Co-Opting “Cap and Dividend”

  • Senator Maria Cantwell says something has to be done to push the country toward alternative sources of energy – and away dependence on polluting fossil fuels. (Photo courtesy of the NREL, Warren Gretz)

A new climate change bill will be introduced next week. It’s expected to be very complicated because of so many competing interests. Critics say it won’t pass. Julie Grant reports another much shorter and simpler bill in the Senate is getting some overdue attention:

Transcript

A new climate change bill will be introduced next week. It’s expected to be very complicated because of so many competing interests. Critics say it won’t pass. Julie Grant reports another much shorter and simpler bill in the Senate is getting some overdue attention.

Carbon emissions come from smokestacks, tailpipes and all kinds of manufacturing processes. It’s considered the biggest culprit in the greenhouse gas pollution contributing to climate change.

We’ve heard a lot about a possible cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions. The House of Representatives passed a cap and trade bill last summer, but it hasn’t gone far in the Senate. Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, an independent, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican have been working on a bill for months.

But a simple bill called The CLEAR Act introduced last December has been is gaining interest. Senator Maria Cantwell is a Democrat from Washington State. She co-sponsored the bill with Republican Susan Collins of Maine.

Cantwell says something has to be done to push the country toward alternative sources of energy – and away dependence on polluting fossil fuels. That’s why they’re pushing the bill, called cap and dividend:

“We’re saying we think it’s very important to have a simple approach that the American people can understand. a 41-page bill is a lot about getting people to understand how this can work and helping us make a transition.”

Like cap and trade, the CLEAR Act would limit carbon emissions—it would put a cap on them. But it’s different from the complicated cap-and-trade plan that would target those who use energy and allow for many kinds of loopholes.

The Cantwell and Collins cap and dividend plan would concentrate on those who produce energy from fossil fuels. It would cap carbon at the tanker bringing in imported oil, the mine extracting coal, the oil and gas at the well head.

It would charge those energy producers for permits. Each year the number of permits would be reduced, so theoretically, the amount of carbon pollution would be gradually reduced.

Twenty-five percent of the money from the permits would go toward a clean energy fund. The other 75-percent would be paid at a flat rate to each person in the nation to offset higher energy prices.

So, fossil fuel energy would be more expensive, but families would get money to offset the higher costs.

Cantwell says no matter what we do, even if we do nothing, energy costs are going to rise. She says people want to know what to expect in their energy bills.

“What they want to know is how do you make that transition with the least impact to people and that’s what the Clear act is about; it’s about making a stable transition, and helping consumers along the way not get gouged by high energy prices.”

Many economists and environmentalists like the cap and dividend idea.

Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have said they’ll fold some elements of cap and dividend into their massive proposal.

Darren Samuelsohn is the Energy and Environment Reporter for GreenWire. He says the three Senators are taking a comprehensive look at carbon pollution in relation to the entire U.S. energy policy.

“They’ve been meeting as a group of three behind closed doors working to try and satisfy the needs for a price on carbon emissions, across multiple sectors of the economy–power plants, heavy manufacturing and transportation.”

And they’re using bits and pieces of the Cantwell-Collins proposal.

Senators Cantwell and Collins say they don’t want their bill

cannibalized by that large scale bill.

One reason Cantwell is concerned is that the Kerry, Lieberman Graham bill allows trading permits. She says trading hasn’t worked in the European system. And she’s concerned it will make the price of carbon vulnerable to speculators who could drive the prices up artificially.

Instead, she wants carbon prices decided at monthly federal auctions.

Cantwell says the time is right for a simple, predictable bill like the CLEAR Act.

“You don’t have to ahve a 2-thousand page bill and figure out how many allowances you have to give away in the back room to make somebody believe in this. This is a concept the American people can understand and one they can support.”

On Monday, the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill is expected to be introduced. The vote will be very close, so they can’t afford to ignore what Senators Cantwell and Collins want.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Guns in National Parks

  • Guns are no longer prohibited in America's national parks. (Photo courtesy of Fenners)

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

Transcript

People can now carry guns in national parks. The National Park Service is adapting to the new law. Samara Freemark reports:

The new policy means a reversal for the nation’s 392 National Park sites. Firearms have been prohibited in the parks.

But now….

Whatever law you were under in that state outside of the park now applies in the national park unit.

That’s National Park Service spokesman David Barna. He says that means that parks everywhere except Illinois and Washington DC will allow firearms.

But different states have different laws about the specifics – for example, whether you can conceal your weapon or not.

Barna says that could get complicated.

Appalachian Trail passes over 14 states. Yellowstone National Park is in 3 states. And the burden is going to be on the public to know those various laws.

