Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
Delegates from around the world
recently met in Poland for talks on
climate change. Lester Graham reports
talks started out optimistically, but
that didn’t last:
Transcript
Delegates from around the world
recently met in Poland for talks on
climate change. Lester Graham reports
talks started out optimistically, but
that didn’t last:
190 countries were represented at the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. The meeting set the stage for replacing the Kyoto Protocol next
year.
Martin Wagner is an attorney with the environmental group Earth Justice. He says,
the first week delegates were talking in the corridors about Barack Obama and U.S.
finally tackling climate change. One person called it the ‘Obama Buzz’. Wagner
says the end of the convention was a buzz-killer as Congressional staffers arrived.
“The staff members of Congressional representatives made statements clearly
intended to reduce any expectations that the U.S. would have the necessary be able
to get an agreement by the end of next year.”
That’s when the agreement is to be signed. The hope is Congress will figure out
what the U.S. is willing to commit to before the Climate Change agreement is
finalized.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
Delegates from 190 countries are
meeting in Poznan, Poland for the The
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Lester Graham reports
the delegates are concerned about the
economic costs of reducing the greenhouse
gases that cause climate change:
Transcript
Delegates from 190 countries are
meeting in Poznan, Poland for the The
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Lester Graham reports
the delegates are concerned about the
economic costs of reducing the greenhouse
gases that cause climate change:
With the world in an economic slump, it might be difficult to come to a new climate
change agreement.
But, Yvo de Boer, who’s the Executive Secretary for the convention says, you think
this is bad, wait ‘til you see what happens if nothing is done about global warming.
“This result in an economic failure on the scale of two world wars and the great
depression combined.”
Most countries are looking to see what the U.S. will do.
Angela Anderson is with the Pew Charitable Trusts Environment Group and a
speaker at the climate change convention. She says there’s talk about what the
Obama administration might do.
“There has been a discussion of the ‘Obama Buzz’ as it’s being called here in
Poznan. And you do hear lots of people in the corridors speculating on what the
negotiations will be like next year.”
This time next year is the deadline for an agreement to replace the expiring Kyoto
protocol.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Many Native American tribes say
they want to be part of the national debate
over climate change legislation. The
tribes at least have the attention of the
US EPA. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Many Native American tribes say
they want to be part of the national debate
over climate change legislation. The
tribes at least have the attention of the
US EPA. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
The tribes are worried about climate change. They think it might be affecting natural resources
like wild rice beds, fish habitat and animals they hunt to feed their people.
The tribes got some provisions into a major climate change bill that recently failed in Congress.
They’re now preparing their arguments for the next go-round on Capitol Hill.
Stephen Hartsfield is with the National Tribal Air Association. He says one thing the Native
communities want is more incentives to produce cleaner energy – such as solar power in the
Southwest US.
“ We have 300 days of sunshine a year – so it just makes logical sense for tribes and states and
communities in the Southwest to look at those opportunities.”
At a meeting with Great Lakes area tribes in Milwaukee, an EPA official said it’ll be up to
Congress and the Obama Administration to determine how much clout the tribes will have in the
debate.
President-elect Barack Obama says
America will open a new chapter in dealing
with climate change. Lester Graham reports
the Senator confirmed he will work toward
the plan he outlined during the presidential
campaign:
Transcript
President-elect Barack Obama says
America will open a new chapter in dealing
with climate change. Lester Graham reports
the Senator confirmed he will work toward
the plan he outlined during the presidential
campaign:
In a surprise video statement that opened the Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Los
Angeles, Obama said there’ll be no more denial or delay. As soon as he’s president,
America will help lead toward global cooperation on climate change, starting with a
federal carbon cap-and-trade program and making investments in clean energy.
Bill Kovacs with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce likes the investments idea, but
cautions restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions could hurt business.
“You need to be very sensitive, especially in a stressed-out economy that you could end
up imposing very huge costs on virtually everybody who participates in the economy.”
President-elect Obama said in the video statement he’ll work with business.
“Any company that’s willing to invest in clean energy will have an ally in Washington.”
