Home Weatherization Gets Snagged

  • It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was one way to help jump start the economy. (photo courtesy of the US Department of Energy)

The Recovery Act called for a multi-billion dollar home weatherization program. It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was the ultimate “shovel ready” project to help jump start the economy. But as Mark Brush reports, so far, it just hasn’t worked out:

Transcript

The Recovery Act called for a multi-billion dollar home weatherization program. It was thought that putting insulation in older homes was the ultimate “shovel ready” project to help jump start the economy. But as Mark Brush reports, so far, it just hasn’t worked out:

The Department of Energy’s Inspector General found the data alarming.

Of the ten states receiving the most money for home weatherization – eight of them weren’t even at two percent of their goal.

One reason for the hold-up is bureaucracy. There’s a law that says if you get federal money – you have to pay workers a “prevailing wage” or a fair wage. And there was confusion over how much to pay people.

Don Skaggs is with Ohio’s Office of Community Services. He says most states waited until the issue was resolved – but Ohio didn’t wait:

“So we decided to go ahead and do production. And then once we understood what the requirements were, we would go back and retroactively adjust those wages for those staff, which is what we did.”

So Ohio’s on track – but most states are not. The Department of Energy said it’s working on these problems – and expects things to ramp up soon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

House Gives Cash for Clunkers Green Light

  • It is hoped that the "Cash for Clunkers" bill will stimulate fledgling car sales (Photo by Samara Freemark)

The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” bill has passed the US House. Automakers say it could help boost sluggish sales if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law. But as Rebecca Williams reports some people think the bill isn’t very green:

Transcript

The so-called “Cash for Clunkers” bill has passed the US House. Automakers say it could help boost sluggish sales if it passes the Senate and gets signed into law. But as Rebecca Williams reports some people think the bill isn’t very green:

If you have a car or truck that gets 18 miles per gallon or less, under this bill, you’d get to trade it in for a more fuel efficient car or truck. The old car would get scrapped.

You’d get a voucher for several thousand dollars. Old gas guzzlers would get taken off the road.

But Ann Mesnikoff points out: in the House bill you could trade in an old SUV that gets, say, 14 miles per gallon… for a new SUV that gets just two miles per gallon more.

She directs Sierra Club’s Green Transportation Campaign.

“The key things to change in the cash for clunkers program are to ensure that taxpayer dollars are going to buy vehicles that have at least better than average fuel economy. Not those that can’t even meet today’s fuel economy standards.”

Congress is also going to have to figure out how to pay for the bill. It’s expected to cost about 4 billion dollars.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Speculators Cause Spike in Oil Prices

The price of a barrel of oil has jumped
up from $45 to nearly $70 in just
three months. And gas prices have been
creeping up too. Rebecca Williams reports
these prices are out of sync with the usual
rules of supply and demand:

Transcript

The price of a barrel of oil has jumped
up from $45 to nearly $70 in just
three months. And gas prices have been
creeping up too. Rebecca Williams reports
these prices are out of sync with the usual
rules of supply and demand:

Right now there’s a huge glut of supply of oil – and at the same time, weak global demand for it.

Ruchir Kadakia is a global oil market expert. He’s with Cambridge Energy Research Associates.

He says speculators are driving oil prices up.

“People believe that with positive economic growth in the future there will be greater demand for oil. So they start to buy up oil in anticipation of that demand recovery.”

So these speculators are making money while most of the economy is in a slump.

But Kadakia thinks the realities of supply and demand will eventually catch up and drag oil prices back down.

“The pain we’re feeling at the pump today is probably going to be the worst we feel all this summer.”

He thinks gas prices might actually get back below two dollars a gallon.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Green Projects and Stimulus Bill

  • At least 62-billion of the 789-billion dollar package are for green investments (Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)

The stimulus package before Congress spends an unprecedented amount of money on issues important to environmentalists. Lester Graham reports it looks like the interests of the environment and the economy are aligning:

Transcript

The stimulus package before Congress spends an unprecedented amount of money on issues important to environmentalists. Lester Graham reports it looks like the interests of the environment and the economy are aligning:

The stimulus package is packed with things that make environmentalists smile.

There are billions for renewable energy and research for alternative energy sources. There are billions for making federal buildings and homes more energy efficient. There are billions for mass transit and Amtrak, and a half-a-billion to training workers for green collar jobs.

Melinda Pierce is with the Sierra Club.

“Well, I tell you, what has struck me is the ‘billion’ word instead of ‘million’. So many of these projects – in terms of weatherization, energy efficiency, high-speed rail – have suffered from a lack of funding for the last eight years. This package will funnel literally billions of dollars into the programs that we think are America’s clean energy future.”

So, how many billions total in green investments? At least 62-billion of the 789-billion dollar package.

