Senator John A. Barrasso from Wyoming (Photo courtesy of the United States Congress)
Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:
Transcript
Conservative bloggers, radio talk show hosts, and even Republican leaders are making a big deal about a White House memo. Lester Graham reports the White House seems surprised by the furor:
During a hearing Republican Senator John Barrasso waved around a memo he said was proof the Obama administration was moving ahead with the regulation of global warming gases without having the science to back it up.
“It’s here, nine pages. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings are political not scientifica (sic) — not scientific.”
The memo was part of a larger document from the White House Office of Management and Budget.
It’s routine to get opinions about potential regulations from different agencies.
We called the Office of Management and Budget repeatedly, asking which agency wrote the unsigned memo. No one would go on tape, but instead referred us to their blog – which basically said: this opinion is not a big deal; the EPA is operating under the law, and the science backs up any potential regulation of greenhouse gases.
If the global temperature goes past 2 degrees Celsius - the danger point - we might not be able to get the climate back to a more natural state (Photo courtesy of NASA)
Two new studies in the journal Nature are trying to answer: how much is too much when it comes to global warming? Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
Two new studies in the journal Nature are trying to answer: how much is too much when it comes to global warming? Rebecca Williams reports:
These studies look at what we’d have to do to keep global temperatures from rising more than two degrees Celsius.
That’s considered the danger point for climate change.
Past that point we might not be able to get the climate back to a more natural state.
These papers suggest that we’ve got to cut back on burning fossil fuels a lot. They say by 2050, countries like the US need to cut emissions by more than 90% below what they were in 1990.
The White House and Democratic leaders in Congress have proposed cutting emissions by less than that – 80%.
The researchers make the point… of all the coal and oil and natural gas in the ground that we know about, we can only burn one fourth of that amount by 2050.
We’re burning it at a much faster rate.
The studies say, at the current rate, we could be past that tipping point in less than 15 years.
More bio-fuels, like ethanol from corn, will be blended into petroleum (Photo by Scott Bauer, courtesy of the USDA)
The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:
Transcript
The Obama administration wants us all to use more bio-fuels in our vehicles. Lester Graham reports on a proposed rule released by the White House:
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, says this will mean blending more bio-fuels into petroleum.
“Under the proposed rule, the total volume of renewable fuel ramps up to a maximum of 36-billion gallons by 2022.”
But, for the first time, renewable fuels also will have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Bob Dinneen heads up the ethanol trade-group, the Renewable Fuels Association.
He says the carbon footprint of ethanol is 61% smaller than petroleum. But the government wants to include indirect effects – such as reduced corn exports leading other countries to slash and burn rain forest to grow corn.
“We believe when that is better understood, ethanol is going to continue to demonstrate significant carbon benefits.”
The government will hear about their concerns and others during a 60-day comment period.
Economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what (Photo courtesy of aoc.gov)
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Transcript
President Obama and some leaders in Congress want to take on global warming by cutting back on carbon dioxide. The big plan is called carbon cap and trade. If the plan passes, economists say there’s no doubt your bills will go up, though there’s debate about how much. Mark Brush reports on one of the biggest sticking points in these carbon cap and trade plans:
Under some of the cap and trade plans, oil and gas companies would have to buy pollution permits.
But these companies want them for free.
They say if they’re forced to pay, they’ll have to pass the cost onto you and me.
But economists say if a cap and trade plan passes, energy prices will go up no matter what.
That’s because things like coal, oil, and natural gas will be restriced.
And they say that’s what drives prices up.
Chad Stone is the Chief Economist for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
He says if pollution permits are bought at an auction, the money can be passed onto you and me. But it’s different if they’re just given away for free.
“If you don’t auction, you don’t have any revenue and consumers only get a hit to their budgets.”
Stone says if the pollution permits are auctioned, you could be getting a check in the mail or a tax credit to help you pay for higher energy bills.
