Photograph of illuminated incandescent-replacement fluorescent bulb. (Source: Jdorwin at Wikimedia Commons)
On Saturday night from 8 to 9 the World Wildlife
Fund is asking you to turn off your lights for Earth Hour.
Lester Graham reports sitting in the dark is supposed to
make you think about how you contribute to global warming:
Transcript
On Saturday night from 8 to 9 the World Wildlife
Fund is asking you to turn off your lights for Earth Hour.
Lester Graham reports sitting in the dark is supposed to
make you think about how you contribute to global warming:
The World Wildlife Fund is organizing the Earth Hour. Some have questioned whether
what some might consider a “publicity stunt” will really make a difference. Joe Pouliot is
with the group.
“Well I wouldn’t characterize this as a stunt. Climate change, unfortunately, hasn’t been getting a huge amount of attention. But because of the activities of Earth Hour, people are really beginning to focus on the challenges of climate change.”
Earth Hour wants you to shut off your lights for an hour because lot of electricity comes
from coal-burning power plants. They put out a lot of carbon dioxide, a main
greenhouse gas. Pouliot says people, organizations and cities on six continents are
participating in Earth Hour, including the cities of Toronto, Altlanta, Chicago, Phoenix
and San Francisco.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
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.
Environmental groups are lining up behind California in a lawsuit against the
Environmental Protection Agency. Lester Graham reports, the EPA is trying to stop
California from mandating stricter greenhouse emission standards for cars and
trucks:
Transcript
Environmental groups are lining up behind California in a lawsuit against the
Environmental Protection Agency. Lester Graham reports, the EPA is trying to stop
California from mandating stricter greenhouse emission standards for cars and
trucks:
The Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense
and other big environmental groups have filed a petition with an appeals court. They
want to overturn a decision by the EPA. As soon as President Bush signed the
Energy Bill into law, the EPA Administrator said the new 35
mile per gallon standards in the Energy Act would reduce greenhouse gas emissions
enough that California’s stricter emissions standards were not necessary.
In response, California and 15 other states sued the EPA. California often leads the
nation in stricter pollution reduction standards. The Sierra Club called the EPA’s
decision – quote “another example of the Bush administration’s bad habit of ignoring
laws that is finds inconvenient.”
The EPA argues the better mileage standards will adequately lower greenhouse gas
emissions because less gasoline will be burned.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Earth's natural
carbon sinks, like the tropical forest sink pictured, are not working as well as they should be. Normally, the carbon sinks remove large amounts of atmospheric CO2 created by humans. (Photo by H-D Viktor Boehm)
The cold ocean, another carbon sink, favors the exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere. (Photo by N. Metzl, August 2000, oceanographic cruise OISO-5)
The amount of the main greenhouse gas is
increasing faster than anyone predicted. Rebecca
Williams reports on a surprising new study:
Transcript
The amount of the main greenhouse gas is
increasing faster than anyone predicted. Rebecca
Williams reports on a surprising new study:
Since the year 2000, carbon dioxide levels have risen 35 percent faster
than expected.
Corinne Le Quere is an author of the study in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences. She says it’s partly because people are
burning more fossil fuels than expected. And the Earth’s natural
carbon sinks are not working as well as they should be. Forests and
oceans naturally soak up CO2 from the atmosphere:
“They now absorb a smaller fraction of the emissions and we think that they
are weakening in response to climate change itself.”
For example, CO2 is stored in the deeper waters of the ocean. But more
intense winds caused by climate change have stirred up the gas. That
weakens the oceans’ ability to absorb man-made CO2.
The study finds it’s going to be harder to control global warming than
previously thought.
A pipe has been connected to the flue gas duct at We Energies' coal-burning power plant near Milwaukee. The pipe will suck out a small amount of gas and treat it with chilled ammonia, allowing CO2 to be separated and captured. (Photo by Erin Toner)
Workers are building a carbon capture system at We Energies' coal-burning power plant near Milwaukee. The system is designed to remove up to 90 percent of CO2 emissions. (Photo by Erin Toner)
Carbon capture technology is being tested for the first time in the country at a coal-burning power plant near Milwaukee. If it works, it could be added to existing power plants, or incorporated into new ones. (Photo by Erin Toner)
Coal-burning power plants have done a lot to reduce
pollution that leaves their smokestacks. But the power
industry is not controlling the main greenhouse gas –
carbon dioxide. That could change in the next decade.
