Under cap-and-trade, if a business can cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits - for a price - to a business that can’t. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
Congress is debating a cap-and-
trade plan to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. But a recent poll
determined most people don’t know
what cap-and-trade means. Lester
Graham reports:
A poll by Rasmussen found 76% of Americans don’t know what cap-and-trade is.
Person 1: “Putting a price cap on something?”
Person 2: “Cap and trade? I have no idea.”
Person 3: “Captain Trade? I never heard of him.”
Here’s the simple version: cap greenhouse gases. The government will lower that cap over time.
Cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits – for a price – to a business that can’t.
Overall, it’ll make fossil fuels more expensive, clean energy cheaper.
Democratic leaders in the House have agreed on a cap-and-trade plan. Republicans – and some Democrats – hate the plan. They think it’ll cost the economy too much.
The House will likely pass it. But Darren Samuelsohn with GreenWire says President Obama will have to push for it in the Senate.
“He could probably twist some arms and make some votes go his way if he really wanted it.”
And, even then, CAP and TRADE will likely only squeak through.
If the global temperature goes past 2 degrees Celsius - the danger point - we might not be able to get the climate back to a more natural state (Photo courtesy of NASA)
Two new studies in the journal Nature are trying to answer: how much is too much when it comes to global warming? Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
Two new studies in the journal Nature are trying to answer: how much is too much when it comes to global warming? Rebecca Williams reports:
These studies look at what we’d have to do to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius.
That’s considered the danger point for climate change.
Past that point we might not be able to get the climate back to a more natural state.
These papers suggest that we’ve got to cut back on burning fossil fuels a lot. They say by 2050, countries like the US need to cut emissions by more than 90% below what they were in 1990.
The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have proposed cutting emissions by less than that – 80%.
The researchers make the point… of all the coal and oil and natural gas in the ground that we know about, we can only burn one fourth of that amount by 2050.
We’re burning it at a much faster rate.
The studies say, at the current rate, we could be past that tipping point in less than 15 years.
More bio-fuels, like ethanol from corn, will be blended into petroleum (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:
Transcript
The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, says this will mean blending more bio-fuels into petroleum.
“Under the proposed rule, the total volume of renewable fuel ramps up to a maximum of 36-billion gallons by 2022.”
But, for the first time, renewable fuels also will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Bob Dinneen heads up the ethanol trade-group, the Renewable Fuels Association.
He says the carbon footprint of ethanol is 61% smaller than petroleum. But the government wants to include indirect effects – such as reduced corn exports leading other countries to slash and burn rain forest to grow corn.
“We believe when that is better understood, ethanol is going to continue to demonstrate significant carbon benefits.”
The government will hear about their concerns and others during a 60-day comment period.
Economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Transcript
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Under some of the cap and trade plans, oil and gas companies would have to buy pollution permits.
But these companies want them for free.
They say if they’re forced to pay, they’ll have to pass the cost onto you and me.
But economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what.
That’s because things like coal, oil, and natural gas will be restriced.
And they say that’s what drives prices up.
Chad Stone is the Chief Economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
He says if pollution permits are bought at an auction, the money can be passed onto you and me. But it’s different if they’re just given away for free.
“If you don’t auction, you don’t have any revenue and consumers only get a hit to their budgets.”
Stone says if the pollution permits are auctioned, you could be getting a check in the mail or a tax credit to help you pay for higher energy bills.
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.
A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:
Transcript
A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:
Ten northeastern states have been working for years on an agreement to reduce the emissions that cause global warming.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative limits the amount of carbon dioxide power plants will be allowed to emit and puts a price on carbon allowances.
But, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, is changing the rules for his state.
The New York power generators complained existing contracts don’t include all the costs of the allowances. So, Governor Paterson plans to give those power generators some free allowances. That puts the other nine states’ power companies at a disadvantage.
Luis Martinez is with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council.
“You know, I’m wishing, I’m hoping that he changes his mind once he realizes how important this is not only for the people of New York, but as a precedent for federal policy-making.”
Martinez hopes the other governors in the Northeast don’t follow Paterson’s example.
Congress will soon debate a carbon-cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports that debate will renew arguments about jobs versus the environment:
Transcript
Congress will soon debate a carbon-cap-and-trade program. Lester Graham reports that debate will renew arguments about jobs versus the environment:
This is an old argument with a new twist.
