Those who thought the war on climate change was well on its way have been shocked by President Obama’s announced initiative to lower carbon emissions from new power plants.
Did he say NEW? And we thought old plants were the problem.
Trumpeted by news media as the most significant U.S. environmental regulation in decades, what the administration announced has many of us scratching our heads. First of all, there are few new coal-fired power plants in the pipeline, because natural gas is now cheap and abundant. And to environmentalists, the most significant source of greenhouse gasses is the vast fleet of old and inefficient plants. They seem to have been missed during the last go-around of regulation, which mandated pollution controls only if the old plants were being enlarged. Ask the folks who live near Colstrip, Mt. how well that worked.
This isn’t what Obama championed in campaigns or what he promised during his first year: a 17% reduction by 2020. It’s definitely a compromise between what he wants and what may be legally or politically possible.
After failing to get congressional support for the issue during his first term, Obama has had to rely on the Clean Air Act, a 1970 law that was never intended to address global warming. To be fair, the act did limit amounts of mercury, sulfur and arsenic that power plants spew into the air, but not carbon dioxide, which most scientists now agree is the gas most responsible for global warming.
So now he intends to use his executive powers to curb carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that produce almost 40% of the nation’s electricity and about one-third of the nation’s carbon pollution.
Environmentalists are disappointed that new regulations don’t seem to address the old plants, but the administration better gear up for a fight nonetheless. States that rely on coal production, such as West Virginia and Wyoming, are quickly mobilizing efforts to sink what they see as a war on coal.
Coal production already has been hit by the surge in natural gas and the subsequent dip in its price. But coal is still being used in Asia, and U.S. producers are relying on exports to those countries to protect their profits.
Under the new regulation, power plants are required to sequester some of their carbon emissions underground. It’s my understanding that states will be responsible for mitigating carbon emissions either by substituting natural gas for coal or reducing overall demand for electricity or increasing use of renewable sources. State plans aren’t due until 2016 even though the regulations go into effect next year.
Now every group in the nation, from environmentalists to politicians and party activists, are weighing in. The Chamber of Commerce warns that the rule will cost the economy $50 billion and kill jobs. This, of course, is the excuse for inaction given by every group or politician seeking to block change to the status quo. At the same time, economists seem convinced that it will create jobs and scientists say the rule may clear the air of many other pollutants along with the carbon.
Having not had the opportunity to actually read the rule, they all may just be whistling Dixie, along with TV newsreaders and “experts” who argue vehemently for or against it, not understanding what they’re advocating.
One provision allowing the coal industry leeway in reaching goals by trading carbon emissions smacks of “Cap and Trade” and reminds us of congressional battles over that issue. My personal view is that a straight carbon tax on emissions, or even on fossil fuel use, would be preferable.
While EPA administrator Gina McCarthy stresses the benefits of flexibility, therein could lie the regulation’s biggest flaw. Pollution-trading markets already exist in 10 states, but we rarely hear anything about the efficiency of that approach.
Another provision of the new rule has something to do with a way power plants can dodge emissions limits by using the “over the fence” clause, which could mean they can dump carbon on property adjacent to a power plant. But state and industry lawyers may argue such controls violate the law’s intent.
Obama spoke of the need for new emissions regulation in his radio and Internet address. McCarthy announced the proposal two days later. What’s clear is that a six-month public comment period will precede the rule’s finalization.
Opposition will be fierce but the ball is in our court.