Lester Brown founded the Earth Policy Institute in 2001.
(Photo courtesy of the Earth Policy Institute)
One environmental leader says if
we keep doing what we’re doing,
the world will continue on a path
toward economic decline and eventual
collapse. Lester Brown heads up the
Earth Policy Institute. He’s written
a series of books on changes that need
to be made. The most recent book is
‘Plan B 4.0.’ Lester Graham
talked with him about the complexities
involved in a few commodities we take
for granted:
Transcript
One environmental leader says if
we keep doing what we’re doing,
the world will continue on a path
toward economic decline and eventual
collapse. Lester Brown heads up the
Earth Policy Institute. He’s written
a series of books on changes that need
to be made. The most recent book is
‘Plan B 4.0.’ Lester Graham
talked with him about the complexities
involved in a few commodities we take
for granted:
President Barack Obama meeting with former Vice President Al Gore in the Oval Office on December 7, 2009 regarding Copenhagen. (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
With no legally-binding agreement in
Copenhagen, there’s now talk of another global
warming conference next summer in Mexico
City. Lester Graham has more on that:
Transcript
With no legally-binding agreement in
Copenhagen, there’s now talk of another global
warming conference next summer in Mexico
City. Lester Graham has more on that:
When the U.S. House passed a climate bill this summer, the Senate was expected to pick it up and vote on it by the end of the year—maybe before the U.N. summit on climate change in Copenhagen.
That didn’t happen.
In Copenhagen last week, former U.S. Vice-President Al Gore looked ahead to another conference next year.
“I believe that we are capable of resolving the remaining issues to the point we can meet in Mexico City this July in the aftermath of a successful action by the United States Senate in April and conclude a binding international treaty.”
Al Gore wants the Senate to pass the legislation by April 22 to be exact – Earth Day. With business concerned about coming greenhouse gas regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Senate might feel more pressure to by then.
Talks begin in Copenhagen on December 7th.
(Photo Source: Thue at Wikimedia Commons)
This week, world leaders are talking
about how to tackle climate change.
Most experts agree that’ll mean
fossil fuels will become more expensive.
Rebecca Williams has been talking
with one climate expert who says we
might not really notice it, at least
at first:
Transcript
This week, world leaders are talking
about how to tackle climate change.
Most experts agree that’ll mean
fossil fuels will become more expensive.
Rebecca Williams has been talking
with one climate expert who says we
might not really notice it, at least
at first:
There’s been a lot of debate about how much our energy bills might go up.
Energy companies and some Republicans have been warning that bills will skyrocket – going up by hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates it’ll be a lot less – something between $100 and $200 a year.
Michael Oppenheimer is a professor at Princeton University. He says we will have to make a lot of changes in our lives – but they’ll be little changes and they’ll be really gradual.
“They’ll probably wind up buying appliances which are more energy efficient and that may cost them some money at the outset but it’ll save them money in terms of lower electricity bills. They may be driving cars that look somewhat different than their current vehicles but save them money with less gasoline use in the long term.”
Oppenheimer says higher energy costs will eventually be offset by energy savings – and probably, government rebates – until the economy adjusts.
Eileen Claussen is the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
(Photo courtesy of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change)
Beginning December 7,
world leaders – including President
Obama – will gather in Copenhagen,
Denmark to talk about cutting the
greenhouse gas emissions causing
climate change. Eileen Claussen is
the President of the non-profit Pew
Center on Global Climate Change.
Lester Graham talked with her about
what will be accomplished at Copenhagen:
Transcript
Beginning December 7,
world leaders – including President
Obama – will gather in Copenhagen,
Denmark to talk about cutting the
greenhouse gas emissions causing
climate change. Eileen Claussen is
the President of the non-profit Pew
Center on Global Climate Change.
Lester Graham talked with her about
what will be accomplished at Copenhagen:
Lester Graham: We’ve been hearing about this United Nations summit in Copenhagen in the news for months now, but it’s not really clear what the world’s nations will accomplish there. It’s been downgraded from a conference to hammer out a treaty to a conference to come up with some kind of a framework for a treaty. So what can we really expect from Copenhagen?
Eileen Claussen: I think there are three things that are likely to be agreed in Copenhagen. All the developed countries in the world will make political commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by significant amounts, I think, across the board. I also think the major emitting developing countries will pledge to reduce their emissions from where they would otherwise go. And I think we will see some amount of money – maybe 5 to 10 billion dollars – collected from the developed countries to help developing countries adapt to climate change and build up their capacity to actually reduce their emissions.
Graham: And perhaps preserve some of the forests that store CO2.
Claussen: Absolutely. I think forestry is something where you actually might see some real progress.
Graham: President Obama is expected to tell the gathering that the US intends to cut greenhouse gas emissions to about 17% below the levels we emitted in 2005. And cut them by 83% by the year 2050. But, as it stands right now, there’s no legislation to accomplish that. It’s not clear that there’s enough support in Congress to pass climate change legislation that would accomplish that. Is the president making offers not within his power to give?
Claussen: Well, I think there’s no question that absent action in the Senate and a conference that merges the bill that passed in the House this summer, he can’t deliver on the 17%. There are many things he can do. And, in fact, he’s actually tried to do many of them. To increase the efficiency of automobiles which will reduce greenhouse gas emissions; to put stimulus money into clean energy projects; to get the EPA geared up to start regulating under the Clean Air Act. But I think none of those add up to the 17%. So we will need legislation that establishes a cap on emissions.
Graham: This Copenhagen agreement is supposed to replace the Kyoto Protocol which expires in 2012. The US did not ratify that treaty. But, of the nations that did, many of them failed to meet their obligations to reduce emissions. So will a treaty really mean anything?
Claussen: Well, I’m not sure that I agree that most countries or many countries have failed to reduce their emissions sufficiently. There are some countries that are not on track at the moment to get to their objectives, but others are. And I think it is still possible that most of those countries – not all – but most of them will actually get to where they said they would go.
Graham: Well, we’ll cal l that the optimistic view. I think in Canada they’re probably not going to make it.
Claussen: Well, Canada is the clear example of a country that won’t make it.
Graham: So we won’t have a sort of Copenhagen Protocol, Copenhagen appears to be now just another stop along the way to drafting a treaty.
Claussen: It’s not everything that many were hoping for, and there’s a fair amount of disappointment about that. But, quite honestly, there are a lot of very difficult issues for different countries to face here. And there actually had not been any real negotiation over the two years since the negotiation started.
Graham: Eileen Claussen is the President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Thanks very much for talking with us.
The National Wildlife Federation is concerned about the nation's
fish and game species being impacted by climate change.
(Photo courtesy of the US Fish and Wildlife Service)
People are beginning to notice the effects
of climate change – especially people who
get out in nature a lot. Hunters and anglers
with the National Wildlife Federation recently
released a list of some of the game and fish
species that are at risk due to climate change.
Lester Graham talked with one of the members
of the group:
Transcript
People are beginning to notice the effects
of climate change – especially people who
get out in nature a lot. Hunters and anglers
with the National Wildlife Federation recently
released a list of some of the game and fish
species that are at risk due to climate change.
Lester Graham talked with one of the members
of the group:
Lester Graham: Kathleen Law in an angler, a member of the National Wildlife Federation, a former member of the Michigan Legislature, and a retired research scientist. First, what kind of game and fish, besides polar bears and penguins, are at risk because of climate change?
Kathleen Law: Well, everything that nests in the water or tries to have a fishery involved. It is affecting our national and our local bird, deer, the population, the habitat.
Graham: I guess that’s the question, though – how do we know that it’s not something else at work? How do we know that it’s climate change? And, of course, the skeptics will say, ‘how do we know it’s man-caused changes to the climate?’
Law: Well, we can continue being in a state of denial, and wonder where everything went, or we can get ahead. It’s not important to me who’s causing it, it’s, ‘what can I do to help?’
Graham: The US House has passed climate change legislation, the Senate is debating a version. Will the policies in those bills be enough to save some of these fish and game species you’re worried about?
Law: It’ll give us a chance. Without a concerted, willful effort, we have a very limited chance. So, there are things that we can do, that we must do, as a people who want diversity, who want to fish, who want to eat – I like venison. So what do we do to protect that resource and, and in a positive way? Which is the education and resource restoration, I think, is probably the best way to start.
Graham: Opponents of climate change legislation worry a cap-and-trade carbon reduction scheme will cost the economy too much. They don’t want the US to be put at a competitive disadvantage. Will the concerns of hunters and fishers sway any members of Congress to actually support climate legislation, if they believe it’s a jobs killer?
Law: Well, it will certainly be a consideration. The hunters and fishing folk are your constituents, they’re your neighbors, they’re your family. You can look at that, ‘it’s a job killer.’ So is climate disruption a job killer. So, how do we create new jobs? Well let’s get people out planting marsh grass. Let’s, you know, something positive. Something that people can do that makes a difference for them and their neighborhood and their community. That’s positive. That’s hope. We gotta give them hope.
Graham: What is the National Wildlife Federation doing in Washington to affect the debate about climate change?
