tag:theconversation.com,2011:/africa/topics/epa-clean-power-plan-17859/articlesEPA Clean Power Plan – The Conversation2018-08-22T15:53:49Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1019612018-08-22T15:53:49Z2018-08-22T15:53:49ZAn alternative to propping up coal power plants: Retrain workers for solar<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/233129/original/file-20180822-149478-2amlav.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The number of coal mining jobs has gone up slightly, but many times less than solar-related ones.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Coal-Mine-Opening/bdb331750a13475b9185594ab676db23/1/0">AP Photo/Dake Kang</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration announced <a href="https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/proposal-affordable-clean-energy-ace-rule">new pollution rules for coal-fired power plants</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-administration-proposes-rule-to-relax-carbon-limits-on-power-plants/2018/08/21/b46b0a8a-a543-11e8-a656-943eefab5daf_story.html">designed</a> to keep existing coal power plants operating more and save American coal mining jobs. </p>
<p>Profitability for U.S. coal power plants has plummeted, and one major <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/business/energy-environment/coal-miners-struggle-to-survive-in-an-industry-battered-by-layoffs-and-bankruptcy.html?_r=0">coal company</a> after <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/arch-coal-files-for-bankruptcy-1452500976#_blank">another</a> has filed for bankruptcy, including the world’s largest private-sector coal company, <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/peabody-energy-files-for-chapter-11-protection-from-creditors-1460533760">Peabody Energy</a>. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-may-dismantle-the-epa-clean-power-plan-but-its-targets-look-resilient-68460">main reason coal is in decline</a> is <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/21/investing/coal-power-trump-epa/index.html">less expensive natural gas and renewable energy like solar</a>. Coal employment has dropped so low there are fewer than <a href="https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_212100.htm">53,000</a> coal miners in total in the U.S. (for comparison, the failing retailer <a href="https://www.forbes.com/companies/jc-penney/">J.C. Penny has about twice as many workers</a>). </p>
<p>The EPA estimates the new rules will cause <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage">about 1,400 more premature deaths a year from coal-related air pollution</a> by 2030. The Trump administration could avoid the premature American deaths from coal pollution – which amount to about <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33288631/Potential_Lives_Saved_by_Replacing_Coal_with_Solar_Photovoltaic_Electricity_Production_in_the">52,000 per year in total</a> – and still help the coal miners themselves by retraining them for a more profitable industry, such as the solar industry. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.academia.edu/26372861/Retraining_Investment_for_U.S._Transition_from_Coal_to_Solar_Photovoltaic_Employment">study</a> I co-authored analyzed the question of retraining current coal workers for employment in the solar industry. We found that this transition is feasible in most cases and would even result in better pay for nearly all of the current coal workers. </p>
<h2>How to make the jump?</h2>
<p>What is left of the coal mining industry represents a <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/userfiles/works/pdfs/2012-152.pdf">unique demographic</a> compared to the rest of America. It is white (96.4 percent); male (96.2 percent); aging, with an average age of 43.8 years old; and relatively uneducated, with 76.7 percent having earned only a high school degree or equivalent. Many are highly skilled, however, with the largest sector of jobs being equipment operators at 27 percent. Many of these skills can be transferred directly into the solar industry.</p>
<p><iframe id="yePNr" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yePNr/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>In the <a href="https://www.academia.edu/26372861/Retraining_Investment_for_U.S._Transition_from_Coal_to_Solar_Photovoltaic_Employment">study</a>, we evaluated the skill sets of current coal workers and tabulated salaries. For each type of coal position, we determined the closest equivalent solar position and tried to match current coal salaries. We then quantified the time and investment required to retrain each worker.</p>
<p>Our results show there is a wide variety of employment opportunities in solar – the industry overall already employs more than five times more people than in coal mining, at <a href="https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/">over 250,000</a> by one industry group estimate. We also found the annual pay is generally better at all levels of education, even with the lowest-skilled jobs. For example, janitors in the coal industry could increase their salaries by 7 percent by becoming low-skilled mechanical assemblers in the solar industry. </p>
<p>Overall, we found that after retraining, technical workers (the vast majority) would make more money in the solar industry than they do in coal. Also note this study was about careers and was done before an uptick in the practice of <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/climate/coal-jobs-prove-lucrative-but-not-for-those-in-the-mines.html">hiring temporary coal workers</a>. The only downside on salaries we found are that managers and particularly executives would make less in solar than coal. This represents only about 3.2 percent of coal workers that are professional administrators. </p>
<h2>Retraining needs</h2>
<p>How would coal workers make this transition? There are over 40 types of solar jobs which the <a href="https://www.energy.gov/eere/solar/solar-energy-careers">DOE has mapped out</a>. They range from entry-level jobs, such as installers, to more advanced positions in engineering and technical design. Most coal workers could not simply walk into a solar job; they would need some retraining. But certain positions require less training. </p>
<p><iframe id="wngs8" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/wngs8/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>For example, a structural engineer in the coal industry would not expect to need additional schooling to work as one in the solar industry. And for some coal employees, the retraining would amount to only a short course or on-the-job training. This is particularly true for installers, which represents the most common and geographically spread solar jobs. </p>
<p>There are various programs already set up to do this, such as California’s <a href="https://www.aol.com/article/2009/04/10/solar-apprenticeship-program-heats-up-in-california/1513429/">solar apprenticeship program</a> or one in <a href="http://www.oregon.gov/BOLI/ATD/Pages/A_Ctrades_RenewableEgyTech.aspx">Oregon</a>, for example, and another through the <a href="https://irecusa.org/workforce-education/training-resources/best-practices-the-series/best-practices-5-exemplary-solar-education-training-programs/">Interstate Renewable Energy Council</a>.</p>
<p>More advanced positions would require more education. Some solar-related engineering positions call for up to a four-year university degree, which has a large range in costs, from US$18,000 to over $136,000, depending on the school.</p>
<p>Our paper includes <a href="https://www.academia.edu/26372861/Retraining_Investment_for_U.S._Transition_from_Coal_to_Solar_Photovoltaic_Employment#_blank">appendices</a> that can help current coal workers match their existing job to the best potential fits in solar, as well as what training they’ll need. (Please note the costs and specific schools used are only examples and are not meant to be prescriptive; for example, most coal miners that need college credits would be able to find less expensive options at their own state schools.)</p>
<p>Overall, the analysis showed that a relatively minor investment – viewed from a nationwide retraining perspective – would allow the vast majority of coal miners to switch to solar-related positions. In the worst-case scenario we calculated, the cost was $1.87 billion.</p>
<h2>Counting the benefits</h2>
<p>Although there was a <a href="https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/">dip in solar jobs last year</a>, in general the solar industry needs trained workers. Since the rapid <a href="https://www.academia.edu/1484968/A_Review_of_Solar_Photovoltaic_Levelized_Cost_of_Electricity">decrease</a> in the costs of solar photovoltaic technology, unsubsidized solar is now often the <a href="http://fs-unep-centre.org/sites/default/files/publications/globaltrendsinrenewableenergyinvestment2017.pdf">least expensive</a> source of electric power, and solar deployment is rising in the U.S. </p>
<p>The way I see it, if the country retrains coal miners for the solar industry, the workers themselves win by making larger salaries in a growing field; America wins because we will be more economically competitive with lower-cost electricity; America wins again because of lower health care costs and <a href="https://www.academia.edu/33288631/Potential_Lives_Saved_by_Replacing_Coal_with_Solar_Photovoltaic_Electricity_Production_in_the_U.S">reduced premature deaths from coal-fired air pollution</a>; America wins a third time because of an improved economy and solar-related employment; and even the environment wins. </p>
<p>President Trump could even win by taking credit for it – he did recently sign an executive order that boosts American <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/15/trump-apprenticeship-executive-order-239590">apprenticeships</a>, which could be used to train coal workers for solar jobs. That is a lot of winning.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101961/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dr. Joshua M. Pearce works as Professor of Engineering for the Michigan Technological University. He receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), The Air Force Research Laboratory (ARFL) with the National Center for Defense Manufacturing and Machining (NCDMM) and America Makes, and the National Science Foundation (NSF). In addition, his past and present consulting work and research is funded by many non-profits and for-profit companies, many of them in the energy field. He does not directly work for any solar module manufacturer and has no direct conflicts of interests. </span></em></p>The Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy Plan would help the declining coal industry, but a study shows many coal workers could transition to a new industry – solar – and earn more money.Joshua M. Pearce, Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, Michigan Technological UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/855612017-10-13T04:20:02Z2017-10-13T04:20:02ZThe pull of energy markets – and legal challenges – will blunt plans to roll back EPA carbon rules<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190046/original/file-20171012-31431-onx4wj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Grid operators set the prices for energy markets and are structured to take the lowest prices – a disadvantage for coal and nuclear power.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On Oct. 10, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-another-step-advance-president-trumps-america-first-strategy-proposes-repeal">formally announced</a> a repeal of the Clean Power Plan, regulation intended to curb greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and natural gas-fired power plants. </p>
<p>This follows a <a href="https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2017/09/f37/Notice%20of%20Proposed%20Rulemaking%20.pdf">directive</a> only a week earlier by Energy Secretary Rick Perry for the the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to start a process to essentially <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-rick-perrys-proposed-subsidies-for-coal-fail-economics-101-83339">subsidize coal and nuclear power plants</a>. </p>
<p>At first blush, these developments give the impression that the U.S. power sector is about to take a dramatic turn, and these decisions do indeed represent a significant shift in U.S. policy. But major changes on the ground are unlikely to happen overnight, or perhaps even in the next several years, for many reasons. Topping the list are legal challenges and simply the way competitive energy markets work.</p>
<h2>Headwinds from natural gas, wind and solar</h2>
<p>Legally, the Clean Power Plan repeal is already facing a challenge. The same day as its demise was announced, New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman <a href="https://ag.ny.gov/press-release/ag-schneiderman-leads-coalition-states-and-localities-opposing-pres-trumps-efforts">responded</a> that he would lead a coalition of states and localities in a lawsuit defending the Clean Power Plan. </p>
<p>Unless the Trump administration replaces the Clean Power Plan with something that addresses greenhouse emissions adequately, its decision is legally vulnerable. The Supreme Court decision in <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-1120.ZS.html">Massachusetts v. EPA</a> provided the basis of the Obama administration’s regulation of greenhouse gases. Specifically, after this case, the EPA made a finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare, which the Trump administration has not challenged. The proposed rule repealing the Clean Power Plan indicates an intention to replace it with other regulation, and a key legal question will be whether that regulation is sufficient to protect health and safety. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190030/original/file-20171012-31381-3j59xn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Fracking and horizontal drilling have led to a surge in natural gas production and lower prices. As more pipelines are built, natural gas prices will stay relatively low, making coal less competitive economically.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/consumersenergy/14165904839/in/photolist-nzMXYB-f9XtJb-f9XtBQ-7RD78C-dSQcMY-a9XrWQ-f9HdQe-7dEkxt-f9Hegr-8CkHjD-7dEo14-dVnWU3-fHUtKS-8CoPyY-8CowNy-8CkKJr-agV71g-9cH8WD-TryTTF-iKuXA-ft8LqW-bDowqJ-csti-bSif82-7dEriD-8GkQ2Q-8CkwX6-8XvPAN-8CkfN4-8CoUn3-9hFV2R-TryTLr-5HuX9v-8CkGKK-dVnX4W-f9nGXa-aERkpH-p97uwY-bg6vWP-h4MVHS-8CoUe7-8CkjYr-f9Xtn3-akoKs4-qJXYNr-bSifg8-6sc6Aa-dyYdw8-fbBChB-f9HdVH">Consumers Energy</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Even if the repeal and any subsequent regulation survive legal challenges, the development of the <a href="https://www.cfr.org/report/shale-gas-and-tight-oil-boom">shale gas industry</a> has caused market shifts that seem <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-may-dismantle-the-epa-clean-power-plan-but-its-targets-look-resilient-68460">unlikely to be reversed</a>. Prior to the unconventional oil and gas boom, natural gas prices were notoriously volatile, making power plant developers wary to invest in gas-fired infrastructure. But <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-solar-and-wind-really-killing-coal-nuclear-and-grid-reliability-76741">now natural gas is commonly used</a> for “baseload” plants – those that continuously supply electricity to meet constant demand – as well as peaker plants that supply additional power when demand rises. </p>
<p>This market shift is why nearly all new power plants recently built in the United States are gas-fired. Further enhancing the stability of these markets is the recent expansion of natural gas pipelines carrying gas from productive areas like the Marcellus and Barnett regions to power plants around the country. This means that it’s likely that coal-fired power plants will continue to face economic challenges. </p>
<p>At the same time, midwestern and western wind energy – and solar in places like the Southwest – now <a href="https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060063283">outcompete coal and nuclear in energy markets</a>. While the Trump administration regulations aim to support coal and nuclear power development, these market forces remain powerful.</p>
<h2>Cheapest energy sources first</h2>
<p>The way that U.S. energy markets operate – supported by more than two decades of policies supporting competition – further constrains the impact of the repeal and other Trump administration policies. </p>
<p>Two-thirds of power supplied in the United States flows through transmission lines controlled by regional entities called regional transmission organizations. These entities control both the flow of power through long-distance transmission lines and the markets for energy. They run marketplaces where power plant operators bid to supply the amount of power needed throughout the day. Regional transmission organizations first draw on the cheapest sources of power until they have fulfilled all demand for power. Changes to these existing market practices would require major revisions to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission policies. </p>
<p>For example, given the complex computer systems currently used by regional transmission organizations to match demand with the cheapest available power supply, the DOE proposal to favor more-expensive coal and nuclear in these markets would be exceedingly difficult to implement. It would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to establish a price for each individual coal and nuclear power plant that was not set by market forces, which runs contrary to how markets operate now. This is partly why past efforts to favor certain power plants over others in these markets – for example, efforts to prioritize plants based on their environmental attributes – have largely not materialized.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/190042/original/file-20171012-31440-1wc5whd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Energy Secretary Rick Perry testifies Oct. 12 at the House Energy and Commerce Committee on the department’s plan to provide payments to coal and nuclear power plants, a break from years of policies designed to use least expensive sources of energy.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The repeal’s impact will be further blunted by the many entities that have pledged to meet or exceed the Obama administration’s targets under the Paris Agreement. For example, more than 2,300 states, cities, businesses and universities have signed the <a href="https://www.wearestillin.com/">We Are Still In Pledge</a>, and many have already substantially expanded their low-carbon energy portfolio. Although a number of key states will certainly pursue different pathways than they would have under the Clean Power Plan, many states are <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/10/climate/clean-power-plan-emissions-your-state.html">on target to exceed the goals</a> that would have been set for them. </p>
