President Barack Obama speaks at a townhall meeting on healthcare reform. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy, courtesy of the White House)
Big industry is planning to target several
key US Senators who’ll vote on a climate
bill this fall. Lester Graham reports an
industry-funded group plans to hold 19
rallies at Senators’ townhall meetings:
Transcript
Big industry is planning to target several
key US Senators who’ll vote on a climate
bill this fall. Lester Graham reports an
industry-funded group plans to hold 19
rallies at Senators’ townhall meetings:
Rallies on health insurance reform can be pretty rowdy at times. It looks like you can expect the same over climate change legislation.
The American Petroleum Institute, and other big industry types formed a group called “Energy Citizens.”
They say the current climate change bill will mean higher energy prices and the loss of millions of jobs. A video on their website portrays everyday folks opposed to the idea.
“The principle of the government trying to help the environment is a good thing, but I don’t think this legislation is the best way to go about it.”
A memo from the American Petroleum Institute to oil company execs encourages getting those kind of people to townhall meetings. Environmental groups say it’s a fake grassroots movement.
A spokesperson for the Petroleum industry says oil companies are not against climate change legislation, just the climate legislation being considered by Congress.
The Energy Information Administration says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology. (Photo source: Frank C. Muller at Wikimedia Commons)
The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:
Transcript
The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:
The Energy Information Administration is the federal government’s crystal ball when it comes to energy policy.
The EIA looked at the House version of a big climate change bill. The Senate takes it up next month.
Forecast director John Conti says new regulations could cost each household between $12 and $227 more each year within a decade.
Conti says there’s a range because it’s not exactly clear how much it’ll cost to switch to low-carbon power sources, like nuclear.
“For most technologies, you have a good idea of how much they’re going to cost. Of course, we haven’t built a nuclear plant in twenty or so years and, as a result, there’re varying cost estimates and people can debate, I think, for a large extent, until that first plant is indeed built.”
Conti says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology.
Until recently, there hasn’t been an order for a new nuclear plant in 30 years.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Some Senate Republicans want the climate
change bill to focus on building new nuclear
power plants. They’re calling for as many as
100 new plants in 20 years. But the industry
has been in decline for so many years now,
there’s concern there might not be enough
nuclear engineers to do the job. Julie Grant
reports:
Transcript
Some Senate Republicans want the climate
change bill to focus on building new nuclear
power plants. They’re calling for as many as
100 new plants in 20 years. But the industry
has been in decline for so many years now,
there’s concern there might not be enough
nuclear engineers to do the job. Julie Grant
reports:
There’s a lot of new interest in nuclear energy and technology these days. But there’s a problem.
The American Nuclear Society estimates they need 700 new nuclear engineers per year to keep up with growing the demand. It’s enough to give long-time nuclear supporters whip-lash. Until recently, things looked gloomy for the nuclear industry.
William Martin is chair of the nuclear engineering department at the University of Michigan. Ten years ago, he says no new plants were being designed or built. And he was having a tough time finding students.
“A student entering the field, what you could tell them was, ‘well, there’s a big focus on waste.’ That’s not hardly something that excites young students to enter the field.”
Martin remembers standing on the stage at graduation in the mid 1990s to call the names of his graduates. Other engineering departments had so many students, it took an hour to call them all. But Martin only had a few names to call.
“Our students trip across in about ten seconds.”
Lots of nuclear engineering programs didn’t make it through the down times. There are less than half the university programs today than there were 30 years ago.
Nuclear got a bad name starting in 1979 – with the meltdown at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania. That was followed by the deadly nuclear accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine in the ‘80s.
By the early 1990s, President Clinton announced he would eliminate funding for nuclear power research and development.
Until recently, there hasn’t been an order for a new nuclear plant in 30 years.
Vaughn Gilbert is spokesman for Westinghouse Electric Company, which focuses on nuclear energy.
He says Westinghouse laid off a lot its engineers in the down years. A decade ago, those who were left were heading toward retirement. So, Gilbert says, the company started working with universities to train engineering students to run its aging nuclear plants.
“Simply because we knew we would need to attract new people to maintain the existing fleet and then also to work with our customers to decommission the plants as they came offline.”
Westinghouse and other nuclear companies started giving lots of money to maintain university programs.
And then, everyone started worrying about climate change – and looking for ways to make energy that wouldn’t create more greenhouse gases. Nuclear power has started making a comeback.
