American Automakers Go Small

  • The new Ford Fiesta will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway. (Photo courtesy of Ford Motor Company)

After years of dominating the market for big trucks and SUVs, Detroit automakers are getting into the small car business. Tracy Samilton reports they don’t just aim to compete with Toyota and Honda – they aim to beat them.

Transcript

After years of dominating the market for big trucks and SUVs, Detroit automakers are getting into the small car business. Tracy Samilton reports they don’t just aim to compete with Toyota and Honda – they aim to beat them.

The new Ford Fiesta will get 40 miles per gallon on the highway. That’s several miles per gallon better than the Honda Fit and the Toyota Yaris. Chevy’s Cruze Eco could also hit that magic 40. Erich Merkle is President of Autoconomy dot com – an auto consulting firm. He says Detroit’s new small cars will also be loaded with high-tech features. That could grab the attention of Gen Y, a group of 67 million young Americans.

“And it’s gonna have to be affordable, low-cost of ownership and yeah, if you wanna get them into your vehicle, it’s gotta be cool and have some sex appeal.”

Asian car companies won’t give up their former territory without a fight. Honda may postpone the new Civic in order to boost its fuel efficiency.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tracy Samilton.

Related Links

Weather Modification Making It Rain

  • The cloud seeding generator sprays heated silver iodide into the air-which then acts like a magnet, attaching to ice particles until snow forms.(Photo courtesy of Christina Aanestad)

We need a lot of water. We use it to grow food, wash our cars and even make electricity at hydro-dams. But in some areas there might not be enough water. The federal government estimates places in 36 states might experience drought conditions by 2013.

So, scientists and power companies are looking at manipulating the weather to create more water. And, as Christina Aanestad reports the practice, called weather modification, is more common than you might think:

Transcript

We need a lot of water. We use it to grow food, wash our cars and even make electricity at hydro-dams. But in some areas there might not be enough water. The federal government estimates places in 36 states might experience drought conditions by 2013.

So, scientists and power companies are looking at manipulating the weather to create more water. And, as Christina Aanestad reports the practice, called weather modification, is more common than you might think.

“A mile and a half to go–we should see the cloud seeder.”

I’m traveling through the rugged terrain of Burney Falls, in northern California with Paul Moreno. He’s a spokesperson for Pacific Gas and Electric, one of the nation’s largest power companies and it wants to modify the weather in this remote area- it’s a process called cloud seeding.

“There it is……”

Energy companies, water districts and the federal government have conducted weather modification since the 1950’s. Today, it occurs in about a dozen states in the US-mostly the West and Midwest.

Moreno points to a large metal box.

“were’ looking at a cloud seeding generator that is off the ground about 12 feet on a steel platform and inside the cabinet is a tank that contains the silver iodide solution. The silver iodide solution is sprayed kind of atomized, like a perfume atomizer.”

This is how it works: the generator sprays heated silver iodide into the air-which then acts like a magnet, attaching to ice particles until snow forms. The purpose? More snow means more water and, more water means more power for Pacific Gas and Electric’s hydropower project.

At least… that’s the theory.

“It’s never been proven to actually work.”

Matt Ryan is a 25-year weather consultant.

“The idea that you can drug the sky into dropping more rain onto you is part of the problem in and of itself. Silver iodide which is the drug of choice throughout the cloud-seeding industry is a class-C toxic non-soluble inorganic chemical. When they say that it is Class C-You can’t flush this down the drain…it’s toxic.”

But not everyone thinks it’s a serious threat. Brant Foote heads the Research Applications Lab at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado. He’s studied cloud seeding for decades.

“In general what we’ve shown is that health hazards of cloud seeding is negligible.”

But, Foote seems less certain about whether cloud seeding actually works.

“It’s been a tough nut to crack. There have been a lot of attempts to evaluate cloud seeding and more often than not with inclusive results, rather than with either negative or positive.”

