EPA Moves To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Environmental Protection Agency will propose a draft rule on Monday seeking a 30% reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030 from existing power plants based on emission levels from 2005, according to two people who have been briefed on the rule, setting in motion the main piece of President Barack Obama’s climate-change agenda.
Each state will have different percent reduction standards, and the national average will be 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030, these people said.
The proposed rule will regulate carbon emissions from hundreds of fossil-fuel power plants across the U.S., including about 600 coal plants, which will be hit hardest by the standard.
There is a long road ahead. The regulation to be announced Monday is just a proposal. The public can comment on it, and EPA must finalize it. Then it must survive challenges in Congress and the Courts. If it stands up though, it will rank with Obamacare and Dodd-Frank as the most significant accomplishments of this presidency.
Click here for reuse options!Copyright 2014 Liberaland
By: Stuart Shapiro
Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.
18 responses to EPA Moves To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wells June 2nd, 2014 at 16:16
Maybe nobody here gets as many ‘crazy’ stares as I get.
Some of you know this about me, the loudest/rudist alarmist:
—–
SEATTLE BERTHA BORE TUNNEL & DRILL-Fill
Sea-Fence & MercerWest projects must STOP !!
BERTHA MUST NOT PROCEED !!
—–
I’ve earned my crazy stripes trying
to clue you Seathlers in. You’ll thank me later.
Infrastructure, ya can’t fake it anymore.
Don’t go live somewhere else and fake it there.
—–
Seattle MercerEast is fine as expected. Don’t add MercerWest.
Extend Battery Street Tunnel north with current construction.
Lower Belltown 2-stoplight arrangement worth another look.
The complete dive under Elliott/Western with minimal ramps isn’t bad.
The roads descend beneath much larger park settings either way, to the
BOX Cut-Cover Tunnel/SOLID SEAWALL (because we might need it, perhaps?)
LEAST dark concrete underpass sidewalks with less traffic.
Seawall Habitat options actually better for salmonids/migration.
Other streetcar alignments not yet reviewed by, of, and for we the people.
—–
Now you can call this a national issue or shut up. It’s up to you, Alan/crew.
Roctuna June 2nd, 2014 at 18:32
Is there supposed to be a connection between Seattle traffic management and EPA greenhouse gas regulation? If there is, I think you’ll have to give us a bit more to work with than your Seattle-speak.
Wells June 2nd, 2014 at 22:20
From someone who professes, “Reducing CO2 is just one result of the proposal. Reducing coal-fired power plants has a lot of positives,” the connection should be obvious. Some State DOTs, including Washington, know what they’re doing when they’re doing their worst.
Roctuna June 3rd, 2014 at 11:27
um… clear as mud now, thanks. Sorry I’m not up to speed on your ALL CAPS alarmism. Is there some highway project you’re upset with?
Wells June 3rd, 2014 at 15:44
Nevermind. I can see you have little interest in a discussion,
despite the imagine peace imagery. For other readers, someone from Alan’s crew, might have an interest in the Seattle bore tunnel project which I predict will be a catastrophic failure.
Good luck saving, like, you know, the planet and stuff.
Roctuna June 3rd, 2014 at 21:23
You finally post something that’s comprehensible and now you quit.
Wells June 4th, 2014 at 14:57
I’m afraid your replies will always be derisive and dismissive.
The Seattle Bore Tunnel machine – nickname “Bertha” – broke down last December, 1000′ along its eventual 9300′ length. Many in the Pacific Northwest oppose the bore tunnel entirely, including Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn who won office in 2009 promising to kill the bore tunnel option. Last August, at the groundbreaking, the ‘point of no return’ was predicted exactly where Bertha broke down. The new Washington State DOT director Lynn Peterson recently admitted she “cannot guarantee completion of the bore tunnel.” This is the proverbial “sh*t hitting the fan” for our nation’s highway department cohorts caught in bed with fossil fuel mining company corporations.
Now write something smarmy and worthless, Roctuna,
if that’s what you’re really into.
Wells June 2nd, 2014 at 16:16
Maybe nobody here gets as many ‘crazy’ stares as I get.
Some of you know this about me, the loudest/rudist alarmist:
—–
SEATTLE BERTHA BORE TUNNEL & DRILL-Fill
Sea-Fence & MercerWest projects must STOP !!
BERTHA MUST NOT PROCEED !!