Environmentalists applauded the statement. It’s the first on climate change since
Barack Obama won the presidency.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A net drags floating algae toward the boat
(Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
Guiding algae into the funnel
(Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
Blue Marble Chief Scientist James Stevens checks that the pump isn't sucking up animals, too
(Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
The residents of Dumas Bay hate the smell of algae rotting on their beach
(Photo by Ann Dornfeld)
Algae is attracting a lot of
attention and investment as an alternative
energy source. It grows quickly, contains
a lot of oil, and doesn’t take up valuable
farmland. Ann Dornfeld profiles one company
that’s trying to turn algae into fuel:
Transcript
Algae is attracting a lot of
attention and investment as an alternative
energy source. It grows quickly, contains
a lot of oil, and doesn’t take up valuable
farmland. Ann Dornfeld profiles one company
that’s trying to turn algae into fuel:
I’m standing on a pontoon boat floating just a few feet off the shore of a saltwater bay.
Two men are standing in the waist-deep water around the boat. They’re guiding a layer of
floating algae into a funnel that’s sucking the algae into a burlap bag.
(sucking sound)
It’s an algae harvest – and James Stevens is directing the process. He says they
have to be careful not to suck up young salmon or other animals along with the
algae.
“This junction can be turned on, and it allows me to feed water into a box where
then I can sort and make sure there’s no by-catch actually coming through the
system.”
Stevens is Vice President and Chief Scientist of Blue Marble Energy. It’s
a Seattle start-up trying to turn algae into fuel. Most algae-to-energy researchers
are growing algae in giant tanks. Blue Marble has a different plan: gather algae
that’s already growing in noxious blooms along coastlines.
(sound of waves)
Here in Dumas Bay, not far from Seattle, huge blooms of algae often rot in the
water. That process uses up oxygen and kills marine life. And when the dead algae
washes up on the beach, it creates a smell the neighbors hate.
Blue Marble President Kelly Ogilvie says these algae blooms are common
around Puget Sound – but that’s nothing compared to more polluted waterways
elsewhere in the world.
“And the most recent, I think, salient example was Qingdao, China. And the
bloom that occurred there was, I think, like 800 square miles and they pulled a
million tons out of the water and that is prologue to what is going to be happening
on coastlines across the planet.”
Warmer water can help algae grow, and some scientists think global warming is
contributing to an increase in gigantic blooms. Nutrients from sewage dumping
and fertilizer runoff from farm fields and lawns also help algae flourish.
“If you think about what is actually happening in our oceans, the algae bloom
crisis has just begun. And if we can find a way to turn that new crisis into a
solution to something else, by goodness we’re going to try and make a go at it.”
Most companies doing algae-to-energy research focus on creating biofuels for cars
or jets. Instead of liquid fuel, Blue Marble wants to convert algae into natural gas
and biochemicals.
Along with private investment, Blue Marble has a contract with the Washington
Department of Ecology to collect algae at two bays in Puget Sound.
The department’s Alice Kelly is watching today’s harvest from the beach. She says
her agency hopes this gets rid of the rotten egg smell neighbors have been
complaining about without hurting the ecosystem, the sealife near the shore.
“It’s very important to protect that habitat. So we’re walking a very fine line here
between trying to deal with the excess odor problem and protect the near shore.”
Blue Marble’s approach provides that protection, she says, because its operation is
based just offshore. They aren’t dragging equipment across the beach. And today,
it looks like the only by-catch has been other species of algae.
But some conservationists have big concerns about harvesting wild algae for fuel.
One of them is Kevin Britton-Simmons, a researcher at
the University of Washington. He says a lot of unnatural algae blooms could be
prevented by keeping fertilizer and other pollutants out of the water.
“I feel this is essentially exploiting the problem instead
of fixing it. I’m concerned if we allow a business to develop that’s dependant on
this problem, what’s gonna happen when we fix the problem? Will there then be
pressure for this business to harvest natural populations of algae?”
Natural blooms are a valuable part of the food web, and he says removing them
could rob marine life of a major food source. He says it’s also hard to distinguish
between natural algae blooms and those caused by pollution.
(sound of waves)
Back on Dumas Bay, Kelly Ogilvie says his company has netted nearly 10,000 pounds of algae from the two harvests it’s completed. The next step is to
use bacteria to break down the algae into natural gas and various chemicals.
If all goes as planned, Ogilvie says Blue Marble’s first batch of natural gas will be
ready any day now.
The Exelon nuclear power plant in Braidwood, Illinois (Photo by Lester Graham)
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Transcript
US corporations are struggling
with a new issue: reducing their carbon
footprint. They’re anticipating federal
requirements to reduce carbon outputs to
limit climate change. They’re moving now
so they won’t be at a competitive disadvantage.