Whether it works or not is beside the point to some. They just don’t like the idea. Mark Franco is headman for the Winnemum Wintu Tribe in Northern California. He doesn’t think people should be playing around with nature. He says instead of trying to artificially make precipitation, maybe we should be putting more effort into conserving water.

“One of the things people forget: when you’re running out of water, don’t use as much. Use water efficiently, people need take responsibility for the usage and waste of water.”

But, despite concerns about whether cloud seeding is a good idea… or whether it even works… some states support the science with millions of taxpayer dollars. And, utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric spend millions of ratepayer dollars on cloud seeding projects in the US.

For The Environment Report, I’m Christina Aanestad.

Related Links

Shareholders Press Big Oil for Risk Information

  • The major risks with tar sand include dealing with pollution, and with lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.(Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Several investors’ groups want four major oil companies to reveal the risks of getting oil from Canadian tar sands. Rebecca Williams reports shareholders will be considering this at BP’s general meeting this week:

Transcript

Several investors’ groups want four major oil companies to reveal the risks of getting oil from Canadian tar sands. Rebecca Williams reports shareholders will be considering this at BP’s general meeting this week:

Tar sands are kind of like they sound: they’re sand or clay soaked in oil. Canada’s tar sands are the second largest oil reserves in the world, so oil companies are all over them. But it’s a dirtier source of oil.

Several investors groups have filed shareholder resolutions with BP, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil. They want companies to reveal the risks to stockholders of getting oil from tar sands.

Emily Stone is with Green Century Capital Management.

“We want these companies to be more forthright about what they see as the big risks and how they’re mitigating those risks.”

She says risks include dealing with pollution… and lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.

BP did not want to be recorded for this story. But in a statement to shareholders, BP told them to vote no. BP says Canada’s oil sands are a proven and secure source of oil.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Business Co-Operatives Get Greener

  • Gary Alperovitz says co-op businesses are rooted to the community, and that gives the Evergreen Cooperative a long term customer base.(Photo courtesy of Julie Grant)

Many people think the idea of business co-operatives is a leftover from the hippie generation. In a co-op, the workers own and manage the company. But there’s a new resurgence in the co-op model: there are new co-op bakeries, solar companies, and laundries. Julie Grant reports about these new employee-owned, often green-focused businesses.

Transcript

Many people think the idea of business co-operatives is a leftover from the hippie generation. In a co-op, the workers own and manage the company. But there’s a new resurgence in the co-op model: there are new co-op bakeries, solar companies, and laundries. Julie Grant reports about these new employee-owned, often green-focused businesses.

The last few years have been tough in many inner city neighborhoods. Around the area known as University Circle in Cleveland some experts think the poverty rate is 40-percent. The streets are lined with boarded up, foreclosed homes, and the signs of poverty are everywhere: drugs, crime, and unemployment.

So, Mienyan Smith is glad to have a job. She’s 31-years old and has five kids.

She sorts laundry into large bins – blue blankets in one, white sheets in another. But this isn’t the same as any other job. Smith and the other eight workers are all about to become part owners.

“WE ALL HAVE A GOAL TO EVENTUALLY OWN THIS FACILITY. AND WE WANT IT TO ALSO EXPAND, SO WE WORK HARDER, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT ‘HEY, WE’RE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL.’”

Smith and the other workers will ‘buy in’ to the cooperative. Since none of them has the 3-thousand dollars upfront, they will each give 50-cents an hour from their paycheck.

Jim Anderson is with the Employee Ownership Center at Kent State University. He signed the papers for 6-million dollars in loans to start-up the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry.

In 3 years, he says the first 9 employees will be owners…

“THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN DECISIONS. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PURCHASING SIDE OF THE BUSINESS. SUPPLIES. WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PAYROLL SIDE. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE QUALITY ISSUES THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE.”

Even in the best of times this would be a challenging task. So, starting a worker-owned business during a recession might seem down right crazy. But Anderson says Evergreen is on track to succeed. Their workers really care about the success of the business.