And many environmentalists, some economists and business leaders, and, apparently, a good number of the Members of Congress think the growth sector of the economy is going to be the green sector.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Not Much Green From Eco Jobs

  • A manufacturing job in a wind or solar plant sometimes pays as little as $11 an hour - much lower than the national average for workers making other durable goods (Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)

One of the big plans for kick-starting the nation’s economy is to invest in green jobs: solar and wind energy projects, mass transit, and energy efficiency. But a new report finds some of those jobs might not pay as well as some people expect. Julie Grant has the story:

Transcript

One of the big plans for kick-starting the nation’s economy is
to invest in green jobs: solar and wind energy projects, mass
transit, and energy efficiency. But a new report finds some
those jobs might not be pay as well as some people expect.
Julie Grant has the story:

A manufacturing job in a wind or solar plant sometimes pays
as little as $11 an hour – much lower than the national
average for workers making other durable goods.

Kate Gordon is with the Apollo Alliance, a group that
advocates jobs in renewable energy. She helped to write
the report on green jobs.

“Just because something’s a green job does not necessarily
mean it’s a good job. There are a lot of jobs emerging in
renewable energy and energy efficiency companies where
the workers are being paid minimum wage or slightly more
or don’t have benefits.”

At the same time, the report finds that some U.S. wind and
solar companies are already outsourcing jobs to China and
Mexico.

But Gordon says the government can change this direction
with its investments – by requiring local job creation, labor
standards, and domestic content.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Will Green Collar Jobs Pay Off?

  • Obama delivering the American Recovery and Reinvestment speech on Thursday, January 8, 2009 (Photo courtesy of the Obama Transition Team)

Some top business leaders
expect there will be only one growth
sector during this recession: energy
efficiency. Some call it the dawning
of the ‘green economy.’ Lester Graham
reports many are calling on the
government to invest heavily to get
the economy going again. But some are
worried that billions will go to ‘make
work’ projects with no long-term gains:

Transcript

Some top business leaders
expect there will be only one growth
sector during this recession: energy
efficiency. Some call it the dawning
of the ‘green economy.’ Lester Graham
reports many are calling on the
government to invest heavily to get
the economy going again. But some are
worried that billions will go to ‘make
work’ projects with no long-term gains:

Just as computers and the information age defined the economy many business leaders believe alternative fuels and energy conservation will define the green economy.

During a recent speech at George Mason University, President-elect Barack Obama indicated he wants to encourage that growth in green collar jobs.

“Jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.”

There’s no doubt that much of President-elect Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is green.

The AFL-CIO has its own Green Jobs for America Program. The union wants 100-billion dollars of government money to be invested in the kind of jobs Mr. Obama talked about.

Pat Devlin is with the AFL-CIO’s Michigan Building Trades Council. He says he hopes Congress moves on the Obama plan soon.

“We’re hoping ASAP. Were looking to get something kicked off in the next six months. And like I said, we’ve got the projects. We just need the infusion of the investment behind it and we’re ready to go. We got to be smart when we do get the dollars, too. That they’re spent in the right place to get people back to work, get our economy headed in the right direction.”

The AFL-CIO has been talking to the Obama administration… and the union likes what it’s hearing.

President-elect Obama says making buildings and homes more energy efficient will mean jobs now and save billions in natural gas and oil in the future making us less dependent on foreign fossil fuels… and reducing greenhouse gas emissions causing global warming.

But the government has a nasty habit of screwing these things up. Members of Congress want the money for their states even if they don’t have the kind of shovel-ready plans that will mean those kind of long-term benefits and that could sabotage the effort.

“You just can’t throw money at the problems and somehow magically it’s going to work.”

Eric Orts directs the Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership, part of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. He says the investments should go to projects that mean more energy and economic efficiencies in the future have long-term benefits that will benefit the economy. Otherwise it’s wasting an opportunity.

“You might create short-term jobs for some time, but that’s not going to lead to the long-term foundation growth that I’m talking about. That’s going to require some intelligent allocation of the funds so you get the payoffs.”

The Obama administration will have to be picky the jobs, very cautious about how the taxpayer money is invested if we’re going to see those payoffs.

For The Environment Report. I’m Lester Graham.

Related Links

Candidates’ Promises for Great Lakes Cleanup

  • Both Obama and McCain say they support fixing the Great Lakes (Photo by Lester Graham)

Barack Obama and John McCain
are greening up their effort to win
some battleground states in November.
The Obama campaign has released a five
point plan for protecting the Great Lakes.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Barack Obama and John McCain
are greening up their effort to win
some battleground states in November. The Obama campaign has released a five
point plan for protecting the Great Lakes.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Great lakes advocates have been urging Washington to approve a 20 billion dollar restoration package for the lakes.