Law: Well, they have flown in a large contingent of just people who are hunters and fishers and who have represented people in the constituencies to come in and talk to the Senators. Our hunters and fishing people – consider them sentinels. They’re out there in November, hunting ducks. They’re out in April, standing in the water, fishing. These are sentinel people, and to pay attention to what they’re saying is very important, vital, and that’s what we did in Washington DC.
Graham: Kathleen Law is a retired research scientist, a former member of the Michigan legislature, and working with the National Wildlife Federation as part of an effort to save fish and game species the group says is at risk because of climate change. Thanks very much.
ill McKibben is an author
and the founder of 350.org, a grassroots
effort to increase awareness of the threats
of climate change.
(Photo by Nancie Battaglia, courtesy of Bill McKibben)
Bill McKibben has been writing about
climate change for 20 years. More
recently, he founded the grassroots
organization 350.org. It urges
governments to do something about
climate change. Lester Graham talked
to McKibben and asked him how his
group deals with the debate in Congress –
especially when it’s less about scientific
facts and more about your brand of politics:
Transcript
Bill McKibben has been writing about
climate change for 20 years. More
recently, he founded the grassroots
organization 350.org. It urges
governments to do something about
climate change. Lester Graham talked
to McKibben and asked him how his
group deals with the debate in Congress –
especially when it’s less about scientific
facts and more about your brand of politics:
Bill McKibben: Well, it’s hard to deal with it because, of course, we don’t a kind of separate physics and chemistry for Republicans and Democrats. You know, the laws of nature tend to operate the same way no matter whether you spend your life marinating in Rush Limbaugh or not, you know. So it’s difficult because we have to deal with those physical facts. The only good news is that the only place where this is a political issue in those ways is the United States. The rest of the world, everybody’s on-board, understanding that we need to go to work. We’ve still got serious problems in this country. It’s one of the reasons that we desperately need the President to finally make some serious noise about climate change, and say straightforwardly and out-front what the dangers are and do what he can to drive home the peril that we’re in.
Lester Graham: The Center for Public Integrity reports that there are more lobbyists in Washington than ever before, working on supporting or blocking or somehow reshaping climate change legislation. How does a grassroots effort, such as 350.org, compete with the big moneyed lobbyists at work?
McKibben: Well, we can’t compete with them in terms of money. There are, I think, 2800 lobbyists that industry has hired to go to – which gives you some idea of what a bad job being a Congressman is. Each Congressman has 7 people devoted to making sure that they toe the line on fossil fuel. We can’t compete! Exxon Mobile, last year, made more money than any company in the history of money, okay? So, in that currency, we’re sunk. The only currency we’ve got is bodies and commitment. And that’s why we’re finally trying to organize a real movement around climate change. It’s not enough to depend on the fact that the science is on your side, and that any rational system or person would be doing everything they can to try to deal with this biggest problem we’ve ever faced. Our system, in that sense, isn’t rational. It’s dependent on power and pressure. And we have to accept that, and we have to accept the challenge of building those kinds of movements.
Graham: What do you think of the legislation on greenhouse reductions, greenhouse gas reductions as it’s shaping up in Washington?
McKibben: It’s in grave danger, if it hasn’t already, of turning into a sort of piñata filled with goodies for each special interest. Each Senator now is saying, ‘yes, but in my state we need a lot of money or whatever to do this, or, ‘we have to exempt this industry,’ or whatever. These guys don’t get the degree of danger that we’re in. They’re still using it as just one more political game to play. It’s why Obama’s gotta step up to the plate. He can’t let happen what happened with healthcare – just Congress take all of this on its own, let it drift, come out with some mediocre thing, and call it a victory.
Graham: What would you like to hear President Obama say that would compel people to say, ‘oh my gosh, we’ve got to do something about this!’?
McKibben: I’d like him to do what leaders around the world now – partly at the behest of 350.org – have been doing over the last few weeks. Saying, ‘here, in my country, are the grave dangers that we face.’ That’s the kind of leadership that we’re not seeing out of Obama, unfortunately.
The governor is promising to spend another $800,000 for outside legal help and he’s putting money into next year’s budget for a new attorney in the Alaska Department of Law. That attorney’s only job? Dealing with endangered species.
(Photo courtesy of the US Fish And Wildlife Service)
The Governor of Alaska plans to fight
the Endangered Species Act protection
of the polar bear. Rebecca Williams
reports the governor plans on hiring
more lawyers:
Transcript
The Governor of Alaska plans to fight
the Endangered Species Act protection
of the polar bear. Rebecca Williams
reports the governor plans on hiring
more lawyers:
Governor Sean Parnell is picking up where Governor Sarah Palin left off and suing the federal government over the polar bear. Polar bear protections could get in the way of drilling for oil.
He’s now promising to spend another $800,000 for outside legal help and he’s putting money into next year’s budget for a new attorney in the Alaska Department of Law. That attorney’s only job? Dealing with endangered species.
“We’re going to continue to take this fight to the mat to protect our jobs and our economy so that the ESA, the Endangered Species Act, is used to truly protect species and not lock up our opportunities here.”
The Governor says those opportunities are jobs and money connected to oil and gas drilling in the polar bear’s habitat.
Governor Parnell will have more than the polar bear to worry about. Environmental groups are also trying to get several other species on the endangered list – including three types of ice seal.
A big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:
Jeff Holmstead is an environmental attorney and has been working on clean air issues for two decades now. He led the Air Division of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration and has worked on some of the most significant environmental regulations in the nation’s history. But he says the current climate change bill is the biggest thing he’s seen.
“It’s a big deal. Much bigger than really any other environmental legislation or regulation than people have had to deal with in the past.”
Holmstead says the stakes are just so high. He says the costs could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars for American businesses.
“And there’s just also enormous amounts of uncertainty as to how we would fundamentally change our society, which has really grown up largely using fossil fuels. Whether we can truly switch away from that in the kind of time frame that people are talking about.”
But a big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation.
Commercial: “Climate change is real. But solving it is a real opportunity. If we build clean energy technologies in America, we’ll generate the jobs that will power the 21st century and jumpstart our economy. We need a can-do plan that caps greenhouse gas pollution and creates jobs here at home.”
This commercial is not made by a bunch of tree-huggers, liberals, or Al Gore. It stars the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, and corporate CEOs from Deere and Company and the Eaton Corporation. Eaton makes everything from circuit breakers to hoses to hybrid trucks.
“Yeah, Eaton is a power management company that sales about
15-billion dollars and 70,000 employees worldwide.”
That’s Joe Wolfsberger. He’s in charge of environmental programs at Eaton. The company wants Congress to approve climate change legislation and to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Wolfsberger says it could be a great kick-start for the economy and help create jobs.
“We also see a very big opportunity for Eaton and other companies, especially in this power management area. We’ll be able to provide solutions for people to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions going forward, to help reduce the amount of fuel they consume on the road as part of their operations.”
The company has already created new hybrid transmissions for delivery trucks. They’re used in lots of UPS, Fed-Ex, and Wal-Mart trucks. Wolfsberger says it improves gas mileage 50% to 70%.
Wolfsberger says a lot of companies are still questioning whether climate change is real. He says Eaton CEO Alexander Cutler gets asked about it a lot.
“And his response to them is, ‘it doesn’t really matter if the data is good or not. It doesn’t matter if it’s a normal climatic cycle. The question is, if you as a company can do better, you should do better.’”
But that may be easy to say when your company will benefit from climate change legislation. It’s a lot tougher when your business is producing natural gas or making steel and depends on heavy use of fossil fuels.
Environmental attorney Jeff Holmstead says the price of reducing greenhouse gases is going to be a lot higher for these types of companies if a bill passes. He says that’s what the debate is all about.
“Should we be spending a hundred billion dollars a year, should we be spending a trillion dollars a year? I think most people believe we could significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, it’s just a question of how much we’re willing to pay, and also what we get for that.”
And this what Congress will be debating in the coming months – whether the possibility of higher energy bills is worth the chance to have a more stable climate and more energy independence.
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.
The Center for Public Integrity finds there are at least five lobbyists on climate change legislation for every member of Congress.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
According to new investigative reports,
lobbying efforts on climate change
policy are growing dramatically. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
According to new investigative reports,
lobbying efforts on climate change
policy are growing dramatically. Lester
Graham reports:
Washington, more than ever before, is crawling with lobbyists.
A journalistic project finds there are at least five lobbyists on climate change legislation for every member of Congress.
Maryanne Lavelle with the Center for Public Integrity heads up the project.
“It’s just astounding. If you just compare to six years ago when Congress first considered a really comprehensive climate bill, there has been a 40o% increase in lobbyists.”
Some are there to ensure greenhouse gases are reduced, some are there to shape climate change legislation to benefit their business interests, others are there to block it.
But the investigative journalists found big industry lobbyists and all the others out-gun lobbyists for environmental and alternative energy groups by an eight-to-one margin.
Lester Brown founded the Earth Policy Institute in 2001. (Photo courtesy of the Earth Policy Institute)
