Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)
How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:
Transcript
How you fuel your car could change pretty quickly. California air regulators are requiring gasoline producers to reduce greenhouse gases by 10% by 2020. That could force big oil companies to invest in alternative fuels. Tamara Keith reports when it comes to environmental regulations, what happens in California usually spreads from there:
Today almost everything that goes into your car’s gas tank started as oil. But in the future it could be very different.
“The fuels that we will be moving towards are electricity, biofuels and hydrogen mostly.”
Daniel Sperling is a member of the California Air Resources Board which voted in the new rule.
Sperling says the goal is to reduce the overall greenhouse gas emissions from vehicle fuels. That could mean oil companies might even have to buy credits from power companies for electric cars.
“You start transforming the oil industry, getting off of oil. I mean that’s what we talk about and this is a policy that will actually do it.”
The California rule even looks at how much greenhouse gas pollution goes into making corn ethanol.
Oil companies say fuel prices will definitely go up in California.
Some think that a gas tax is the only way to get consumers to buy fuel efficient cars (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
Some in the auto industry are proposing a hike in the gasoline tax. The idea is this: if you want people to buy small cars, make gasoline more expensive. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Some in the auto industry are proposing a hike in the gasoline tax. The idea is this: if you want people to buy small cars, make gasoline more expensive. Lester Graham reports:
Car dealers and manufacturers say a higher gas price is the only thing that gets people buying more fuel efficient cars. So, a tax hike makes sense.
But, a guy who has a lot of sway on the idea of a gas tax hike is not going there.
Congressman Ed Markey chairs a House subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.
At a forum at MIT he said the plan is to stick with CAFÉ — the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards – to get better mileage cars.
“That’s the route that we’re taking rather and an increase in the gasoline tax. We’re moving towards a mandate and 35 miles per gallon is the minimum that we intend on reaching by 2020.”
And under the stimulus package, new tax credits amounting to thousands of dollars get kicked-back to anyone buying a fuel efficient car.
Congress is debating whether a carbon cap-and-trade program would kill jobs or save money in the long run. (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)
Congress will be considering an energy and climate bill. Lester Graham reports the legislation would shift the American economy from reliance on fossil fuels to greater reliance on renewable energy and energy efficiency:
Transcript
Congress will be considering an energy and climate bill. Lester Graham reports the legislation would shift the American economy from reliance on fossil fuels to greater reliance on renewable energy and energy efficiency:
The fight over what –if anything– should be done about climate change will center on this legislation.
Coal companies, big oil –and industries that use a lot of energy say this is a jobs killer and our energy bills will go through the roof.
Environmental groups and green businesses say ‘no, actually this will create jobs in a new green economy and in the long run our energy bills will be lower.’
A carbon cap-and-trade scheme included in the package would limit greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on them. Those against it call it cap-and-tax.
Liz Perera is with the environmental group the Union of Concerned Scientists. She says doing nothing about climate change would cost more.
“That’s definitely the most expensive thing we can do: just ignore this and then suffer these consequences of global warming.”
Those consequences are uncertain and will be among the many arguments we’ll hear in Washington this summer.
Protestors are lobbying for aging coal plants to be shut down--they are some of the nation's dirtiest plants (Photo by Arnold Paul, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
Carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming are driving power companies to a decision. They can move away from burning coal altogether or they can work on technology to eliminate their CO2 emissions someday. While they’re making that decision, some of the nation’s oldest, dirtiest coal-burning power plants still run. In the final part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they billow dangerous air pollution– stuff most people think we cleaned up long ago:
Transcript
Carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming are driving power companies to a decision. They can move away from burning coal altogether or they can work on technology to eliminate their CO2 emissions someday. While they’re making that decision, some of the nation’s oldest, dirtiest coal-burning power plants still run. In the final part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they billow dangerous air pollution– stuff most people think we cleaned up long ago:
I’ve seen plenty of environmental protests.
“Clean up the coal power plants. Save lives, save our city. Show your support – sign the petition!”
But this one has me intrigued.
It’s not because of what the protestors want. They want to shut down two coal-burning power plants in Chicago. I’d heard that before, and I’d heard their statistics too – like how each year, air pollution from these kinds of power plants causes 17,000 Americans to die early from smog and other hazards.
Now, what strikes me is that these teenagers are singing Bob Dylan.
“Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand. For the time’s they are a changing.”
Their parents – or maybe grandparents – could have sung this.
But, however old the song is, the power plants they’re trying to shut down? They’re even older and they’re still allowed to create more pollution than newer plants.
Brian Urbaszewski has one answer to why so little’s changed. He’s with the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago.
“People ask, ‘well, why is it taking so long to clean up the power plants?’ Well, it’s expensive to clean up an old power plant and the people who own them don’t particularly want to spend the money to do that.”
