Month: March 2002

It’s been almost a year since President Bush announced the United States would not be participating in the Kyoto Protocol… an international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the time the President said the U.S. was still committed to the broader idea and would eventually do something about it. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Greg Dahlmann reports, President Bush now has a plan:

Transcript

It’s been almost a year since President Bush announced the United States would not be participating in the Kyoto Protocol… an international agreement aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the time, the President said the U.S. was still committed to the broader idea… and would eventually do something about it.  As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Greg Dahlmann reports, President Bush now has a plan:

G.W. Bush recording: “We must foster economic growth in ways that protect our environment. We must encourage growth that will provide a better life for citizens, while protecting the land, the water, and the air that sustain life.”

On that account… you’ll find a lot of agreement between the Bush administration and many environmentalists. But when you try to decide how to follow that road, consensus evaporates.

The administration says the best way is a new plan centered on the complex idea of emissions intensity. That’s a measure of how many tons of greenhouse gases are produced per unit of economic development. In other words… it’s the amount of greenhouse gas that’s expelled to make a car, or a computer or a kilowatt of electricity. The President’s plan calls for an 18-percent cut in this intensity.

“The Bush policy is a sham… nothing is really going to be reduced.”

David Donniger is the policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate center.

“All emissions intensity is is a way of saying our emissions aren’t growing as fast as the economy… but they’re still going up… and they’re still going up just as fast as they have been for the last ten years.”

Or you can think of this way… say you’re making apple pies. You bake 10 pies and each pie gets ten apples. You end up using a hundred apples and each pie has an apple intensity of ten. But your pies are really good… so you decide to bake some more… let’s say a hundred. But this time around you figure out how to use only 5 apples per pie. So you’re apple intensity for this round is only 5… but you’ve ended up using 500 apples this time… compared to a hundred during the first round.

Our economy works much the same way… but on a bigger scale. So, while emissions intensity may go down under the Bush plan… it’s estimated the actual continued rise of emissions would leave U.S. emissions 30-percent higher than 1990 levels in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol calls for America to be 7-percent below the 1990 mark at that point.

President Bush has said on numerous occasions that he rejected Kyoto because it would significantly harm the U.S. economy by harshly forcing down emissions. The administration is touting the new Bush plan as a much more gradual and easier turn for the nation to make.

Eileen Claussen is president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. She thinks Kyoto would be too strict for the U.S., but she disputes the President’s assertion that it would have a severe effect on the nation’s economy.

“But would there be some… yes… so could you do a little less and have none… yes… and would that be a more sensible course to take… there’s no question.”

Some observers have wondered if the new Bush plan would shake other countries’ support of Kyoto. Claussen says she talked to a number of people abroad following Bush’s announcement and is confident Kyoto has a future.

“I think it’s likely to go into effect this fall… and America will be an outlier.. Out with its own emissions growth program… while most developed countries are actually trying to reduce their emissions.”

“I think he’s going to find receptive audiences around the world… and I hope that other nations join us in this process.”

Eric Holdsworth is director of climate programs for the Edison Electric Institute… which represents the power plant industry. He says the Bush plan is a refreshing change of course from Kyoto. Much of the plan relies on industry voluntarily reducing its emissions for future considerations and tax credits. Environmental groups are skeptical that companies would act to reduce emissions when they’re not required to do so… but Holdsworth says this is what industry was waiting for.

“This is an approach that a lot of folks have talked about… certainly many in industry… we’ve argued this is a better approach than what’s enshrined in Kyoto… I think this is a chance for industry to go out and deliver.”

Environmentalists counter that industry may not have to deliver very much to meet the Bush plan’s 18-percent reduction. Greenhouse gas emissions intensity has fallen about 15-percent on its own over the last ten years. But the total real amount of emissions has increased 12-percent. Many environmentalists expect to see that pattern continue under the Bush plan.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium… I’m Greg Dahlmann.

A television ad for a car company has created a battle between hunting interests and animal welfare groups, but as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium ’s Jonathan Ahl reports, only one side’s voice is being heard:

Transcript

A television ad for a car company has created a battle between hunting interests and animal welfare groups. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports, only one side’s voice is being heard:

Toward the end of the past football season, the Jeep company ran a TV ad that featured hunters admiring two seemingly dead deer tied to the roof of a Jeep. The vehicle’s owner then drives into an area marked with a sign that says “no hunting zone.” He unties the deer, which are not dead, and they leap to safety. Within hours, Jeep’s parent company Daimler-Chrysler was inundated with calls from hunting groups and National Rifle Association members complaining the ad was unfair. Jeep pulled the ad and it hasn’t run since. Kelly Whitley is an NRA spokesperson. She says the company did the right thing:

“We don’t think it reflected hunters accurately, and we felt it really didn’t do anything for the corporation, and certainly, as far as our members were concerned. They weren’t interested in buying a jeep after they saw the ad.”

But once word spread that the ad was pulled,
animal welfare and rights groups including People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals and the ASPCA sent out emails to their members
encouraging them to call a toll-free number where a poll was underway on
whether to restore the ad. When people called the line, they received this
automated message:

“If you would like to register your comments about the Jeep Deer Hunter
Ad, please press one.”

(phone beep)

“If you are satisfied with the commercial and would like to see it
continue running, please press one.”