Illinois senator Obama says he’s willing to come up with an additional 5 billion dollars. He’d get the money by rolling back tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies.

Michigan Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow is helping promote Obama’s plan. She says it goes well beyond the Bush Administration’s unmet promises to pay for lakes cleanup.

“What we are seeing through this plan is actually putting the dollars into a trust fund so the dollars would be there.”

Senator Obama also wants a coordinator of Great Lakes programs to tackle toxic hot spots, invasive species and enforcing a compact to protect the lakes from large water withdrawals.

The McCain campaign says Senator McCain supports fixing the Great Lakes, but he’s not
ready to commit to an amount yet.

For The Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Paying for Peak Power

  • Advanced, individual meters that calibrate energy prices for each apartment. (Photo by Samara Freemark)

Energy prices are rising, and people are looking
for ways to conserve power. But some rate payers are
saving money without actually cutting their energy use.
Instead they’re changing when they use power. Samara
Freemark reports:

Transcript

Energy prices are rising, and people are looking
for ways to conserve power. But some rate payers are
saving money without actually cutting their energy use.
Instead they’re changing when they use power. Samara
Freemark reports:

It’s Saturday morning, and Ellen and Peter Funk are doing laundry.

The Funks used to do chores when most people do – they would get home from work and
switch on their dishwasher, dryer, and computer. They never really paid attention to
what that meant for their electricity bill.

“I never thought about electricity before. Never, never, never. Except when I got the bill.
But, you didn’t have any control. Because you paid the same price whether you used it at 2 in
the morning or 2 in the afternoon.”

But a couple of years ago the Funks started paying for their electricity differently than the
rest of us. They live in one of only a handful of buildings in New York City that
participate in a Real Time Pricing program.

Real Time Pricing charges consumers a different rate depending on when they use power.

The Funks know that running their dishwasher or turning on a light will cost more at 5
pm than at 10 pm. That’s because they get a color-coded chart every month that breaks
down their energy prices by time block.

“The green here is low. And the green starts at 10 o’clock at night and goes through 1
o’clock the following afternoon. The yellow is medium from 2 to 5 every day. And then
Monday to Friday there’s a high period from 5 to 9. That means stop. I think that’s why
they used red.”

It’s the same concept that makes cell phone minutes cost more during the day. Power
costs more when more people want to use it.

Real Time Pricing can save consumers a lot of money. Peter Funk says his family saves
hundreds of dollars a year by just shifting when they use energy.

“It’s an ongoing savings. We do these things because they make sense economically. We
don’t do it because we’re virtuous, we don’t do it because we’re better than our neighbor.
We just, this is the way we buy electricity because it makes sense.”

Real Time Pricing programs shift around power demand, so fewer people use energy
during peak hours. A Department of Energy study earlier this year estimated that Real
Time Pricing programs could cut peak energy use by about 15%.

That could actually help regions improve air quality and conserve resources by
decommissioning old, polluting power plants. Here’s how.

Most areas have a network of power plants. Usually only a few of those plants – the
newest, cleanest ones – are in use. But when energy demand peaks, the older, less
efficient plants kick in. And those plants spew a lot of carbon dioxide and other
pollutants into the air.

“It’s really not the number of power of power plants, but the ones you have to turn on at
critical times.”

Jim Genarro is a New York City councilman. He also chairs the council’s Committee on
Environmental Protection.

He says the plants that kick in when demand peaks are the worst in the system.

“We have a lot of reserve capacity in the city, but these are the older, dirtier plants, and
when you run those at peak capacity, it really means a lot of pollution.”

And Genarro says those plants cost even when they’re not producing energy. The city
has to maintain them all the time so they can switch on when needed. That wastes energy
and resources. It also means there are power plants that are only used a few weeks, or
even days, a year.

If power companies could cut peak energy demand, rarely-used, polluting plants could
become totally unnecessary. And many could be shut down.

For The Environment Report, I’m Samara Freemark.

Related Links

Fish and Wildlife Service to Cut Staff

More job cuts might be on the way at National Wildlife
Refuges, but the new Congress will apparently be taking a
closer look at reductions announced by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

More job cuts might be on the way at National Wildlife
Refuges, but the new Congress will apparently be taking a
closer look at reductions announced by the US Fish and
Wildlife Service. Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The fish and wildlife agency already has announced plans to
cut more than 250 jobs over the next three years. Further
cuts are expected soon.


The agency blames a flat budget and rising operational and
personnel costs, but Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility says visitors to the affected
refuges will find a less enjoyable experience at no real
savings in tax dollars:


“All the cutbacks in the refuge system are less than what
we’re spending in Iraq in a day. I mean to put it in some
perspective, we’re talking about literally millions of
dollars versus billions of dollars that are being
hemorrhaged out of other government operations.”


