October, 2009 - The Environment Report

Coal Will Not Go Quietly

In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made the unprecedented decision to deny a power company permits for a coal plant because of greenhouse gas emissions. (Photo courtesy of the Energy Information Administration)

Reducing the greenhouse gases that
cause global warming will mean less
reliance on fossil fuels, such as coal.
Almost two years ago, Kansas became
the first state ever to deny permits
for a coal plant because of greenhouse
gas emissions. Since then, there have
been lawsuits on all sides. Even the
compromise the Governor in Kansas reached
with the coal company in May is now
stalled. Devin Browne reports that
coal just will not go quietly:

Transcript

The Sunflower Electric Power Corporation had actually applied and been
approved for a permit to build a new coal plant in 2002. But, for whatever
reason, they let the permit expire. Seemed like no big deal at the time
– they figured they’d get another one whenever they turned in another
application.

Except that they didn’t. In the fall of 2007, the state of Kansas made
the unprecedented decision to deny the power company. Cindy Hertel is with
Sunflower.

“It would be like going for your drivers license, taking the drivers
test, passing it, then being denied your drivers license because you
don’t drive a Prius. Can’t change the rules in the middle of the game.
And that’s what happened.”

Rod Bremby is the Secretary of Health and Environment in Kansas. He says
the state didn’t really change the rules on regulating CO2 because there
aren’t any rules on CO2. And since there’s no federal regulations,
Secretary Bremby instituted a state regulation. He said it would be
irresponsible not to regulate the gases causing climate change.

Stephanie Cole with the Sierra Club called it a watershed moment.

“We were excited, we were stunned – however, it wasn’t long after
that, legislators from Western Kansas started making comments that they
disapproved of Secretary Bremby’s decision and that they were going to
make legislative attempts to overturn the permit denial. So victory was
short-lived.”

Since then, the power company, Sunflower, has hired lobbyists. They’ve
helped legislators draft new bills to allow the coal-burning power plant.
The power company sued both the previous and current governor for civil
rights violations. For two years – nothing.

Then Kansas got a new governor – Mark Parkinson. Almost immediately
after he became governor last May, he cut a deal with Sunflower. Stop the
lawsuits. Build only one unit, not two or three. And, most importantly to
the Governor’s agenda, put in transmission lines to Colorado so that
Kansas can start exporting wind energy out of state.

Kansas is the third windiest state in the country. But it needs
infrastructure to get that wind-power to other states. And, in the
governor’s deal, power companies like Sunflower help build that
infrastructure.

Cole, with the Sierra Club, said the deal was very much a let-down.

“Because it is very troubling to many of us who have been involved in
this so long. It is such a disappointment.”

For a moment the battle seemed to be over. But, it wasn’t.

In July, Sunflower received a letter from the EPA asking them to submit a
new application for a permit. John Knodel is an environmental engineer
with the EPA.

“It’s not appropriate, in our mind, that they take an application that
was for three 700 MW units and simply say, ‘that was bigger, this project
is smaller.’ We say, ‘you have to go through a process and make it
very clear what this new project is all about.’”

Now that the EPA is stepping in, Sunflower & the Sierra Club are back to
square one.

The power company is expected to turn in its new application this fall.
The Sierra Club is expected to fight it. And Sunflower is expected to
fight back.

Cindy Hertel with Sunflower says the power company is just trying to keep
electricity bills low.

Hertel: “This is still in the best interest of our members.”

Browne: “This still makes sense economically?”

Hertel: “It still makes sense. What people need to know is that we are
cost biased, not fuel biased.”

Browne: “And, right now, for Sunflower, that means coal.”

But it might not be coal for very long.

The U.S. House passed a bill last winter that includes a hefty carbon tax
and incentives for renewable energy. A similar bill was recently
introduced in the Senate.

If it passes, Kansas might find its wind energy not only beats coal in
price, but wind-power could become the next big export for the state.

For The Environment Report, I’m Devin Browne.

National Parks Hit by Climate

Glacier National Park in Montana. (Photo courtesy of the National Park Service)

A new report warns that US National
Parks will be affected by global warming.
Tanya Ott reports rising sea
levels and changing habitat will mean
major changes:

Transcript

A new report warns that US National
Parks will be affected by global warming.
Tanya Ott reports rising sea
levels and changing habitat will mean
major changes:

Forget melting ice-caps. Stephen Saunders wants you to picture your favorite
vacation spot closer to home.

“Climate disruption caused by humans is the greatest threat to all of our national parks.”

Saunders is president of the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. Their new
report identifies 25 national parks, lakeshores, seashores and monuments
most at risk from warming temperatures, rising sea levels and retreating
snow.