These Suzukis at Ken Butman's dealership, which were in high demand last year, are now sitting unsold (Photo by Samara Freemark)
Chances are, you haven’t bought a new car this year. Auto sales are down across the board – including in the small car and electric-gas hybrid markets. Now some dealers and automakers are proposing a way to move some of those cars: increase the gas tax. Samara Freemark explains why the same people who sell cars might want to make driving them more expensive:
Transcript
Chances are, you haven’t bought a new car this year. Auto sales are down across the board – including in the small car and electric-gas hybrid markets. Now some dealers and automakers are proposing a way to move some of those cars: increase the gas tax. Samara Freemark explains why the same people who sell cars might want to make driving them more expensive:
It was almost exactly this time last year that Ford dealer Ken Butman
traded in his pickup for a Suzuki hatchback.
His Ann Arbor, Michigan
dealership had been selling Suzukis for a couple of years. But they got
really popular last spring when gas prices jumped. Butman ordered a big
shipment to keep up with the demand.
“These are the Suzukis. These little cars get good gas mileage. And
they’re so cute. Look at them. Look at this one here. It’s got a little
rack for your skis. Look at
that.”
But those cars – the ones Butman ordered a year ago – most of them are
still here. They’re still sitting on his lot. Not moving.
“It was strange because they were so hot. For awhile there you couldn’t
give a big car away. And everybody was rushing to the small cars. And then
just as quickly, about when the price of gas came down again, we saw a
complete reversal. Like a light switch. That’s how fast it cut off.”
It’s been like that all over the country. Dealers who last year had
waiting lists for hybrids and small cars suddenly have a lot of extra
inventory. Sales of hybrids are way down from last April, mostly because
gas costs about half what it did last year.
Brett Smith is an auto analyst with the Center for Automotive Research. He
says consumers only really care about fuel economy when gas prices are
high. When gas hits about 4 dollars a gallon, consumers switch to fuel
efficient cars. When prices drop again, so do sales of efficient cars.
“Look at what’s happened every time we’ve had an energy crisis. We’ve
gone to smaller cars for a couple of years, and then the consumer has gone
back to larger cars. Why? Because at that fuel price they can get away with
it, they can justify it.”
It’s a real problem for dealers. It also worries auto manufacturers who
have poured money into developing hybrids and have a lot of new models due
to come out this year.
And that’s why some people who sell cars have begun to push for
increasing the gas tax.
Dealers and auto executives might not seem like the first bunch to line up
behind a tax hike. Traditionally they’ve lobbied hard against anything
that makes driving more expensive.
But a high tax – and therefore, higher gas prices – could get all those extra
hybrids moving again.
Michael Jackson is the CEO at AutoNation. That’s the
nation’s largest chain of dealership.
Jackson wants to see gas at four
dollars a gallon – the figure at which many analysts say consumer behavior
changes. And he thinks the government can keep prices at that magic number
with a floating tax.
Auto makers have been a little more cautious. But some top executives at
American companies have called Jackson’s ideas ‘smart’ and ‘worth
looking into’.
Smith says they believe that higher gas taxes could
stabilize the market for fuel efficient cars – making investment in new
technologies a safer bet.
“The car companies will rarely come out and loudly say, things like, ‘we
think there needs to be a gas tax.’ But almost all of them will say on the
side, if you want people to drive more fuel efficient cars, the best way to
do it is a gas tax.”
For now, though, it might not take a big tax to bring gas prices back up.
Oil trader Anthony Grisanti is the president of GRZ Energy. He says an
economic recovery would do pretty much the same thing.
“Shouldn’t be any doubt about it, once the economy picks up, say,
beginning of next year or year after that, you’re going to start to see oil
prices go higher.”
And that means prices at the pump would go up too.
Proposing higher gas taxes – especially of a couple of dollars a gallon – can
mean career suicide for politicians. So a big hike in the gas tax seems
iffy. But if gas prices rise as the economy recovers, dealers might see
those fuel efficient cars move off the lot again.
The coal industry hopes the federal government will help them find a way to catch and store the carbon coming from smokestacks.