One industry would seem to have an edge:
nuclear power. Nuclear doesn’t emit greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. But Shawn Allee reports the nation’s biggest nuclear
power company might not be able to take advantage
of this obvious option:
Recently I dropped in on a corporate meet-and-greet in Chicago.
I waded through through computerized presentations, and loads of free pastry and coffee,
and heard executives from Pepsi, IBM, and Staples talk about cutting their carbon
emissions.
The company most eager to talk was Exelon.
“We’re a very large power generator, we are also a very large utility company and
given our size, we have a special responsibility to help address the implications of
climate change.”
Ruth Ann Gillis is an executive Vice President at Exelon.
The company’s prepping for the day when the government makes them pay when they
put carbon into the atmosphere.
Gillis says Exelon is starting early, and plans to cut carbon emissions by fifteen million
tons a year by 2020.
“The reduction, the offset, the displacement of fifteen million tons is the equivalent
of taking three million cars a year off our roads and highways. And for nothing
more, everyone should be hopeful we are indeed successful, because it will make a
difference.”
To make that difference, Exelon will promote efficiency, cut the coal used in some of its
power stations, and slash its own energy use in buildings and vehicles.
I head to one of Exelon’s power plants to learn another way Exelon might cut its carbon
output.
Plant Manager Brian Hanson says the idea is to squeeze more power out of existing
nuclear power stations.
Brian Hanson: “One of our strategies of our 2020 Carbon iniative is to increase
power in some of our reactors, to take advantage of some of the flexibility built into
the power plants.”
Shawn Allee: “When you say flexibility what do you mean by that?”
Hanson: “They were built with extra pumps and systems that would let us operate
at higher power.”
Allee: “Do you need somebody’s permission to do that?”
Hanson: “As part of our license to operate the facility we’re only allowed to operate
at a certain power level, but to go above that we have to submit a formal
engineering study to the nuclear regulatory commission.”
But why upgrade? Why squeeze more power out of old plants? Why not build new
nuclear power plants, too?
Well, Exelon would like to. But it’s not easy.
Tom O’Neil is Vice President of New Plant Development at Exelon.
He says Exelon wants a new nuclear power plant in Texas.
But no one’s licensed a nuke plant for a dozen years and it’s common for projects to get
canceled.
So Exelon’s got some blanks to fill in.
“How much will it cost, can we finance it, what’s the political support, what do we
think the regulatory environment will look like. Those are all factors that generate
risk. Can we mitigate the risk and move forward with what would be a very
expensive construction project with some confidence that we can get it done, on time
and be profitable at the end.”
If the company pulls that off, it would make more electricity, but emit almost no new
carbon.
And its overall carbon footprint would shrink. Helping reduce emissions that cause
global warming.
But, even Exelon – the country’s biggest nuclear power company – might not be able to
turn to its core business to save the world.
Drier areas will
find a warmer climate makes things tougher, but other areas might benefit
(Photo by Patrick Tregenza, courtesy of the USDA Agricultural Research Service)
Farmers are starting to see signs
of climate change. One crop that’s more
susceptible to change than most is the wine
grape. Lester Graham reports not everybody
thinks that’s bad:
Transcript
Farmers are starting to see signs
of climate change. One crop that’s more
susceptible to change than most is the wine
grape. Lester Graham reports not everybody
thinks that’s bad:
Vineyards are likely to be especially affected by climate change.
Gregory Jones is a research climatologist at Southern Oregon University. He says
growing grapes for wine is always a tricky business, and climate change will make it
tricker.
Gregory Jones: “Pinot noir is produced in a cool climate and cabernet sauvignon in
a warm climate, and you cannot produce one in the other without having it affect
style, quality and flavor.”
So, grape growers across the nation are watching things closely. Drier areas will
find it tougher, but other areas actually might benefit.
Bill Hendricks is showing me his vines. Pinot grigio, cabernet franc, cabernet
sauvignon.
Hendricks says grape growers in central Michigan – where he is, Virginia, Missouri, California – they’re all beginning to see changes.
“They see it coming. You know, the record year of ’99—what, 2001 I also think.
Like, last year we were about ten days above norm. This year we’re four days above
norm.”
As the climate changes, some vineyards might have to switch to different varietals –
different kinds of grapes.
