Natural gas companies pump chemicals underground to loosen up the gas and get it to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
The federal government is looking into whether natural gas drilling is contaminating drinking water. Before that study’s done, Congress might step in and tighten regulations now. Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
The federal government is looking into whether natural gas drilling is contaminating drinking water.
Shawn Allee reports, before that study’s done, Congress might step in and tighten regulations now.
Natural gas companies pump chemicals underground to loosen up the gas and get it to the surface.
It’s called hydraulic fracturing.
There’s debate about whether the chemicals poison water that’s underground, too.
Amy Mall tracks this issue for the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group.
She says Congress might regulate this drilling through the Safe Drinking Water Act.
“What the legislation would do is make sure there’s a minimal federal floor of protection. So if your state has strong regulations, probably nothing would change, but if your state does not have strong regulations and they’re too weak, then under this legislation, your state would have to raise their standards.”
The natural gas industry points out the U-S Environmental Protection Agency already studied drilling back in 2004, and Congress decided there was no need for regulation.
Congressional critics suspect that study was biased in favor of industry.
Lisa Jackson is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency officially found global
warming gasses such as carbon
dioxide are a threat to human
health. Mark Brush reports
three states are challenging
that finding:
The EPA says it has a duty to regulate greenhouse gasses to protect us from global warming.
The state of Texas, Virginia, and Alabama have filed legal challenges to try to stop the EPA. They say the coming regulations will be bad for the economy. And they call into question the science that EPA based its decision on.
Here’s the Texas attorney general – Greg Abbott:
“The information on which the EPA relies can neither confirm nor deny that there has been global warming, or that temperatures have risen.”
The EPA says it’s evaluated all the science available for the last ten years, and that the evidence is quote “compelling” that climate change is real – and that it’s a threat to human health and welfare.
Those three states challenging the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gases are countered by sixteen other states supporting the EPA’s decision.
Renewable energy groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:
Transcript
Renewable energy groups are
calling on the federal government
to do more to support their
industries. They want the
government to set standards
for where the country gets
its power. Mark Brush reports:
The groups say they want the federal government to tell power companies that more power has to come from renewable energy. Most power companies in the country are basically regulated monopolies.
Denise Bode is the president of the American Wind Energy Association. She used to work as a public utility regulator. Bode says it’s up to the government to ask one question when they regulate these monopolies.
“What’s in the public interest? And, you know, often times as a state public utility commissioner I would make the determination as to what kind of power generation that we would authorize our utilities to do and what was in the public interest.”
Bode says it is in the public interest to get more power from cleaner, renewable sources.
Some big utilities oppose having one federal standard – and there are a lot reasons why they oppose it – but one of them is that states are already handling it. There are 30 states that have some kind of renewable targets in place.
The advertisements are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.
(Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:
Transcript
Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski
wants to take away the Environmental
Protection Agency’s power to
regulate greenhouse gases. She’s
introduced a resolution that would
do that. Now, a new radio ad
campaign is urging Senators to
oppose the resolution. Samara Freemark has the
story:
The ads call Murkowski’s resolution the “Dirty Air Act”. They’re sponsored by a coalition of environmental and faith-based advocacy groups.
Eric Sapp is with the American Values Network, which co-sponsored the ads. He says the spots are running in eight states whose Senators could be swing voters on the resolution.
“They’re moderate Democrats and Republicans who have been getting a lot of pressure to vote the wrong way on this bill. And our goal in these is to make sure the people know what’s going on, and then to let the Senators know that we will be able to stand behind them if they vote the right way.”
It’s not clear exactly when Murkowski’s resolution will move forward – especially now that a major snow storm is blanketing Washington and disrupting the Senate calendar.
Researchers say science is starting to show that people can become addicted to sugar, fat and salt.
(Photo courtesy of the National Cancer Institute)
More people are becoming concerned
about the growing problems of obesity
and diabetes. Some even compare
foods that contribute to these health
problems to nicotine and tobacco. In
the first part of our series on food and
health, Julie Grant reports on efforts
to regulate foods that are bad for you
in the same way as cigarettes:
Transcript
More people are becoming concerned
about the growing problems of obesity
and diabetes. Some even compare
foods that contribute to these health
problems to nicotine and tobacco. In
the first part of our series on food and
health, Julie Grant reports on efforts
to regulate foods that are bad for you
in the same way as cigarettes:
Yale University professor Kelly Brownell has been watching for a long time as Americans gain weight. He says obesity and diabetes are creating debilitating health problems. And the food industry is largely to blame.
Brownell says science is starting to show that people can become addicted to sugar, fat and salt: the same stuff that’s in most processed foods.
“Certain parts of the brain get activated by food constituents, particularly sugar, that look like the same activation that occurs with heavily addictive substances like nicotine, alcohol or morphine.”
Brownell says the science is not definitive at this point. And he doesn’t expect it will ever show that donuts are as addictive as cigarettes. But he expects something similar. And so, he’s advocating that society treat these treats the same way as cigarettes: tax them. And put the money toward prevention programs.
