In cap-and-trade, businesses can purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to.
(Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
Congress is considering restricting
carbon emissions causing climate
change with a cap-and-trade scheme.
But, recent polls show only a handful
of people have heard of cap-and-trade.
Even fewer understand what it is.
Lester Graham reports cap-and-trade
is not new:
Transcript
Congress is considering restricting
carbon emissions causing climate
change with a cap-and-trade scheme.
But, recent polls show only a handful
of people have heard of cap-and-trade.
Even fewer understand what it is.
Lester Graham reports cap-and-trade
is not new:
We’ve been using the market-based tool to reduce other pollution.
Frank O’Donnell is with the environmental group Clean Air Watch. He says ‘remember acid rain?’ The government ‘capped’ the pollutants causing acid rain. And then came the ‘trade’ part.
“Sources can either reduce their emissions further or purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to.”
O’Donnell says that cap-and-trade was cheaper than anybody predicted, and it reduced acid rain. But it didn’t eliminate it.
“And the reason is that the cap-and-trade target was essentially a politically-driven target. It was not one based fully on science.”
In fact, the US EPA is now proposing cutting acid rain pollutants more.
O’Donnell thinks a cap-and-trade scheme for carbon emmissions could be far more susceptible to political maneuvering.
Dr. Alan Lockwood is a Professor of Neurology and Nuclear Medicine, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
(Photo courtesy of the Physicians for Social Responsibility)
A group of doctors, Physicians for
Social Responsibility, has issued a
new report called “Coal’s Assault On
Human Health.” It explains the
health impacts of burning coal, but
it goes beyond that. Lester Graham
caught up with the principle author
of the report – Dr. Alan Lockwood.
Lockwood is a professor of neurology
and nuclear medicine at the University
of Buffalo. He says their report also
looked at the possible health effects
of climate change:
Transcript
A group of doctors, Physicians for
Social Responsibility, has issued a
new report called “Coal’s Assault On
Human Health.” It explains the
health impacts of burning coal, but
it goes beyond that. Lester Graham
caught up with the principle author
of the report – Dr. Alan Lockwood.
Lockwood is a professor of neurology
and nuclear medicine at the University
of Buffalo. He says their report also
looked at the possible health effects
of climate change:
Dr. Alan Lockwood: Well, first of all, it would change the temperature. So, more people would have heat-related illnesses. Insect vectors that carry malaria and dengue will increase their distribution. The possibility of reduced crop yields and, secondarily, is starvation. And then, of course, there’ll be the increase in sea level, which will inundate many countries that have low-lying areas – such as Bangladesh and some other countries in the Pacific – will be totally under water. So, all of those things add up to making this an important element of the coal story.
Lester Graham: It’s often noted that the public health costs of power from burning coal is never really calculated into the overall cost of the energy – this report tackles that. And you use that to justify some of the recommendations – including no new coal-burning power plants, cutting other pollutants from existing plants. Realistically, do you think anyone is really going to go for that?
Dr. Lockwood: Well, unless you set the bar at the appropriate level, you’re never going to achieve the outcome that would be optimum. So, our position is that this is the target we’d like to see, and then we will work with people and do our educational mission in order to get as close to that target as is possible.
Graham: How do you expect this will affect the debate over the climate change bill in the Senate?
Dr. Lockwood: Physicians, according to polling information, have very high credibility. So we are a different voice that brings this argument to the floor. And, hopefully we’ll be a component of the legislative process and the input of information that comes to legislators as they grapple with tough decisions.
Graham: You’re talking about further reducing some of the pollutants caused by coal. But the EPA, in all of the government’s wisdom, has decided, ‘well, we are at a level where these exposures are safe to the public.’ Why do you dispute that?
Dr. Lockwood: No one has been able to demonstrate a level below which these pollutants are really completely safe. So, the general consensus is, that the lower they are, the less likely they are to effect health in an adverse manner – producing things like attacks of asthma, myocardial infarcts, strokes, things of that nature.
Graham: There’s a huge campaign going on right now by the coal industry touting the benefits of clean coal. I wonder if you think there is the possibility of clean coal, now or in the future, or if we have to find alternatives to coal altogether.
