Nasa Launches Carbon Satellite

  • Artist's concept of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. The satellite crashed into the ocean on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009. (Photo courtesy NASA Jet Propulsion Library)

(NOTE: THE SATELLITE FEATURED IN THIS STORY CRASHED INTO THE OCEAN ON TUESDAY, FEB. 24TH)

Drive your car. Mow your lawn. Heat your house. It all puts climate changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But not all of the carbon dioxide stays up there. Vincent Duffy reports scientists at NASA hope a new satellite will help them solve the mystery of where some of that CO2 goes:

Transcript

(NOTE: THE CARBON SATELLITE CRASHED INTO THE OCEAN ON TUESDAY, FEB. 24TH)

Drive your car. Mow your lawn. Heat your house. It all puts climate changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But not all of the carbon dioxide stays up there. Vincent Duffy reports scientists at NASA hope a new satellite will help them solve the mystery of where some of that CO2 goes:

People worried about climate change pay a lot of attention to carbon dioxide.
It’s one of the chief causes of climate change. And people put a lot of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, almost 8 billion tons a year.

That has former Vice President Al Gore worried. Here he is testifying before
Congress last month –

“Our home, earth, is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the
planet itself of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for
human beings.”

If we are in danger, then scientists need a good handle on what happens to
all that carbon dioxide.

About half of the CO2 created by humans is absorbed back into the earth by
what scientists call ‘carbon sinks.’ Scientists know half of the absorbed
carbon dioxide goes into the oceans, and the other half is sucked up by
plants. But scientists don’t know which plants are absorbing the most carbon
dioxide, and how the CO2 travels there.

The scientists at NASA hope a new satellite, called the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, will help them answer those questions.

David Crisp heads up the project. He says measuring carbon dioxide levels
from the ground doesn’t provide enough information to know where the
CO2 actually ends up.

“But from space we can actually make much more detailed measurements,
make a snapshot of the carbon dioxide distribution in the atmosphere. That
will give us much more information about where the carbon dioxide is and
from that we can infer where the sources are and where the sinks are.”

Right now it’s a bit of a blur. Anna Michalak is a professor at the University
of Michigan and part of the NASA team. She says to track what’s going on
with all the CO2 on the earth is like trying to figure out how cream went into
a cup of coffee.

“If I give you a cup of coffee, and I pour cream into the cup of coffee, and I
ask you what’s going to happen when I start stirring, it’s pretty easy to
predict that you’ll have a creamy cup of coffee. But what we do instead is
someone hands us a creamy cup of coffee and asks us, ‘Did we pour the
cream in on the left side or the right side, and did we pour the cream in five
minutes ago or ten minutes ago?’ And you can imagine that’s a much more
difficult question.”

Michalak says the satellite observatory will help answer that difficult
question, and help us understand how plants may react to carbon dioxide in
the future, as the earth’s climate changes. She says right now plants seem to
be absorbing more CO2 than ever before.

“And we have no guarantee that this is going to continue in the future. And
so you can imagine that something that has such a high value, there is an
interest in us knowing how predictable and how reliable this service is to us.
Because the cost for us to replicate anything resembling that is just
astronomical.”

The satellite will also answer other questions about climate change. Things
like which countries emit the most CO2.

Jiaguo Qi studies climate change at Michigan State University. He says the
satellite may show that people concerned about the cost of reducing green
house gasses may unfairly blame the United States and other developed
nations.

“Media report that North America is primarily responsible for global
warming. But we don’t know how much carbon dioxide other countries are
emitting, because we donít have good measure. This one will tell us who is
emitting and how much they are emitting instead of just blaming us.”

And the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory might show that it’s not
just the forests and jungles that help keep climate change at bay. It might
also be forests and farmland in the United States, and your lawn, and even
golf courses.

For The Environment Report I’m Vincent Duffy.

