Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)
How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:
Transcript
How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:
Today almost everything that goes into your car’s gas tank started as oil. But in the future it could be very different.
“The fuels that we will be moving towards are electricity, biofuels and hydrogen mostly.”
Daniel Sperling is a member of the California Air Resources Board which voted in the new rule.
Sperling says the goal is to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle fuels. That could mean oil companies might even have to buy credits from power companies for electric cars.
“You start transforming the oil industry, getting off of oil. I mean that’s what we talk about and this is a policy that will actually do it.”
The California rule even looks at how much greenhouse gas pollution goes into making corn ethanol.
Oil companies say fuel prices will definitely go up in California.
Economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Transcript
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Under some of the cap and trade plans, oil and gas companies would have to buy pollution permits.
But these companies want them for free.
They say if they’re forced to pay, they’ll have to pass the cost onto you and me.
But economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what.
That’s because things like coal, oil, and natural gas will be restriced.
And they say that’s what drives prices up.
Chad Stone is the Chief Economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
He says if pollution permits are bought at an auction, the money can be passed onto you and me. But it’s different if they’re just given away for free.
“If you don’t auction, you don’t have any revenue and consumers only get a hit to their budgets.”
Stone says if the pollution permits are auctioned, you could be getting a check in the mail or a tax credit to help you pay for higher energy bills.
These Suzukis at Ken Butman's dealership, which were in high demand last year, are now sitting unsold (Photo by Samara Freemark)
Chances are, you haven’t bought a new car this year. Auto sales are down across the board – including in the small car and electric-gas hybrid markets. Now some dealers and automakers are proposing a way to move some of those cars: increase the gas tax. Samara Freemark explains why the same people who sell cars might want to make driving them more expensive:
Transcript
Chances are, you haven’t bought a new car this year. Auto sales are down across the board – including in the small car and electric-gas hybrid markets. Now some dealers and automakers are proposing a way to move some of those cars: increase the gas tax. Samara Freemark explains why the same people who sell cars might want to make driving them more expensive:
It was almost exactly this time last year that Ford dealer Ken Butman
traded in his pickup for a Suzuki hatchback.
His Ann Arbor, Michigan
dealership had been selling Suzukis for a couple of years. But they got
really popular last spring when gas prices jumped. Butman ordered a big
shipment to keep up with the demand.
“These are the Suzukis. These little cars get good gas mileage. And
they’re so cute. Look at them. Look at this one here. It’s got a little
rack for your skis. Look at
that.”
But those cars – the ones Butman ordered a year ago – most of them are
still here. They’re still sitting on his lot. Not moving.
“It was strange because they were so hot. For awhile there you couldn’t
give a big car away. And everybody was rushing to the small cars. And then
just as quickly, about when the price of gas came down again, we saw a
complete reversal. Like a light switch. That’s how fast it cut off.”
It’s been like that all over the country. Dealers who last year had
waiting lists for hybrids and small cars suddenly have a lot of extra
inventory. Sales of hybrids are way down from last April, mostly because
gas costs about half what it did last year.
Brett Smith is an auto analyst with the Center for Automotive Research. He
says consumers only really care about fuel economy when gas prices are
high. When gas hits about 4 dollars a gallon, consumers switch to fuel
efficient cars. When prices drop again, so do sales of efficient cars.
“Look at what’s happened every time we’ve had an energy crisis. We’ve
gone to smaller cars for a couple of years, and then the consumer has gone
back to larger cars. Why? Because at that fuel price they can get away with
it, they can justify it.”
It’s a real problem for dealers. It also worries auto manufacturers who
have poured money into developing hybrids and have a lot of new models due
to come out this year.
And that’s why some people who sell cars have begun to push for
increasing the gas tax.
Dealers and auto executives might not seem like the first bunch to line up
behind a tax hike. Traditionally they’ve lobbied hard against anything
that makes driving more expensive.
But a high tax – and therefore, higher gas prices – could get all those extra
hybrids moving again.
Michael Jackson is the CEO at AutoNation. That’s the
nation’s largest chain of dealership.
Jackson wants to see gas at four
dollars a gallon – the figure at which many analysts say consumer behavior
changes. And he thinks the government can keep prices at that magic number
with a floating tax.