Dr. Lockwood: Well, we advocate alternatives to coal. The coal industry, first of all, is extremely well-financed. They’re working very hard to convince people that it’s possible to use coal in a manner that’s clean and doesn’t pollute the environment. But that’s a concept that’s more in the future – if it ever proves to be practical.
Graham: Sounds like you’re a clean coal skeptic.
Dr. Lockwood: I’m from Missouri.
Graham: The Show Me State!
Dr. Lockwood: Well, I’m a clinical neurologist and I’m a scientist. So I want to see proof and data rather than ‘pie in the sky’ claims.
Graham: Dr. Alan Lockwood is the principal author of the just released report ‘Coal’s Assault On Human Health’ from the Physicians For Social Responsibility. Thanks very much for talking time to talk with us.
Some suspect that in Copenhagen, rich countries might agree to pay poor countries to stop cutting forests.
(Photo by John J. Mosesso, courtesy of the National Biological Information Infrastructure)
World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen,
Denmark next month to begin dealing with
global climate change. A firm treaty is
off the table for now, but one idea they’re
thinking through is to preserve forests
and have them absorb heat-trapping carbon
dioxide. Shawn Allee reports,
some scientists want all this forest talk
to include animals, not just trees:
Transcript
World leaders are meeting in Copenhagen,
Denmark next month to begin dealing with
global climate change. A firm treaty is
off the table for now, but one idea they’re
thinking through is to preserve forests
and have them absorb heat-trapping carbon
dioxide. Shawn Allee reports,
some scientists want all this forest talk
to include animals, not just trees:
Stuart Pimm is a biologist at Duke University. He says in Copenhagen, rich countries might agree to pay poor countries to stop cutting forests. Pimm says that’s great but not all forests are equal.
“Some forests have more carbon in them than others, and some forests have more species in them than others.”
Pimm and other biologists say carbon pricing alone might mean carbon-poor forests get cut – even if they’re home to lots of animal species. They want negotiators to somehow tweak any climate agreement.
“So we should be encouraging countries not to burn their forests, but we should encourage them not to burn the forests that are so biologically rich.”
Climate negotiators could take up Pimm’s idea next month in Copenhagen.
The Postal Service is getting no stimulus money for making its federal buildings more energy efficient. It’s all going to be done with the revenue it makes when you buy a postage stamp. (Photo courtesy of the US Postal Service)
The US Postal Service is the first
government agency to report how much
of the greenhouse gases it emits.
Five-point-three metric tons a year.
Lester Graham reports on how it plans
to reduce its emissions:
Transcript
The US Postal Service is the first
government agency to report how much
of the greenhouse gases it emits.
Five-point-three metric tons a year.
Lester Graham reports on how it plans
to reduce its emissions:
The post office goal is to reduce emissions 20% by the year 2020.
Sam Pulcrano is the Vice President of Sustainability at the Postal Service. He says, over the next six years, they’ll cut fuel consumption by 20% and energy use by 30%. They’re already doing energy audits of the 500 largest postal facilities.
“And where it makes business sense, we’re replacing things like roofs, the HVAC systems, replacing windows with more energy efficient windows and lighting with high-efficiency lighting.”
Graham: “There’s been some consideration of eliminating Saturday delivery. Is that figured into your calculations on reducing greenhouse gases?”
“It will if and when Congress gives us the ability to do so.”
The Postal Service is getting no stimulus money for making its federal buildings more energy efficient. It’s all going to be done with the revenue it makes when you buy a postage stamp.
The government will soon decide whether to allow increasing the mix from the current 10% blend to as high as a 15% blend. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Cheap oil makes switching to alternative
fuels such as ethanol less attractive.
Lester Graham reports that could affect
an upcoming decision about using more
ethanol:
Transcript
Cheap oil makes switching to alternative
fuels such as ethanol less attractive.
Lester Graham reports that could affect
an upcoming decision about using more
ethanol:
Crude oil prices spiked a little because of Iran’s long-range missile testing and revelations of a secret nuclear facility.