One utility is about to begin the first test ever of technology
to reduce CO2 emissions at power plants. Erin Toner
reports:
Transcript
Coal-burning power plants have done a lot to reduce
pollution that leaves their smokestacks. But the power
industry is not controlling the main greenhouse gas –
carbon dioxide. That could change in the next decade.
One utility is about to begin the first test ever of technology
to reduce CO2 emissions at power plants. Erin Toner
reports:
When you think about air pollution, you might think of power plants with giant brick chimneys pumping dark
smoke into the sky. here’s not as much of that stuff being released
into the air as 30 years ago. That’s because power plants have added equipment to control certain types of pollution:
“Okay, just to give you an idea of what we’re looking at,
this big silver building is where all the particulate is
removed, we’re going from that toward the stacks, so
we’re looking at the discharge emissions control
devices…”
Ed Morris oversees environmental projects at We Energies’
coal-burning power plant in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin. In
the past few years, it’s installed equipment that’s cut sulfur
and nitrogen emissions by up to 95 percent. Now it’s going
after carbon dioxide, or CO2, the most prevalent manmade
greenhouse gas that no utility has yet controlled.
By the end of the year, the We Energies plant will begin the
first test in the country of a new technology called “carbon
capture:”
“We are designing the technology to achieve up to 90
percent CO2 removal.”
Sean Black is with Alstom, the company that designed the
process. It will inject chilled ammonia into a tiny stream of
boiler gas. This will theoretically allow the CO2 to be
separated and captured. The test will see how much can be
removed before the gas is sent up the chimney.
Black says after the test in Wisconsin, it’ll go on to a full-
scale demonstration at an American Electric Power coal-
burning plant in West Virginia:
“And that will provide the marketplace with the
credibility that this technology is ready for commercial
deployment.”
The coal-burning power industry is trying to get carbon
capture ready because it believes the government will soon
start regulating CO2 emissions.
Kris McKinney manages environmental policy for We
Energies, and its pilot CO2 program:
“Technology doesn’t exist today to capture, let alone
store, the CO2 emissions, reductions that would be
required in the event that federal legislation is passed.”
Power companies have been criticized for moving too
slowly on cutting CO2 pollution. Some environmentalists
say utilities could have been doing more earlier, but won’t
spend the money on new technology if they’re not required
to by the government.
We Energies’ Kris McKinney says they’re wrong about the
status of the technology, but right about the money. He
says that’s because the cost of adding the CO2 reduction
equipment has to be passed on to customers:
“Whatever happens has to happen over a longer period
of time…it needs to be thought out in a way that doesn’t
cause dramatic cost impacts, unanticipated cost
impacts.”
McKinney says rushing to add new pollution controls
would be a huge risk. And in the case of carbon capture,
he could be right.
“The publicity that this is receiving is disproportionate
to the actual results that they have achieved. And there
are fundamental scientific reasons to question whether
this can be done.”
Alstom, the company developing chilled ammonia carbon
capture, says it won’t comment on the government’s report
because it hasn’t been made public. Company officials do say they’re confident the technology will work. They’re predicting the full-scale process will be
ready to retrofit existing plants or to build into new ones in
five years.
If so, it’ll be one option for a power industry that’s under
increasing pressure – and likely government mandates – to
clean up its dirty legacy.
Businesses are beginning to talk about climate change in different
terms. Instead of debating whether humans are causing it, there’s a
lot more talk about what climate change might mean to the business
climate. Lester Graham reports there are questions about what might
happen to affect business as global temperatures and weather patterns change:
Transcript
Businesses are beginning to talk about climate change in different
terms. Instead of debating whether humans are causing it, there’s a
lot more talk about what climate change might mean to the business
climate. Lester Graham reports there are questions about what might
happen to affect business as global temperatures and weather patterns change:
For the last couple of decades, the people who’ve been arguing that we
have to do something to reduce the greenhouse emissions causing global
warming avoided one subject:
“People did not want to talk about adaptation or coping with climate
change because that was seen as a cop-out.”
That’s Rosina Bierbaum. She was a science advisor during the Clinton
administration and is now the Dean of the School of Natural Resources
and Environment at the University of Michigan.
The fear was, if you could figure out a way to cope with global
warming, you wouldn’t do anything to reduce the emissions causing it.
But Bierbaum says with concensus among the majority of the scientists in
the world that global warming is happening and humans are contributing,
the point has been made. Time to move on:
“It’s only really been, I would say, in the last two years that the
science has become so clear, that the changes are occurring so fast.