<p>From its Paris Agreement withdrawal to this latest decision to repeal the Clean Power Plan, the Trump administration continues to unwind the Obama administration’s regulatory efforts on climate change. We in no way want to understate the significance of this policy shift. But looking at the larger context shows how a number of factors will constrain the amount of change these regulatory shifts will likely bring.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/85561/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hari Osofsky receives grant funding from the Australian Research Council and the Department of Energy. She also consults with the Children's Investment Fund Foundation to evaluate an grant that it made to ClientEarth to support climate change litigation in Europe. None of these entities would benefit from this article.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Hannah Wiseman sometimes consults for the Environmental Defense Fund. This entity would not benefit from this article. </span></em></p>Two moves by the Trump administration signal a dramatic shift in energy policy to favor coal and nuclear, but markets forces and legal challenges mean changes could take years.Hari Osofsky, Dean, Distinguished Professor of Law, Professor of International Affairs, Professor of Geography, Penn StateHannah Wiseman, Attorneys' Title Professor, College of Law, Florida State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/753912017-03-29T06:32:45Z2017-03-29T06:32:45ZTrump tears down US climate policy, but America could lose out as a result<p>US President Donald Trump has followed through on his promise to undo Barack Obama’s climate policies, signing an <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1">executive order</a> to review his predecessor’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/epa-clean-power-plan-17859">Clean Power Plan</a> and any other regulations that “burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources”. The move potentially paves the way for the United States to walk away from its commitments under the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris Climate Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>America’s leadership on climate change has been patchy at best, yet under Obama the country made an <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148">important diplomatic shift</a> – one that now looks to be fundamentally unravelling. Trump’s executive order, released on Tuesday, aims to dismantle the network of institutions and laws that regulate greenhouse emissions, and those that conduct globally important research to track climate change. The consequences, both at home and abroad, will be severe.</p>
<p>The order comes as little surprise. Trump, after all, has previously <a href="https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385">claimed</a> that climate change is a conspiracy perpetrated by the Chinese government to gain economic advantage at America’s expense, and made a campaign promise to undo the Paris deal. His administration has deep ties to the oil and gas industry, including Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, a former chief executive of ExxonMobil. Trump also greenlit the controversial Dakota Access pipeline.</p>
<p>Trump’s appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) caused alarm among environmental activists and EPA staff alike. Pruitt has a history of suing the EPA during his time as Attorney General of Oklahoma, and hundreds of recently released emails attest to his <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/22/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-oklahoma/">close relationship with the oil and gas industry</a>. </p>
<p>The new executive order signals that Trump does not want climate research to be carried out by government agencies such as the EPA, NASA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).</p>
<p>In a speech to Congress earlier this month, he outlined plans to <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-27/trump-s-epa-budget-cuts-may-unleash-a-backlash-as-risks-remain">slash the EPA’s budget</a>. He has also pledged to reinvigorate the coal industry, and the Republican-controlled House has already <a href="http://thehill.com/regulation/energy-environment/317193-house-to-repeal-obama-coal-rule-wednesday">rolled back</a> an Obama-era regulation that prevented coal companies dumping their waste in rivers.</p>
<h2>China leading the climate race</h2>
<p>The irony is that while Trump may believe that the <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/191/2f9207c6269c49724f77368618b19a7107ced0f3/site/index.html?&lat=-25&lng=-25&zoom=3">emissions targets agreed upon in Paris</a> would weaken the US economy, particularly against China, the reverse is actually closer to the truth. </p>
<p>As my colleague Ben Habib <a href="http://asaa.asn.au/china-set-lead-global-climate-politics/">recently argued</a>, China now leads the world in renewable energy investment, a trend that will see it dominate the market in the decades to come. The Paris targets are one way that other countries can similarly encourage clean energy investment. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, China’s plans to move away from its heavy use of coal-fired electricity generation means the price of coal will continue to fall, making America’s cherished coal industry less profitable and exacerbating the economic and social costs to coal mining communities. With many analysts warning of a potential “<a href="https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/beware-carbon-bubble">carbon bubble</a>”, Trump is in danger of backing the wrong horse.</p>
<p>The Chinese government’s desire to move away from fossil fuels is driven partly by <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/17/beijing-smog-pollution-red-alert-declared-in-china-capital-and-21-other-cities">serious domestic pollution and health issues</a>. Instead of cutting research funds, the US should pay similar attention to the health of its own citizens.</p>
<p>America’s huge size and geographical diversity means it is likely to experience many different climate impacts, from coastal flooding and <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21717324-fears-californias-huge-oroville-dam-might-fail-have-subsidedfor-time-being-drought">severe storms</a> to <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-Chap27_FINAL.pdf">drought</a> and wildfires.</p>
<h2>Global impacts</h2>
<p>The Pentagon has <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/military-leaders-urge-trump-to-see-climate-as-a-security-threat/">repeatedly warned</a> that climate change is a threat to global security that will make existing challenges even harder to deal with. </p>
<p>Competition over scarce resources such as food and water have already contributed to the <a href="http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/WCAS-D-13-00059.1">civil war in Syria</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/04/drought-east-africa-climate-change">increasingly violent conflicts</a> over food and farmland in the Horn of Africa. These conflicts have contributed to a growing mass migration crisis, and longer droughts and irregular rainfall in agricultural regions will impact global food prices.</p>
<p>People in the Pacific Islands will likely lose their homes to sea level rise, potentially adding further to the migration of refugees from around the world. Some of the poorest countries in the world, including <a href="https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2013/06/19/warmer-world-threatens-livelihoods-in-south-east-asia">the Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand</a>, will also face the impacts of sea-level rise, yet lack the resources to adapt to the changing environment. More frequent and intense storms and extreme weather events such as cyclones will create humanitarian crises that will require an international response.</p>
<p>Many of these crises will require an American response, whether through the provision of disaster relief and support, or through managing increased migration. When it comes to violent conflict as a result of climate-related tensions, it is likely that America would face immense global pressure to intervene. </p>
<p>It is clear that Trump has less appetite for international intervention than his predecessors. But nor does the White House appear to place any value on managing America’s own vulnerability to climate change.</p>
<p>If Trump’s climate policy takedown is successful, he may well find himself presiding over a country that is weakened economically, socially and politically, both at home and abroad.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75391/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kumuda Simpson is affiliated with the NTEU Climate Action Network. </span></em></p>Donald Trump has signalled the end of US leadership on climate policy, with potentially unpleasant consequences for America’s economy, security and diplomatic standing.Kumuda Simpson, Lecturer in International Relations, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/752522017-03-29T00:12:46Z2017-03-29T00:12:46ZTrump slams brakes on Obama’s climate plan, but there’s still a long road ahead<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163009/original/image-20170328-3806-rexupq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Trump signed the executive order surrounded by coal miners, saying it was 'about jobs.'</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Matthew Brown</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Badly looking for a political win that would both fulfill some campaign promises to his political base and satisfy the demands of rank-and-file Republicans in Congress, President Trump on March 28 <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/presidential-executive-order-promoting-energy-independence-and-economi-1">signed an expansive Energy Independence and Economic Growth Executive Order</a>.</p>
<p>The executive order signals a sharp shift in federal climate change rules, standards and work procedures. This was expected based on Trump’s campaign rhetoric and his selection of Cabinet members and advisers. But as with other Trump White House initiatives, it is unclear how much change the administration can deliver and at what pace.</p>
<p>It took a long time for the Obama administration to formulate some of the central climate change rules now targeted by the Trump administration, and it will take years trying to change them. The signing of the executive order is just the administration’s opening salvo in what is destined to become <a href="http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/7/13855470/donald-trump-epa-climate-regulations">a protracted</a> and high-stakes battle.</p>
<h2>The Trump attack</h2>
<p>Cloaked in <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-environmental-regulations-do-more-harm-or-good-presidential-candidates-disagree-55989">unsubstantiated</a> “pro-growth” rhetoric, the executive order targets the Obama administration’s <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a>. It also focuses on mandates to cap methane emissions, looks to increase support for the extraction and use of coal and other fossil fuels, and changes the ways in which climate change concerns are embedded in actions by federal agencies (including taking into consideration the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon">social cost of carbon</a>).</p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan was designed to curb carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants as well as to promote renewable energy production and greater energy efficiency. The Obama administration also <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/regulatory-actions">set emissions standards</a> for new power plants. These and other measures were issued in response to the <a href="http://content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1812836,00.html">unwillingness</a> by the U.S. Congress to pass any separate climate change legislation.</p>
<p>Announced in August 2015, the Clean Power Plan was immediately <a href="https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2016.01.26_wv_et_al._scotus_stay_application.pdf">challenged in court</a> by a group of 29 states and state agencies with the support of a variety of firms and industry organizations, including Oklahoma while current EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="http://www.eenews.net/eenewspm/2017/02/21/stories/1060050373">was the state’s attorney general</a>. The opponents argued the EPA had overstepped its regulatory authority with the new rules and they therefore should be struck down.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court in an <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-obama-epa-coal-emissions-regulations.html">unprecedented decision</a> in February 2016 ordered the EPA to temporarily stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan until a lower-level court had made a ruling on the EPA’s authority to set such standards. Oral hearings were held in the D.C. Circuit Court in September 2016, but a decision is still pending.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163010/original/image-20170328-3793-cueyr5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Coal miners were visible supporters of Trump during the presidential campaign and at the signing of a sweeping executive order to reverse regulations to limit greenhouse gases.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/flavor32/2446981650/in/photolist-4JeqoN-6Eszkz-6n6dQk-ro3qqR-8njnvn-a5i2mp-25hCkK-6gbFfT-e7ZZYT-e811Ta-7LzDK2-ej6uGL-62MnWi-5vSRpv-5iyorR-e86kah-e7ZBRF-3rLG3W-4y4ZJr-6tSRSf-4Ja7Hx-e86izs-2NQqK2-4Jetq9-4J9QFB-e86DjC-e812hr-e7ZF8c-4Ja1T8-e7ZEUK-4Jeh8U-66mQ5a-e86Efj-7mK85e-e86FFN-4Jw3FE-4Lye1z-oNfz4Z-nJSkrx-4JdS9j-9UWJq9-ctWsS7-9UwVyX-9UzKzG-cJTe6q-qGtH8p-cib9sw-cibaKL-6KFDgo-cibMqG">flavor32/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Because the EPA under Pruitt will review the Clean Power Plan and roll back other Obama initiatives, the executive order alters basic legal dynamics. Now, lawsuits making their way up the court system will change. Instead of challenging the Obama rules, suits will be aimed at forcing the Trump administration to either uphold them or take other forms of meaningful regulatory action. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/joint-statement-regarding-clean-power-plan-governors-washington-oregon-and-california-and">Many states</a> and environmental groups that support the Clean Power Plan and other existing measures stand ready with a lineup of lawyers to fight back. They will argue that the federal government must act based on a 2007 U.S. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html">Supreme Court decision</a> classifying CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and a 2009 EPA <a href="https://www.edf.org/climate/overview-epa-endangerment-finding">Endangerment Finding</a> stating that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. </p>
<h2>Will we still always have Paris?</h2>
<p>The executive order is silent on the Trump administration’s intent vis-à-vis the 2015 <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-agreement-on-climate-change-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-52242">Paris Agreement</a>, in which nearly 200 countries agreed to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But it casts a long shadow both on the U.S. ability to meet its Paris goal and the future of U.S. international leadership on climate change.</p>
<p>The implementation of the Clean Power Plan is central to fulfilling <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/ndcregistry/PublishedDocuments/United%20States%20of%20America%20First/U.S.A.%20First%20NDC%20Submission.pdf">U.S. commitments</a> under the Paris Agreement of reducing national GHG emissions by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28 percent. By 2014, national emissions were down <a href="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/us-greenhouse-gas-inventory-report-1990-2014">9 percent</a> compared with 2005 levels.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163001/original/image-20170328-3812-1gzty01.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The EPA Clean Power Plan was a linchpin in the U.S. global climate commitments because it restricted carbon emissions from power plants, directly affecting coal-fired plants.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Matthew Brown</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Electing to either leave or ignore the Paris Agreement would not provide the United States with more independence and flexibility, as it reduces its political influence and ability to shape future decisions in global climate negotiations. </p>
<p>There are other global environmental treaties around biodiversity protection and the management of hazardous chemicals and wastes to which the United States is not a party. As a result, the U.S. ability to influence regulatory decisions under these treaties is severely limited – for example, specific chemical compounds where there is a need to protect human health and the environment, or where U.S. firms have economic interests. This foreshadows the kind of outsider status that the United States may gain if it backs out of the Paris Agreement. </p>
<p>Notably, ceding international leadership on climate change may serve only to embolden other countries, including China, to take on a more prominent role at the expense of U.S. influence. It would also further increase many other countries’ rapidly <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/18/opinions/trump-presidency-international-views-roundup/">mounting frustration</a> with the Trump administration. </p>
<p>Many different stakeholders, including <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/acf309b0-13b3-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c">ExxonMobil</a>, argue that it is better for the United States to be on the inside rather than the outside when it comes to the future climate change cooperation. Former ExxonMobil CEO and current Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rex-tillerson-paris-agreement_us_58764dc1e4b092a6cae427bb?utm_source=Daily+Carbon+Briefing&utm_campaign=9ff1bda80e-cb_daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_876aab4fd7-9ff1bda80e-303473869">suggested</a> the U.S. should stay in the agreement. </p>
<h2>US paying for assistance or ammunition?</h2>
<p>Even if the United States stays with the Paris Agreement, President Trump and Republicans in Congress have made it clear they want to <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-n-climate-fund-could-take-a-big-hit-if-trump-keeps-election-promise/">severely limit</a>, or completely cut off, U.S. contributions to climate finance in support of mitigation and adaptation measures in developing countries. The United States so far has provided US$1 billion of the $3 billion pledged by the Obama administration to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-sticking-point-in-paris-climate-talks-money-49193">Green Climate Fund</a>. </p>