So what does that mean? Among other things, wildlife is going to
have to move to other areas. The report recommends the Park Service work
with private landowners to create special wildlife corridors for migration.

Right now, the US Senate is considering clean energy and climate
legislation. The House passed its climate bill in June.

For The Environment Report, I”m Tanya Ott.

A Look Into Coal Country

The filmmakers want more Americans to understand that when we flick on a light switch – it is not a meaningless act. It takes electricity. And that takes coal. (Photo courtesy of Coal Country)

When the Senate picks up debate
on the climate change bill, it
will be – in part – deciding the
future of coal as an energy source
in the U.S. About half the nation’s
electricity currently comes from
coal. And a lot of it comes from
the Appalachian region. A new
documentary film sets out to show
how mining for coal affects the people
who live in Coal Country. Julie Grant
spoke with the film’s producers:

Transcript

Mari-Lynn Evans and Phylis Geller set out to make the movie Coal Country
because they wanted to show how different people are affected by coal
mining.

They found lots of activists, and regular citizens, who would talk with
them. Plenty of people were willing to show the thick black water in their
toilet tanks. They wanted to show the black soot covering their cars.
They wanted to talk about the health problems they live with. And they all
blamed the coal industry.

Evans also wrote to coal supporters – to get their side of the story on
camera. The answer?

“No. That was their response. I sent out requests to the coal industry,
to coal companies and to suppliers of the coal industry.”

Evans brother is a coal miner. He supports mountain top removal.

(sound of explosions)

As we see in the movie, that’s when coal companies blow off the entire
top of a mountain to get to the coal. Many people consider it the most
polluting and environmentally devastating type of mining.

But Evans says not even her own brother would do an interview about it.

“And when I said, ‘why won’t you talk on camera? You feel so
passionately that coal is wonderful and mountaintop removal is actually for
the environment as well as the economy.’ And his response to me always
was, ‘oh I would never speak on camera without getting permission from
the company I work for.’”

The filmmakers heard that a lot. And no coal miners ever did get
permission to talk on camera.

In the movie, we do hear from Don Blankenship, head of Massey Energy. He
spoke at a public hearing about the need to ease environmental restrictions
on coal mining.

“We had nearly 800 employees up ‘til Friday. We had to lay 8 off. I
think that might be just the tip of the iceberg if we don’t our rules
changed how we mine in the state.”

Anti-coal activists at the public hearing explain how the coal companies
use that kind of intimidation to control miners.

“I think people are scared that they will lose their jobs and be flipping
burgers. You look out and that’s all you see. You see mining and
flipping burgers. And, I argue, that the coal companies want it that way.
They want that to be the only option. That’s the only way they could get
support for how they treat their workers and how they treat this land.
This would never happen in a place that wasn’t poor. Never.”

In the movie, some coal miners stand up at the public meeting to defend the
companies they work for. One explains the coal industry has provided him a
good salary.

Miner One: “For the last 14 years, the coal industry has supported myself
and my wife and my 3 children.”

Miner Two: “When the last one of you so-called environmentalists leave
the state, when the rest of us leave for North Carolina, turn out the
lights. Oh, wait a minute, there won’t be no lights. No coal, no
lights.”

(music)

The filmmakers want more Americans to understand that when we flick on a
light switch – it is not a meaningless act. It takes electricity. And
that takes coal.

And, as anti-coal activist Judy Bonds says in the movie, coal is tearing
apart West Virginia.

“It is a civil war; it’s families against families. It’s brother
against brother.”

Or – in the case of filmmaker Mari Lynn-Evans – brother against
sister.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Government Meeting on New Nukes

Some nuclear companies envision reactors in tiny power stations or even factories. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Commercial nuclear reactors pretty
much come in two sizes: big and huge.
Companies want to create much smaller,
cheaper reactors. Shawn Allee reports they’re pitching their ideas
to the government this week:

Transcript

These nuclear companies envision reactors in tiny power stations or even
factories. They expect good sales because nuclear power creates almost no
carbon emissions.

But before they can sell even one reactor, they have to go through a
nuclear gate-keeper. That’d be the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

NRC spokesman Scott Burnell says, today, the government is laying out the
ground rules.

“The NRC has focused on large commercial scale nuclear power plants for
several decades. We have requirements for safety systems, for security
where these small reactor designers need to look at our requirements
closely, to make sure they can meet them.”

Burnell says some small reactor designs include technology the NRC has
never approved before.

