

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

"A shift to renewable energy -- and ending America's dependence on coal and natural gas -- is key to reducing U.S. emissions and pollution," the author writes. (Photo: Appalachian Voices/flickr/cc)
New coal standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are threatening to permanently undermine the federal government's power to control power plant pollution.
The new rule -- which would empower states to decide how much they want to reduce their emissions, if at all -- will be devastating for all Americans. Especially vulnerable are people of color and rural populations.
Several states -- California, Washington, and Iowa to name a few -- have already challenged the new rule. But if the Supreme Court upholds the administration's proposal, the federal government would be left with a greatly limited role in enforcing emission standards -- a key tool in the fight against pollution and global warming.
This proposal is another attempt to protect the antiquated coal industry over the lives of vulnerable citizens.
The coal industry has been in sharp decline for decades as alternative energy sources such as natural gas and renewable energy have come onto the market -- sources of energy that are much cheaper.
Even so, the Trump administration's attempts to make coal more competitive have been largely symbolic. Initiatives like repealing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and attempts to cut the EPA's budget do little to actually make coal attractive to investors.
However, even if the Trump administration's proposal will do little to actually re-energize the coal industry, it will still have serious ramifications. The new EPA standard won't cause states to use more coal, but it won't encourage them to use renewable energy either. Transitioning to more sustainable energy sources is key to combat the worsening crisis of climate change.
Ultimately, the consequences of this proposal will disproportionately impact people of color, especially in conservative states.
Many of the states supporting this initiative -- especially those in the former Confederacy -- have some of the highest concentrations of black and brown people in the country. Statistically, the effects of global warming and pollution from non-renewable power sources disproportionately hurt people of color.
But predominantly white rural communities are also at huge risk.
For one thing, many rural communities rely on the outdoors for recreation and as a major source of income, solidifying their stake in all kinds of conservation.
For another, like many communities of color, rural areas often lack the resources to adapt to the worst effects of climate change. While rich folks can buy land away from rising sea levels and afford to live in areas with clean air, rural folk and other vulnerable people are forced to live with their increasingly polluted environments.
While Trump tries to manipulate his supporters by pretending to revive the coal industry, real lives are at stake as global warming becomes more urgent. A shift to renewable energy -- and ending America's dependence on coal and natural gas -- is key to reducing U.S. emissions and pollution.
While individual actions like recycling and riding a bike to work might coax people into thinking they're saving the planet, much larger and more systemic shifts are key.
Policy makers should no longer get the luxury of pandering to conservative voters with lies about bringing coal back. Our planet is dying. People are dying. Anything short of an aggressive stance on climate change -- the literal opposite of this EPA proposal -- is nothing short of deadly.
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 |
New coal standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are threatening to permanently undermine the federal government's power to control power plant pollution.
The new rule -- which would empower states to decide how much they want to reduce their emissions, if at all -- will be devastating for all Americans. Especially vulnerable are people of color and rural populations.
Several states -- California, Washington, and Iowa to name a few -- have already challenged the new rule. But if the Supreme Court upholds the administration's proposal, the federal government would be left with a greatly limited role in enforcing emission standards -- a key tool in the fight against pollution and global warming.
This proposal is another attempt to protect the antiquated coal industry over the lives of vulnerable citizens.
The coal industry has been in sharp decline for decades as alternative energy sources such as natural gas and renewable energy have come onto the market -- sources of energy that are much cheaper.
Even so, the Trump administration's attempts to make coal more competitive have been largely symbolic. Initiatives like repealing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and attempts to cut the EPA's budget do little to actually make coal attractive to investors.
However, even if the Trump administration's proposal will do little to actually re-energize the coal industry, it will still have serious ramifications. The new EPA standard won't cause states to use more coal, but it won't encourage them to use renewable energy either. Transitioning to more sustainable energy sources is key to combat the worsening crisis of climate change.
Ultimately, the consequences of this proposal will disproportionately impact people of color, especially in conservative states.
Many of the states supporting this initiative -- especially those in the former Confederacy -- have some of the highest concentrations of black and brown people in the country. Statistically, the effects of global warming and pollution from non-renewable power sources disproportionately hurt people of color.
But predominantly white rural communities are also at huge risk.
For one thing, many rural communities rely on the outdoors for recreation and as a major source of income, solidifying their stake in all kinds of conservation.
For another, like many communities of color, rural areas often lack the resources to adapt to the worst effects of climate change. While rich folks can buy land away from rising sea levels and afford to live in areas with clean air, rural folk and other vulnerable people are forced to live with their increasingly polluted environments.
While Trump tries to manipulate his supporters by pretending to revive the coal industry, real lives are at stake as global warming becomes more urgent. A shift to renewable energy -- and ending America's dependence on coal and natural gas -- is key to reducing U.S. emissions and pollution.
While individual actions like recycling and riding a bike to work might coax people into thinking they're saving the planet, much larger and more systemic shifts are key.
Policy makers should no longer get the luxury of pandering to conservative voters with lies about bringing coal back. Our planet is dying. People are dying. Anything short of an aggressive stance on climate change -- the literal opposite of this EPA proposal -- is nothing short of deadly.
New coal standards proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are threatening to permanently undermine the federal government's power to control power plant pollution.
The new rule -- which would empower states to decide how much they want to reduce their emissions, if at all -- will be devastating for all Americans. Especially vulnerable are people of color and rural populations.
Several states -- California, Washington, and Iowa to name a few -- have already challenged the new rule. But if the Supreme Court upholds the administration's proposal, the federal government would be left with a greatly limited role in enforcing emission standards -- a key tool in the fight against pollution and global warming.
This proposal is another attempt to protect the antiquated coal industry over the lives of vulnerable citizens.
The coal industry has been in sharp decline for decades as alternative energy sources such as natural gas and renewable energy have come onto the market -- sources of energy that are much cheaper.
Even so, the Trump administration's attempts to make coal more competitive have been largely symbolic. Initiatives like repealing the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan and attempts to cut the EPA's budget do little to actually make coal attractive to investors.
However, even if the Trump administration's proposal will do little to actually re-energize the coal industry, it will still have serious ramifications. The new EPA standard won't cause states to use more coal, but it won't encourage them to use renewable energy either. Transitioning to more sustainable energy sources is key to combat the worsening crisis of climate change.
Ultimately, the consequences of this proposal will disproportionately impact people of color, especially in conservative states.
Many of the states supporting this initiative -- especially those in the former Confederacy -- have some of the highest concentrations of black and brown people in the country. Statistically, the effects of global warming and pollution from non-renewable power sources disproportionately hurt people of color.
But predominantly white rural communities are also at huge risk.
For one thing, many rural communities rely on the outdoors for recreation and as a major source of income, solidifying their stake in all kinds of conservation.
For another, like many communities of color, rural areas often lack the resources to adapt to the worst effects of climate change. While rich folks can buy land away from rising sea levels and afford to live in areas with clean air, rural folk and other vulnerable people are forced to live with their increasingly polluted environments.
While Trump tries to manipulate his supporters by pretending to revive the coal industry, real lives are at stake as global warming becomes more urgent. A shift to renewable energy -- and ending America's dependence on coal and natural gas -- is key to reducing U.S. emissions and pollution.
While individual actions like recycling and riding a bike to work might coax people into thinking they're saving the planet, much larger and more systemic shifts are key.
Policy makers should no longer get the luxury of pandering to conservative voters with lies about bringing coal back. Our planet is dying. People are dying. Anything short of an aggressive stance on climate change -- the literal opposite of this EPA proposal -- is nothing short of deadly.