Some scientists are joining with some Christian evangelicals to convince politicians that
global warming is a real threat. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Some scientists are joining with some Christian evangelicals to convince politicians that
global warming is a real threat. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
About thirty scientists and religious leaders have teamed up. One of them is Calvin
DeWitt. He’s president of the Academy of Evangelical Scientists and Ethicists. DeWitt
says when the partnership was first discussed last year, he thought there would be tension
between the researchers and the religious community:
“In fact the opposite was found, there was a tremendous concord between the secular
scientific people and the evangelicals. The concord was the agreement that we had to
move forward fully to care for the creation.”
DeWitt says the scientists pushed for using the term “creation,” as a way to include both
people and the rest of the biosphere.
But another group of evangelicals says the partnership creates a false impression of
growing consensus in the religious community about global warming.
Some Native American tribes are starting to raise more concerns about climate change. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Some Native American tribes are starting to raise more concerns about climate change. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
About fifty tribes recently met with the National Wildlife Federation, for a conference on global climate change.
Paul Christel is fisheries biologist for the Lac Courtes Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. He says the tribes are getting a better handle on how global warming is affecting tribal lands and waters. In colder climates, Christel says ice is arriving later and melting earlier, which can affect fishing seasons.
“You know, customs that have been carried on for thousands of years are all of a sudden shaken up. And it’s not a theoretical issue anymore. It’s hitting people in a very real, very physical way.”
Christel says he hopes Congress and the Bush Administation will take note of the greater tribal interest in slowing down climate change.
While people are lining up to see animated penguins with “happy feet,” environmental groups are predicting some breeds of the bird will go extinct because of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
While people are lining up to see animated penguins with “happy feet,” environmental groups are predicting some breeds of the bird will go extinct because of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Penguins are popular these days. Last year people flocked to the theatre to see the documentary March of the Penguins. This year they’re laughing at penguins in the animated movie Happy Feet.
But the Center for Biological Diversity says the penguins are in serious danger. It’s calling for protections for the birds.
Kassie Siegel is Director of the Center’s Climate, Air and Energy Program. The group is petitioning the government to protect 12 breeds of penguins under the Endangered Species Act.
“And we believe if and when penguins are listed, just like polar bears that we’ve also petitioned for, that entities that are responsible for major sources of greenhouse gas emissions would have additional regulation to consider the impact of those emissions on listed species.”
Siegel says some of these penguins will go extinct in coming decades unless greenhouse gas pollution is brought under control within the next ten years.
For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
The mid-term elections caused a major power shift in Washington. Democrats say they plan to rev up Congress’ power of oversight. (Photo courtesy of Architect of the Capitol)
The political landscape in the U.S. changed overnight last week. The Democratic takeover will mean a big shift in policy-making efforts in Washington. Mark Brush has more on how environmental issues played out in the election, and what this new Congress might do on the environmental front:
Transcript
The political landscape in the U.S. changed overnight last week. The Democratic takeover will mean a big shift in policy-making efforts in Washington. Mark Brush has more on how environmental issues played out in the election, and what this new Congress might do on the environmental front:
Environmentalists say some of their biggest enemies were defeated in the midterm election. And top on their list of the worst environmental offenders was California Congressman Richard Pombo.
(The “Pombo Mambo” plays: a catchy ad jingle whose lyrics expose Richard Pombo’s environmental record, produced and run by the League of Conservation Voters.)
Environmentalists spent millions of dollars on radio and television ads to defeat Pombo, and they say it was money well spent. They came to really despise Pombo because of his work to weaken the Endangered Species Act.
Tiernan Sittenfeld is the legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters. She says many Republican committee chairs, such as Richard Pombo, simply obstructed environmental legislation. She says now that will change.
“It’s not that even that Congress has even voted to pass particular pro-environment legislation; it’s that the house leadership and the committee chairs haven’t even allowed such legislation to come to the floor. They haven’t even wanted a debate on it. So I think having different leadership, having different committee chairs who care about protecting the environment, who care about clean air, clean water, and open space is going to be a whole world of difference.”