He says it could take the government up to ten years to evaluate those
designs.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Preliminary Climate Change Talks

World leaders are meeting in Bangkok for preliminary discussions on climate change. (Photo source: Alter at Wikimedia Commons)

In December, the world’s nations
meet in Copenhagen to try to come
up with a treaty to deal with climate
change. Right now, preliminary talks
are going on in Bangkok. Lester Graham
reports observers don’t think there’s
much progress:

Transcript

Warren Evans is the Director of the Environment Department at the World Bank. He’s just back from Bangkok where climate change negotiations are going slowly. Evans says that shows just how hard it will be to finalize a treaty in Copenhagen.

“Well, I think our assessment is that there will be considerable progress and that it should set the stage for moving forward, but is it the final agreement that actually put in motion all of the necessary steps and finance? That’s highly unlikely.”

The world will be watching in December to see whether U.S. will agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It refused to ratify the Kyoto climate change treaty in 1997. Critics are making some of the same arguments now.

They say a Copenhagen treaty could put the U.S. at an economic disadvantage to rapidly developing countries such as China and India.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Sustainable Prisons Project, Part Two

This is the entrance to The Hub. Prisoners who’ve been cleared on good behavior get to work here. This is where the prison’s beekeeping operation, recycling center and gardens are. (Photo by Sadie Babits)
Inmate Jeff Harrigan works in the prison’s organic vegetable garden when he isn’t working on the native prairie restoration project. He says he plans to have a garden when he gets out of prison a year and half from now. (Photo by Sadie Babits)
Inmates fill hundreds of plastic tubes full of dirt and then drop native grass seeds into them. The goal? To grow 200,000 plants to help restore native prairies in Washington. (Photo by Sadie Babits)
These are some of the thousands of native grasses being grown at Stafford Creek Prison. It’s a collaboration between Evergreen State College, The Washington Department of Corrections, The Nature Conservancy and the U.S. Army. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Prisons probably aren’t the first
place you’d expect to find organic
gardens or beekeeping. But in some
prisons in western Washington, inmates
are being taught new skills and getting
involved in conservation work. As Sadie
Babits found out, inmates say they’re
restoring their own lives by helping save
native prairies and growing veggies:

Transcript

Stafford Creek Prison would feel like a college campus if it weren’t for the series of
heavy metal gates and the barbed wire.

(sound of mechanical gates opening)

2,000 prisoners are held at this medium security facility. A select group of them
who’ve been cleared on good behavior get to work in what’s called the Hub. It
doesn’t sound too exciting – until you spot the greenhouses.

(sound of door opening and fans)

Inside the largest greenhouse, there are hundreds of yellow plastic tubes. Three
inmates are filling these tubes with dirt. They are planting seeds to help restore
native grasses.

Toby Erheart is one of these prisoners.

“I don’t know if what we’re doing will make a huge impact on the world, but I know
it’s making a huge impact on this project. It will change the face of the prairies in
western Washington.”

This is the project’s first year. The goal is to grow 200,000 plants for the prairies.

It’s getting hot and muggy inside the greenhouse. So Inmate Jeff Harrigan heads
outside. He leans against the greenhouse as he talks about what it’s like to grow
these plants.

“It’s been a learning experience for me cause I’ve never done nothing like this on the
streets.”

Harrigan has been in and out of prison six different times.

“I’ve just learned doing other things than stealing and doing drugs makes you feel
better about yourself. I feel like I’m putting something back, something that is
saving something, ‘cause it’s saving the butterflies from what they told us.”

Harrigan says he’s never planted anything before until coming to Stafford Creek.

“And actually, it’s kind of cool cause since coming here I asked my girlfriend
something I never asked her before, what her favorite flowers were, just cause I had
started planting flowers. (laughs)”

Turns out marigolds and hens and chicks are her favorites. Two plants, Harrigan
says, that can be found around the prison. When he’s not planting native grasses,
Harrigan works in the prison’s vegetable garden.

“Right here, this is stuff that we’ve planted. There’s onions, radishes, beans.”

So far, he’s helped harvest peas, garlic and 200 pounds of zucchini. The kitchen staff
took that squash and turned into zucchini bread for the inmates.

Harrigan talks about how hard it was for him keep a job when he was outside
prison. Drugs always got in the way. Now he says he feels like he’s doing something
that matters and he hopes this experience in prison will help him when he gets out.

“Actually, it’s teaching me better work ethics too, cause I’ve never really had them
out there. I never really kept a job probably because I didn’t like it, you know.”

Harrigan says he does like gardening. He says he now knows how to germinate
seeds and how to get plants to take off – skills he says could help him get a job once
he’s back in society.

“For a person like me, who still wants to feel human and still got good parts in me,
this stuff brings you back to reality.”