Auto makers have been a little more cautious. But some top executives at
American companies have called Jackson’s ideas ‘smart’ and ‘worth
looking into’.
Smith says they believe that higher gas taxes could
stabilize the market for fuel efficient cars – making investment in new
technologies a safer bet.
“The car companies will rarely come out and loudly say, things like, ‘we
think there needs to be a gas tax.’ But almost all of them will say on the
side, if you want people to drive more fuel efficient cars, the best way to
do it is a gas tax.”
For now, though, it might not take a big tax to bring gas prices back up.
Oil trader Anthony Grisanti is the president of GRZ Energy. He says an
economic recovery would do pretty much the same thing.
“Shouldn’t be any doubt about it, once the economy picks up, say,
beginning of next year or year after that, you’re going to start to see oil
prices go higher.”
And that means prices at the pump would go up too.
Proposing higher gas taxes – especially of a couple of dollars a gallon – can
mean career suicide for politicians. So a big hike in the gas tax seems
iffy. But if gas prices rise as the economy recovers, dealers might see
those fuel efficient cars move off the lot again.
Some think that a gas tax is the only way to get consumers to buy fuel efficient cars (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
Some in the auto industry are proposing a hike in the gasoline tax. The idea is this: if you want people to buy small cars, make gasoline more expensive. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Some in the auto industry are proposing a hike in the gasoline tax. The idea is this: if you want people to buy small cars, make gasoline more expensive. Lester Graham reports:
Car dealers and manufacturers say a higher gas price is the only thing that gets people buying more fuel efficient cars. So, a tax hike makes sense.
But, a guy who has a lot of sway on the idea of a gas tax hike is not going there.
Congressman Ed Markey chairs a House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
At a forum at MIT he said the plan is to stick with CAFÉ — the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards – to get better mileage cars.
“That’s the route that we’re taking rather and an increase in the gasoline tax. We’re moving towards a mandate and 35 miles per gallon is the minimum that we intend on reaching by 2020.”
And under the stimulus package, new tax credits amounting to thousands of dollars get kicked-back to anyone buying a fuel efficient car.
A proposed program would allow car owners to trade in their gas-guzzling clunkers and get a cash incentive towards a new, more efficient car. (Photo by Martin Hans, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
A proposed cash for clunkers program might jump start the auto industry and help the environment at the same time. Tamara Keith reports the idea is getting some traction in Washington DC:
Transcript
A proposed cash for clunkers program might jump start the auto industry and help the environment at the same time. Tamara Keith reports the idea is getting some traction in Washington DC:
The idea is: if you bring in your old gas guzzler, you’d get money to buy a new fuel-efficient car. The gas guzzler? Straight to the junk yard , getting older, smog belching vehicles off the road. John McEleney is the chairman of the national automobile dealers association. He says how much you’d get would be based on how fuel efficient the new car is. For instance, if you bought a car that gets 27 miles to the gallon:
“They might qualify for say a $3500 incentive. If they instead purchased a vehicle that was rated at 33 miles a gallon that incentive could then go to $5000.”
One big question is whether only American-made cars would qualify. That’s one of the issues congress and the white house will have to work out– Oh, along with figuring out where the money would come from. For the Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.
The coal industry hopes the federal government will help them find a way to catch and store the carbon coming from smokestacks.
The coal industry got hit with expensive
pollution restrictions almost two decades ago. Now, the government’s considering putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Coal companies think they have a technological solution in a test project called FutureGen. In the
second part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they
have such high hopes for it:
Transcript
The coal industry got hit with expensive
pollution restrictions almost two decades ago. Now, the government’s considering putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Coal companies think they have a technological solution in a test project called FutureGen. In the
second part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they
have such high hopes for it:
The last time the federal government put a price on coal pollution was in 1990.
Power plants had to start paying for sulphur dioxide that came out of smoke stacks and caused acid rain.
To clean up, many burned cleaner coal.
That was bad news for Illinois miner Chris Nielsen.
He happened to mine some of the dirtiest coal.
“A good portion of the economy around here was built on coal industry. And coal mining jobs not only paid a good wage, they had terrific benefits. And as the industry went soft, people lost the best jobs they ever had.”
Cleanup technology improved, but it took nearly two decades to make burning the highest-sulpher coal economical again.
Nielsen says today, coal executives worry they’ll lose profits if the government prices carbon dioxide.
And coal miners worry they’ll lose jobs again.
The industry wants new plants that do two things: first, they capture carbon dioxide while burning coal, and then bury, or sequester this carbon dioxide – so it stays out of the atmosphere.
Nielsen says there’s a plant like that in the works, it’s called FutureGen.
“We can burn the coal in a clean, environmentally friendly manner. The FutureGen project where they were going to sequester the carbon dioxide was a terrific opportunity to show that.”
Well, Nielsen’s jumping the gun.
FutureGen hasn’t proved anything; it’s not even built.
The coal industry and the government were supposed to design and fund FutureGen, then build it in Central Illinois.
The government and coal companies fought over how much the plant would cost but now, it’s likely to move forward.
Even with a sketchy history though, the industry’s got almost no choice but to be hopeful for FutureGen.
The industry wants carbon dioxide capture and sequestration to work – otherwise, it’s gonna pay big for carbon pollution.
Not everyone’s so confident in the technology.
“We can not depend on carbon capture and sequestration to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions because we don’t know whether it’s going to work.”
That’s Ron Burke, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
He says FutureGen is worth testing but it shouldn’t distract us from technology we know is low-carbon.
“There are ways to meet the greenhouse gas reductions targets that we need to meet without carbon capture and sequestration. We can do it, it’s primarily through in investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the near term.”
There’re energy researchers who aren’t so sure enough renewable energy like wind and solar will be available soon enough.
One is of them is Ernest Moniz at MIT.
“We have a ways to go for let’s say, solar, to scale up. Right now, it’s less than point 1% of our electricity.”
Coal generates nearly half our electricity.
Moniz says it won’t be easy to replace, but it might be possible to improve it.
He says its likely carbon dioxide capture and sequestration can work technically.
But he says we need to build FutureGen to answer whether it works efficiently and economically.
“Well, if we are going to establish a new technology, like sequestration, and be able to have it not only demonstrated but then deployed and implemented, that means we would need to start, preferably yesterday, but at worst, today.”
For Moniz, FutureGen could be clean coal’s first major test – not just of whether it works – but whether it’s too expensive.
Right now, cars get an average 27 and a half miles per gallon. By
2011, they'll have to get 30.2 (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new vehicle fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. As Tracy Samilton reports, it’s the first change since 1985:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued new vehicle fuel economy standards for cars and trucks. As Tracy Samilton reports, it’s the first change since 1985:
Right now, cars get an average 27 and a half miles per gallon. By
2011, they’ll have to get 30.2. Light trucks, including SUVs, will
have to get 24.1 miles per gallon, up a mile per gallon.
Eli Hopson
is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says the change is not
dramatic but it’s still an important milestone.
“The car standards haven’t
changed. They’ve been at 27.5 for over twenty years. It is a big deal. It’s
been a long time in coming.”
Carmakers are prepared for the new standard and say they’ll meet it.
Future standards will be tougher.
Auto companies usually complain
when mileage standards are raised. But times have changed, especially
for Chrysler and GM. They might not be as vocal since accepting
billions in federal loans.
A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:
Transcript
A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:
Ten northeastern states have been working for years on an agreement to reduce the emissions that cause global warming.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative limits the amount of carbon dioxide power plants will be allowed to emit and puts a price on carbon allowances.
But, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, is changing the rules for his state.
The New York power generators complained existing contracts don’t include all the costs of the allowances. So, Governor Paterson plans to give those power generators some free allowances. That puts the other nine states’ power companies at a disadvantage.
Luis Martinez is with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council.
“You know, I’m wishing, I’m hoping that he changes his mind once he realizes how important this is not only for the people of New York, but as a precedent for federal policy-making.”
Martinez hopes the other governors in the Northeast don’t follow Paterson’s example.
A corn ethanol refinery- The ethanol industry is asking the EPA to raise the legal limit of ethanol that can be added to regular gasoline from 10 to 15%. (Photo by Grant Hellman, Courtesy of US Department of Agriculture)
In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent. Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent:
Transcript
In the 1970s, the government limited the amount of ethanol that can be blended with gasoline at 10 percent.
Now, a trade group called Growth Energy has asked the U-S EPA to raise the limit to 15 percent.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has already said that 12 or 13 percent ethanol is possible soon.
But, an environmental groups says, “slow down.”
Jeremy Martin is with the Union of Concerned Scientists. He says, first, the government should make sure that a higher-ethanol blend doesn’t damage pollution controls on vehicle engines.
“We don’t want to quickly make a change and then find out that we’ve caused a lot of damage to lots of vehicles on the road or caused a lot of air quality impacts.”
Supporters of the increased ethanol blend say it would help US corn farmers and reduce the demand for foreign oil. But opponents say ethanol made from corn does more harm to the environment than good.
Artist's concept of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. The satellite crashed into the ocean on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009.
(Photo courtesy NASA Jet Propulsion Library)
(NOTE: THE SATELLITE FEATURED IN THIS STORY CRASHED INTO THE OCEAN ON TUESDAY, FEB. 24TH)
Drive your car. Mow your lawn. Heat your house. It all puts climate changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But not all of the carbon dioxide stays up there. Vincent Duffy reports scientists at NASA hope a new satellite will help them solve the mystery of where some of that CO2 goes:
Transcript
(NOTE: THE CARBON SATELLITE CRASHED INTO THE OCEAN ON TUESDAY, FEB. 24TH)
Drive your car. Mow your lawn. Heat your house. It all puts climate changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But not all of the carbon dioxide stays up there. Vincent Duffy reports scientists at NASA hope a new satellite will help them solve the mystery of where some of that CO2 goes:
People worried about climate change pay a lot of attention to carbon dioxide.
It’s one of the chief causes of climate change. And people put a lot of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, almost 8 billion tons a year.
That has former Vice President Al Gore worried. Here he is testifying before
Congress last month –
“Our home, earth, is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the
planet itself of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for
human beings.”
If we are in danger, then scientists need a good handle on what happens to
all that carbon dioxide.
About half of the CO2 created by humans is absorbed back into the earth by
what scientists call ‘carbon sinks.’ Scientists know half of the absorbed
carbon dioxide goes into the oceans, and the other half is sucked up by
plants. But scientists don’t know which plants are absorbing the most carbon
dioxide, and how the CO2 travels there.
The scientists at NASA hope a new satellite, called the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, will help them answer those questions.
David Crisp heads up the project. He says measuring carbon dioxide levels
from the ground doesn’t provide enough information to know where the
CO2 actually ends up.
“But from space we can actually make much more detailed measurements,
make a snapshot of the carbon dioxide distribution in the atmosphere. That
will give us much more information about where the carbon dioxide is and
from that we can infer where the sources are and where the sinks are.”
Right now it’s a bit of a blur. Anna Michalak is a professor at the University
of Michigan and part of the NASA team. She says to track what’s going on
with all the CO2 on the earth is like trying to figure out how cream went into
a cup of coffee.
“If I give you a cup of coffee, and I pour cream into the cup of coffee, and I
ask you what’s going to happen when I start stirring, it’s pretty easy to
predict that you’ll have a creamy cup of coffee. But what we do instead is
someone hands us a creamy cup of coffee and asks us, ‘Did we pour the
cream in on the left side or the right side, and did we pour the cream in five
minutes ago or ten minutes ago?’ And you can imagine that’s a much more
difficult question.”
Michalak says the satellite observatory will help answer that difficult
question, and help us understand how plants may react to carbon dioxide in
the future, as the earth’s climate changes. She says right now plants seem to
be absorbing more CO2 than ever before.
“And we have no guarantee that this is going to continue in the future. And
so you can imagine that something that has such a high value, there is an
interest in us knowing how predictable and how reliable this service is to us.
Because the cost for us to replicate anything resembling that is just
astronomical.”
The satellite will also answer other questions about climate change. Things
like which countries emit the most CO2.
Jiaguo Qi studies climate change at Michigan State University. He says the
satellite may show that people concerned about the cost of reducing green
house gasses may unfairly blame the United States and other developed
nations.
“Media report that North America is primarily responsible for global
warming. But we don’t know how much carbon dioxide other countries are
emitting, because we donít have good measure. This one will tell us who is
emitting and how much they are emitting instead of just blaming us.”
And the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory might show that it’s not
just the forests and jungles that help keep climate change at bay. It might
also be forests and farmland in the United States, and your lawn, and even
golf courses.
Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)