And we’re seeing them already… that society is realizing we’ve got to
cope with those changes now and there are more in store for us.”
Actually, Bierbaum thinks we’re really kind of behind in thinking about
the consequences of global warming. It’s not just the polar ice caps
melting and the rising sea levels. There are a lot of everyday sort of
things that will likely change.
For instance, what kind of plants should you put in your home
landscaping? Will the tree you plant today survive in the changing
climate? How flexible is your business if the climate changes weather
patterns?
Thomas Karl is the Director of the National Climatic Data Center at the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He says people have
to start thinking about things like that. And Karl says it’s not just
higher temperatures, but sudden dramatic changes, such as maybe no snow
in the Northern states for a couple of years at a time. Or dry spells
that could make rivers so low that barges can’t travel up and down
them:
“What really has important impacts are the extreme events. I think the
questions being asked along these lines are ‘How vulnerable am I to
these episodic conditions?’ and ‘What do we need to do to prepare
ourselves for the possibility that things may not change gradually, but
could be quite abrupt change?'”
Some of those extreme events are heavier storms. As hurricane Katrina
showed, that could affect a lot of things. For example, the oil
industry is looking at its refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. With more
and more intense hurricanes, could it be worth building
refineries somewhere else?
There’s a lot at risk.
Franklin Nutter is the President of the Reinsurance Association of
America: the insurers of the insurance companies. He says with more
forest fires in the West, and unpredictability in agriculture, and more
violent storm surges on the coasts… all due to climate change, it’s
going to cost:
“Someone has to pay for the repair and recovery. If the insurance
mechanism is going to be the intermediary that translates those costs
into people’s premiums, then the answer is insurance premiums are going
to have to match those.”
And that means we’re all going to pay higher insurance costs because
some people and businesses are going to ignore, or miscalculate, how
climate change is going to affect them:
“The Association of British Insurers did a study looking at just the
effect of climate change on insurability and held steady population
growth, property values, all of those things. And they concluded that
you could see insurance premiums rise by 60% by mid-century just as a
result of climate change.”
That means if nothing changed: no inflation, no currency change…
nothing except global warming, insurance rates go up 60% during the
next 30 to 40 years. You’re already seeing it.
Some climate change experts say we can slow the impacts of global
warming by reducing greenhouse emissions now. But we’re already
seeing change… and we will see more.
There will be winners in global climate change. Some growing seasons
will be extended. Some areas will get more precipitation. But there
will likely be a lot more losers as businesses and people either can’t
or won’t adjust to the changing climate of their region.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A Honda FCX Concept and Honda's hydrogen refueling station. Critics say fossil fuels are still used to produce hydrogen, meaning there's still pollution. (Photo courtesy of Honda)
Lots of people in the automotive industry expect hydrogen to be a major
fuel source in the future. Cars that run on hydrogen don’t emit
greenhouse gases from the tailpipe. In fact, they don’t emit anything
except water. It might sound like magic, but there are some costs to
fueling the future on hydrogen. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
Lots of people in the automotive industry expect hydrogen to be a major
fuel source in the future. Cars that run on hydrogen don’t emit greenhouse gases from the tailpipe. In fact, they don’t emit anything
except water. It might sound like magic, but there are some costs to
fueling the future on hydrogen. Julie Grant reports:
There are a lot of young guys checking out the hybrid cars on display at
this exhibit. Sales associate Chris Beckham is putting on his tie as
he walks over to the sleek, futuristic cars Honda hopes to lease to
consumers as soon as next year:
“It’s a fuel cell-powered vehicle. It runs on hydrogen. The only
emissions it has is water. So, it’s a really great vehicle for the
environment.”
Beckham hopes he gets a chance to lease one:
“What do you think, are you ready to drive one of these?”
“Absolutely. I can’t wait to get my hands on one of these. If you ever get thirsty,
just stand behind the car with a cup.”
Most cars available today, even those that run on alternative fuels,
still emit at least one kind of pollution: carbon dioxide.
David Robillard and his two sons are looking at cars at this exhibit.
He’s worked at Ford Motor Company for 36 years. He thinks hydrogen
will be the long-term energy solution because it doesn’t emit any pollution
from the tailpipe:
“All leaders in market going to try to be first in that segment, and I think
it’s going to be huge. I think 10-15 years from now, it’s going to be a
revolutionary mass transportation system that we have.”