So now that the Republican leadership is out who is taking their place? One legislator who is expected to gain a lot of power is Democrat John Dingell of Michigan. He will chair the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Dingell says he, and other Democratic committee chairs will first use their power to make sure that existing environmental laws are being enforced by the Bush Administration.
“This administration has been totally unsupervised by the Congress, and checks and balances which are so important to the Founding Fathers, and legislative oversight, have simply not taken place since the Bush Administration came in.”
Dingell will be joined by many other legislators who are likely to have strong environmental agendas. People like Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid, and Henry Waxman. They have several issues in mind that they feel have been mishandled by the Bush Administration. Top on their list is energy policy and global warming.
On energy, environmental lobbyists say high gas prices have made the issue one that resonates with voters.
Karen Wayland is the legislative director for the Natural Resources Defense Council. She says the new Congress will revisit the tax breaks and other financial incentives given to oil companies in the last energy bill.
“I think what something the House will do at least will be to look at the royalty relief that Congress has given to the oil companies and sort of try to roll back some of the royalty relief; make the oil companies pay full price for extracting oil from our public lands and then use that money to invest in clean energy.”
Democrats are also expected to make a push for national renewable energy standards, and higher fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.
As for global warming, the Democrats say the Bush White House and the Republicans in Congress have completely ignored the issue. The Democrats are expected to introduce several global warming bills in the next session.
But while the Democrats gained a lot of power, they still will have to work around the threat of a presidential veto. And in the Senate, the republicans still hold more than enough seats to block legislation.
Darren Samuelsohn is a senior reporter with Greenwire, a Washington DC based news service covering energy and environmental policy. Samuelsohn says while the Republicans still hold a lot of power, it’s interesting to see how much of it was eroded overnight.
“As you start to talk about it and think about it, it’s across the board: it’s judges, it’s legislation, it’s oversight. And then the thing that really nobody outside of Washington ever really kind of knows what’s going on about, but the whole huge appropriation – the whole federal budget process. That will now be Democrat controlled and we’re talking about hundreds of billions of dollars that get spent every year.”
Samuelsohn says the Democrats will now face the challenge of finding more money for their favorite environmental programs, while at the same time making good on campaign promises to cut the huge federal budget deficit.
A new study suggests global warming could bring a boom in bug populations. Rebecca Williams reports that could mean bumper crops of pests:
Transcript
A new study suggests global warming could bring a boom in bug populations. Rebecca Williams reports that could mean bumper crops of pests:
Researchers studied 65 species of insects. They found that insects that are able to adapt to a warming climate will be able to reproduce a lot more quickly.
Melanie Frazier is the lead author of the study, published in the journal American Naturalist. Frazier says in the future, there could be more crop pests and other problems.
“There might also be human health consequences – a lot of bugs are disease carriers, like mosquitoes for instance. And if those populations are growing at a faster rate we might have more difficulty dealing with those.”
Frazier says at this point they can’t predict which species might experience population booms. And she says not all species would do well in a warmer world. Some species might migrate to cooler places, and others might go extinct.
Jamie Juenemann invested in equipment to produce energy at his home in northern Minnesota. He says the government should offer more consistent incentives for renewable energy. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
The Juenemann family has a carbon-neutral home - they produce as much energy as they use. (Photo by Stephanie Hemphill)
Americans are thinking more about energy. We’re facing higher prices. There’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:
Transcript
Americans are thinking about energy more. We’re facing higher energy prices, there’s worry about climate change, and there are questions about whether our need for foreign oil is forcing the country into wars in the Middle East. Even former oilman President Bush says we have to kick our addiction to oil, but what’s the government doing about it? Stephanie Hemphill looks at our national energy policy and its priorities:
This winter, a handful of people around the country won’t have to worry about oil or gas prices. Jamie Juenemann is one of them. He lives out in the country in northern Minnesota, and he’s installed his own energy plant.
Behind the house, there’s a pole reaching above the trees. At the top, a modern windmill turns as it catches the wind. There’s also a solar hot water heater, and a geothermal heat pump, that brings underground heat into the house.
“This was the final phase in our goal to become carbon neutral; essentially producing as much energy as we’re consuming.”
Carbon neutral means not using fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, believed to be a greenhouse gas, and warming the planet.
