legislation - The Environment Report

A Fight Over the Climate Change Bill

Groups are arguing over whether the climate change bill in the Senate will create jobs or kill them. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

America has a big decision coming up. We have
to decide whether we want to keep spending our
money on energy from fossil fuel sources such as
coal and oil. Or, do we want to invest more in
renewable energy such as solar, wind, and bio-fuels?
Lester Graham reports the next stage for the
national debate will be when the Senate considers
a climate change bill late this month:

Transcript

The U.S. House has already passed a version of the bill. It includes a carrot and stick plan to cap greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on them. It will mean fossil fuels will become a little more expensive to use. Revenue from the program will be invested in clean energy and energy efficiency projects.

President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce, Gary Locke, says using that money America can reinvent itself and, in the process, create jobs.

“The technological innovations needed to combat climate change, to reverse it, to mitigate it, can spawn one of the most promising areas of economic growth in the 21st century.”

Environmental groups believe that. And labor unions believe it. And some progressive businesses are counting on it. They’ve been joining forces in groups such as the Apollo Alliance, and then there’s the United Steel Workers Union and the Sierra Club’s Blue/Green Alliance.

Leo Gerard is the President of the United Steelworkers.

“We need a climate change bill that is focused on creating jobs and cleaning up the climate. With a lot of conservation, a lot of investments in the newest technologies, what we’ll end up doing is taking a huge amount of carbon out of the atmosphere and creating a lot of good jobs.”

Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make coal, gas and oil more expensive.

“This legislation is a job killer.”

Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers. He says the government should not penalize businesses that rely on cheaper fossil fuels.

“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”

Business says drop cap-and-trade. And just use the carrot. The government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in technologies such as nuclear power and carbon capture and sequestration for coal-burning industries.

So the two sides are rallying the troops.

The unions and environmental groups are urging their members to push for cap-and-trade for the sake of the planet and for the promise of green jobs.

Business groups are launching TV ad campaigns against it. Oil companies are using a front group called Energy Citizens to hold public rallies oppsing cap-and-trade. They raise the spector of high gasoline prices and higher electricity bills and throw in the threat of losing as many as 2.4 million jobs.

Ed Montgomery is President Obama’s Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers. He says a clean energy policy is not going to hurt the US, it’ll save it.

“Something’s gone wrong. Our manufacturing sector isn’t able, and hasn’t been able to compete and continue to create new and effective jobs. And what a clean energy policy opens up for us is a whole avenue forward. It’s a way to create both new jobs, to open up new avenues of competitiveness, the competitiveness that uses the strengths of our workers – who know how to make product.”

But first, the debate will devolve into shouting matches about whether global warming is real and, if it is, whether cap-and-trade will do anything to slow it. There will be distortions on both sides about the end of the economic good of the country, and the climatic end of the world as we know it.

And because of all the complexities, the arguments will leave a thoroughly confused public about whether we should use government policy to shift from reliance on carbon-emitting fossil fuels to banking more on renewable energy.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Job Killer or Job Creator?

Environmental groups and labor unions say the climate change bill will create green jobs. Some businesses disagree. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

The Senate sponsors of a climate change
bill say they need more time. Lester Graham
reports Senators Barbara Boxer and John
Kerry asked the Senate leadership to give
them until the end of the month before they
introduce the climate change bill:

Transcript

The details of the senate bill are still being worked out. The House version included a carbon cap-and-trade scheme to reduce greenhouse gases and raise revenue for clean energy projects.

Environmental groups and labor unions are in favor of cap-and-trade. Jeff Rickert heads up the AFL-CIO’s Center for Green Jobs.

“The climate change bill is a potential stream of revenue to really make the green jobs, the clen-tech industry a reality.”

Business groups say all carbon cap-and-trade will do is make energy more expensive.

“This legislation is a job killer.”

Keith McCoy is a Vice-President with the National Association of Manufacturers.

“So, if you’re a company that’s reliant on natural gas or oil or even coal in the manufacturing process, these companies suffer the most.”

Business suggests the government should just offer incentives for energy efficiency and invest in clean technologies.

The two sides are taking their arguments to the public this month.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Stimulating Science With Research Dollars

Some government scientists say right now could be the only time in their careers to make some some key environmental advances. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

We’re hearing more and more about federal
stimulus money being used to help laid-off
workers or repair bridges or roads. Shawn
Allee reports the government wants
stimulus money to move through a wish list
of environmental science projects, too:

Transcript

Department of Energy labs say stimulus dollar figures are staggering compared to what the government has been spending on science.

Take a federal renewable energy lab in Colorado.

Jeffrey Baker is a lab director there.

Baker says they’re learning to make ethanol out of plants other than corn. That project’s getting ten million dollars in stimulus money.

“The Recovery Act is allowing us to expand a project we already have, going to, in effect, double the capacity the nation has to do that research and development.”

Other Department of Energy labs got stimulus money for work on high-tech car batteries, smart energy grids, and radar to model global warming.

