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.
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.
Perchlorate is a chemical in rocket fuel that has been found in some drinking water supplies. It’s been linked to thyroid problems in
pregnant women and babies. (Photo courtesy of the CDC)
Critics of the Environmental Protection
Agency say the agency is putting pregnant women
and children at risk. Rebecca Williams reports
the controversy centers on a chemical that’s found
in some drinking water supplies:
Transcript
Critics of the Environmental Protection
Agency say the agency is putting pregnant women
and children at risk. Rebecca Williams reports
the controversy centers on a chemical that’s found
in some drinking water supplies:
Perchlorate is a chemical in rocket fuel. It’s been linked to thyroid problems in
pregnant women and babies. It’s been found in milk, and lettuce and water
supplies from coast to coast.
But the Environmental Protection Agency has not set a safety standard for the
chemical in drinking water. Recently, a draft document obtained by the press
stated that EPA does not intend to set that standard.
The Washington Post reported that White House officials edited the EPA
document. And took out references to some studies that linked perchlorate to
thyroid problems.
Senator Barbara Boxer is a Democrat from California. She says she’s troubled
by this news.
“To me it’s just an immoral decision that EPA has made not to set forth a
standard for perchlorate. Perchlorate interferes with production of hormones
that are needed for development of the brain and the nervous system. This is
really a dangerous, dangerous chemical.”
Boxer endorsed a bill that would force EPA to set a standard.
The EPA says, ‘whoa, hang on a minute, this is just a draft.’
In a statement sent to The Environment Report, EPA assistant administrator
Benjamin Grumbles says quote.
“We know perchlorate in drinking water presents some degree of risk and
we’re committed to working with states and scientists to ensure public health is
protected.”
Grumbles says the agency will release its draft decision soon. That version will
be open to public comment.
But some critics say politics is shaping this entire decision.
Perchlorate has been used for decades by the defense industry. The chemical’s
used for making and firing rockets and missiles.
John Stephenson is with the Government Accountability Office. It’s the federal
agency that acts as a watchdog.
“Setting a standard is important because, in the Department of Defense’s case,
they don’t clean up anything for which there is no standard.”
Stephenson says his watchdog agency is bothered by some recent changes at
the EPA. This spring, the EPA changed its chemical review process. It’s used
to decide how dangerous a given chemical might be.
Stephenson says now, the Department of Defense and the White House can
keep their comments private.
“And EPA can receive comments behind closed doors in what amounts to a
black box. So let’s say the Department of Defense offers up some new
research on perchlorate that they think is compelling reason why the standards
should be set or shouldn’t be set at a certain level but nobody else in the
scientific community can see what this is until the end of the process.”
Stephenson says he’s lost confidence in the EPA to change this.
The GAO is urging Congress to step in and bring more light to the process
that’s supposed to keep the public safe.
Later this year the Environmental Protection Agency is going to set court-ordered
standards for mercury pollution from cement kilns.
(Source: LinguisticDemographer at Wikimedia Commons)
The Environmental Protection
Agency is late in setting standards
for some smokestack emissions. Lester
Graham reports:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection
Agency is late in setting standards
for some smokestack emissions. Lester
Graham reports:
Maybe you’ve never seen a cement kiln. That’s where limestone and other materials
are baked using coal to make cement, used in concrete.
Later this year the Environmental Protection Agency is going to set court-ordered
standards for mercury pollution from cement kilns.
“It’s about time, isn’t it? I mean, the standards were due more than ten years
ago.”
That’s Eric Scheaffer. He’s with the Environmental Integrity Project.
The EPA had relied on self-reported estimates on mercury pollution from the cement
kilns. Turns out, after the EPA actually checked a few of the kilns, a lot of those
mercury pollution estimates were a little low.
“They’re now saying about 23,000 pounds a year. And that’s double the
previous estimates from EPA. So, the numbers are growing.”
Most states have issued advisories about mercury contamination of fish. Mercury
can cause neurological and developmental problems with fetuses and young
children.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
A study finds that companies can be environmentally friendly and still make a profit(Source: Man-ucommons at Wikimedia Commons)
Critics of environmental regulations
often say the restrictions are bad for a
company’s bottom line. But Rebecca Williams
reports a new study finds companies can find
ways to offset the costs:
Transcript
Critics of environmental regulations
often say the restrictions are bad for a
company’s bottom line. But Rebecca Williams
reports a new study finds companies can find
ways to offset the costs:
Researchers looked at more than 2,000 manufacturing plants in seven countries.
Nicole Darnell is an assistant professor at George Mason University and the
study’s author.
She says it’s true that the tougher the regulation, the more it tended to lower a
company’s profits. But she says some companies were able to break even.
“Those companies that are proactive and seek to do right by the environment
can offset or eliminate the cost of regulation and potentially get ahead of the
curve.”
Darnell says that’s still a pretty rare case. But she says some of the most
successful cases are companies that reduce energy and water use in their
manufacturing processes.
The Bush administration’s new fuel economy
standards mean more fuel efficient cars in the
future. But Lester Graham reports some
environmentalists say it would have been better
for the environment and the economy if the standards
would have required more fuel efficiency:
Transcript
The Bush administration’s new fuel economy
standards mean more fuel efficient cars in the
future. But Lester Graham reports some
environmentalists say it would have been better
for the environment and the economy if the standards
would have required more fuel efficiency:
The standards call for a fleet-wide average of close to 32 miles per gallon by the year 2015.
Environmentalists say the first three years of the five year plan calls for an increase of
one and a half miles per gallon each year. But the last two years only require about a
half a mile improvement each year.
Jim Kliesch is with the Union of Concerned Scientists
“The fact that those numbers
trail off very quickly is a canary in the coal mine that something is amiss in their cost-
benefit analysis.”
The government’s cost-benefit analysis weighs whether more expensive technology –
such as a hybrid drive train – is worth the effort: will it save that money in gasoline.
But
the government’s cost benefit analysis predicted gas prices by 2015 would be about
$2.25 – more than a dollar a gallon less than we’re already paying. Using those prices,
the analysis short-changes the advantages of fuel saving technology.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Map of the Great Lakes, the basin, and the 8 connecting states. (Photo courtesy of Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory, NOAA)
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact is an
agreement to stop shipping water out of the Great Lakes
basin. But all eight Great Lakes states and Congress
must approve it first. Lester Graham talked with Peter
Annin, the author of the book “The Great Lakes Water
Wars.” Annin says some of the states have been reluctant
to approve the treaty because Michigan has an image of saying
‘no’ to water requests from other states while putting
almost no water restrictions on its own towns and businesses:
Transcript
The Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Compact is an
agreement to stop shipping water out of the Great Lakes
basin. But all eight Great Lakes states and Congress
must approve it first. Lester Graham talked with Peter
Annin, the author of the book “The Great Lakes Water
Wars.” Annin says some of the states have been reluctant
to approve the treaty because Michigan has an image of saying
‘no’ to water requests from other states while putting
almost no water restrictions on its own towns and businesses:
Peter Annin: “Michigan has been a laggard in monitoring and regulating its own domestic water
use. And so it’s seen by some other states as being somewhat hypocritical in the water debate.
For example, Minnesota, which is the most progressive domestically, if you’re going to withdraw
water from the Great Lakes at 10,000 gallons a day or more, you have to get a permit. In the state
of Michigan you can go up to 5 million gallons of water withdrawn from Lake Michigan per day
before you have to get a permit. 10,000 gallons in Minnesota, 5 million gallons in Michigan, and
this is what is causing tension between Michigan and some of the other Great Lakes states.”
Lester Graham: “Lets assume that all 8 Great Lakes states do pass this within the next year or
two, Congress then has to pass it – and many of the members of Congress are in those thirsty
Southwestern states. What happens then?”