He’s got another year and half to go before he’s free. Harrigan says he’s already told
his girlfriend, when he does get out, they have to plant a garden – something he
hopes will keep him from coming back to Stafford Creek.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

Sustainable Prisons Project, Part One

Inmates at Stafford Creek who’ve been cleared on good behavior can work in the prison’s recycling center. (Photo by Sadie Babits)
The entrance to Stafford creek prison. (Photo by Sadie Babits)
Inmate Kevin Madigan dumps bag after bag of prison trash onto this conveyer belt. He gets paid 42 cents an hour but he says this is more than just a job. It’s a way to make amends for all the trouble he’s caused. (Photo by Sadie Babits)

Some industries and businesses have
been greening up their operations to
save money. Now, another big industry
is getting into the act – American prisons.
California has announced 16 new green
energy projects at prisons that they
say will save millions. And prisons
in Indiana, Virginia, and Nevada are
installing solar panels and wind turbines.
But, as Sadie Babits reports, the state
of Washington is taking their green
program a few steps further:

Transcript

(sound of cutting an onion)

Jason Chandler has already spent four years behind bars for a crime he won’t talk
about. He recently was hired to work here in this organic garden at Stafford Creek
Prison. Before this, Chandler says, he was working here as a janitor.

Babits: “What are you doing?”

Chandler: “Cutting the onions off to prepare for the kitchen. Just cutting the roots
and the stock off. Least the winds going my eyes ain’t watering.”

The Stafford Creek prison in western Washington has this garden, a recycling center,
greenhouses, and a beekeeping operation. Chandler says working these jobs beats
mopping floors and cleaning toilets.

“I had to ask my counselor to put me on the list. There are quite a few people on a
waiting list to get positions like this and they got by an application basis and, if
you’re willing to work, it’s a good job to have.”

It’s a job made possible through the Sustainable Prisons Project – a partnership
between Evergreen State College and the Washington Department of Corrections.
The grant-funded project has been running formally for more than a year. While it’s
clear prisoners like these jobs, officials say it’s too early to tell whether beekeeping
or growing vegetables will reduce recidivism rates.

But prison officials say that wasn’t the project’s main goal.

“My early motivation was money, surely money.”

Dan Pocholke is the Deputy Director of Prisons. It costs more than $30,000 a year to
house just one prisoner in Washington state. The Department of Corrections was
ordered several years ago to save money by doing things like conserving water and
energy.

To do this, Polcholke says they got help from Evergreen State College to “green”
Cedar Creek – a minimum security facility in Washington. He says they got prisoners
involved in cutting back their water use.

“And we started studying our use rates and our consumption rates and, low and
behold, a year later we had brought our water use rates down by an astonishing
level.”

Pocholke says the partnership with the college has another benefit. Prisoners are
learning new skills. And Evergreen State College says one of their goals is being
fulfilled too – to spread environmental science to unlikely places – like prisons.

Some inmates in this program get to do research on everything from raising frogs to
growing native prairie grasses. There’s already been a few success stories. One
inmate has gone on to co-author a scientific paper and is now working on a
doctorate degree.

(sound of recycling)

And, while some prisoners are learning new skills, the goal of saving money is also
being met. Stafford Creek prison has cut the amount of garbage they send to
landfills by more than half by recycling.

Inmate Kevin Madigan says he’d like to keep even more out of the landfill.

“The more self sustaining you can become, the less burden you are on the people out
there. And that in itself is a good thing.”

Madigan rips open a clear plastic bag and dumps the garbage onto this conveyer
belt. He gets paid 42-cents an hour to work here, but for him it goes beyond just a
job.

Madigan says it’s one way for him to make amends for all the trouble he caused
outside these prison walls.

For The Environment Report, I’m Sadie Babits.

EPA Targets Chemicals of Concern

BPA - one of the chemicals the EPA is focusing on - is found in many canned foods and drinks. (Photo source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

There’s this notion that the plastics and chemicals in the products you buy all have been tested for safety.

That is just wrong.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, wants Congress to pass laws to better regulate chemicals in the things we use. But getting a new law will take a while. So, in the meantime, Jackson says the EPA will do more under the existing law.

“Do as much as we can to identify the chemicals that are of concern to the public and move quickly to evaluate them and determine what actions need to be take to address the risks they may pose.”