Barna says the Park Service will help gun owners out with website updates and postings in park facilities.

But he says they can’t put up notices every time a park trail crosses a state line.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

EPA Weighs in on Mountaintop Permits

  • In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to get at coal that's close to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)

The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:

The Environmental Protection Agency says it supports permits for one mine in West Virginia because operators agreed to some environmental protections.

But the EPA is asking a federal court to delay a decision on another mine. The Spruce Number One mine – owned by a subsidiary of Arch Coal – is one of the largest mountainop removal mines ever proposed in the area.The EPA says it’s concerned the mine would bury streams and contaminate water.

Bill Raney is the President of the West Virginia Coal Association. In a recent interview he said regulators are changing the rules.

“And it’s punishing the people here with uncertainty, not knowing what the future holds as to whether you’re going to get the next permit and are you going to be able to mine the coal, are you going to be able to use it in the power plant.”

The EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement, the EPA is actually bringing clarity to the process.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Refinery Pollution Back-Down

British Petroleum says it will not use a new permit which would have
allowed the company to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:

Transcript

British Petroleum says it will not use a new permit which would have
allowed the company to dump more pollution into the Great Lakes.
Tracy Samilton reports:


The new permit gave BP’s Indiana refinery permission to dump more
pollutants into Lake Michigan. BP said it would need those higher
limits because of refinery expansion. Politicians, citizens and
environmentalists throughout the Great Lakes protested, often and
loudly.


In the end, BP backed off. The company says it will use its old permit
and seek a technological fix to limit pollution as it expands. Cameron
Davis of the Alliance for the Great Lakes says BP tried to play the
country’s needs for energy against the environment:


“It was amazing to see that debate somehow rear its head again this
time around and I think the results show most people just don’t buy it any
more.”


Davis says his group will keep pursuing a lawsuit it filed to challenge
the new permit, just in case BP doesn’t keep its word.


For the Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Citizen Lawsuit Targets Foreign Ships

  • Ocean vessel loading grain at elevator in Superior, Wisconsin. Nine foreign ships have been identified in the lawsuit against international shipping companies. (Photo by Jerry Bielicki, USACOE)

For decades foreign ships have brought tiny stowaways – called invasive
species – into the United States. And once they get loose, they upend
ecosystems and cause billions of dollars in damage. The shipping
industry has yet to seriously address the problem, and now conservation
and environmental groups are suing the companies they say are most at
fault. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

For decades foreign ships have brought tiny stowaways – called invasive
species – into the United States. And once they get loose, they upend
ecosystems and cause billions of dollars in damage. The shipping
industry has yet to seriously address the problem, and now conservation
and environmental groups are suing the companies they say are most at
fault. Mark Brush has more:


In 1988, the now infamous zebra mussel slipped out of a ship’s ballast
tank near Detroit. It didn’t take long for it to spread, first
throughout the Great Lakes, then through the Ohio and Mississpi rivers,
then on to Alabama and Oklahoma, and now it’s as far west as Nevada.


The mussels clog up intake pipes at water and power plants and mess up
the food chain. In some places in the Great Lakes, they’ve severely
damaged the sport fishing industry.


And that’s the damage just one foreign pest can do. More than a
hundred have gotten in and more are on the way. The government has
done little to stop the spread of these pests from foreign ships. In
2005, a federal court in California ordered the EPA to set up a system.
The EPA appealed that ruling.


Andy Buchsbaum is the Director of the National Wildlife Federation’s
Great Lakes office. He says ballast water from foreign ships should be
regulated:


“The law is very clear. The Clean Water Act says you cannot discharge
pollution into navigable waters, like the Great Lakes, without first
obtaining a permit. Period. Any discharge without a permit
is illegal.”


So, instead of waiting for the EPA to act, several environmental and
conservation groups, including Buchsbaum’s group, say they are planning
to sue several shipping companies that operate ocean-going boats on the
Great Lakes. They’re targeting nine boats they feel are the biggest
violators.


Industry representatives have said that ballast water regulations would
hurt international shipping, but in the Great Lakes, it’s estimated
that ocean-going ships make up only 6% of the overall tonnage.


Joel Brammeier is with the Alliance for the Great Lakes, one of the
groups that intends to sue the ship owners. He says a few ocean-going
boats have caused a lot of damage:


“The cost savings that we’re seeing from allowing unregulated ocean
shipping on the Lakes pales compared to the economic burden that
invasive species are placing on the Lakes. That’s stunning. The
ocean-going shipping industry is actually bringing in less than the
region is losing because of the things that ocean going ships
unintentionally bring in.”


