuff that I grew up with, it kind of hooked me.

TNEP: Was there a moment or a person you worked with when you realize this was good, interesting work?

Eric: There’s a couple of points there. The first one is the instructor I mentioned. The stories and lectures were very interesting. This probably makes me sound like a geek, but it was a 3 hour class and I sat on the edge of my seat because it had my attention.

Then getting to work at a TSDF. I moved up to compliance manager of the lab. If we thought there was a better way to treat the materials, environmentally preferred as well as being a cost centered decision, we’d write that into the permit. it was interesting process to see the sausage making of the permit.

Moving forward, working with the US Army Reserve, I certainly don’t work with the environmentally complex problems, but there are so many facilities to manage at once. The nice thing now is that you are given enough space to do what we want to be as environmentally proactive as we want.

TNEP: Tell me about your interaction with people who aren’t environmental professionals.

Eric: First off, it seems people who aren’t environmental professional have no idea what we do. Even my own wife for years didn’t understand what I did. It’s funny, I’ve been doing it so long that we speak our own language. When you talk to other people, the first thing you get is, “Oh, you’re an environmentalist.” I don’t necessarily like the word environmentalist. I’m more of an environmental scientist. I think of the term environmentalist as more like a casual activist. That’s why I always try to clarify that I’m an environmental scientist. My skin crawls anytime someone uses the term, environmentalist. It makes us sound like we’re a toad in the road of progress. Everyone thinks my job is to protect endangered species. Technically speaking it is part of my current duties, but it’s a very small part. The other part is that people think you’re a garbage man. I’ll tell people I handle hazardous waste and their reaction is, “Oh, you’re a garbage man.”

My wife teaches 4th grade and every year I do an environmental talk for the class. Every year they start asking me what I do, but it always ends up the same way. The first year I did it, it was right after Al Gore’s, Inconvenient Truth. There was a girl in class who saw the video and asked a question about the polar bears. I answered with the basics about global warming and ice melts, etc. After one polar bear question, it turned into, “Bear Talk with Eric Johnson.” How long does it take a polar bear to drown? 5 minutes of straight polar bear questions. My wife says to her class, “No more polar bear questions.” One kid raises his hand, “How long does it take a panda bear to drown.” It’s like, “You’re an environmental guy so that makes you a bear expert.”

Maybe it’s because its a relative new field that people don’t understand what we do. That’s what environmental professionals need, a reality show.

TNEP: Following up on that story with your wife. How has a career as an environmental professional influence your life and your lifestyle?

Eric: It’s had a big influence. I remember when my grandmother was still alive, one day she calls me up. She’s reading the back of her tube of toothpaste and wanting to know if any of these chemicals would cause her gums to be sore. If there’s something with environmental borne pollutants that are causing problems, people will ask me about that.

TNEP: I know you’re a big fisherman. I can imagine it’s played a big part in that.

Eric: Sure, practicing catch and release, joining organizations such as Trout Unlimited, I’ve written for magazines, fishing magazines, environmental stuff that affects water quality. (Eric has written for a Tight Loop, an e-zine about fly fishing in the Midwest.)

One thing I’ve been active with is Pebble Mine in Alaska. They want to put the worlds largest gold and copper mine in a very sensitive spot in Alaska in the Bristol Bay region. It’s one of the last strongholds for the wild salmon. I’ve been active in writing my congressman and the EPA to make sure that area is protected. This is one of the last untouched areas. If there was a good enough reason to put the mine in that area, such as money for the state, but commercial fishing in Alaska is huge. If you’re talking money wise, long term it’s gonna be a push. There’s so many outdoor groups that have signed on to this. One of the companies leading the charge right now is Patagonia. Yvon Chouinard is really fighting it. Also companies like Cabela’s, Orvis, and Sage. There’s a lot of people lined up.

TNEP: Is there anything that you’ve seen that has improved and is there anything that you see is still lacking and needs development?

Eric: I came on in the mid-90’s. It was the beginning of consolidation of the companies that were out there. There were so many people who were hanging a shingle up and now they’re the environmental guy. Consolidation was good because it got rid of a lot of the shadier side of environmental companies. The industry grew up and became a little bit more serious, a little bit more professional.

We’ve almost gone too far with consolidation. There’s fewer and fewer companies out there and what’s been sacrificed is there aren’t really too many niche companies. For example, wetlands delineation. There were companies and that’s what they did. Now you have to go to a larger corporation to do that and they’re looking for big jobs. So small jobs don’t get looked at and don’t necessarily get coveted. They don’t want a wetlands delineation job for 2 1/2 acres. They want a massive site or a hundred small sites.

Even in the early 2000’s there were a lot of companies out there that you’d call to do the work and when they’d arrive on site you’d look at them like, “I don’t think you can do this work. I don’t think you understand what it takes to do this work.” You’d get a company show up to do confined space entry work and they’d bring a full-face respirator and a section of rope. Even the mentality. There’s nothing wrong with having a good time, but I think early on the environmental companies out there were more interested in having a good time than they were than actually accomplishing the task.

It was nice to do this because it got me reevaluating the past 20 years. This is really cool, because this is a good way to set up the environmental fraternity. It still is a very specialized field and it’s not like there’s a whole lot of us out there.

TNEP: “Environmental fraternity”? I like that. Thanks, Eric.

Slow Death By Rubber Duck – Book Review

Slow Death By Rubber Duck, The Secret Danger of Everyday Things is one of the ultimate environmental lifestyle experiments. Its message has stayed with and influenced me on a daily basis since I read it a few years ago. This review is a few years overdue, but there is no better place for it than a site dedicated to the environmental professional lifestyle.

The premise of the book is two environmental scientists and the authors, Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie, put themselves through a Super Size Me like exposure to several everyday chemicals that you probably don’t know you’re exposed to and measure the levels in their body.

They found that even brief exposure to these chemicals showed drastic increases in their bodies. The positive finding was that when you remove your exposure, the levels go down. As with all toxicology, people’s bodies will react differently to different dosages and exposures. It’s a perfect human experiment to illustrate that dose x exposure = risk. Although the dosage is low, the exposure is high.

As an environmental professional, my friends don’t know exactly what I do. (There’s not a tv show about environmental professionals.) Introducing them to this book and its message has been a great way for me to help them understand. It has also helped me make a connection to my students. I teach environmental, health and safety courses to non-environmental adults. Many of who have never even heard of BPA. So using this book and its pop culture and individual product connection has helped open some eyes and convey the message.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to know more about how your couch, cookware, shampoo, food, and water can be slowly poisoning you.

One of my favorite anecdotes from the book is the following. Should I buy the regular ketchup in the glass bottle or the organic ketchup in the plastic bottle?

You can buy the book on Amazon, here.

EP Profile: Matt and Joe Trujillo, Intermountain Technical Solutions

When I thought to profile a national environmental professional, there’s very few people who put the “National” in National Environmental Professional more so than Matt and Joe Trujillo. Based out of Tooele, UT, the brothers are the heart and soul of Intermountain Technical Solutions, Inc., one of the premier environmental, health, and safety training companies in the country. They’ve trained over 120,000 students in 30 different subject areas in all 50 states, Canada, and Mexico. National, indeed! I’ve know them as long as I’ve been in the field and am continually impressed with their national influence, all while being based out of a small town in Utah. It was a pleasure, but not easy, to track them down from their busy travel schedules and talk to them about their careers as environmental professionals.

A typical day for Matt and Joe Trujillo.

TNEP: Tell me how you you got into the field? What drew you to the field?

Matt: I loved Science throughout school and initially wanted to look into the medical profession. As I entered college at the University of Utah in 1983, I found out that a new degree was being offered through the college of health called “Community Health/Environmental emphasis” It sounded interesting, combining the science and public health/medical into one degree.

Joe: When I was still in high school I had an interest in the physical sciences – chemistry, biology, and toxicology. When I enrolled in the University of Utah, my inclinaion was to pursue some kind of degree in these sciences. As an outdoor enthusiast, I really also enjoyed my time in the mountains fishing and saw some big changes at the time – some of the first consumption advisories for the fish we caught and water we drank. I though this was a wonderful marriage of the two things I enjoyed. I thought, I’m gonna make a career of this.

TNEP: Was there a moment, person, or a project when you realize this was good, interesting work?