Plus, the co-op has a market advantage. It’s made significant investments to be an environmentally friendly laundry. They bought washing machines with special energy efficient motors that save millions of gallons of water, and they purchased no-steam ironing presses that use less energy…

“WHERE, EVERYTHING ELSE BE EQUAL, WE’RE THE GREEN LAUNDRY. WE’RE GOING TO REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE WILL AND WE CAN SHOW WHY THAT IS. AND WE THINK, GIVEN THAT, WE’LL GET THE NOD FROM THE CUSTOMER.”

The co-op’s customers are mostly hospitals, nursing homes and hotels.

Gary Alperovitz says those types of businesses are rooted to the community – and that gives the Evergreen Cooperative a long term customer base.

Alperovitz is author of the book “America Beyond Capitalism.”

He says Americans are sick of overpaid CEOs and companies that abandon a community as soon as they find better tax breaks or cheaper labor…

“BUT COOPERATIVELY OWNED COMPANIES AND WORKER OWNED COMPANIES IN GENERAL, SINCE THE PEOPLE LIVE THERE, RARELY GET UP AND LEAVE TOWN AND GO TO THE SUN BELT. THEY ARE VERY GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY BECAUSE THEY ARE ANCHORED THERE.”

The Cleveland Model, as Alperovitz calls it, includes more than just the laundry. Evergreen has also opened a Co-op Solar Company, that employs a dozen inner city workers, and plans to hire up to 100 people. A Co-op greenhouse and a co-op newspaper are already in the works in Cleveland. Each intends to the be greenest company in its sector.

Alperovitz says the focus on green businesses is unique to Cleveland, but communities all over the U.S. are starting to look at the co-op business model:

“THERE’S A LOT OF SLOGANS, BUT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DOESN’T CHANGE, THE LOCAL ECONOMY DECAYS, THE TAX BASE DECAYS, THE ENVIRONMENT DECAYS. AND THE QUESTION BECOMES ‘ARE WE GOING TO SOMETHING OURSELVES? OR ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE DECAY TO GO ON?’”

In Cleveland, they expect the group of Co-op businesses to employ up to a-thousand people in the next five years – all from the neighborhoods that need the help. The plan is to start stabilizing the inner city one street at a time…

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Shell Walks Away From Oil Shale

  • Shell says that even though it's no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it's in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)

Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.

Transcript

Extracting oil from oil shale takes a lot of water. Most of the oil shale in the U.S. is in areas where there’s not a lot of water. Conrad Wilson reports, one big oil company seems to be walking away from oil shale for that reason. But not everyone thinks that’s the case.

In the Western US, some energy companies are betting big on oil shale. That’s a process of basically heating up a shale rock into a liquid that’s eventually refined into oil. But the global recession and the threat of climate change might be giving those companies second thoughts. Add to that a increasingly limited water supply, and oil shale looks like a risky investment.

The process of creating oil shale is energy intensive and uses a lot of water. That’s a problem in the arid West. As the population grows, the value of water is increasing.

Royal Dutch Shell has the most invested in developing an oil shale technology that works. So earlier this year when the company announced it was pulling away from water rights, it sent shock waves through the industry.

“I read that decision as Shell’s acknowledgment that oil shale is a long way off and that this was a really controversial filing and that in a sense it’s not worth it.”

That’s Claire Bastable of the Western Energy Project. It’s an environmental group that keeps on eye on energy issues in the West. Shell had been pursuing water rights on the Yampa River, in the Northwest portion Colorado.

“Shell’s decision was a big deal. We’re talking about 15 billion gallons of water. … It would have basically taken the Yampa River, which is one of the the last free flowing rivers in the West and diverted a huge proportion of it to Shell for potential oil shale development.”

Bastable says the 15 billion gallons Shell was seeking is about three times the amount the city of Boulder, Colorado uses in a year.

But, Shell knows a lot of oil can be extracted from the oil shale. It’s estimated that there are 800 billion barrels of usable oil in the shale – in Wyoming, Colorado and Utah.

