It is hoped that the "Cash for Clunkers" bill will stimulate fledgling car sales (Photo by Samara Freemark)
The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” bill has passed the US House. Automakers say it could help boost sluggish sales if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law. But as Rebecca Williams reports some people think the bill isn’t very green:
Transcript
The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” bill has passed the US House. Automakers say it could help boost sluggish sales if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law. But as Rebecca Williams reports some people think the bill isn’t very green:
If you have a car or truck that gets 18 miles per gallon or less, under this bill, you’d get to trade it in for a more fuel efficient car or truck. The old car would get scrapped.
You’d get a voucher for several thousand dollars. Old gas guzzlers would get taken off the road.
But Ann Mesnikoff points out: in the House bill you could trade in an old SUV that gets, say, 14 miles per gallon… for a new SUV that gets just two miles per gallon more.
She directs Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign.
“The key things to change in the cash for clunkers program are to ensure that taxpayer dollars are going to buy vehicles that have at least better than average fuel economy. Not those that can’t even meet today’s fuel economy standards.”
Congress is also going to have to figure out how to pay for the bill. It’s expected to cost about 4 billion dollars.
Under cap-and-trade, if a business can cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits - for a price - to a business that can’t. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
A poll by Rasmussen found 76% of Americans don’t know what cap-and-trade is.
Person 1: “Putting a price cap on something?”
Person 2: “Cap and trade? I have no idea.”
Person 3: “Captain Trade? I never heard of him.”
Here’s the simple version: cap greenhouse gases. The government will lower that cap over time.
Cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits – for a price – to a business that can’t.
Overall, it’ll make fossil fuels more expensive, clean energy cheaper.
Democratic leaders in the House have agreed on a cap-and-trade plan. Republicans – and some Democrats – hate the plan. They think it’ll cost the economy too much.
The House will likely pass it. But Darren Samuelsohn with GreenWire says President Obama will have to push for it in the Senate.
“He could probably twist some arms and make some votes go his way if he really wanted it.”
And, even then, CAP and TRADE will likely only squeak through.
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Transcript
We can expect Congress will take up a carbon
cap-and-trade bill soon. That would make
greenhouse gases a commodity. The United
States Climate Action Partnership wants to
know the rules of the carbon trading game
sooner rather than later. US CAP is made
up of businesses such as GE, automakers,
some power companies and environmental groups.
Other business leaders say a carbon cap-and-trade
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Dan Lashoff: The opportunity that we have, right now, is to, first of all, invest
billions of dollars in the economic stimulus package – which the Congress will be
taking up in the next couple of weeks, that President Obama has made clear he
wants to see a substantial portion of that investment go into clean energy
technologies: insulating homes, building a smart grid to carry renewable energy
around the country. So, there’s an immediate step that needs to take place to
get investment flowing, to jump-start the green energy economy that we need.
That should be quickly followed with the type of comprehensive climate policy
that US CAP has called for, because that will guide longer-term investments, it
will mobilize private capital that is needed to build the clean energy future that we
need to have. And that will put people to work installing wind turbines, installing
solar systems, insulating homes, insulating schools. And keep the investment
flowing, and actually create an export opportunity for companies that are making
clean and efficient energy systems that the world is going to increasingly
demand.
Lester Graham: President Obama has talked a lot about the green economy and
green-collar jobs that you just mentioned, but will those jobs actually offset the
economic pain that a cap-and-trade program is expected to cause?
Lashoff: Well, first of all, you have to realize, if we passed a cap-and-trade bill
tomorrow, the actual limits would not kick in until 2012 at the earliest, and, by that
time, hopefully, the economy is really moving forward. So, what the value of
passing the legislation now is that it sets the long-term agenda, it sets the
strategic agenda that’s going to reduce our emissions, and it mobilizes
investment flows. The actual price signal that is needed to discourage global
warming pollution actually wouldn’t kick in for a couple of years, and that actually
works quite well with the timing, that is appropriate given the current economic
crisis.