The environmental and conservation groups who intend to sue say there
are ballast water cleaning technologies available now. The National
Wildlife Federation’s Andy Buchsbaum says they’re willing to back off
their lawsuit if the ship owners promise to clean up their ballast
water:


“This legal action is not designed to shut down the shipping industry
in the Great Lakes. That is not our intention. Our intention is to
get these guys to comply with the Clean Water Act. And that means
putting on treatment technology and getting permits.”


The shipping industry says it needs more time. Steve Fisher is with
the American Great Lakes Ports Association. He concedes there are some
technologies to clean up ballast water:


“I’ll be very frank with you. There’s technologies out there that will
do something.”


(Brush:) “So, why not use those?”


“Because a ship owner needs to know how high the bar is before he jumps
over it.”


In other words the ship owners won’t clean up their ballast water until
the federal government tells them how clean is clean, and so far, the
federal government hasn’t done that.


The EPA and the shipping industry say they’re working on the decades
old problem, but the groups that intend to sue say they’re not moving
fast enough. More invasive species are getting in. They’re hoping the threat of a
lawsuit will help force more action sooner.


For the Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Killing Eagles Approved

The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The federal government has a plan that it hopes
will continue to protect the bald eagle. But the
proposal would allow times when the bird
could be killed or moved. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The bald eagle population in the US has recovered, but critics worry
that without Endangered Species Act protection some landowners and
developers could carelessly harm a lot of the large birds. So, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a permit that would authorize
very limited killing or harming of eagles during otherwise lawful
activity.


Service Director Dale Hall says the permit would also let eagle nests
be moved if they pose a threat to human safety, such as near airport
runways:


“We expect to issue very few of these permits, since they would only be
available for safety emergencies.”


Conservation groups pushed the government for clearer plans to protect
the bald eagle, and generally welcome the new language. But a public
comment period could bring additional changes.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

New Law for Great Lakes Ships

  • Ballast holds can carry aquatic species from foreign ports to U.S. ports. Those species can cause severe damage to the ecological system of harbors, lakes and rivers. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory)

The Saint Lawrence Seaway is now open to international ship
traffic from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes. But as
Sarah Hulett reports, the start of this year’s Great Lakes
shipping season is raising questions about a new state law aimed
at protecting the lakes from invasive species:

Transcript

The Saint Lawrence Seaway is now open to international ship
traffic from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Lakes. But as
Sarah Hulett reports, the start of this year’s Great Lakes
shipping season is raising questions about a new state law aimed
at protecting the lakes from invasive species:


The state of Michigan is now requiring ocean-going ships that
come into the state’s ports to get ballast water permits, and
agree not to discharge untreated ballast into the lakes.


Ballast water is pumped in and out of a ship to help keep it
level in the water, but ballast water is known to carry small
organisms from foreign waters that can wreak havoc on Great
Lakes’ ecosystems.


So far, only two shipping companies have applied for the
permits. John Jamian heads the Seaway Great Lakes Trade
Association:


“The joke is that the big players that represent over 98% of the
cargo that comes into Michigan ports have not filed for permits.”


Jamian’s organization and others are suing to get the law
overturned. They say it violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S.
Constitution.


For the Environment Report, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Site Cleared for New Nuke

  • Exelon has gotten an Early Site Permit to build a nuclear reactor in Illinois. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Exelon, the nation’s largest operator of
nuclear power plants, has won clearance for a site
where it could build a new nuclear reactor…
someday. It’s the first time federal regulators
have awarded the new type of advance permit. Jim
Meadows reports:

Transcript

Exelon, the nation’s largest operator of nuclear power plants, has won
clearance for a site where it could build a new nuclear reactor…
someday. It’s the first time federal regulators have awarded the new
type of advance permit. Jim Meadows reports:


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted its first-ever Early Site
Permit this month for Exelon’s Clinton nuclear power station in central
Illinois. The permit authorizes a location at the Clinton plant for a
second nuclear reactor in the future.


Exelon spokeswoman Krista Lopykinski says they would have to apply
again to actually build and operate a reactor there:


“Should we decide to build a power plant, the next step would be to
apply for a combined operating license. But as of right now, we have no
plans to build a power plant in the near future.


Lopykinsky says before they seek to build another reactor at Clinton,
they’d want to be sure they have the right reactor technology on hand,
and that the nation has a workable solution to storing its spent
nuclear fuel.


For the Envronment Report, I’m Jim Meadows.

Related Links

Wolf Kill Permits Trigger Lawsuit

  • Gray wolves are listed as endangered in most states. (Photo courtesy of the Wisconsin Fish and Wildlife Service)

The Humane Society has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the permits two states use to kill problem wolves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

The Humane Society has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the permits two states use to kill problem wolves. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


Wisconsin and Michigan have had programs to euthanize gray wolves
that are destroying livestock. But in January, a federal court returned
the wolves to endangered status and halted the two states from
killing problem wolves.


