Earth Wise

A look at our changing environment.

You are here: Home / Archives for carbon footprint

carbon footprint

The Carbon Footprint Of Electric Vehicles | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Electric vehicles are widely known to be the environmentally friendly alternative to internal combustion-based cars.   But there are skeptics who argue that EVs actually have a larger carbon footprint than nonelectric vehicles.  The argument is that the manufacturing and disposal of vehicle batteries is very carbon intensive.  They also point to the reliance on coal to produce the electricity that powers the cars.

These claims have led to multiple studies in the form of life-cycle analyses comparing the amount of greenhouse gases created by the production, use, and disposal of a battery electric vehicle to that associated with a gasoline-powered car of a similar size.

In short, the studies have found that while it is true that the production of a battery electric vehicle results in more emissions than a gasoline-powered one, this difference disappears as the vehicle is driven. 

According to a study conducted by the University of Michigan and financed by the Ford Motor Company, the emissions equation evens out in 1.4-1.5 years for sedans, 1.6-1.9 years for S.U.V.s, and about 1.6 years for pickup trucks.

Emissions from driving come from burning gas in the nonelectric vehicles and from the generation of electricity used by the battery-powered cars.  In the current average power mix across the U.S., driving an EV results in a 35% reduction in emissions.  However, it varies tremendously by location.  There are some places with very dirty power and some with very clean power.  But of the more than 3,000 counties in the U.S., only 78 end up with higher emissions from electric cars.  Of course, as the electric grid gets greener, the advantages of electric cars only become greater.

**********

Web Links

E.V.s Start With a Bigger Carbon Footprint. But That Doesn’t Last.

Photo, posted May 21, 2022, courtesy of Ivan Radic via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Greening Halloween | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to the National Retail Federation, Halloween participation is expected to return to pre-pandemic levels this year.  Spending on Halloween festivities by the 69% of Americans who celebrate is expected to add up to $10.6 billion in 2022 – or more than $100 per person – reaching a new record high. 

Halloween generates a mind-boggling amount of waste.  Picture all the flimsy single-use costumes, plastic candy wrappers, mass-produced decorations, and so on.  Here are some tricks to treat you to a greener holiday.

Our first trick is to invest in quality costumes.  Mass-produced (and often single use) costumes leave the largest carbon footprint from Halloween.  They are often made from unsustainable materials, manufactured in countries with poor labor standards, and too many end up in landfills by mid-November. By renting, thrifting, swapping, or making your own costumes, many of the negative impacts of dressing up for the holiday can be avoided.

Our second trick is to invest in environmentally-friendly decorations and supplies.  For example, carve local pumpkins and save the seeds and flesh to eat later.  Make your own spooky decorations.  If you do buy decorations, ensure that they are durable and reusable.  And use a wicker basket, old bag, or pillowcase to trick-or-treat.

Our third trick is to pass out organic and fair trade candy.  Some of the largest candy manufacturers are major drivers of deforestation and species extinction around the globe due to their demand for sugar, palm oil, and cocoa beans.

If you’ve already spent your $100 this year, consider these changes for next year.  It’s never too late to become a superhero.

**********

Web Links

Retail Holiday and Seasonal Trends: Halloween

Photo, posted October 14, 2007, courtesy of Brian via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio

Plant-Based Foods And CO2 Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

We often hear how eating locally-sourced food is a way to minimize the carbon footprint of our diet.  But from a climate impact perspective, this only has a significant impact if transportation is responsible for a large portion of a food’s final carbon footprint.  In many cases, the greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation make up only a small portion of the total emissions from food, and what we eat is far more important.

In general, beef and lamb have the biggest climate footprint per gram of protein.  Plant-based foods tend to have the smallest impact. Pork and chicken are somewhere in the middle. 

According to new research, U.S. food production could reduce its agricultural carbon footprint between 2.5% and 13.5% by embracing plant-based alternatives to beef.  The study, from researchers at Cornell University, Johns Hopkins University, and international partners, found that most of the reduction would be achieved by decreasing the number of cows needed for beef production by two to twelve million animals.  The research was recently published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health.