Graham: The 80% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 is exactly
what President Obama has suggested we do, but there still are enough
Republicans who hold enough seats in the Senate to block cap-and-trade if they
wanted to. What are the chances of having legislation like this passed?
Lashoff: Well, I’m very optimistic that with the momentum that the US CAP
proposal delivers, the strong business support from at least a significant portion
of the business community, certainly not universal, that we can move forward. It
certainly will require a bi-partisan effort. There will need to be Republicans
joining the Democratic majority in the Senate as well as in the House to enact
legislation. I think we can do that. I think that this proposal provides a lot of
insight into the types of provisions, in addition to the cap itself. Things like
energy efficiency investments that will hold down the costs for consumers,
approaches to dealing with concerns of the economic impact – that chose a
pathway to get legislation enacted, hopefully in 2009.
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics called the rules weak. Now, a different federal agency may have data supporting their claims. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
Earlier this year, the Environmental Protection Agency issued rules to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Critics called the rules weak. Now, a different federal agency may have data supporting their claims. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Shawn Allee reports:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration examined where mercury pollution in Lake Michigan is coming from. The data haven’t been publicly released yet, but sources say Midwestern power plants are the biggest culprits.
If true, that could undercut the EPA’s new mercury trading program. That lets dirty power plants buy the right to pollute from cleaner ones. Howard Learner’s with the Environmental Law and Policy Center. He says the program’s wrong because it treats all mercury pollution equally.
“When it comes to mercury pollution, a trading regime essentially doesn’t work very well, because you have concentrated localized hot spots in which the pollution is highly toxic to the people who live in those communities.”
Several state governments are fighting the EPA’s trading program in federal court. They’d like NOAA’s data, but the states and public will have to wait until the EPA reviews it.
Some states are worried that the EPA's Cap and Trade program will create mercury hot spots. (Photo courtesy of the EPA)
Several Midwest states have filed a second lawsuit against the Bush Administration’s plans to control mercury. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Several Midwest states have filed a second lawsuit against
the Bush Administration’s plans to control mercury. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The newest court case takes aim on the EPA’s plan to allow coal-burning power plants to buy and sell pollution credits for mercury – much they way they do for sulphur dioxide. Tom Dawson is an Assistant State Attorney General in Wisconsin. He says the so-called cap and trade system would create mercury hot spots.
“The trouble with allowing for the trading of pollution credits allows certain emitters of mercury to go on emitting their current or slightly reduced levels of mercury thus resulting in hot spots that are immediately downwind of the sources.”
The EPA and White House say they will vigorously defend the mercury rules, arguing that now is the time to move against mercury emissions.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release
new rules on March 15th regarding mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many expect the EPA will allow power plants to trade emissions credits to achieve mercury reductions. Critics say that approach puts the interests of industry before the health of people and the environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Transcript
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is set to release new rules on March 15th
regarding mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. Many expect the EPA will
allow power plants to trade emissions credits to achieve mercury reductions. Critics say
that approach puts the interests of industry before the health of people and the
environment. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Erin Toner reports:
Environmental groups are expecting the EPA will announce a cap-and-trade program.
Pollution trading might not make every power plant cleaner, but nationwide mercury
pollution would be reduced.
John Walke of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the government should
instead require plants to install technology that cuts mercury emissions. Walke says a
cap-and-trade program would delay clean-up for much longer.
“The Bush Administration through the EPA has absolutely bowed to the wishes of power
plants who want to continue to pollute at dangerous levels without spending the money
on the pollution controls that will protect the public from mercury poisoning.”
The EPA has said a trading program would achieve a 70% reduction in mercury
emissions by 2018. But further analysis by an agency within the Department of Energy
shows those reductions would not actually be achieved until some time after 2025.
Here’s a last-minute gift idea for a green-thinking loved one. A New York-based environmental group will retire a pollution credit in someone’s honor. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein explains:
Transcript
Here’s a last-minute gift idea for a green-thinking loved one. A New York-
based environmental group will retire a pollution credit in someone’s honor.
The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s David Sommerstein explains:
The Environmental Protection Agency issues pollution credits to power
plants. Each one allows them to emit one ton of sulfur dioxide from their
smokestack.