Gilbert says new plants are in the works again – and Westinghouse needs engineers. The company’s designs will be used in six new U.S. plants.
The timing is pretty good for 25 year old Nick Touran. He’s a PhD student in nuclear engineering at the University of Michigan. He knows there’s a negative stigma to nuclear power – because he’s asked people about it.
“I just say, ‘so what do you think about nuclear power?’ Just to passersby on the street. And one person said, ‘I only think one thing – no, no, no, no, no.’”
But Touran says the negative stuff mostly comes from older people. When Three Mile Island melted-down, Touran wasn’t even born yet. He says most people his age are much more accepting of nuclear power.
“It’s the people who remember Three Mile Island and remember Chernobyl and remember World War II, who have all these very negative associations with nuclear weapons and Soviet reactors that were built incredibly wrong. And stuff like that.”
Touran says much of his generation just sees a power source that doesn’t create greenhouse gases.
Of course, there are greenhouse gases created in the process of manufacturing nuclear fuel rods. And then there’s that pesky problem of that spent nuclear waste. There’s still no permanent place to dump it.
Touran says he started studying nuclear power because he was amazed by it. But as the number of students in his department grows, he says more are choosing nuclear because it’s a smart career choice.
An environmental group has graded members of Congress on their voting
records. Rebecca Williams reports that means you get graded even if you’re running for President:
Transcript
An environmental group has graded members of Congress on their voting
records. Rebecca Williams reports that means you get graded even if you’re running for President:
The League of Conservation Voters puts out a scorecard for each session of Congress. It grades members of Congress on how they vote on energy, global warming and other top issues. And whether they show up to vote.
Kerry Duggan is with the group. She says it didn’t matter if you were busy campaigning for President.
“Both Senators Clinton and Obama – they missed four votes each in 2007. Now by contrast, Senator John McCain – he missed all 15 votes that were scored on the scorecard.”
Duggan says each of the candidates lost points on their scorecards for
missing those votes.
But she says overall, the League is happy with the progress Congress made on energy issues last year. But she says Congress has a long way to go to pass laws to reduce greenhouse gasses.
We’ll be springing ahead three weeks earlier than usual this
year. Congress has extended daylight saving time because the
politicians say it will save energy. Rebecca Williams reports
critics are not so sure:
Transcript
We’ll be springing ahead three weeks earlier than usual this
year. Congress has extended daylight saving time because the
politicians say it will save energy. Rebecca Williams reports
critics are not so sure:
Fans of extending daylight-saving time say longer daylight hours
in the evenings will save energy.
But critics of the change say it might actually be a wash.
Ryan Kellogg is a researcher at the University of California
Energy Institute. He studied what happened when Australia
extended daylight saving time.
“They did experience decreased electricity use in the evening
hours when they had more natural light. But they also saw
increased use in the morning when people were waking up in the
dark. Those two effects canceled each other out so on net,
extending daylightn saving time didn’t save Australia any energy
at all.”
U.S. politicians have been predicting we could save the
equivalent of 100,000 barrels of oil a day by extending daylight
saving time. But critics say that’s misleading because most power
plants don’t run on oil.
If you plan to buy a new car or truck this
year, you might find some showrooms filled with
vehicles that run largely on ethanol instead of
gasoline. Car companies are pushing these corn-fueled vehicles as environmentally friendly.
Julie Grant takes a look at those claims:
Transcript
If you plan to buy a new car or truck this
year, you might find some showrooms filled with
vehicles that run largely on ethanol instead of
gasoline. Car companies are pushing these corn-fueled vehicles as environmentally friendly.
Julie Grant takes a look at those claims:
More people are considering buying cleaner, more fuel-efficient
cars now that gas prices and global temperatures are on the rise. The gas-
electric hybrids made by Toyota and Honda are becoming popular. And
American car companies are also jumping on board and offering alternative-
powered vehicles.
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner has put much of his company’s stock in
ethanol:
“At GM, we believe that the bio-fuel with the greatest potential to
displace petroleum-based fuels in the US is ethanol, and so we have
made a major commitment here to vehicles that can run on E85 ethanol.”
E85 is a blend that’s 85% ethanol with 15% gasoline. GM’s not the only company offering cars that run on them:
(Sound of vehicle introduction)
Angela Hines is from Green Bay, Wisconsin. She’s taking notes as she looks at one
flex fuel car. The E85 only matters to her if it’s going to save her a
few bucks:
“I drive anywhere from 80-200 miles
a day for work, so yeah, gas is important.”
Gui Derochers is looking at a Chevy Silverado pickup truck:
(Grant:) “Does it matter to you that it’s a flex fuel?”
“I think it’s a good thing… flex-fuel. Particularly, we know there are some ethanol plants in Michigan coming, right? Isn’t
that what flex fuel is? Ethanol?”
Derochers works on engines and transmissions:
“You have to remember, I work for Daimler-Chrysler. But we have flex fuel as well. It’s a good thing. It’s wonderful.”
But not everyone thinks the move toward ethanol-fueled cars is
wonderful. Tadeusz Patzek is a professor of civil and environmental
engineering at the University of California in Berkeley. He says
ethanol is not cheaper and it’s not any better for the environment than
regular gas.
Patzek says each gallon of ethanol burned might emit less greenhouse gas
into the air, but you have to burn more fuel to go the same distance:
“So, mile for mile, emissions of CO2 are exactly the same for gasoline as
they are for ethanol. Because they are proportional to the energy stored in
the fuel.”
When it comes to gas mileage, Patzek calls claims that ethanol is any
better then gasoline an imaginary economy… and he’s not alone. When Consumer Reports magazine tested a Chevy Tahoe that runs on gas mixed
with only ten percent ethanol, the truck got 14 miles per gallon. But
it got less than 11 miles per gallon when the ethanol content was
raised to 85%, as in E85. That’s a 27% drop in fuel economy with E85.
Consumer Reports concluded that to go the same distance, you wind up paying more than a dollar
extra per gallon on E85 then on regular
gas.
Patzek says it’s not a good deal for consumers or for the environment:
“You emit less because you have oxygen but you burn more, so it comes as a wash.”
Patzek says ethanol has other environmental costs. To grow the corn needed to make it, farmers have to use more fossil fuel-based fertilizers, tractor fuel, and then more fuel to truck the fuel to gas stations.
Even so, many scientists say ethanol still provides an energy benefit over fossil fuels and some auto engineers say ethanol cars
are just a stop-gap measure until a better technology comes along, but Patzek disagrees with that logic:
“So, you’re saying the following: why don’t we have a terribly bad
solution and call it a stop-gap solution because it’s politically
convenient. I’m saying is, if I’m an engineer, I have to, essentially, if I’m honest with myself and others, do I want a
better technological solution or do I want to say, let’s do probably the worst possible solution
that delays other solutions 10-15 years into the future… while the
world is running out of time?”
Patzek says the real reason American car companies are moving toward
vehicles that run on E85 is that the federal government rewards them
for it.
GM and the others get extra credit for meeting fuel efficiency
standards just for making cars that can run on E85, even if those cars
aren’t more fuel efficient.
Patzek knows he’s become unpopular among many farmers, engineers,
scientists and politicians who want easy answers. He wants people to
start reducing their energy-use rather than waiting for technological
magic bullets.
Some scientists are joining with some Christian evangelicals to convince politicians that
global warming is a real threat. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Some scientists are joining with some Christian evangelicals to convince politicians that
global warming is a real threat. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
About thirty scientists and religious leaders have teamed up. One of them is Calvin
DeWitt. He’s president of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists. DeWitt
says when the partnership was first discussed last year, he thought there would be tension
between the researchers and the religious community:
“In fact the opposite was found, there was a tremendous concord between the secular
scientific people and the evangelicals. The concord was the agreement that we had to
move forward fully to care for the creation.”
DeWitt says the scientists pushed for using the term “creation,” as a way to include both
people and the rest of the biosphere.
But another group of evangelicals says the partnership creates a false impression of
growing consensus in the religious community about global warming.
DeKalb County, close to Chicago in Illinois, is facing rapid urban sprawl. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Farmers are often tempted to sell their land to developers, who may have
plans to build strip malls, big box retail stores or subdivisions. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Some counties are trying to help farmers by paying the difference between
farmland value and development value in order to preserve green space. It's
called purchase of development rights. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Some counties near big cities are trying to save farmland from being developed into sprawling suburbs. Lester Graham reports the problem is finding money to fund programs that would preserve the rural character of an area:
Transcript
Some counties near big cities are trying to save farmland from being developed into
sprawling suburbs. Lester Graham reports the problem is finding money to fund
programs that would preserve the rural character of an area:
The real value of land as farmland is a lot less than what a developer will pay for the land
to use it to build strip malls, big box retail stores, or subdivisions of wallboard mansions.