Some government scientists say right now could be the only time in their careers to make some some key environmental advances.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Climate, Health Care Bills Connected

The climate change bill is currently in the Senate, awaiting the Senators when they return from August recess. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

Experts are saying the fate
of the climate change bill
is tied to health care reform.
Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Experts are saying the fate
of the climate change bill
is tied to health care reform.
Mark Brush has more:

The climate change bill squeaked through the House of Representatives. And now it’s waiting for action in the Senate. But the Senate has full plate right now with health insurance reform.

And some experts are saying the fate of the health care bill will have a big impact on the climate change bill.

Nicky Roy with the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

He says if the Obama Administration manages to do well in the health care debate, that will carry over to the debate on climate change.

“On the other hand, if the health care rallies succeed in fatally wounding the whole healthcare process, I think that’s going to make it tough for energy and climate because it’ll show that that tactic has worked.”

Some lobbying groups are using the same tactics being used in the health care debate. We’re already starting to see some anti-climate change legislation rallies in big energy states of Texas and Colorado.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Is It Grassroots or Astroturf?

President Barack Obama speaks at a townhall meeting on healthcare reform. (Photo by Chuck Kennedy, courtesy of the White House)

Big industry is planning to target several
key US Senators who’ll vote on a climate
bill this fall. Lester Graham reports an
industry-funded group plans to hold 19
rallies at Senators’ townhall meetings:

Transcript

Rallies on health insurance reform can be pretty rowdy at times. It looks like you can expect the same over climate change legislation.

The American Petroleum Institute, and other big industry types formed a group called “Energy Citizens.”

They say the current climate change bill will mean higher energy prices and the loss of millions of jobs. A video on their website portrays everyday folks opposed to the idea.

“The principle of the government trying to help the environment is a good thing, but I don’t think this legislation is the best way to go about it.”

A memo from the American Petroleum Institute to oil company execs encourages getting those kind of people to townhall meetings. Environmental groups say it’s a fake grassroots movement.

A spokesperson for the Petroleum industry says oil companies are not against climate change legislation, just the climate legislation being considered by Congress.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Your Power Bill in the Future

The Energy Information Administration says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology. (Photo source: Frank C. Muller at Wikimedia Commons)

The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:

Transcript

The price we pay for power in the
future will depend on the kind of
power plants we invest in. That’s
according to a report that examines
proposed climate change regulations.
Shawn Allee has more:

The Energy Information Administration is the federal government’s crystal ball when it comes to energy policy.

The EIA looked at the House version of a big climate change bill. The Senate takes it up next month.

Forecast director John Conti says new regulations could cost each household between $12 and $227 more each year within a decade.

Conti says there’s a range because it’s not exactly clear how much it’ll cost to switch to low-carbon power sources, like nuclear.

“For most technologies, you have a good idea of how much they’re going to cost. Of course, we haven’t built a nuclear plant in twenty or so years and, as a result, there’re varying cost estimates and people can debate, I think, for a large extent, until that first plant is indeed built.”

Conti says power bills could also fluctuate based on whether we develop cheap low-carbon coal technology.

For The Environment Report, I’m Shawn Allee.

Investigating the Organic Label

Some organic watchdog groups say the National Organics Program has been too loose with its rules. (Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)

Congress wants to dig deeper into an ongoing investigation of the National Organics Program. The program puts the little green “USDA Organic” label on products. Mark Brush has more:

Transcript

Congress wants to dig deeper into an ongoing investigation of the National Organics Program. The program puts the little green “USDA Organic” label on products. Mark Brush has more:

Congress passed a bill that will put more money toward investigating the USDA’s organic program.

Some organic watchdog groups say the National Organics Program has been too loose with its rules.

Mark Kastel is with the Cornucopia Institute. He’s one of those critics.

“They have been accused by reputable independent auditors of having ignored the will of Congress in how they are managing the organic program – favoring large factory farms – favoring unscrutinized products being imported from China – all this competing with our family farmers here in the United States.”

Kastel says that’s not the way it’s supposed to work.

But he says the USDA organic label is still the gold standard. And most producers follow the law.

He and some leaders in Congress say an expanded review of the program will make sure that little green label keeps its credibility.

For The Environment Report, I’m Mark Brush.

Legislation to Make More Efficient Homes

The bill would require new homes to immediately be 30% more energy efficient. (Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)

This session of Congress has pledged to take on
the issue of climate change. A bill in the Senate
is already awaiting action. But the House has
already passed the sweeping Clean Energy And
Security Act. One piece of that bill could change
the way homes are built in this country. In short,
they’d use a lot less energy. Tamara Keith has more:

Transcript

The bill would require a re-write of building codes. New homes would immediately have to be 30% more energy efficient. And the requirements would keep getting tougher from there.

The idea is controversial. But for Alex Dean, building efficiently is just the way he does business.

“It’s building to a higher standard. And we really enjoy building fine projects for people who want it done right.”

Dean is the CEO of the Alexander Group, a home design, build and renovation firm in Maryland. He’s showing me around a green remodel.

(sound of key in door)

“This is the entry from the garage into the new addition.”

Dean and his team are putting an addition on a home in an upscale Washington, DC suburb.