However, the researchers also found that acting to reduce climate change in this manner could have unintended consequences.  For example, economic models from the research team show that the growth in popularity of plant-based beef could disrupt the agricultural workforce, threatening more than 1.5 million jobs. 

But in the big picture, doing nothing will cost much more than doing something to slow climate change.  Shifting diets away from meat and other animal products and towards more plant-based foods will help shrink carbon footprints and mitigate climate change.  It’s a win-win for the planet and for human health. 

**********

Web Links

Plant-based ‘beef’ reduces CO2 but threatens ag jobs

Photo, posted November 27, 2018, courtesy of Sarah Stierch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Food And Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a study published in the journal Nature Food, the world’s food systems are responsible for more than one third of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by human activities. 

‘Eat Local’ is often recommended as a way to minimize the carbon footprint of our diet.  But from a climate impact perspective, eating local only has a significant impact if transportation is responsible for a large portion of a food’s final carbon footprint.  And in many cases, greenhouse gas emissions related to transportation make up only a small portion of the emissions from food and what we eat is far more important. 

There are massive differences in the greenhouse gas emissions of various foods. 

For example, producing one pound of beef generates 60 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions.  This is more than double the next closest food (lamb), and more than 60 times greater than some plant crops like corn and cassava. 

For most foods – especially the largest emitters – greenhouse gas emissions from land use change combined with the emissions from processes at the farm stage account for more than 80% of the environmental footprint.  Meanwhile, transportation accounts for less than 10%, and its contribution for the largest emitters is even smaller.  For example, transportation accounts for 0.5% of emissions from beef production.

Eating beef or lamb has many times the carbon footprint of most other foods.  It matters very little in terms of emissions whether it was grown locally or shipped from another part of the world.  It’s not the location that makes the carbon footprint of our dinner large.  It’s what is on our plate that matters.

**********  

Web Links

Food systems account for over one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions

You want to reduce the carbon footprint of your food?

Photo, posted November 7, 2018, courtesy of Preston Keres / USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

The Great Christmas Tree Debate | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Along with cookies and carols, the Christmas tree is a quintessential part of the holiday season for many people.  According to the American Christmas Tree Association, approximately 75% of Christmas trees in American homes this year will be artificial.  But are artificial trees really the better option for the planet?

The short answer is no.  But it’s more complicated than that.  Ultimately, the answer depends on a variety of factors.

If you decide to go with an artificial tree, you need to use it for a very long time. Studies suggest artificial trees would need to be reused anywhere from 8 to 20 years in order to be considered the more environmentally-friendly option. You should seek out trees manufactured from polyethylene plastic as it’s not as toxic as polyvinyl chloride plastic.  And since the majority of artificial trees are imported from China, look for a “Made in USA” label to reduce the carbon footprint.

If you decide to go for a live tree, shop local. This keeps the carbon footprint low and helps support the local economy in the process.  While some tree farms do spray, researchers say the use of pesticides in tree production is relatively low.  Live trees can also be composted or recycled afterwards.

It’s important to note that live Christmas trees can also be purchased with roots and planted after the holidays.  Some companies even allow you to rent live trees.  Each rented tree can be re-rented for up to seven years, after which it’ll be too large for in-home use and gets planted in its forever home. 

**********

Web Links

Photo, posted December 17, 2017, courtesy of Alan Sandercock via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Emissions From Global Computing

By Leave a Comment

A recent study from Lancaster University in the UK has concluded that global computing is likely to be responsible for a greater share of greenhouse gas emissions than previously thought and that share is continuing to grow.

Previous calculations of the contributions from information and communications technology (or ICT) estimated that globally it accounts for 1.8 to 2.8% of total emissions.  According to the new study, these estimates likely fall short of the sector’s real climate impact because they only show a partial picture.

Prior estimates do not account for the full lifecycle and supply chain of ICT products and infrastructure.  They do not include the energy expended in manufacturing the products and equipment, the carbon cost associated with all the components in the products, and the operational carbon footprint of the companies producing those components. 