Related Links

Living Downstream From Dow Chemical

  • A Dow Chemical sign on the Tittabawassee River stating 'Enter At Your Own Risk' (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:

Transcript

It’s been more than 50 years since Dow
Chemical Company stopped dumping dioxin into the
river flowing past its plant in Michigan. But the
company and government regulators are still arguing
over how to clean it up. Vincent Duffy reports:

(sound of backyard)

Kathy Henry’s backyard runs down to the bank of the Tittabawassee River.
It’s a beautiful view, but that’s not what Kathy Henry sees.

“When I look back there now, I see dioxin.”

You can’t really see the dioxin, but it is there. Dow Chemical started
dumping dioxin into the Tittabawasee river in the 1890s. Dioxin is believed
to cause cancer and damage reproductive systems. And, there are high
concentrations of dioxin not only in the Tittabawasee, but in all the water
and floodplains between the chemical plant and Lake Huron 50 miles
downstream.

Kathy Henry first found out about the dioxin seven years ago when a
whistleblower at the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
warned local environmentalists about the contamination. She has wanted to
sell her house ever since.

“We’ve lived here for 24 years. We loved living in here. Now I’m afraid to
go out in my own yard. I just, psychologically, couldn’t stand living here
anymore. I had to get out.”

Dow says it will clean up any dioxin that’s proven to be dangerous to human
health, but the company has spent decades fighting with Michigan and the
US Environmental Protection Agency over how much of it is a threat.

Dow spokesman John Musser says there’s no proof anyone has gotten sick
because of the dioxin.

“We’re not seeing any impacts. We’re not seeing any cause for alarm. We’re
not seeing any imminent health threat. If it’s not a problem for humans or
the environment, then maybe the best thing to do is to leave it alone.”

But Michigan environmental officials are not so laissez-faire about the
contamination. They continue to warn residents about eating fish from the
rivers, about eating wild game killed in the region, and about swimming at
some beaches.

Robert McCann is with the state of Michigan. He says science is way past
the point of debating whether dioxin is dangerous.

“Study after study has shown that there are some very serious potential health
effects from being exposed to it, even at some lower levels over a long
period of time and those health effects do include things like cancer and
diabetes as well as some more minor health effects that can be caused from it.”

But Dow does debate whether dioxin is dangerous. John Musser says
Michigan and the EPA are using bad science based on dioxin exposure to lab
animals. He says Dow has human data from employees that show dioxin is
not as dangerous as people think.

“They were exposed at extremely high levels. And we’ve tracked their
health and their death records for 60 years and we’re not finding any ill
health effects.”

Attacking regulatory science is a common defense for industries. David
Michaels is an epidemiologist at George Washington University. He says
just like big tobacco questioned the link between smoking and lung cancer,
big business always questions the science.

“Companies know that by putting off the scientific debate for as many years
as they can they can keep doing the work that they’re doing and not be
disturbed. It works.”

For example, a recent meeting supposed to update residents about clean up
efforts turned into more of a debate between government scientists and scientists
hired by Dow. One member of the audience got sick of it.

“I’m not a geologist, I’m not a toxicologist, I’m just a resident that lives on
the river. And the last I knew dioxin was the most toxic substance known to
man. And what I’m seeing here is you guys trying to find excuses to justify
poisoning us.”

The EPA recently forced Dow to clean up four hot spots along the river,
including one spot with the highest concentration of dioxin ever found in the
United States.

But the last few months have had more set backs than
progress. In January, the EPA gave up trying to negotiate a clean up
agreement separate from Michigan’s. It said Dow’s proposals were going
backward.

Earlier this month the Region 5 director of the EPA was fired. Mary Gade
says it was because of her tough stance against Dow Chemical.

For The Environment Report, I’m Vincent Duffy.