That’s music to Steve Ellis’s ears. He’s Honda’s manager of fuel cell
marketing and says there’s a need to transition from an oil-based
transportation system to hydrogen. Ellis says hydrogen will be a
cleaner alternative:
“Only hydrogen offers the opportunity to have zero carbon emissions from
the vehicle – zero CO2 emisssions AND zero CO2 emissions from the
fuel.”
Ellis sees research and development of hydrogen cars as a noble goal.
But not everyone thinks hydrogen is going to be the climate change savior:
“From one standpoint, I think it’s great. From another standpoint, I
think we also need to check other options as well.”
Paul Erickson is a leader of hydrogen research at the University of
California at Davis. He’s director of the school’s Hydrogen Production
and Utilization lab. Erickson remembers curling up on the couch as a kid, his lungs burning from all
the ozone pollution in southern California, and he wanted to clean up the
air. But he doesn’t think hydrogen is the best solution that’s
currently available:
“There may be other options that are not as say, politically saavy, but
are options that from a technological standpoint make a lot more
sense.”
It takes energy to create the hydrogen used to run a car. With today’s
technology, that energy is almost always natural gas, but it could be
any fossil fuel. Erickson says those cars don’t reduce energy use or
pollution:
“You’re taking, let’s say some fuel – that could be coal, that could be
any type of energy source – and you convert that energy into hydrogen
and you ship that to the user… it gives you a nice warm fuzzy feeling
saying I’m not part of the problem. But you know what? All you’re doing is
shifting that pollution upstream.”
Some engineers say that’s not necessarily a bad thing – that it would
be easier to control pollution coming from a few power plants than
from the millions of cars emitting greenhouse gases today. But Honda’s
Steve Ellis says hydrogen cars don’t create as much pollution as gas-powered vehicles. Even though nearly all of them need fossil fuels to
produce the hydrogen:
“Even with that method of doing it, we have over 50% reduction when you
factor in in wheel-to-well emissions compared with today’s gasoline cars.”
(Grant:) “50% cleaner?”
“50% CO2 reduction.”
Ellis says hydrogen can be made using renewable fuel sources such as
solar, ethanol, and methanol, but so far it’s not cost-effective. In
the meantime, Honda and other companies expect to start producing some
consumer model hydrogen cars that use fossil fuels in the next few
years.
Some industries are working with government to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions. People who are worried about their personal CO2 emissions can buy carbon offsets, but there are dozens of programs, making it confusing. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Whether you fly, drive or just turn on the lights, you're responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. Some people are buying carbon offsets to balance out their emissions. (Photo by Lester Graham)
There’s evidence that the Earth is changing
because of global warming. Glaciers are receding.
Polar ice caps are melting. Weather patterns are
altered. That’s prompted some people to look
for ways to reduce their personal contribution to
global warming. Rebecca Williams reports there
are many new companies that claim to help you do
that… for a price:
Transcript
There’s evidence that the Earth is changing
because of global warming. Glaciers are receding.
Polar ice caps are melting. Weather patterns are
altered. That’s prompted some people to look
for ways to reduce their personal contribution to
global warming. Rebecca Williams reports there
are many new companies that claim to help you do
that… for a price:
Whenever you drive, fly, or ride, you’re emitting carbon dioxide. And it’s not just the way you get around. It’s also any time you turn on lights or plug into an electrical outlet. More than half of the electricity in the U.S. comes from power plants that burn
coal and that’s another major source of carbon dioxide.
It’s a problem because carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas.
The vast majority of scientists agree all this carbon dioxide
that people produce is trapping heat in the atmosphere and making
the planet warmer.
David Archer is a climate scientist at the University of Chicago:
“The problem with fossil fuels is that the cost of that climate
change isn’t paid by the person who makes the decision to use
fossil energy so it’s sort of like a bill we’re leaving to future
generations.”
Some people say there’s a way to pay that bill now. About three
dozen companies and nonprofits have sprung up in the past few
years. They’re selling carbon offsets.
The idea of a carbon offset is to balance out the carbon dioxide
that you emit. In theory, you can do this by investing in
something like tree planting or energy projects that don’t emit
greenhouse gasses, such as wind or solar power.
First, you can go to one of the group’s websites and calculate
your carbon footprint. That’s all the carbon dioxide you produce
by driving, flying, and so on, in a year. North Americans have
especially big footprints.
The companies assign a price per ton of carbon that’s emitted.
You can decide how much of your carbon-emitting you want to
balance out. Then you type in your credit card number and voila… no more guilt.