But analysts think for the next several months we’ll actually see oil prices go down – maybe to around $30 a barrel, less than half of what it is now.
And that could hurt demand for fuels such as ethanol.
But the government has mandated the nation produce more ethanol.
Dan Flynn is an analyst with the trading firm, Alaron.
“Obviously the government definitely wants to push this through. However, the price of crude oil and gasoline, if that goes down, generally people look not to look for alternative sources of energy.”
One way to use more ethanol is to mix higher amounts with gasoline.
The government will soon decide whether to allow increasing the mix from the current 10% blend to as high as a 15% blend.
Todd Krone researches corn for Targeted Growth,
a bio-energy company. Targeted Growth is tweaking corn
genetics to produce 'Sugarcorn,' a variety with high
amounts of sugar and biomass. The hope is the plants
can be converted into ethanol cheaply. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
Traditional corn varieties pollinate and send
energy into the kernels, which form sugar and starch. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
This corn ear shows one of Sugarcorn's key traits.
Bio-energy company Targeted Growth is perfecting corn varieties
that stop pollination and preserve sugar in the stalk instead of
creating starch in kernels. Researchers in public universities
such as the University of Illinois are conducting similar work. (Photo by Shawn Allee)
The federal government wants more
and more ethanol in our fuel supplies,
but it worries about how its made.
Most American ethanol is made from
corn kernels. That’s inefficient
and it makes the ethanol and food
industries compete for corn. The
government’s mandating we start making
ethanol out of things other than corn
kernels. Shawn Allee looks
at one effort to meet that mandate:
Transcript
The federal government wants more
and more ethanol in our fuel supplies,
but it worries about how its made.
Most American ethanol is made from
corn kernels. That’s inefficient
and it makes the ethanol and food
industries compete for corn. The
government’s mandating we start making
ethanol out of things other than corn
kernels. Shawn Allee looks
at one effort to meet that mandate:
I’m just outside an ethanol plant in central Indiana and its pretty much like most ethanol
plants. There’re a lot of semi-trucks going by and they’re loaded with yellow corn kernels.
Most ethanol plants grind corn kernels for starch, they let that starch turn into sugar, then
they brew the sugary juice into ethanol. Now, this whole process would be easier and
cheaper if we could make ethanol directly from sugary plants instead of starchy grain
kernels like corn.
Pretty quick here, I’m gonna meet a guy who’s trying to make corn a plant that’s easy to
grow in the Midwest but produces sweet juice – not starchy corn kernels.
“If you walk over here, these are our sugar corn hybrids.”
I’m with Todd Krone. He’s a researcher with a company called Targeted Growth. He walks me
through a test plot of a plant nicknamed ‘Sugarcorn.’ He pulls off a ear of corn and pulls back the
leaves.
(sound of leaves being pulled back)
The ear is almost bare.
Allee: “There’re just a few stray kernels developing, very few.”
Krone: “Yep. A few got through.”
Krone says this plant avoids making corn kernels. Instead, it puts energy and sugar into the
stalk. He can prove it with a taste test – right here in field.
He snips a piece of stalk.
(sound of snipping)
And pulls out a little press.
Krone: “You squeeze some of the juice to see how much sugar’s there. It’s up to you, if
you like, you could put on on your finger and taste. Is there sweetness?”
Allee: “Yeah, it’s definitely sweet. It’s definitely got a sweet tinge to it.”
Krone: “It might be a bit sweeter than pop might be.”
Krone says tests show Sugarcorn juice is as sweet as juice from sugar cane. He says this means
America could have a new plant that boosts ethanol production – but doesn’t compete with food,
and uses equipment farmers already have.
Krone: “For the farmer, not much changes until harvest when some logistics still need to
be worked out.”
Allee: “Obviously if you’re selling a lot of this corn, you’d be making a good deal of profit,
hopefully, what’s in it for the rest of us in terms of the success or failure of this, for drivers
and everybody else?”
Krone: “I would say, hopefully, it results in cheaper ethanol that can compete with cheap
oil. And then meeting that mandate to get more and more ethanol produced.”
