President-elect Barack Obama says
America will open a new chapter in dealing
with climate change. Lester Graham reports
the Senator confirmed he will work toward
the plan he outlined during the presidential
campaign:
Transcript
President-elect Barack Obama says
America will open a new chapter in dealing
with climate change. Lester Graham reports
the Senator confirmed he will work toward
the plan he outlined during the presidential
campaign:
In a surprise video statement that opened the Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Los
Angeles, Obama said there’ll be no more denial or delay. As soon as he’s president,
America will help lead toward global cooperation on climate change, starting with a
federal carbon cap-and-trade program and making investments in clean energy.
Bill Kovacs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce likes the investments idea, but
cautions restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions could hurt business.
“You need to be very sensitive, especially in a stressed-out economy that you could end
up imposing very huge costs on virtually everybody who participates in the economy.”
President-elect Obama said in the video statement he’ll work with business.
“Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington.”
Environmentalists applauded the statement. It’s the first on climate change since
Barack Obama won the presidency.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois (Photo by Lester Graham)
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Transcript
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Recently I dropped in on a corporate meet-and-greet in Chicago.
I waded through through computerized presentations, and loads of free pastry and coffee,
and heard executives from Pepsi, IBM, and Staples talk about cutting their carbon
emissions.
The company most eager to talk was Exelon.
“We’re a very large power generator, we are also a very large utility company and
given our size, we have a special responsibility to help address the implications of
climate change.”
Ruth Ann Gillis is an executive Vice President at Exelon.
The company’s prepping for the day when the government makes them pay when they
put carbon into the atmosphere.
Gillis says Exelon is starting early, and plans to cut carbon emissions by fifteen million
tons a year by 2020.
“The reduction, the offset, the displacement of fifteen million tons is the equivalent
of taking three million cars a year off our roads and highways. And for nothing
more, everyone should be hopeful we are indeed successful, because it will make a
difference.”
To make that difference, Exelon will promote efficiency, cut the coal used in some of its
power stations, and slash its own energy use in buildings and vehicles.
I head to one of Exelon’s power plants to learn another way Exelon might cut its carbon
output.
Plant Manager Brian Hanson says the idea is to squeeze more power out of existing
nuclear power stations.
Brian Hanson: “One of our strategies of our 2020 Carbon iniative is to increase
power in some of our reactors, to take advantage of some of the flexibility built into
the power plants.”
Shawn Allee: “When you say flexibility what do you mean by that?”
Hanson: “They were built with extra pumps and systems that would let us operate
at higher power.”
Allee: “Do you need somebody’s permission to do that?”
Hanson: “As part of our license to operate the facility we’re only allowed to operate
at a certain power level, but to go above that we have to submit a formal
engineering study to the nuclear regulatory commission.”
But why upgrade? Why squeeze more power out of old plants? Why not build new
nuclear power plants, too?
Well, Exelon would like to. But it’s not easy.
Tom O’Neil is Vice President of New Plant Development at Exelon.
He says Exelon wants a new nuclear power plant in Texas.
But no one’s licensed a nuke plant for a dozen years and it’s common for projects to get
canceled.
So Exelon’s got some blanks to fill in.
“How much will it cost, can we finance it, what’s the political support, what do we
think the regulatory environment will look like. Those are all factors that generate
risk. Can we mitigate the risk and move forward with what would be a very
expensive construction project with some confidence that we can get it done, on time
and be profitable at the end.”
If the company pulls that off, it would make more electricity, but emit almost no new
carbon.
And its overall carbon footprint would shrink. Helping reduce emissions that cause
global warming.
But, even Exelon – the country’s biggest nuclear power company – might not be able to
turn to its core business to save the world.