(beep)

(automated message sound continues under)

While it appeared to be a poll concerning the ad, the information was not being collected and passed on to Jeep. Daimler Chrysler hires an outside firm to handle its customer relations phone calls. That company took it upon itself to set up the automated system to deflect callers wanting to complain about the ad, so that other customers with questions about their Jeeps could get through to live operators. Daimler Chrysler spokesperson James Kenyon says the company was never authorized to set up the fake poll. He says Jeep is not considering putting the ad back on the air. He says the company wants to sell Jeeps, not create a debate on hunting:

“The ad was intended to do one thing, and people saw something else that was not intended to be there. We have even heard from people who felt that since that ad ran, we should run a pro-hunting ad. Well, that misses the point again.”

While Kenyon says Jeep will not take a stand in a debate on hunting, he does acknowledge that hunters make up a substantial part of the company’s customer base. The automated poll was taken down about an hour after our interview with Kenyon. Animal welfare and rights groups, meanwhile, say Jeep had an opportunity to sell their product in a positive way, but were bullied by hunting interests. Karen Coangelo is a spokesperson for the ASPCA:

“I think some corporations are worried about any bad PR being bad for business. And obviously that is how jeep feels in this situation. I don’t think they are specifically NOT looking at what people are saying about the ad itself, I think they are just worried about business in general, which is somewhat unfortunate.”

Coangelo says she’s disappointed that Jeep listened to the concerns of the hunters more than the concerns of people interested in protecting animals. She also says the situation has been a learning experience. Coangelo says the ASPCA will do a better job of checking the validity of phone polls before calling on members to respond to them. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.

The U.S. Senate is taking up a long awaited national energy bill. Like a House version passed last year, the Senate is expected to support continued research and development into what’s called “clean coal technology.” Two Northeast Minnesota power plant proposals are based on the new technology, but some environmental groups say there’s no such thing as clean coal; especially at the edge of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bob Kelleher has more:

Transcript

The

U.S. Senate is taking up a long awaited national energy bill. Like a House version passed last year, the Senate is expected to support continued research and development into what’s called “clean coal technology.” Two Northeast Minnesota power plant proposals are based on the new technology. But some environmental groups say there’s no such thing as clean coal – especially at the edge of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bob Kelleher reports from Duluth:

When you flip on the lights in the Great Lakes region, chances are the source of your electricity is coal. Eighty three percent of Michigan’s electrical power is from coal, eighty six percent in Ohio, and ninety four percent in Indiana. But coal plant emissions are blamed for much of the environmental degradation around the lakes. Airborne mercury, sulfur and nitrogen compounds are blamed for acidic lakes; stunted trees, and poisoned fish and wildlife.

However, despite this dismal legacy, power generation using coal is once again becoming a growth industry. That’s because, in part, coal is abundant and inexpensive…

“The United States has approximately five hundred and fifty billion tons of coal reserves, which makes our country the Saudi Arabia of coal.”

Tom Sarkus directs the Coal Power Project Division at the National Research Laboratory in Pittsburgh – part of the government’s clean coal research project.

“And despite its reputation, coal is becoming increasingly clean, in terms of air emissions.”

Coal plays a major role in the Bush Administration’s energy plan. If enacted, the federal government would pump more than 3-billion dollars into so called clean coal technology over ten years. Senate democrats support the technology but at about half that level

One of those technologies is called coal gasification. Coal isn’t burned directly – it’s converted, using steam and high pressure, into a burnable gas. That gas is then used to produce energy. In Minnesota, plans are underway to build what could be the world’s largest coal gasification power plant. A two-thousand megawatt generator would be built on property already scarred by decades of iron mining. The plant’s fate likely rests with a new energy bill.

Meanwhile, just seventy miles away, another technology is being used to produce steam for a paper plant and electricity for the public. Coal and wastewood is suspended in a jet of air for a more complete burn. Rapids Energy expects nearly complete control of both nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides – major components of acid rain.

To some observers the return to coal is odd – it’s been the target of environmentalists for years.

Mike Murray is an Environmental Scientist with the National Wildlife Federation in Ann Arbor, Michigan. He worries about mercury found in at least trace amounts in most coal. It’s extremely toxic and hard to get rid of.

“Mercury contamination is a major cause of fish advisories around the country now, with forty one states having some type of mercury fish advisory in place. In fact, it’s the major cause of fish advisory by far.”

There’s promising technology to help control mercury emissions. Filter systems called scrubbers might pull mercury from a plant’s exhaust plume. And, in a gasification plant, mercury might be trapped in carbon injected into the gas stream. But so far, neither technology is proven one hundred percent effective.

Jane Reyer is a member of the Lake Superior Bi-National Forum. The Forum works to honor an agreement between the United States and Canada to end all emissions of nine toxic chemicals – including mercury, from the Lake Superior basin. A renewed push to coal-based industry appears to fly in the face of their efforts.

“It seems that that message has not gotten across to decision makers in other areas of the government. For instance, the Department of Energy that is putting a lot emphasis on clean coal technology probably has never heard of the Lake Superior Bi-National Program.”

And there’s another bugaboo with coal. Anna Aurilio, with the Washington based U.S. Public Interest Research Group, says there’s no such thing as clean coal.

“Burning coal releases carbon dioxide, which is the pollutant that is building up in the atmosphere, and which acts like a blanket; trapping the earth’s heat; and which is causing global warming.”

Global warming could cause dramatic changes in weather and rising sea levels. Environmentalists say coal produces one third of the nation’s CO2 emissions.

The higher efficiency of clean coal plants should reduce the amount of CO2 released for a given amount of electricity.

But that’s not good enough, according to Aurilio, who supports non-polluting technology like wind.

“We have the technology in this country, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; to reduce energy related pollution, and to save consumers money, by increasing energy efficiency, and to shift to truly clean energy sources.”

The tide may be behind coal. But the momentum of that tide will be measured over the next few weeks.

For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bob Kelleher.