(sound of the peninsula)
More than 200 miles northwest of Hendrick’s vineyards, on a peninsula jutting into Lake Michigan, there’s a wine
growing area called Leelanau. It’s known for its white wines. It’s always been a little too
cool for red wine grapes, but things are changing.
Chalie Edson is the vintner at Bel Lago Vineyard and Winery. He says he doesn’t
want to call the warmer seasons global warming.
“Not being a climatologist, I’m going to answer
‘no.’ It’s tempting to say ‘Yes, yes. It’s getting warmer.’ Whether that translates into
overall increase of warmth in expected temperatures in the years to come, I think that’s still
somewhat speculative. But, I sort of hope that it happens.”
Yep, you heard right. Global warming would be beneficial to Edson. You might be
wondering, ‘why?’ Well, because this climate is better suited to white wines, and red wines
sell better.
“People come to northern
Michigan just like they come to any other winemaking region and they ask for reds.
We’ve made some really great progress in the last ten years in making reds as the
winemakers learn better how to utilize the fruit that we have here. And we’ve also
had a string of really warm vintages.”
But right now, Leelanua County is known for its white wines.
Climatologist, Gregory Jones says there’s a real question whether wine
consumers will be able to keep up with the changes.
“If you’re in a historic region that’s always produced pinot noir and all of a sudden
you really can’t do that, you know, because the climate’s changed, then you’re going
to grow merlot and you’re going to do it very well in that same place, but the
consumer has to be retrained.”
And so Burgandy wines might not come from Burgandy in the future, and wine
drinkers will have to try to keep up.
(sound of bottles clinking and price-tag gun clicking)
At Plum Market in Ann Arbor, Michigan, wine buyer Rod Johnson says climate
change has been a good thing for wine – so far.
“So, places like Michigan which traditionally have been too cold is suddenly seeing a
lot of different wines like pinot grigio and riesling, even pinot noir being able to be
grown here. So that’s beneficial. Same thing in Germany. They’ve had great year
after great year after great year in Germany where it used to be they were too cold.
When we get to the point that we’re hurting the wine business, I think there will be a
lot more hurt going elsewhere in the world.”
So if those dry California areas or Mediterranean areas get too warm and too dry for
wine grapes, that’ll probably be the least of their worries.
The two presidential candidates square off on their views about nuclear power (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)
Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:
Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.
Transcript
Both major party candidates for
president are promising a much greener
energy plan than the current administration.
But there are big differences in the ways
each would go about it. In the first part
of our series on shifting the nation’s
energy policy, Julie Grant takes a look
at the candidates’ views on nuclear power:
John McCain and Barack Obama both claim to take climate change, and our role in creating it,
seriously. When asked during the second presidential debate about their plans to stem climate
change during their first two years in office, McCain offered ‘straight talk’.
“What’s the best way of fixing it? Nuclear power.”
More nuclear power is the centerpiece of Senator McCain’s energy policy. He’s told audiences
about the power of nuclear to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
“Here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions.”
And he says the 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the U.S. make a big difference.
“These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent to nearly all the
emissions of all the cars we drive in America.”
John McCain wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors in the U.S.
Barack Obama, meanwhile, has focused more on renewable energy sources – wind, solar, and
on energy efficiency. But he says he’s not opposed to nuclear power.
“I favor nuclear power as one component of our overall energy mix.”
Senator Obama doesn’t have any plans to build new nuclear power plants. Obama doesn’t think
nuclear is he best option. It’s expensive. And he insists its operation and waste disposal must be
safe.
Senator McCain sees Obama’s use of ‘safe’ as a code word.
“Senator Obama will tell you, as the extreme environmentalists do, that it has to be safe. Look
we’ve sailed navy ships around the world for 60 years with nuclear power plants on them. We
can store and reprocess spent nuclear fuel, senator Obama, no problem.”
But safety and radioactive nuclear waste are still unsettled issues for many people.
Andrew Hoffman is professor of sustainable business at the University of Michigan. If the country
is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, he says it has to consider nuclear power.
But Hoffman says the issue of radioactive waste has to be resolved.
“And I think this is an area that the government has to step in. We have nuclear waste being
stored at facilities all over the country. That’s just not a smart way to handle this.”
The economics of nuclear are also uncertain. Lots of power companies lost their shirts back in
the 1970s, building nuclear plants.
