Bush Brushes Over Environment

  • Bush has spoke of plans to fund clean energy and reduce dependence on oil but did not elaborate on how he would put these plans into action. (Photo courtesy of whitehouse.gov)

President Bush is echoing his past calls to wean the country from foreign oil, but his
most recent State of the Union speech quickly brushed over the topics of energy
independence and global warming:

Transcript

President Bush is echoing his past calls to wean the country from foreign oil, but his
most recent State of the Union speech quickly brushed over the topics of energy
independence and global warming:


The President says the U.S. is committed to energy security and confronting global
climate change:


“And the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way
toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.”


The President called specifically for funding new clean coal technology. That came
at the same time his Energy Department pulled funding for a major clean coal
technology project in Illinois. Mr. Bush also called for better battery technology and
renewable fuels for automobiles, but did not mention additional government support
for research.


A proposed investment in clean energy in developing countries and completing an
international agreement on global warming was noted by environmental groups. But
then they criticized the Bush administration for not implementing a mandatory
greenhouse gas cap and trade program in the U.S.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Enviros and Coal-Fired Power

  • City Water Light and Power of Springfield, Illinois compromised with environmentalists to build a cleaner power plant and supplement supplies with wind energy rather than fight through the permitting process. (Photo by Lester Graham)

There are around 100 coal-burning power plants
on the drawing boards. Many of them won’t be built.
In some cases environmental groups will fight to
make sure they don’t get built. But, Lester
Graham reports, one coal-burning power plant is
being built with the blessings of the
environmentalists nearby:

Transcript

There are around 100 coal-burning power plants on the drawing boards. Many of
them won’t be built. In some cases environmental groups will fight to make sure
they don’t get built. But, Lester Graham reports, one coal-burning power plant is
being built with the blessings of the environmentalists nearby:


Usually, when a utility wants to build a new coal-burning power plant, the fight is on. The
utility is challenged by environmental groups every step of the permitting process.
Then, more times than not, the utility and the environmentalists take the fight to the
courts. It means years of delays and millions of dollars of legal bills, but that didn’t
happen here.


Construction workers are erecting the superstructure of a new 500-million dollar
coal-burning power plant. This power plant is scheduled to go online in two years.
When it’s complete, it’ll use the latest technology to reduce the nastiest pollutants
from its smokestack: sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides and mercury. And this power
plant is much more efficient.


Jay Bartlett is the chief utilities engineer with City Water Light and Power in
Springfield, Illinois. He says compared to the utility’s older power plants next door,
the new plant will burn about 20% less coal to produce the same amount of
electricity.


“It takes about 1.4 pounds of coal to make a kilowatt of electricity from that plant
over there. This plant will be in the .85 range.”


And that will mean electricity bills for ratepayers won’t have to go up. It also means
the net amount of greenhouse gases is reduced. That makes environmentalists
smile.


And that’s no accident. Jay Bartlett says after being contacted by the local Sierra Club,
the power company and the environmentalists decided to talk:


“It was our goal when we sat down with the Sierra Club, saying, ‘You know we can
fight this out and it will cost both sides lots and lots of money, but will anything good
come out of this in the end?’ And we both decided that something better could come
out of spending those dollars. And what that was investing in wind, investing in
better pollution control, products for this plant to make it as clean as it can possibly be
and move forward. ”


No one really thought this would happen. Not the utility, not the regulators, and not
the environmentalists.


(Sound of coffee shop)


At a downtown coffee shop, Will Reynolds still seems a little surprised. He’s with the
local Sierra Club chapter that worked with Springfield’s City Water Light and Power:


“Yeah, at the start of this I thought there was no chance for any kind of agreement or
compromise. But by the end of it, we had an agreement that reduced the CO2 to
Kyoto Treaty levels, we had a utility that was able to build a power plant to have a
stable, efficient power supply — which was what they were looking for as a small
municipal utility — and in the end, I think it was a win-win for everybody.”


What the two sides agreed to is this: the best off-the-shelf equipment to control
pollution better than the law requires, and to offset the CO2 produced by the plant,
the utility signed an agreement with an Iowa wind-power company to provide part of
Springfield’s electricity:


“Springfield is a small, pretty conservative town that just took a huge step forward
and showed what can be done realistically to reduce our global warming emissions.
And we were able to do it and still provide for our power, still have affordable, reliable
power for the entire city. So, if Springfield can do it, then other cities can do it.”


The state regulating agency, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
applauded the efforts. Illinois is a coal-producing state and has been encouraging
power companies to clean up their plants so that coal can still be used without as many
of the pollution worries. IEPA Director Doug Scott says the Springfield utility’s efforts
will be a model for other power companies:


“I mean, all of the things that they did and the things that they worked out with Sierra
Club, the extra reductions that they’re getting over and above what they would have
had to have done in a normal permitting sense. I mean, that they were looking at
trying to be good stewards of the environment as well as being responsive to their
ratepayers as well.”


And Scott says that’s key. Because it’s plentiful and domestic, coal is not going
away. Scott says this can work for not just municipal electric utilities, but private
power companies can keep shareholders happy, keep ratepayers happy and keep
the skies clearer by updating power plants to work more efficiently, seriously reduce
the emissions from coal, and do what they can to offset greenhouse gas emissions
until technology is found that can clean up CO2.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Cities Brace for Global Warming – Part 1

When we think about climate change, many of us think about it as a national, even international, problem. But a growing number of officials at the local level are beginning to see it as a local problem as well. Karen Kelly brings us the first
of a two-part series on what cities are doing to
prepare for global warming:

Transcript

When we think about climate change, many of us think about it as a national, even international, problem. But a growing number of officials at the local level are beginning to see it as a local problem as well. Karen Kelly brings us the first
Of a two-part series on what cities are doing to
prepare for global warming:


Ron Sims has lived in Washington State his whole life, and he loves its unique environment: Puget Sound, the snow-capped mountains, and the salmon runs. But he’s worried about its future. He’s now the head of King County, Washington. It’s home to about 2 million residents, including the city of Seattle.


As county executive, he sees the scientific reports about his region.
They say the snow caps are melting, marine life is changing and the cedar trees are being replaced by other species. That’s what happening right now.


But what really convinced Sims he had to do something is when he called scientists at the nearby University of Washington’s School of Climate Impacts.


“And I asked them a simple question. I wanted to know what the climate in our area would be in 2050.”


The scientists’ report said King County could expect frequent torrential rains that would cause serious flooding, even swamping the buildings of some major employers. In terms of wildlife, the rains would wipe out the salmon’s spawning grounds. Yet, at other times of the year, they say they’ll be a drought as the snowcaps decline. Sims knew it was time to take action:


“Should we wait for our children to make this decision in 2045 or 2030? And since we now know that we have to make these decisions, based upon what the scientists are telling us, why aren’t we doing it now? Because generations in the future are going to have to make far more complex decisions and this shouldn’t be one of them they have to work from.


Sims isn’t the only city or county leader who’s taking climate change seriously.
The mayor of London, England starting charging people a fee for driving into his city during rush hour.


In New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg made the same proposal to reduce emissions. He also wants to see a new rule that requires all New York City taxis to be hybrids within the next five years, and groups like the US Conference of Mayors are holding climate change summits to help local officials plan for the effects of global warming.


Jennifer Penney is with the Alliance for Resilient Cities, which recently brought local leaders to Toronto. She says a lot of officials are realizing that they’ll be on the front lines when serious weather events occur:


“Most of those things are in the jurisdiction of the local government. So protecting people from heat waves. Dealing with local floods. Dealing with wind storms or tornadoes that come through. Those are the kinds of things that local governments are on the ground, they have to deal with.”


And that’s why city and county officials across the nation are starting to make plans.


Back in Washington State, Ron Sims decided on two strategies to deal with this. One, reduce his county’s carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050, mostly by getting cars off the road. That’s led the county to start buying up development rights on rural lands to prevent sprawl and the number of suburban commuters. They’ve also bought a fleet of hybrid buses.


And the second strategy? Start finding ways to adapt to the realities of climate change. King County has taken many steps. They range from a plan to strengthen their levies to prevent flooding, and the county is buying up forest land to act as a sponge for the runoff water. Sims says King County’s climate change plan has touched every department in the government:


“We decided to go backwards in time in all functions of this government… how we plan for growth, what do preserve, what will we face, what do we see the consequences of 2050 being, and are we prepared for that?”