Nancy and Dave Tom bought this home near Apache Junction, Arizona. They have to haul all the water they use with their pickup truck, so they quickly learned how to conserve. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Dave Tom hauls water with this trailer. He makes around two trips a week to keep their storage tank full. (Photo by Mark Brush)
This system of aqueducts and pumps moves Colorado River water 336 miles across the state of Arizona. Over its entire course, the water is pumped close to 3,000 ft. vertically. The $4 billion system was built using federal grants and low-interest loans. (Photo by Mark Brush)
It’s been estimated that the Phoenix metropolitan region gets 2,300 new residents each week. This new high-end development is near the Tonto National Forest. The homes will sell for more than $800,000. (Photo by Mark Brush)
These two lane roads will soon turn into four lane roads as housing developments continue to spread into the Sonoran desert. (Photo by Mark Brush)
Many areas in the Southwest are booming. With all this new
development, pressures on water supplies are growing. Mark Brush takes
a look at the lengths people go to, to get water in the desert:
Transcript
Many areas in the Southwest are booming. With all this new
development, pressures on water supplies are growing. Mark Brush takes
a look at the lengths people go to, to get water in the desert:
Nancy and Dave Tom used to get their water from a city water supply.
That was back when they owned a home in Tempe, Arizona. Like a lot of
people in the area, they had a pool, plants that needed water year
round, and a green lawn out back. Not exactly a desert scene. It took
a lot of water to support their lifestyle.
But life in Tempe was getting crowded. And when somebody rang their
doorbell and offered to buy their house for almost twice what they paid for
it, they jumped at the chance to move to a smaller town.
(Sound of birds)
They found a house for sale just outside of Apache Junction. It’s a
small city in the desert about an hour’s drive from Phoenix. The house
is at the foot of a dry mountain range and has spectacular views. But
the house didn’t have city water service:
“When we saw this piece of property we pretty much fell in love with it
immediately. And it was stated in the multiple listings that you did
have to haul water. And that the water trailer conveyed with the
property (laughs).”
(Sound of hooking up the truck)
To get their water, Dave Tom hooks up a trailer with a big plastic
water tank. He tows the trailer about 4 miles into Apache Junction.
There’s a water filling station here. He gets about 90 gallons of
water for each quarter dropped into the machine:
(Sound of truck parking)
“I’ve got my four quarters here – we’re going to put it in the vending
machine and have at it.”
(Sound of quarter and water rushing)
He makes about two trips a week, so he figures they’re using about 600
gallons of water a week. That’s quite a bit less than the 6000 gallons
they were using in Tempe.
Some of the things they did to cut back were obvious. Since they no
longer had a pool – and they didn’t water a green lawn – that helped.
But in their new place, they also bought a high efficiency washer and
dishwasher. And, when they don’t have guests around, they cut down on
the number of times they flush the toilet.
And they’re not alone in trying to cut back on water use. Even their
neighbors who have a well are really careful with their water. Phil
Reinhart lives just up the road. He’s rigged up a system of gutters
and pipes to catch rain water:
“You see it drains the front of my house and it comes down these
gutters into these storage barrels. And then I have a little pump that
I use and a little twelve volt battery that I use to pump my washing
machine full and then my washing machine then discharges into my citrus
trees – this is a lemon – here, take a lemon back with you.”
Reinhart is careful with his water. And he’s worried that the
population boom will put a strain on his well.
(Sound of water)
The tank on David Tom’s trailer is full. He tries to shut the water
off:
“Alright we’ll push the shutoff button – and watch out, you’re going to
get wet… no the shutoff isn’t working. We’re going to dump 25 to 30, maybe 40,
gallons of water, which to me it’s a shame they need to come down and
fix this.”
(Sound of water flowing)
A lot of this water spilling onto the ground has traveled a long way to
get here. The Central Arizona Project pumps water from the Colorado
River 230 miles away.
“Rather than a river than runs downhill by gravity, we’re a river that
runs uphill by pumps. We’re the largest electric consumer in the state
of Arizona.”
Sid Wilson is the general manager of the Central Arizona Project. He
says most of the water pumped into this region is used for farming.