The study argues that the true contribution of ICT to global greenhouse gas emissions could be between 2.1 and 3.9%, which is more than the aviation industry.  Furthermore, the study warns that new trends in computing and ICT such as the use of big data and artificial intelligence, the so-called Internet of Things, and the use of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, risk driving further substantial growth in ICT’s greenhouse gas footprint.

It has been a commonly held believe that ICT and computing technologies lead to greater efficiencies across many other sectors, leading to savings in net greenhouse gas emissions.  According to the new study, the historical evidence indicates the opposite.  ICT has driven wide-ranging efficiency and productivity improvements, but the net result in emissions has been that they have been growing steadily.

**********

Web Links

Emissions from computing and ICT could be worse than previously thought

Photo, posted March 13, 2018, courtesy of Flickr.

XXXXXXXXXX

Reducing Agriculture’s Carbon Footprint | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Agriculture is responsible for about 10% of greenhouse gas emissions.  Those emissions come from livestock such as cows, the disturbance of agricultural soils, and activities like rice production.

Recent research from Texas A&M University presents sustainable solutions for grazing agriculture.  According to the research, published in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, ruminant animals like cattle contribute to the maintenance of healthy soils and grasslands, and proper grazing management can reduce the industry’s carbon emissions and overall footprint.

Grassland ecosystems co-evolved with herbivores over thousands of years.  These complex, dynamic ecosystems include grasses, soil biota, grazing animals, and predators.  The ecosystems degrade in the absence of periodic grazing.

The research contends that ruminant livestock are an important tool for achieving sustainable agriculture with appropriate grazing management.  With such management, grazing cattle on permanent perennial grasslands helps develop soil biology to improve soil carbon, rainfall infiltration, and soil fertility.

Permanent cover of forage plants is highly effective in reducing soil erosion and increasing soil infiltration.  Ruminants consuming grazed forages under appropriate management results in considerably more carbon sequestration than carbon emissions.

This overall approach is known as regenerative agriculture and is built around the ideas of practices that restore soil health and ecosystem function to support healthy agroecosystems. 

These ideas constitute alternatives to ones that call for the reduction or elimination of cattle and livestock agricultural production.  The future of agriculture needs to consider the full impacts of the entire food production chain and its environmental impacts.

**********

Web Links

Grazing Cattle Can Reduce Agriculture’s Carbon Footprint

Photo, posted April 27, 2010, courtesy of Beverly Moseley/USDA NRCS Texas via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Spending Habits And Carbon Emissions | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

According to a new Swedish study recently published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology, men spend their money on greenhouse gas-emitting goods and services, such as meat and fuel, at a much higher rate than women. 

The study looked at the carbon emissions created by consumption among categories like food, clothing, furniture, and vacations to see if households could reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by buying different products and services.  The research team reviewed Swedish government data through 2012 and analyzed the spending habits of households, single men, and single women. 

According to the study, single Swedish men spent about 2% more money overall than single Swedish women.  But the stuff that the men bought created 16% more greenhouse gases than the stuff that the women bought.  That’s because men were more likely to spend money on high-emitting categories, like fuel for cars, while women spent more on less-emitting categories like furniture, health care, and clothing. 

For both men and women, vacations were a major source of emissions, accounting for approximately one-third of their total carbon footprint. 

While the carbon impact of men’s and women’s diets were nearly equal, men spent more money on meat while women spent more on dairy.  Both meat and dairy production are major sources of global greenhouse gas emissions.   

The study found single people were responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than married people or people in households. 

According to the research team, people could decrease their carbon emissions nearly 40% by making more environmentally-friendly choices, including switching to plant-based foods and traveling by train as opposed to flying or driving when possible. 