He’s designed every detail with an eye to energy efficiency, starting with the insulation. He used a spray foam. It costs about twice as much as the insulation required by current building codes.

“You know, it’s worth it, and in the overall scheme of building the house, it’s not that much money.”

On this hot humid day, you can feel the difference the fancy insulation makes.

Keith: “It’s cooler than it is outside.

Dean: “Yeah, yeah.”

Keith: “And there’s no AC running in here right now.”

Dean: “No, not at all. And this building is directly in the sun. But that’s how effective this is. This is keeping some of the coolness from last night when it was in the 60s.”

That means he can install smaller heating and air conditioning units that use less energy.

The windows are double paned. The lights, all compact fluorescents or super efficient LEDs.

It’s projects like this one that make Bill Fay confident home builders will be able to handle greener building codes. Fay is the executive director of the Building Energy Efficient Codes Network.

“We know it’s achievable. And we know it’s achievable using affordable technologies. It’s just now a matter to have the resolve to do it.”

Past efforts at greening the building codes met with stiff opposition from home builders and failed to make it through congress.

Koteri Callahan is president of the Alliance to Save Energy and she says the stakes are high. Buildings are huge energy wasters.

“Every house and every office building that goes in the ground today is going to be around for decades and decades and in some cases centuries.”

But these days, the ground isn’t being broken on very many homes. The industry is in a serious slump.

Bill Kilmer is the head of advocacy for the National Association of Home Builders and he doesn’t want members of congress to forget about the industry’s struggles.

“Consumers certainly in the last year are stepping back and said, ‘what can we afford.’ And so we’re trying to take a mainstream, if you will, that says, ‘people want this.’ How can we get to that point, and how can we get there reasonably, and take afford-ability into account.”

Kilmer says the building industry is taking environmental issues seriously, and recently created a voluntary green building certification program.

But, he says the House bill moves too far too fast. He says builders would like until 2012 to meet the 30% efficiency goal.

“You really don’t have the equipment or the materials that are ready and ramped up to make the adjustments in the marketplace to bring those things to bear, without a tremendous cost burden that’ll be added on to the production of the housing and that obviously is going to be passed on to someone, and that’ll be the consumer.”

This question of affordability is a big one. And it seems like everyone has a statistic to make their point.

For The Environment Report, I’m Tamara Keith.

Climate Bill Debate Starts in the Senate

Democratic leaders are expected to bring a draft bill to the Senate before the August recess. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The giant climate change bill
squeaked through the House of
Representatives. Now the battle’s
beginning in the Senate. Rebecca
Williams has more on the debate:

Transcript

The giant climate change bill
squeaked through the House of
Representatives. Now the battle’s
beginning in the Senate. Rebecca
Williams has more on the debate:

Republican Senator Kit Bond said the climate change bill will be destructive to Americans.

“Impose new energy taxes on them, kill their jobs, punish the Midwest and South, help China and India and construct a new bureaucratic nightmare.”

The Obama Administration says doing nothing will cost us more.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu pointed out a recent MIT study predicting, with global warming, temperatures could rise as much as 11 degrees Fahrenheit.

“During the last Ice Age, when Canada and United States, down to Ohio and Pennsylvania, were covered year round in a glacier the world was only 11 degrees colder. A world 11 degrees warmer will be a very different place.”

Democratic leaders are expected to bring a draft bill to the Senate before the August recess.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Using Inaccurate Statistics Against Climate Bill

Opponents in the House argued last Friday that the climate change bill would make energy much more expensive. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)

The climate change bill heads to the Senate. In all likelihood, so will some inaccurate statistics. Lester Graham reports some opponents of the climate change and energy bill are still using numbers they’ve been told are wrong:

Transcript

Opponents in the House argued last Friday that the climate change bill would make energy much more expensive.

For example, Congressman Paul Broun, a Republican from Georgia, said it would hit low-income people especially hard.

“People who can least afford to have their energy taxes raised by – MIT says, by over $3100 per family.”

Several opponents used that $3100 figure. But, that’s just not correct.

In April we talked to the author of that MIT study, John Reilly.

“They’re really kind of just misinforming the debate and trying to scare people with numbers that really aren’t accurate.”

Reilly says he’s told the Republicans they’ve got the numbers wrong.

“The right number is actually $340 not $3100 or something.”

And a Congressional Budget Office analysis indicates the cost could be even lower.

For The Environment Report, I’m Lester Graham.

Tag: legislation

A Fight Over the Climate Change Bill

Transcript

Related Links

Job Killer or Job Creator?

Transcript

Related Links

Stimulating Science With Research Dollars

Transcript

Related Links

Climate, Health Care Bills Connected

Transcript

Related Links

Is It Grassroots or Astroturf?

Transcript

Related Links

Your Power Bill in the Future

Transcript

Related Links

Investigating the Organic Label

Transcript

Related Links

Legislation to Make More Efficient Homes

Transcript

Related Links

Climate Bill Debate Starts in the Senate

Transcript

Related Links

Using Inaccurate Statistics Against Climate Bill

Transcript

Related Links