Several years ago, one power company donated 10,000 of the credits to the
Adirondack Council. The group’s a non-profit working to reduce acid rain.
Instead of trading them on the open market, where they can fetch up to 800
dollars apiece, the Council decided to retire the credits. Spokesman John
Sheehan says for 50 bucks, the group will send someone a gift certificate.
“That certificate will show that that person has removed essentially one ton
of sulfur dioxide from the atmosphere permanently and that that pollution
will never go up a smokestack anywhere in the country, and it will help
clean up the Adirondacks and the rest of the United States at the same time.”
Sheehan says the Adirondack Council has about 3,000 credits left. His staff
will be around until Thursday to help people give the gift of cleaner air this
Christmas.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m David Sommerstein.
Several environmental and sporting groups are criticizing the Bush administration’s plan to reduce mercury from power plants. They say it protects utilities at the expense of public health and the tourism industry. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie Hemphill reports:
Transcript
Several environmental and sporting groups are criticizing the Bush administration’s plan
to reduce mercury from power plants. They say it protects utilities at the expense of
public health and the tourism industry. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Stephanie
Hemphill reports:
The Bush plan calls for reducing mercury emissions from power plants by allowing
emissions trading – plants could buy and sell vouchers allowing mercury pollution.
Mercury is a concern because children who eat a lot of mercury-contaminated fish are at
risk of nerve damage and learning disabilities. Environmental groups say mercury should
be regulated more strictly, to protect people’s health.
They also say people might not fish as much because of concerns about mercury and they
suggest that might hurt tourism.
The Wisconsin Wildlife Federation’s George Meyer fishes with his teenage daughter.
“We actually reduce the amount of fish we catch and bring home because she and our
other children can’t eat as much fish because of these mercury health advisories.”
But the environmentalists concede they’re making a guess about mercury’s impact on
fishing and tourism. So far, in most states the number of fishing licenses issued has not
changed significantly.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.
Aaron and Claire Liepman with an old faucet and garden owl they're hoping to give away on the Freecycle Network. Aaron Liepman moderates two freecycle groups in Michigan. (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
We all have things that we no longer use hidden in our closets, or stuffed away in the attic, or crammed into the garage. It’s not that we’ll ever use them, but we can’t bear to just throw them away. They’re still good. Now, a new service is matching up people who want to get rid of things with people who want those things. In part of an ongoing series called ‘Your Choice; Your Planet,’ the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams explores freecycling:
Transcript
We all have things that we no longer use hidden in our closets, or stuffed away
in the attic, or crammed into the garage. It’s not that we’ll ever use them, but we
can’t bear to just throw them away. They’re still good. Now, a new service is
matching up people who want to get rid of things with people who want those
things. In part of an ongoing series called ‘Your Choice; Your Planet,’ the Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams explores freecycling:
I’m a packrat. I just wanted to make that clear right from the beginning. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll probably confess you’re a packrat too.
But even I know when there’s something taking up space in my house that HAS to go. In the back of my closet, there’s a large, heavy, men’s wetsuit.
You know, a SCUBA diving suit. A relative gave it to me when he moved away. Now, I’m not a diver. I’m not even really a snorkeler. But I’ve kept it for two years. You know, just in case.
I need a little help getting rid of things. So, when I heard about freecycling… I thought, “This is it. This will help me face my inner packrat.”
Freecycling uses email groups to connect people in their hometowns. It brings together one person with their broken telescope… and that one person who needs – or just wants it.
The only rule – everything has to be free. No money, no trading. And also, you meet the giver or taker in person.
It’s Deron Beal’s idea. He manages recycling crews for businesses in Tuscon, Arizona. One day a year ago, he found himself with a warehouse full of stuff.
“We had a lot of the businesses we recycle with
downtown giving us old desks or computers, saying, can you do something with this. I’ll be darned if we got so much stuff in, I figured, let’s open this up to the public and set up the freecycle network.”
