A recent study shows the arctic seabed is releasing up to ten-million tons of methane annually. (Photo Courtesy of Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard)
New research indicates the Arctic seabed is releasing methane at a rate higher than all the other oceans of the world combined. This recent discovery raises concerns about the pace of global warming. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
New research indicates the Arctic seabed is releasing methane at a rate higher than all the other oceans of the world combined. Lester Graham reports, this recent discovery raises concerns about the pace of global warming.
Under a shallow part of the Arctic Ocean, the seafloor was thought to be permanently frozen, capping vast stores of methane underneath. Researchers at the University of Alaska Fairbanks have found that frozen cap is beginning to leak large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Natalia Shakhova is one of the leaders of a team that’s been studying the permafrost under the Arctic Ocean.
“What we’re having now, it’s up to ten-million ton[s] of methane annually escaping from this seabed. That means that permafrost does not serve as an impermeable cap to prevent these leakages any longer.”
Methane is a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. The greatest concern about methane releases had been the permafrost on land… but this underwater release could mean climate changes could accelerate.
Representatives from both sides of the aisle are beginning to find some common ground on energy policy.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Members of Congress from fossil fuel states want to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases. Lester Graham reports
– it’s one of the few bi-partisan efforts in Washington, but it’s not the only one:
Congressional leaders are beginning to start thinking about a climate bill again.
Health care legislation has finally started
moving forward in Congress. Shawn Allee reports
the US Senate can now devote some attention to
its unfinished work on climate change:
Transcript
Health care legislation has finally started moving forward in Congress.
Shawn Allee reports the US Senate can now devote some attention to its unfinished work on climate change:
The climate-change bill got a cold reception last year, but Senators Kerry, Graham and Lieberman say they’re making headway lately.
Margaret Kriz Hobson tracks climate legislation for the National Journal.
She says the Senate got stuck negotiating a complex carbon trading scheme.
That would have required most industries to trade carbon pollution credits.
Kriz Hobson says the three senators are now focusing mostly on power companies.
“A lot more people are letting them in the door because the proposal that they’re bringing forward would include some benefits for nuclear power, oil drilling in the United States and for more modern technologies for capture and sequestration.”
That last technology would basically bury carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants.
That could save money and jobs in states that burn or mine coal.
The EPA is set to issue proposed rules for reducing greenhouse gases. The rules are likely to affect new coal burning power plants.
The Obama administration has indicated it
would prefer Congress pass climate change
legislation. But Lester Graham reports soon
the Environmental Protection Agency is
expected to issue its own proposal for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
Transcript
The Obama administration has indicated it
would prefer Congress pass climate change
legislation. But Lester Graham reports soon
the Environmental Protection Agency is
expected to issue its own proposal for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
This week EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told a Congressional hearing only the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases would have to get pollution permits at first.
Joe Koncelik is an environmental lawyer with the firm Frantz-Ward in Cleveland. He says even then not every big power plant and steel mill will have to get a permit:
“That’s triggered only if you are building a new plant or you make what’s considered a significant change to an existing plant.”
And if they’re required to get a permit it’s not clear what they’ll have to do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Eric Schaeffer is a former EPA official and now heads up the Environmental Integrity Project.
“The standard is: best available technology. And I haven’t seen EPA’s definition of that yet.”
More than likely, the biggest emitters will reduce greenhouse gas emissions through using fossil fuels more efficiently or mixing in bio-fuels until ways are developed to capture emissions and store them underground.
Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the EPA. (Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The Environmental Protection
Agency’s position on greenhouse
gases is being challenged in
court. The EPA says it needs
to regulate gases, such as carbon
dioxide, to protect human health
and welfare. Mark Brush reports
several trade associations want
to stop the EPA:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency’s position on greenhouse gases is being challenged in court. The EPA says it needs to regulate gases such as carbon dioxide to protect human health and welfare. Mark Brush reports… several trade associations want to stop the EPA:
The legal challenges are coming from several groups including the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Association of Home Builders. There are some groups that question the science behind the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases. But others are staying away from that controversial position.
Lisa Chai is with the National Association of Home Builders.
“We definitely are not taking a stance on the science. Our concern is that the Clean Air Act and existing statutes should not be used to regulate greenhouse gases because they are just not suited for them.”
Chai says her group worries that EPA regulations would trigger an expensive permitting process for multi-unit and even some single family homes. The EPA says it intends to only regulate the biggest sources of greenhouse gases – things such as large power plants, industries, and refineries.
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.
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!
