Electric utility companies say they’re reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. But
according to a recent study the power companies are actually increasing their emissions.
Kyle Norris has this report:
Transcript
Electric utility companies say they’re reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. But
according to a recent study the power companies are actually increasing their emissions.
Kyle Norris has this report:
Researchers studied a voluntary program run by the Department of Energy. In the
program, electric utility companies self-report their reductions of greenhouse gases.
Researchers then compared this information to the levels that companies actually
emitted. Tom Lyon ran the University of Michigan’s study:
“I think what it tells you is you can’t really believe what the company is saying. The
company will tell you the good stuff and not the bad stuff unless you force them to tell
you the whole truth.”
The study found that 60% of the companies claiming a reduction in their emissions had
actually increased their emissions. Lyon says that the study shows that the government
needs to require the companies to fully disclose all of their greenhouse emissions.
Bernard Brown says making a peanut butter and jelly (or PB and fruit) sandwich is better for the environment than eating a burger or chicken nuggets. (Photo by Jennifer Szweda Jordan)
Bernard Brown waves a peanut butter-smeared knife as he explains how PB & J sandwiches can reduce global warming. (Photo by Jennifer Szweda Jordan)
A cookie cutter can transform a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into a character for a slide show on Brown's website to make the case that a small change can make a big difference in the environment. (Photo by Jennifer Szweda Jordan)
What could be more American, more humble, than a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich? And yet one activist suggests a PB and J a day could help slow
global warming. Jennifer Szweda Jordan recently visited the founder of the
PB and J Campaign:
Transcript
What could be more American, more humble, than a peanut butter and jelly
sandwich? And yet one activist suggests a PB and J a day could help slow
global warming. Jennifer Szweda Jordan recently visited the founder of the
PB and J Campaign:
(Brown:) “So we just spread some peanut butter on your banana bread.
Would you like to try it?”
(Jordan:) “Yeah. Yeah.”
Bernard Brown is trying to get people to see the peanut butter and jelly
sandwich in a new light. On his website, there’s a saintly glow behind a
graphic of the sandwich. He thinks eating a peanut butter and jelly sandwich
could just save the planet.
Brown estimates that eating one peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch
versus, say, a ham sandwich, or a burger, saves nearly three and a half
pounds of greenhouse gas emissions and 280 gallons of water. In Brown’s
kitchen, he waves a peanut butter covered knife. He explains why he’s using
this comfort food to change the world:
(Jordan:) “Why peanut butter and jelly? Like it’s a pretty processed, highly
processed kind of…”
(Brown:) “Yeah, it’s because it’s the most familiar food I could think of that
didn’t have, that was sort of purely plant-based and wasn’t animal-based at
all. It’s one of these things like people might be scared by words like vegan
or vegetarian. But there’s absolutely nothing alternative about peanut butter
and jelly.”
What’s more, some experts suggest Brown’s not, well, nuts. A Princeton
bioethicist says if 100 million Americans – that’s one of three of us – traded a
burger for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it would make an impact on
the environment. And if we made the same choice three times a week, it
would make a huge impact.
Those who worry that Brown’s dietary suggestions might make a huge impact on the
waistline, take heart. A serving of two tablespoons of peanut butter does have nearly 200
calories and 16 grams of fat. But the fat is not the worrisome saturated type and there’s
some evidence that eating a small amount of nuts each day might reduce the risk of heart
disease, and even prevent cancer.
Of course, Brown and nutritionists still suggest partnering a low-sugar peanut butter with
whole grain breads, and low-sugar jellies, or even fresh fruit. And Brown hopes people
consider moving beyond the peanut butter and jelly:
“On the website, we go into other different, other foods people could try – a
bean burrito’s a good example. Black bean soup. Falafel. We even tried
mentioning tofu. I’m not sure if it scares people away.”
Brown really wants to win over people by keeping the campaign from
becoming a crusade. He says that even a vegetarian like him is turned off by
overly radical, moralistic or bloody efforts against meat-eating, or for saving
the world:
“I think have a lot of messages that, ‘Things are very scary, you must change
your life.’ And so, it’s to try to come in with a softer approach, I think. The
ideal is to reach people who aren’t reached with more intense messages.”