Brownell is specifically pushing for a tax on sugary drinks. He says this approach worked for smokes, so why not soda pop.
“Oh, there’s no question about it. The rate of people smoking in the United States is about half of what it was in the 1950s and 60s. And that’s attributable to a number of things. But economists have figured that the taxes were the single most effective contributor to that.”
Brownell says California has held hearings on the idea, the New York state legislature is considering a tax on sugary drinks, and New Hampshire has just introduced legislation. And he says that’s just the tip of the iceberg. More sugar taxes are on the way.
We tried to reach the food industry’s major trade group: the grocery manufacturers association to comment for this story – but they didn’t respond. We also didn’t hear back from General Mills – a company that recently announced plans to lower the sugar content in its cereals.
We did speak with John Feldman. He’s an attorney who represents some of the major food manufacturers. He says they make foods that have salt, fat and sugar because people like them.
“There are products that people want to buy because they taste good or they are fun or they are attractive, of course. If they didn’t sell, people wouldn’t make ‘em.”
Feldman says any laws limiting or taxing certain foods must be based on scientific evidence: facts that show the foods are causing health problems. He says science hasn’t proven that with sugar, salt and fat.
Consumers at one Ohio supermarket also want sugary drink tax idea to fizzle out. College student Alicia Cobb is looking at the sweetened teas. She says beverages are only one of the reasons Americans are overweight.
“Well, so is McDonalds and Burger King and not working out and being a lazy bum.”
“How they think people supposed to live, taxing everything?”
Marie Holloway has a 12-pack of ginger ale in her cart. She says she’s not supposed to have sugar – because her doctor is concerned she’s developing diabetes.
“I only get a small income. By the time my doctor takes all of my money for copayments and doctor bills and stuff then I don’t have anything left because they’ve taxed everything so high. I think it’s terrible.”
Some TV pundits call the soda tax part of the Obama nanny state – telling people what’s good for them and limiting their choices. But those who support the sugar beverage tax say it doesn’t take away choice: it just helps people break what might be an addictive habit. One that’s costing everyone lots of money in health care costs.
In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were 35% higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution. (Data courtesy of the US EPA. Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)
The EPA recently announced that
it’s moving forward with regulations
to limit global warming pollutants
like carbon dioxide. Now, some
Senate Republicans want to stop
the EPA. Samara Freemark has that story:
Transcript
The EPA recently announced that
it’s moving forward with regulations
to limit global warming pollutants
like carbon dioxide. Now, some
Senate Republicans want to stop
the EPA. Samara Freemark has that story:
Senate Republicans say, if the country wants to regulate greenhouse gases, Congress should do it – not the EPA.
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski represents Alaska. She’s drafted an amendment to put a hold on EPA greenhouse gas regulations for one year.
Critics say the amendment would strip the EPA of an important regulatory tool.
Anne Johnson is a spokesperson for Senator Murkowski. She says regulatory action from the EPA would be too broad and could hurt American businesses.
“Senator Murkowski represents Alaska. It’s ground zero for climate change. There’s no denying that. She knows that we need to do something, and she’s committed to that. At the same time, she’s committed to not harming the economy.”
Murkowski could introduce the amendment as early as this week.
In mountaintop removal mining, explosives are used to get at coal that's close to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress)
The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency has approved one
mountaintop removal coal
mining operation. But, Lester
Graham reports, it’s asking a
federal court to delay another
mine in the same state:
The Environmental Protection Agency says it supports permits for one mine in West Virginia because operators agreed to some environmental protections.
But the EPA is asking a federal court to delay a decision on another mine. The Spruce Number One mine – owned by a subsidiary of Arch Coal – is one of the largest mountainop removal mines ever proposed in the area.The EPA says it’s concerned the mine would bury streams and contaminate water.
Bill Raney is the President of the West Virginia Coal Association. In a recent interview he said regulators are changing the rules.
“And it’s punishing the people here with uncertainty, not knowing what the future holds as to whether you’re going to get the next permit and are you going to be able to mine the coal, are you going to be able to use it in the power plant.”
The EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, said in a statement, the EPA is actually bringing clarity to the process.
Right now, there are no federal laws regulating offshore fish farming.
(Photo by Randolph Fermer, courtesy of the National Biological Information Infrastructure)
Proposed legislation would put
in place the most sweeping
regulations yet on ocean
aquaculture – or offshore fish
farming. Samara Freemark tells us why people
think regulations matter:
Transcript
Proposed legislation would put
in place the most sweeping
regulations yet on ocean
aquaculture – or offshore fish
farming. Samara Freemark tells us why people
think regulations matter:
Critics of aquaculture say the practice can spread disease, introduce invasive species, and pollute the environment.
The Ocean Conservancy’s George Leonard says that’s a problem.