Related Links

GOP ENVIROS FOR McCAIN

  • John McCain is giving Republicans for Environmental Protection a candidate to endorse. (Photo by Vincent Duffy)

The conservation movement started with
Republican president Teddy Roosevelt. But these
days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as
accurate this year. As Vincent Duffy reports,
Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:

Transcript

The conservation movement started with Republican president Teddy
Roosevelt. But these days it’s the Democrats who have the environmental
vote. That conventional wisdom might not be as accurate this year. As
Vincent Duffy reports, Republican presidential candidate John McCain is
sounding like an environmentalist:


The last time we had a presidential election, George Bush was the
Republican candidate. That was a problem for Jim DiPeso. He’s the policy
director for a group called Republicans for Environmental Protection. Given
Bush’s track record on the environment, DiPeso and his group could not endorse
him. And with a name like Republicans for Environmental Protection, there was
no way they were going to endorse a Democrat.


This election, DiPeso says his job is easier. His group is endorsing John
McCain:


“He clearly is the one with the best environmental record. He is the one who has done the most serious thinking
about the issue. He has offered serious proposals and we think that with John
McCain as President, our country’s environment would be in very good
hands.”


John McCain: “Now, my dear friends, I believe that climate change is real…”


That’s John McCain on the campaign trail. He was talking to voters in
Michigan where cars are still a big part of the economy. Cars that emit
greenhouse gasses. Cars that are blamed for global warming:


“And I’ll be glad to argue that with you, and discuss it, and debate it more.
But let’s suppose that I am wrong, so we mover forward with these green
technologies and all we’ve done is given our young people a cleaner planet.
But suppose we are right and do nothing, then what kind of a planet are we
going to hand these young people?”


Tailoring his speech a bit for a Michigan audience, McCain said there’s still
a future for the auto industry. But he says that future needs to use the green
technology on display at this year’s auto shows:


“You’ll see that there are hybrid cars. You’ll see that there are battery driven
cars. You’ll see that we can develop ethanol-driven automobiles. It can begin
here in Michigan and it can begin with green technologies.”


And McCain isn’t getting endorsements from environmental groups just
because he mentions global warming and green technologies on the
campaign trail. Allan Lichtman is a history professor at American University
and writes books on American politics. He says McCain’s legislative record
backs up his speeches about the environment:


“John McCain, at least since 2000, has been one of the strongest advocates
of action on global warming and action on the environment. Indeed, a few
years ago he teamed up with Senator Joe Lieberman, then a democrat, for a
bipartisan proposal, a modest proposal, on global warming that didn’t pass,
but certainly put John McCain at the forefront.”


Republicans for Environmental Protection want to point out that while
McCain might share the Democrats’ concern for the environment, his
solutions are Republican solutions. For instance, here’s an example of what
McCain calls green technology:


“And by the way one of them is nuclear power. Uh, I believe we have to go
back to nuclear power and my friends, it’s safe. We’ve sailed navy ships
(interrupted by applause). We have sailed navy ships around the world for
sixty years with nuclear power plants on them and we’ve never had an
accident.”


McCain says nuclear power is better for the environment because it doesn’t
produce the greenhouse gasses believed to cause global warming. Professor
Lichtman says the issue of nuclear power is still a major disagreement
between the parties:


“Uh, Republican environmentalists pretty much strongly come down on the
side of nuclear power which obviously helps cement their alliance with at
least an important industry. While those on the Democratic side and
traditional organizations tend to be much more leery of nuclear power and
favor putting emphasis on things like solar energy, geothermal energy,
biomass energy and wind energy.”


Nuclear power is not the only issue where McCain and many environmental
activists disagree. McCain says he would repeal President Clinton’s ban on
building roads in national forest preserves. He also opposes a carbon tax on
polluters. But for Jim DiPeso and his colleagues at Republicans For
Environmental Protection, McCain does solve a problem. It gives them
someone they can endorse.


For the Environment Report, I’m Vincent Duffy.

Related Links

Tires Are Finally Cleaned Up

Last summer, millions of scrap tires sat piled together in a huge tire dump outside of Akron, Ohio. This week (7/13/98), the last tire will be removed…thanks to an E-P-A fund created to clean up the state’s tire dumps. But as the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Vincent Duffy reports, funding for future clean up efforts could be in jeopardy: