Companies for the Climate Bill

  • 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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Clearing Up Cap-And-Trade

  • 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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Lobbyists Swarm the Climate Bill

  • 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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

New Water Plan for California

  • Two-thirds of California’s rain and snow falls in the north, but two-thirds of its population lives in the south. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

One of the most drought-ridden
states says it’s finally found
a solution to its water problems.
Amy Standen reports:

Transcript

One of the most drought-ridden
states says it’s finally found
a solution to its water problems.
Amy Standen reports:

Two thirds of California’s rain and snow falls in the north. Two thirds of its population lives in the south. So who should get the water?

It took weeks of intense deal making and years of debate in the state capitol to find an answer. But the new law is not without its critics.

Peter Gleick is a water expert at the Pacific Institute. He says the measure fails to force users – especially farmers– to account for what they use.

” We will never ultimately, sustainably manage our water resources if we don’t know who is using how much water to do what. And we don’t, with any degree of accuracy. And that’s still not addressed in this bill.”

The deal calls for greater efficiency, especially in cities.

But nothing happens until voters agree to chip in for the plan, with an 11 billion dollar bond measure to pay for a new distribution system.

For The Environment Report, I’m Amy Standen.

Related Links

Climate Bill Moving Along

  • A lot of compromises and some arm-twisting are persuading moderate Democrats to support limiting global warming emissions. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Work on the climate change bill
in the Senate is progressing
despite the controversy surrounding
the bill. Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Work on the climate change bill
in the Senate is progressing
despite the controversy surrounding
the bill. Lester Graham reports:

A Republican boycott and bitter wrangling between Democrats and Republicans over provisions in the climate bill in the Senate and, still, supporters say it’s going okay.

A lot of compromises and some arm-twisting are persuading moderate Democrats to support limiting global warming emissions.

Even the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, is now saying Congress will approve legislation this session.

Josh Dorner is with a group backing a climate bill, called Clean Energy Works. Dorner says getting moderate Democrats like Baucus on board moves a climate bill closer to reality.

“That coupled with the bi-partisan agreement amongst other senators, Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman to move forward, I think shows that we’re closer to a bi-partisan agreement on getting a bill done now than we ever have been before.”

“Bi-partisan” meaning only a couple of Republicans joining a lot more Democrats in support of the bill.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Should We Recycle Everything?

  • Right now, San Francisco is at 72% recycling. They also just passed legislation to make composting mandatory. (Photo source: Tewy at Wikimedia Commons)

Recycling has become the law in
San Francisco. Residents who fail
to recycle and compost will face
warnings and, eventually, a fine.
It’s part of the city’s goal to
eliminate waste altogether. But,
as Amy Standen reports, recycling
and composting can only take us
so far:

Transcript

Recycling has become the law in
San Francisco. Residents who fail
to recycle and compost will face
warnings and, eventually, a fine.
It’s part of the city’s goal to
eliminate waste altogether. But,
as Amy Standen reports, recycling
and composting can only take us
so far:

(conversation in Chinese)

Janis Peng is a foot soldier in San Francisco’s war against garbage. Today, she’s going door to door in a San Francisco Chinatown apartment complex, trying to convince the mostly elderly residents to make better use of their city-provided compost bin.

In fact, Peng is part of a city-wide effort to eliminate waste altogether. In 1989, California passed a law, which was considered radically ambitious at the time. They wanted to divert away from landfills 50% of the state’s garbage by the year 2000.

For San Francisco, that wasn’t enough.

“We got to 50%, and we said, ‘well we’re here now, what are we going to do next?’”

That’s Jared Blumenthal. He’s head of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment. Today, he’s in the backseat of a Toyota Prius. He’s on his way to a recycling press conference.

“So in 2003, we set the goal of 75% by 2010 and to zero waste by 2020.”

Right now, San Francisco’s at 72% recycling. City officials say that mandatory recycling will bring that number up even higher. But can any city ever get to zero waste?

(sound of trucks and machinery)

“It’s almost 9:45 in the morning and some of the trucks that went out this morning are coming in with their first loads.”

Robert Reed is a spokesman for Sunset Scavenger Company, in San Francisco. Here at Pier 96, dozens of workers stand by conveyor belts, sorting out the contents of an entire city’s worth of blue bins.

“All these materials go to different places, the glass goes to a glass plant, the paper goes to a paper mill.”

Sunset Scavenger sells these commodities to buyers here and in Asia. That generates revenue that helps fund the program. But recycling is expensive, in part because some products – like many plastics – cost far more to recycle than they’re worth.

“We’re dealing with clear plastic and opaque plastic and medium plastics. And many of these containers have three types of plastics.”

Aluminum and glass can be yanked off the conveyor belts with magnets and other machinery. But plastic has to be hand sorted.

Mark Murray is executive director of Californians Against Waste, a Sacramento non-profit group.

“We have seven different types of plastic resins and manufacturers invent new ones every day. And I know it might make us feel good to put those number sevens into the recycling bin, the scrap value is insufficient. It’s not sustainable recycling.”

Murray says he hears all the time from residents who want to eliminate waste all together.

“They recycle everything, but they can’t get their city to take a certain type of number 6 or 7 plastic in their program. And they’re mad at the city. But it’s not just about recycling everything we get. That’s not gonna solve the problem.”

That’s because some things may never make sense to recycle. Like ballpoint pens and plastic razors.

Murray say that maybe if the costs for those items included what cities pay to take them apart for recycling or to dump them in the landfill, maybe people would use less of them, bringing us a little closer to the holy grail of zero waste.

For The Environment Report, I’m Amy Standen.

Related Links

Senate Takes Up Climate Bill

  • The Senate held their first hearing on the climate change bill. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The Senate has started debate on
the climate bill. The Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works heard
from cabinet members and others,
but Lester Graham reports it’s not
clear their testimony will matter:

Transcript

The Senate has started debate on
the climate bill. The Senate Committee
on Environment and Public Works heard
from cabinet members and others,
but Lester Graham reports it’s not
clear their testimony will matter:

It was the Senate’s the first hearing on the bill, but most of the Senators have already made up their minds.

For Republican Senator James Inhofe, the climate bill is a jobs killer and costs too much.

“We’re talking about somewhere between three and four-hundred billion dollars a year. That’s something the American people can’t tolerate and I don’t believe they will.”

That 300 to 400 billion is revenue from a cap-and-trade plan that would invest in renewable energy such as wind and solar and go to taxpayers to help with higher costs of fossil fuel.

One of the authors of the Senate climate bill, Democrat John Kerry, took issue with Senator Inhofe’s characterization of the bill.

“We need to move forward to deal with climate change and in doing so, Senator Inhofe, we will actually improve every sector of our energy economy.”

And Senator Kerry says that will mean energy independence and millions of new jobs.

The Senate climate bill makes a lot of compromises to win votes. But, it’s not clear they’ll actually sway any of the senators.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Connectedness of Climate and Healthcare

  • Pundits say President Obama is putting all his political chips in the fight for health care. And, if he loses, he'll have almost nothing left to spend on climate change. (Photo by Bill Branson, courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

The health care debate is sucking
up most of the energy in Washington.
So it makes sense that the world is
concerned the US might show up at
global climate talks in December empty
handed. Conrad Wilson explains how
the heath care debate is threatening
the chances of a global climate treaty:

Transcript

The health care debate is sucking
up most of the energy in Washington.
So it makes sense that the world is
concerned the US might show up at
global climate talks in December empty
handed. Conrad Wilson explains how
the heath care debate is threatening
the chances of a global climate treaty:

European countries, along with China and other big global polluters, are wrestling with
how to deal with global warming. But as the world gears up for the climate change
conference in Copenhagen, Washington is focusing on health care.

The timing of Washington’s health care debate has many countries scratching their heads.
And it has environmentalists and climate folks nervous. All agree health care is
important; but globally, they say, it’s out of step.

And when you ask Americans what the President is working on, few mention climate
change.

Person 1: “Probably health care and fixing the economy.”

Person 2: “On the economy. And fixing the economy. Actually, no, I’ll change that.
Actually, what I think he’s focusing on is the health care issue.”

Person 3: “This week, Afghanistan. Last week, health care. The week before, the
economy.”

Person 4: “He’s focusing on health care primarily, which is very important. But he also
needs to maintain his focus on the economy.”

What’s not being talked about is climate change and the global talks coming up in
Copenhagen.

Dan Esty is a professor of Environmental Law & Policy at Yale University. He also has
experience as a climate negotiator. Esty predicts the health care debate will continue
through the end of the year.

“I think it’s going to be very difficult, given the political effort that’s going to be required
to achieve success on health care, to imagine that climate change can be taken on during
the same time period.”

Esty says there’s only so much President Obama and members of Congress can take on at
once. Climate change and health care are two major issues that can’t be resolved
overnight.

As time wears on, the talks are shaping up for an outcome that looks more like the failed
Kyoto climate agreement from a decate ago. After Kyoto, Congress refused to join the
rest of th eworld in capping carbon emissions. Esty fears that could happen again.

“The health care debate, at the present moment, is occupying all the political oxygen in
Washington and that means there’s really nothing left with which to drive forward the
response to climate change. And, as a result, our negotiator will go to Copenhagen
without any real game plan in place for how the United States is going to step up and be a
constructive part of the response of the build up of green house gases in the atmosphere.”

A lot of people say the US needs to pass a climate change law before going to
Copenhagen. But others say maybe not. They argue it’s not a bad idea for the US to go
into global climate talks without a law because it could allow negotiators to be more
flexible.

Regardless of how it’s done, cutting greenhouse gases is now more pressing than ever
before. With Washington paralyzed by the health care debate, the timing is just bad for
climate change.

“If there were ever a time. You can say that about health care and about climate policy.”

That’s energy analyst Randy Udall. He says President Obama has a lot of his plate and
should be ready to compromise.

“Obama’s not going to get nearly as much as many of us had hoped for in terms of health
care reform. And he’s not going to get nearly as much as many of us had hoped for in
terms of energy policy. He will get something. But it not going to be a half a loaf, it’ll be
a quarter of a loaf.”

Pundits say President Obama is putting all his political chips in the fight for health care.
And, if he loses, he’ll have almost nothing left to spend on climate change.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

EPA Targets Chemicals of Concern

  • BPA - one of the chemicals the EPA is focusing on - is found in many canned foods and drinks. (Photo source: Tomomarusan at Wikimedia Commons)

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

Transcript

The Environmental Protection Agency
says it’s been operating under an
outdated law. The EPA administrator
says the agency has not been able
to adequately test the safety of
plastics and chemicals. Lester Graham
reports:

There’s this notion that the plastics and chemicals in the products you buy all have been tested for safety.

That is just wrong.

The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, wants Congress to pass laws to better regulate chemicals in the things we use. But getting a new law will take a while. So, in the meantime, Jackson says the EPA will do more under the existing law.

“Do as much as we can to identify the chemicals that are of concern to the public and move quickly to evaluate them and determine what actions need to be take to address the risks they may pose.”

The agency plans to first look at chemicals such as Bisphenyl A – BPA – used in some hard plastics, phthalates used in cosmetics and plastics, PBDE’s – a flame retardant that’s turning up in mother’s milk, and benzadene dyes and pigments.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

The EPA and CO2 Regulations

  • 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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links