Brown hopes to disarm you with playfulness. And what could be more playful than
playing with your food – turning peanut butter and jelly sandwiches into
people?
(Sound of fast typing)
On a laptop computer, Brown calls up a slide show he’s made of a
gingerbread-style cutout couple, peanut butter and jelly boy and girl. They’re
making a snowman and chatting. When PBJ boy gets a little sad, his
companion wonders why:
“He’s concerned that maybe global warming will mean there won’t be
conditions for making snowmen in the future.”
(Jordan:) “Can you read this one? They’re very sophisticated?”
(Brown:) “PBJ Girl says, ‘Well, anthropogenic climate change is a serious
problem. It should only affect the climate gradually. I’m positive we’ll able
to build a snowman next year.’ And then PBJ boy says, ‘Well, I guess that
makes me feel better, but what if our grandkids never see snow?'”
The girl says if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it might stay snowy in
the winter. Then she backs up Brown’s claim that it’s easy enough to do: just
have a sandwich that looks a lot like her and visit the pbjcampaign.org
website.
PBJ boy and girl are just the beginning.
(Sound of jingling cookie cutters)
Brown has a jar full of more cookie cutters like those he used to make the
boy and girl. He figures a wider variety of peanut butter and jelly creatures
could act in slide shows and carry out other environmental messages.
Brown’s not just limiting his work to online skits. He’s also trying to build a
calculator into his site so visitors can register the number of peanut butter
and jelly sandwiches they’ve eaten. Then he can track the impact. No
matter what, though, Brown plans for the campaign to remain light, fun, and
easy to swallow.
For the Environment Report, this is Jennifer Szweda Jordan.
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Transcript
There’s a lot of talk these days in Washington about creating new laws
to cut greenhouse gas emissions. One major question right now is how
the government will handle carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles. Any
new regulation is expected to have some financial impact on automakers.
And, as Dustin Dwyer reports, the carmakers are looking to share the
burden:
Back in March, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing
on how the auto industry could help fight global warming. All the
bigwigs in the U.S. auto industry were there: the heads of Ford,
General Motors and Chrysler, the North American president of Toyota and
the head of the United Auto Workers.
At the hearing, all of them agreed they would support a cap on CO2
emissions from vehicles, but they had a sort of caveat:
“We believe that there’s a lot of merit to it. And we believe if it’s
upstream…”
“For Cap and Trade, I think the further upstream you go, the more
efficient you’re going to be.”
“I’d just echo the upstream part.”
“The upstream as I stated earlier and the rest is absolutely critical.”
That was Ron Gettlefinger of the UAW, Jim Press of Toyota, Alan Mulally
of Ford, and Tom Lasorda of Chrysler.
So what do they mean by “upstream”? Here’s Ford spokesman Mike Moran:
“Lower carbon fuels, so that it’s just not what comes out of the
tailpipe, but you’re moving upstream and including the fuels that would
be included in the equation in the transportation sector.”
Basically the idea is, if you have less carbon in the fuel, you’ll pump
less carbon dioxide into the air.
But car companies really can’t take the carbon out of fuel. That’s
really more of a job for the oil industry. So are auto executives just
passing the buck?
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says yeah, they’re
dodging the issue:
“The auto companies are basically finding more creative ways to say,
‘No,’ they won’t do anything to improve their products.”
Auto executives would say they’re already working to improve their
products, with millions of ethanol-capable vehicles on the road, and a
growing number of gas-electric hybrids. And many in the auto industry feel that they’ve been singled out for
regulation in the past.
The carmakers main lobbying group, the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers says that for the past 30 years, the auto industry has
been the only industry subject to carbon dioxide regulations. Though
most people try to avoid saying so in public, there is clearly some
tension between the auto industry and the oil industry.
