Automakers will have to get into the electric and hybrid vehicle business to meet the new requirements. (Photo courtesy of the Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory, Warren Gretz)
The Obama administration has set new rules requiring cars and trucks to get better gas mileage. Tracy Samilton reports that
will make vehicles both greener and more expensive.
Transcript
The Obama administration has set new rules requiring cars
and trucks to get better gas mileage. Tracy Samilton reports that
will make vehicles both greener and more expensive.
In ten years, automakers will have to reach an average 35 and a half
miles per gallon for their combined car and truck fleet. To get
there, most will get into the electric and hybrid vehicle business, if
they’re not there already. But that technology is expensive. So
they’ll also make regular internal combustion engines more efficient.
Even that isn’t cheap. So who will end up paying for it all? You
guessed it. You and me.
Michael Omotoso is an industry analyst with J.D. Power and Associates.
“If we say we want a cleaner environment, and reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, one way or the other, it’s going to cost us.
Everyone has an opinion about how much more we’ll pay for vehicles
because of the rules.”
The Obama administration and environmentalists say about a grand. Analysts like Omotoso say it could be more like five grand.
President of Manomet consulting group John Hagan says the bottom line is that biomass can be carbon neutral ... if subsidies and policies are precise.(Photo courtesy of Shawn Allee)
State governments often mandate power companies to buy alternative energy.
They figure it’s worth having everyone buck up and pay extra since these don’t contribute carbon dioxide emissions that change the climate.But what energy sources should make the cut?
Shawn Allee found one is getting lots of scrutiny.
Transcript
State governments often mandate power companies to buy alternative energy.
They figure it’s worth having everyone buck up and pay extra since these don’t contribute carbon dioxide emissions that change the climate.
But what energy sources should make the cut?
Shawn Allee found one is getting lots of scrutiny.
Bob Cleaves heads up the Biomass Power Association.
He spends a lot of time pitching the idea that electricity made by burning wood is worth government help.
After all, he can’t sell the idea of biomass on price.
Electricity generated from wood had to compete with coal and natural gas and it became very difficult to operate these plants on a profitable basis.
Cleaves says other alternative energy sources are expensive, too, but biomass has extra benefits …
He says try running solar panels at night – biomass power plants run 24-7.
But Cleaves admits he’s got explaining to do when it comes to carbon emissions.
You know, from burning wood.
when you burn something you release CO2 …
For years, Cleaves could follow-up with a simple argument.
He’d just run through the carbon cycle idea you might recall from high school.
You know, you burn trees.
That releases CO2.
Then, as trees re-grow, they absorb that same carbon again …
These are carbons that are recycled into the environment in a closed-loop fashion.
This argument often won out.
Many states give biomass from wood subsidies, since they considered it carbon neutral.
The US House came close to doing the same thing last year.
But lately, biomass’ rep got into trouble.
Well, the carbon issue came up in the fall as a result of an article published in Science magazine.
The title of the article was “Fixing a Critical Climate Accounting Error.”
It challenged the idea that biomass power from wood or anything else is always carbon neutral.
Critics now use the article’s arguments against biomass subsidies.
“This policy is intended to reduce carbon emissions and it’s doing the exact opposite.”
This is Jana Chicoine, an anti-biomass activist from Massachussetts.
She says, sure, trees you cut for power now will grow back and then re-absorb carbon.
But not soon.
“It will create a pulse of carbon emissions that will spike for decades. Policy makers are telling us we are in a carbon crisis and that we have to reduce carbon emissions now.”
So, Chicoine says it makes no sense to subsidize biomass technology.
It’s going to harm public policy on clean energy. Those funds should be going to the truly valuable contributors to the energy problem like wind and solar, conservation and efficiency.
Well, Chicoine and other biomass critics won a temporary victory in Massachusetts.
The state was leaning toward subsidizing biomass power, but it held off a final decision.
It’s waiting for advice from an environmental consulting group called Manomet.
President John Hagan says people expect a simple answer: would a biomass industry in Massachusetts be carbon neutral or not?
“The last thing you want to hear a scientist say is, it’s complicated, but I’m afraid it is in this case.”
The latest research suggests some biomass power operations can be carbon neutral while others won’t be.
The best operations would use tree trimmings or waste wood like sawdust. That keeps more trees in the ground … absorbing carbon.
Biomass power plants prefer to use waste wood anyway, since it’s cheap.
But Hagan says maybe more biomass plants will all chase the same scrap wood.
Prices will rise … and suddenly standing trees start looking cheaper.
It’s like a puzzle, when you push on one piece, eighteen other things move.
Hagan says the bottom line is that biomass can be carbon neutral … if subsidies and policies are precise.
He says policies should work like scalpels.
But often, they’re simple … and work more like big axes.
The EPA has rescinded some safety constraints on rodenticides. Some fear this may harm children, because they might now be more likely to ingest rat poison. (Photo by Geovani Arruda)
Plaintiffs in a case before a New York Federal Court accuse the
Environmental Protection Agency of being too soft on protecting children
from poisonous rat pellets. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny
Lawton reports:
Transcript
Plaintiffs in a case before a New York Federal Court accuse the Environmental Protection
Agency of being too soft on protecting children from poisonous rat pellets. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jenny Lawton reports:
The poisonous pellets aren’t just tough on rats. Some environmentalists say they’re
injuring young children as well. The Natural Resources Defense Council says more than
fifty-thousand children in the U.S. below the age of six have been sickened by rat poison
this year. In 1998, the EPA made a rule that required manufactuers to put a bitter taste
and a special dye in the pellets to keep children from eating them.
But three years later, the agency rescinded that mandate.
It said it had come to a “mutual agreement” with the rodenticide industry that those precautions
might be making the pellets less effective. But critics say that has put kids back in harm’s way.
Especially those living in low-income areas where rat infestation is a common problem.
Although the EPA won’t comment directly on the case, an agency report from 2001 argued that
when rodenticides are used correctly, and children are supervised around them, fewer accidental
ingestions happen.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jenny Lawton.
Automakers will have to get into the electric and hybrid vehicle business to meet the new requirements. (Photo courtesy of the Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory, Warren Gretz)