But with rapid development, that’s expected to change. More water will
be used to service the new homes sprawling out into the desert.
“The CAP right now provides 40% of the water to this area, 40%, and that will increase
some over time.”
Wilson says people are going to continue to move to the Southwest. So,
future water supplies will have to be developed.
Back at their home near Apache Junction, Dave Tom has finished filling
up their underground storage tank. It’s taken him two trips with the
trailer.
(Sound of gurgling)
His wife Nancy says their new home has changed the way they think:
“Life out here in the desert has given me a greater appreciation for
water. There’s a part of me that says this is how everybody should
live in the desert. That they should have that awareness of their
water usage and embrace the fact that you live in the desert rather
than trying to change it into a lush tropical paradise.”
When you buy a hybrid car or truck you’re eligible for a credit on your taxes, but starting in October, the tax credit for all vehicles made by Toyota and Lexus will be phased out. The GLRC’s
Dustin Dwyer explains:
Transcript
When you buy a hybrid car or truck you’re eligible for a credit on your taxes, but starting
in October, the tax credit for all vehicles made by Toyota and Lexus will be phased out.
The GLRC’s Dustin Dwyer explains:
If you buy a Toyota Prius in the next two months, you can get the highest hybrid tax
credit on the market, but if you buy after October 1st, you’ll only get half the current
credit, and the credit for all hybrids made by Toyota and Lexus will be phased out
completely within a year.
That’s because Toyota reached a total hybrid sales mark of 60 thousand vehicles in June,
and, according to rules that took effect in January, carmakers that have sold more than 60
thousand hybrids can no longer offer tax credits to their customers.
Bradley Berman is editor of hybridcars.com:
“This cap creates confusion in the marketplace. And that undermines the intent to send a
clear message that consumers should try out hybrids.”
Berman says Detroit carmakers pushed for the cap in an effort to catch up with Japanese
carmakers on hybrid sales.
In the Great Lakes region, Michigan is the last state to pass laws that protect the Lakes from large-scale withdrawals. The GLRC’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
In the Great Lakes region, Michigan is the last state to pass laws to
protect the Lakes from large-scale withdrawals. The GLRC’s Mark
Brush has more:
More than twenty years ago, the eight Great Lakes states pledged to
protect the Great Lakes from large scale water diversions. But until now,
Michigan officials never put a cap on how much water could be
withdrawn.
Mike Shriberg is the director of the Public Interest Research Group in
Michigan – an environmental advocacy group. He says it was especially
important for Michigan to pass these laws since the state is nearly
surrounded by the Lakes:
“Michigan needed to establish a precedent here saying we’re taking care
of our own water that we’re actually setting limits on who can use our
water, before we really had good standing in any regional debates over
diverting Great Lakes water as a whole.”
The new laws say any new businesses planning large scale water
withdrawals will need to get permits from the state. The laws will allow
bottled water to be shipped out of the region in containers as big as 5.7
gallons.
The Alcoa/Reynolds Company removes PCBs they once dumped into the St. Lawrence River. Photo by David Sommerstein.
Polluted sediments sit at the bottom of rivers and lakes across the Great Lakes region. They can affect water quality, wildlife and human health. More than 40 highly contaminated areas in the region have been identified by the EPA’s Great Lakes Office, but so far only about half of those sites have been cleaned up. This fall, dredging is taking place in at least three of those hot spots – all on rivers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on the challenges of cleaning up a river bottom:
Transcript
Polluted sediments sit at the bottom of rivers and lakes across the Great Lakes region. They can affect water quality, wildlife and human health. More than 40 highly contaminated areas in the region have been identified by the EPA’s Great Lakes Office.
But so far, only about half of those sites have been cleaned up. This fall, dredging is taking place in at least three of those hot spots, all on rivers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports on the challenges of cleaning up a river bottom.