Travis Miller is a stock analyst with the firm Morningstar.
“The financing costs are extreme. There is quite a bit of risk building new nuclear plants. They
take many years to build, cost billions of dollars to build, and without some kind of backing, I think
there are
Plenty of people in the utility industry who still remember those days when they did get in trouble
with these very expensive, risky project.”
Senator McCain says government subsidies should help build new nuclear power plants. But
Andy Hoffman at the University of Michigan says people and investors will still have concerns.
“The government can just sort of announce, we’re going to support nuclear, but there are other
things that have to come into play to make investments attractive to investors so that they’ll want
to do it.”
Hoffman says the government will have to persuade the American people nuclear power offers
more benefits than problems.
Barack Obama and John McCain give their views on renewable energy (Photo courtesy of the Commission on Presidential Debates)
Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:
Thanks to the Public Radio Exchange for providing the audio for this piece.
Transcript
Both major party candidates for
president say the nation’s economy and
national security are closely tied with
its energy policy. But they each have
a different plan to build the market for
alternatives to foreign oil and other
fossil fuels. In the next part of our
series about shifting the nation’s energy
policy, Julie Grant takes a look at the
candidates’ views on renewable power, like
wind and solar:
John McCain and Barack Obama both talk a lot about new
sources of energy on the campaign trail. They see
alternative energy as a way to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, to stem climate change, and even to boost the
economy.
Obama: “That’s why I’ve focused on putting resources into
solar, wind, biodiesel, geothermal.”
Every president since Richard Nixon has promised to reduce
America’s dependence on foreign oil – but our imports have
only increased since the 1970s.
So what are each of this season’s contenders proposing?
Obama has been talking about huge investments in clean
technologies and energy efficiency.
“My energy plan will invest 150-billion dollars over the next
ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create
up to five million jobs over the next two decades. Five
million jobs.” (applause)
Obama wants to retrain steel and auto industry workers for
jobs building wind turbines and solar panels.
Wind energy is already contributing energy to the nation’s
electricity supply. Solar isn’t quite there yet. It needs more
research.
Edward McBride is energy and environment correspondent
for The Economist magazine. He says Obama plans direct
government investments in wind, solar, hybrid electric cars,
and making homes and businesses more energy efficient.
“He imagines a situation where the government is much
more heavily involved, not just in providing incentives but
actually in spending money. And therefore presumably the
government is in a position to pick and choose more which
technologies move forward.”
Unlike Obama, Senator McCain doesn’t plan direct
government investment in clean technologies. Instead,
McBride says the McCain is proposing tax credits for those
who do invest in them.
“He wants more broad-based incentives. Rather than
different incentives for solar and wind and so on. He wants
one unifying tax incentive.”
But McCain plans some direct government subsidies – for
nuclear and clean coal.
And although McCain talks about building a green economy
on the campaign trail, he doesn’t always seem convinced
that clean energy will provide the power America needs.
Here’s McCain speaking in New Hampshire last December.
“Most every expert that I know says that if you maximize that
in every possible way the contribution that that would make
given the present state of technology, is very small. It’s not
a large contribution. Even if we gave it the absolute
maximum, wind, solar and tide, etc. The truly clean
technologies don’t work.”
McCain is counting on the investment markets to decide
winners and losers in the renewable energy business.
But the markets don’t usually look long term, at things like
climate change. So both presidential candidates are
planning to put a price on burning fossil fuels, such as oil
and coal, that add to the problems of climate change.
That alone could provide another incentive for clean
competitors.
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
The leader of a key panel on climate
change says upcoming international meetings
will have a lot at stake. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Transcript
The leader of a key panel on climate
change says upcoming international meetings
will have a lot at stake. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
The UN intergovernmental panel on climate change has developed a road map for holding down
emissions that contribute to global warming.
The panel will be part of meetings in Poland this December and in Denmark next year.
R.K. Pachauri chairs the panel. He says negotiators must build on progress made so far.
“And if we miss this out, then I think all the momentum that’s been generated would be lost and
essentially we’d be starting from scratch and we know what that means. It means several years
of delay.”
Pachauri says he’s worried that the current global economic problems will hurt efforts to protect
the earth against climate change. He says things like sea levels, weather patterns, crop
production, and the health of some kinds of animals hang in the balance.
Flags of member nations flying at United Nations Headquarters (UN Photo by Joao Araujo Pinto)