A lot of people wonder if the public is ready for that, to sacrifice for it.
Ron Sims tells his colleagues in local government that the public is ready.
They saw the pictures of Hurricane Katrina. Many saw Al Gore’s documentary on climate change, and now they’re looking for elected officials, if not at the national level, then at the local level, to take the lead.


For the Environment Report, I’m Karen Kelly.

Related Links

Climate and Public Health

Public health officials are stepping up their concerns about global warming.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Public health officials are stepping up their concerns about global warming.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Some predictions about rising global temperatures look at the potential threat to the environment
and wildlife, but the American Public Health Association says with more scientific evidence of
climate change, it’s time for local health departments to talk to people about the potential threat to
humans.


Environmental Studies Professor Jonathan Patz was a key author of a recent UN paper on
climate change. He says higher temperatures could lead to more heat waves, smog and
infectious diseases:


“…Carried by insects or water-borne diseases, if we’re talking about not only warming
but extremes of the water cycle and potential for contaminating our drinking water systems.”


The Public Health Association will take about six months to develop recommendations
for dealing with the human health impacts of climate change.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Lower Lake Levels: Multi-Causes

There’s more concern about lower water levels in the Great Lakes, both due to increased drainage, and possibly global climate change. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

There’s more concern about lower water levels in the Great Lakes, both due to increased drainage, and possibly global climate change. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


More data from a privately-funded study show long ago dredging on the Saint Clair River near Detroit may be one of the reasons for low water levels in Lakes Huron and Michigan.


Another study by the US-Canada International Joint Commission is looking at what to do about the higher flows out of the lakes. But hydrologist Roger Gauthier, of the Great Lakes Commission, adds a long warming trend to the list of factors affecting levels in Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior:


“We’ve had below average snowfall. We’ve had very little ice cover in terms of thickness or duration. Much warmer lake temperatures.”


Less ice cover leads to more wintertime evaporation. Experts say trying to fix the drainage problem and control global warming should be goals.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

China’s Co2 Emissions on the Rise

China is now producing more carbon dioxide emissions than the United
States. Lester Graham reports experts expected China to become the
leader in CO2 emissions, but not so soon:

Transcript

China is now producing more carbon dioxide emissions than the United
States. Lester Graham reports experts expected China to become the
leader in CO2 emissions, but not so soon:


Just last year, experts were predicting China CO2 emissions would
exceed U.S. emissions by as soon as 2009. Turns out, China was already
there.


The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency estimates China’s CO2
emissions for last year, 2006, were 8% higher than the United States.
CO2 is the main greenhouse gas which most scientists believe is
contributing to climate change and global warming.


Expanding Chinese industry relies more heavily on coal for fuel than
many U.S. based industries. The new estimate will likely fuel
President George Bush’s arguments that China and other developing
nations must do more to reduce emissions.


But… the 300 million people in the U.S. are still pumping out four times the CO2 emissions
per person than China with its more than 1 billion people.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Interview: The Future of Water in a Warmer World

  • Peter H. Gleick, President and co-founder of the Pacific Institute, is concerned that without reducing greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will have dire impact on water resources. (Courtesy of the Pacific Institute)

With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water. Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather patterns:

Transcript

With concern about climate change growing, some scientists are trying to determine how global warming will affect sources of water.

Lester Graham spoke with the President of the Pacific Institute, Peter Gleick about what climate change might mean to weather

patterns:


PG: Overall, the planet is gonna get wetter because as it gets hotter, we’ll see more
evaporation. The problem is, we aren’t always gonna get rain where we want it.
Sometimes we’re gonna get rain where we don’t want it. And at the moment it looks like
the biggest increases in rainfall will be in the northern regions where typically water is
less of a problem. Or at least water quantity is less of a problem. And we may actually get
less rainfall in the Southwest where we need it more.


LG: Let’s talk about some of the precious areas to North America. For instance, a lot of
people are worried about snow pack in the Rockies.


PG: Yes, well, one of the most certain impacts of global climate change is going to be
significant changes in snowfall and snowmelt patterns in the western United States as a
whole, actually in the United States as a whole because as it warms up, what falls out of
the atmosphere is going to be rain and not snow. Now that really matters in the Western
United States, in the Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada where our snow pack really
forms the basis of our water supply system. Unfortunately, as the climate is changing,
we’re seeing rising temperatures and decreasing snow pack. More of what falls in the
mountains is falling as rain, less of it’s going to be snow. That’s going to wreck havoc on
our management system, the reservoirs that we’ve built to deal with these variations in
climate. Incidentally, it’s also going to ruin the ski season eventually.