It goes like this. The economy is a mess. We need jobs. So right now we should worry less about the environment and more about jobs.
Putting a price on carbon emissions will gradually make fossil fuels like coal more expensive to burn.
That will cost big corporations that use a lot of energy. Opponents of cap-and-trade say it’s a job-killer.
But at the same time, carbon-cap-and-trade will make solar and wind more attractive. And that could create green collar jobs.
Environmental activists such as the Environmental Defense Fund’s Tony Kreindler say that won’t stop the critics.
“You’re always going to have defenders of the status quo claiming that it’s going to be economic ruin.”
But, a growing number of business leaders see carbon-cap-and-trade as a way to invest in an energy future that pollutes less and makes the U.S. more energy independent.
Both studies agree that we need more efficient cars (Photo by Karen Kelly)
Recently two reports on the future of automobiles came out. They looked at cars and trucks from very different perspectives, but came to some similar conclusions. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Recently two reports on the future of automobiles came out. They looked at cars and trucks from very different perspectives, but came to some similar conclusions. Lester Graham reports:
The first report was published in the journal, Environmental Science and Technology. It looked at what it would take to get U.S. automobiles to reduce the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, enough to lower it to 1990 levels.
Why cars? Because cars and trucks produce a third of U.S. CO2 emissions.
Greg Keoleian is one of the authors at the University of Michigan. He says there are three things that need work.
We need to drive less, burn cleaner fuels, and, within about 40 years, increase the average fuel mileage way beyond the 20-miles per gallon we’re getting now.
“That would need to increase to 136 miles per gallon to meet the carbon targets. Alternatively, if we just focused on fuels, basically we’d need about 80% cellulosic ethanol by 2050. And the third scenario is a reduction in driving. It would mean we’d have to cut our driving in half by 2050.”
It’s unlikely we can accomplish any one of them, and the study’s authors suggest it’ll probably be a combination of more efficient cars, better fuels, and driving less if we’re to reduce greenhouse gases enough to make a difference.
The second report entitled ‘Envisioning an Uncertain Future’ comes from the Boston Consulting Group. It looks at the future of the automobile from a business perspective.
One of the authors, Xavier Mosquet, says the study assumes rising oil prices will force some changes.
“And that the pressure from the consumer on the governments will be so high that the governments will have to take energy actions to develop green products and green cars.”
But the report notes green cars will cost more – as much as 15,000 dollars more for hybrids or plug-in hybrids compared to standard cars.
“The consumer will look at these cars and say, ‘well, these are more expensive than I can pay.’ And therefore they’re not going to buy them. So, what I think the government has to do if they want to go that way is to look at the cost of putting those technologies on the market and either subsidizing the car’s manufacturers and suppliers or helping the consumer with much more tax incentives. Otherwise it will not happen.”
So, from a business perspective, the Boston Consulting Group report suggests without government help, manufacturers won’t build more efficient cars at a price we can afford. But we’ll need them because of high fuel prices.
The University of Michigan report on cars and climate change agrees the government will have a major role.
Author Greg Keoleian says if we take climate change seriously and are committed to doing something about it, we’ll have to change driving habits, encourage innovative manufacturers and invest government money.
“We are capable of doing this and the cost of climate change to society is tremendous. And each sector needs to play a major role in addressing the needs to reduce.”
The studies look at the future of the automobile from very different perspectives, but both agree we need more efficient cars and that won’t happen without the government pushing a little and helping a lot.
President Obama's recent announcement is a clear sign that tougher fuel efficiency standards will come sooner rather than later (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
The Bush Administration stopped California from setting stricter fuel efficiency standards. Now, President Obama says his administration might allow the standards to go forward. Mark Brush reports it’s a sign that big changes are ahead for car makers:
Transcript
The Bush Administration stopped California from setting stricter fuel efficiency standards. Now, President Obama says his administration might allow the standards to go forward. Mark Brush reports it’s a sign that big changes are ahead for car makers:
President Obama’s recent announcement is a clear sign that tougher fuel efficiency standards will come sooner rather than later.
Mark Gillies is the executive editor of Car and Driver Magazine. He says, if stricter standards are passed, automakers will have to make big changes to their entire fleets of cars and trucks.