This isn’t the way it was supposed to work. Urbasewski says when Congress enacted the Clean Air Act in 1970, it gave old power plants a pass.
“The basics are that old power plants were not expected to have to meet the same standards as new power plants.”
But there was a catch. The old power plants wouldn’t have to clean up – if they kept the same equipment and didn’t pollute any more than before.
Urbaszewksi says the industry treated this like a loophole.
“A lot of these plants had major parts replaced and they were restored almost to original working order. The companies didn’t add those pollution controls.”
The federal government, industry, and environmentalists are stuck in court over which improvements at old, coal-burning power plants should trigger new pollution controls.
President George W. Bush sided with industry on this so-called new source review issue.
But now, President Obama might reverse that and the industry’s worried.
In terms of new source review, we remain in limbo.
Dan Riedinger handles public relations for the Edison Electric Institute. It represents private power companies.
“Still, you know, decades later, we still don’t have the type of written guidance we need, about what types of changes we can make at power plants.”
An overhaul of “new source review” is coming at a bad time for Riedinger’s industry. The government’s clamping down even harder on soot and the pollutants that cause smog. And they’re new rules to protect fish and other animals from mercury emissions.
But future carbon caps are a wild card. Congress might make power plants slash carbon dioxide emissions.
Riedinger says burning coal could become expensive – and the smallest, oldest power plants might not make the cut.
“We may be required to retire some coal plants prematurely and to replace them with natural gas. A natural gas produces half as much CO2 as does a coal plant.”
If the power industry shifts away from coal and toward other fuels for the sake of carbon, we might also get some of the quickest cutbacks in air pollution in decades at the same time – a kind of clean-air two-fer.
A broken dam caused this cement-like sludge to spill into the Emory River in East Tennessee. The coal ash sludge could dry out, putting toxic dust into the air. (Photo by Matt Shafer Powell)
This past December a sludge of coal ash broke out of an impoundment at a power plant in
Tennessee. It destroyed homes. It devastated a section of river. And it set off a firestorm
about the problem of coal ash disposal. Now two US Senators and a bunch of environmental
groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash. Tamara
Keith has the story:
Transcript
This past December a sludge of coal ash broke out of an impoundment at a power plant in
Tennessee. It destroyed homes. It devastated a section of river. And it set off a firestorm
about the problem of coal ash disposal. Now two US Senators and a bunch of environmental
groups are calling on the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash. Tamara
Keith has the story:
Coal ash is byproduct produced by coal burning power plants and it’s stored at more than 500
sites around the country.
Anti-coal activist Dave Cooper signed onto a letter this week with more than 100
environmental groups telling the EPA it’s time to get involved.
“What we want is for the EPA to regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste.”
But Dave Goss with the American Coal Ash Association says safe storage is an issue, but a
lot of the ash is actually recycled into things like concrete and wallboard.
“If you stigmatize it by giving it some sort of a classification such as hazardous, that’s going
to have a dramatic impact on the ability to re-use the materials.”
The EPA has been studying this issue for years, and hasn’t responded to the latest calls for
regulation.
Most paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds (Source: DanielCase at Wikimedia Commons)
When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
When it’s time for a new
coat of paint, you might want a paint
that doesn’t smell so bad that it
leaves your head spinning. More states
are shaking up paint laws – and forcing
companies to roll out paints that aren’t
as bad for the environment. But some
people question if they will work as well
as the old stuff. Julie Grant reports:
Matt Testa started painting for his family’s real estate
business when he was a kid. He remembers his parents
worrying that all the chemicals in the paint would ignite a fire
– so they turned off appliance pilot lights before painting a
kitchen.
(sound of painting)
Today, as a builder and general contractor, Testa says most
paints are still high in VOCs – volatile organic compounds.
Even though a lot of people don’t like it.
“Well, when we’ve used some high VOC products, of course
there’s occasional dizziness on large commercial jobs.
We’ve had to clear buildings at times because of people
reporting headaches and other things with the fumes that
were being given off.”
Testa says you can almost taste those chemicals in your
nose and mouth hours after painting. But the VOCs don’t
just affect painters. When you open a can of paint, or
primer, or wood stain, the chemicals get into the air – and
cause ozone pollution, which contributes to smog.
“When you do the math, they’re talking about a quarter
pound per gallon. And you think of the millions and millions
of gallons of paints that are used, you’re talking about a
huge amount of VOCs.”
In recent years, states on the east and west coasts have
started cracking down on paint makers. Smoggy southern
California has the toughest laws against VOCs in paints.
The Northeast has also forced manufacturers to reduce their
chemical load.
And now tougher paint laws are spreading to states in the
middle of the country. Ohio, for instance, has had a tough
time meeting federal clean air standards. It’s hoping that
stirring up the paint laws will make a difference.
