Canada’s conservative government recently unveiled the final details of
its long awaited policy on fighting climate change… and it says it
will not meet its Kyoto targets. And as Dan Karpenchuk reports, so far
the proposed eight billion dollar policy has been a tough sell:
Transcript
Canada’s conservative government recently unveiled the final details of
its long awaited policy on fighting climate change… and it says it
will not meet its Kyoto targets. And as Dan Karpenchuk reports, so far
the proposed eight billion dollar policy has been a tough sell:
Canadian Environment minister John Baird, laid out the details of the
framework policy called Turning the Corner, something he described as
the most ambitious environmental plan ever tabled in Canada:
“Canadian industry is today served notice that it will have to become
more efficient in order to both reduce its greenhouse gasses and to
reduce air pollution. We will do this by mandating strict targets for industry.”
Under the new green plan, the government hopes to reduce current
emissions 20% by the year 2020. It calls for industries to make
in-house reductions, participate in domestic emissions trading, buy
energy offsets and invest in a technology fund.
But there are no specifics. Canada’s oil industry, one of the biggest
polluters, is breathing easier, relieved there will be no hard caps on
emissions.
But environmentalists say it doesn’t even match the commitments made by
some other countries. And the liberals call it a scam.
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.
Some governors want a high-ethanol blend of gasoline called E-85 to be more easily available to customers. That’s touched off a dispute with the oil industry. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Some governors want a high-ethanol blend of gasoline called E-85 to be
more easily available to customers. That’s touched off a dispute with the
oil industry. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
E-85 is 85 percent ethanol made from corn and 15 percent gasoline.
Because of tax subsidies, its pump price is much lower than gas, but only
certain vehicles can burn the fuel. The number of gas stations that offer
E-85 is small.
Some politicians from corn-growing states want more E-85 pumps – right
next to where traditional gasoline is available, but petroleum industry
spokesperson Erin Roth contends some consumers might put E-85 in the
wrong type of vehicle. He also says many stations can’t add another
underground storage tank.
“Or they’re gonna have to get rid of say mid-grade or premium and put in
E-85 and there’s just not the demand for it right now.”
But if gasoline continues to sell for around three dollars a gallon, ethanol
producers and their political allies say the public will push for more
alternatives.
The government is considering redefining what is a truck and what is a car. The difference will affect the federal fuel economy standards. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The government is considering redefining what is a truck and what is a car. The difference will
affect the federal fuel economy standards. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham
reports:
Fuel economy standards for light trucks are less restrictive than they are for cars. The auto
industry takes advantage of the rules regarding the definitions to make vehicles you might think
of as a car fall under the less restrictive light truck fuel economy standards. For example, the
popular Chrysler P-T Cruiser qualifies as a light truck. The New York Times published a report
indicating the Bush administration is looking to further change the definitions. Environmentalists
are concerned.
Daniel Becker is with the Sierra Club.
“You can redesign to either save more gas or guzzle more gas. Our fear is that the Bush
administration, responding to their friends in the auto industry and the oil industry, will instead
decide that we need to guzzle more gas.”
The Bush administration is reported to be considering the changes to achieve greater fuel
economy, but some environmental groups remain skeptical.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
A Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposal to lease Great Lakes bottomlands for oil and gas development has prompted a lot of discussion regarding the risks and benefits of drilling near the Great Lakes. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Michael Barratt explains, those resources can be developed now in an environmentally safe manner:
Transcript
A Michigan Department of Natural Resources proposal to lease Great Lakes bottomlands for oil and gas development has prompted a lot of discussion regarding the risks and benefits of drilling near the Great Lakes. As commentator Michael Barratt reveals, those resources can be developed now in an environmentally safe manner.
People around the Great Lakes have seen quantum jumps in the price of energy within the last few months. Gasoline prices in Michigan for example are approaching $2.00/ gallon, natural gas prices have increased 40-60%, and propane prices have increased markedly.
Since Michigan only produces 4% of its crude oil demand and 30% of its natural gas demand, we need to find ways to both conserve and maintain our energy supply.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has proposed to lease land under the Great Lakes for the purpose of drilling wells from onshore locations. The proposed procedures require new wells to be located at least 1,500′ from the shoreline. They also require that sites be screened, and no drilling is to be permitted in dune areas, floodplains, or environmentally sensitive areas.
Additional wells drilled under Great Lakes waters may encounter significant reserves to help Michigan have a secure energy supply. Using a safe and proven technology known as directional drilling, it is possible to reach and produce these reserves with little to no effect on the surrounding areas. There have been 13 wells drilled under Great Lakes waters from onshore locations since 1979. Seven of those wells, which are still producing, have produced 439,000 barrels of oil and more than 17 billion cubic feet of gas. There have been no spills, accidents, or incidents associated with the wells since they have been drilled.
New wells drilled under Great Lakes waters, if drilling is allowed , could produce an additional 90 billion cubic feet of gas, and 2 million barrels of oil; enough to heat more than 1 million homes and fuel 157,500 cars for a year. We now have a window of opportunity to use existing infrastructure associated with the currently producing wells to develop some of the additional reserves under the Great Lakes. Drilling pads, roads, pipelines, and production facilities are in place that can be used to drill new wells under the Great Lakes.
Besides energy security, the people of Michigan benefit from royalties paid to the State of Michigan. That money is put into the Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund to develop and extend parks, and to purchase wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. The seven wells currently producing have contributed more than $16,000,000 to the Fund. Additional wells drilled under the Great Lakes could contribute another $85,000,000-$100,000,000
Let’s develop the State’s Bottomland resources now in a safe and environmentally friendly way to ensure that Great Lakes waters and shorelines can be enjoyed by future generations and also to make sure we have the energy supplies here to maintain our quality of life.
As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now turning their attention to prospecting in one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly:
Transcript
As the debate on a national energy policy intensifies, the hunt for more places to drill and dig for new energy is escalating. States are now focusing their attention on prospecting for one place that hits close to home: the Great Lakes. As commentator Cameron Davis of the Lake Michigan Federation explains, drilling under the continent’s largest body of fresh surface water is not something to be taken lightly.
No matter which estimate you believe – that there’s only enough oil and gas to power a Great Lakes state for 2 minutes or 8 weeks – opening the Great Lakes to new oil and gas drilling is simply not worth the risk. Hydrogen sulfide, known to exist in lakebed oil and gas reserves, can escape during drilling causing far-reaching human health problems. Wellhead and pipeline leaks can contaminate groundwater and surface water in streams, often without adequate cleanups by the state agency responsible for drilling oversight. And, drilling can damage some of the most fragile fish and wildlife habitat known, habitat that exists along Great Lakes coasts.
The argument that drilling means more royalties to states doesn’t even hold up. One state Auditor General recently found that oversight of leasing and royalty payments from drilling operations continues to be lax. What does this mean? It means that taxpayers aren’t getting the financial benefits from drilling that they’re supposed to get.
Last, it’s not unusual for the same state agency to serve as subjective promoter of drilling while at the same time supposing to be the objective regulator. States such as Michigan, which is leading the charge for new drilling, can’t have it both ways and maintain their credibility. If they try to have it both ways, it’s inevitable that Congress will step in – as it did this summer with its own legislation.
President Bush, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle, and a majority of citizens have all said that Great Lakes oil and gas drilling isn’t worth the risk. So why does a bad idea keep moving forward?