<p>Carrying through on these statements by significantly reducing U.S. international assistance would effectively erode an important basis of U.S. political leadership and influence. But they appear to be part of a larger shift in the use of foreign policy instruments from nonmilitary means, such as climate and development aid, to military ones.</p>
<p>Trump’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/15/us/politics/trump-budget-proposal.html">“skinny budget”</a> proposed a 31 percent cut to the EPA budget and a 29 percent reduction in funds for the State Department and other development programs. There is very little chance that Congress will approve such dramatic cuts, but these proposals tie in with what seems to be a broader change in U.S. foreign policy strategy.</p>
<p>As Trump proposed a 10 percent increase in the military budget, foreign policy experts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/14/the-trump-white-houses-plan-to-starve-the-foreign-policy-establishment/">worry</a> that a significant cut in nonmilitary resources will severely <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2017/02/27/retired-generals-cite-past-comments-from-mattis-while-opposing-trumps-proposed-foreign-aid-cuts/">undermine U.S. leadership</a> and the ability by the State Department and other government agencies to promote U.S. interest and political stability. </p>
<h2>The court of public opinion</h2>
<p>As the battle over federal climate change policy continues, President Trump risks losing the public opinion battle on climate change beyond his <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/26/politics/pruitt-trump-clean-power-order/">most ardent base</a>. </p>
<p>A <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2016/">recent poll</a> shows that 75 percent of Americans believe that carbon dioxide should be regulated as a pollutant and that 69 percent believe that there should be limits on emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. </p>
<p>If such polling numbers remain strong, the Trump administration will be fighting an uphill battle in both courtrooms and the public sphere.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75252/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henrik Selin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Trump’s executive order on climate will cede American leadership internationally and scores a political win. But reversing all Obama’s work will require big wins in court.Henrik Selin, Associate Professor in the Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/740652017-03-10T04:19:16Z2017-03-10T04:19:16ZNow under attack, EPA’s work on climate change has been going on for decades<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160227/original/image-20170309-21020-nwiy1p.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The current EPA administrator says the agency should prioritize clean air and clean water, rather than deal with greenhouse gases. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/billy_wilson/3280739522/in/photolist-5ZUDyw-64h3EF-hJm1nj-biC6sD-393ojY-4zsZ4V-oM6sMt-JBHF4u-Sbbjgp-NLLaY-932NtL-cEcDid-ngDtm6-SgHp4e-9ewkG-dpdpYn-4xVqg1-8RRoQW-r9CDa2-4EbJgs-4zhooX-35g9p3-F4RFX-4nMkUt-EPRpkX-bX5Hm-912Ffy-7sPYc-92z9yd-QGNGMu-khQCNP-tiQJm-QzWieo-8ZDv3L-pHH2h-8BDu9B-nsEyE-PTFH-d22wM7-6id6-4nRpo9-2Rw5My-biog1D-iGdoyG-7WcHnt-iquMmw-pXopEP-it6FWt-7FQuCc-5avqKj">billy_wilson/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Trump administration intends to roll back two pillars of the Obama administration’s climate policy – regulations to limit <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/us/politics/trump-vehicle-emissions-regulation.html">carbon emissions from vehicles</a> and <a href="http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060051196">power plants</a>. </p>
<p>Under President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency was central to these regulations. But new EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt <a href="https://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/0e505de4-aa91-4dcc-ba23-dc9ddab01c0b/scott-pruitt-opening-statement-final-.pdf">has said</a> he plans to return the agency to its “core mission” of ensuring <a href="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/02/25/Scott-Pruitt-says-EPA-could-begin-rolling-back-Obama-rules-next-week/7681488062952/">clean air and clean water</a>, rather than addressing climate change. </p>
<p>Pruitt has <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxHk4vM0qLY">characterized</a> climate change as a recent diversion from EPA’s main mission and has stated that accordingly the Clean Power Plan, an Obama rule to address carbon pollution from power plants, would have to be done away with. Pruitt has also said that carbon dioxide is not the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/epa-chief-scott-pruitt.html">primary contributor to global warming</a> and has appointed former staffers of Sen. James Inhofe, a prominent climate skeptic, to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-environmental-protection-agency.html?ref=politics">serve under him</a>. </p>
<p>But a look at the history of the EPA shows that work on climate change has long been part of the agency’s mission.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160058/original/image-20170308-24177-1ljz2c.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">William Ruckelshaus being sworn in as the first Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Within a <a href="https://www.epa.gov/history">month</a> of the creation of the EPA 46 years ago, President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act of 1970 into law. In that law, Congress gave the new agency the mission to protect the “public health and welfare” from air pollution and <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=84&page=1710">specified</a> that “welfare” includes effects on “climate.” </p>
<p>The 1970 Clean Air Act also <a href="http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=84&page=1683">gave</a> the EPA the authority to regulate emissions from power plants and other large sources. The Supreme Court <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf">ruled</a> in 2011 that this language “provides a means to seek limits on emissions of carbon dioxide from domestic power plants.” This is the law the Obama EPA would ultimately rely upon for the landmark Clean Power Plan, which was designed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants.</p>
<p>So EPA has had the mission and the authority to act on climate change for nearly 50 years. While the agency hasn’t moved to regulate greenhouse gases until the last decade, EPA does much more than just issue regulations and enforce them. The agency conducts research, educates the public, runs voluntary programs, creates partnerships and is a resource for the states and the rest of the federal government. In these areas, the agency has been involved in efforts to protect against the effects of climate change for decades.</p>
<p>For instance, the EPA has <a href="https://www.epa.gov/climate-research/science-inventory-products-about-climate-change-research">supported and produced</a> hundreds of reports and academic journal articles, spanning Republican and Democratic administrations. These have been invaluable in building our understanding of causes, impacts and potential solutions to climate change.</p>
<h2>Presidential support</h2>
<p>Over the years presidents of both parties have called on the EPA more explicitly to act on climate change. In 1987, President Reagan signed the <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title15/html/USCODE-2011-title15-chap56.htm">Global Climate Protection Act</a> into law, giving the EPA the lead agency role in developing and proposing a “coordinated national policy on global climate change.”</p>
<p>In 1992, President George H. W. Bush negotiated the landmark climate treaty the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Upon reaching the agreement, Bush EPA Administrator Bill Reilly <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/road-rio.html">wrote</a> that a number of EPA programs would play “a key role in enabling the United States to meet the goal of the Climate Change Convention: to cut greenhouse gas emissions using a benchmark of 1990 levels.” For example, EPA’s Green Light Program which Reilly had initiated in 1991 <a href="https://www.energystar.gov/about/history/major-milestones">gave birth</a> to the Energy Star program in 1992, a voluntary <a href="https://www.energystar.gov/about/history">program</a> that helps businesses and individuals protect the climate through energy efficiency.</p>
<p>When the U.S. Senate ratified the Framework Convention in 1992, Senator Mitch McConnell <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/261215-republican-legacy-on-international-climate-policy">said</a> it was “a fine agreement.” The EPA assumed the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2016-main-text.pdf">duty</a> of preparing the official U.S. Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions to comply with the nation’s commitments under the treaty.</p>
<p>During the Clinton administration, EPA continued to develop and implement voluntary programs to cut greenhouse gas pollution. In 1993, the EPA launched the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/natural-gas-star-program/natural-gas-star-program">Natural Gas STAR</a> program to work with industry to limit emissions of the potent greenhouse gas methane. The agency also started the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cmop">Coalbed Methane Outreach Program</a> in 1994 to encourage mine owners and operators to productively capture methane rather than allowing it to escape into the atmosphere. The EPA also ran a suite of environmental stewardship <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=MCNJ0GUhAqQC&pg=PA37&dq=high+GWP+Environmental+Stewardship+Programs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjYpPTtvsXSAhUC1mMKHSOwCagQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=high%20GWP%20Environmental%20Stewardship%20Programs&f=false">partnership programs</a> to address the most potent greenhouse gases emitted from the aluminum, semiconductor, refrigerant, power and magnesium industries. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/160229/original/image-20170309-21056-17wowlj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">President George W. Bush directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to act on greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Charles Dharapak</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>During the George W. Bush administration, EPA continued to conduct research and implement voluntary programs to explicitly address climate change. For example, the Bush II EPA launched the <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20060922193739/http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BNQ6E/%24File/ch4.pdf">Clean Energy Initiative</a> “with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions” by expanding markets for renewable energy and working with state and local governments to develop policies that favor clean energy.</p>
<h2>Broad reach consistent with founding</h2>
<p>In an attempted retreat from action, the Bush II EPA argued at one point that the Clean Air Act did not provide the agency with authority to regulate carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/549/497/">rejected</a> that argument in 2007, <a href="https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts2/opinion_announcement_audio/21938">finding</a> that the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutant unambiguously included greenhouse gases. Importantly, President Bush accepted the court’s ruling and subsequently issued an <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-05-16/pdf/07-2462.pdf">executive order</a> directing EPA “to protect the environment with respect to greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles.” </p>
<p>EPA did not complete this directive prior to the end of President Bush’s second term. But when the Obama administration finalized the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-model-year-2012-2016-light-duty-vehicle">EPA rule</a> in 2010, the agency worked with the auto industry to <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/08/opinion/dont-roll-back-the-vehicle-fuel-standards.html">ease</a> industry concerns even while cutting pollution and saving consumers money. </p>
<p>This broad reach of the EPA’s responsibilities is fully consistent with the principles upon which the agency was founded. When President Nixon created the EPA in 1970, he <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/reorganization-plan-no-3-1970.html">detailed</a> that in addition to setting and enforcing environmental protection standards, the agency should research adverse effects of pollution, pollution control approaches and new policies to strengthen environmental protection programs.</p>
<p>Notably, the president stated that EPA’s “<a href="https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/reorganization-plan-no-3-1970.html">broad mandate</a>” would allow the agency to “develop competence in areas of environmental protection that have not previously been given enough attention.” </p>
<h2>Obama pushes harder</h2>
<p>When President Obama assumed office, he <a href="https://archive.epa.gov/ocir/hearings/testimony/111_2009_2010/web/pdf/2009_0422_lpj.pdf">urged</a> Congress to pass a law providing additional tools for reducing carbon dioxide pollution. While Congress was willing to provide funding for EPA to take on a host of climate change-related activities, it was unable to pass a comprehensive climate change bill.</p>
<p>When the Republicans took over Congress in 2011, their resistance to climate change hardened. The Republican House attempted and <a href="https://morningconsult.com/opinions/flawed-congressional-argument-clean-power-plan/">failed</a> to strip greenhouse gas emissions out of the Clean Air Act, leaving EPA’s authority to regulate intact.</p>
<p>Confronted with a Congress that refused to help cut dangerous carbon pollution and with a law that called for action to protect the public health and welfare, President Obama <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf">concluded</a> that failure to respond to the threat of climate change would “betray our children and future generations.” Accordingly, he <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/25/presidential-memorandum-power-sector-carbon-pollution-standards">directed</a> EPA to use its authority to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. </p>
<p>As history demonstrates, climate change has been at the heart of EPA’s mission since its creation, and administrations of both parties have moved forward to mitigate this threat – with varying levels of ambition and enthusiasm – for 30 years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/74065/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dotson worked for Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) and the House Energy and Commerce Committee on energy and environmental issues.</span></em></p>EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has said the agency’s purview should not include climate change, but a look at its history under both Republican and Democratic presidents says otherwise.Greg Dotson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of OregonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/729252017-02-24T02:06:24Z2017-02-24T02:06:24ZWhy Trump’s EPA is far more vulnerable to attack than Reagan’s or Bush’s<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158165/original/image-20170223-32718-um2qz4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The bad old days: Public and political support for the EPA was highest when environmental problems like air and water pollution were more obvious than current problems like climate change or endocrine disruptors. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/7087491679/in/photolist-bNifmp-cmMzoh-cmMkwu-bLnBez-bxsZyG-cE7V6q-cmMvZh-6SLvhD-bLnvZx-bLmZS2-bxrNDJ-cmMC1Q-cE7QCu-cmMERN-6Z83fp-cE7B9S-bxs1fb-bxt78J-bxupDj-cE7wrW-cE7Jz7-bLmFnt-cmMqMb-6WUUbz-bLoz44-cnkoA5-cmMciw-cnkyKW-cE7Caf-bLoynz-bxt873-cmMEaf-6DgKnM-cnkBzw-cmMbnJ-bLndWa-bxsxoJ-6Z83WD-cmMoUS-cE7D7E-bxsy9Q-cmMbDs-cnkvjf-bLoKCZ-bLofbz-bxsT6S-bLorKz-bLoEJP-cE7SgL-cmMEpA">U.S. National Archives</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For people concerned with environmental protection, including many EPA employees, there is broad agreement: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in deep trouble. </p>
<p>The Trump administration has begun the third, most formidable White House-led attempt in EPA’s brief history to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/21/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-speech/">diminish</a> the agency’s regulatory capacity. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/new-epa-chief-pruitt-cozy-fossil-fuel-industry-emails-reveal/">Scott Pruitt</a>, Trump’s <a href="https://www.energylivenews.com/2017/02/23/us-environment-chief-we-can-be-both-pro-energy-and-pro-environment/">newly appointed</a> EPA administrator, is a harsh critic and <a href="https://www.marketplace.org/2017/02/21/sustainability/epa-bracing-big-cuts-under-trump-administration">self-described</a> “leading advocate against EPA’s activist agenda.” Pruitt’s intention to reduce EPA’s budget, workforce and authority is powerfully fortified by President Donald Trump’s own determination to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/11/11/trump-has-vowed-to-kill-the-clean-power-plan-heres-how-he-might-and-might-not-succeed/?utm_term=.edaf262fc3c9">repeal</a> major EPA regulations like the Obama’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Action Plan. </p>
<p>Previous presidents have tried to scale back the work of the EPA, but as a former EPA staff member and researcher in <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Environmental-Politics-Policy-Walter-Rosenbaum/dp/1604266074">environmental policy and politics</a>, I believe the current administration is likely to seriously degrade EPA’s authority and enforcement capacity. </p>
<h2>The vanished majorities</h2>