Matt: Yes, during the early 80’s the county that I lived in became a major player in the waste management business. The military was discussing building the first ever chemical munitions incinerator (nerve agent and blister agent). One of the largest Hazardous Waste Landfills was operating already. A hazardous waste incinerator was being built and a second one was in the planning phases. In addition a low level radioactive repository was also being permitted. I was concerned that these facilities needed much regulatory oversight, so I sought to work for the State EPA and local health department. In 1987 when I graduated from the University of Utah, I began my career with the Tooele County Health Department and State EPA (later called DEQ) as an environmental scientist and regulatory auditor. I loved the challenge and the steep learning curve. In 1990 I went to go work for the hazardous waste landfill called USPCI as the Training Manager over compliance and safety training. I trained over 3,000 employees over a 3 year period. I started looking for 3rd party help to assist me in the training programs and I struggled finding anyone that could help me with the various topics (such as HAZWOPER, confined space entry and rescue, fall protection, mobile crane and forklift certification, etc.) I needed to provide to our staff. I actually asked my brother Joe to come out to the plant and help me teach some classes, which he did. It was then that we realized that so many businesses did not have the expertise to teach their employees these very important topics and that we should start a training company to help fill this important need.

Joe: When I was a student at University of Utah and I had a professor named Faye Resnik, as well as another, Herman Hooten, who were the first people who influenced me to look at the environmental responsibilities we all have, and to look at what kind of commitment it takes by a community and nation. The class wasn’t even called Environmental Sciences at that time. It was called Earth Sciences or some weird thing. It was my first opporutnity to see there’s some things we can do to make things better. As I work around the country teaching environmental regulations courses, I’ll have students, who I didn’t think were getting the message, who will call me later and say, “Hey, I really want more information on this. Is there someplace else you’d recommned” Man, I tell you what, each of those is a reaffirmation of what we’re diong is important and having an impact.

TNEP: What is a positive change you’ve seen in the field and/or lifestyle since you started?

Matt Trujillo teaching.

Matt: When I started in this field, so many people were uninformed about hazardous chemicals and how to use them safely and manage their waste properly. Over the last 20 years, my brother and I and the rest of our staff have taught courses in all 50 states and Canada and Mexico, We have worked with all types of industries and the government. We have trained over 120,000 in over 30 different subject areas. We have also trained and certified over 500 industrial hazmat teams across the county. I still cannot believe how such a small company like ours has spanned the entire country. It is so cool to have a student tell us that what we taught them made a difference in their lives and that their knowledge and skills can now be used to help others.

Joe: When I came out of college, the vast majority of waste coming from Superfund sites was being managed by incineration or solidification and landfill. In essence, what we had at at that time was, “burn or bury.” What’s changed the most are improvement in methodologies and modifying processes to use less harmful chemicals. There pre-detoxificiation now. We’ll take a chemical and do a neutralization instead of it just going to a landfill. I’m happy to see the evolution of the methods of disposal that we deal with our waste.

TNEP: What’s still missing from the field?

Matt: As has been evident in recent tragedies across the county, Most chemical plants are still not providing adequate training for their employees and most public sector emergency responders such as firemen, policemen, paramedics are receiving very minimal if any training on how to deal with hazmat emergencies. In addition a trend across the country is to provide training through computer based learning and on line with very little or no actual hands on instruction and no ability to discuss key concepts with a professional trainers.

Joe: I see less recycling taking place. It seems to me that as I travel the nation that some communities do a great job and embrace it. Many communities, it’s worse than it’s been 10 years ago. We’ve failed in maintaining succession in some of those things that we bragged about in the past. The other thing, this is more my hunting side, the last 5 years I’ve seen more and more consumption advisories posted for waterfowl species and fish species. That’s a sign of how much more work we have to go. The mercury content is too high. It’s a sad commentary. We’ve still got some work. The good news is that I’m up for the task. I stand on ever soapbox I’m offered and tell people, “Here’s what we’ve got to do?”

TNEP: Tell me about your interaction with the people you impact who aren’t environmental professionals. Is it positive, unusual, tough to overcome, fun, enlightening, etc?

Matt: Most of the people we train are not environmental professionals. Many still have “old school” mentalities that the EPA, OSHA etc are not necessary and that protecting the environment is silly and a waste of time. These are our special challenges. It is always refreshing however to change their mindset and get them to buy into the importance of what we are teaching. Also many past students that we have taught, have decided to make their careers as hazmat/environmental professionals such as a young man that was a pharmacist major that took one of our classes as a college student and decided to change his major into Safety/Environmental specialist. Years later he became the EHS manager of a large industrial plant and called us up and said, hey remember me, I was in your class 8 years ago. I want the very best training for my new plant and I want ITS to deliver it!! That was cool!