Well, that’s the idea, but Targeted Growth would have to change more than just corn plants to
succeed. They’de have to change how at least some ethanol companies do business. And some
ethanol companies have some tough questions about it.
“How could you handle sugarcorn? How would you store it?”
This is Jeff Harts. He works at Central Indiana Ethanol. Harts says he likes the idea of using
sweet corn juice to make ethanol – it could be efficient. But he worries about getting enough to
run an expensive operation like his. He has no problem finding corn kernels.
“It’s a consistent flow of corn and we need that consistent flow to keep going. That’s why
we have storage, the farmers have storage. That’s why we have a local grain elevator
network to ship corn to us to keep that flow steady 12 months out of the year.”
Harts’ company might be a bit reluctant to change right away, but ethanol producers will have
find alternatives to the corn kernel. The government is capping how much ethanol can come
from corn starch.
As those requirements phase in, alternatives like Sugarcorn might look sweeter than they do
now.
Some experts in the study say the U.S. could reduce emissions by up to 11% in the next 40 years - just by building housing closer together. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
When the Senate picks up debate on
the climate change bill, we’re sure to
hear a lot about how power plants and
cars are contributing to the problem.
But a new study finds that we should
also be considering where we live. Julie
Grant reports that living in the suburbs
can create extra carbon emissions:
Transcript
When the Senate picks up debate on
the climate change bill, we’re sure to
hear a lot about how power plants and
cars are contributing to the problem.
But a new study finds that we should
also be considering where we live. Julie
Grant reports that living in the suburbs
can create extra carbon emissions:
Most Americans live in or near big cities – but those in the suburbs have to drive a lot.
The National Research Council completed a study for Congress. It finds that building housing closer together near urban centers could reduce the amount people drive. That would save energy and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Marlon Boarnet is a professor at the University of California, Irvine. He was on the study committee.
“The best evidence out there leads us to believe that people who live in more dense development do in fact drive less. And we feel that the evidence can conclude that that’s a causal relationship.”
Even if single-family homes were built closer together, it would mean less greenhouse gases.
Some experts in the study say the U.S. could reduce emissions by up to 11% in the next 40 years – just by building housing closer together.
42% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US are related to everything that goes into creating the food and products we use, and then throw away. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
More than 100 world leaders are
in New York today talking about
climate change at The United Nations.
A new report from the U-S Environmental
Protection agency says a big chunk of
greenhouse gas emissions can be pinned
on how we use land and resources.
Tamara Keith has more:
Transcript
More than 100 world leaders are
in New York today talking about
climate change at The United Nations.
A new report from the U-S Environmental
Protection agency says a big chunk of
greenhouse gas emissions can be pinned
on how we use land and resources.
Tamara Keith has more:
Some EPA scientists say greenhouse gas emissions are not just about tailpipes and smokestacks. They say you have to look at the big picture.
42% of the greenhouse gas emissions in the US are related to everything that goes into creating the food and products we use, and then throw away. So, they say more reduce, reuse and recycle. And, a lot of emissions are caused by urban sprawl. We have to drive everywhere.
Brigit Lowery is with the EPA. She says there are ways to reduce those emissions too.
“Encouraging compact development, such as promoting smart growth. But also reducing development pressures on green space, such as redeveloping formerly contaminated properties.”
Lowery said she knew going into it that land use and resource management contributed to climate change. But she was surprised by how much.
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Graph courtesy of NASA and NOAA)
The Environmental Protection Agency
is trying to figure out how it might
regulate greenhouse gases. Lester
Graham reports language in the
Clean Air Act is not helping:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency
is trying to figure out how it might
regulate greenhouse gases. Lester
Graham reports language in the
Clean Air Act is not helping:
The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA to decide whether greenhouse gases are pollutants. The EPA is making the case that they are.
But setting rules to reduce those emissions is problematic.
The Clean Air Act says it you emit 250-tons a year of a pollutant, you need a pollution permit. 250-tons of CO2 a year is not a lot.