Democratic Congressman Ron Kind co-chairs a caucus on
wildlife refuges. He says he’ll try to address the job cuts
in the next federal budget.


For the Environment Report, I’m Chuck Quirmbach

Related Links

A Lighter, Brighter Christmas?

  • Author Bob Lilienfeld suggests that we find ways to express our love for each other in less material ways. (Photo by Denise Docherty)

The message from advertisers this holiday season seems to be: buy more because you and your family deserve it. Retailers are hopeful we’ll all spend just a little bit more to make the holidays shiny and bright. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham went to the shopping mall with a guy who thinks we ought to scale back our spending during the
holidays:

Transcript

The message from advertisers this holiday season seems to be, buy more because you and your family deserve it. Retailers are hopeful we’ll all spend just a little bit more to make the holidays shiny and bright. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham went to the shopping mall with a guy who thinks we ought to scale back our spending during the holidays:


Bob Lilienfeld is one of the co-authors of a book called Use Less Stuff. As you might guess, he’s an advocate of using fewer resources, including buying less stuff during the holidays. We asked him to meet us at a big shopping mall to talk about why he thinks buying less means more.


Lilienfeld: “I want you to go back to when you were a kid. Think about the two or three things in your life, the things that you did that made you really happy. I guarantee none of those have to do with physical, material gifts. They have to do with time you spent with your family or things you did with your friend. But, it wasn’t the time you said ‘Oh, it was the year I got that train,’ or ‘the year I got those cuff links,’ or ‘when I got those earrings.’ That’s the principle difference. We’re trying so hard to be good and to let people know that we love them, but the things that we love about other people and that they love about us have nothing to do with material goods.”


Graham: “There’s a certain expection during the holidays, though, that we will get something nice for the people we love and here at this mall as we’re looking around, there are lots of enticements to fulfill that expectation.”


Lilienfeld: “That’s true, but we’ve been led to believe that more is better, and to a great extent more gifts is not better than fewer gifts. Quality and quantity are very different kinds of thoughts and we’ve been led to believe economically that quantity is more important. But, in reality it’s the qualitative aspects of life that we long remember and really are the ones we treasure.”


Graham: “Now from the news media, I get the impression that if I don’t do my part during the holidays in shopping, that it’s really going to hurt a lot of Americans, the American economy. $220-billion during the holiday season. It’s 25-percent of retailers’ business. So, if I don’t buy or if I scale back my buying, won’t I be hurting the economy?”


Lilienfeld: “It’s always been 25-percent of retailers’ business, even if you go back 30 or 40 years, and that’s probably not going to change. It comes down to your thinking through what’s good for you, what’s good for your family, what’s good for your friends and not worrying so much about what’s good for the economy and what’s good for big companies.”


Retailers are expecting sales to be better this year than last year. So, that simpler lifestyle that Lilienfeld is talking about is not widespread enough to have any real impact on the overall shopping season. But apparently the economy isn’t strong everywhere.


We talked to some shoppers about their holiday shopping plans and the idea of simplifying things. Many of them told us that the economy was forcing them to cut back on gift buying…


Shopper 1: “Well, because of my limited budget, I have to buy, like – I have a list – and I have to buy one at a time, so, being pretty poor is being pretty simple. I’m kind of already living that way.”


Shopper 2: “I don’t need to celebrate Christmas by buying people gifts. And I can give people gifts all year long. And I — Christmas is kind of sham-y to me.”


Shopper 3: “This year, yeah, my family is like, ‘Don’t get me anything.’ I’m going to do something, but hopefully it will be smaller and less expensive and all that.”


Shopper 4: “Well, I don’t feel compelled to buy something because an economist says it’s my part as an American. And I think people are going to get smarter and smarter about how they spend their money and the almighty dollar.”


With the constant messages on television, radio, the Internet and newspapers to spend, there’s a lot of persusive power by advertisers to buy now and think about the cost later.


Since Bob Lilienfeld is such an advocate of a simpler lifestyle, it makes you wonder about his own shopping habits.


Graham: “Do you ever find yourself in the shopping mall, buying stuff for the folks you have on your Christmas list or your holiday list?”


Lilienfeld: “All the time. But, what I try to do is two things. One is think about the fact that more isn’t necessarily better. But the other thing I really try and do is look for gifts that are what I call ‘experiential’ as opposed to material. Tickets. Things where people can go to plays or operas or ball games so that they have an experience. Same thing with travel. I mean, if I could give my father a gift or if I could help him afford to go somewhere, like to see me and the kids, that gift is probably worth a lot more to both of us than if I just gave him a couple of bottles of wine.”


And Lilienfeld says you don’t waste as much wrapping paper when you wrap up tickets.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links