(Sound of dredging)
Geologist Dino Zack stands on the steps of a mobile home overlooking the St. Lawrence River. He watches as barges glide in and out of an area contained by a 38 hundred foot long steel wall. Each barge carries a crane that periodically drops a bucket into the river bottom, pulling up sediment contaminated with PCBs. The goal is to remove 80 thousand cubic yards of contaminated sediment. Zack’s trailer is the EPA headquarters for the dredging project. He’s an independent contractor working for the federal government, which is spearheading the operation. And he’ll spend the next couple of months watching the Alcoa-Reynolds Company remove the chemicals they once dumped in the river.
“I’ll observe them while they’re collecting their data to make sure they’re following the work plan. Then, I’ll bring all the data back, assemble it into tables and review it.”
Zack isn’t the only one keeping a close eye on the dredging project, which began in June.
There’s another EPA scientist here, as well as two members of the Army Corps of Engineers who are supervising the work. There’s also a representative from the St. Regis Mohawk reservation, which is downriver from the contaminated area.
The EPA ordered Alcoa-Reynolds to clean up the pollution in 1993. The PCBs were present in a flame retardant liquid the company used in its aluminum smelting process.
Over the years, the liquid drained into the river, contaminating sediments along the shoreline. The most polluted area contains 2000 parts per million of PCBs. That equals about one bad apple in a barrel-full. The goal is to leave only one part per million of PCBs in the sediment. Anne Kelly is the EPA’s project director for the site.
She says achieving that level in a river environment is a challenge.
“One of the biggest problems with dredging a river is that you’re working without really seeing where you’re working. The other problem is the issue of re-suspension, that whenever this bucket hits the sediments, it stirs up sediments and then it settles out again.”
One of the biggest concerns is that the disturbed sediments will move downstream.
In this case, they’d only have to travel a mile to reach the drinking water intake for the St. Regis Mohawk reservation. That means toxins could make it into the drinking water.
Local people have also expressed fears that the PCBs could contaminate the air as well.
The dredging project was temporarily suspended this summer when residents on nearby Cornwall Island complained of respiratory problems. But air quality tests found the dredging wasn’t to blame. Ken Jock is the tribe’s environmental director.
He says in addition to air and water quality concerns, the local people would like to see a healthier fish population. Some species have been contaminated with PCBs. And he says that’s why the tribe supports the dredging.
“We know the PCBs will be there in a thousand years and we’ll be here, and we’ll still want to eat the fish. So we think that any solution has to be a permanent solution.”
The Alcoa-Reynolds Company had wanted to place a gravel cap over the chemicals rather than dredge. But the EPA ordered them to remove the PCBs. Rick Esterline, the company’s project director, says they’re fully cooperating with the government.
“You’re required to clean it up, that’s the rules and regulations that we have in our country. Whether they come at you with court orders or whether you do it, it’s still you have to do it.”
The project is expected to cost the company 40 million dollars. That includes the eight million dollar reinforced steel wall around the contaminated area. Alcoa-Reynolds is also using a special electronic bucket to remove the sediment. The EPA’s Anne Kelly says this has become the bucket of choice for Great Lakes dredging projects.
“Based on the information that will be transferred to the operator on the barge, he’ll know if that bucket is completely sealed, which is very helpful because a clamshell bucket will begin to close and hit a rock… he won’t know it’s still open partially and begin to pull that up through the water column with materials basically pouring out of it.”
Kelly says every cleanup project requires a different approach. In Michigan, General Motors is using an environmental bucket and silt curtains to dredge the Saginaw River.
Engineers in Michigan’s Pine River built a steel wall and emptied out the water inside before dredging. The dredging in the St. Lawrence is expected to finish in November.
And it’s possible it won’t reduce the PCB levels to one part per million. The cleanup at the nearby General Motors plant fell short of that goal. If that happens, the EPA will require the company to cap the river bottom – and monitor the sediments, the water and the fish indefinitely. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Karen Kelly.