Jeff Holmstead worked in the EPA on air pollution issues during the last Bush Administration. Now, he’s a lawyer with the Washington DC firm Bracewell and Giuliani.
“You know, 250-tons of CO2 according to EPA would include most schools, most apartment buildings, any kind of commercial building. It just isn’t possible to develop permits for all of these sources.”
So the EPA plans to raise the amount to 25,000-tons. But, that’s not what the Clean Air Act says.
That’s one reason why the Obama Administration prefers a climate change law passed by Congress.
The Rulison device at insertion, 1969 (Photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy Digital Photo Archive)
There are proposals to drill for oil
and gas very close to the site of a
nuclear explosion. The device was
exploded underground in western Colorado
40 years ago this month. Natural gas
from wells near the site could be
distributed throughout the U.S. Some
experts are concerned the natural gas
could be radioactive. Conrad Wilson
reports regulators could allow drilling
closer to the blast site in the next
couple of years:
Transcript
There are proposals to drill for oil
and gas very close to the site of a
nuclear explosion. The device was
exploded underground in western Colorado
40 years ago this month. Natural gas
from wells near the site could be
distributed throughout the U.S. Some
experts are concerned the natural gas
could be radioactive. Conrad Wilson
reports regulators could allow drilling
closer to the blast site in the next
couple of years:
On September 10, 1969 the Atomic Energy Commission detonated a 40-kiloton
nuclear bomb a mile and a half under ground. It was called Project Rulison. The
bomb was three times the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima.
The idea was to find peaceful uses for nuclear weapons. The federal government
hoped that nukes could be used to free up pockets of gas trapped below.
(sound of video)
The nuke did free up gas.
The government tested the gas by flaring it – burning it in the open – over the next
year. They discovered the natural gas was radioactive.
Marian Wells is a long time resident of Rulison. Her parent’s home was close to
the detonation site and the gas flares. Both of her parents died of cancer. So did
many of her neighbors.
She spoke before the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
“My parents were given no notice that you were flaring contaminated gas. And
yet both my parents died of cancer. Cancer is prevalent in this area. And yes, no
one has studied those cause and effect. You don’t really care about us.”
There’s been no government studies connecting cancer and the Rulison blast,
but the community remains fearful and suspicious.
Gas drilling is allowed as close as three miles of the blast site. That natural gas
is piped around the country.
Now some companies say they want to drill for natural gas within a half mile of
ground zero.
The Department of Energy maintains that, for the most part, the gas near the
blast site is safe, but there’s some uncertainly.
Jack Craig heads up the Rulison site for the Department of Energy. Craig says
drilling closer to the nuclear blast site should move forward slowly.
“What we’re saying is do it in a sequential manor. So that you come in slowly
testing the wells as you go in for contaminants – specifically tritium – and, if you
don’t find anything, move in closer.”
Tritium is a radioactive substance produced by the blast. Breathing tritium can
cause cancer.
Chris Canfield works on environmental protection for the state oil and gas
commission. He heads up an annual audit on the Rulison site.
Canfield: “Simply put, everything that’s coming out of the ground is being
sampled, being analyzed.”
Wilson: “If someone were to come to you and say they want to drill within the
half mile of the Rulison blast site, would you say that’s safe?”
Canfield: “I wouldn’t really know at this time.”
Canfield says that the state would require a special hearing before it would
approve any drilling permits any closer.
Oil and gas commissioner Jim Martin says there are still too many unanswered
questions to allow drilling that close to the blast site.
“There are significant information gaps and that makes is very difficult to really
understand the risks either to the workers or to the public who live within some
distance of the drill site.”
Martin says he understands why people are skeptical. He says the United States
has made a lot of mistakes with radioactive materials. Navajo uranium miners
got cancer because of radio exposure. People downwind of above ground
detonations suffered. Martin says skepticism is warranted.
“So it’s not unreasonable to ask some pretty tough questions of the federal
government before we go further into that half mile perimeter and produce more
gas.”
Gas that could be burned to heat homes across the U.S.
In cap-and-trade, businesses can purchase the right to pollute from other companies that reduce their emissions more than they need to. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