<p>This latest assault on EPA is more menacing <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/18/under-trump-scientists-could-face-broader-challenges-than-they-did-under-george-w-bush/?utm_source=rss_energy-environment&utm_term=.89aa72900a97">than previous ones</a> in part because of today’s Republican-led Congress. The Democratic congressional majorities forestalled most past White House efforts to impair the agency’s rulemaking and protected EPA from prolonged damage to its enforcement capability. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=952&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1197&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1197&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158170/original/image-20170223-32701-1101nyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1197&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anne M Gorsuch, an outspoken critic of the EPA who was forced to resign as administrator, was appointed by Reagan who vowed to roll back regulations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Anne_M._Gorsuch_1982b.jpg">EPA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Presidents Ronald Reagan (1981-1988) and George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) both sought to cut back <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1983/03/12/us/reagan-makes-counterattack-in-epa-fight.html">EPA’s regulatory activism</a>. Reagan was fixated on governmental deregulation and EPA was a <a href="http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Ronald_Reagan_Environment.htm">favorite target</a>. His powerful assault on EPA’s authority began with the appointment of Anne Gorsuch, an <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-change-and-the-presidential-race-lessons-from-the-reagan-years-66194">outspoken EPA critic</a>, as EPA administrator. Gorsuch populated the agency’s leadership positions with like-minded reformers and supervised progressive reductions in EPA’s budget, especially for EPA’s critically important enforcement division, and hobbled the agency’s rule-making – a key step in the <a href="https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process">regulatory process</a> – while reducing scientific support services.</p>
<p>Bush’s forays against EPA authority were milder, consisting primarily of progressive budget cuts, impaired rule-making and disengagement from international environmental activism.</p>
<p>During the Reagan years, Democratic majorities in the House (1981-1991) and Senate (1987-89) launched continuing committee investigations that revealed the agency leadership’s pervasive obstruction of regulatory rule-making and forestalled massive damage to EPA programs. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=406&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158180/original/image-20170223-32707-17vf3l6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=510&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wastewater from a paper mill in Louisiana pollutes water downstream in 1972.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/3704371968/in/photolist-6DkSJd-cmMALb-bLnmvk-cE81Mf-bLop9V-bLnY2Z-bLmMKT-bLmzGP-6Zc3XS-edEJjS-cmMqts-cmMyS1-6Z83vP-bxtkp3-6B8gA1-cmMtqh-6WUN6a-6Z9hvX-cnkBeb-cmMtVh-cE7KeG-cnkuim-cnkAd7-cE7YME-bxu7Ws-bLnXqX-cmMtHY-6P3ydK-bxtQiw-bxtZzA-bLnBUD-cnknwu-cmMsFw-bLnVJZ-bxu4Q5-bNifiX-6Zc4g5-cE7yLN-cE7J5d-6Z8386-cE7w6u-cmMBKU-bxt5yq-cmMBuN-cmMD87-cE83jJ-6Zdfsh-bxsXzC-6ZnqzF-cE7Vwm">U.S. National Archives</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gorsuch was forced from office together with many upper and middle politically appointed managers; the budget stabilized, and new administrators William Ruckelshaus (who returned after serving as the first EPA administrator) and Lee Thomas <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=ttVk1wUbKW8C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=epa+William+Ruckelshaus+and+Lee+Thomas+staff+morale&source=bl&ots=2ldUL3XK3y&sig=1bvZ9eyBh8TleNnrWs6-KcSrrRA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL8ajFy6bSAhVCyFQKHTUQAboQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=epa%20William%20Ruckelshaus%20and%20Lee%20Thomas%20staff%20morale&f=false">revived staff morale, rule-making and scientific research</a>. In the end, Reagan impeded and delayed regulation but ultimately failed to impair permanently major air, water and toxic waste programs.</p>
<p>I worked for one of EPA’s assistant administrators during the first Bush administration, when EPA’s leadership and staff were acutely aware of White House aversion to much of EPA’s regulations. But it was nothing like the state-of-siege mindset so pervasive at EPA during the Reagan years and already returning to EPA now, as witnessed by <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-trump-epa-protest-chicago-20170206-story.html">protests</a> by former and current EPA employees to Pruitt’s nomination.</p>
<p>The agency’s budget, rule-making and regulatory impact were sometimes impaired during the Bush years, but then EPA administrator William Reilly was committed to EPA’s mission, and congressional Democrats prevented severe reductions in the agency’s budget, workforce and regulatory authority.</p>
<h2>An unfortunate time to regulate</h2>
<p>Paradoxically, EPA’s accomplishments may also leave it vulnerable to its opponents. Forty years of regulation have diminished such publicly convincing <a href="https://clevelandhistorical.org/items/show/63#.WK9BTBIrKu4">evidence of severe pollution</a> that led to EPA regulation in the first place, including rivers polluted by raw sewage, hidden toxic waste dumps like New York’s Love Canal, smokestacks emitting dense clouds of pollutants and uncontained mine wastes contaminating Appalachian mountainsides. </p>
<p>Today’s most significant environmental hazards, such as climate warming or <a href="http://www.chemistryviews.org/details/ezine/7874391/Plasticizers__Benefits_Trends_Health_and_Environmental_Issues.html">plasticizers</a> in rubber products, are less visible, their adverse consequences requiring years or decades, to become apparent. “To a certain extent,” EPA’s first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, has <a href="http://www.eenews.net/Greenwire/2012/04/23/6/">observed,</a> “we are victims of our own success. Right now, EPA is under sharp criticism partly because it is not so obvious to people that pollution problems exist and that we need to deal with them.”</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158168/original/image-20170223-32718-1hcl0be.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=491&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scott Pruitt addresses EPA employees. An ally of the oil and gas industry who has sued the EPA 14 times, Pruitt has caused concern among employees and many others who fear the agency’s budget will be slashed and environmental protections loosened.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">AP Photo/Susan Walsh</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Additionally, a public rally to EPA’s defense seems improbable. Most Americans customarily express to pollsters considerable concern for environmental protection when asked, but it is a passive attitude. Neither EPA nor the environment are important issues when most Americans vote – and that’s what most concerns Congress and the White House.</p>
<p>For instance, in the 2016 presidential elections, the Pew Research Center poll revealed “the environment” was only <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/4-top-voting-issues-in-2016-election/">twelfth</a> in importance among registered voters, well behind the leading concerns about the economy, terrorism and foreign policy. Exit polls in the 2016 presidential elections indicate that environmental issues are <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-2016-national-exit-poll-results-analysis/story?id=43368675%5D(http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-2016-national-exit-poll-results-analysis/story?id=43368675">irrelevant to voters’ candidate preferences</a>. Moreover, the currently <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2015/11/23/1-trust-in-government-1958-2015">pervasive public distrust and anger directed toward the federal government</a> may further inhibit public engagement in EPA’s defense.</p>
<p>Pruitt and his administrative team can also inflict immense damage upon regulatory capacity in ways that are not very evident to the public. Almost half of the EPA budget supports such crucial pollution abatement activities as regulation enforcement, scientific research and international collaboration. Moreover, public doubts about the credibility of climate warming science and environmental risk analysis can be deliberately amplified through public discourse during efforts to rescind existing regulations and to abort new ones.</p>
<h2>Defense strategies</h2>
<p>Environmentalists, deeply apprehensive and infuriated by this new EPA onslaught, have a multitude of opposition options. Lawsuits – a traditionally effective strategy – can be initiated in federal courts to suspend or reverse unacceptable EPA regulatory decisions. But a new wave of litigation will impose considerable delay in important rule-making, and a court-imposed impasse can discourage compliance by regulated interests, such as polluters. </p>
<p>Environmental organizations can attempt to mobilize public support and pressure Congress to counteract Pruitt-led revisions of EPA’s organization and rule-making. In particular, increased activism at the state level can be a countervailing force to federal environmental retrenchment. Since major federal environmental legislation has often been crisis-driven, a new environmental disaster may be the perverse catalyst to renewed regulatory vigor at EPA.</p>
<p>None of these alternatives, however, will likely avert an early, comprehensive onset of Pruitt’s regulatory regression at EPA. In short, EPA’s time of trouble will be dangerous and tenacious.</p>
<p><em>Article updated on Feb. 24 to correct the state that Love Canal is located in.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72925/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Walter Rosenbaum does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Today’s political climate gives new EPA head Scott Pruitt a clear path to seriously cut back EPA enforcement – more than previous administrations.Walter Rosenbaum, Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/713142017-01-31T02:24:12Z2017-01-31T02:24:12ZHere’s a better way to regulate carbon – and change the tired environment-versus-economy debate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/154668/original/image-20170130-29594-1d1r2oc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">If carbon regulations restrict how much a company can pollute where it's located, it could move operations (and jobs) to another country – with no reduction in emissions. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/billy_wilson/3301803046/in/photolist-62LB1J-646xUq-5ZUDyw-66FWem-pXJEje-63euTz-646uyJ-642itx-2EhiU6-7C1sqe-8QDgL7-8QAbv8-dAsUGY-642eeH-8dbc9w-dAsUSQ-7C1ss2-2Kyafz-bGE88-8QAbb6-8QAb4M-dAsUR1-5jR5UN-ApgcSM-A3Trar-ACySzQ-wsCkQ8-A42vdR-A42uDe-AXBLYb-AmWVPk-AXBN8f-AYJsXN-AmXcQE-AmX8ZJ-A3Tr71-AHitgS-A42wbn-AYJrYo-AZVbSB-AZV9CX-B1U8ur-AHisVm-34f78e-34f6F4-a1eFx7-8LvGss-6jVVFJ-AXBJNu-AHiprY">billy_wilson/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Is it possible to reduce carbon emissions without hurting economic growth and destroying jobs? </p>
<p>The recent <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/10-executive-actions-trump-signed-far/">spate of executive orders</a>, including one to pause current environmental reviews for infrastructure projects and another to <a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316839-trump-to-sign-order-reducing-regulations">revoke two regulations for every new one requested</a>, suggests the White House sees regulations as job killers. </p>
<p>And indeed, some regulatory approaches are problematic. For example, if companies are required to reduce the greenhouse gases they generate in a given territory, a company could simply relocate its emission-intensive activities to countries with less stringent rules. Consequently, emission-reducing regulations get branded as job killers, and emissions won’t necessarily go down anyway.</p>
<p>Others argue that regulations that impose limits on carbon emissions can actually benefit the economy by spurring clean technology innovations and creating green jobs. Jobs in coal mining might decline, but <a href="http://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-jobs-in-renewable-energy-and-energy-efficiency-2015">new jobs</a> will be created in solar and wind energy, the reasoning goes. </p>
<p>The problem is that the new jobs may <a href="https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/we-feel-your-pain-environmentalists-coal-miners-and-embedded-environmentalism/">not be located around coal fields</a>. And even if they are, coal miners may not have the skills, or may find it difficult to acquire them quickly, <a href="https://theconversation.com/as-coal-mining-declines-community-mental-health-problems-linger-60094">to effectively tap into the opportunities created by solar and wind energy industries</a>. </p>
<p>Is there a way out of this economy-versus-environment debate? Yes: <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/confronting-consumption">consumption-based policies</a>. These policies are designed to discourage the consumption of carbon-intensive products and services. </p>
<p>They can take different forms. Governments can enact carbon consumption taxes, which tax products on their carbon intensity, irrespective of where they were produced. This would require a carbon tax at home, and border adjustment tax on imports. To mobilize the support of the business community, the carbon tax might be designed to be <a href="https://yeson732.org/">revenue-neutral</a>: that is, accompanied by tax cuts elsewhere. In the private sphere, firms could join programs that require them to display carbon labels that indicate the amount of carbon emitted in the production of consumer products. </p>
<p>Politically, a consumption-based approach will level the playing field between domestic and foreign producers, and move us away from the unproductive debate on the relationship between environmental regulations and economic growth. Ecologically, it can help us reduce our carbon footprint.</p>
<h2>Environmental regulations and economic cost</h2>
<p>Since the 1970s, politicians – typically Republicans – have been alleging that environmental regulations <a href="http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-conservative-record-on-environmental-policy">kill jobs and hurt economic growth</a>. On Jan. 11, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the most recent incarnation of a bill, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5">Regulatory Accountability Act of 2017</a>, to reform how federal regulatory agencies create and enforce new rules. This bill seeks to streamline the regulatory process, which the Congress believes is inefficient, high-cost, and run by an unelected bureaucracy. </p>
<p>Alongside, President Trump has nominated several individuals who are deeply skeptical of regulations, specifically <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-legal-activist-scott-pruitt-undo-clean-air-and-water-protections-as-head-of-epa-70127">environmental regulations</a>. Trump views his choice to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, as “<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/09/trumps-epa-pick-rejects-climate-science-fights-fossil-fuels/95231986/">a national leader against the EPA’s job-killing war on coal</a>.”</p>
<p>One of the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259418659_Trade_Competition_and_Environmental_Regulations_Domestic_Political_Constraints_and_Issue_Visibility">arguments</a> for this type of antiregulatory stance is that environmental regulations encourage pollution-intensive industries to move to lightly regulated developing countries, the so-called <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222401625_Moving_to_Greener_Pastures_Multinationals_and_the_Pollution_Haven_Hypothesis">pollution haven hypothesis</a>. Critics also suggest that regulations stifle innovation and harm productivity, and consequently make American firms uncompetitive in global markets.</p>
<p>In contrast, supporters of regulations allege that critics exaggerate compliance costs and underemphasize <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-tighter-epa-controls-on-mercury-pollution-worth-it-53551">health and other benefits of clean air</a> and water. For example, the industry’s estimates of the cost of <a href="http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre1997030700">1990 sulfur dioxide regulation</a> was 15 times the actual cost. </p>
<p>Also, some suggest that properly designed regulations can actually spur innovation, the so-called <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2138392?origin=JSTOR-pdf&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">Porter-Linde</a> hypothesis. Because pollution represents resource waste issue, any policy to reduce waste will increase profits. Regulatory limits on the amount of <a href="http://www.ibtimes.com/energy-companies-seek-ways-capture-natural-gas-north-dakota-oil-boom-1557877">methane gas leakage</a> from the oil and gas operations, for example, would benefit both the environment and the industry since it helps conserve a valuable commodity.</p>
<h2>Consumption and emissions</h2>
<p>Meanwhile, some scholars have suggested the entire regulation-growth debate is less relevant anyway because of what economists call “decoupling.” While higher energy use has historically translated into higher growth for a nation’s economy, there are signs this close correlation, or coupling, is weakening. This decoupling suggests economies can continue to grow even as the amount of energy needed declines – a point even President Obama echoed in a <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/science.aam6284">recent article</a> on clean energy. </p>
<p>A recent <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/growth-carbon-and-trump-state-progress-and-drift-on-economic-growth-and-emissions-decoupling/#fullreport">Brookings</a> study, for example, found that in the U.S. between 2000-2014, more than 30 states have delinked their growth and carbon emissions. Regulatory efforts such as renewable portfolio standards, which require electricity companies to use renewable energy, as well as natural gas replacing coal for power generation, have contributed to the decoupling. </p>
<p>But this emphasis on decoupling ignores how regulations influence the carbon footprint of our consumption patterns. <a href="http://www.oecd.org/sti/ind/carbondioxideemissionsembodiedininternationaltrade.htm">Scholars</a> have found the emissions from consumption of products in developed countries exceed the emissions generated in production and transportation of those products. In other words, emissions from burning gasoline are attributed to me when I drive a car. But emissions generated in the process of manufacturing this car abroad are not attributed to me. This sort of carbon fudging does not help the cause of mitigation.</p>
<p>And suppose regulations lead firms to relocate their emission-causing activities abroad, and we begin to import their products instead of producing them at home. In this case our carbon footprint has not come down. Scholars call these “<a href="http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/6/6/3722/htm">carbon leakages</a>.” </p>