Dr. James Hansen is a climate
scientist for NASA and the author of the
book, 'Storms Of My Grandchildren.'
(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.’
He’s been a climate scientist for NASA
and was the first scientist to testify before
Congress about climate change. In the
book, Hansen wrote about climate change,
‘We seem oblivious to the danger, unaware
how close we may be… to our demise.’
Lester Graham talked to Hansen and noted
that we don’t often hear strong language
like that from scientists:
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.’
He’s been a climate scientist for NASA
and was the first scientist to testify before
Congress about climate change. In the
book, Hansen wrote about climate change,
‘We seem oblivious to the danger, unaware
how close we may be… to our demise.’
Lester Graham talked to Hansen and noted
that we don’t often hear strong language
like that from scientists:
Dr. James Hansen: Well, the public is unaware of the situation, and that’s partly because of the way nature works. You know, weather is highly variable – 10 or 20 or 30 degree variations are common – while the global warming, so far, is about 1 degree Celsius, which is about 2 degrees Fahrenheit. So, people have a hard time seeing it. But the consequences are already becoming apparent, as we see with the melting sea ice in the arctic. The Northwest Passage is now actually open. Mountain glaciers melting around the world, sub-tropics expanding – which is affecting the Southwest United States and the Mediterranean region and Australia. And the problem is that those things are going to grow, and we’re going to pass tipping points, which will have disastrous consequences if we pass them. We don’t have to pass them though. And that’s why it’s appropriate for us to try to communicate the situation to the public, because the kinds of things that we need to do with our energy systems make sense anyway for different reasons.
Lester Graham: The evidence for climate change is growing – almost every week more studies are released, often indicating the future will be worse than first thought. What do you think we need to do to minimize the effects of climate change?
Dr. Hansen: Well, it’s very clear what we need to do. The carbon dioxide is increasing because of the burning of fossil fuels. If you look at how much carbon there is in oil, gas, and coal, you see that coal is, by far, the biggest reservoir. And then there’s the unconventional fossil fuels, like tar shale and tar sands. What we need to do is phase out the coal use and prohibit the use of these unconventional, dirty fossil fuels – and we could solve the problem. But to get there, there’s a very practical requirement, and that is that we begin to put a price on carbon emissions. The reason that people use fossil fuels as their main source of energy is that it’s the cheapest energy. And, as long as that’s the case, we’re going to keep using more and more. But the reason that they’re the cheapest is that we subsidize them – our government subsidizes them – and they don’t make them pay for the costs that they cause for society. The human health problems due to air pollution and water pollution, the mercury and the arsenic that comes from coal, and the costs of future climate change for our children and grandchildren – all of these are free for the fossil fuel companies. They don’t have to worry about those at all. The way we would solve that is to put a gradually rising price on carbon emissions. And there’s actually some good news in the newspaper, and that is that Senators Kerry, a Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican, announced that they’re not going to push cap-and-trade – which had been the big banks’ proposed solution to put a ‘cap’ on carbon emissions, and then they, you would (chuckles) – it was a complicated system where you could trade the rights to pollute. But the big winners would be the traders and the losers would be the public.
James Hansen is a climate
scientist for NASA and the author of the
book, ‘Storms Of My Grandchildren.’ He
spoke with The Environment Report’s
Lester Graham. We’ll hear
more from Dr. Hansen tomorrow, including
his idea on how to reduce using fossil fuels.
The Massachusetts election puts the passage of a climate change bill in doubt.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
The Republican party gained
one seat in the Senate. But
Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts
is apparently having a dramatic
effect on the Senate’s agenda.
Lester Graham reports:
For one, forget a climate change bill.
“Things are not looking good for this bill.”
Darren Samuelson is a reporter with GreenWire. He spent the day yesterday talking with Senators of every stripe.
A vote this year on a climate bill that included a cap-and-trade plan to reduce greenhouse gases was already in doubt. Now Senators say Massachusetts taught them it’s all about jobs and the economy.
So the climate change bill will become an energy bill – more drilling, offshore, in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more natural gas leases.
Samuelson says, judging on what he’s hearing in the Senate, any chance for a climate change bill comes down to just a couple of things.
“It depends on how much of an emphasis President Obama puts on it in his State of the Union address and just how much the Democrats are willing to give the Republicans.”
But since the Republicans had already decided the climate bill was a jobs killer, the win in Massachusetts makes it unlikely the Democrats can give enough to the Republicans to get it passed.
A recent study shows the arctic seabed is releasing up to ten-million tons of methane annually. (Photo Courtesy of Patrick Kelley, U.S. Coast Guard)