Annin: “Yeah, that’s a really good point. We have to remember that the compact is just a piece of
paper until it passes all 8 Great Lakes legislatures and then is adopted by Congress. And there
are a lot of concerns among the general public, given that we have these dry-land states that have
a lot of problems with water perhaps opposing the Great Lakes compact. I’m not so certain that
that’s going to be an issue, because those states also have a lot federal water projects that come
up for renewal all the time that require the Great Lakes Congressmen to sign off on. And I’m not
sure they’re in a position, given how precious and important water is for them to survive on a daily
basis down there, that they’re really that interested in getting into a water fight with the Senators
and Congressmen in the Great Lakes basin. But, we’ll see.”
Graham: “I’ve looked at different models for getting Great Lakes water down to the Southwest,
and economically, they just don’t seem feasible. It would be incredibly expensive to try to get
Great Lakes water to the Southwest states, yet, State Legislators say again and again ‘oh no,
they have a plan, they know how it will happen.’ And as water becomes more valuable, they could
make it happen. How likely is it that there would be a canal or pipe and pumping stations built to
divert Great Lakes water, if this compact doesn’t pass?”
Annin: “It looks highly unlikely today, for the reasons that you just mentioned. It takes an
extraordinary amount of money to send water uphill, which is what would be to the West, and we’d
certainly have to cross mountain ranges if you’re even going to send it a shorter distance, to the
Southeast. To the point where it would be cheaper for many of these places to, even though it’s
expensive, to desalinate water from the ocean and then send it to inland places. But, you know, a
lot of water experts in the United States say ‘never say never’, because the value of fresh, potable
water is probably going to skyrocket in this century. We’re leaving the century of oil; we’re entering
the century of water. But, for right now, you’re absolutely right, it is extraordinary cost-prohibitive.
But let me say one other footnote here, it’s hard to find a federal water project in this country that
actually made economic sense.”
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a new rule
on aluminum production that could trade one kind of
pollution for another. Dustin Dwyer reports that some are
skeptical of the plan:
When you make aluminum for vehicles, there’s a leftover
sludge that can include some toxic chemicals. The EPA wants
to loosen regulations on that sludge.
It says that could encourage more auto manufacturers to use
aluminum instead of steel in vehicle bodies, and since
aluminum is lighter than steel, those vehicles would burn
less gas. Don McKenzie of the Union of Concerned Scientists
says he’s not sure it’s a good idea:
“Aluminum can help to get us more efficient vehicles. But we
shouldn’t need to be changing the rules around aluminum
production to get aluminum into vehicles.”
McKenzie says if the government imposed stricter fuel
economy standards, and kept the rules on aluminum sludge in
place, more automakers would be forced to use aluminum
anyway.
For the Environment Report, I’m Dustin Dwyer.
The fish and wildlife agency already has announced plans to
cut more than 250 jobs over the next three years. Further
cuts are expected soon.
The agency blames a flat budget and rising operational and
personnel costs, but Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility says visitors to the affected
refuges will find a less enjoyable experience at no real
savings in tax dollars:
“All the cutbacks in the refuge system are less than what
we’re spending in Iraq in a day. I mean to put it in some
perspective, we’re talking about literally millions of
dollars versus billions of dollars that are being
hemorrhaged out of other government operations.”
Democratic Congressman Ron Kind co-chairs a caucus on
wildlife refuges. He says he’ll try to address the job cuts
in the next federal budget.
The US EPA is reconsidering a decision to let cement plants off the hook when it comes to mercury emissions. Tests at several cement plants showed they were emitting up to ten times the mercury being disclosed. Tracy Samilton reports:
Transcript
The US EPA is reconsidering a decision to let cement plants off the hook when it comes to mercury emissions. Tests at several cement plants showed they were emitting up to ten times the mercury being disclosed. Tracy Samilton reports:
Cement plants emit mercury from both the coal they burn and from processing limestone, an ingredient of cement. But the EPA has never regulated the mercury emissions. The agency said it would be too costly for the industry. Cement manufacturers say they plan to voluntarily reduce mercury emissions over time.
But Michael Wall of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the EPA needs to exert control over the plants now.
“It would be as if we took a segment of the coal-fired power plant industry and just said ’emit mercury freely, we’re not going to do anything about it.’ That makes really bad policy and it’s really bad for our public health.”