Louis Burke is with Conoco Phillips. He says his company is willing to
do more to cut greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the oil company just
came out in favor of setting up mandatory federal rules. Those include a
possible system that caps carbon dioxide emissions, and allows
companies to trade carbon credits as if they were commodities:
“You can cap and trade at some point down within the value chain,
whether it’s all the way upstream, or whether it’s pretty far downstream. You
can also apply a carbon tax throughout the whole value chain. The whole
idea is it’s gotta be transparent, it can’t penalize any one group.”
So upstream, downstream, the point is something needs to be done.
David Friedman of the Union of Concerned Scientists says everyone can
do a little more:
“Everyone has to do their part. That means car companies have to
produce vehicles to get more miles to the gallon. Oil companies need to
have lower carbon fuels and yes, even consumers need to find ways to
drive less.”
It’s still not clear what exactly what approach Congress will take
toward cutting auto emissions, but while leaders in Washington try to
settle on a plan, local and state officials across the country are
coming up with their own plans.
California and 10 other states have their own plans to regulate
tailpipe emissions. Those plans are being challenged in court by the
auto industry. And California has also gone forward with the nation’s first low carbon
standard for fuels.
That “upstream” plan has the support of both auto and oil companies.
A government lab has unveiled the first global system to track
greenhouse gas emissions. Rebecca Williams reports scientists hope the
system will be the next step in cutting emissions that have been linked
to global warming:
Transcript
A government lab has unveiled the first global system to track
greenhouse gas emissions. Rebecca Williams reports scientists hope the
system will be the next step in cutting emissions that have been linked
to global warming:
The system’s called Carbon Tracker. It pulls in data from sampling
stations around the world and creates maps. The maps show carbon
dioxide emissions from both natural sources and manmade sources such as
burning fossil fuels.
Carbon dioxide – or CO2 – is a potent greenhouse gas.
Pieter Tans is a climate scientist with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. He says the goal of Carbon Tracker is to
have an accurate measure of manmade CO2 emissions… down to the state
and city level.
“If this indeed works out as I hope it will, we will have an objective
tool to measure the effectiveness of whatever it is that we’re doing.”
Pieter Tans says the carbon tracker system might pave the way for
policies such as a carbon tax or a cap and trade system for CO2
emissions.
The state of California is poised to lead the nation in the effort to combat global warming. California will impose the kind of sweeping greenhouse gas emissions reductions the federal government has rejected. The GLRC’s Tamara Keith has more:
Transcript
The state of California is poised to lead the nation in the effort to combat global
warming. California will impose the kind of sweeping greenhouse gas emissions
reductions the federal government has rejected. The GLRC’s Tamara Keith has more:
The California global warming solutions act will set into state law a cap on greenhouse
gas emissions: a 25% reduction by 2020, and it empowers state regulators to require
major emissions reductions from the largest carbon polluters. The list includes oil
refineries, power plants, landfills and cement factories. The bill’s author Democrat
Fabian Nuqez says he hope this landmark legislation starts a nationwide movement.
“We want to be the first to do our share, to say to the rest of the nation, let’s all follow
suit.”
This legislation is the result of a deal struck between Democrats and Republican Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Major business groups fought hard against the bill saying California can’t cure global
warming on its own and new regulations will drive businesses out of the state.
Several Internet companies offer ways for drivers to offset the impact of their car’s greenhouse gas emissions by investing in clean energy. Now, one of the Big Three automakers wants to sign up its customers. The GLRC’s Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
Several Internet companies offer ways for drivers to offset the impact of
their car’s greenhouse gas emissions by investing in clean energy. Now,
one of the Big Three automakers wants to sign up its customers. The
GLRC’s Rebecca Williams has more:
It’s sort of like getting your sins forgiven… if you feel guilty for driving
an SUV.
It’s called carbon offsetting. What happens is… you spend anywhere
from 30 to 80 bucks for a carbon offset. The money gets invested in
cleaner energy projects – like wind farms – that don’t produce greenhouse
gasses.
Ford Motor Company is teaming up with a carbon offset company called
Terrapass… to promote carbon offsets to Ford customers.