Of course these systems aren’t cheap. Juenemann took out a second mortgage to pay for them. It was a big decision, but he says he’s doing what he can to make sure his young daughters will inherit a livable world.
“It’s all about choices. We have the choice to either purchase a Chevy Suburban, or we can use that same outlay, that same expense and put in some renewable energy systems.”
Eventually these systems will pay for themselves, and the Juenemann family will have free hot water, electricity, and heat.
The government helps pay for some of these systems; as much as three-quarters of the cost can be covered by tax-breaks and rebates. The trouble is one of the major federal subsidies ends next year, and others are limited to the first few buyers in a fiscal year. Businesses that sell renewable energy systems say that on-again, off-again subsidy approach by the government makes it difficult to stay in business to provide the alternative systems.
Politicians have been sending mixed messages about energy. Last year’s energy bill offered subsidies for nearly every energy source, without sending a clear message favoring one over another. Congress even offered subsidies for fossil fuels.
And that makes sense to John Felmy. He’s chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute. He says the country depends on traditional sources — including the 40% of our total energy budget that comes from oil. He says the government should subsidize exploration and research on fossil fuels.
“You have to say where can you get the biggest impact from encouraging additional supplies, and those numbers of 40% clearly dwarf what you have from the alternatives.”
He says to keep the economy strong, the government should make it easier to drill for oil and gas, and to bring energy to where it’s needed.
Another government approach to the challenge of energy is to reduce the demand. Some groups predict conservation could cut energy needs as much as thirty percent.
J. Drake Hamilton is a scientist with Fresh Energy, a non-profit organization. She says conservation is cheaper and cleaner than producing more energy.
“Every time you cut energy use, you cut pollution. Every time you increase it, you increase pollution.”
And some people regard pollution as a hidden cost of traditional fuels. They say if consumers directly paid for the environmental and health costs of burning coal and oil and gas, the prices would be a lot higher. Economists call these “external costs,” and they argue over how to set a price on them.
Environmentalists say we should start charging an extra tax on fossil fuels because they contribute to global warming. At the same time, we could reduce the income tax, so the shift would be revenue-neutral, but the idea is still likely to be politically unpopular. A higher tax on fossil fuels would mean higher prices, which would make renewable energy systems more competitive.
There’s nothing new about taxing things that are bad for us, and subsidizing things that are good. But so far, when it comes to energy, Congress hasn’t been able to agree on what to discourage, and what to encourage.
For The Environment Report, I’m Stephanie Hemphill.
Tom Micheletti (right), and Excelsior Energy Vice President of Environmental Affairs, Bob Evans (left). They are locating where the proposed power plant will be built near the town of Taconite, Minnesota. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Tom Micheletti, Co-President of Excelsior Energy, the company formed to build the Mesaba Energy project: a 600 megawatt Integrated Combined Cycle Coal Gasification plant. (Photo by Bob Kelleher)
Acid rain, mercury pollution, and huge amounts of the heat-trapping gas carbon-dioxide are the down sides of burning coal in electric power plants. And yet, some energy experts are saying America should be using more coal. They say new coal technology can produce electricity with few of the pollution problems of traditional coal power plants. Bob Kelleher reports:
Transcript
Acid rain, mercury pollution, and huge amounts of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide are the down sides of burning coal in electric power plants. And yet, some energy experts are saying America should be using more coal. They say new coal technology can produce electricity with few of the pollution problems of traditional coal power plants. Bob Kelleher reports:
Coal has a well deserved bad reputation. Typical coal burning power plants release mercury, sulfur, nitrogen oxides, and lots of carbon dioxide. Those releases mean toxins in the air, soot, acid rain, and many believe global warming. But Tom Micheletti says there’s a way to use coal with very little pollution.
Using heat, steam, pressure, and oxygen, coal can be broken down to a relatively clean gas, and a handful of other chemical products. The gas is burned, to turn generators and produce electricity. The technology is called Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle. Micheletti says, the technology isn’t new, but applying it this way is.
“All we’re doing is marrying the gasification technology, with a technology that’s been well established, the combined cycle gas technology – power plant technology. And all we’re doing is simply putting those two technologies together.”