**********   

Web Links

Men have a bigger carbon footprint than women, climate study finds

Photo, posted June 17, 2012, courtesy of Stephen Ausmus/USDA via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Upstate Energy Storage | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

In August, the New York Power Authority announced the start of construction on one of the largest battery energy storage projects in the nation.  Located in Franklin County at the very top of New York State, the project will comprise 20 MW of lithium ion battery storage that will help the state meet its peak power needs by absorbing excess generation that can be discharged later when the grid demands it.

The Northern New York region gets more than 80% of its electricity supply from renewable sources, including the St. Lawrence hydropower project and more than 650 MW of wind generation.  Having the ability to store some of this renewable energy for later delivery will help to eliminate transmission constraints that can prevent energy from being delivered to consumers.

The battery storage facility is one of two such large systems in the state.  The other one is a 20 MW battery storage system developed by Key Capture Energy in Stillwater in Saratoga County.  That project, which was funded by NYSERDA under the state’s Bulk Storage incentive program, is connected to the wholesale transmission network and is a revenue source for Key Capture, an independent utility-scale battery storage developer based in Albany.

The new storage project’s location is an ideal opportunity to spotlight the value of energy storage given the proximity of the hydropower project and extensive wind resources.  Being able to store renewable energy will improve transmission of the state’s electric power to downstate markets as well as help meet the state’s goals for reducing its carbon footprint and increasing its reliance upon renewable energy.

**********

Web Links

Construction begins on NYPA’s second large-scale storage project

Photo courtesy of ceedub13, CC BY 2.0.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Lifestyle And Carbon Footprint | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Many studies have shown, to no great surprise, that affluent lifestyles lead to larger carbon footprints. Households in Switzerland enjoy a high standard of living and a team of researchers there has been studying the consumption and travel habits of Swiss citizens to better understand the impact of various factors on carbon footprint. Key factors include household composition and income, and whether the households are in the city or the countryside – even though, in the end, people’s lifestyles do not differ greatly from one environment to another. 

A team of researchers at EPFL’s School of Architecture, Civil and Environmental Engineering analyzed data from Switzerland’s household budget survey for 2008, 2011 and 2014.  They combined that data with an environmentally extended input-output analysis to assess households’ carbon footprints by measuring their direct and indirect emissions.

Overall, households in the countryside have larger carbon footprints than those in the city, mainly because they travel more and use more energy in their homes. But urban households have larger carbon footprints than their rural counterparts when it comes to food, clothing, cultural activities and air travel.  

A household’s composition directly influences its carbon footprint. A two-person household has the largest per-capita carbon footprint, and it falls as the size of the family grows since many of the same resources are shared by more people. 

Income levels play an important role.  People consume without much thought because they can afford to and enjoy doing it. But there is a trend towards people becoming more conscious of their levels of consumption and trying to be more responsible in Switzerland.  Overall consumption has actually declined over the years studied.  

**********

Web Links

Our carbon footprint is highly impacted by how we live

Photo, posted December 19, 2017, courtesy of Alexander Kozik via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Livestock And Sustainable Food Systems | Earth Wise

By Leave a Comment

Animal-based agriculture has endured a great deal of criticism with regard to its contributions to climate change and its other environmental impacts.  But its contributions to a sustainable food system are by no means all bad.  In fact, livestock play important roles in sustainable, regenerative agro-food systems.

Animals’ natural biological processes enable them to consume plant and food residues that are either indigestible by humans, unpalatable to people, or are no longer sellable for various reasons, all referred to as IUUB biomass.  There are many examples.

One dairy farm receives daily deliveries of apple waste from a processing facility that supplies apple slices for school lunches.  Another local dairy gets three truckloads of vegetable and fruit discards, along with expired bread products, each week.  No longer useful for consumers, these foodstuffs become feed for cattle rather than going to a landfill.  Even the booming market for plant-based foods like artificial meat for consumers has generated a surge of processing byproducts that can be consumed by livestock.

On a national scale, livestock are consuming millions of pounds of otherwise unusable IUUB created in the production of products like soybean and canola oils, orange juice, ethanol, and more.