Well, that’s the idea anyway.
But what if you buy a carbon offset
but you don’t change your behavior? If you keep driving and
flying and using electricity just as much as before, or maybe
more than before, you’re still a part of the problem.
“You’re absolutely still emitting the carbon. The idea is that
you’re balancing it out through reductions elsewhere.”
Tom Arnold is a cofounder of Terrapass. It’s a carbon offset
company:
“Now this isn’t the optimal solution of course – you should stop
driving. But it’s a good way that we can get you involved in the
dialogue and help you reduce emissions somewhere else.”
And you can get a little sticker for your car to show you’re in
the offsetting club. But Tom Arnold admits there aren’t a whole
lot of drivers of huge SUVs buying offsets.
“We have this nice little SUV sticker – it’s pretty expensive and
a horrible seller. Most of our members already drive passenger
cars, very efficient cars. They’re just looking for a tool to
balance the rest of their impact out to zero.”
Erasing your carbon footprint sounds pretty positive, but there
are quite a few critics of the carbon offset industry. They
point out there aren’t any agreed-on standards for what an offset
is, and prices are all over the map. So it’s not always clear
what you’re getting for your money.
Mark Trexler is president of Trexler Climate and Energy Services.
He’s a consultant who reviews the groups selling carbon offsets.
He says you do have to ask questions about what you’re buying:
“Am I putting my money into something that wouldn’t have happened
anyway? Because if somebody would’ve built that windmill anyway
or if they would’ve done whatever it is you’re putting money into
anyway, you’re really not rendering yourself climate neutral.”
Trexler says there are certification programs in the works so
consumers can know more about what they’re buying. But the people
who are buying offsets now say it feels like they’re making a
difference.
Kate Madigan bought offsets. She started thinking about it when
she was awake at night worrying about the world her new baby
would live in:
“Some people say oh, global warming, it’s going to change the
world in 100 years, but I’ll be gone by then. But I think that’s
a horrible way to look at things because we’re leaving the world
to a lot of people that we love.”
Madigan says she doesn’t think carbon offsets alone will really
solve the problem. She says she thinks it’ll take a lot of
harder choices too, like driving less and using less electricity.
Supporters say that’s the real power of offsets. It’s getting
people to talk about the role they play in global warming.
These SF6 circuit breakers are part of an electric grid. They are filled with compressed sulfur-hexafluoride gas which acts to open and close the switch contacts. The gas is a concern because it is 24,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. (Photo courtesy of OSHA).
The government is urging electric utilities to do more to stop leaks of the most potent greenhouse gas on the planet. Lester Graham reports the government program for the utilities is voluntary:
Transcript
The government is urging electric utilities to do more to stop leaks of the most potent greenhouse gas on the planet. Lester Graham reports the government program for the utilities is voluntary:
The gas sulfur hexafluoride is 24,000 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Electric utilities use 80% of the gas made as an insulator for high voltage switches.
Dina Kruger is with the US Environmental Protection Agency. She says the switches can leak.
“You know, the gas either leaks out slowly over time or can get vented in large quantities during maintenance of the equipment, and both of those provide an opportunity to reduce emissions. So, it’s not necessarily the case that you need to ban a chemical like this to avoid emissions to the atmosphere. You can also avoid those emissions through careful management.”
But, only a little more than half of the electric utilities in the nation have signed up for the EPA’s voluntary program to reduce emissions of the potent greenhouse gas.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
While people are lining up to see animated penguins with “happy feet,” environmental groups are predicting some breeds of the bird will go extinct because of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
While people are lining up to see animated penguins with “happy feet,” environmental groups are predicting some breeds of the bird will go extinct because of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Penguins are popular these days. Last year people flocked to the theatre to see the documentary March of the Penguins. This year they’re laughing at penguins in the animated movie Happy Feet.
But the Center for Biological Diversity says the penguins are in serious danger. It’s calling for protections for the birds.
Kassie Siegel is Director of the Center’s Climate, Air and Energy Program. The group is petitioning the government to protect 12 breeds of penguins under the Endangered Species Act.
“And we believe if and when penguins are listed, just like polar bears that we’ve also petitioned for, that entities that are responsible for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions would have additional regulation to consider the impact of those emissions on listed species.”
Siegel says some of these penguins will go extinct in coming decades unless greenhouse gas pollution is brought under control within the next ten years.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Photograph of illuminated incandescent-replacement fluorescent bulb. (Source: Jdorwin at Wikimedia Commons)
