Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Collin C. Peterson from Minnesota (Photo courtesy of the House Committee on Agriculture)
A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:
Transcript
A dispute about bio-fuels could put passage of a climate change bill at risk. Lester Graham reports corn ethanol is at the center of a dispute among some Democrats:
Conventional wisdom in Washington these days is: it’s not a good idea to use food for fuel, so corn ethanol should be replaced by cellulosic ethanol – made from crops such as switchgrass.
The chairman of the Ag Committee, Democrat Collin Peterson, believes the Obama administration and Democratic leaders in Congress are putting rules and legislation in place to put corn ethanol at a disadvantage to cellulosic ethanol.
He says they’re forcing changes on corn ethanol makers and farmers that could ruin the future of the bio-fuels industry.
“They are setting this up to guarantee there will never be second-generation ethanol or bio-diesel.”
Congressman Peterson says the Climate Change bill is just more of the same. He says he won’t vote for it and he doesn’t think any of the 46 members of the House Agriculture committee will either.
Henry A. Waxman is the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has just started debating a carbon cap-and-trade program. (Photo courtesy of energycommerce.house.gov)
The debate on what to do about climate change has begun in Congress. Lester Graham reports the House Energy and Commerce committee is discussing an energy bill that includes a plan to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming:
Transcript
The debate on what to do about climate change has begun in Congress. Lester Graham reports the House Energy and Commerce committee is discussing an energy bill that includes a plan to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming:
In opening comments, members of the House committee had very different views of what the plan –called carbon cap-and-trade might do.
“A cap-and-trade energy tax will cost this country millions of good jobs and will force the average American family to pay thousands of dollars in increased energy costs.”
That’s Steve Scalise, a Republican from Louisiana. No one actually knows the cost yet, because there’s not a final plan. But several studies estimate it would be a few hundred dollars a year not thousands.
Meanwhile supporters say carbon cap-and-trade will create millions of jobs in a new green economy. Betty Sutton is a Democrat from Ohio.
“It will be a challenge for our country to transform the way we operate and transition to a green economy. But, the costs of not addressing climate change far outweigh the challenges.”
And members of President Obama’s cabinet all told the House committee pretty much the same thing.
Carol Browner is the President's Assistant on Energy and Climate Change. (Photo courtesy of cdc.gov)
The White House climate change chief is laying the groundwork to get an energy bill through Congress. Lester Graham reports it includes a controversial plan to reduce the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil:
Transcript
The White House climate change chief is laying the groundwork to get an energy bill through Congress. Lester Graham reports it includes a controversial plan to reduce the use of fossil fuels such as coal and oil:
Carol Browner is President Obama’s assistant for Energy and Climate Change.
MIT posted video from an energy conference at the college. In it, Browner indicated we’ve got an opportunity to get the nation off its fossil fuel addiction, become more energy independent and create jobs in green energy.
“Let us dare to dream of a nation where the excess solar energy of our deserts, the wind potential of our Great Plains fuel our homes, our cars, and our businesses. Let us commit ourselves to a future where the businesses that sustain our planet are rewarded and those that endanger our Earth are held accountable.”
Next week Congress begins hearings on an energy bill that includes a carbon cap-and-trade plan that makes fossil fuels more expensive and renewable energy a better option all in an effort to lessen reliance on foreign oil and to reduce greenhouse gases causing global warming.
If proposed energy legislation passes in Congress, renewable energy sources like wind an solar will become more competitive with fossil fuels. (Photo by Erin Toner)
Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program that would make fossil fuels more expensive and give renewable energy an advantage. The U.S. is in the middle of a huge transition in where we get energy and how we use it. Some businesses leaders predict these changes will be disastrous for the economy killing jobs and making energy expensive. Lester Graham discussed some of those concerns with Tom Lyon, the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise.