The agency plans to first look at chemicals such as Bisphenyl A – BPA – used in some hard plastics, phthalates used in cosmetics and plastics, PBDE’s – a flame retardant that’s turning up in mother’s milk, and benzadene dyes and pigments.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Red Tape Behind Green Living

For simple weatherizing - insulation, weather stripping, windows - the tax credits apply to 30% of the cost of materials, not the labor. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

Tax credits for making your home
more energy efficient got a lot
of early buzz. The promise of up
to 1500-dollars back for insulation
and windows or efficient furnaces
led to a flurry of advertising.
Tamara Keith looks
into what might be stopping people
from taking advantage of the tax
credits:

Transcript

My husband and I recently bought an older house that could no doubt use
some weatherizing. So, I called up Reuven Walder at EcoBeco.

(sound of door opening, people saying hello)

He’s a home energy auditor. He identifies ways to make a home more
efficient.

“I joke around, I consider myself an energy efficiency social worker.”

And he’s been getting a lot of calls lately from people like me – looking
to take advantage of the tax credits.

“Let’s look around the house and you can point out some things that are
of concern to you.”

Walder has all these cool tools, like an infrared camera that can see where
the insulation isn’t doing its job. He finds plenty of trouble spots,
including one in the attic.

“And if you put your hand in this little pocket here you can feel nice
cool air.”

That’s not supposed to happen.

“I’ll be honest with you. When I find these kinds of things, it makes my
day, because we get to fix them.”

Well, not all the time. Walder says only about a third of the homeowners he
works with actually follow through on his recommendations.

“I have talked to numerous homeowners and their primary reason for not
doing it is money.”

He says the tax credits are a great shot in the arm, but, for many people,
it’s just not enough. Part of the problem is, for simple weatherizing –
insulation, weather stripping, windows – the tax credits apply to 30% of
the cost of materials, not the labor. And labor is actually the most
expensive part.

“Our economy is just so slow right now that people are just hesitant to
spend any amount of money because, regardless of the incentive, they’re
still going to have to spend a lot of money to make the improvement. It’s
not going to cover a significant portion of the cost.”

At this point, federal officials don’t know how many people have been
inspired by the stimulus package to do work on their homes. They won’t know
until everyone files their taxes in April.

“It’s definitely driving additional business.”

Matt Golden is president of Efficiency First – the national association for
the home performance retrofitting industry. But he isn’t totally sold on
the way the stimulus package is distributing the tax credits.

“The biggest incentives are for the most expensive fanciest equipment and
as you move towards the most cost effective stuff, you get much smaller,
incremental incentives.”

So, there’s big money for solar panels and geothermal heating systems. And
if you want to put in a tank-less hot water heater or a super efficient
furnace, here labor costs can be counted towards tax credits. Golden says
the smallest credits go to insulation and other simple steps.

“It’s actually kind of an impediment to the type of retrofitting projects
that have the biggest return on investment, bang for the buck and create
the most jobs.”

In my house, Walder estimates we need almost $6,000 worth of work. But,
because not all of it qualifies, I’ll only get $600 of it back from the
government – but we won’t see the money until tax season.

I’ll admit – it’s a lot more money with a lot less of a tax benefit than I
was expecting, and that’s probably what’s giving some homeowners pause.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Green Roofs Greener Than Thought

The rock, soil and tiny plants in a green roof help insulate a building. That can cut heating and cooling costs. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Green roofs are a popular, but
expensive, way for building owners
to prove their green credentials.
Shawn Allee reports some
researchers feel they might do even
more environmental good than they
thought:

Transcript

The rock, soil and tiny plants in a green roof help insulate a building.
That can cut heating and cooling costs.

Researchers at Michigan State University think they’ve found another
benefit, too.

Brad Rowe says the tiny plants absorb carbon from the air. Rowe says the
plants are small, so this carbon sequestration effect is small, too. But
he says green roofs are still better than plain-jane roofs.

“You have all these roofs everywhere and basically, they’re doing nothing
– they’re essentially dead. So, putting plants on them is one way to
sequester carbon above ground, in the leaves and stems, the roots, and even
in the soil that’s on top of the roof.”

Rowe says if Congress ever puts a price on carbon emissions, green roof
owners might get credit for sequestering carbon – and that could cut a
green roof’s high price tag.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Month: October 2009

Coal Will Not Go Quietly

Transcript

Related Links

National Parks Hit by Climate

Transcript

Related Links

A Look Into Coal Country

Transcript

Related Links

Government Meeting on New Nukes

Transcript

Related Links

Preliminary Climate Change Talks

Transcript

Related Links

Sustainable Prisons Project, Part Two

Transcript

Related Links

Sustainable Prisons Project, Part One

Transcript

Related Links

EPA Targets Chemicals of Concern

Transcript

Related Links

Red Tape Behind Green Living

Transcript

Related Links

Green Roofs Greener Than Thought

Transcript

Related Links