TNEP: How has a career as an environmental professional impacted your lifestyle, family, etc?

Matt hardly working.

Matt: My career has taken me on the road a lot. My family and especially my wife has had to be very patient with me and the time I am away from home. My wife and 3 sons know however how passionate I am about what I do and how important it is for me and they have supported me for over 25 years. Weeks after 9/11, I took my son Nick to New york with me where I was providing RCRA hazardous waste management training for the Army Reserves. I took Nick to ground zero and had him sit in on all the training I provided that week. 10 years later Nick had completed a BS degree and a Masters degree and started working for our company as our 3rd full time trainer. He said that my passion for this work rubbed off on him. My chest swells with pride when a client of ours calls me after Nick has taught for them and says to me, “He is just like you and your brother. He is an awesome communicator and knows his stuff, and he has the same passion as you do!”

Joe and his champion dogs.

Joe: It was Matt’s idea to start Intermountain Technical Solutions. He said, “I think we can keep doing what we’re doing. What we enjoy most about environmental responsibility. But let’s do it for ourselves and let’s take this information out as subject area experts and work in industry. To help these folks to train their employees and properly manage their chemicals has some real benefit, not on environmentally, but from a health and safety perspective. I’ve worked in everyone of our great United States, Canada and Mexico. It’s been awesome and I have not regretted a single minute. It’s been a lifelong dream to not only work in the environmetnal arena but work with my brother.

Top 5 Songs with Environmental Messages

This list isn’t just the most environmentally emotional or Earth Day-type songs. It’s the Top 5 songs that combine an environmental message, good music, and are enjoyable. You can enjoy each of these songs without the message, but once your listen to the lyrics it takes the song to a new level of meaning. I’d love to hear your additions to the list.

1. Mercy Mercy Me – Marvin Gaye

Can there be another choice for #1? No. It’s a beautiful song by a legendary artist and I’m guessing many of the people that enjoy this song have never appreciated the lyrics. It’s beautiful and unfortunately still relevant. “Ah, things ain’t what they used to be.”

2. (Nothing But) Flowers – Talking Heads

“There was a factory. Now there are mountains and rivers.”

“We used to microwave. Now we just eat nuts and berries”

A close second, describing a world where progress and industry have been reverted back to a natural state.

3. The Trees – Rush

“And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, ax, and saw.”

This song isn’t about the environment at all. It has another strong theme that I’ll let you figure out on your own. But I always liked how this last line of the song added more levels.

4. ½-Full – Pearl Jam

“Won’t someone save? Won’t someone save…the world?”

This is one of those rockin’ Pearl Jam songs that you first enjoy just listening to Ed’s garbled lyrics. After listening a few more times you pick up the lyrics and then it makes this list!

5. Godzilla – Blue Oyster Cult

“History shows again and again; how nature points out the folly of men.”

Yes, yes it does. But really, this song is just fun!

Bonus Track: Styrofoam – Fugazi

“We are all bigots, so full of hatred, we release our poisons like styrofoam.”

This is another song that has a meaning beyond the environment. But let’s look at the context of it’s release. In 1989 the issue of styrofoam being non-biodegradable and poisonous to the environment was prevalent. That’s enough for me to include it in the list. And Fugazi is great!

Update 7/5/2013: A reader emailed with a plea to add this one. Although it just makes me think of the movie Major League.

Burn On – Randy Newman

Thoughts on the Keystone XL Pipeline

By Meclee (Own work), via Wikimedia Commons

I spent last week in Montana and one of the biggest national environmental issues was a frequent topic of conversation – the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. It will carry tar sands oil from Canada through eastern Montana, south to Nebraska to speed up and improve the transfer of the oil to the refineries in Texas. I don’t have the solution, but discussing it from both a local and national scale is fun.

There is a statement that applies to most environmental discussions and perfectly to the pipeline. “Environmental issues are emotional; the solution is scientific; but the answer is political.”

Adding a new, very large pipeline presents two significant environmental issues that get emotions boiling. One, it creates an opportunity for a large oil spill on US soil. Two recent oil pipeline spills of note are the ExxonMobile spill in Arkansas just a few weeks ago and the ExxonMobile spill in the Yellowstone River in July 2011. The second, and more significant issue is that construction of the pipeline would reinforce our reliance on fossil fuels for an extended future. We wouldn’t build this pipeline and then not use it. (Or would we? See: Yucca Mountain.)