Tom Arnold is a founder of Terrapass. He says Ford’s been criticized for
its poor fuel economy record… and for opposing California’s greenhouse
gas regulations on cars.
“It’s a question of helping Ford take steps in the right direction. Here’s
something that can help the organization better communicate to green
customers.”
Arnold points out there are also some free ways to cut down on carbon
dioxide emissions… such as driving less or buying a more fuel efficient
car.
A business group representing the world’s largest auto and oil companies has released a report that calls for more action to deal with the social and environmental impacts of cars and trucks. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman has more:
Transcript
A business group representing the world’s largest auto and oil
companies has released a report that calls for more action to deal with
the social and environmental impact of cars and trucks. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman has more:
The report was developed through the World Business Council for
Sustainable Development. It calls for so-called “sustainable
mobility.” That includes controlling pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions and reducing traffic deaths and congestion. Louis Dale with
General Motors worked on the report.
“There are about 800 million vehicles in the world today. By 2030,
just about 25 years from now, there will be almost a doubling of that.
Probably at least 1.5 billion vehicles.”
Dale says making environmental and safety improvements will help avoid
a backlash from government or customers. Dan Becker is with the Sierra
Club. He says the report is nice. But the companies could do more now.
“Hybrid cars are one example, but better engines, better
transmissions, better aerodynamics. The auto industry needs to take
these technologies off the shelf and put them on their vehicles.”
The industry report says that some improvements can be made now, but
effective cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will have to wait until well
after 2030.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.
This map is used by car sharing members
in Ottawa, Ontario. It shows the location of cars available for pick-up (Image courtesy of Vrtucar – Ottawa, Ontario).
Cars are among the largest polluters in the world. They contribute to the smog that hangs over many large cities and they’re a major culprit in the creation of greenhouse gas emissions. But most of us are reluctant to give up our cars altogether. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports, a growing number of North Americans are opting to share a car instead:
Transcript
Cars are among the largest polluters in the world. They contribute to the smog that hangs over
many large cities and they’re a major culprit in the creation of greenhouse gas emissions. But
most of us are reluctant to give up our cars altogether. As the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Karen Kelly reports, a growing number of North Americans are opting to share a car instead:
(sound of stroller)
Nathalie Buu is pushing a stroller past the shops in a trendy neighborhood in Canada’s capital,
Ottawa. She’s heading for a car which is parked about four blocks from her apartment. It’s a
Toyota Echo and she shares it with about 15 other people. When she gets to the parking lot, Buu
wheels the stroller over to a black box attached to the side of a building.
“So you take the, umm, open the lock box and the keys for the car are inside.”
(key noise)
Buu belongs to Vrtucar, a car-sharing company based in Ottawa. There are almost 200
members, and they share 11 cars. The cars are parked all over the downtown area.
Buu has two kids and a regular commute. Still, she and her husband decided they didn’t really
need a vehicle.
“When we had a car, we just found it more of a headache to have to think about repairing it or
bringing it for an oil change, and having had a car in a busy city like Montreal, we don’t really
agree with having cars in the city. It’s just too busy a place and you should be able to use public
transport, I think.”
Nowadays, Buu takes the bus to her job as a doctor at a local hospital. And when she needs to
use a car, she calls an 800 number to reserve one.
The decision to share a vehicle has been quickly gaining in popularity. Car sharing began in post
war Europe. The first North American company opened in Quebec in 1994.
Today, there are 29 companies in North America, most of them in bigger cities like New York,
Chicago and Toronto.
Susan Shaheen is a researcher at UC-Berkeley who studies car-sharing. She says companies tend
to spring up in places where owning a car has become a hassle.
“These organizations tend to thrive when driving disincentives exist such as high parking costs or
congestion. Alternative modes are easily accessible, such as transit and something we see quite
often in the early adoption of this type of service is some environmental consciousness.”
Concern about the environment was one of the main reasons Wilson Wood and his business
partner Chris Bradshaw started Vrtucar. They bought the first car in 2000. They hope to have
twenty by the end of next year. The weird thing is, Wood says they’re actually opposed to
driving.