Transcript
Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program that would make fossil fuels more expensive and give renewable energy an advantage. The U.S. is in the middle of a huge transition in where we get energy and how we use it. Some businesses leaders predict these changes will be disastrous for the economy killing jobs and making energy expensive. Lester Graham discussed some of those concerns with Tom Lyon, the Director of the Erb Institute for Global Sustainable Enterprise:
“I think it’s important to think about who you’re hearing these things from. Because there are certain industries who are really opposed and scared and they’re making a lot of noise. And it’s essentially the fossil fuel people; it’s the coal industry and then after that, the oil industry. And they have a very special-interest stake in this. So you gotta take what they say with a big grain of salt. Probably electricity prices will increase: not by a lot, not by fifty percent. They’ll go up slightly—depends what kind of region of the country you are in. If you’re in an area dominated by coal-fired power, your costs will go up some because coal is dirty, coal’s been getting a free ride for a long time. The price of coal should go up. If you’re in an area that’s already shifted towards renewables, you’re costs won’t go up much.”
And what about jobs? Are we going to see this being a job killer?
“It’s going to be a transition device; it’s going to allow us to move towards a 21st century economy. So it’s going to allow us to put people on the ground building wind turbines, installing and maintaining wind turbines, putting in solar cells, and I think there are going to be a lot of jobs in the energy efficiency sector. It’s going to transition our automobile sector towards plug-in electric vehicles and things that might sell in a future economy that’s going to be climate constrained and that’s going to face higher energy prices.”
So it sounds like coal miners should be thinking about job training or retraining.
“Coal miners should definitely be thinking about retraining! You know, that’s just, it’s just an inevitable thing—where the economy is going, retraining is an important thing but this puts us on the right path toward the future.”
Now the President, and some environmentalists, and some leading businesses say, “We’ll be more energy independent, we’ll have clean wind and solar power, we’ll be much more energy efficient because of retrofitting these buildings, we’ll lead the world in renewable, clean energy. How’s that benefit me, at home?
“I think the first thing is, it benefits you because you’re helping to move the planet in the right direction. You’re making the planet a better place for your kids, for your grandkids, and you’re averting the risk that we go over the climate cliff. Because that’s very much a real risk.”
So global warming really is going to be as disastrous as we hear some of the alarmists say.
“It could be. We don’t know for certain. There’s a whole lot of uncertainty around this. However, I think most people who’ve thought about this agree we need to move in the direction of solving the climate problem because the news is always bad. Every new report that comes out of modern science shows the planet’s warming faster than we thought, sea level is rising faster than we thought; the whole thing is moving much more quickly than people thought even five years ago. So there’s no news that’s pointing in the other direction. The urgency just keeps increasing.”
There’s likely to be a huge fight in Washington and Congress is going to be terribly divided on carbon cap-and-trade: what do you think the likely outcome is?
“I think we’re gonna pass something. The Obama folks are very committed; they’ve staffed up with very smart people who understand the issue, who’ve been working on it for years. There’s a lot of political commitment within the congress already and Obama has taken this on as a signature issue.”
Tom Lyon is the Director of the Erb Institute of Global Sustainable Enterprise at the University of Michigan. He spoke with The Environment Report’s Lester Graham.
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.
Four Corners Power Plant is one of the dirtiest in the country, based on its emissions of nitrogen oxide, carbon dioxide and mercury. Under a cap-and-trade system, plants like this would have to cut pollution or buy carbon permits. (Photo by Daniel Kraker)
President Obama wants the U.S. to reduce the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports on what that will mean to coal-burning industries and your power bill:
Transcript
President Obama wants the U.S. to reduce the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. Congress is considering a carbon cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports on what that will mean to coal-burning industries and your power bill:
For all the talk about carbon cap-and-trade, few people really understand what it is. And no one really knows what it will end up costing you on your electric bill – at least not yet.
The President wants carbon dioxide polluters such as coal-burning power plants to cut how much carbon dioxide they spew from the smokestacks.
So, the government is now designing a plan to cap the total amount of carbon dioxide pollution nation-wide. Once that amount is set, each polluter is allotted a limited amount of allowances to release carbon dioxide. Go over that allowance and the polluter has to pay per ton of CO2 released. Don’t use all of the allowances, and a company is free to trade them -–for a price—to others who need the allowances.
Over time that nation-wide cap will keep get lower, making carbon pollution more and more expensive.
How much of that cost ends up on your electricity bill is the big question.
There are some wildly different predictions. Some lobby groups indicate cap-and-trade could nearly double electric rates. But politics really plays into many of those predictions.
We went to analysts at Point Carbon. It’s a respected world-wide carbon market consultant. Veronique Bugnion says Point Carbon made some estimates based on President Obama’s carbon cap-and-trade plan in his proposed budget.