—–
I’ve earned my crazy stripes trying
to clue you Seathlers in. You’ll thank me later.
Infrastructure, ya can’t fake it anymore.
Don’t go live somewhere else and fake it there.
—–
Seattle MercerEast is fine as expected. Don’t add MercerWest.
Extend Battery Street Tunnel north with current construction.
Lower Belltown 2-stoplight arrangement worth another look.
The complete dive under Elliott/Western with minimal ramps isn’t bad.
The roads descend beneath much larger park settings either way, to the
BOX Cut-Cover Tunnel/SOLID SEAWALL (because we might need it, perhaps?)
LEAST dark concrete underpass sidewalks with less traffic.
Seawall Habitat options actually better for salmonids/migration.
Other streetcar alignments not yet reviewed by, of, and for we the people.
—–
Now you can call this a national issue or shut up. It’s up to you, Alan/crew.
Roctuna June 2nd, 2014 at 18:32
Is there supposed to be a connection between Seattle traffic management and EPA greenhouse gas regulation? If there is, I think you’ll have to give us a bit more to work with than your Seattle-speak.
Wells June 2nd, 2014 at 22:20
From someone who professes, “Reducing CO2 is just one result of the proposal. Reducing coal-fired power plants has a lot of positives,” the connection should be obvious. Some State DOTs, including Washington, know what they’re doing when they’re doing their worst.
Roctuna June 3rd, 2014 at 11:27
um… clear as mud now, thanks. Sorry I’m not up to speed on your ALL CAPS alarmism. Is there some highway project you’re upset with?
Wells June 3rd, 2014 at 15:44
Nevermind. I can see you have little interest in a discussion,
despite the imagine peace imagery. For other readers, someone from Alan’s crew, might have an interest in the Seattle bore tunnel project which I predict will be a catastrophic failure.
Good luck saving, like, you know, the planet and stuff.
Roctuna June 3rd, 2014 at 21:23
You finally post something that’s comprehensible and now you quit.
Wells June 4th, 2014 at 14:57
I’m afraid your replies will always be derisive and dismissive.
The Seattle Bore Tunnel machine – nickname “Bertha” – broke down last December, 1000′ along its eventual 9300′ length. Many in the Pacific Northwest oppose the bore tunnel entirely, including Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn who won office in 2009 promising to kill the bore tunnel option. Last August, at the groundbreaking, the ‘point of no return’ was predicted exactly where Bertha broke down. The new Washington State DOT director Lynn Peterson recently admitted she “cannot guarantee completion of the bore tunnel.” This is the proverbial “sh*t hitting the fan” for our nation’s highway department cohorts caught in bed with fossil fuel mining company corporations.
Now write something smarmy and worthless, Roctuna,
if that’s what you’re really into.
Tom Ward June 2nd, 2014 at 17:05
Could one support this and still call oneself a libertarian?
“A Simple Libertarian Argument for Environmental Regulation”
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/a-simple-libertarian-argument-for-environmental-regulation/
Roctuna June 2nd, 2014 at 18:44
I hope you’ll support it, whatever the reason, but that seems like a reasonable arguement to me (from a Libertarian perspective). Reducing CO2 is just one result of the proposal but reducing coal-fired power plants has a lot of positives. It will reduce heavy metal pollution, mainly mercury, air pollution by sulfur compounds and it will also have a ripple effect through the coal industry that might stave off mountain-top mining or other strip mining in many areas. I just hope the right won’t block necessary education and retraining for coal industry workers. This is the 21st century and IMO we just shouldn’t be using coal as an energy source any longer.
Tom Ward June 2nd, 2014 at 17:05
Could one support this and still call oneself a libertarian?
“A Simple Libertarian Argument for Environmental Regulation”
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/09/a-simple-libertarian-argument-for-environmental-regulation/
Roctuna June 2nd, 2014 at 18:44
I hope you’ll support it, whatever the reason, but that seems like a reasonable arguement to me (from a Libertarian perspective). Reducing CO2 is just one result of the proposal but reducing coal-fired power plants has a lot of positives. It will reduce heavy metal pollution, mainly mercury, air pollution by sulfur compounds and it will also have a ripple effect through the coal industry that might stave off mountain-top mining or other strip mining in many areas. I just hope the right won’t block necessary education and retraining for coal industry workers. This is the 21st century and IMO we just shouldn’t be using coal as an energy source any longer.