More than half of the groups represented by lobbyists
are big industry such as oil, coal, electric utilities
and big energy users. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
A lot of lobbyists are visiting
members of Congress because of the
climate change bill that’s under
consideration. A new report finds
there are 880 different businesses,
trade organizations, and special
interest groups formally lobbying
Congress. Lester Graham has more
on that:
Transcript
A lot of lobbyists are visiting
members of Congress because of the
climate change bill that’s under
consideration. A new report finds
there are 880 different businesses,
trade organizations, and special
interest groups formally lobbying
Congress. Lester Graham has more
on that:
More than half of the groups represented by lobbyists
are big industry such as oil, coal, electric utilities
and big energy users.
Marianne Lavelle wrote the investigative report
the Center for Public Integrity. She says recent
changes in the bill show big industry’s influence.
“You can see that the changes made were changes
that were really to address those industries and
their concerns.”
A few environmental groups such as Greenpeace say
the climate change bill is so watered down they
can’t support it now.
But most environmental groups are still on board.
Many individuals are also all letting Congress know
what they want in – or out – of the climate change bill.
Members of Congress always stress they want to hear
from all interested parties, but lobbyists do more
than offer persuasive arguments – they’re very good
at organizing fundraisers for the politicians.
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.
Yucca Mountain is the nation's planned repository for spent nuclear fuel (Photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy)
Politically speaking, America’s nuclear waste storage policy is a mess. Hazardous spent nuclear fuel is supposed to be buried under Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but after two decades – it’s not finished. Congress pushed the project onto Nevada in the 80s by passing what’s known as the “Screw Nevada Bill.” Shawn Allee met a man who regrets helping put nuclear waste at Nevada’s doorstep:
Transcript
Politically speaking, America’s nuclear waste storage policy is a mess. Hazardous spent nuclear fuel is supposed to be buried under Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, but after two decades – it’s not finished. Congress pushed the project onto Nevada in the 80s by passing what’s known as the “Screw Nevada Bill.” Shawn Allee met a man who regrets helping put nuclear waste at Nevada’s doorstep:
For twenty years Nevada’s tried to scuttle Yucca Mountain.
Along the way, it’s hired Robert Halstead to create a plan to soften the blow if it loses. He’s an expert on nuclear waste truck and rail transportation.
“My job would be to craft the safest, or least-bad, transportation system so that if Nevada got stuck with a repository they would at least have some control of the transportation system because the activity that most likely to injures people and the environment is transportation.”
Halstead didn’t start his nuclear career on Nevada’s side, though. Thirty years ago, he worked for Wisconsin. He says the federal government wanted states’ help in storing nuclear waste deep underground.
In 1982 Congress came to consensus about how to test sites. He trusted it – and built political support for it.
“There was a clear statement that safety was not enough and economic efficiency was not enough. You also had to deal with regional equity.”
The gist was that there’d be at least two nuclear waste repositories: one in the West, and one in the East.
“We were pretty optimistic. Unfortunately that all began to fall apart very quickly.”
Congressmen and even the public started getting cold feet about the site selection process.
There were rowdy protests, especially in states that may have had the right geology for a repository. That included Wisconsin.
“If there was an objective approach to picking the sites, we knew that we would be in the first tier of the sites that would be evaluated.”
After a few years, Eastern politicians got frantic.
“They asked for a fix.”
Halstead decided to help with this fix, because he’d lost faith in the system, too. He says he helped cut legislative deals to stop the nuclear waste law he’d supported just a few years earlier.
It worked.
In 1987, Congress ended the government’s search for a nuclear waste repository.
Yucca would be the only candidate.
“This law was written very carefully to ensure that Nevada got screwed. And you know what, it chilled my blood.”
Halstead realized he’d passed a law that broke that early consensus about regional equity.
He was disappointed, and nearly dumped nuclear politics, but then he got a call. It was from a chief nuclear official in Nevada.
“He said aren’t you ashamed of yourself? I would really like you to come out here and help us. And I said to him, ‘I’d just got done getting Wisconsin getting off the hook and if I help you get off the hook, I think it’s likely that they’ll have to come back to Wisconsin.’”
But Halstead took the job.
I’ve asked him why several times. Sometimes he’s said guilt. Sometimes, regret. Sometimes, for a job.
Right now, Congress is considering cutting Yucca Mountain’s budget, and President Obama says he’s against the project.
But the law to make Yucca the only choice is still on the books.
I ask Robert Halstead whether that will change. He’s not sure – it’ll be tough to build a new consensus even close to what he saw thirty years ago.