“It’s like a super tanker. Trying to turn the super tanker around is not easy. Trying to get cars to the point where they’re 25% more fuel efficient in 6 years is not the work of the moment. You’re going to see some car makers manage to do it and some car makers won’t be able to do it.”
Gillies says if these new standards pass, you’ll see automakers scrambling to make more electric and hybrid cars. He says it could also curb development of sportier cars.
That’s because car companies might have to spend their resources developing the greener cars of the future.
NYC has new incentives to try to get more hybrid taxis, like this one, on the road (Source: Momos at Wikimedia Commons)
When big cities think about putting more fuel efficient, less polluting cars on the road, the first color that comes to mind isn’t green — it’s yellow. There are so many cabs on city streets, they seem like a good place to start environmental initiatives:
Transcript
When big cities think about putting more fuel efficient, less-polluting cars on the road, the first color that comes to mind isn’t green— it’s yellow. There are so many cabs on city streets, they seem like a good place to start environmental initiatives. In New York City, the mayor has a plan to replace conventional cabs with gas-electric hybrids. But not all taxi drivers are thrilled about the plan. Samara Freemark talked to some of them:
Ask a New York city cabbie what kind of car he drives, and chances are, this is what you’ll hear.
“Crown Vic.”
“Crown Vic.”
“Crown Vic.”
Cabbies love this car. It’s this big, solid, safe thing. It’s got a lot of leg room. It’s easy to repair.
But it burns a lot of gas. And that means a lot of pollution, especially when you realize that there are 13,000 cabs in New York City. All that pollution contributes to asthma, heart disease, and a mess of other health problems.
And that is why New York mayor Mike Bloomberg has it in for the Crown Victoria.
Bloomberg has a plan. He wants to use market incentives to encourage cab companies to buy hybrid.
“To turn NY City’s yellow cabs green.”
Cute slogan.
But Bloomberg isn’t messing around. Just ask the reporter who challenged the idea at a press conference.
“The taxi owners who oppose your plan say it’s deeply troubling that the city is…”
“I think it is more deeply troubling that they’re trying to kill our kids.”
Tough talk, right? But here’s how Bloomberg’s plan would actually work.
A lot of cabbies don’t own their own cars – they lease them from cab companies.
Bloomberg wants to lower the fee companies can charge drivers to take out Crown Victorias. So company owners would make less money on conventional cars.
And he wants to let cab companies charge drivers more to take out hybrids. Companies that chose those cars would make more money, giving them a reason to go green.
There’s something in it for the drivers, too. Although have to pay more to rent the hybrid cabs, they’d make up that money, and then some – a big chunk, actually – in gas savings. Bloomberg says hybrid cab drivers could save hundreds of dollars a year under his plan.
It sounded like a win-win-win situation: good for cabbies, good for cab companies, and good for the environment.
So I went out to the curb to ask some cabbies what they thought of the mayor’s idea.
“I wanted to ask you about hybrids.”
“Hybrid taxi? Yes.”
Sukhinder Singh hadn’t heard about Bloomberg’s plan, but he liked it.
“That’s not a bad idea. You’re not spending any extra money. 3, 4 dollars or 10 dollars extra, you know that later on when you go home you get it back because if you spend less on gas. It helps also for the pollution too. Lot of cabs around NYC, so all pollution.”
But a lot of cab drivers – especially veteran drivers – are not that enthusiastic. They are worried that hybrids aren’t safe. They are worried that hybrids are too small. They are worried about the time and money it takes to repair a hybrid. And most of all, cab drivers like Lal Singh are worried about giving up their Crown Victorias.
“Of course we wish not to pay more money for the gas. But I prefer to keep this poor Crown Victoria. This car makes us live. This Crown Victoria is a very big time strong car. These hybrids, they are not for taxi. They are very small, very unsafe, very unfit.”
So you get the idea – he doesn’t like hybrids.
And there’s one more problem with Bloomberg’s plan. It looked pretty good when it came out, when gas was 4 dollars a gallon. But prices now are about half that. That means cabbies don’t save that much money when they pick a hybrid. And so they have even less reason to give up their beloved Crown Vics.
Under cap-and-trade, if a business can cut emissions faster, you can trade emission credits - for a price - to a business that can’t. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