(sound of paint store)
That’ll mean changes at the store. When you buy paints,
primers, stains – they will be based less on oil – and more
on water.
Steve Revnew is marketing director for Sherwin Williams –
and its 3,300 stores nationwide. Walking around one of his
Ohio stores, he says they have to roll out a new line of
products.
“For example, some of the oil based stains, wiping stains
that you traditionally would use on your wood work and
those types of things, as they’re known today, that
technology will no longer be available.”
Companies such as Sherwin Williams have seen the
chemical limits coming for many years. Revnew says
they’ve developed new stains, paints and enamels with
fewer harsh chemicals – using new resin and polymer
technology.
He picks up a can of enamel – “In 2009, we’ll be introducing
a whole new product line that is VOC compliant. It will still
provide you the hard, durable finish for metal, wood,
concrete – those types of things. Only it will be VOC
compliant.”
The changes have some professional painters in the store
concerned. They worry that water-based paints and stains
won’t coat as well or last as long as the oil-based coatings.
Now that contractor Matt Testa has kids of his own, he’s glad
VOCs are being brushed aside. But if reducing the
chemicals means things need to be re-painted more often,
he says the changes won’t do anything to improve air
quality.
“Yeah, if you have to go back and repaint it, you’re really
going to leave a bigger footprint environmentally from the
truck trips, the amount of the paint you put back up, all the
delivery of that paint, etc.”
Testa says consumers will have to see for themselves if
these new, environmentally friendly products work as well as
the higher VOC paints.
Makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny under the Obama administration. (Source: Lupin at Wikimedia Commons)
The cosmetics industry is bracing for some changes under the new Congress and Obama administration. Julie Grant reports that makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny:
Transcript
The cosmetics industry is bracing for some changes under the new Congress and the Obama administration. Julie Grant reports that makeup and perfumes could come under greater government scrutiny.
(sound of a store)
Claudia Lamancusa has been selling high end cosmetics at the mall for more than thirty years.
She says they recently started making a line of more natural powders, blushes and eye liners – because it’s what customers want.
“Well, I think they’re asking for them. They see it a lot on television and so the trend is going toward more mineral-based and natural products.”
And now the cosmetics industry is expecting the government ask more questions about what’s in makeup and perfumes.
Cosmetics makers already have to test products to make sure they’re safe for people to use. But they don’t have to test the environmental impacts of the chemicals in their products.
Industry officials expect that to change if Congress overhauls the Toxic Substances Control Act. They say that would mean makeup makers will have to start reporting to a new, tougher Environmental Protection Agency.
Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are
packing up, there's not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. (Photo courtesy of the US Department of State)
It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:
Transcript
It’s the Holiday Season – and
critics say industry lobbyists are getting
many of the gifts they’ve been asking for.
The Bush Administration is pushing through
rules and regulations for them. Mark Brush
reports these midnight regulations will be
difficult to overturn:
Critics say President George W. Bush is doing a lot of last minute shopping for his
friends in big industries.
“What’s happening in Washington right now is a really quiet sneak attack on a lot of
fundamental protections that Americans enjoy under the law.”
That’s John Walke. He’s a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council.
He says these last minute Bush rules are not good for the environment – and they’re not
good for people.
“It’s important to realize we’re talking here about midnight de-regulation. These are
actions that are removing safeguards and protections of public health, and public welfare,
and the environment, and giving industry the permission to commit those harmful acts.”
So what kind of harmful acts is he talking about? Here are just some of the more than 60 rules and
regulations the Bush Administration is working on or have finalized.
A rule that makes it easier for coal mining companies to dump their waste into nearby
creeks and streams.
A rule changes that would allow older coal burning power plants to pump out more air
pollution without having to install clean up equipment.
A rule that would allow large dairies or livestock farms to police pollution from their own
operations.
And a rule that would make it more difficult to protect workers from toxic chemicals.
It’s a long list. But the main philosophy of the Bush Administration is that big industries
need a break from government regulations.
The Administration says they’ve been working on these rules for a long time. But
they’ve waited until the last minute to finalize a lot of them.
Passing midnight regulations is nothing new. When presidents of a losing party are
packing up, there’s not much of a political price to pay for unpopular rules. Your party
lost the election. So why not? Jimmy Carter’s administration was famous for it. The
term ‘midnight regulation’ was coined when Carter kicked last-minute rule making into
high gear. And every president since then has had his own last-minute rule changes.
The incoming Obama Administration is promising to go through these rules. Jon Podesta
is with Obama’s transition team. And he talked about that on Fox News Sunday.
“As a candidate, Senator Obama said that he wanted all the Bush executive orders
reviewed, and decide which ones should be kept, which ones should be repealed, and
which ones should be amended.”