Dr. Jeremy Boak researches oil shale development at the Colorado School of Mines. He says Shell could be simply postponing extracting that oil. Boak believes oil shale has a future, but it’s still decades away.

“With all of the comments they’ve made about what the time scale for oil shale, Shell has been pretty comfortable that this is going to take time.”

Shell says that even though it’s no longer pursing water rights on the Yampa River right now, it’s in no way backing off its larger ambitions for oil shale.

The company wouldn’t provide someone to comment for this story, but in a statement the company said:

The “ultimate goal is to create a commercial oil shale recovery operation that is economically viable, environmentally responsible and socially sustainable.”

That statement adds timing depends on government regulation and the market. The company could be waiting to see what the government does about climate change and how that affects fossil fuel costs. Shell could also be waiting for oil prices go up before deciding whether oil shale worth the effort.

Eric Kuhn heads up water management for the Colorado River District. He monitors much of the state’s water West of the Continental Divide. Kuhn says there’s probably enough water for oil shale development right now, but it’s hard to say for how long.

“I don’t think they’re dropping the filing changes anything. I think those companies are dedicated to and still have a plan to develop the oil shale resource if they can find a technology that is economically productive or if they can produce the oil shale at a competitive price, I think they will do it.”

Environmentalists in the region hope they won’t. They say Shell’s decision not to pursue the water right now should be a signal to others… oil shale just might not be worth the effort.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Mixed Messages on Oil and Gas Drilling

  • 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.

For The Environment Report, I’m Conrad Wilson.

Related Links

Pushing Power Companies for More Renewables

  • 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.


For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Cleaning Up Dioxin

  • West Michigan Park lies along the Tittabawassee River. Large swaths of its soil was removed and re-sodded due to dioxin contamination. The removal was part of a US EPA effort to have Dow clean up several hot spots in the rivershed. (Photo by Shawn Allee)

One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:

Transcript

One thing we hear over and over
from the Obama Administration
is that when it comes to the
environment, science should set
the agenda. Right now, though,
the chemical industry is accusing
the administration of abandoning
that idea. Shawn Allee reports it has to do with the science
behind a potent toxin:

President George W. Bush took it on the chin when it came to the environment. One accusation is that he ignored science that suggested we should get tougher on green house gas emissions.

President Obama’s Administrator at the US Environmental Protection Agency is Lisa Jackson. She said things would be different.

“On my first day, I sent a memo to every EPA employee stating that our path would be guided by the best science and by the rule of law, and that every action we took would be subject to unparalleled transparency.”

It hasn’t taken long for the chemical industry to say Obama’s Administration is back-tracking.

“There’s been this notion to get things done, and it get it done fast.”

That’s David Fischer, an attorney for the American Chemistry Council. Fischer’s concerned about new standards on dioxins.

Dioxins are by-products from producing chemicals. They also get into the environment from burning trash and wood.

The government says dioxin causes cancer and reproductive and developmental diseases.

It’s known this for decades, but it’s been finishing a report to show exactly how toxic dioxins are. It’s been writing this dioxin reassessment for 18 years, and it was supposed to put out a draft last week.

But it didn’t do that, and it hasn’t said when it will.

That didn’t stop the EPA from proposing a new rule about how much dioxin should be allowed in the soil in peoples’ yards.

Fischer says that rule should wait.

“If they’re going to base goals based on the best available science, and they have, in fact, stated they plan to, it’s hard to imagine how you can do that before the reassessment’s finished because that does after all represent or should represent the best available science.”

The chemical industry’s concerned because dozens of sites across the country are contaminated with dioxins. And the rule would lower the amount of dioxin allowed in residential soil. It would go from 1000 parts per trillion to 72 parts per trillion – that’s a drop of more than 90%.

Fischer says that could cost companies millions of dollars in extra clean-up costs.

“Again, that begs the question, Why?”

One accusation is that the Obama administration wanted to finalize dioxin soil regulations in time to coincide with controversial, on-going dioxin clean-ups, such as one in central Michigan.

The EPA didn’t answer this question directly and wouldn’t provide an interview in time for this report. But it did say it’s got sound science to justify the proposed dioxin soil rule.

You might ask why this matters. Well, just look at central Michigan, where there’s a large, on-going dioxin cleanup.

Linda Dykema works with Michigan’s Department of Community Health. She creates state standards on how much dioxin should be allowed in water, fish, and soil. To protect people in Michigan, she needs help from the EPA.

“We rely a great deal on federal agencies to provide us with some hazard assessment for chemicals. The ability of the state to public health staff to do those kinds of assessments is pretty limited. They can do what needs to be done and what we can’t do here at the state.”

And a ruling on dioxin levels in soil should help Dykema. But this move by the EPA might cause more problems than it solves. For years, the chemical industry’s argued that the science behind dioxin isn’t complete.

This proposed soil rule gives the chemical industry another chance to say, ‘here we go again.’ And the justification it needs to keep fighting a rule the EPA insists protects people’s health.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Related Links

Interview: Google’s Green Energy Czar

  • Bill Weihl is currently working on clean energy at Google. Before joining Google in early 2006, he was CTO at Akamai Technologies. (Photo courtesy of Google)

Chances are that you’ve visited the
website google.com. Google is
not only a leader in online tech, but
it’s also investing in high-tech
alternative energy, especially different
kinds of solar power. Lester Graham
talked with Google’s Green Energy
Czar – yes, that’s his real title – Bill
Weihl. His job is not only
to make Google more energy efficient,
but to investigate and invest in new,
cleaner energy use and generation:

Transcript

Chances are that you’ve visited the
website google.com. Google is
not only a leader in online tech, but
it’s also investing in high-tech
alternative energy, especially different
kinds of solar power. Lester Graham
talked with Google’s Green Energy
Czar – yes, that’s his real title – Bill
Weihl. His job is not only
to make Google more energy efficient,
but to investigate and invest in new,
cleaner energy use and generation:

Lester Graham: Last year, a report indicated performing two Google searches from a desktop computer could generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea. How true is that?

Bill Weihl: We think, as, in fact, does the scientist who was behind most of the data there, that that report was actually off – that you, in fact, could do several hundred Google searches, if not more, for the emissions that are involved in boiling enough water to make a cup of tea.

Graham: What is Google doing to reduce energy consumption, or, at least, reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Weihl: We have cut our energy consumption in our data centers – data centers are the, you know, big facilities that contain lots and lots of servers. We have cut the energy usage in those facilities by over 50%.

Graham: Is there anything we can do so that when we do use Google we’re being as energy efficient as possible?

Weihl: If you’re buying a new computer, look for one that’s energy efficient. And in the US that means look for one, at a minimum, that’s Energy Star compliant. Laptops also tend to be more energy efficient than desktops, in part because just to make the battery last long enough to be useful, they have to work really hard in designing them to make them energy efficient. The second thing you can do is when you’re not using your system, when it’s sitting there idle, you can set it so that it will go to sleep automatically, or manually, if for some reason it doesn’t go to sleep automatically, you can very easily tell it to go to sleep. That’s much more convenient, obviously, that shutting it down, having to reboot, and restart everything. And it uses about the same energy in stand-by mode as it does when it’s off – which is, in the order of 1 to 5 watts, far less than it uses when it’s just sitting there idle with the screen on and doing nothing.

Graham: Let’s look beyond the world of computers. Google has invested in research for energy efficiency in cars and electric generation. You have a program that’s called ‘R.E. is less than C’ or ‘renewable energy for less than the cost of coal.’ That’s ambitious. Is it realistic?