Now that our emotions are revved up, we can find scientific solutions, both for and against. The pipeline would be built to a standard that our current pipelines aren’t; highly regulated with monitoring and controls, and the scrutiny from environmentalists would not allow a sub-par product. Not building the pipeline could lead to more tanker trucks hauling the fuel. Think about that. What’s better, one controlled pipeline carrying the oil or an older pipeline plus hundreds of tankers driving on our interstates?

Of course, there is a scientific solution to get our country off our dependence on fossil fuels through energy efficiency and renewables. Check out Rocky Mountain Institutes “Reinventing Fire” and you’ll be a believer. If we really start brainstorming alternatives the options are limitless. What about building a new refinery closer to the tar sands, in Montana? But that, and other options open up a Pandora’s box and those are discussions that I’m not ready for in this space.

Unfortunately this, like all national environmental issues, is going to come down to politics. As the Obama administration continues to be on the verge of approving it, the EPA recently got tough, saying that the State Department’s review of the project was insufficient. Approving the pipeline is a big step to getting our country closer to North American energy independence and if you haven’t been paying attention, were getting closer.

It’s probably our biggest national environmental issue right now. It’s local, national, short-term, long-term, and emotions, money, jobs, and politics will be made and lost over it. So where do you stand? Depending on where you physically and/or emotionally stand, the answer becomes pretty clear.

There are plenty of websites for you to get more information and develop your own opinion, but here’s two big ones, TransCanada’s website, http://keystone-xl.com/, and the National Resource Defense Council’s (NRDC) site, http://www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-pipeline/.

Genesis of The National Environmental Professional

When I started my first environmental professional job in the late 90s, I had never met or even heard of anyone else who did this kind of work. I routinely thought to myself, “Who else works in this field?” From my vantage point at the time I figured environmental companies were either activists groups or engineering firms looking for new avenues of work. That was often the case. I wished there was a publication where I could learn about the people in the field and their work, beyond my small circle of coworkers and associates. There were groups and associations, but even the national ones were regionalized unless you could go to the conferences. Since then, the size and number of organizations has grown and the environmental community is more connected, but there is still room to learn about the people doing the work.

I’ve continued to work in this field; living the environmental professional lifestyle. This has included working for 6 different environmental companies as well as 3-other non-environmental, science positions. (Ah, the life of a consultant/contractor.) I’ve seen the good and bad, the interesting and the boring, and the science and art of the work and lifestyle.

With this website I have created what I was looking for years ago. It’s not just a place for someone starting out to learn about the field. It’s for all environmental professionals interested in the lifestyle outside of their desk, office, or job site across the nation. Lastly, it’s also for me. I am curious to meet all the interesting people doing great work. I hope to see you soon.

Welcome to The National Environmental Professional

Welcome to The National Environmental Professional, a site dedicated to highlighting the people, projects, and places that make up the environmental professional lifestyle.

The “environmental professional lifestyle”? What does that mean?

We are all asked what we do for a living from time to time, usually by new acquaintances. If you’re a teacher or a doctor or a photographer, everyone has an idea of what you do. They probably also have an idea of your lifestyle. For an environmental professional, it’s not always an easy answer. I’ve had several colleagues tell me stories about trying to answer that question without boring or confusing people. The answers I’ve given include environment consultant, environment scientist, environmental, health & safety instructor, and more. And even those don’t mean much to someone outside the field. My favorite answer is to say I’m an environmental Winston Wolf. (If you don’t know The Wolf, it’s worth your time to look him up. See: Fiction, Pulp).

Even within the environmental field, saying consultant isn’t specific enough. Are you a RCRA- or DOT-ologist, a hydrogeologist, a researcher developing green technologies, a natural resource manager, a sustainability manager, an activist, a lawyer? Are you starting to see why I’m creating a place to tell our stories? Although there is no one clear definition of an environmental professional, we’ve all made a career in the environmental field a part of our life. Just as those who are journalists see the world through journalistic-eyes, environmental professionals see the world and live their life with their own tinted eyes, which incidentally are not always “green.”

I hope to introduce you the interesting people I’ve met and plan to meet, open your eyes to some amazing work, and share some great stories. This will span the nation because although we all have a home office and/or a region, so many people I’ve met have spread their expertise across the country. I myself have covered 49 states. Who knows? Maybe this will give me an opportunity to see #50.