The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: carbon emissions rule
Another Report Shows Devastating Effects Of Climate Change — But Elected Republicans Still Don’t Care

Another Report Shows Devastating Effects Of Climate Change — But Elected Republicans Still Don’t Care

A bipartisan group released a report on Tuesday titled “Risky Business,” arguing that U.S. businesses need to treat the threat of climate change as a serious business risk that will cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars. The group asked businesses to “lead the way” in reducing risks from climate change — for the good of the planet, and their bottom lines.

The group is comprised of former George W. Bush administration treasury secretary Henry Paulson, former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg (who’s now the Special UN Envoy for Cities and Climate Change), and billionaire Tom Steyer, a major Democratic donor who’s steering millions of dollars towards climate-friendly political candidates.

The report states that “if we continue on our current path, many regions of the U.S. face the prospect of serious economic effects from climate change. However, if we choose a different path — if we act aggressively to both adapt to the changing climate and to mitigate future impacts by reducing carbon emissions — we can significantly reduce our exposure to the worst economic risks from climate change.”

Climate change is referred to in the report as “nature’s interest-only loan” that the next generation will have to struggle to pay off.

“Risky Business” warns of hundreds of billions of dollars in losses of coastal property by 2100, due to rising sea levels and changes in the activity and strength of hurricanes. In the next 15 years, total coastal damages will cost around $35 billion.

Because of rising temperatures, the Midwest, Southwest, and Southeast will experience “extreme heat,” which will increase air-conditioning costs and strain the electricity grid.

Higher temperatures will also affect agriculture in the Midwest and South. The report indicates that over the next 5 to 25 years, some states could see a decline in yields of more than 10 percent. By the end of the century, those yields could decrease by 50 to 70 percent if farmers aren’t able to adapt.

The group concludes the report by saying, “It is our hope that it becomes standard practice for the American business and investment community to factor climate change into its decision-making process.”

Paulson told TheWall Street Journal that the group is bipartisan, so it can frame climate change as simply a large risk to American businesses, and not a political issue.

“The whole point was to have a bipartisan group who agreed on the nature of the problem, which is that climate change is a huge economic risk,” he said.

Paulson isn’t the only prominent Republican to advocate for climate change action. Last week, Senate Democrats invited four former EPA leaders who worked under Republican presidents to discuss what they think needs to be done. They all agreed that climate change exists and that Congress needs to take action.

But even though there are conservative proponents for climate action, today’s elected Republicans are still ignoring the issue. Senate Republicans largely dismissed what the EPA experts had to say, and instead argued that Obama’s new EPA rule to limit carbon emissions would kill jobs and have zero economic benefit.

Some Republicans are so opposed to the EPA’s new rule that they could even attempt to partially shut down the government by using the appropriation bills necessary to fund the EPA and the Interior Department to block the EPA rule from going into effect.

Even though scientists overwhelmingly agree that climate change is a reality and is being exacerbated by human activity, many Republicans in Congress still disagree. In May, the House of Representatives passed an amendment that would prevent the Department of Defense from using its funds to address climate change, essentially denying that the problem exists. The amendment passed 231-192, with only three Republicans voting against it.

In 2013, CAP Action analyzed statements from Republicans in Congress, and concluded that an overwhelming 58 percent are climate change deniers.

But these Republicans aren’t just ignoring the saner members of their party — they’re ignoring public opinion as well. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that a majority of Americans support the new EPA rules, and more than half are willing to pay higher electricity costs in order to reduce carbon emissions.

Photo: Climate and Ecosystems Change Adaptation Research University Network via Flickr

Interested in U.S. politics? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Carbon Emissions Rule Relies On A Broad View Of ‘System’

Carbon Emissions Rule Relies On A Broad View Of ‘System’

By David G. Savage, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The coming legal battle over President Barack Obama’s far-reaching climate-change rules will probably turn on the meaning of one word in the Clean Air Act of 1970 — “system.”

Under the landmark anti-pollution law, the Environmental Protection Agency is empowered to require states to apply “the best system of emission reduction” to existing power plants.

In the past, that system usually was interpreted to refer to technology used to reduce emissions pouring from a smokestack, such as a scrubber or a device to capture soot.