While the livestock industry needs to keep working to minimize its environmental impact and there are many reasons to eat less meat, livestock farming is an integral part of our agro-food systems.  Farmers are embracing techniques to produce meat, milk and eggs as efficiently and sustainably as possible, minimizing agriculture’s climate-contributing footprint in the process.

**********

Web Links

Amazing Cows Hold Promise in Pioneering Sustainable Food Systems

Photo, posted May 11, 2019, courtesy of Theo Stikkelman via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Why Choose Chicken Over Beef?

By Leave a Comment

Food production is a major driver of climate change.  It’s responsible for more than a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions.  But the environmental impact of different foods varies greatly, and making seemingly insignificant changes can actually have significant impacts. 

According to a first-ever national study of U.S. eating habits and their carbon footprints, choosing chicken over beef will cut your dietary carbon footprint in half.

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey asked more than 16,000 participating Americans to name all the foods they consumed in the past 24 hours. The research team then calculated the carbon footprint of what people said they ate.  If a respondent consumed broiled beef steak, for example, researchers calculated what the carbon footprint would have been had broiled chicken been consumed instead.   

The study’s findings illustrate how making one simple substitution can significantly reduce a person’s dietary carbon footprint.  A diet’s carbon footprint is the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that result from the energy, fertilizer, land use, and other inputs necessary to produce food.

In general, animal-based foods have a bigger carbon footprint than plant-based foods.  For example, producing beef uses 20 times the land and emits 20 times the emissions as growing beans (per gram of protein), and requires 10 times more resources than producing chicken. 

According to the World Resources Institute, keeping the increase in global warming below 2°C will be impossible without limiting the global rise in meat consumption. 

Last year, the EAT-Lancet Commission report found that a radical transformation of the global food system was needed because it’s threatening the stability of the climate. 

Make a change – big or small – today. 

**********

Web Links

Choosing chicken over beef cuts our carbon footprints a surprising amount

Photo, posted August 30, 2011, courtesy of Ken Hawkins via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Meal Kits And The Environment

By Leave a Comment

Meal kit services have become extremely popular in recent years.  These are companies that deliver a box of pre-portioned ingredients and a chef-created recipe to your door to make home-cooked meals easy and practical for busy people.  Leading companies like Blue Apron, HelloFresh, and Plated have been joined by dozens of others competing in the meal kit market.  As of last year, annual sales for these things were over $3 billion and growing at more than a 20% annual rate.

A major rap against meal kits has been their environmental impact, mostly centered around the amount of packaging waste they generate.  While there is most certainly lots of packaging waste associated with meal kits, it turns out that their overall carbon footprint is actually rather good compared with conventional ways to make homecooked meals.

A study from the University of Michigan looked at the cradle-to-grave impact of meal kits, taking into account every major step in the lifetime of the food ingredients and the packaging – agricultural production, packaging production, distribution, supply chain losses, consumption, and waste generation.

Surprisingly, meal kits have a much lower overall carbon footprint than the same meals made from ingredients purchased at the grocery store – even including their packaging.  The main reason is that pre-portioned ingredients and a streamlined supply chain lower overall food losses and waste for meal kits compared to store-bought meals.  Pre-portioning simply results in fewer ingredients that end up being wasted.  Meal kits also have radically different supply chain structures than foods sold in supermarkets.

Whether the economics and culinary aspects of meals kits are advantageous for many people is an open question, but apparently from an environmental perspective, they are just fine.

**********

Web Links

Climate change has worsened global economic inequality

Photo, posted June 11, 2018, courtesy of Marco Verch via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

A Quiet Clean Energy Revolution

By Leave a Comment

While the Trump administration seeks to prop up and promote use of fossil fuels, the country continues to move in the opposite direction.  Last year was actually a pretty positive year for clean energy in the U.S.

In terms of public opinion, 70% of Americans surveyed believe the country should produce 100% of its electricity from renewable energy sources and more than half of survey respondents think renewables are a good idea even if they raise energy bills.

Companies in the U.S. purchased a record 6.43 gigawatts of renewable power, enough to power 1.5 million homes.  The number of corporations entering into renewable energy deals doubled last year.