A couple months later, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued new permits for Wisconsin and Michigan. But Humane Society attorney Patricia Lane says federal officials didn’t allow enough public input.


“They basically issued these permits under the table without any notice.”


Lane says the lack of public debate sets a bad precedent.
But the Fish and Wildlife Service says Wisconsin and Michigan were
told they could resume killing problem wolves, because the new
permits were similar to ones issued in the past.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

New Mining Operation Worries Neighbors

  • Resistance to the proposed sulfide mine project is strong in Big Bay, Michigan. It's the largest town (population 500) near the area. (Photo by Chris McCarus)

A multinational mining company is planning to mine for nickel near the shore of Lake Superior. But some mining experts and the community don’t want the mine to be built. They say there’s no way to make sure the mine won’t damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus reports:

Transcript

A multinational mining company is planning to mine for nickel near the shore of Lake Superior. But some mining experts and the community don’t want the mine to be built. They say there’s no way to make sure the mine won’t damage the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chris McCarus reports.


The price of nickel has tripled in recent years. It’s needed for electronic produces such as computers. It’s used to produce cars. And nickel is even used in air pollution control equipment. If it’s approved, this would be North America’s only active nickel mine.


Kennecott Minerals Corporation says it’ll mean 120 jobs for local workers over a 10-year period. The state of Michigan has been lagging behind the rest of the nation in job recovery and in the northern reaches of the state good jobs are really hard to find.


The mine will cost 100 million dollars to set up. But the value of the nickel ore in the ground is somewhere between one and three billion dollars. So the company could make hundreds of millions in profit.


Scientists and activists say that this nickel mine could be even worse than the iron and copper mines of the past.


That’s because it would require mining through sulfide minerals. When they mix with water and oxygen, they can become sulfuric acid, just like battery acid. The industry calls the problem acid mine drainage. It can kill fish and wildlife and pollute water.


Michelle Halle is a lawyer for the National
Wildlife Federation and a local resident. She’s got one question.


“I’m always interested in the answer to the question about whether he believes that a mine can exist with 100% perfect track record.”


It’s a rhetorical question. She’s confident that the company won’t be able to meet the newer, stricter standards for getting a permit to mine.


“No human error, no design flaws, no natural disasters that are going to cause an impact… I don’t think that any company can say yes to that honestly.”


The mining company says there’s always some risk. John Cherry works for Kennecott Minerals Corporation. Cherry insists the company’s design is the best, and the safest. Although he says it’s impossible to guarantee against accidents at the mine.


“We can get in a crash on the way home today too. You design it with a safety factor built into your design. You have a very robust design. That’s your first step. You make your system as structurally competent as you can. Make it as bulletproof as you can.”


Cherry says the next steps are to install a monitoring system to detect the smallest problems. And if there are any problems, the mine will have a contingency plan with the right materials and properly trained people on hand.


State law requires the company to pay all of its accident insurance up front. They can’t just pay in installments. That way, the company will pay to clean up any mess, not the state or the community. Minnesota has a similar law. And In Wisconsin, People Against Mining got the state to establish a moratorium on sulfide mining


David Chambers used to work as a geologist for a mining company. And now he works for the Center for Science in Public Participation. He says, at the nickel mine planned in Michigan, groundwater contamination is possible and would be dangerous.


“Probably the most likely event is an accidental release from the mine. All mines have problems. It’s likely that somebody won’t turn a valve the right way or a big storm comes and there’s an overflow.”


Chambers says a mine collapse would be the most destructive. But, he says, even for the accidents that will not devastate the environment, the company and the community should plan, because they will happen.


(Sound of trucks)


On the road leading into the wilderness area where the mine would operate, local road crews are doing routine maintenance. Right now, most people who use the road are hikers, kayakers and fishermen. The pristine waters of Lake Superior and surrounding lakes and streams attract them here.


Kristy Mills is a store owner. She thinks a sulfide mine would only mean heavier traffic of trucks carrying away nickel ore. She says it wouldn’t bring in the tourist dollars the area needs.


“We don’t like to see that kind of growth. I think it’s a poor way of investing into our future. You know, we need to encourage tourism and visitation, not mining and hauling ore around in big trucks. It’s gonna be interesting.”


Many local residents and environmental activists feel the area should have learned lessons from the region’s past mining heritage. The precious ore is removed. People somewhere else get rich. And the legacy of pollution is all that remains when the mines are closed. So now, they’re hoping if it comes, this mine will be different.


For the GLRC, I’m Chris McCarus.

Related Links