LG: You mentioned that the farther north you go, according to some models, we’ll see
more rain or more precipitation. At the same time, with warmer temperatures, we’ll see
less ice covering some of the inland lakes, such as the Great Lakes, which means more
evaporation. So, what are we going to see as far as those surface waters sources across
the continent?


PG: Without a doubt, global climate is changing. And it’s going to get worse and worse
as humans put more and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. And as it gets
warmer, we’re going to see more evaporation off of the surface of all kinds of lakes,
including especially the Great Lakes. And interestingly, even though we don’t have a
great degree of confidence of what’s going to happen precisely with precipitation in the
Great Lakes, all of the models seem to agree that over time, the Great Lakes levels are
going to drop. And it looks like we’re going to lose more water out of the surface of the
Great Lakes from increased evaporation off the lakes than we’re likely to get from
precipitation, even if precipitation goes up somewhat. And I think that’s a great worry for
homeowners and industry around the margin of the lake. Ultimately for navigation,
ultimately for water supply.


LG: There’s a lot of talk about the gloom and doom scenarios of global warming, but
they’ll be longer growing seasons and we’re also going to be seeing, as the zones change,
more of this fertile ground in as northern US and Canada get longer growing seasons.
That’s not a bad thing.


PG: There are going to be winners and loser from global climate change. And
interestingly, there are going to be winners and losers at different times. Certainly, a
longer growing season is a possibility as it warms up. And I think that, in the short term,
could prove to be beneficial for certain agriculture in certain regions. Interestingly
though, and perhaps a little depressingly, over time, if the globe continues to warm up, if
the globe continues to warm up, evidence suggest that the short term improvements in
agriculture that we might see might ultimately be wiped out. As it gets hotter and hotter,
some crop yields will go down after they go up. We’re going to see an increase in pests
that we didn’t used to see because of warmer weather. Unfortunately, pests like warmer
weather. Furthermore, if we don’t really get a handle on greenhouse gas emissions, if we
don’t really start to cut the severity of the climate changes that we’re going to see, the
doom and gloom scenarios unfortunately get more likely. Over time, the temperatures go
up not just one or two or three degrees Celsius but four or five or eight degree Celsius.
And that truly is a catastrophe for the kind of systems we’ve set up around the planet.


HOST TAG: Peter Gleick is a water expert and President of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, based in California.

Related Links

Could Global Warming Worsen Asthma?

Some public health experts are concerned that a changing global climate, along with increases in carbon dioxide emissions, might be contributing to a sudden rise in the number of asthma cases. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

Some public health experts are concerned that a changing global climate, along with increases in carbon dioxide emissions, might be contributing to a sudden rise in the number of asthma cases. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


Worldwide, the level of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere has risen. So scientists have been studying what might happen to plants if the C-O-two level continues to rise. One study indicates the increase in C-O-two levels makes conditions more favorable for weedy species… such as ragweed, which aggravates asthma. Paul Epstein is with the Harvard Medical School and has been working with the study.


“The ragweed pollen counts go up so that doubling of asthma in the last several decades may be partially accountable just by the rise in CO-2 as well as, perhaps, prolongation of seasons and the early arrival of spring and the late arrival of fall.”


Epstein says it appears the air pollution that is believed to be causing global climate change and triggers asthma could be compounding the problem by indirectly contributing to the increase in pollen allergens. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

Vanishing Frogs – The Possible Culprit

Frogs and toads are disappearing all over the world…and no one knows allthe reasons why. The destruction of wetlands and other places whereamphibians live is one of the major causes…but frogs and toads have alsobeen dying out in protected sites far from any human disturbance. Worldwideenvironmental problems – airborne contaminants, global climate change, orhigher than normal ultraviolet light from the earth’s thinning ozone layer -have all been linked to frog disappearances, but now there’s hard evidenceof another possible culprit. Mary Losure (low-sure) reports for the GreatLakes Radio Consortium on the worldwide vanishing of frogs. This secondreport in our series begins in the Panamanian rain forest: