EPA to propose cutting coal plants' CO2 emissions 30% by 2030. "The Environmental Protection Agency will propose a regulation Monday that would cut carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal plants by up to 30 percent by 2030 compared with 2005 levels, according to individuals who have been briefed on the plan. Under the draft rule, the EPA would analyze four options that states and utilities would have to meet the new standard....The rule represents one of the most significant steps the federal government has ever taken to curb the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, which are linked to climate change, and the draft is sure to spark a major political and legal battle." Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson in The Washington Post.
Explainers:
7 things to know about the coming EPA rule. Zack Colman in the Washington Examiner.
6 charts that show the broader context behind the EPA rule. Brad Plumer in Vox.
Long read: One key question about the rule: Will it matter? Sally Deneen in National Geographic.
Yes it will matter, and it can succeed. "The United States government will begin the single most important step it’s ever taken to fight climate change....Some fear the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations will be catastrophic, a heavy-handed big-government overreach that will drive up the price of energy. Yet some energy policy experts say those misgivings are unfounded. Indeed, there’s good reason to think the regulations can succeed. Over the last decade, as federal climate efforts stagnated, some states pursued ambitious strategies of their own. They quietly put prices on greenhouse gases, harnessing market forces to cut carbon pollution." Brandon Keim in Wired.
It's not a silver bullet. "It won’t be enough unless the rest of the world follows....While making electricity creates 40 percent of the greenhouse gases in the U.S., cutting it as Obama proposes will not come close to meeting the global reduction scientists say is necessary to reverse warming. For one thing, the amount of the U.S. cuts would be replaced more than three times over by projected increases in China alone." Mark Drajem and Jim Efstathiou Jr. inBloomberg.
But the CO2 rules also are raising hopes for a Paris climate deal. "In private, some officials are showing signs of interest in a deal with the US that could make the Paris talks more successful than Copenhagen....After decades of doing little to thwart a steady rise in global carbon emissions, Paris could be the moment when countries take more concrete action. Experts caution that huge differences still remain between the US and China and Monday’s US power plant limits may not be as ambitious as some expect....But the fact that this is happening at all is a shift that should not be underestimated." Pilita Clark in The Financial Times.
That's why the U.N. climate chief likes the rule. "Christiana Figueres, the UN's top climate change official, said she expects the new power plant rules could spur other big emitters — such as China and India — to begin taking action on climate change and move forward on reaching a deal by the 2015 deadline....Figueres said in a statement on Sunday she believed the rules would send 'a good signal to nations everywhere' that America is serious about dealing with the threat of climate change." Suzanne Goldenberg in The Guardian.
The rule is not just about climate. It's also about health. "President Obama offered a small detail Saturday about the big EPA draft regulation...'In just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided — and those numbers will go up from there,' Obama said in his weekly address. But those immediate health benefits that regulators are forecasting have nothing to do with lowering carbon emissions that contribute to global warming. Instead, Obama's talking about other kinds of smokestack pollution — smog-forming emissions and soot — that hitch a ride with carbon." Ben Geman in National Journal.
Video: President Obama's weekly address.
The rule is also about the politics of the moment. "The new pollution rule...will be a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's environmental legacy and arguably the most significant U.S. environmental regulation in decades. But it's not one the White House wanted....At the crux of the problem is Obama's use of a 1970 law that was not intended to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. Obama was forced to rely on the Clean Air Act after he tried and failed to get Congress to pass a new law during his first term. When the Republicans took over the House, the goal became impossible." Dina Cappiello in the Associated Press.
Happy hurricane season! "Anticipating more storms like Hurricane Sandy, President Barack Obama urged emergency workers and residents in coastal areas to brace themselves for the start of the hurricane season. The official beginning of the hurricane season two days from now coincides with an administration focus on climate change, which Obama is making a central issue during his final years in office. 'The changes we’re seeing in our climate mean that, unfortunately, storms like Sandy could end up being more common and more devastating,' Obama said." Angela Greiling Keane in Bloomberg.
Is Obama right? Sort of. It's unclear whether we'll see more hurricanes, but the ones we do see are likely to be stronger than in the past. Skeptical Science.
Other energy/environmental reads:
The real reason that Keystone XL might fail. Matthew Philips and Brad Wieners in Bloomberg Businessweek.
YGLESIAS: The most important day of Obama's second term. "The stakes here are high. Adopt a rule that's too lenient, and the president will miss a unique opportunity....Adopt a rule that's too strict and he'll risk a congressional backlash that could ultimately undermine the EPA's ability to do anything....Yet energy issues are highly regionalized, and the risk of an anti-Obama backlash from Democrats representing coal-dependent areas is real. Striking the right balance will be tough....But either way, make no mistake this — not the Keystone XL pipeline or congressional Benghazi hearings or clearly doomed transportation plans — is the political story to watch of our time." Matthew Yglesias in Vox.
ZELLER: How the rule can boost the economy. "When the federal government moves to clear the air, fossil-fuel interests hyperventilate. That's not surprising on its face. Businesses are programmed to jealously guard the bottom line, and they are right to do so. But as the debate heats up over the EPA's new greenhouse gas rules — and there will be substantial debate — it's worth keeping the end-times wailing of the fossil-fuel lobby in perspective."Tom Zeller Jr. in Bloomberg View.
No comments:
Post a Comment