EPA's New Carbon Cap Regulations For Power Plants

Why Obama's fuel-efficiency rules are just as big a deal for climate. "Here's a secret: The agency's previous efforts to impose the first-ever carbon limits on passenger cars and light trucks will do more -- by just a smidgen -- to address climate change. By 2030...the new power plant proposal will cut 550 million metric tons of annual carbon dioxide emissions. The fuel efficiency standards for the passenger car and light truck for the fleet years between 2012 and 2025 will cut 580 million metric tons by that same year. In the short term, the power plant rule would make steeper cuts since the car fleet turns over gradually. By 2020, the power plant rule would cut 370 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, while the car rules will save 180 million metric tons." Juliet Eilperin in The Washington Post.

Primary source: EPA's guide to the rule.

Explainer: Everything you need to know about the EPA's proposed climate rule. Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson in The Washington Post.

No, this rule won't kill the economy. There's some economic benefit to counter the costs, too. "Despite fears that the Obama administration's proposed rule to curb carbon-dioxide pollution could wreak severe damage on the economy, the true effect is likely to be much more modest. And a key reason can be linked to the nation's boom in natural gas production. The Environmental Protection Agency, in announcing plans Monday to reduce power plant emissions 30% by 2030 from 2005 levels, estimated that the measure will cost up to $8.8 billion annually for compliance. It noted that the health and social benefits from the cleaner air probably will exceed $55 billion a year by 2030, far outweighing the costs." Don Lee in the Los Angeles Times.

Charts: These charts show the public-health aspects of the rule. Philip Bump in The Washington Post.

The rule won't save the climate by itself. But again, that's not the point. "Sighs of relief are being heard around the world as Obama proposes new domestic climate regulations. The U.S. has long obstructed global efforts to rein in climate change, perhaps most notably by refusing to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Now the international community is hoping to craft a new global climate deal next year in Paris, and many see Obama's rules as a good sign....Back when Kyoto was crafted, the U.S. was the world's biggest greenhouse-gas polluter. Now China is (largely because it serves as the planet's workshop, making much of the stuff the rest of us consume), so China's reaction will be especially important." John Upton in Grist.

What do you know: China pledges to cap its emissions for first time. "China, the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, has pledged to limit its total emissions for the first time....The timing of the announcement - just a day after the Obama administration implemented tough new rules to cut carbon emissions from power plants 30% by 2030 - appears deliberately chosen to show China will also take a leadership role on climate change....Officials have not yet put a figure on what level the cap will be." Adam Vaughan in The Guardian.

IEA: Hey, rest of world, you're not doing enough either. "It foresees an evolution of the energy industry that 'falls well short' of what is needed to put the brakes on carbon emissions that are widely blamed for climate change. The organization says that policies and market signals are not strong enough to encourage sufficient investment in low-carbon sources and energy efficiency. But some analysts say the agency may be too pessimistic." Stanley Reed in The New York Times.

Other environmental/energy reads:

If Keystone XL pipeline is rejected, oil may still cross Nebraska by rail. Fred Knapp in NPR.

CHAIT: Obama's bid to become the environmental president. "The Obama administration's announcement today of new regulations on power plants does not mean that it has saved the planet. It does not even mean that we have necessarily bought time to save the planet. It means, simply, that Obama has done everything within his power to fight the most urgent crisis of our time. That is to say, he has put in place a climate-change policy agenda that is likely, though not assured, to be regarded as a historic success." Jonathan Chait in New York Magazine.

BALL: Two unexpected ways the rule will help fight climate change. "To assess the move's environmental impact, consider a single figure: 1 percent. That's the rough proportion of yearly global greenhouse-gas emissions that the new EPA plan is projected to cut by 2030....That doesn't mean partisans on the right are correct when they call the administration's plan environmentally meaningless....The real question about the impact of the administration's new climate proposal is whether it will lead other countries to decide that curbing their carbon output is in their economic interest in a way that, before Monday's announcement, they believed it wasn't....But Obama's climate plan could spur action in developing countries in at least two ways." Jeffrey Ball in The New Republic.