The coal industry got hit with expensive
pollution restrictions almost two decades ago. Now, the government’s considering putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Coal companies think they have a technological solution in a test project called FutureGen. In the
second part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they
have such high hopes for it:
Transcript
The coal industry got hit with expensive
pollution restrictions almost two decades ago. Now, the government’s considering putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming. Coal companies think they have a technological solution in a test project called FutureGen. In the
second part of our series on the future of coal, Shawn Allee looks at why they
have such high hopes for it:
The last time the federal government put a price on coal pollution was in 1990.
Power plants had to start paying for sulphur dioxide that came out of smoke stacks and caused acid rain.
To clean up, many burned cleaner coal.
That was bad news for Illinois miner Chris Nielsen.
He happened to mine some of the dirtiest coal.
“A good portion of the economy around here was built on coal industry. And coal mining jobs not only paid a good wage, they had terrific benefits. And as the industry went soft, people lost the best jobs they ever had.”
Cleanup technology improved, but it took nearly two decades to make burning the highest-sulpher coal economical again.
Nielsen says today, coal executives worry they’ll lose profits if the government prices carbon dioxide.
And coal miners worry they’ll lose jobs again.
The industry wants new plants that do two things: first, they capture carbon dioxide while burning coal, and then bury, or sequester this carbon dioxide – so it stays out of the atmosphere.
Nielsen says there’s a plant like that in the works, it’s called FutureGen.
“We can burn the coal in a clean, environmentally friendly manner. The FutureGen project where they were going to sequester the carbon dioxide was a terrific opportunity to show that.”
Well, Nielsen’s jumping the gun.
FutureGen hasn’t proved anything; it’s not even built.
The coal industry and the government were supposed to design and fund FutureGen, then build it in Central Illinois.
The government and coal companies fought over how much the plant would cost but now, it’s likely to move forward.
Even with a sketchy history though, the industry’s got almost no choice but to be hopeful for FutureGen.
The industry wants carbon dioxide capture and sequestration to work – otherwise, it’s gonna pay big for carbon pollution.
Not everyone’s so confident in the technology.
“We can not depend on carbon capture and sequestration to achieve greenhouse gas emissions reductions because we don’t know whether it’s going to work.”
That’s Ron Burke, with the Union of Concerned Scientists.
He says FutureGen is worth testing but it shouldn’t distract us from technology we know is low-carbon.
“There are ways to meet the greenhouse gas reductions targets that we need to meet without carbon capture and sequestration. We can do it, it’s primarily through in investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency in the near term.”
There’re energy researchers who aren’t so sure enough renewable energy like wind and solar will be available soon enough.
One is of them is Ernest Moniz at MIT.
“We have a ways to go for let’s say, solar, to scale up. Right now, it’s less than point 1% of our electricity.”
Coal generates nearly half our electricity.
Moniz says it won’t be easy to replace, but it might be possible to improve it.
He says its likely carbon dioxide capture and sequestration can work technically.
But he says we need to build FutureGen to answer whether it works efficiently and economically.
“Well, if we are going to establish a new technology, like sequestration, and be able to have it not only demonstrated but then deployed and implemented, that means we would need to start, preferably yesterday, but at worst, today.”
For Moniz, FutureGen could be clean coal’s first major test – not just of whether it works – but whether it’s too expensive.
A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:
Transcript
A regional carbon cap-and-trade program was supposed to be a model for the nation. Lester Graham reports now environmentalists are hoping it doesn’t set a bad example for the federal government:
Ten northeastern states have been working for years on an agreement to reduce the emissions that cause global warming.
The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative limits the amount of carbon dioxide power plants will be allowed to emit and puts a price on carbon allowances.
But, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, is changing the rules for his state.
The New York power generators complained existing contracts don’t include all the costs of the allowances. So, Governor Paterson plans to give those power generators some free allowances. That puts the other nine states’ power companies at a disadvantage.
Luis Martinez is with the environmental group the Natural Resources Defence Council.
“You know, I’m wishing, I’m hoping that he changes his mind once he realizes how important this is not only for the people of New York, but as a precedent for federal policy-making.”
Martinez hopes the other governors in the Northeast don’t follow Paterson’s example.