“Now, in terms of the U.S. average, what we calculated is that it would represent a roughly seven% increase over current electricity rates.”
That’s the average.
But, if your power company uses mostly coal instead of hydro-power or nuclear or wind or solar, Bugnion says it could cost more.
“At the extreme, in the regions that are essentially entirely coal dependent, the impact would be closer to anywhere between ten and 15-percent.”
President Obama says says a carbon cap-and-trade scheme can be designed so that it smooths out the effect on consumers who live in a coal-dependent area.
“The way it’s structured has to take into account regional differences. It has to protect consumers from huge spikes in electricity prices. So, there are a lot of technical issues that are going to have to be sorted through.”
And Congress is just beginning to sort through them. But coal and power companies as well as big oil and industries that use a lot of energy are lobbying hard to kill carbon cap-and-trade or make sure doesn’t cost them, or their shareholders, more than they want.
That leaves most of us wondering what reducing the greenhouse gases will end up costing us after Congress gets finished.
Sandy Kline runs a small house-cleaning business called “More Grime than Time” out of her home in suburban Detroit. Because of the economy she’s lost some business lately. Times are a little tighter.
She says she’s concerned about climate change, but she’s worried what the President’s carbon cap-and-trade plan might do to her power bill and her family budget.
“What he’s proposing sounds like a good idea –big picture– as far as the greenhouse emissions and that, but, you know, on an individual basis it can really hurt people like me.”
She wonders if consumer pressure isn’t enough to get those power companies using coal-burning plants to change. But, that could take decades. Climate scientists say we don’t have that kind of time. We have to do something to reduce greenhouse gases now.
So, experts say you should get ready. Since we don’t know exactly what cap-and-trade will do to electricity rates, it might be a good idea to reduce your power usage. Take advantage of the current tax incentives to get more energy efficient appliances and tighten up your home.
They say, even if rates do go up because of carbon cap-and-trade, if you’re using less power, it could be you won’t see a much of a difference when you get your electric bill.
Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would
pay them to let in more flood water (Photo by Keith Weller, courtesy of the USDA)
Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:
Transcript
Some federal stimulus money will be used to help reduce flooding problems. Chuck Quirmbach reports that the government wants farmers to store more water in floodplains:
The federal stimulus package has 145-million dollars to buy easements on farmland.
Farmers have until the end of this week to apply for a program that would pay them to let in more flood water.
Land that’s flooded within the last year or twice in the last decade is eligible.
Don Baloun is with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service. He says farmers would eventually stop growing some crops and instead allow the planting of water-absorbing trees or grasses.
“If it has been obstructed and farmed let’s say with a dike or levee, we would breach that dike or levee and open up the floodplain, the field in particular, to store floodwaters and relieve the downstream damages.”
Baloun says allowing more water back into floodplains might reduce the threat of flooding to towns and cities along rivers.
A 42-inch flatscreen TV can use as much energy as a refrigerator. (Photo by Sol Grundy, Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
College basketball’s big Final Four tournament is approaching, and television sales will no doubt spike, as they do with most major sporting events. These days, almost every TV sold is a flat panel. And, as Tamara Keith reports, most use more energy than the old cathode ray tube TVs:
Transcript
College basketball’s big Final Four tournament is approaching, and television sales will no doubt spike, as they do with most major sporting events.
These days, almost every TV sold is a flat panel. And, as Tamara Keith reports, most use more energy than the old cathode ray tube TVs:
Talking to Arshad Mansoor can leave a person feeling guilty. He’s vice president of the Electric Power Research Institute. It’s a non-profit study group.
Mansoor’s organization studies how much power different electronic devices use. Those flat screen TV’s everyone is buying– they’re at the top of his hit list.
“As we started bringing in flat screen, and as flat screen prices started coming down, television is one of the largest growth segments in terms of electricity use.”
And get this– a 42-inch flat screen TV can use as much electricity as a refrigerator. Talking to Mansoor got me thinking about my own power use. So, I asked him a hypothetical question that, let’s say, isn’t nearly as hypothetical as it sounds.
“So if I go through my house and replace every light bulb with a compact fluorescent and then I go buy a flat screen TV?”