More than 300 U.S. cities, towns or counties have made commitments to climate action and, as of November, 99 cities have committed to 100% renewable energy, doubling the total from a year ago.

A number of gubernatorial candidates running on ambitious renewable energy platforms were elected in November including those in Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, Maine and Nevada.

Utilities are responding to the growing demand for clean energy.  Consumers Energy in Michigan plans to cut carbon emissions by 80% and stop using coal.  Iowa-based MidAmerican Energy will become the first U.S. utility to source 100% of its electricity from renewable sources next year.  Xcel Energy, one of the biggest utilities in the country, has committed to be 80% carbon-free by 2030 and go completely carbon-free by 2050.

The fossil fuel industry with its supporters in high places is still kicking and screaming, but there is no doubt that the U.S. energy system is changing, and the quiet clean energy revolution will only pick up more steam in 2019.

**********

Web Links

The US Underwent a Quiet Clean Energy Revolution Last Year

Photo, posted August 15, 2009, courtesy of Ken via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Food Production And Climate Change

By Leave a Comment

According to a University of Oxford study recently published in the journal Science, food production is a major driver of climate change as it’s responsible for 26% of all greenhouse gas emissions.  But the research team found that the environmental impact of different foods varied greatly. 

Meat and other animal products are responsible for 58% of all food-related greenhouse gas emissions, despite only providing approximately one-fifth of the calories we consume.  The researchers found that beef and lamb in particular have the most damaging effect on the planet, responsible for half of all greenhouse gas emissions from animal agriculture. 

These findings echo recommendations from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change about how individuals can reduce their carbon footprint through diet.  The IPCC suggests we consume less meat and dairy products, consume more locally-sourced seasonal foods, and throw less food in the trash.  

Avoiding meat and dairy products can reduce an individual’s carbon footprint from food by two-thirds.  The effects of doing so include everything from conserving water and preserving biodiversity to reducing pollution and deforestation. 

Interestingly, the same food can have major differences in terms of environmental impacts.  For example, beef raised on deforested land is responsible for 12 times as many greenhouse gas emissions as that raised on natural pastures.  But even the most climate-friendly meat options are still responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than the highest-impact vegetable proteins, like beans and nuts. 

Big differences can also be made by avoiding chocolate and coffee produced from deforested lands.  

To learn more about the climate impact of your diet, follow the link to the ‘Climate Change Food Calculator’ on our website: Earth-Wise-Radio.org. 

**********

Web Links

Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers

Climate change food calculator

Photo, posted June 21, 2011, courtesy of USDA NRCS Montana via Flickr.

Earth Wise is a production of WAMC Northeast Public Radio.

Tourism And Greenhouse Gas Emissions

By Leave a Comment

Tourism is a significant contributor to global gross domestic product.  Furthermore, it is growing at an annual rate of 4%, more than many other economic sectors.  There are many places around the world where it is the largest industry.  But until recently, there really wasn’t very good information about its carbon footprint.

[Read more…] about Tourism And Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Is A Real Christmas Tree Or A Fake One Better for the Planet? 

By 2 Comments

For many, the Christmas tree is a quintessential part of the holiday season.  According to the American Christmas Tree Association, 81% of Christmas trees Americans decorated in 2016 were artificial.  But are artificial trees really the better option for the environment?

[Read more…] about Is A Real Christmas Tree Or A Fake One Better for the Planet? 

Air Travel And Global Warming

By Leave a Comment

Air travel is pretty carbon intensive.  For those of us who take plane trips, it represents a substantial part of our individual carbon footprints. It isn’t that plane travel is inefficient fuel-wise on a miles-per-gallon-per-passenger basis compared with driving, for example.  It is just that we go so much farther on planes.   Currently, aviation accounts for only a few percent of overall carbon emissions, but that is changing for two reasons.

[Read more…] about Air Travel And Global Warming

WAMC Northeast Public Radio

WAMC/Northeast Public Radio is a regional public radio network serving parts of seven northeastern states (more...)