“In the absence of an overarching framework, aquaculture continues to move forward kind of in fits and starts here in the US. And we think if it proceeds that way, many of the environmental concerns will kind of fall through the cracks.”
Legislation introduced last week in Congress could change that. The bill would require fish farmers to apply for federal permits before setting up shop. Those permits would set standards to protect ocean ecosystems.
The bill would also provide money to research how aquaculture is impacting the environment.
The EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, announced the U.S. is moving ahead to eventually restrict greenhouse gases.
(Photo courtesy of the US EPA)
The US Environmental Protection
Agency has ruled CO2 is a dangerous
pollutant. Lester Graham reports
the finding gives President Obama
something to take to the climate
talks in Copenhagen:
Transcript
The US Environmental Protection
Agency has ruled CO2 is a dangerous
pollutant. Lester Graham reports
the finding gives President Obama
something to take to the climate
talks in Copenhagen:
The EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, announced the U.S. is moving ahead to eventually restrict greenhouse gases.
“EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution and is now authorized and obligated to make reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.”
But even with an administrative rule, Jackson says it’s still important that Congress pass a climate change law.
“I stand firm in my belief that legislation is the best way to move our economy forward on clean energy and to address climate pollution.”
The new rule sends a strong message to the climate summit currently going on in Copenhagen that the U.S. is getting serious about the emissions that are causing global warming. And next week, President Obama will go to Copenhagen with something a little more substantive.
Europe was the first to do carbon cap-and-trade, four years ago.
(Photo courtesy of NASA)
Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:
Transcript
Congress is haggling over a climate
bill that includes a carbon cap-and-
trade system. In many ways, it’s
similar to the one the European Union
put in place several years ago. Liam
Moriarty looks at what
the European experience has been and
what the lessons for the US might be:
Slashing greenhouse gas emissions is hard. Our economy is powered mostly by fossil fuels. Switching to clean fuels will be disruptive and expensive, at least to start with.
So how do we get from here to there? The approach that’s proving most popular is what’s called “cap-and-trade.” It works like this – first, there’s the cap.
“We’re going to put an absolute limit on the quantity of carbon-based fuels that we’re going to burn. And we’re going to develop a system to make sure we’re not burning more fossil fuels than that.”
Alan Durning heads the Sightline Institute, a sustainability-oriented think tank in Seattle. He explains that once you put the cap in place…
“Then, we’re going to let the market decide who exactly should burn the fossil fuels based on who has better opportunities to reduce their emissions.”
That’s the “trade” part. Companies get permits to put out a certain amount of greenhouse gases. Outfits that can cut their emissions more than they need to can sell their unused pollution permits to companies that can’t.
The cap gets ratcheted down over time. There are fewer permits out there to buy. Eventually even the most polluting companies have to reduce their emissions, as well.
The goal is to wean ourselves off dirty fuels by making them more expensive. And that makes cleaner fuels more attractive.
Europe was the first to do carbon cap and trade, four years ago. And things got off to a rough start. They set the cap on emissions too high and way overestimated the number of permits – or allowances – that companies would need.
“We have too many allowances. Simple supply means that the prices of those allowances crashes. They don’t have much value, and therefore the price went down to close to zero.”
That’s Vicki Pollard. She follows climate change negotiations for the European Commission. She says the whole system got knocked out of kilter.
For the first two years, European carbon emissions actually went up. After the collapse of Phase One, big changes were made. The next phase of the trading system has a tighter cap, more stringent reporting requirements and enforcement with teeth.
Today, Europe’s on track to meet its current emissions target. But environmentalists, such as Sanjeev Kumar with the World Wildlife Fund in Brussels, say those targets are still driven more by politics than by science.
“We have a cap that’s very weak, i.e. that means that it doesn’t mean that we’re going to achieve the levels of decarbonization that we need within the time scale.”
Leading climate scientists say we have to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by the middle of this century to avoid catastrophic climate change.
Business still has concerns about the EU cap and trade scheme. Folker Franz is with BusinessEurope, sort of the European version of the US Chamber of Commerce. He says companies worry about the additional cost of carbon emissions putting them at a competitive disadvantage.
“If you produce one ton of steel, you emit roughly one ton of CO2. So any ton of steel produced in the EU is right now some 17 dollars more than outside the European Union. And that makes a difference.”
But, Franz says, European businesses accept the need to take prompt action on climate change and are on board with the stricter cap and trade rules coming over the next few years.
Americans have watched Europe struggle with carbon cap-and-trade. The Sightline Institute’s Alan Durning says we can benefit from Europe’s willingness to break new ground.
“It was a big advance when they started it, because nothing like it had ever been done. But, it’s not the be-all-and-end-all. In fact, the United States now has an opportunity to learn from their mistakes and leapfrog ahead to a much better climate policy.”
Durning says an American cap and trade system could avoid the costly stumbles that’ve hampered Europe’s carbon reduction efforts.
Natural gas companies pump chemicals underground to loosen up the gas and get it to the surface. (Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