Artist's concept of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory. The satellite crashed into the ocean on Tuesday, February 24th, 2009.
(Photo courtesy NASA Jet Propulsion Library)
(NOTE: THE SATELLITE FEATURED IN THIS STORY CRASHED INTO THE OCEAN ON TUESDAY, FEB. 24TH)
Drive your car. Mow your lawn. Heat your house. It all puts climate changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But not all of the carbon dioxide stays up there. Vincent Duffy reports scientists at NASA hope a new satellite will help them solve the mystery of where some of that CO2 goes:
Transcript
(NOTE: THE CARBON SATELLITE CRASHED INTO THE OCEAN ON TUESDAY, FEB. 24TH)
Drive your car. Mow your lawn. Heat your house. It all puts climate changing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. But not all of the carbon dioxide stays up there. Vincent Duffy reports scientists at NASA hope a new satellite will help them solve the mystery of where some of that CO2 goes:
People worried about climate change pay a lot of attention to carbon dioxide.
It’s one of the chief causes of climate change. And people put a lot of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere, almost 8 billion tons a year.
That has former Vice President Al Gore worried. Here he is testifying before
Congress last month –
“Our home, earth, is in danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the
planet itself of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for
human beings.”
If we are in danger, then scientists need a good handle on what happens to
all that carbon dioxide.
About half of the CO2 created by humans is absorbed back into the earth by
what scientists call ‘carbon sinks.’ Scientists know half of the absorbed
carbon dioxide goes into the oceans, and the other half is sucked up by
plants. But scientists don’t know which plants are absorbing the most carbon
dioxide, and how the CO2 travels there.
The scientists at NASA hope a new satellite, called the Orbiting Carbon
Observatory, will help them answer those questions.
David Crisp heads up the project. He says measuring carbon dioxide levels
from the ground doesn’t provide enough information to know where the
CO2 actually ends up.
“But from space we can actually make much more detailed measurements,
make a snapshot of the carbon dioxide distribution in the atmosphere. That
will give us much more information about where the carbon dioxide is and
from that we can infer where the sources are and where the sinks are.”
Right now it’s a bit of a blur. Anna Michalak is a professor at the University
of Michigan and part of the NASA team. She says to track what’s going on
with all the CO2 on the earth is like trying to figure out how cream went into
a cup of coffee.
“If I give you a cup of coffee, and I pour cream into the cup of coffee, and I
ask you what’s going to happen when I start stirring, it’s pretty easy to
predict that you’ll have a creamy cup of coffee. But what we do instead is
someone hands us a creamy cup of coffee and asks us, ‘Did we pour the
cream in on the left side or the right side, and did we pour the cream in five
minutes ago or ten minutes ago?’ And you can imagine that’s a much more
difficult question.”
Michalak says the satellite observatory will help answer that difficult
question, and help us understand how plants may react to carbon dioxide in
the future, as the earth’s climate changes. She says right now plants seem to
be absorbing more CO2 than ever before.
“And we have no guarantee that this is going to continue in the future. And
so you can imagine that something that has such a high value, there is an
interest in us knowing how predictable and how reliable this service is to us.
Because the cost for us to replicate anything resembling that is just
astronomical.”
The satellite will also answer other questions about climate change. Things
like which countries emit the most CO2.
Jiaguo Qi studies climate change at Michigan State University. He says the
satellite may show that people concerned about the cost of reducing green
house gasses may unfairly blame the United States and other developed
nations.
“Media report that North America is primarily responsible for global
warming. But we don’t know how much carbon dioxide other countries are
emitting, because we donít have good measure. This one will tell us who is
emitting and how much they are emitting instead of just blaming us.”
And the data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory might show that it’s not
just the forests and jungles that help keep climate change at bay. It might
also be forests and farmland in the United States, and your lawn, and even
golf courses.
The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes. (Photo by Ben VonWaggoner)
Eleven Northeastern states are working together to create a new fuel standard that will mean lower greenhouse gases.
Julie Grant reports that means, when you fill up your car in those states, the gas won’t be quite as bad for the environment:
Transcript
Eleven Northeastern states are working together to create a new fuel standard that will mean lower greenhouse gases.
Julie Grant reports that means, when you fill up your car in those states, the gas won’t be quite as bad for the environment:
The partnering states want to reduce the amount greenhouse gases coming from car tailpipes.
Ian Bowles is Secretary of Energy with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection.
He says the states would prefer that the federal government take the lead on this issue, but they’re doing what they can to limit carbon emissions from cars and trucks as soon as possible.
“If everyone waits and sits on their hands until there’s a global agreement, it’s going to take a long time to get anything done.”
Bowles expects the eleven-state agreement to spur investment into new types of ethanol and biofuels. And he says that will mean new jobs in science, engineering, and at fuel refineries.
“We’ll be creating a much bigger market for biofuels. Jobs will get created and greenhouse gasses will be cut.”
The states expect to have a legally binding agreement on the low carbon fuel standard by the end of the year.
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Transcript
We can expect Congress will take up a carbon
cap-and-trade bill soon. That would make
greenhouse gases a commodity. The United
States Climate Action Partnership wants to
know the rules of the carbon trading game
sooner rather than later. US CAP is made
up of businesses such as GE, automakers,
some power companies and environmental groups.
Other business leaders say a carbon cap-and-trade
program will only increase the cost of everything.
Dan Lashoff is with the Natural Resources Defense
Council, one of the US CAP members.
The Environment Report’s Lester Graham asked him
why the companies in US CAP would want Congress
to come up with a cap-and-trade program now?
Dan Lashoff: The opportunity that we have, right now, is to, first of all, invest
billions of dollars in the economic stimulus package – which the Congress will be
taking up in the next couple of weeks, that President Obama has made clear he
wants to see a substantial portion of that investment go into clean energy
technologies: insulating homes, building a smart grid to carry renewable energy
around the country. So, there’s an immediate step that needs to take place to
get investment flowing, to jump-start the green energy economy that we need.
That should be quickly followed with the type of comprehensive climate policy
that US CAP has called for, because that will guide longer-term investments, it
will mobilize private capital that is needed to build the clean energy future that we
need to have. And that will put people to work installing wind turbines, installing
solar systems, insulating homes, insulating schools. And keep the investment
flowing, and actually create an export opportunity for companies that are making
clean and efficient energy systems that the world is going to increasingly
demand.
Lester Graham: President Obama has talked a lot about the green economy and
green-collar jobs that you just mentioned, but will those jobs actually offset the
economic pain that a cap-and-trade program is expected to cause?
Lashoff: Well, first of all, you have to realize, if we passed a cap-and-trade bill
tomorrow, the actual limits would not kick in until 2012 at the earliest, and, by that
time, hopefully, the economy is really moving forward. So, what the value of
passing the legislation now is that it sets the long-term agenda, it sets the
strategic agenda that’s going to reduce our emissions, and it mobilizes
investment flows. The actual price signal that is needed to discourage global
warming pollution actually wouldn’t kick in for a couple of years, and that actually
works quite well with the timing, that is appropriate given the current economic
crisis.
Graham: The 80% emissions reduction below 2005 levels by 2050 is exactly
what President Obama has suggested we do, but there still are enough
Republicans who hold enough seats in the Senate to block cap-and-trade if they
wanted to. What are the chances of having legislation like this passed?
Lashoff: Well, I’m very optimistic that with the momentum that the US CAP
proposal delivers, the strong business support from at least a significant portion
of the business community, certainly not universal, that we can move forward. It
certainly will require a bi-partisan effort. There will need to be Republicans
joining the Democratic majority in the Senate as well as in the House to enact
legislation. I think we can do that. I think that this proposal provides a lot of
insight into the types of provisions, in addition to the cap itself. Things like
energy efficiency investments that will hold down the costs for consumers,
approaches to dealing with concerns of the economic impact – that chose a
pathway to get legislation enacted, hopefully in 2009.
Senator John A. Barrasso from Wyoming (Photo courtesy of the United States Congress)