In unveiling its much-anticipated carbon-emissions rule, however, the EPA is seeking to define the word more broadly to describe a state’s entire system for producing power and controlling pollution.

By that expanded standard, a state could meet the EPA’s proposed carbon-reduction target not only by installing new technology at plants, but also by switching to cleaner-burning natural gas-fired plants, adding solar or wind power, participating in market-based pollution credit programs or encouraging consumers to use less electricity.

The Obama administration’s proposal, announced Monday, seeks to cut carbon emissions nationwide 30 percent by 2030 from their 2005 level. It would mark one of the nation’s biggest steps to date toward addressing pollution and climate change.

Critics say the EPA’s interpretation is something new, but environmental activists insist the broader definition always was envisioned by Congress.

“That will be the key issue in the court cases: What does the word ‘system’ mean?” said Thomas Lorenzen, a Washington lawyer who led the Justice Department’s defense of environmental laws for the past decade.

“Does it include natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear and coal, or is it just what you can do at that plant? There is no easy answer here, and we won’t know for sure until the courts tell us,” he said.

Janet McCabe, the EPA official who led the drafting of the proposed new rule, said this use of the law “gives us room to be creative, innovative and flexible.” Giving states the power to devise individualized programs for meeting the standards is a key selling point of the plan.

EPA supporters noted that the agency had little choice in widening its sights beyond plant-based remedies because significant national emission reductions would be almost impossible — and highly expensive — if relying strictly on plant upgrades or new technology.

But industry lawyers accused Obama’s regulators of stretching an obscure clause of the Clean Air Act, Section 111(d), beyond its breaking point in an effort to broaden the agency’s authority.

“The fundamental issue is whether EPA can require emission reductions that are separate and apart from power plants,” said Jeffrey Holmstead, a Washington lawyer who held a top EPA post in the Bush administration. “For 44 years, EPA has looked at the emissions rate at the facility. Now they say they can require all sorts of other things.”

The EPA says it hopes to adopt a final rule by next summer. Then the court challenges will begin.

In recent years, the energy industry and Republican-led states sued to block Obama administration environmental regulations, usually arguing the rules go beyond what the law allows.

But three important high court opinions give environmental advocates reason to be optimistic.

In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the Clear Air Act gives the EPA power to limit not only noxious air pollutants, like smog and soot, but also climate-changing greenhouse gases that endanger public health.

The Bush administration’s EPA argued that it did not have the authority. But liberal justices, joined by frequent swing vote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, agreed with lawyers for 12 states, including California and Illinois, who pushed for stronger regulatory powers.

That ruling set the stage for the Obama administration later to adopt new emissions standards for motor vehicles in 2010.

Three years ago, the high court encouraged the EPA to go even further when it opened the door for the agency to regulate greenhouses gases from “existing stationary sources,” such as power plants and factories. That decision became the basis for the proposed new regulations.

And in April, the high court upheld the EPA’s rule to limit “cross state air pollution,” despite fierce objections from industry groups and Republican-led states. The decision cleared the way for rules to address pollution that drifts from one state’s power plants into those downwind.

The EPA’s winning streak may end this month when the court decides a separate case involving the agency’s permitting process designed to curb carbon emissions for new power plants. Some justices questioned whether parts of the rule clashed with provisions of the law. But even if the EPA loses, agency lawyers are confident that the ruling will be narrow and won’t affect the new rules.

Justices are hard to predict in regulatory cases. On the one hand, they often defer to government agencies charged with enforcing the law. But they don’t hesitate to strike down regulations they believe go beyond the clear words of the law.

“I think EPA will be in a strong position in court,” said Sean Donahue, a lawyer who represents the Environmental Defense Fund. “The statutory text is very broad. The states have pushed for flexibility, and that favors a systems-based approach.”

The legal fight will go first to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There, Obama’s team may have an advantage.

In the last year, four new Obama appointees have joined the court, tilting the majority in favor of Democrats over Republicans for the first time since the 1980s.

But everyone expects the nation’s highest court to settle the matter. “This will almost certainly go the Supreme Court and be resolved in the next administration,” Holmstead said.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons