If all goes according to plan, the nuclear reactors will go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:
Transcript
The Obama Administration
announced that it will back
the cost of constructing two
new nuclear reactors. Mark
Brush reports, if they’re
constructed, they’ll be the
first reactors built in the
country in nearly three decades:
The Southern Company plans to build the reactors in Georgia. They say, if all goes well, they’ll go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars.
Investors have seen nuclear energy as a risky bet. But now that the President says the government will guarantee the loans, Wall Street might be enticed back to nuclear energy.
And then there’s the question of safety. President Obama’s Energy Secretary is Steven Chu. He says these new generation reactors are safe.
“We expect that the newer generation reactors will be ideally completely passively safe. Which means that, uh, you don’t actually need to control the reactor. If you lose control of it, it will not melt down.”
Some environmentalists say nuclear energy is not worth the costs – and there’s still no permanent place to store nuclear waste that’s radioactive for thousands of years.
Some say this is similar to the kind of gag orders issued during the Bush Administration.
(Photo by Pete Souza, courtesy of the White House)
The Obama Open Government
Directive is supposed to open
government to the people.
Lester Graham reports everything
is not as open as you might hope:
Transcript
The Obama Open Government
Directive is supposed to open
government to the people.
Lester Graham reports everything
is not as open as you might hope:
Some agencies have posted new websites that encourage the public to talk with the government.
At the same time, officials in the government were telling their people not to talk to the public or the media and threatening disciplinary action toward some employees who posted on the web things they knew about government proposals.
Recent memos from Forest Service officials order their law enforcment employees not to talk to any national media or any local reporter covering a national issue without approval from the Washington press office.
Jeff Ruch is the executive director of the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.
“So, it’s hard to maintain on one hand you’re being transparent and on the other hand the people who know what’s going on aren’t allowed to speak.”
Ruch says this is similar to the kind of gag orders issued during the Bush Administration.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that there would be more auctions
for drilling leases this year.
(Photo courtesy of NOAA)
The federal government leases public
land to oil and natural gas companies
for drilling. For at least the last
decade, energy companies have called
the shots. The Obama Administration
has indicated things are different now.
Conrad Wilson reports, there are some
inconsistencies in the Obama Administration’s
plan to reign in the industry:
Transcript
The federal government leases public
land to oil and natural gas companies
for drilling. For at least the last
decade, energy companies have called
the shots. The Obama Administration
has indicated things are different now.
Conrad Wilson reports, there are some
inconsistencies in the Obama Administration’s
plan to reign in the industry:
Because of the recession, we’re not using as much energy. For the last
several months, there’s been a glut of oil and natural gas. Big oil and
natural gas companies saw record profits a couple of years ago – but those
profits are down now.
If you ask the energy companies, it would seem the biggest culprit is not
the economy, but the federal government.
For instance, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is blamed for energy
companies’ falling profits. That’s because he’s criticized oil and gas
companies for acting like they have a right to drill on as much public land
as they want.
“Trade groups for the oil and gas industry repeatedly launch attacks that
have all the poison and deception of election year politics. Trade groups
for the oil and gas industry need to understand that they do not own the
nation’s public lands, tax payers do.”
That sounds like tough talk, right? And in many ways it is. There have
been some major reforms that change the way business is done between the
government and and oil and gas drillers.
But behind all this stick waving, the industry’s also getting a carrot. In
a conciliatory gesture, Salazar announced that there would be more auctions
for drilling leases this year.
The industry says it needs access to even more land. Kathleen Sgamma
directs government affairs for the Denver-based trade group Independent
Petroleum Association of Mountain States. In November, her office issued a
report criticizing the Department of Interior. Among the many concerns, was
the amount of land offered for lease.
“Our full paper looked at all of the things that the Interior Department is
doing to make it more difficult to develop American natural gas and oil on
federal lands. And one of those things is a slow down in permitting.”
But the government says a slow down in permits and leases is not causing
lower profits for oil and gas. As it is, companies are not drilling or
pumping where they already have leases – because there’s a glut of
supplies.
In Western Colorado, the Thompson Divide Coalition wants to cancel leases
and prevent drilling. Lisa Moreno heads up the alliance of ranchers,
hunters, and conservationists.
“The fact of the matter is, is the industry has a huge amount of acreage
under lease that they haven’t developed.”
Moreno says energy companies have leased about 47 million acres, but the
oil and gas companies are only using about one-third of that land right
now.
So why do oil and gas companies want more land? Even if energy companies
don’t use the lands for drilling, they’re still an important asset.
Jeremy Nichols is Climate and Energy Program Director for WildEarth
Guardians. Nichols says leases represent assets and are used to attract
investors.
“And so drilling is just part of what they do. They’re also basically land
holding companies. You know, they’re buying and selling each other left and
right. And so it’s more than just to drill or not to drill. It’s a lot
more, it’s a lot more complicated than that.”
If that’s the case, why is the government opening more leases?
Well, Jeremy Nichols thinks Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is trying to
kiss and make up.
“You know, I’ll be honest I think Salazar appearing conciliatory. But the
oil and gas industry is going to be critical no matter what Salazar does.
The oil and gas industry just doesn’t like to be regulated; they don’t like
to be told what to do. And so they’re going to complain no matter what.”
And so, more of the public’s land will be held by oil and gas drillers who
won’t be producing much until the economy recovers, prices go up and they
can make more money.
Renewable energy groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:
The groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy. Most power companies in the country are basically regulated monopolies.
Denise Bode is the president of the American Wind Energy Association. She used to work as a public utility regulator. Bode says it’s up to the government to ask one question when they regulate these monopolies.
“What’s in the public interest? And, you know, often times as a state public utility commissioner I would make the determination as to what kind of power generation that we would authorize our utilities to do and what was in the public interest.”
Bode says it is in the public interest to get more power from cleaner, renewable sources.
Some big utilities oppose having one federal standard – and there are a lot reasons why they oppose it – but one of them is that states are already handling it. There are 30 states that have some kind of renewable targets in place.
The advertisements are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:
Transcript
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:
The ads call Murkowski’s resolution the “Dirty Air Act”. They’re sponsored by a coalition of environmental and faith-based advocacy groups.
Eric Sapp is with the American Values Network, which co-sponsored the ads. He says the spots are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.
“They’re moderate Democrats and Republicans who have been getting a lot of pressure to vote the wrong way on this bill. And our goal in these is to make sure the people know what’s going on, and then to let the Senators know that we will be able to stand behind them if they vote the right way.”
It’s not clear exactly when Murkowski’s resolution will move forward – especially now that a major snow storm is blanketing Washington and disrupting the Senate calendar.
Erhard Thäle and his wife grow organic crops like corn, peas and rye in these fields. They’ve lost money the last three years. Thäle know wants to sell his crops for energy.
(Photo by Sadie Babits)
Dairy farmers are realizing they can make more money selling their cows' manure than their milk.
(Photo by Sadie Babits)
Farmers are finding they can
make more money selling crops
for energy than for food. A third
of all corn grown in the US gets
turned into ethanol. It’s tough
to balance the need for energy
and food when millions around
the world die from starvation each
year. Still, farmers are reconsidering
their roles – including in Germany.
In the second part of our three-part
series on biofuels in Europe, Sadie
Babits meets with one German
farmer who wants to make the switch
and become an energy farmer:
Transcript
Farmers are finding they can
make more money selling crops
for energy than for food. A third
of all corn grown in the US gets
turned into ethanol. It’s tough
to balance the need for energy
and food when millions around
the world die from starvation each
year. Still, farmers are reconsidering
their roles – including in Germany.
In the second part of our three-part
series on biofuels in Europe, Sadie
Babits meets with one German
farmer who wants to make the switch
and become an energy farmer:
Erhard Thale jokes a lot about being an organic farmer. It’s about all he can do.
“He has like his corn harvest from two years ago is still lying down on his farm so it’s not sold on the market.”
It’s hard to imagine. We’re outside Ludwigsfelde not too far from Berlin. Thale’s land looks green and healthy – not bad for late fall. But looks can be deceiving. Thale says he’s lost money for the past three years. He blames his land and a volatile world market.
“Then My wife comes and asks, ‘where do we go from here? Piggybank is empty. Money gone.’”
Thale says he can make more money selling his organic corn and rye for energy instead of food. He’s not joking around. There’s a growing movement in Germany to get farmers like Thale to set some of their land aside to grow grains just for energy. There are now areas throughout the country developing so called “bio-energy regions.” The idea is that a community like Ludwigsfelde would produce its energy locally.
Farmers like Thale would sell their grains and manure to a regional bio-energy power plant. Those materials would get turned into green energy. The 20,000 residents who live here wouldn’t have to rely on fossil fuels and they’d cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Sounds promising. But Thale says he’d build his own plant if he had three million dollars. Then he could keep all the profits from selling energy.
“He needs an uncle in the U.S. with two million euros.” (laughter)
Other farmers, though, are cashing in, finding money in, well, poop.
(sound of milking machine)
A cow chews her cud as an automatic machine does the milking. This milking parlor is part of an agricultural training center here in west central Germany. This is the greenest farm I’ve been on. There’s a bio-energy power plant. Wind turbines and solar arrays.
Klaus Wagner runs the center. He says this cow’s manure is more valuable than the milk.
“That can’t be.”
Wagner sees a growing rivalry between dairy farmers who want to sell milk and those who want to sell manure for biogas.
“I guess that the milk and energy production on the other side belongs together. And those farmers who built 3-4 years ago biogas plant they earn real money now. The biogas plant substitutes the milking production.”
It really comes down to a question of sustainability. How much land here in Germany and, for that matter, the U.S. should be set aside for making energy? It’s not an easy answer. In the long run, if farmers grow grains for energy instead of food, that will impact the food supply and eventually what we pay at the grocery store.
Opponents say the law should not be implemented until California’s unemployment rate is much lower.
(Photo courtesy of NASA)
There’s a new ballot initiative
underway that is trying to repeal
the nation’s leading global warming
law. The law seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
close to a third by 2020. Mark
Brush reports the opponents of
the law say it will cost jobs:
Transcript
There’s a new ballot initiative
underway that is trying to repeal
the nation’s leading global warming
law. The law seeks to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by
close to a third by 2020. Mark
Brush reports the opponents of
the law say it will cost jobs:
Conservatives and some Republican lawmakers are behind the petition effort in California. If they’re successful, they’ll suspend the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act. They say the law should not be implemented until California’s unemployment rate is much lower.
Supporters of the law say it’s the one thing that’s actually driving innovation and creating jobs in the state. Tom Soto is with Craton Equity Partners which invests in clean tech businesses. He says the backers of this ballot initiative are hanging onto the past.
“I think it is a shameless last ditch effort of the oil companies and industry who are clinging by their bloodied fingernails onto something that simply is no longer sustainable.”
Opponents of California’s global warming law are hoping to capitalize on growing skepticism about climate change science.
There are 80,000 chemicals on the market. But the Environmental Protection Agency has only tested 200 of them for safety to humans - and banned only 5.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Congress might make our federal
chemical laws tougher. Rebecca
Williams has more:
Transcript
Congress might make our federal
chemical laws tougher. Rebecca
Williams has more:
There are 80,000 chemicals on the market. But the Environmental Protection Agency has only tested 200 of them for safety to humans – and banned only 5 of the toxic chemicals.
Senator Frank Lautenberg is a Democrat from New Jersey. During a recent hearing, he said the EPA is doing what it can. But its power is limited by the nation’s outdated chemical laws.
“They cannot protect our children with one hand tied behind their back. That’s why I’ll soon introduce a bill that will overhaul our nation’s chemical laws.”
The bill will likely require companies to prove a chemical is safe before manufacturing it or using it. Right now, it’s up to the government to prove a chemical is harming people or the environment before it’s banned.
Some Conservatives in Congress are opposed to this idea. They say this kind of bill would kill industry innovation.
The White House is pushing
a new clean energy plan as
a way to deal with reducing
greenhouse gases. Mark Brush
reports this new plan might
help future climate legislation:
Transcript
The White House is pushing
a new clean energy plan as
a way to deal with reducing
greenhouse gases. Mark Brush
reports this new plan might
help future climate legislation:
The White House says this new energy plan is all about green jobs. There’s more money for so-called clean coal, and for biofuels, like ethanol.
The government had limited using corn for ethanol. The thinking was using food to make fuel was probably not such a great idea.
But the industry has not been able to move away from corn ethanol as quickly as hoped. So now the Administration is saying, corn ethanol can be okay – if the refineries are more efficient.
Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
“So this really unlocks the door for advanced biofuel producers, including advanced corn ethanol producers, to make investments and create jobs.”
Allowing more corn to be used for ethanol and investing in new technologies to clean up coal could win the White House some support if and when a climate change bill comes up for a vote.
Dr. James Hansen's book, 'Storms Of My Grandchildren: The Truth About The Coming Climate Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To Save Humanity'
(Photo courtesy of Bloomsbury USA)
James Hansen is the author of
‘The Storms of My Grandchildren:
The Truth About The Coming Climate
Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To
Save Humanity.’ This is the second
half of our interview with Dr. Hansen.
He’s a climate scientist for NASA
and was the first scientist to testify
before Congress about climate change.
He stresses, he’s not speaking for
the government, but only for himself:
Transcript
James Hansen is the author of
‘The Storms of My Grandchildren:
The Truth About The Coming Climate
Catastrophe And Our Last Chance To
Save Humanity.’ This is the second
half of our interview with Dr. Hansen.
He’s a climate scientist for NASA
and was the first scientist to testify
before Congress about climate change.
He stresses, he’s not speaking for
the government, but only for himself:
Lester Graham: Doctor Hansen, in the book you say we should scrap the cap and trade system to reduce greenhouse gases, and instead go with a fee on fossil fuels and then give that money to the people directly to help them adapt to higher energy costs. How would that work?
Dr. James Hansen: The fee would be charged at the mine or the oil head or the port of entry for imported fossil fuels. It’d be collected from the fossil fuel companies and then they money should be distributed to the public on a uniform basis. You’d introduce this gradually so that people can change their habits, the technology that they use, the vehicles that they use, for example. So, you introduce it gradually, but by the time it’s reached a dollar of gallon on gasoline, at the rate of fossil fuel use last year, that would be generating $3,000 per legal resident of the country with to half a share to each child, up to two children per family. So a family with two or more children would be getting $9,000 a year in this dividend, which should be sent to them monthly just automatically, electronically, to their bank account or their debit card if they don’t have a bank account.
Lester: We’re talking about getting that through Washington D.C, where special interests drive the agenda often. I don’t want to accuse you of being naïve, but I believe many in Washington would.
Dr. Hansen: Yes, they do, however, there is a growing realization, environmental groups, like Friends of the Earth, which now recognize this is exactly what’s needed and they’re beginning to promote that. I think that’s why it’s a good thing that we’re kinda taking, probably taking, a year off dropping this cap and trade and give us a chance to discuss this because it’s what’s in the interest of the public as opposed to the lobbyists.
Lester: Since you first made congress aware of climate change as a pressing issue, the Clinton-Gore administration did nothing. President George W. Bush indicated he would deal with the emissions causing climate change, and then evidently Dick Cheney worked to kill that effort and Bush reversed his position. Now President Barak Obama has indicated we must do something, but legislation in Congress is stalled right now. What do you this is stopping this effort if this is such a serious threat?
Dr. Hansen: It is the role of money in Washington and other capitals around the world. Special interests have more influence on these policies than the public’s interest and that’s why, you know, we had hoped with the election of the new president things were really going to change, but I think he hasn’t really looked at this issue closely enough to really understand what’s in the people’s interest. And I hope that over the next year we can convince them that we need to move in a direction that is in the people’s interest rather than in the big businesses interest.
Lester: James Hansen is the author of The Storms of My Grandchildren, the truth about the upcoming climate catastrophe and the last chance to save humanity. Dr. Hansen, thank you very much for your time!
If all goes according to plan, the nuclear reactors will go up in six to seven years and cost around 14 billion dollars. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