Overturning some of these rules won’t be easy. Joaquin Sapien is a reporter for
ProPublica. He’s been following these midnight regulations closely. He says what
makes the end of this administration different is how it planned for the end. Last May,
White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten contacted all the federal agencies.
“What they did was they sent out a memo saying, ‘get your work done on these
regulations by November the first.’ So that would give these agencies plenty of time to
get them in effect before the next administration takes over, thereby limiting what the
next administration could do about some of these rules.”
Once the rules are finalized – they become effective in thirty to sixty days. And once that
happens – Sapien says it’s pretty much a done deal.
“And so, if a rule is in effect by the time the Obama Administration takes over, there’s
really very little he can do.”
For every rule that has gone into effect, it would take a lengthy rule-making process to
overturn it – a process that can take months and more likely years to complete.
There is another option. Congress can review the rules – and stop them before they’re
enforced. But with all the attention on the financial crisis, and with the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, experts think Congress won’t do that. And that these last minute rules will
be government policy for awhile.
Many Native American tribes say
they want to be part of the national debate
over climate change legislation. The
tribes at least have the attention of the
US EPA. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Many Native American tribes say
they want to be part of the national debate
over climate change legislation. The
tribes at least have the attention of the
US EPA. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The tribes are worried about climate change. They think it might be affecting natural resources
like wild rice beds, fish habitat and animals they hunt to feed their people.
The tribes got some provisions into a major climate change bill that recently failed in Congress.
They’re now preparing their arguments for the next go-round on Capitol Hill.
Stephen Hartsfield is with the National Tribal Air Association. He says one thing the Native
communities want is more incentives to produce cleaner energy – such as solar power in the
Southwest US.
“ We have 300 days of sunshine a year – so it just makes logical sense for tribes and states and
communities in the Southwest to look at those opportunities.”
At a meeting with Great Lakes area tribes in Milwaukee, an EPA official said it’ll be up to
Congress and the Obama Administration to determine how much clout the tribes will have in the
debate.
The Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois (Photo by Lester Graham)
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Transcript
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Recently I dropped in on a corporate meet-and-greet in Chicago.
I waded through through computerized presentations, and loads of free pastry and coffee,
and heard executives from Pepsi, IBM, and Staples talk about cutting their carbon
emissions.
The company most eager to talk was Exelon.
“We’re a very large power generator, we are also a very large utility company and
given our size, we have a special responsibility to help address the implications of
climate change.”
Ruth Ann Gillis is an executive Vice President at Exelon.
The company’s prepping for the day when the government makes them pay when they
put carbon into the atmosphere.
Gillis says Exelon is starting early, and plans to cut carbon emissions by fifteen million
tons a year by 2020.
“The reduction, the offset, the displacement of fifteen million tons is the equivalent
of taking three million cars a year off our roads and highways. And for nothing
more, everyone should be hopeful we are indeed successful, because it will make a
difference.”
To make that difference, Exelon will promote efficiency, cut the coal used in some of its
power stations, and slash its own energy use in buildings and vehicles.
I head to one of Exelon’s power plants to learn another way Exelon might cut its carbon
output.
Plant Manager Brian Hanson says the idea is to squeeze more power out of existing
nuclear power stations.
Brian Hanson: “One of our strategies of our 2020 Carbon iniative is to increase
power in some of our reactors, to take advantage of some of the flexibility built into
the power plants.”
Shawn Allee: “When you say flexibility what do you mean by that?”
Hanson: “They were built with extra pumps and systems that would let us operate
at higher power.”
Allee: “Do you need somebody’s permission to do that?”
Hanson: “As part of our license to operate the facility we’re only allowed to operate
at a certain power level, but to go above that we have to submit a formal
engineering study to the nuclear regulatory commission.”
But why upgrade? Why squeeze more power out of old plants? Why not build new
nuclear power plants, too?
Well, Exelon would like to. But it’s not easy.
Tom O’Neil is Vice President of New Plant Development at Exelon.
He says Exelon wants a new nuclear power plant in Texas.
But no one’s licensed a nuke plant for a dozen years and it’s common for projects to get
canceled.
So Exelon’s got some blanks to fill in.
“How much will it cost, can we finance it, what’s the political support, what do we
think the regulatory environment will look like. Those are all factors that generate
risk. Can we mitigate the risk and move forward with what would be a very
expensive construction project with some confidence that we can get it done, on time
and be profitable at the end.”
If the company pulls that off, it would make more electricity, but emit almost no new
carbon.
And its overall carbon footprint would shrink. Helping reduce emissions that cause
global warming.
But, even Exelon – the country’s biggest nuclear power company – might not be able to
turn to its core business to save the world.
Today almost everything that goes into your car's gas tank started as oil (Photo by Shawn Allee)