Micheletti is Co-President of Excelsior Energy, a company formed to build the nation’s first large scale coal gasification electric power plant in northeast Minnesota. At 600 megawatts, it would dwarf demonstration plants now online in Indiana and Florida.
Some experts say coal gasification is not only promising, it’s more practical than nuclear power, natural gas, solar or wind. Daniel Schrag is a climatologist and head of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.
“We have a lot of coal in the US. We’re very fortunate that way. The problem is that coal produces more carbon dioxide per unit energy than any other fossil fuel. And so, when we burn coal and make electricity, it’s really bad for the climate system.”
Schrag says there’s more carbon dioxide around us now than humans have ever experienced. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Most scientists believe it blankets the earth, forcing temperatures higher.
Schrag says, when used to generate electricity, coal gasification has big advantages over conventional power plants, because it can capture CO2.
“You get more energy for the amount of coal you put in, and that’s good for carbon emissions. The other thing is that it seems to be cheaper in an IGCC plant, or a gasification plant, to capture the carbon dioxide after one extracts the energy from the coal, and then makes it much easier to capture it and inject it into a geological reservoir.”
The key, Schrag says, is a process called sequestration. You capture, and then sequester it, or lock that carbon dioxide away, where it won’t escape into the atmosphere. It’s already being done.
This is the Dakota Gasification Company, just outside Beulah, North Dakota. Here they turn coal into a burnable gas and almost a dozen other products. They also produce plenty of carbon dioxide, but the CO2 is not vented into the air; it’s trapped and compressed. That’s the noise.
The CO2 is piped more than 200 miles into Canada where it’s pumped into oil wells, forcing the last oil out and leaving the CO2 underground. Near oceans it can be pumped under deep ocean sediments, where it stays put.
And that’s all very good, but others say even good power plants might be a bad idea.
Ross Hammond is with the Minnesota based organization Fresh Energy. Hammond says gasification’s proponents are overlooking conservation and the opportunities for clean energy.
“When we’ve exhausted all the clean options including biomass and photovoltaics, and wind and the other options, then we need to look at coal.”
But Harvard’s Daniel Schrag says it’s not as simple as pushing money toward pollution free energy.
“And the answer is complicated. The answer is perhaps not. It may be that coal is so cheap that even the extra cost of capturing the carbon and storing it underground may still make it cheaper than the alternatives, than wind and solar.”
Schrag says we’ll need it all – nuclear, hydro, wind and biomass. But to satisfy the nation’s hunger for energy, he says we’ll need coal – best used in coal gasification.
Coal-burning power plants are under pressure to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. One type of carbon removal technology is about to get a multi-million dollar test. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Coal burning power plants are under pressure to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. One type of carbon removal technology is about to get a multi-million dollar test. Chuck
Quirmbach reports:
Government regulators are looking into potential controls or taxes on carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to global warming. The electric utility industry says it’s trying various ways to reduce CO2 emissions on its own.
A $10 million project at a power plant in Wisconsin will use chilled ammonia on the gas coming from the plant’s boiler. Barry McNulty is a spokesperson for WE Energies. He says the hope is to make the CO2 more dense:
“What we’re trying to do is use ammonia, much like you do in the scrubbers and whatnot of some of the other air emission equipment and separate that carbon.”
If the experiment works, utilities may be able to capture the C02 and sell it or store it deep underground. The Electric Power Research Institute and a French company that developed the chilled ammonia technology are part of the project.
The northern part of the U.S. might be in for a mild winter.
That’s if predictions by government climatologists turn out to be true.
Mark Brush explains:
Transcript
The northern part of the U.S. might be in for a mild winter. That’s if predictions by
government climatologists turn out to be true. Mark Brush explains:
Warmer ocean temperatures in the Pacific are expected to drive changes in wind and
weather patterns over North America this winter. This climate event is commonly known as El
Niño. It means milder temperatures for the northern part of the country, and for the
southern part it means wetter than average conditions.
Mike Halpert is the head of forecast operations at the Climate Prediction Center for the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He says NOAA scientists were not
expecting El Niño effects this year, but recent warming trends in the Pacific Ocean
forced them to change their predictions:
“Right now it’s kind of hard to say how strong this event’s going to become. If the event
strengthens, as we anticipate it will, then I imagine the forecasts that we currently have,
which again favors warmth through much of the northern part of the country, will
remain.”
