On June 2, the EPA proposed its “Clean Power Plan,” adding carbon emissions to the list of air pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act. On June 25, President Obama announced the implementation of the rules in a climate policy speech. The plan was described as “flexible,” using the same approach the EPA uses to regulate air pollution. Different states are given different goals to reduce emissions from power plants based on feasibility. Although states are given a specific goal – a desired emission rate (pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour) for 2030 – the means by which they could accomplish that goal is left up to them. States are given a number of potential options to regulate power plants, ranging from Renewable Portfolio Standards and tax credits to public-private partnerships and energy efficiency initiatives.
Overall, projected results of the plan seem to be a huge step in the right direction. The administration has advertised that carbon emission stemming from power plants will be reduced by 30 percent from 2005 to 2030. However, that number perhaps overstates the real contribution. If the EPA accounts for progress that would otherwise be made and uses the most recent figures on carbon emissions from 2012, the plan only reduces about 17 percent of the carbon emissions in the sector. Electric power generation is currently responsible for over a third of overall carbon emissions in the United States, meaning the plan makes an overall 6.5 percent reduction in total emissions, a significant yet unsatisfying figure. It’s easy to be pessimistic when looking at the global landscape, as the United States contributed only about 15 percent of the total CO2 emitted globally in 2012. The United States previous inaction on climate is largely responsible for the current intransigence in the international community – failed implementation of the Kyoto Protocol and subsequent climate deals can be directly attributed to the United States’ absence. But is this executive action taken by the EPA enough to help mitigate catastrophic climate change?
The main problem with the Clean Power Plan is its sole focus on energy consumption and neglect of energy production. The states simply need to meet a per capita target for carbon emissions, but the means by which they accomplish this are irrelevant. Although many coal states are given relaxed requirements, coal will nonetheless have a reduced role in the energy landscape. Natural gas will likely become the new fuel of choice under the rule, not only because of its increased availability thanks to fracking’s continued ‘revolution,’ but also because it emits only 60 percent of the carbon emissions of coal. Unfortunately, many of the benefits associated with natural gas consumption are negated by the externalities of its production. An in-depth analysis by the National Center for Atmospheric Research found that shifting from coal to natural gas as an energy resource results in increased global warming. Joseph Romm, the founding editor of Climate Progress, discusses the climactic effects of a natural gas shift:
“[U]nless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below 2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude of future climate change … Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere.”
Unless methane emissions are well below current industry standards, the worst environmental effects of natural gas are unaccounted for under the Clean Power Plan.
The state-by-state approach previously used by the EPA also has its drawbacks. Although this model was successful in implanting regulations in the Clean Air and Water Acts, the model is difficult to apply to the currently tricky political issue of climate change. Many states will have to pass legislation that keeps them in accordance with new standards. Governors and legislatures in a variety of conservative states that deny climate change and reject all regulation on fossil fuels will be forced to somehow regulate power plants. Arizona, Georgia, and Texas – states with Republican governors and conservative constituents – will all need to figure out how to reduce their carbon emissions by about 40 percent by 2030.
Many liberal states have also expressed displeasure with the rule. In anticipation to feasibility concerns, the administration imposed larger requirements upon states that had already demonstrated they were capable of implementing alternative energy. Washington and Oregon, both of which emitted fewer than 800 pounds of CO2 per Megawatt-hour in 2012, are among the highest targets. Many of the states participating in the successful Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative – New York, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Delaware – are regulated well above the national average. On the other hand, the states that emit over 2000 pounds of CO2 per Megawatt hour – the least efficient energy users in the country – are only required to reduce their emissions by about 20 percent.
The Obama administration viewed this agency directive to be much more feasible for the federal government than any uniform national policy, which most likely would require Congressional action. But the Republican Party’s reaction is perhaps more perplexing and worrisome than the Clean Power Plan itself. Although the EPA still uses moderate standards compared to the rest of the developed world, the response by the GOP has been anything but moderate, as the party continues to obstruct the President from any potential political victory. In several congressional hearings over the new regulations, various members of the Republican Party have expressed outrage over the financial costs of acting based on what they view as a scientific uncertainty. On September 17, the White House Science Advisor Dr. John Holdren and EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Janet McCabe testified before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology about the administration’s plan. Republicans continually asked for specific estimates – how many billion tons of emissions until a tipping point is reached, how much the temperature will decrease as a result of the plan, etc. Dr. Holdren responded strongly saying:
“That’s a red herring. We are not interested in carbon dioxide concentrations because of their direct effect on human health, we are interested in them because of their effect on the world’s climate, and climate change has effects on human health.”
Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL), one of the few House Republicans to openly admit to believing in climate change, shed some light on his party’s confusion:
“Everybody … is trying to make common sense meet science … if there’s enough debate it well level out and most people will share the same opinion, but there’s a lot of digging to get there.”
Hopefully climate change begins to attract more debate, be it positive of negative, so the issue can garner bipartisan support for action. The “digging” done in the status quo has created little to no political inertia as only eight out of the Republican Party’s 278 Congressional members outwardly believe in climate science. This is despite 97% of climate scientists agreeing that current changes in climate are being caused by humans. Recent reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and World Bank detail how increases in temperature are anthropogenic and having devastating effects – causing increased scarcity of water and food, making areas uninhabitable, and forcing mass migration and violence. The climate is reaching critical tipping points that, if crossed, could lead to an irreversible, catastrophic collapse of a variety of human and natural systems. Doubting the efficacy of potential solutions simply increases the need for drastic action – the unpredictable nature of climate justifies using whatever means possible in the face of uncertainty. Although political figures are right to criticize the EPA’s Clean Power Plan, they seem to be doing so for all the wrong reasons.
