SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Industry Pushes EPA to Roll Back Power Plant Regulations
Environmental experts warn that the proposed limits already do not go far enough
Jul 23, 2014
Coal industry and business giants are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to backpedal on its proposed regulation of existing power plant emissions, despite warnings from environmental experts that the limits already do not go far enough to stave off climate crisis.
Partnership for a Better Energy Future, which represents 140 leading coal and oil industry and other business groups including the Chamber of Commerce and National Mining Association, sent a scalding letter Monday night to EPA chief Gina McCarthy, slamming the agency's proposed new regulations on carbon emissions from current power plants as "disruptive" and "arbitrary."
The EPA proposal, introduced in June as part of President Obama's climate plan, aims to cut the carbon dioxide emissions of existing power plants to 30 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030. The agency opened a 120-day public comment period on the proposal.
The industry letter charges that the proposal would "negatively impact the economy," exceeds the EPA's authority, and is not technologically achievable. The letter urges the EPA to "go back to the drawing board on this rule."
Yet, Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Common Dreams that the proposal "is in fact incredibly modest" and that "phasing out coal" is humanity's only option.
Kate DeAngelis, climate and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, agrees. While DeAngelis applauded Obama for taking a "big step" on climate change, she told Common Dreams that "the problem with the proposal is that it doesn't require strict enough emissions reductions and the targets are too weak."
She is not alone. Scientists have warned that the United States and other developed countries must cut carbon emissions across all industries by far more than 30 percent, and far earlier than 2020, if the planet is to have a shot at averting disaster.
"In the EPA rule, they expect that by 2030 the U.S. will still rely on coal and natural gas for 30 percent of our energy sources," explained DeAngelis. "That is not sufficient reduction."
In their letter, Partnership for a Better Energy Future call for an extension of the public comment period. But DeAngelis warned, "That is just a tactic to delay the new standards and get in a Republican president so they can squash the measure altogether."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Coal industry and business giants are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to backpedal on its proposed regulation of existing power plant emissions, despite warnings from environmental experts that the limits already do not go far enough to stave off climate crisis.
Partnership for a Better Energy Future, which represents 140 leading coal and oil industry and other business groups including the Chamber of Commerce and National Mining Association, sent a scalding letter Monday night to EPA chief Gina McCarthy, slamming the agency's proposed new regulations on carbon emissions from current power plants as "disruptive" and "arbitrary."
The EPA proposal, introduced in June as part of President Obama's climate plan, aims to cut the carbon dioxide emissions of existing power plants to 30 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030. The agency opened a 120-day public comment period on the proposal.
The industry letter charges that the proposal would "negatively impact the economy," exceeds the EPA's authority, and is not technologically achievable. The letter urges the EPA to "go back to the drawing board on this rule."
Yet, Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Common Dreams that the proposal "is in fact incredibly modest" and that "phasing out coal" is humanity's only option.
Kate DeAngelis, climate and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, agrees. While DeAngelis applauded Obama for taking a "big step" on climate change, she told Common Dreams that "the problem with the proposal is that it doesn't require strict enough emissions reductions and the targets are too weak."
She is not alone. Scientists have warned that the United States and other developed countries must cut carbon emissions across all industries by far more than 30 percent, and far earlier than 2020, if the planet is to have a shot at averting disaster.
"In the EPA rule, they expect that by 2030 the U.S. will still rely on coal and natural gas for 30 percent of our energy sources," explained DeAngelis. "That is not sufficient reduction."
In their letter, Partnership for a Better Energy Future call for an extension of the public comment period. But DeAngelis warned, "That is just a tactic to delay the new standards and get in a Republican president so they can squash the measure altogether."
Sarah Lazare
Sarah Lazare is the editor of Workday Magazine and a contributing editor for In These Times. She is a former Staff Writer at Common Dreams. She comes from a background in independent journalism for publications including The Intercept, The Nation, and Tom Dispatch.
Coal industry and business giants are pushing the Environmental Protection Agency to backpedal on its proposed regulation of existing power plant emissions, despite warnings from environmental experts that the limits already do not go far enough to stave off climate crisis.
Partnership for a Better Energy Future, which represents 140 leading coal and oil industry and other business groups including the Chamber of Commerce and National Mining Association, sent a scalding letter Monday night to EPA chief Gina McCarthy, slamming the agency's proposed new regulations on carbon emissions from current power plants as "disruptive" and "arbitrary."
The EPA proposal, introduced in June as part of President Obama's climate plan, aims to cut the carbon dioxide emissions of existing power plants to 30 percent of 2005 levels by the year 2030. The agency opened a 120-day public comment period on the proposal.
The industry letter charges that the proposal would "negatively impact the economy," exceeds the EPA's authority, and is not technologically achievable. The letter urges the EPA to "go back to the drawing board on this rule."
Yet, Bill Snape, senior counsel for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Common Dreams that the proposal "is in fact incredibly modest" and that "phasing out coal" is humanity's only option.
Kate DeAngelis, climate and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth, agrees. While DeAngelis applauded Obama for taking a "big step" on climate change, she told Common Dreams that "the problem with the proposal is that it doesn't require strict enough emissions reductions and the targets are too weak."
She is not alone. Scientists have warned that the United States and other developed countries must cut carbon emissions across all industries by far more than 30 percent, and far earlier than 2020, if the planet is to have a shot at averting disaster.
"In the EPA rule, they expect that by 2030 the U.S. will still rely on coal and natural gas for 30 percent of our energy sources," explained DeAngelis. "That is not sufficient reduction."
In their letter, Partnership for a Better Energy Future call for an extension of the public comment period. But DeAngelis warned, "That is just a tactic to delay the new standards and get in a Republican president so they can squash the measure altogether."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.