Halpert says the effects of El Niño will mostly be felt this winter and should subside by
next spring.
With skyrocketing crude oil prices much of the nation’s attention has turned toward alternative fuels. While many people are focused on ethanol production, one small town is looking at turning waste from humans and hogs into electricity. In a few months, the town will break ground on a 10-million dollar processing plant. It hopes to become the first town in the nation to run completely off renewable resources. The GLRC’s LaToya Dennis reports:
Transcript
With skyrocketing crude oil prices much of the nation’s attention has turned toward
alternative fuels. While many people are focused on ethanol production, one small town
is looking at turning waste from humans and hogs into electricity. In a few months, the
town will break ground on a 10 million dollar processing plant. It hopes to become the
first town in the nation to run completely off renewable resources. The GLRC’s LaToya
Dennis reports:
To get where we’re going, you have to pass through small town after small town and
acres and acres of cornfields. Reynolds, Indiana is a farm town of about 500 people. It’s
hard to find on most maps. And it’s pretty easy to overlook. After all, there’s only one gas
station and three restaurants. But what Reynolds is doing is hard to overlook. Charlie
Van Voorst has lived there for a long time and is now the town president. He says the town is
going to provide its own electricity and it’s not going to burn fossil fuels like coal or
natural gas.
“Town board meetings went from talking about the neighbor’s dog in your yard to now
talking about million dollar decisions about what we’re building.”
What the town of Reynolds is building is a new power plant powered by the by-products
of the surrounding farms, chiefly, pig poop. The plant will use technology to pull
methane and other gases from animal and human waste. The gases will then power
engines and steam turbines. Coming out on the other end is electricity, and leftover solids,
which can be used for fertilizer.
(Sound of pigs)
Within just a few miles there are around 150 thousand pigs. That makes for a lot of
waste:
“Well, this is the bacon.”
Bill Schroeder is a local pig farmer. He’s standing in the middle of a thousand hogs.
They’re about knee high and weigh around 300 pounds each. They’re constantly eating
and pooping.
“It don’t smell to me, does it smell to you. When you walked in here, did you smell?”
Actually, it did smell, but Schroeder thinks it smells like money. He says he’s willing to
give the waste his pigs produce to the town to turn into electricity. After the waste is
processed, farmers will get a higher quality fertilizer back for their fields. But Schroeder
says some farmers still might hesitate because they’re not being paid for their pig waste.
“There should be return. Anytime you invest money, you expect a return. I mean if
you’ve got a CD in the bank you expect a return on that CD. It’s no different from
investment in machinery, hog buildings or anything else.”
Obviously, some of the financial incentives still have to be worked out, but Reynolds
town officials say there are good reasons besides money to take the town off the existing
power grid. Right now, Reynolds gets its energy from coal. That puts a lot of carbon into
the air. Methane processing produces less carbon dioxide than coal.
Jody Snodgrass is managing director for Rose Energy. That’s the company building the
processing plant. He says the project has another environmental benefit. It reduces the
amount methane from pig manure that’s released into the atmosphere because it’s
captured and used to make electricity.
“The increase of methane causes increased cloud formation. Also causes decreased ozone
layer and basically contributes to global warming as does carbon dioxide and several
other compounds. And if you can reduce those or eliminate those, that obviously is a plus
for the environment.”
That’s the reason the town of Reynolds is getting the support of the state in its effort to
become energy independent. Although everyone’s not on board yet, town president Charlie Van
Voorst is excited about what’s to come. He says small town farming communities haven’t
seen a development this big in more than 100 years:
“Oh, my goodness. Since I’ve grown up, golly. I suppose you could talk about the –
something to this magnitude would be when electricity came into our community.”
Town officials hope Reynolds is powered by pig poop and other alternative fuels by
2008. They say if things go well, their town could become the model for other small farm
towns across the country.
For the GLRC, I’m LaToya Dennis.
HOST TAG: This piece was originally produced for NPR’s Next Generation
Radio.
