The major risks with tar sand include dealing with pollution, and with lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.(Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
Several investors’ groups want four major oil companies to reveal the risks of getting oil from Canadian tar sands. Rebecca Williams reports shareholders will be considering this at BP’s general meeting this week:
Transcript
Several investors’ groups want four major oil companies to reveal the risks of getting oil from Canadian tar sands. Rebecca Williams reports shareholders will be considering this at BP’s general meeting this week:
Tar sands are kind of like they sound: they’re sand or clay soaked in oil. Canada’s tar sands are the second largest oil reserves in the world, so oil companies are all over them. But it’s a dirtier source of oil.
Several investors groups have filed shareholder resolutions with BP, Conoco-Phillips, Shell, and Exxon-Mobil. They want companies to reveal the risks to stockholders of getting oil from tar sands.
Emily Stone is with Green Century Capital Management.
“We want these companies to be more forthright about what they see as the big risks and how they’re mitigating those risks.”
She says risks include dealing with pollution… and lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.
BP did not want to be recorded for this story. But in a statement to shareholders, BP told them to vote no. BP says Canada’s oil sands are a proven and secure source of oil.
Vermont Yankee Corp. is one of the oldest nuclear power plants in the country. (Photo courtesy of Vermont Yankee Corp.)
One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants is setting its operating life shorter than expected. Shawn Allee reports:
Transcript
One of the country’s oldest nuclear power plants might have its operating life cut shorter than expected.
Shawn Allee reports:
The federal government has been leaning toward letting the Vermont Yankee reactor renew its license in 2012 for another 20 years.
But Vermont’s state legislature says has voted to shut it down – no matter what the federal government says.
One reason is the plant’s been leaking radioactive water.
State senator Peter Shumlin says plant owners said that couldn’t happen.
SHUMLIN: What’s worse? A company that won’t tell you the truth or a company that’s operating their aging nuclear power plant next to the Connecticut River and doesn’t know they have pipes with radioactive water running through them that are leaking and they don’t know because they didn’t know the pipes existed … neither is very comforting.
The federal government says the leaks have not been a health threat.
The closure of Vermont Yankee would be a setback for the nuclear power industry.
It’s trying to extend the operating life of reactors across the country, since its far cheaper to run old reactors than to build new ones.
A big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation.
(Photo courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory)
As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:
Transcript
As Congress begins debate on climate
change legislation, American businesses
are watching very closely. Some are
worried that a new law could bankrupt
them with energy costs. But others
see a bright future under carbon limits.
Julie Grant reports:
Jeff Holmstead is an environmental attorney and has been working on clean air issues for two decades now. He led the Air Division of the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush Administration and has worked on some of the most significant environmental regulations in the nation’s history. But he says the current climate change bill is the biggest thing he’s seen.
“It’s a big deal. Much bigger than really any other environmental legislation or regulation than people have had to deal with in the past.”
Holmstead says the stakes are just so high. He says the costs could reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars for American businesses.
“And there’s just also enormous amounts of uncertainty as to how we would fundamentally change our society, which has really grown up largely using fossil fuels. Whether we can truly switch away from that in the kind of time frame that people are talking about.”
But a big shift away from fossil fuels isn’t scaring off everybody. Some businesses are actually lobbying for climate change legislation.
Commercial: “Climate change is real. But solving it is a real opportunity. If we build clean energy technologies in America, we’ll generate the jobs that will power the 21st century and jumpstart our economy. We need a can-do plan that caps greenhouse gas pollution and creates jobs here at home.”
This commercial is not made by a bunch of tree-huggers, liberals, or Al Gore. It stars the South Carolina Chamber of Commerce, and corporate CEOs from Deere and Company and the Eaton Corporation. Eaton makes everything from circuit breakers to hoses to hybrid trucks.
“Yeah, Eaton is a power management company that sales about
15-billion dollars and 70,000 employees worldwide.”
That’s Joe Wolfsberger. He’s in charge of environmental programs at Eaton. The company wants Congress to approve climate change legislation and to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Wolfsberger says it could be a great kick-start for the economy and help create jobs.
“We also see a very big opportunity for Eaton and other companies, especially in this power management area. We’ll be able to provide solutions for people to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions going forward, to help reduce the amount of fuel they consume on the road as part of their operations.”
The company has already created new hybrid transmissions for delivery trucks. They’re used in lots of UPS, Fed-Ex, and Wal-Mart trucks. Wolfsberger says it improves gas mileage 50% to 70%.
Wolfsberger says a lot of companies are still questioning whether climate change is real. He says Eaton CEO Alexander Cutler gets asked about it a lot.
“And his response to them is, ‘it doesn’t really matter if the data is good or not. It doesn’t matter if it’s a normal climatic cycle. The question is, if you as a company can do better, you should do better.’”
But that may be easy to say when your company will benefit from climate change legislation. It’s a lot tougher when your business is producing natural gas or making steel and depends on heavy use of fossil fuels.
Environmental attorney Jeff Holmstead says the price of reducing greenhouse gases is going to be a lot higher for these types of companies if a bill passes. He says that’s what the debate is all about.
“Should we be spending a hundred billion dollars a year, should we be spending a trillion dollars a year? I think most people believe we could significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, it’s just a question of how much we’re willing to pay, and also what we get for that.”
And this what Congress will be debating in the coming months – whether the possibility of higher energy bills is worth the chance to have a more stable climate and more energy independence.
Two-thirds of California’s rain and snow falls in the north, but two-thirds of its population lives in the south.
(Photo courtesy of NASA)
One of the most drought-ridden
states says it’s finally found
a solution to its water problems.
Amy Standen reports:
Transcript
One of the most drought-ridden
states says it’s finally found
a solution to its water problems.
Amy Standen reports:
Two thirds of California’s rain and snow falls in the north. Two thirds of its population lives in the south. So who should get the water?
It took weeks of intense deal making and years of debate in the state capitol to find an answer. But the new law is not without its critics.
Peter Gleick is a water expert at the Pacific Institute. He says the measure fails to force users – especially farmers– to account for what they use.
” We will never ultimately, sustainably manage our water resources if we don’t know who is using how much water to do what. And we don’t, with any degree of accuracy. And that’s still not addressed in this bill.”
The deal calls for greater efficiency, especially in cities.
But nothing happens until voters agree to chip in for the plan, with an 11 billion dollar bond measure to pay for a new distribution system.
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
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:
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.
An environmental group has graded members of Congress on their voting
records. Rebecca Williams reports that means you get graded even if you’re running for President:
Transcript
An environmental group has graded members of Congress on their voting
records. Rebecca Williams reports that means you get graded even if you’re running for President:
The League of Conservation Voters puts out a scorecard for each session of Congress. It grades members of Congress on how they vote on energy, global warming and other top issues. And whether they show up to vote.
Kerry Duggan is with the group. She says it didn’t matter if you were busy campaigning for President.
“Both Senators Clinton and Obama – they missed four votes each in 2007. Now by contrast, Senator John McCain – he missed all 15 votes that were scored on the scorecard.”
Duggan says each of the candidates lost points on their scorecards for
missing those votes.
But she says overall, the League is happy with the progress Congress made on energy issues last year. But she says Congress has a long way to go to pass laws to reduce greenhouse gasses.
Canada's action to reduce greenhouse gases under the Kyoto Agreement is being slowed as groups are threatening to vote against a budget bill that includes an amendment to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. (Photo by Kenn Kiser)
Canadian environmental groups fear political opposition may kill the Liberal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Transcript
Canadian environmental groups fear political opposition may kill the Liberal government’s plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly reports:
Canada’s opposition parties have created an uproar over an amendment to the government’s latest budget bill. The amendment would change Canada’s environmental protection act. It would allow nontoxic gases which heat up the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, to be regulated.
It’s the first step in Canada’s plan to comply with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. But it’s hit a major roadblock. The Conservatives say they’ll vote against the bill unless that proposal is removed. And if they vote against the budget, the Liberal government may fall.
The Sierra Club’s John Bennett says their aggressive tactics may make it difficult for Canada to make any changes to environmental laws.
“I’m very concerned that because of this, we may actually lose the ability to regulate greenhouse gases in Canada for a long time to come. And that’s the real danger here.”
Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent over the next seven years. But Bennett says it won’t happen without new regulations.
Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states, and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
Transcript
Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as
both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the
major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states,
and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:
President Bush says he favors keeping Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes.
He said so this summer during a campaign stop in Traverse City, Michigan.
“My position is clear. We’re never going to allow diversion of Great
Lakes water.”
And John Kerry says he is against diverting Great Lakes water. It’s one of six
points included in his recently-released plan to clean up and preserve the lakes.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm discussed that plan in a conference call
with reporters.
“They are adamantly opposed to diverting water from the Great Lakes
basin. They will institute a no diversions policy for the Great Lakes.
They will block any water diversion.”
And while both the Bush and Kerry campaigns are promising not to let other
states tap into the Great Lakes, they’re accusing each other of going back and
forth on the issue. Bush says back in February, Kerry referred to the diversion
issue as a “delicate balancing act.” The next day, Kerry’s campaign said the
Democrat was “absolutely opposed” to diversions. The Kerry campaign
says back in 2001, President Bush expressed support for diverting Great Lakes
water to the Southwestern United States. The president wasn’t that specific
about it, though he did say he’d be open to discussions about water with
Canada’s prime minister.
Michigan’s Governor Granholm says there’s no immediate threat that Great
Lakes water would be diverted, though she says it has to be a concern as the
dry, Southwestern part of the United States continues to add people, and
members of Congress who might one day vote on such an issue.
But some experts say diversion of Great Lakes water is much more likely to happen
in areas closer to the Lakes. They say diverting water to the arid Southwest
would cost too much.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Michael Leland.
Missouri could become the first state in the country to ask voters
whether to cap the number of billboards along interstate highways.
Supporters of the effort say they have gathered enough signatures to
place
the billboard ban on the November ballot. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Bill Raack reports:
Dove hunting is allowed in some Great Lake States and outlawed in
others. Ohio has allowed it for the past 4 years, and now, animal
protection activists are trying to convince Ohio voters to pass a ballot
issue that would outlaw dove hunting once again. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Bill Cohen reports:
The major risks with tar sand include dealing with pollution, and with lawsuits from native tribes that live near the oil sands.(Photo courtesy of the US DOE)