“I can’t think of two worse guys to run a car business. You know, we hate cars. We believe the
hierarchy of transportation needs should be: your first choice is your foot, your second choice is
your bike, your third choice is your bus, and the last choice should be an automobile.”
But Wood says the reality is, sometimes you need a car. He finds most members use them for
longer trips within the city, where public transportation isn’t convenient. Not surprisingly, the
cars are especially in demand on evenings and weekends. But the company keeps them in
parking lots spaced just a half mile apart. So if the closest car isn’t available, another one is
nearby.
Nathalie Buu says she uses the car for big shopping trips or to attend meetings in the suburbs.
And she says she rarely has trouble getting one.
“I tend to be last minute and I’ll just call and say is the car available right now? And very often it
is. I’ve never had a problem that way, which has been great.”
Buu says car sharing is cheaper for them as well. They don’t have a car payment. They don’t pay
for parking, insurance, maintenance or gas on a car they’d only use a few times a month.
However, they do pay fees. It starts with a 500 dollar insurance deductible which is returned if
you leave the company. There’s also a monthly fee of either 10, 20 or 30 dollars, depending on
how often you drive. And you pay for time and distance, which averages about 15 dollars for a
three hour, 22-mile trip.
It’s cheaper than renting a car for the day. But still, 15 bucks may seem a bit pricey for 3 hours in
a car. Make this argument to Wilson Wood and he’ll pull out figures from the Canadian
Automobile Association. They estimate it costs about 5 thousand dollars a year to own a new car.
Plus, Wood argues, car share members use their cars more wisely.
“Our members are making more efficient and more environmentally intelligent choices because
they’re bundling their trips. They say, ‘oh geez, I know I’ve only got the car once this week and
I’m going to take it for 2 hours on Friday afternoon after work so I’m going to do this, this and
this.'”
(sound in car)
Not everyone joins just to save money.
Nathalie Buu says her choice was a more personal one.
“If everybody was doing this sort of thing, then we’d have less pollution in the cities. And if
you’re thinking about the future, not only your future but the future of our own kids and the air
they’re breathing and the life they’ll live, I think it’s important to think about that and not just our
immediate needs.”
But it’s not always easy. And Buu says that’s okay. Because she feels like she’s helping to create
the kind of environment that she’d like to live in.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
The Canadian government is under attack by environmentalists after it exempted car manufacturers from its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
The Canadian government is under attack by environmentalists after it exempted car
manufacturers from its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Opponents say the government granted the exemption because the car assembly plants are located
in Ontario.
The province is a stronghold of support for the leading Liberal party.
But federal officials say the auto plants were exempted because their emissions are already low.
Many industries are required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the newly signed
Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
John Bennett of the Sierra Club agrees that the auto plants are relatively small polluters.
But he’s concerned that the feds lost some leverage as they try to convince automakers to create
more fuel efficient cars.
“It was a short term political tactic, but in the long term, it might mean we won’t get the kinds of
fuel efficiency improvements in cars that are absolutely essential if we’re going to meet the Kyoto
target and go beyond it.”
Thus far, the auto industry is resistant to building more efficient vehicles.
For The Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
Canadians are being asked to take public transportation and turn down the heat as Canada prepares to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. From Ottawa, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has more:
Transcript
Canadians are being asked to take public transportation and turn down the heat as Canada
prepares to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. From Ottawa, Karen Kelly has
more:
Each Canadian is being asked to reduce personal greenhouse gas emissions by 20-percent
over the next decade to help Canada meet its Kyoto target.
It will require Canada as a whole to reduce its emissions by about a third.
To help meet that goal, the government will provide incentives for Canadians to buy
more fuel-efficient cars and to better insulate their homes.
Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal says Canada needs everyone’s participation.
“This is a very small step to a very long journey and we have to make sure we get
everybody engaged at all levels – consumers, government, industry.”
The federal government plans to ratify the accord by the end of year.
But it faces tough opposition from industry and the provinces.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