Farmers are tempted to sell when it means they’d make more money off the land selling it
to developers than they would farming for the rest of their lives, but many feel they’re forced into the situation. They don’t really want to give up life on
the farm. They just feel they’d be foolish to keep farming when they could make so much
money selling to a developer.
Some counties that want to preserve the rural character of their area are putting together a program
that helps farmers by paying them some of that difference between farmland value and
development value. It’s called the purchase of development rights.
Usually, local governments, sometimes state, pay farmers to waive that right to develop
the land forever. No one can build on it. The land has to be kept as open space.
There are lots of reasons state, county and city and township governments might want to
do that. Some politicians want to make sure their communities continue to be surrounded
by scenic green space. Some want to preserve the rural character of their community.
Some want to make sure they have a source for locally grown food.
Scott Everett is with the American Farmland Trust. He says it can come down to simple
economics. Some politicians like purchase of development rights for lower taxes:
“Because we won’t have to add public services. Cows don’t go to school. Chickens don’t
dial 9-1-1. Corn, wheat and soybeans need a lot less fire and police protection than
residential development.”
Everett says purchase of development rights is a long term plan and if a county sees its
farmland might be threatened in the future, it better get busy now:
“In an urban-influenced county, you know, there’s a county next door to a big
metropolitan area maybe like Chicago, one of the things that really ought to be happening
to counties that are next to that county is some planning needs to take place. It
takes a very long time for a purchase of development rights program to take ahold.”
We found a place that fits that description exactly. DeKalb County is on the fringes of
the Chicago metropolitan area. The counties between it and the city are seeing incredible
development pressures. Farmland is being gobbled up at a rate almost unparalleled in the
nation. DeKalb County is trying to draw a line that would stop urban sprawl and allow only
carefully planned growth.
Pat Vary is a DeKalb County board member. She’s watched as counties closer to
Chicago have gone from farmland to urban sprawl in almost no time. She doesn’t want that to happen to
DeKalb County and she says most of the towns don’t want that:
“Most of the municipalities have said, ‘We want to grow this far, but we want to keep
green space around us and we don’t want to go much further than that.’ There’s lots of
pressure from developers right now.”
Vary, who’s also a biologist, says as the population grows and farmland is lost, she sees a
moment in the future where land that produces food is going to be a lot more valuable
than it is today:
“I really think that in about thirty years, forty years from now, that an acre of farmland in
DeKalb County will be worth more than an acre of downtown Chicago. You can’t eat
buildings. You can’t eat pavement. People are going to need to eat. I really believe it’s
critical, it’s vital to do something fairly fast.”
But, as we heard earlier, it takes a while to get a purchase of development rights program
rolling. It has to be funded, usually from several levels of government, and then you
have to persuade farmers that dedicating their land to only growing crops is the right
thing to do.
Scott Everett with American Farmland Trust says successful purchase of
development rights start out slowly, but gain popularity after everyone sees how it works:
“It’s one of these programs where once one farmer does it, the other farmers next door
and the neighboring farmers really start taking a look at it and saying to themselves ‘You
know, if they’re going to make the commitment, I will, too.'”
But Everett warns, if your county is one of those urban-influenced counties, if a
purchase of development rights program isn’t put in place and funded soon, your
farmland will be gobbled up by gridlock, strip malls, and dotted with residential suburbs
that often cost the government more in infrastructure and additional services than the new
real estate taxes will ever pay for.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Peter Gail holds his favorite weed: the spinach-like lamb's quarters.
It's not hard to find lamb's quarters in a suburban backyard.
Edible lilies in the same backyard.
Your barbeque grill isn’t the only place to find food in your backyard. There are lots of plants out there to eat, but most of us call
them weeds. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
Your barbeque grill isn’t the only place to find food in your backyard.
There are lots of plants out there to eat, but most of us call
them weeds. The GLRC’s Julie Grant reports:
Peter Gail of Cleveland loves food. He’s got a lot of meat on his bones.
“Gee, you can’t get me to stop. I start eating this stuff and I can’t stop. It’s terrible, it’s terrible, it’s addictive (laughs).”