“You almost wiped out all your savings with one plasma TV and one set-top box that you gained with replacing all your light bulbs with compact florescent.”
So, I guess I’m not as green as I thought! Part of the issue, he says, is that people don’t replace their 25-inch TV’s with 25-inch flat screens. They go bigger. But Mansoor isn’t saying that environmentally minded consumers should steer clear of flat panel TVs. He’s just saying they should shop smart.
For instance, LCD models use less energy than plasmas. Doug Johnson is senior director of technology policy for the Consumer Electronics Association. He insists not all flat screen TVs are energy hogs:
“The key thing really is how efficient are those new televisions and what we have in place now and what we’ve had in place since November 1st of last year is a new energy star specification at the national level that is encouraging a competition in the marketplace for energy efficient televisions.”
New energy star TVs are up to 30-percent more efficient than the last generation of energy stars. And there are now nearly 500 models on the market that meet the standard.
Katherine Kaplan leads Energy Star product development for the US Environmental Protection Agency. She says in the past the program only looked at how much power a TV used when it was turned off.
“Really, it was time to take our energy efficiency requirements to the next level and to focus for the first time on active power.”
At a Washington DC Best Buy, flat screens line an entire wall and half of another one. Richard Glenn can’t seem to take his eyes off of Kung Foo Panda playing on a big plasma TV:
“I have an old fashioned big and clunky TV.”
“And what’s making you shop?”
“Envy. I covet my neighbor’s flat screen.”
And Glenn knows that if he buys a new TV it will use more energy than his old one.
“This very nice plasma I’m looking at here like uses as much energy as a hair drier or something like that. It’s really really bad.”
But he just can’t resist. I ask store manager John Zittraur to point out the energy star TVs:
“Ahh. I think it would be harder to show you the ones that aren’t ’cause all of the ones that we’ve been getting in, I’d say for the past 6 months or so, have all had the energy star logo on it.”
Zittraur has plenty of energy-saving advice for people like Richard Glenn. First, don’t buy more TV than you need. Keep the TV’s brightness settings toned down. Plug the TV, the DVD, and all the other electronics into a surge protector.
For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.
With a smart
grid system, your house can talk back to you and the power station
(Source: Jdorwin at Wikimedia Commons)
The government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a new “smart grid.” Mark Brush reports the new grid could eventually save you money on your energy bills:
Transcript
The government is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a new “smart grid.” Mark Brush reports the new grid could eventually save you money on your energy bills:
Right now – power just goes from point A to point B.
But with a smart
grid system, your house can talk back to you and the power station.
The
meter could tell you how much it costs to heat your water, for instance.
And the power company will be able to talk to you if they’re having a
problem.
So, if they’re headed for a blackout, they can text message you
or e-mail you and ask you to shut off your A/C.
Jesse Berst is the founding editor of Smart Grid News dot com. It’s a trade publication.
He says, if electric grids are updated across the country, it would cut
down on pollution and save money.
“And that means there’s billions, tens of billions of dollars of power
plants and lines that we wouldn’t have to build over the next couple of
decades.”
Upgrading the system won’t be easy.
Each state has regulatory agencies that oversee thousands of electric
suppliers.
The stimulus bill includes funds for a light rail Amtrak system, however the money could be tied in up in approval processes for quite a while. (Photo courtesy of the Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation)
There’s money in the stimulus package for high speed rail projects. Lester Graham reports Amtrak is waiting to see how the money might be spent:
Transcript
There’s money in the stimulus package for high speed rail projects. Lester Graham reports Amtrak is waiting to see how the money might be spent:
Eight billion dollars is set aside for high speed rail projects. So, where’s Amtrak going to start?
Turns out Amtrak doesn’t really make the decisions. Marc Magliari is a spokesman for Amtrak. He says the passenger train company has submitted a plan to the Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration. That office is now asking the different state governors what they’d like. Amtrak is just… waiting.
“I’m not going to speculate on the speed under which the FRA will make its make its grant decisions and which grant decisions it will make. That would not be our call.”
We do know any project under the stimulus plan has to be started within the next 18 months.
Amtrak basically has to hope that each governor understands not only his or her own state’s needs, but how their decisions might affect a high-speed rail network.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, Collin C. Peterson from Minnesota (Photo courtesy of the House Committee on Agriculture)