An EPA spokesman says the agency is taking a second look at the issue, in light of stack tests showing some plants may have been grossly underestimating their mercury emissions.
Many American manufacturing companies are trying to break into the Chinese market. With about a billion people, the idea of selling goods in China is an attractive one, but the GLRC’s Christina Shockley has the story of one company that’s having a hard time reaching Chinese citizens. That’s because local environment and safety regulations often stand in the way:
Transcript
Many American manufacturing companies are trying to break into the Chinese market.
With about a billion people, the idea of selling goods in China is an attractive one, but
the GLRC’s Christina Shockley has the story of one company that’s having a hard time reaching
Chinese citizens. That’s because local environment and safety regulations often stand in the way:
Motorcycle maker Harley-Davidson opened a dealership in Beijing in April. It’s the
company’s first shop in China in at least 60 years.
Robert Kennedy is Executive Director of the William Davidson Institute at the University
of Michigan. The institute studies business and policy issues in emerging markets.
Kennedy says there’s a huge demand in countries like China for products associated with
the American way of life. He says Harley-Davidson motorcycles are a prime example:
“I mean, they’re associated with a particular lifestyle here, it’s a very American thing.
And they have very low penetration in China and India, and these other countries now,
but because there’s slowed demand growth in the US, if they want to grow, that’s a great
place for them to go.”
Kennedy says it’s very common for companies to try to ease restrictions in other
countries to make it easier for them to export goods and there are several restrictions on
motorcycles in China. The rules vary from community to community, but most large
cities ban, or severely limit, motorcycle use in the city center.
Experts say the rules are in place partly because of safety and environmental issues.
Barrett McCormick specializes in Chinese politics at Marquette University. He says
environmental problems can be intensified because Chinese roads are clogged, and most
motorcycles there are dirty:
“Anyone who’s been to China 10 years ago or something, a common site is some horrible
little motorcycle putting down the road, with a big cloud of smoke behind it, and I think that’s
the kind of thing that the Chinese government has regulated to eliminate.”
McCormick says air quality is one of China’s most pressing problems. A recent report
from the World Health Organization says many of the most polluted cities in the world
are in China. It says one of the main sources of air pollution there is motor vehicles
emissions.
Zhixin Wu is with a company that’s working with government agencies to develop
Chinese transportation policies. He says emissions from dirty, small motorcycles in
china account for roughly 50 or 60 percent of emissions in urban areas:
“In China almost all the motorcycles use the two stroke internal combustion engine.”
Wu says that type of small engine is very dirty. But, Harley-Davidson says those bikes
are a far cry from the motorcycles it produces:
“The motorcycles in use in China, I guess I wouldn’t even characterize them as
motorcycles. I would call them two-wheelers.”
Tim Hoelter is the company’s Vice President for International Affairs. He says Harley
bikes easily meet environmental regulations in every market in which they’re sold. And
Hoelter says the company is working with officials in the United States and China to get
this point across:
“Not too long ago the Chinese ambassador to the United States came to Milwaukee and
met with local business people. I sat two seats away from him at dinner, and was able to
talk to him about these riding bans.”
Hoelter says the company is also meeting with American trade officials, and authorities
in the Chinese government, to get the rules changed. He says his company has already
helped ease motorcycle restrictions in other countries, such as Vietnam and India.
Robert Kennedy, from the William Davidson Institute, says Harley-Davidson will
probably be able to get the rules changed in a few years, assuming the regulations have
the inadvertent affect of keeping out Harley motorcycles. He says China has a huge trade
surplus with the United States, and that’s a sensitive political issue.
Kennedy says it’s not unusual for countries to have rules that keep foreign goods out,
even if that’s not their intent:
“The US has some of these regulations that keep out other countries products, and other
countries have regulations that keep out our products. It’s not like under the Romans or
the British where a country would send in the army and force them to buy our goods, it’s
just governments working together to sort out the details to allow trade to happen.
Kennedy says even though most Chinese wouldn’t be able to afford Harley motorcycles,
there are many who could, and as people there become more wealthy, the possibility
exists for a huge market.