Beal emailed some friends and nonprofits. At first, he says it was just he and his friends giving each other stuff. But in just a few months, freecycle turned into a verb. Beal set up a website, freecycle-dot-org. And put instructions up so people could start freecycling in their own cities. Now, more than 90-thousand people all around the world are doing it.
So… I went to see the freecycling guy in my area, Aaron Liepman. He moderates two freecycle groups. He makes sure everything stays free, and steps in if people start arguing. He also helps packrats like me freecycle.
(sound in, typing)
Aaron sets me up on his computer.
“So, let me sign out and you sign in. (clicking) So now you type in your subject, just like an email message.
RW: “Offer: wetsuit. What else?”
“Wetsuit, SCUBA wetsuit. (crinkles, zipper noise) Looks like it’s a size large, that’ll be useful information. It has a little hat to keep you warm in the water (laughs).”
(typing out)
We look over my post, and I click Send.
So, I’ve started cleaning out my closet. But I’m not totally converted to this freecycling idea. I mean, really, aren’t we just moving our stuff from one house to the next? That doesn’t really cut down on consumption, does it?
I turned to University of Michigan professor Raymond DeYoung. He studies people’s buying and recycling habits. He thinks freecycling probably won’t change our buying habits all that much.
“Because we’re never going to be able with freecycling to get the new, get the novel, get the big, because by definition it’s already been bought, it’s already old, it’s the smaller. So it can’t impact our entire consumption behavior.”
DeYoung says, for freecycling to really succeed, we’d have to stop getting bigger houses. And stop filling them up with more and more things. But it’s hard, even for people who want to try to get by with less stuff.
I guess a wetsuit is a good first step.
It’s been a couple days, and I’ve gotten four messages. The first came five hours after my posting. From Shawn… he wrote: “I’ll take the wetsuit.” But he didn’t sound that excited.
In freecycling, you can use “first come, first serve” to decide who gets your item. But you don’t always have to. And I kind of wanted my wetsuit to be appreciated… you know, actually get to see the water. So I waited a couple days. Then, I got Kelly’s message. She wrote: “WOW!” in all capital letters and said her son would love the wetsuit… for snorkeling.
So I emailed Kelly. And we set up a place to meet in downtown Ann Arbor.
(street sound up)
“Wetsuit!” (Oh, are you Kelly?) “yeah, I’m Kelly.. (Hi, I’m Rebecca. This is the wetsuit.) Great!”
Kelly’s been freecycling for a month. And she says she’s hooked.
And judging from the postings, a lot of people are. They seem to like getting other people’s beer can collections and turtle sandboxes.
But some on the list worry it’s getting to be too much of a good thing. People have started to ask for laptops, and houses… and a time machine, any condition.
“I think because it’s so new, some people are asking for funny things, like don’t we all want cash, and a Lamborghini (laughs). I just laugh at those and go on.”
Kelly says she thinks the network will probably get past that after awhile, leaving behind just the really devoted freecyclers.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
The Environmental Protection Agency is looking at a market-based attempt to reduce water pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny Lawton explains:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is looking at a market-based
attempt to reduce water
pollution. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny Lawton explains:
The EPA says a market-based approach to reducing water pollution would
save the government
billions of dollars in enforcement measures and result in cleaner
rivers and lakes.
It would work like this… companies that clean up wastewater beyond
the EPA standards would
get credits. Then those companies could sell their credits to
companies that cannot meet EPA
standards.
Some environmentalists worry that system will legitimize polluters, so
long as they can pay the
price.
But the EPA’s Tracy Mehan calls the trade a means to an end…
“And the end is the attainment of water quality standards. That is part
of the landscape under
the Clean Water Act already, or the watershed, if you will. In other
words, our policy does not
allow any trading that would exceed those water quality standards.”
But targeting water pollution is complicated. It can come from farm
fields or pesticides from your
neighbor’s lawn.
They’ll have to figure out how to measure that before a water pollution
credit market can be
established.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jenny Lawton.
It is hoped that the "Cash for Clunkers" bill will stimulate fledgling car sales (Photo by Samara Freemark)