Weihl: First of all, it’s hugely ambitious. Secondly, I believe it is realistic. And third, I think it’s absolutely necessary. Today, coal is, by far, the cheapest form of energy, or electrical energy, that we consume, except perhaps for hydroelectric power, which is comparable in cost. But at least in this country, and most of the developed world, we’re not going to be building large amounts of new hydroelectric generating capacity. We’ve already dammed most of the rivers that are worth damming. We are, however, still building new coal plants. And coal is not only very cheap, but also it is, by far, the dirtiest, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, of any of the sources of energy that we use. So I think it is necessary, in terms of dealing with the climate crisis that we are facing, to find a way to, over time, replace coal with cleaner sources of energy. And the only way, as a society, I think that we’re going to do that is if it makes economic sense. So that’s why we really started to focus on this initiative we call ‘R.E. less than C’ – to really try to drive innovation as rapidly as possible on the technology for generating renewable power to try to drive its cost down very quickly.

Graham: Bill Weihl is the Green Energy Czar for Google. Thanks very much for your time, I appreciate it.

Weihl: My pleasure. Thank you.

Related Links

European Cap-And-Trade Example

  • Europe was the first to do carbon cap-and-trade, four years ago. (Photo courtesy of NASA)

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Transcript

Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:

Slashing greenhouse gas emissions is hard. Our economy is powered mostly by fossil fuels. Switching to clean fuels will be disruptive and expensive, at least to start with.

So how do we get from here to there? The approach that’s proving most popular is what’s called “cap-and-trade.” It works like this – first, there’s the cap.

“We’re going to put an absolute limit on the quantity of carbon-based fuels that we’re going to burn. And we’re going to develop a system to make sure we’re not burning more fossil fuels than that.”

Alan Durning heads the Sightline Institute, a sustainability-oriented think tank in Seattle. He explains that once you put the cap in place…

“Then, we’re going to let the market decide who exactly should burn the fossil fuels based on who has better opportunities to reduce their emissions.”

That’s the “trade” part. Companies get permits to put out a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Outfits that can cut their emissions more than they need to can sell their unused pollution permits to companies that can’t.

The cap gets ratcheted down over time. There are fewer permits out there to buy. Eventually even the most polluting companies have to reduce their emissions, as well.

The goal is to wean ourselves off dirty fuels by making them more expensive. And that makes cleaner fuels more attractive.

Europe was the first to do carbon cap and trade, four years ago. And things got off to a rough start. They set the cap on emissions too high and way overestimated the number of permits – or allowances – that companies would need.

“We have too many allowances. Simple supply means that the prices of those allowances crashes. They don’t have much value, and therefore the price went down to close to zero.”

That’s Vicki Pollard. She follows climate change negotiations for the European Commission. She says the whole system got knocked out of kilter.

For the first two years, European carbon emissions actually went up. After the collapse of Phase One, big changes were made. The next phase of the trading system has a tighter cap, more stringent reporting requirements and enforcement with teeth.


Today, Europe’s on track to meet its current emissions target. But environmentalists, such as Sanjeev Kumar with the World Wildlife Fund in Brussels, say those targets are still driven more by politics than by science.

“We have a cap that’s very weak, i.e. that means that it doesn’t mean that we’re going to achieve the levels of decarbonization that we need within the time scale.”

Leading climate scientists say we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the middle of this century to avoid catastrophic climate change.

Business still has concerns about the EU cap and trade scheme. Folker Franz is with BusinessEurope, sort of the European version of the US Chamber of Commerce. He says companies worry about the additional cost of carbon emissions putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

“If you produce one ton of steel, you emit roughly one ton of CO2. So any ton of steel produced in the EU is right now some 17 dollars more than outside the European Union. And that makes a difference.”

But, Franz says, European businesses accept the need to take prompt action on climate change and are on board with the stricter cap and trade rules coming over the next few years.

Americans have watched Europe struggle with carbon cap-and-trade. The Sightline Institute’s Alan Durning says we can benefit from Europe’s willingness to break new ground.

“It was a big advance when they started it, because nothing like it had ever been done. But, it’s not the be-all-and-end-all. In fact, the United States now has an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and leapfrog ahead to a much better climate policy.”

Durning says an American cap and trade system could avoid the costly stumbles that’ve hampered Europe’s carbon reduction efforts.

For The Environment Report, I’m Liam Moriarty.

Related Links