“If nuclear waste disposal in a repository were safe and profitable, someone would have taken it away from Nevada years ago, so there won’t be an amicable ending to this story.”
In order to qualify an old vehicle must get less than 18 miles per gallon.
(Photo source: IFCAR at Wikimedia Commons)
After a meeting with the White House, Members of Congress appear to be close to a deal
on a so-called “cash for clunkers” program. But Tamara Keith reports critics say the
compromise members have come up with won’t do much for the environment:
Transcript
After a meeting with the White House, Members of Congress appear to be close to a deal
on a so-called “cash for clunkers” program. But Tamara Keith reports critics say the
compromise members have come up with won’t do much for the environment:
The “cash for clunkers” program has wide support as good for the environment; good for
the ailing auto industry.
Car owners would get a voucher towards a new fuel efficient car when they scrap their
old gas guzzler. In order to qualify an old vehicle must get less than 18 miles per gallon.
But a new car that does just 4 miles per gallon better earns a $3,500 reward. A
10 MPG improvement brings $4,500.
Critics say many of the new replacement vehicles would fall well short of the
government’s average fuel economy standards.
Congressman John Dingell from Michigan says the critics are missing the point: the new
cars will be more fuel efficient than the ones that are getting junked.
“What they aught to ask is, ‘what is this going to mean in terms of increased fuel
efficiency and reduced CO2 emissions.’ The result will be substantial.”
Of course the deal isn’t really done until it is approved by Congress. If it passes, the
President is expected to sign it.
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.
This rule requires stores to tell you what country some of your food comes from Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
Starting this week, supermarkets are officially required to tell you where some of your meat and produce comes from. But as Rebecca Williams reports it can get confusing at the store:
Transcript
Starting this week, supermarkets are officially required to tell you where some of your meat and produce comes from. But as Rebecca Williams reports it can get confusing at the store:
This rule requires stores to tell you what country some of your food comes from.
The rule covers things like beef and pork, chicken, and vegetables.
Supermarkets have already been adding these labels over the past few months.
Deborah White is with the Food Marketing Institute. The group represents supermarkets. She says they don’t like being forced to label specific products – and the law is quirky.
“The law applies, for example, to chicken but not turkey. It applies to peanuts and pecans but not almonds and walnuts and those were decisions that Congress made.”
And there are other quirks. Frozen peas have to be labeled and so do frozen carrots. But a bag of peas and carrots mixed together doesn’t have to be labeled.
The new agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, says he wants to fix these quirks. He’s asking the food industry to voluntarily add more information to labels than the rule now requires.
President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24
(Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
President Barack Obama outlines his budget tonight before a joint-session of Congress. Lester Graham reports many people will be watching for more investment in what’s be called the “green recovery”:
Transcript
President Barack Obama outlines his budget tonight before a joint-session of Congress. Lester Graham reports many people will be watching for more investment in what’s be called the “green recovery”:
The stimulus package includes money for making government buildings and some homes more energy efficient… and pursuing alternative energy such as wind and solar power.
Robert Heilmayr is a research analyst with World Resources Institute. He says so far the Obama administration has recognized there are long term payoffs in green investments.
“The key next step that I think is missing and I’ll really be paying attention to as Obama addresses Congress is whether he recognizes the stimulus is only the first step, that comprehensive energy and climate policy is necessary and should be a priority moving forward as a follow-up to the stimulus is a big question.”
Heilmayr says the long-term savings in energy conservation will help businesses and everyone else by keeping fuel prices lower in the short-term and give us a step up when the world markets start taking greenhouse gas emissions seriously.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
President Obama's address to a joint session of Congress on February 24 (Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
Health care and education are always
top priorities in a Presidential budget.
But last night President Barack Obama
told Congress in his budget address,
“It begins with energy.” Lester Graham
reports:
Transcript
Health care and education are always top priorities in a Presidential budget. But last night President Barack Obama told Congress in his budget address, “It begins with energy.” Lester Graham reports:
The President reminded us the recent stimulus package included doubling the supply of renewable energy in the next three years, investments in basic research – including energy, a better power grid and making buildings and homes more energy efficient.
“But to truly transform our economy, protect our security, and save our planet from the ravages of climate change, we need to ultimately make clean, renewable energy the profitable kind of energy.”
And to do that the President called on Congress to pass legislation that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution. A carbon cap and trade program would make fossil fuels more expensive… and encourage solar, wind and other renewable energy.
Climate change legislation opponents say a carbon cap-and-trade program would be a jobs killer. By tying it to creating new green jobs, President Obama hopes to challenge that argument.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
More than half of the groups represented by lobbyists are big industry such as oil, coal, electric utilities and big energy users. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