But his favorite foods grow right in his backyard, and probably yours. Gail is what’s
known as an ethno-botanist. He’s on a mission to teach more people about how to eat the
plants growing all around their houses. His latest converts are a troop of boy scouts:
“My grandson was one of the boys in this Boy Scout troop. And when I got over to his
house three days after we got back from scout camp, he grabbed the bag, the plastic bag
of weeds that his mother weeded out of the yard that day and dragged it over to me on the
patio and said find the edible plants in here and show me them.”
Gail says the yard becomes more exciting to most kids when they can sit down and
munch. His own love of the backyard snack started when he was just a boy. His family
faced some tough times. They were saved by a common weed known as lamb’s quarters.
“My dad died and left the family with no money. A friend told my mother we could live
off lamb’s quarters. For six months we went out and every day my brother and I would
gather the young tops of lamb’s quarters and then bring them into the house and my
mother would make them into every kind of spinach dish imaginable, until she learned
how to make a living. And then after that she still, we still liked the plant so we still ate it a lot.”
These days you could pay a lot for lamb’s quarters in a gourmet food store. They’re sold
as Belgium spinach. Or, Gail says, you could just take a quick look around your yard.
Today we’re walking around a backyard in suburban Cleveland. We find lamb’s quarters
at the base of a tree. Some say you can recognize the leaves because they look like the
hindquarters of a lamb. Gail thinks they look more like the silhouette of a Christmas tree:
“You’ll notice it has, when you’re looking down on it, it looks like somebody spilled a
little bit of talcum powder on the very top. It has that little dusting of white that is right on the top and on the underside of the leaves you see the same dusting, but taste one leaf, taste a leaf of that.”
And it does taste like spinach, but the USDA reports it’s even more nutritious than
Popeye’s favorite treat.
“It doesn’t take any cooking. It can be eaten raw, or it can be cooked. It will interfere, if you eat too much raw, with the assimilation of both iron and calcium, so you usually want to cook it. It makes a great addition to omelets, great cooked green, great quiches. Any recipe you use spinach in, you can use lamb’s quarters.”
There’s a lot more than just lamb’s quarters in the yard to eat. This time of year, Peter Gail also recommends sautiing the buds or petals from orange and yellow daylilies. He’s also a big fan of dandelions. He suggests looking for the young, tender leaves because they’re less bitter. Gail says he believes dandelions were brought to America by Italian
immigrants. They’re used in lots of Italian recipes:
“80 percent of the things we call weeds were vegetables brought here by immigrants.
That’s one of the reasons most of the things we call weeds in our backyards aren’t
indigenous plants. They aren’t plants that were from America. They’re plants that are
from Europe and Asia and from South America.”
Gail says over time those traditional foods escaped from gardens into the wild. After
World War II, things changed. Most people started buying food at the grocery store and foraging became unpopular. He says only the poor searched the yard for food:
“One by one, as generations went by, the kids didn’t learn as much the second generation,
the third generation they knew nothing. And by the time we reach where we are now,
almost everybody can walk right by the most nutritious plant going, the most commonly eaten
plant back in the 30s and 40s, and not even have a clue what it is.”
Gail is trying to change that. He wants people to become reacquainted with these plants
so we don’t recklessly destroy them. He travels around the country giving workshops,
taking people on neighborhood forages, and teaching cooking classes. Gail believes we
might need these plants again someday.
The ag industry, some politicians and now automakers
are pushing the idea that ethanol made from corn will help reduce reliance on foreign oil. But another study further indicates that
corn ethanol is not the best solution. The GLRC’s Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
The ag industry, some politicians and now automakers are pushing the idea that ethanol
made from corn will help reduce reliance on foreign oil. But, another study further
indicates that corn ethanol is not the best solution. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports:
Despite the huge push for corn ethanol, a new study adds to the growing body of
evidence that indicates ethanol from corn is not a viable answer to replace gasoline. New
research from the University of Minnesota has been published by the Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. It shows that ethanol from corn only yields 25
percent more energy than it takes to produce it.
The study also found greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution improvements were
only slight using corn ethanol, a bit better using soy diesel. But, the researchers say even dedicating all U.S. corn and soybean production to bio-fuels instead of food would only
meet 12 percent of the demand for gasoline and six percent of the demand for diesel.
The researchers conclude that other more woody plants and wood by-products could
provide much greater supplies and environmental benefits than food-based bio-fuels.
President Barack Obama speaks at a townhall meeting on healthcare reform. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy, courtesy of the White House)