<p>We saw this occur with the United Nations’ <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php">Kyoto Protocol</a> to reduce greenhouse gases. Because it established mandatory territorial-based emission reduction targets for developed countries only, it created an incentive for businesses to move their emission-intensive activities to countries with no mandatory targets. This supports the “regulations as job killers” argument.</p>
<h2>Confronting carbon in consumption</h2>
<p>Consumption-focused policies such as carbon taxes and carbon labels can help in reducing carbon leakages – if the market system allows consumers to make informed choices and creates incentives for producers to respond to these choices. </p>
<p>Suppose, for example, the U.S. imposed a carbon tariff on steel imported from China because the Chinese steel mills use obsolete, energy-intensive blast furnaces. Would global trade treaties and the <a href="http://www.climateadvisers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/2013-07-Changing-Climate-for-Carbon-Taxes.pdf">World Trade Organization</a> allow tariffs (or border tax adjustments) on imported products made with different production technologies? While the legality of carbon tariffs is a complex issue, some suggest that as long as such carbon taxes maintain a level playing field between domestic and foreign producers, they <a href="http://www.rff.org/files/document/file/RFF-PB-16-02.pdf">might be</a> compatible with existing trade regimes. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1162832/?site_locale=en_GB">Company-led regulatory efforts</a> such as <a href="http://www.rff.org/files/sharepoint/WorkImages/Download/RFF-DP-12-09.pdf">labels</a> that indicate the carbon footprint of consumer products can succeed if consumers have accurate information and act on it. This is an area where the environmental movement could make great impact. Even if a small subset of consumers can begin to take environmentally responsible action, instead of expecting the government to do so, it could motivate corporate action. Think of organic food, which initially appealed to a small section of population only. But the organic movement has now spread beyond Whole Foods; <a href="https://www.thebalance.com/organic-retailers-in-north-america-2011-2538129">Wal-Mart</a> is now the biggest organic retailer in the U.S. </p>
<p>This is not to say that environmentalists should no longer push for regulations such as the EPA Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. Yet, advocacy strategies must be tempered with political realities. </p>
<p>Furthermore, carbon labels are often voluntary efforts by private companies that do not need regulatory approval, and a consumption-based carbon tax can be enacted at the state level, even at the city level. For example, the province of British Columbia enacted its own revenue-neutral <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928765515000317">carbon tax</a>, which was offset by tax cuts in other parts of the economy. This local or regional approach can be especially important in the Trump era, where the federal government is expected to be hostile to mitigation efforts. </p>
<p>The decoupling argument misleads us into believing that we can continue with our carbon-profligate lifestyle and yet enjoy economic growth. A carbon consumption tax, by contrast, will discourage the use of carbon-intensive goods irrespective of whether they are manufactured at home or abroad. If it is made revenue-neutral, then the political opposition to this tax will be lower. Importantly, this tax can move us away from the unproductive debate that pits the economy against the environment.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/71314/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Two environmental policy experts offer a more politically palatable way to lower carbon emissions – based on consumption, not conventional regulation.Nives Dolsak, Professor of Environmental Policy, University of WashingtonAseem Prakash, Walker Family Professor and Founding Director, Center for Environmental Politics, University of WashingtonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/684602016-11-16T01:18:03Z2016-11-16T01:18:03ZTrump may dismantle the EPA Clean Power Plan but its targets look resilient<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145604/original/image-20161112-9093-fh351a.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many changes in electricity generation are already en route, regardless of regulations. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.pexels.com/photo/sky-sunset-sun-twilight-46169/">pixabay.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 2015, the Obama administration finalized the EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP), which aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector in 2030 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-overview-clean-power-plan">by 32 percent compared with 2005 levels</a>. The CPP was a major component of the <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/03/240007.htm">U.S. pledge</a> to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global 2016 Paris Agreement. </p>
<p>Following the election of Donald Trump, the future of both the CPP and the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-could-the-rest-of-the-world-do-if-trump-pulls-the-us-out-of-the-paris-agreement-on-climate-change-68706">Paris Agreement</a> is <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-president-trump-means-for-the-future-of-energy-and-climate-68045">highly uncertain</a>. One indication of the new administration’s views on the CPP is that Trump has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/science/myron-ebell-trump-epa.html?_r=0">tapped</a> historian and self-proclaimed climate skeptic Myron Ebell to lead the EPA transition team. During the campaign, Trump also advocated for <a href="https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/an-america-first-energy-plan">canceling the U.S. contribution to the Paris Agreement</a>.</p>
<p>Tied up in the courts, the CPP has not yet come into force. But even though its future is at risk, one thing is clear: Market forces are already largely achieving the CO2 emissions cuts targeted with the regulation.</p>
<h2>We’re already underway</h2>
<p>The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that 2015 CO2 emissions in the electricity sector were <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26232">21 percent lower</a> than 2005 levels – about two-thirds toward the CPP goal. This is without any national CPP implementation outside of expectations of future enforcement and with <a href="https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/7?agg=0,1&geo=g&endsec=vg&linechart=ELEC.PRICE.US-ALL.A%7EELEC.PRICE.US-RES.A%7EELEC.PRICE.US-COM.A%7EELEC.PRICE.US-IND.A&columnchart=ELEC.PRICE.US-ALL.A%7EELEC.PRICE.US-RES.A%7EELEC.PRICE.US-COM.A%7EELEC.PRICE.US-IND.A&map=ELEC.PRICE.US-ALL.A&freq=A&start=2001&end=2015&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0">little effect on real electricity retail prices</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=339&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145596/original/image-20161112-9065-r2c4ye.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=427&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EIA data, Jeffrey C. Peters.</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>CO2 emissions in the U.S. have fallen in large part because cleaner fuels are being used to generate power. Natural gas produces roughly half of the emissions as coal power, while several renewable technologies – notably, solar and wind – produce little or no emissions in generation.</p>
<p>The reduction in coal generation, and thus CO2 emissions, is due to three main trends: inexpensive natural gas following the shale boom, growth in renewable technologies and decreasing overall electricity demand. These trends all suggest that the recent fall in electricity sector emissions may not only be resilient to federal policy (or lack thereof) but may even continue to fall throughout the new administration.</p>
<h2>Battle between gas and coal</h2>
<p>The drilling technique known as fracking kicked off a <a href="https://theconversation.com/a-tale-of-two-oil-and-gas-boomtowns-a-boost-to-the-economy-a-tricky-landing-59502">natural gas production boom</a> around 2008. The price of gas dropped significantly and has remained low since, which has had a direct impact on electricity production as power plant operators shift to natural gas because it’s cheaper. Gas is likely to surpass coal’s market share as a fuel for power generation this year. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.iaee.org/en/publications/ejarticle.aspx?id=2952">A recent study</a> I coauthored shows that inexpensive gas is having a one-two punch on coal power. First, gas is cheaper, so existing gas plants are being used more often throughout the year than coal plants. Second, as these natural gas plants are used more often, they earn their owners more money, <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_6_05">further favoring them over coal</a>. </p>
<p>These two factors are primarily responsible for coal’s decline despite the “war on coal” political rhetoric. Because gas power produces roughly half the CO2 emissions compared to coal power, our study suggests that if gas prices remain low, gas will continue to displace coal beyond 2030, and the 32 percent reduction targeted by the CPP may be met regardless of implementation. </p>
<p>Will natural gas continue to be cheap in the years ahead? That’s appearing to be more and more likely for a couple reasons. </p>
<p>First, the <a href="http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/03/24/heres-what-it-costs-to-drill-a-shale-well-these-days/">cost</a> and <a href="http://triblive.com/business/headlines/7890833-74/wells-drilling-range">time</a> to start new wells for fracking are declining to the order of days, compared with years for conventional drilling methods. This means natural gas producers can supply gas to the market quickly, suggesting that it’s unlikely that a scarcity of gas will drive up prices. Second, threats against fracking, such as moratoriums or increased regulation, do not appear to be major barriers to expanded production under the new administration.</p>
<p>But dramatically expanding natural gas use for power has a downside from an emissions point of view. While cheap gas can help drive CO2 emissions to the CPP’s original target, the newly constructed gas plants, which have <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/64654.pdf">technological lifetimes of 40-60</a> years, may prevent deeper emissions from lower emitting technologies, such as wind and solar, in the future. </p>
<h2>Renewables are increasingly competitive</h2>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=288&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/145603/original/image-20161112-9048-1oh6cg9.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=362&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Both wind and solar technologies are becoming simultaneously cheaper and more prevalent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">J.P. Morgan, Eye on the Market Annual Report 2015</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In contrast to the longstanding technology of burning fossil fuel to generate power, wind, solar and batteries are simultaneously becoming <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/13/investments-renewable-energy-are-paying-and-paving-way-ambitious-climate-action">more efficient and cheaper very quickly</a>. While these new technologies have a relatively small current market share, their adoption is increasing at a rapid clip. </p>
<p>Part of this growth has been helped by federal investment and production tax credits, but wind and solar are less and less reliant on these subsidies. Even if the new administration and Congress elect to remove or reduce these tax credits, it is not likely to reduce the momentum too much. Clean energy investment worldwide <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels">attracts twice the global funding as fossil fuels</a> and has maintained this share despite the low-cost-of-oil environment. Economies of scales of existing technologies and continued rapid advance will make these low-emitting sources even more competitive. </p>
<h2>Electricity demand seems to be slowing</h2>
<p>Electricity demand has slowed in recent years. Part of the appearance of slow growth can be attributed to the Great Recession (energy demand is highly correlated with GDP), but <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=10491">this relationship is weakening</a> because of efficiency. There have been large gains in energy efficiency in both <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=14291">commercial buildings</a> and <a href="http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=6570">households</a>, which lowers demand for power.</p>
<p>Slow electricity growth directly translates to slower growth in emissions, but it also means there is less room for new power generation capacity. If the new administration really does try to reverse the decline of coal generation, any new coal capacity will be competing in a smaller total market for power. </p>
<p>What’s more, coal plants are competing with natural gas plants, which can operate more flexibly and at higher utilization rates than coal plants, as well as with the rapidly declining costs of renewables. All this means that any significant comeback for coal will be difficult because of economic forces alone.</p>
<h2>Deeper cuts may be compromised</h2>
<p>What may be of concern to environmentalists is that the original 32 percent reduction goal of the CPP will likely consist of a gas-heavy future. Adding more natural gas plants, instead of expanding wind and solar, might lock in CO2-emitting gas assets and prevent deeper reductions in the future. </p>
<p>However, one presidential term with slow electricity demand growth might limit the penetration of gas. Furthermore, natural gas plants could help renewables: Because their power production can be ramped up and down relatively easily, they could complement intermittent renewables and help wind and solar penetrate more seamlessly in the near- to midterm.</p>
<h2>The real ‘war on coal’</h2>
<p>When it comes to reducing emissions (and other pollutants that cause haze and smog), removing coal is top concern. </p>
<p>While Trump campaigned with hopes of reigniting the coal industry by stopping the “war on coal,” it does not appear likely in the face of the multi-flank assault by inexpensive gas, increasingly efficient and inexpensive renewables, and end-use efficiency. All these trends are largely outside the ability and interest of the commander-in-chief – even if climate change mitigation is not a primary concern.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68460/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jeffrey C. Peters does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The ‘war on coal’ is not really a result of onerous regulations but a combination of market forces over which a Trump administration has limited control.Jeffrey C. Peters, Postdoctoral Fellow in Studying Complex Systems, Stanford UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/547972016-02-18T10:45:45Z2016-02-18T10:45:45ZWhat Scalia’s death means for environment and climate<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111711/original/image-20160216-19239-vwpn1b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In addition to the Clean Power Act policy for climate change, the Supreme Court will be hearing cases on the extent of protections under the Clean Water Act.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ex_magician/3289907575/in/photolist-61HCUp-bavT4F-tPYxk4-hLgSCg-jQRDYj-jrKnaE-qzgkfT-skQh75-mdN4EV-y9tDjM-qzdQhK-hLgUta-o5ZaKY-wasrAr-hLhJUC-juVNLn-s9QdV9-qRwM66-6N3kju-7zPWjp-qz6zjo-9SA5Dq-L9w3-eBQwG-8ikaHj-9qUhqR-oPGSGd-qJ3AZv-qRvfcK-enDT1p-kLZz8-ojPEwB-ohMWSE-Ch8HPD-zL2mk7-tKekhE-z88Hhu-o3kaNv-o3kban-qpiHZH-8i3njD-ef2vUU-vQsYLC-qz1X4g-oKuWN3-247WD-8sSPTu-qnaPN3-vZyx5-af7FUt">ex_magician/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Justice Antonin Scalia left an indelible mark on American law. His prodigious intellect, distinctive style and sharp wit will be sorely missed by his family, friends and colleagues. </p>
<p>His passing also creates a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shift the balance of power on the Supreme Court toward greater protection for the environment and greater access to the courts by those most affected by pollution and resource degradation. </p>
<p>A look at Scalia’s legacy reveals why his absence in the coming months could be a pivotal factor on environmental issues.</p>
<p>With few exceptions, such as his opinion in Whitman v. American Trucking upholding the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to set <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1257.ZS.html">health-based air quality standards without regard to cost</a> and his opinion in City of Chicago v. EDF rejecting industry arguments that <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/511/328">coal ash isn’t a hazardous waste</a>, Justice Scalia’s environmental legacy is decidedly negative. </p>
<h2>Interpreting ‘standing’ and ‘harm’</h2>
<p>He consistently voted in favor of property rights over protection of endangered species, wetlands and other natural resources. He dissented in the court’s landmark ruling in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf">Massachusetts v. EPA</a> that the Clean Air Act authorizes the agency to regulate the carbon pollution causing global warming and ocean acidification. </p>
<p>He wrote the <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf">majority opinion</a> in a case limiting EPA’s authority to require preconstruction permits for new power plants that only emit greenhouse gases. He wrote <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-46_10n2.pdf">the opinion</a> overturning the mercury rule on a technicality – namely, that EPA should have considered cost as a threshold matter before even embarking on the rulemaking instead of at the stage when the regulations were actually being applied to specific facilities.</p>
<p>He argued that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/epas-clean-water-rule-whats-at-stake-and-what-comes-next-42466">Clean Water Act</a> should be <a href="http://www.lorman.com/resources/u-s-supreme-court-struggles-to-define-wetlands-covered-by-the-clean-water-act-15615">narrowly construed</a> to apply only to “relatively permanent bodies of water” rather than, as the lower courts had consistently ruled for over 30 years, to the entire tributary systems of the nation’s major waterways. </p>
<p>And he is the author of several decisions severely limiting the ability of environmental plaintiffs to challenge unlawful government actions. This includes <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-1424.ZS.html">Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife</a>, which the late Justice Blackmun in his <a href="http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1256&context=clr">dissent</a> characterized as a “slash and burn expedition through the law of environmental standing.” </p>
<p>To establish standing, a plaintiff must show how it is injured by the action being challenged. Scalia applied a more liberal test of injury for industry plaintiffs than for environmental plaintiffs. Standing was presumed whenever industry alleged that a government action might cause undue economic harm but not when an environmental organization alleged that the same action would cause undue environmental harm. </p>
<h2>Whither the Clean Power Plan?</h2>
<p>Though President Obama has said he intends to nominate a successor “in due course,” Senate Republicans have vowed to stall the confirmation process in the hope that they will win the White House and have the opportunity to nominate someone more to their liking. </p>
<p>Suddenly the Supreme Court has become a huge prize in the 2016 elections, and, given the stakes involved, it is likely that the vacancy will remain well into 2017, and the court will be forced to make a number of difficult decisions with an evenly divided bench.</p>
<p>A split court has important implications in a number of key environmental cases. </p>
<p>Top of the list is the president’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), a rule that requires states to develop plans to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. Only days before Scalia’s death, the court in a 5-4 party line vote <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-supreme-court-just-handed-the-next-president-a-powerful-lever-to-control-u-s-climate-policy-54511">blocked</a> the rule’s implementation pending a decision by the D.C. Circuit, which has scheduled oral argument for June 2. The stay order provides that it will remain in effect until the Supreme Court either denies review (unlikely) or issues a <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-blocking-epa-clean-power-plan-is-the-supreme-court-wading-deeper-into-politics-54513">final decision</a>. </p>
<p>Most observers believe the government, arguing that the Clean Power Plan is legal, drew a favorable panel on the D.C. Circuit court, which includes Judge Sri Srinivasan, who is rumored to be on Obama’s short list of nominees.</p>
<p>Assuming Srinivasan remains on the panel, and further assuming the panel issues a decision this year upholding the CPP (not a forgone conclusion), there is a good chance the vacancy on the Supreme Court will not be filled by the time the case arrives there in 2017. This increases the odds of a 4-4 split, which would result in the DC Circuit decision being upheld, and the CPP dodging a bullet. </p>
<h2>Clean Waters Act at court</h2>
<p>Another case that may be affected by Scalia’s departure but with far less at stake is <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-army-corps-of-engineers-v-hawkes-co-inc/">Hawkes v. Corps of Engineers</a>. </p>
<p>The question presented is whether landowners can go to court immediately when the regulators make what is called a “jurisdictional determination” under the Clean Water Act finding – for example, that there are wetlands on the property that may require a permit to fill. </p>
<p>There is a clear conflict in the circuits on this question. The Eighth Circuit in Hawkes held that jurisdictional determinations were reviewable in court, whereas the Fifth Circuit in <a href="https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C13/13-30262-CV0.pdf">Belle Co v. Corps of Engineers</a> ruled that they are not. </p>
<p>Interestingly enough, the disagreement rests on how to read Justice Scalia’s opinion in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1062.pdf">Sackett v. EPA</a>. In that case, a compliance order under the Clean Water Act required restoration of an allegedly illegally filled wetland and exposed the recipient to potential penalties of US$75,000 per day. Scalia ruled that the compliance order in this case is “final agency action” for which there is no adequate remedy in a court other than judicial review under the <a href="http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/05/01/act-pl79-404.pdf">Administrative Procedure Act</a>.</p>
<p>Another case being closely watched is the challenge to EPA’s Clean Water Rule that seeks to “clarify” the <a href="https://theconversation.com/epas-clean-water-rule-whats-at-stake-and-what-comes-next-42466">jurisdictional scope of the Clean Water Act</a> and whether it covers tributaries that feed into waters protected by the act. </p>
<p>The need for clarification stems in large part from the Supreme Court’s decision in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/05pdf/04-1034.pdf">Rapanos v. United States</a>, where the court split 4-1-4 and Justice Scalia authored a plurality opinion that would significantly reduce the scope of the act. </p>
<p>Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion rejecting Scalia’s approach and establishing the so-called “significance nexus” test – requiring the government to prove that a wetland, alone or in combination with other wetlands in the watershed, plays an important role in protecting the quality of the water downstream and therefore is subject to the Clean Water Act. Because Kennedy’s significant test has been adopted by nine circuit courts as the controlling opinion from Rapanos, EPA used it as the basis for the Clean Water Rule.</p>
<p>The Sixth Circuit has stayed the rule pending its decision on whether it has exclusive authority to decide its legality. If the Sixth Circuit asserts jurisdiction, a final decision could be issued this year and the court would then be faced with another petition for review, knowing that it could result in yet another divided decision.</p>
<p>Finally there is a case involving the cleanup of Chesapeake Bay which is heavily polluted by agricultural runoff and other sources. The Third Circuit upheld EPA’s landmark cleanup plan in a case brought by the American Farm Bureau and <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/134079p.pdf">joined by over two dozen states</a>.</p>
<p>The issue presented is whether EPA exceeded it authority by developing a complex “pollution budget” and allocating responsibility for reducing the inputs of nitrogen and phosphorous throughout the eight states that comprise the basin. The conference on whether to grant review will be considered at the next conference which is scheduled for February 26. This will be the first test to see whether the post-Scalia court has the appetite to take up a case where there could be a 4-4 split. </p>
<p>With these and other environmental issues on the docket, the absence of Scalia will have a huge impact – as will the question of his eventual successor.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54797/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Parenteau does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A look at Scalia’s decidedly negative legacy on environment reveals how important the next Supreme Court will be on environmental questions, including the EPA Clean Power Plan.Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law & Graduate SchoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/545112016-02-12T22:39:43Z2016-02-12T22:39:43ZThe Supreme Court just handed the next president a powerful lever to control U.S. climate policy<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111353/original/image-20160212-32308-1ifkmmb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">By putting a temporary halt to Obama's cornerstone climate policy, the Supreme Court puts the next president in the driver's seat. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tabor-roeder/5554035521/in/photolist-9sMTg8-pwoRPY-ct5639-xj8dC-fUJT36-pLGztn-eXMwpm-conrr3-6xavfj-btfutY-pVDtsm-APqHp-3P99ph-ro6AW6-oXceR9-peG69R-cjK2zL-7YWhrB-my1QAP-djzBuH-vdLfX-z5HAY-6x6kmn-etjK2-rbUh3s-6x6kaD-aofJU-9sMMC6-4bD4UB-pP6ZFb-mFPdVW-5Vnu54-5TPQZi-7tLNFt-aFfq3j-6K2mxv-5acLkp-eWs9A5-eVXHqp-4Q42k7-9s8LrU-H587R-aC9aKG-fp7JBQ-5ncCKb-9mNV9x-qUAkCS-5SB1T1-eVXHYK-27D3n">tabor-roeder/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to halt, at least temporarily, implementation of one of the central components of the federal effort to constrain U.S. climate emissions, the Clean Power Plan. </p>
<p>The decision <a href="http://legal-planet.org/2016/02/09/the-decision-to-halt-the-implementation-of-the-clean-power-plan-is-outrageous/">shocked</a> many court watchers, dismayed those in favor of strong climate action and <a href="https://theconversation.com/in-blocking-epa-clean-power-plan-is-the-supreme-court-wading-deeper-into-politics-54513">elicited comparisons</a> to the infamous Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore, with many saying that the court had once again abandoned judicial restraint and legal reasoning in favor of bald political gamesmanship.</p>
<p>In my view, this surprise and disillusion is warranted. Even for a court that has been clear in its <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1146_4g18.pdf">worries about Environmental Protection Agency overreach</a>, the decision was unprecedented and seems not to be justified by the legal standard for granting these requests to freeze, or “stay,” implementation of a regulation. </p>
<p>These requests for a stay are rarely granted because they upend the <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/case.html">usual deference shown by courts</a> to expert agencies and short-circuit the deliberative process that is the hallmark of the judiciary. </p>
<p>And because of the legal process that needs to follow, the stay puts more control over the fate of the Obama administration’s cornerstone climate policy – the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/epa-clean-power-plan">EPA Clean Power Plan</a> – into the hands of the next president. </p>
<h2>How strong is EPA’s defense?</h2>
<p>The Clean Power Plan, which requires states to devise plans for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, has been <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/23/two-dozen-states-file-lawsuit-against-clean-power-/?page=all">challenged legally by more than 20 states</a> and energy companies. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/15A773-Clean-Power-Plan-stay-order.pdf">Supreme Court’s stay</a> dealt a blow to the Clean Power Plan at a very early stage in litigation, coming before any lower court has had an opportunity to assess the validity of the challengers’ legal claims and many years before any emissions-reduction requirements would have gone into effect for power plants. </p>
<p>It is unclear why – and the court did not explain its reasoning – allowing the rule to remain in place as the litigation unfolded would have resulted in irreparable harm or how granting the stay furthers the public interest, both key elements of the relevant legal test. This is especially true because the courts have already put the litigation challenging the Clean Power Plan on an expedited track, meaning that just a few more months would have brought considerably better information for evaluating the merits of the rule.</p>
<p>Moving forward, the stay says something important, but nothing decisive, about the ultimate fate of the Clean Power Plan. The court’s five-to-four decision means that five justices concluded that the challengers have made a “strong showing” that they are “likely to prevail” in their underlying case charging that the Clean Power Plan is unlawful. </p>
<p>But it’s important to note that the arguments in that underlying case are not yet developed: there has been no briefing on the merits of the case yet, nor any oral argument, nor a decision on those legal merits by any judge. The D.C. Circuit will now take up the case and turn its attention to these merits, and my own view is that the EPA’s legal position is quite strong. </p>
<p>The heart of the case challenges EPA’s interpretation of a statutory phrase, “best system of emission reduction,” which is inherently ambiguous. Here, this refers to how states can reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.</p>
<p>Historically, courts have given agencies like EPA wide berth to interpret and implement their governing statutes. And EPA’s approach here, which calls for emissions reductions from increased use of renewable energy and other readily available measures, seems well within the scope of what one might determine is the “best system.”</p>
<p>Once the D.C. Circuit issues a decision, whichever side has lost will appeal to the Supreme Court, which may or may not take up the case. If it does, the justices will look anew at a more fully developed record and reach conclusions independent of, and better informed than, their decision this week. Although a number of commentators have said the Supreme Court <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/pulling-the-plug-on-obamas-power-plan-1455148680">effectively ends</a> the EPA Clean Power Plan’s implementation, the court could still rule that it is legal.</p>
<h2>Next president looms large</h2>
<p>But the Clean Power Plan must do more than survive the next rounds of judicial battle in order to take effect; it must also survive the presidential election. Each of the Republican candidates has signaled a <a href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/energy/2016/01/voters-guide-how-the-candidates-compare-on-climate-and-other-issues/">strong distaste for climate regulation</a>, and it is hard to imagine any of them embracing the Clean Power Plan in office. </p>
<p>Now that the stay has been issued, any Republican president in early 2017 will have an easy way to duck out of the Clean Power Plan, by instructing the Department of Justice to cease its vigorous court defense. </p>
<p>If the Supreme Court holds that the rule is not legal, EPA’s next steps will depend on the president, too. </p>
<p>A Democratic administration likely will reissue the rule to conform to whatever the court’s directives are, if that’s possible, and will simultaneously look to other pathways within the Clean Air Act (for example, to <a href="https://law.ucla.edu/centers/environmental-law/emmett-institute-on-climate-change-and-the-environment/publications/legal-pathways-to-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-under-section-115-of-the-clean-air-act/">Section 115</a>) to achieve emissions reductions. With a Republican win in the next presidential election, by contrast, all bets are off for future federal climate change regulation. </p>
<p>My more glass-half-full Democratic friends wonder whether the silver lining in this week’s stay decision will further mobilize like-minded voters, as it’s more clear than ever how important climate champions in the executive and judicial branches are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54511/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cara Horowitz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Even before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court’s stay placed the fate of the EPA Clean Power Plan into the hands of the next president.Cara Horowitz, Co-Executive Director, Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/545132016-02-12T11:11:10Z2016-02-12T11:11:10ZIn blocking EPA Clean Power Plan, is the Supreme Court wading deeper into politics?<p>Speaking at a law school last week, Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-political-wars-damage-public-perception-of-supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-says/2016/02/04/80e718b6-cb0c-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html">complained</a> that sharp partisan criticisms of the Supreme Court have led the public to believe that it is just another political branch of government. </p>
<p>However, the chief justice may have reinforced the impression that the court plays politics when he joined four other justices on February 9 in granting an extraordinary <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/15A773-Clean-Power-Plan-stay-order.pdf">stay</a> of one of the most important regulations the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has ever issued. </p>
<p>The Supreme Court shocked all legal observers by prohibiting EPA’s Clean Power Plan from remaining in effect while a lower court hears legal challenges to it. </p>
<p>This is the first time ever that the Supreme Court has intervened to stay, or temporarily block, an agency’s regulation before a court has heard legal challenges to it. The court’s action is particularly surprisingly because just weeks before, the lower court judges who will hear these challenges had <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/obama-clean-power-plan-will-move-ahead-as-lawsuit-proceeds">unanimously rejected a motion for a stay</a>, while expediting consideration of the case.</p>
<p>The effect of the stay will be immediate in slowing the development of state energy plans and raising doubts in other countries about the U.S. commitment to fight climate change. More broadly, this case may be seen a prime example of a partisan Supreme Court considering politics rather than strictly legal questions. </p>
<h2>SCOTUS retains final word</h2>
<p>EPA’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/epa-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP) is a key part of the Obama administration’s efforts to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, as promised at the global summit held in Paris last December. </p>
<p>The CPP gives states the option of developing plans to reduce GHG emissions from power plants or letting EPA develop the plans for them. EPA issued the regulations only after considering more than <a href="http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-numbers">4.3 million public comments</a> and holding hundreds of meetings with stakeholders, the most public input it has ever received in making a rule. </p>
<p>The agency <a href="http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-numbers">estimates</a> that the regulations will reduce GHG emissions by 870 million tons, or 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 when full compliance is required.</p>
<p>Long before the regulations were even issued, however, opponents in the coal and utility industries joined red state officials in waging an unprecedented campaign against EPA. They filed lawsuits making a host of wild claims, including that President Obama was “<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/20/3634680/tribe-burning-the-constitution/">burning the Constitution</a>,” and asked courts to stop EPA from issuing the regulations. </p>
<p>The courts <a href="http://blogs.edf.org/climate411/2015/07/22/oklahoma-court-rejects-yet-another-flawed-challenge-to-the-proposed-clean-power-plan/">unanimously rejected</a> these lawsuits and told opponents that the law clearly required them to wait until EPA finished its rule. </p>
<p>Meanwhile EPA listened carefully to the unprecedented number of public comments it received on its proposal. Indeed, the final rule was substantially modified to address concerns raised during the comment period. States were given more time to comply with the rules, and the most controversial portions of the rules relating to demand-side energy efficiency improvements were eliminated. </p>
<p>After the rules were issued in final form, a new round of legal challenges were filed in the D.C. Circuit. On January 21 the court <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-21/obama-clean-power-plan-will-move-ahead-as-lawsuit-proceeds">unanimously rejected</a> the opponents’ motion to stay the rules pending completion of the legal proceedings.</p>
<p>When EPA’s litigious opponents then announced that they would seek a stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, no one – not even the opponents themselves – thought that the court would grant the request. But by a 5-4 vote the court did exactly that. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/15A773-Clean-Power-Plan-stay-order.pdf">orders</a> issued by the court stay the rule not only until the D.C. Circuit issues its decision, but also until the Supreme Court completes any subsequent review of the rule. </p>
<p>In other words, even if the D.C. Circuit rejects the legal challenges it will hear, the rule still cannot take effect until the Supreme Court acts. Because it takes only four votes to grant Supreme Court review, it is certain that the court will review the case regardless of which way the D.C. Circuit rules.</p>
<h2>Stay not based on merits</h2>
<p>The only precedent for the court’s extraordinary action that comes to mind is <a href="http://www.phschool.com/curriculum_support/interactive_constitution/scc/scc43.htm">Bush v. Gore</a>. There the court’s five most conservative members directed the state of Florida to halt its vote recount in the 2000 presidential election. </p>
<p>The court then declared George W. Bush to be the winner of Florida’s electoral votes, giving him one more than needed to win the presidency even though Gore received 540,000 more popular votes than Bush. </p>
<p>Bush v. Gore made the court appear to be <a href="http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1707&context=faculty_scholarship">nakedly political</a>, and the five justices who personally favored Bush were accused of inventing a <a href="http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/bush-v-gore-case-brief.html">novel legal theory</a> to make their favored candidate president. </p>
<p>Opponents of EPA are crowing, with one <a href="http://www.wsj.com/articles/pulling-the-plug-on-obamas-power-plan-1455148680">commentary</a> saying that due to the court’s stay “the Clean Power Plan is dead and will not be resurrected.”</p>
<p>Not so fast. Unlike Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP is not a decision on the merits of the rule. I believe the D.C. Circuit, which will hear oral argument on June 2, will uphold the regulations. The Supreme Court then will review the D.C. Circuit’s decision.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/111219/original/image-20160211-28676-12tp8bx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A previous case on EPA regulations of mercury from power plants may have prompted the Supreme Court to stop implementation of the Clean Power Plant before determining its legality.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/haglundc/3946685535/in/photolist-71KN7k-qsMN35-9KbLDf-7V1S5e-zFPWUA-7cZW4U-DohoWo-okPdBy-6VJXqq-a4Rg33-fkvCDf-8fJDv4-AkpBW9-6SMry8-7Zk1ga-HqXTu-czaaLj-nfLkbn-6SQxZb-eakpWQ-bk6RZV-6eZTP-m82xZS-ji4Vhq-9C7ej-4ThfiF-6SMD1X-6LLXwB">haglundc/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One of the legal criteria for a stay is the likelihood of success on the merits. Therefore, the court’s five most conservative justices believe the legal arguments made by EPA’s opponents carry weight. But this does not guarantee that they all ultimately will vote against EPA.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court <a href="http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1889&context=fac_pub">archives</a> reveal that four decades ago, the sole fierce conservative on the court at the time – Justice Rehnquist – momentarily persuaded his colleagues to gut the new Endangered Species Act without even hearing oral argument. But because the majority could not agree on a single rationale for doing so, the court ultimately agreed to hear oral argument. After the justices closely examined the law during the argument, three votes switched and the law was upheld in the landmark <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/437/153.html">snail darter decision</a>. History could repeat itself.</p>
<p>Another criterion for granting a stay is the likelihood of irreparable harm. EPA’s <a href="https://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/content/2016.01.27_coal_industry_scotus_stay_application.pdf">opponents argued</a> that the rule would force coal-fired power plants to close before the legality of the Clean Power Plan could be determined. However, the rule’s first compliance date is not until 2022. As a result, any plant closing while the legal challenges are pending would be done for independent, economic reasons – not because of the CPP. </p>
<p>Opponents of the Clean Power Plan also cleverly argued that the court’s decision last June in another case involving the EPA made a stay necessary. </p>
<p>In the Michigan v. EPA case, the Supreme Court found that EPA should have <a href="https://theconversation.com/supreme-courts-epa-mercury-ruling-is-a-victory-for-common-sense-regulation-44073">considered costs before regulating mercury emissions</a>. But its ruling had little impact because the regulation had not been stayed. Most power plants already were complying with the mercury controls and EPA could quickly correct its supposed legal error by issuing a new cost determination. </p>
<h2>Out of Obama’s hands</h2>
<p>What might the Supreme Court actually rule when it considers the Clean Power Plan? </p>
<p>The court repeatedly has confirmed EPA’s authority to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, but its shocking stay of the CPP indicates that it eventually may deprive EPA of its most effective tool for doing so. </p>
<p>Even if the CPP ultimately survives judicial review, the stay inevitably will delay some state efforts to develop plans to develop plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which the rule requires. While this will not entirely halt the ongoing adoption of cleaner energy sources in the U.S., it sends an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world which, after the Paris climate summit, now views the U.S. as a global leader in responding to climate change.</p>
<p>The stay also guarantees that the CPP will not go into effect until after President Obama leaves office, placing the rule’s ultimate fate in the hands of a new administration. </p>
<p>The administration ushered into office by Bush v. Gore stalled for nearly a decade U.S. efforts to address climate change. This could happen again if the new president is a climate change denier. </p>
<p>Bush v. Gore seriously damaged the court’s reputation by making it appear to be a political branch of government. Whenever the court splits 5-4 along ideological lines, such suspicions may arise. But the truly extraordinary nature of the court’s 5-4 stay of the CPP strongly suggests that the court’s five conservatives are embracing politicians’ anti-EPA rhetoric before carefully considering the law.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54513/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Percival does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>By halting Obama’s cornerstone climate policy before considering its legality, the Supreme Court could further tarnish its partisan reputation.Robert Percival, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland, BaltimoreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/517862015-12-14T10:55:44Z2015-12-14T10:55:44ZPromises, promises: how legally durable are Obama’s climate pledges?<p>As part of a global agreement on climate change, the US has <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/INDC/Published%20Documents/United%20States%20of%20America/1/U.S.%20Cover%20Note%20INDC%20and%20Accompanying%20Information.pdf">pledged, among other things, to reduce</a> its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 26%-28% compared to 2005 levels by the year 2025. But opponents of President Obama argue that he cannot keep his promises made at the Paris climate summit. </p>
<p>The Obama administration is confident that the US can meet its promise based on the regulatory actions already taken by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal agencies to reduce GHG emissions, part of a broad <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/image/president27sclimateactionplan.pdf">Climate Action Plan</a> announced by President Obama in June 2013. </p>
<p>In transportation, US fuel economy standards set by the EPA have been <a href="http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy">raised dramatically</a>. And earlier this year the EPA issued regulations to control GHG emissions from power plants, which led to a final rule known as the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/epa-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan.</a> </p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan will require states to reduce GHG emissions from existing power plants by 32% by the year 2030. It is expected to accelerate the retirement of coal-fired power plants as electric utilities increasingly shift to natural gas and renewable sources of energy. </p>
<p>Yet even as US negotiators arrived in Paris for the climate summit, Obama’s political foes were questioning his authority to sign an international agreement on climate change. </p>
<p>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that the US cannot meet its promises to the global community because the Clean Power Plan is “likely illegal” and will either will be <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-president-doesnt-have-the-power-to-sign-onto-international-environment-commitments/2015/11/27/924a45e8-92ee-11e5-a2d6-f57908580b1f_story.html">struck down in court or be revoked by a new Republican president</a>. </p>
<p>So how strong is the legal defense of Obama’s signature climate initiatives?</p>
<h2>Going to the Supreme Court?</h2>
<p>Having the Clean Power Plan struck down in court seems unlikely for a <a href="http://theconversation.com/obama-builds-legacy-on-climate-change-with-epa-clean-power-plan-45641">number of reasons</a>. These include the fact that the US Supreme Court repeatedly has upheld EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act, beginning in 2007 with its decision in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf">Massachusetts v EPA</a>. </p>
<p>On the other hand, a new president working with congressional opponents of climate action could undermine the US commitment. Let’s consider the legal possibilities.</p>
<p>The Congressional Review Act provides special fast-track procedures that allow Congress to veto regulations issued by federal agencies within 60 legislative days of their issuance. But before such a joint resolution of disapproval can take effect, it requires either presidential approval or the override of a presidential veto by a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=428&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105311/original/image-20151210-7463-ye19uq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=538&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The signature policy of Obama’s climate strategy is the EPA Clean Power Plan to regulate CO2 from power plants. Opponents are already challenging it in court.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/haglundc/3946685535/in/photolist-71KN7k-55VZ7e-nfT1bh-aWFkCc-9UZ4zd-dMpGn-7fVcZf-qXC8BL-9BV2oD-9Cfq1u-j1mLu-7m3XR3-4jGBjs-qZ3wQB-9nUKt1-msoBbB-mDQyt4-6mT2X1-wtSB1o-qrf56t-6N6g6C-4LdVfv-9J1sjy-A5kEpU-7tnHRL-a2cCof-9KbLDf-m82xZS-AchudK-9xzVCq-zFPWUA-Ayfz7-a4Rg33-jDh7DE-d6E1mE-nfLkbn-D9mZE-9WoFnC-4L8baP-eYcb2M-9oEEPR-dG1hAh-hvi8CV-9xTZwt-6SQxZb-AkpBW9-a3jC83-3c4iV4-7V1S5e-j65SPQ">haglundc/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As a result, the only time this procedure has been used successfully was shortly after a change of administration. In March 2001 new President George W Bush signed a <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/40712138.pdf">disapproval resolution</a> blocking regulations issued at the end of the Clinton administration to protect workers from repetitive motion injuries. </p>
<p>Congress is trying to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, but such a vote is entirely symbolic because President Obama has promised to veto the disapproval resolution and the 60 legislative day period will end long before the 2016 election. Thus, as long as a president committed to climate action remains in office, the Congressional Review Act is not a promising option. </p>
<h2>Dramatic versus piecemeal attacks</h2>
<p>A new president opposed to climate action could direct EPA to repeal its regulations, but this would require the agency to undertake a lengthy rulemaking process to comply with the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-5">Administrative Procedure Act</a> that governs how agencies adopt regulations. Any agency decision to revoke the regulations would be challenged in court and could be overturned. </p>
<p>The courts have played a role before in attempts to reverse regulations. When President Reagan’s Department of Transportation rescinded its air bag regulations, the <a href="http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/463/29.html">Supreme Court held</a> that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously because the decision was not supported by the factual record showing that air bags save lives. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/105508/original/image-20151211-8335-ylc8ez.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There will be legal challenges to the EPA Clean Power Plan, but the Obama administration thinks it’s on solid legal ground.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/vagueonthehow/8187574430/in/photolist-dtvsCo-daP3j-daNZQ-5Y1vSU-f7UQm7-7rWpuX-5vW72r-6WeAdm-2ixb3e-5DPZjD-7dYGoU-h9RmT-gEUxa-cKuaEU-7JjfpF-6BGeDe-mJTwQ-mJTvy-mJT7c-tE1gX-mJTas-mJT4T-5mgrny-5dERvJ-7aoRBa-34MRB-vkZRUf-7JWSgw-dZmeMp-5TepUy-eg8ztp-9YW5U5-5Ta8Vi-5Tex15-dY7QRD-zb7Xc9-9Lothq-nm7Fg-5To7gp-uPcFZA-5Ta5Ti-5TevMw-5TevfC-5Teswd-fLm7kY-mJSZy-cMC8PQ-5P76qy-7rgfJB-x6Lt2a">vagueonthehow/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And when the Supreme Court in 2011 <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-174.pdf">rejected state efforts</a> to hold electric utilities liable for climate change under the federal common law of nuisance, it pointedly noted that any future EPA decision <em>not</em> to regulate GHG emissions would be subject to judicial review.</p>
<p>Working with a new president sympathetic to opponents of environmental regulation, Congress could repeal or amend the Clean Air Act, the legal foundation for EPA’s regulations of GHG emissions. However, the Clean Air Act has been remarkably resistant to past legislative onslaughts. It is, after all, thanks to the Clean Air Act that the “<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10555816/Chinas-airpocalypse-kills-350000-to-500000-each-year.html">airpocalypses</a>” choking major cities in China and India right now do not happen in the US. </p>
<p>Another option for a future Congress would be to adopt targeted amendments to deprive EPA of authority to implement the Clean Power Plan and other GHG regulations if there are enough votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Congress also could use the power of the purse to withhold funds for actions necessary to implement any Paris agreement, including US promises of <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-biggest-sticking-point-in-paris-climate-talks-money-49193">financial aid to help poor countries adapt to climate change</a>.</p>
<h2>Post-Paris</h2>
<p>The Paris climate conference is being conducted pursuant to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by President George H W Bush in June 1992 and ratified unanimously by the US Senate on October 7 1992. President Obama believes he already has <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/11/30/trick-or-treaty-the-legal-question-hanging-over-the-paris-climate-change-conference/">sufficient legal authority</a> to implement any agreement made in Paris and thus he does need not to ask Congress for new approval.</p>
<p>There is precedent for this. In 2013 the US was able to accede to the <a href="http://www.mercuryconvention.org/">Minimata Convention on Mercury</a> without congressional approval because existing law already provides the president with sufficient legal authority to implement its requirements.</p>
<p>For decades, the principal argument by opponents of US climate action has been that the US should not act until developing countries agreed to control their GHG emissions. That argument was dramatically undermined in November 2014 when China agreed to control its emissions, in a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change">joint announcement with the White House</a>. </p>
<p>The claim that other countries will not control their emissions has now been laid to rest in Paris with a new global agreement requiring all countries to do so. Now that the entire world has recognized that all nations must act to combat climate change, it would be the height of folly for a new president and Congress to reverse course.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/51786/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Percival does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Could future presidents unravel the commitments to cut emissions the US has made at the Paris climate summit?Robert Percival, Professor of Environmental Law, University of Maryland, BaltimoreLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/500472015-11-03T11:07:33Z2015-11-03T11:07:33ZAs US shutters aging nuclear plants, cutting emissions will become more costly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100462/original/image-20151101-16554-m13igc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Losing steam? Older power plants are expensive to operate or upgrade.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/75012107@N05/6762402323/in/photolist-biz5Bv-9xbTFj-9wxbM3-9wxc2C-9wucoR-9wxcnm-9wxc8A-8g8H69-8g5r62-ne2PEF-ne31UJ-9xbKSd-3JpVg-nvyeiG-8g5rqi-ne2ZJN-9CmJ4u-4WaMqe-4Wf2Ks-7LMrQ-nveBjF-88TJfs-8JinVd-55nFyi-55rTvU-bHBT8P-8ip2r-nvfKsJ-dWZoAV-dX63Py-nvygT1-nttKCJ-3dJwD-4DUJu9-dWZoyB-9pQL3d-ne31Py-ne2Q7n-ne31iU-nvfMYq-nveCft-x3dDg-9xbXUq-9xQ7Qt-9dQa2-7x4wD-38QLPZ-4idF6u-4ZB4Kh-ne2UoQ">Montgomery County Planning Commission</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The United States is the world’s largest producer of nuclear power, but the country’s fleet of nearly 100 reactors is showing its age. </p>
<p>On November 2, the owner of a nuclear power station in New York <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/entergy-to-close-james-a-fitzpatrick-nuclear-power-plant-in-central-new-york-300170100.html">said</a> it will shut the plant down, which follows announcements of plant closures in Massachusetts, California, Florida and Wisconsin. This raises important questions for the US energy sector. The retirements reflect a set of economic challenges for nuclear power plants across the United States, and have important implications for climate change, energy costs and the reliability of the power grid.</p>
<p>Nuclear provides nearly 20% of the electricity in the United States, but the average plant is about 34 years old, and prospects for the future of many of these plants are murky, at best. While five new reactors are currently under construction in the US, the World Nuclear Association <a href="http://world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power/">estimates</a> that more than 10 older ones are currently at risk of closure. </p>
<p>The explanation for these retirements and the limited amount of new construction is simple: <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/jep.26.1.49">cost</a>. </p>
<p>Abundant and cheap natural gas coupled with the rapid expansion of wind power has limited increases in electricity prices, making it harder for some nuclear operators to justify continued operations or make expensive repairs. By 2020, the US Energy Information Administration <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm">estimates</a> that the cost of bringing new nuclear online will be about 25% more expensive than natural gas or wind.</p>
<p>But nuclear power is by far the most important source of non-CO2-emitting electricity in the United States. And while renewables like wind and solar have grown rapidly, they respectively <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/">accounted for</a> just 4% and 0.4% of US electricity generation in 2014. </p>
<p>So as the existing nuclear fleet ages and eventually retires, what will happen to domestic CO2 emissions?</p>
<h2>Regional picture</h2>
<p>If nuclear power were somehow replaced entirely by wind and solar, emissions would remain flat – a best-case scenario. </p>
<p>The US electricity system produces about <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_09_01.html">500 tons of CO2</a> for every <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1">gigawatt-hour of power generated</a>, and if all of today’s nuclear power were replaced by natural gas, total power sector CO2 emissions would grow by roughly 15%.</p>
<p>Take as an example Japan, which after the 2011 meltdown at Fukushima-Daiichi ordered all nuclear units closed. Nuclear power was replaced by coal, oil and gas-fired generation (the country also adopted increased energy-conservation measures). Most reactors are still offline, and Japanese CO2 emissions in 2014 were <a href="http://phys.org/news/2014-11-japan-co2-emissions-yearly-high.html">roughly 20% higher</a> than they were in 2010, the year before the earthquake.</p>
<p>But the story in the United States is more complicated; the effect on CO2 emissions when a nuclear plant closes varies substantially based on which part of the country you’re looking at.</p>
<p>That’s because some regions, notably <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm">California</a> and <a href="http://www.rggi.org/">nine northeastern states</a>, produce and consume electricity under a cap-and-trade program (a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/2454">federal cap-and-trade bill</a> died in the Senate in 2009). These programs cap the amount of CO2 that can be emitted from power plants each year (California’s program also covers other energy sources like transportation fuels), charging emitters a price for each ton of CO2 they produce.</p>
<p>So when a nuclear plant shuts down in California or Massachusetts, the market finds a way to stay under the emissions cap by reducing demand, increasing efficiency, and adding new carbon-free sources like wind and solar. These measures require new investment, and raise the price of electricity.</p>
<p>But when a nuclear plant goes offline in Wisconsin or Florida, where there is no cap, there is no requirement for power producers to find a way to hold emissions steady. Instead, the electricity will be replaced by a combination of sources that is cheapest for that region, and because that cheapest option is often natural gas, CO2 emissions will rise.</p>
<h2>Wind and solar to rescue?</h2>
<p>Some will argue that nuclear power can be replaced quickly with wind and solar. </p>
<p>Indeed, these sources are growing rapidly in the United States, and in some places, they are competitive with other fuels like natural gas. But wind and solar power do not provide the type of steady, reliable base load that nuclear (and coal and gas) can. </p>
<p>Wind and solar produce power when the wind blows or the sun shines, and need to be backed up by a rock-solid “baseload” source of power, such as natural gas. Policies in some parts of the country have introduced <a href="http://www.utilitydive.com/news/pjm-auction-results-capacity-payments-to-plants-rise-37-in-bid-to-avoid-o/404480/">additional incentives</a> for providing reliable power, but these incentives have not been enough to ward off retirement for a number of aging nuclear plants. </p>
<p>The federal government has for decades supported nuclear power with the Price-Anderson Act, which <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1990.tb00645.x/abstract">limits operator’s liability</a> in case of accidents, and newer policies that <a href="http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/USA--Nuclear-Power-Policy/">provide a tax credit</a> for new nuclear plants, <a href="http://www.energy.gov/articles/energy-department-issues-remaining-18-billion-loan-guarantees-vogtle-advanced-nuclear">loan guarantees</a> for new construction and more. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/100552/original/image-20151102-16532-1e3z1v1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Wind power is competitive on price in some regions depending local prices and how good the wind is, but power generators will choose the lowest-cost option, which is natural gas, in most parts of the US.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/lawmurray/4367991464/in/photolist-7DZ6FE-pULMU5-dnNfp3-g5tPWB-qFwgtM-dbFQUD-8EHpqb-379p3x-37sNMc-37e4XQ-37xrWC-nMeVtq-4RuTfm-7pMwLr-sXmgPh-5gpG9c-4RuTGu-4EBXn-puKvPy-pyXBBY-e9DemK-6LREjS-kmu8nH-aKcaxr-nPRNGZ-bL6qEH-6A5nS-8nWN8J-yo3z1n-e9ruQr-dur1nU-duqZVf-dukp7K-dukisz-duqZ5s-duki88-dur1u5-duqZcu-duqXjU-eazuos-2VbpGa-8nSq5x-2Afg7n-fCN7ej-eatNpi-eazttG-eatN3g-eatMAr-eatPLk-eatNyz">lawmurray/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Obama administration’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan requires utilities to lower their overall emissions through efficiency or using less polluting sources of power but it <a href="http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/voices/energetics/clearing">does little</a> to create incentives to keep older reactors producing.</p>
<p>Absent a substantial change in policy, nuclear technology, or electricity prices, nuclear power plants will continue to face substantial economic challenges in the United States. </p>
<p>In the meantime, the location of retiring plants matters a great deal for CO2 emissions. In regions with cap-and-trade, nuclear retirements will likely raise power prices, but have little short-term effect on emissions, while regions without cap-and-trade are likely to see their CO2 emissions rise if and when plants close.</p>
<p>Looking forward, a better approach to limiting CO2 emissions would bring together the entire country, rather than leaving cap-and-trade programs to be implemented in some states but not others. </p>
<p>Analysts have known for years that this type of nationwide <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069602000165">carbon pricing</a> needs to be <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069607001064">the lynchpin</a> of any <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/107/26/11721.full.pdf+html&">economically sound</a> climate policy.</p>
<p>The struggles of nuclear power will make it harder for the US to achieve its long-term climate goals, even though the falling costs of wind and solar power will provide a boost. </p>
<p>But without nationwide carbon pricing, there is <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-the-paris-climate-talks-prevent-a-planetary-strike-out-47017">no clear path</a> toward the levels of emissions reductions we need to prevent the worst impacts of climate change.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/50047/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daniel Raimi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Anti-nuclear advocates may cheer the closing of nuclear power plants in the US, but thanks to cheap natural gas, less nuclear power means higher emissions.Daniel Raimi, Lecturer on Public Policy and Research Specialist, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460272015-08-18T20:33:22Z2015-08-18T20:33:22ZForget the hostile Congress – Obama can cut global climate deals on his own terms<p>While US President Barack Obama has been pushing forward on domestic climate policy with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/epa-clean-power-plan">EPA Clean Power Plan</a>, the conventional wisdom is that he can do very little on the international front, and that any US involvement with a climate treaty would need the approval of the recalcitrant Congress. </p>
<p>Yet this conventional wisdom is simply wrong: Obama can craft an international climate agreement without the consent of the Senate or the House of Representatives.</p>
<p>The popular opinion is that any new legally binding agreement would need to be passed by a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate, a requirement that the Kyoto Protocol <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php">failed to achieve</a>. It’s an obstacle widely seen as one of the biggest barriers to establishing an effective climate agreement at the United Nations talks in Paris at the end of this year. </p>
<p>This would seemingly leave Obama with two options: to push for a weak deal to bring to the Senate (although it’s debatable whether any deal could be weak enough to satisfy the Senate’s Republican majority), or to pursue a non-legally-binding deal which would probably be <a href="https://theconversation.com/pledges-can-work-but-it-will-take-international-law-to-fight-climate-change-31970">ineffective</a> and seen as illegitimate by the public. </p>
<p>But the real situation is less bleak. As <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14693062.2015.1061472#.VdEuvS5jIa4">my recent research</a> shows, the need for Senate ratification is largely a myth. There are numerous ways for the United States to be part of an effective climate treaty without involving either side of Congress. </p>
<h2>Avoiding the Senate</h2>
<p>There are more ways for the United States to join an international treaty than just Senate ratification. It can also enter legal deals through what are called “executive agreements”. </p>
<p>These agreements are surprisingly common – indeed, 94% of international agreements struck by the United States have been made through executive agreements. “Sole-executive agreements” are a form of executive agreement that only require the approval of the president. </p>
<p>The catch is that these sole-executive agreements can only be done on issues that fall within the president’s existing mandate. This includes the foreign powers mandate and authority based on already ratified treaties or existing legislation (such as the <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act">Clean Air Act</a>, under which Obama proposes to regulate greenhouse gases from power stations). </p>
<p>An agreement that incorporates legally binding economy-wide emissions targets and/or climate finance commitments would be outside of this mandate and would require Senate ratification (and funds would always need to be appropriated through Congress). However, Obama could use his existing powers to sign off on several other climate policy issues. This could include agreements on research and development, compliance with international targets, procedures and monitoring, and reporting on emissions.</p>
<p>This could be done either by leaving targets out of the legally binding text, or by breaking up the agreement into several different protocols. The latter would be a radical departure from the traditional, interconnected “global deal” approach of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). But it might just be better by allowing for both US legal participation and for certain issues to move forward without being held back by the wider negotiations. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=448&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/92272/original/image-20150818-12443-5mhp5r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=563&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A repeat of Kyoto or Copenhagen is not necessary: Obama does not have to be tied to Congress.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Using existing treaties</h2>
<p>Another way that Obama could exercise his climate powers internationally is by co-opting treaties that have already been ratified by the Senate. </p>
<p>One example is the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/">Montreal Protocol</a>, which has successfully limited ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and <a href="http://www.epa.gov/ozone/intpol/mpagreement.html">could now be used to forge an agreement</a> on phasing out their replacement, hydroflurocarbons (HFCs), which are potent greenhouse gases.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the <a href="http://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx">Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation</a> could be used to help regulate aviation emissions. Indeed, the International Civil Aviation Organisation has <a href="https://theconversation.com/without-a-global-deal-us-curbs-on-airline-emissions-are-hot-air-43122">already agreed</a> to move towards a market-based approach in 2016 to address aviation emissions, although there is a long way to go yet. Actions could also be undertaken through the <a href="http://www.imo.org/en/Pages/Default.aspx">International Maritime Organisation</a> for a similar approach to shipping emissions. </p>
<p>Aviation currently accounts for roughly <a href="http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/aviation_main_report_web_simple.pdf">2% of global emissions</a>, shipping for <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping/docs/marine_transport_en.pdf">about 3%</a> and HFCs for <a href="http://eia-global.org/campaigns/hfcs-super-greenhouse-gases/overview/">about 1%</a>. All are growing at a significant pace. Action by the United States and other major nations on these issues could therefore tackle a decent slice of global emissions. </p>
<p>This highlights an important way forward beyond the UNFCCC. Deals on specific issues in different negotiating forums could split up the agenda into manageable topics without the cultural baggage, tedious procedures and consensus requirements of the UNFCCC. It would also avoid putting all of our eggs into one basket in chasing a single global climate treaty. </p>
<h2>Using the US Clean Air Act</h2>
<p>This brings us back to the US Clean Air Act, and specifically to its <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7415">Section 115 on International Air Pollution</a>, which states that any air pollution caused by the United States that can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare in a foreign country” can be regulated to eliminate the potential danger. But this is only applicable to countries that have given the US reciprocal treatment in terms of that same pollutant. </p>
<p>This wouldn’t be applicable to all other countries, but it could conceivably be applied to major polluters such as China and the European Union. The United States has previously cut a <a href="http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caaa_overview.html">similar deal with Canada over acid rain</a>, with minor tweaks to Canadian legislation. </p>
<p>This kind of bilateral or “minilateral” approach could be a useful complement to the UN climate talks. Countries quite often find it easier to <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148">reach ambitious deals</a> when negotiating on the sidelines, rather than by trying to secure consensus between 193 countries. </p>
<p>Naturally, all of these options would involve a good deal of domestic political risk. The Republicans would not react kindly to being bypassed on such important matters. All of these measure would also occur purely through the executive and could be easily abolished by a future president. </p>
<p>But there are really no other options. The US Congress is gridlocked on climate, leaving the president (and some states) as the only avenue for action. The future of the world’s climate will rely largely upon what the United States can do. If it fails to deliver, then Obama can’t simply blame it on a dysfunctional Congress. </p>
<p>The legal options exist for Obama to pursue a strong global deal on his own terms. The real question is whether he has the political guts to take the risks and to forge an international climate legacy for current and future generations.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46027/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Luke Kemp has previously received research funding from both an Australian Postgraduate Award and DAAD (German government) research grant. </span></em></p>Much has been made of the domestic political roadblocks between US President Barack Obama and climate action. But by using existing treaties he can get around the hostile Congress and help cut global emissions.Luke Kemp, PhD Candidate in International Relations and Environmental Policy, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/460482015-08-17T05:32:47Z2015-08-17T05:32:47ZObama’s climate plan is another half-baked carbon trading scheme<p>The US <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a> puts a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions for the <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/03/obamas-clean-power-plan-hailed-as-strongest-ever-climate-action-by-a-us-president">first time</a>. Despite a few critics, environmentalists have on the whole reacted <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/how-are-environmentalists-reacting-to-obamas-clean-power-plan/">positively</a>. Yet, as societies around the world are already struggling with the effects of climate change, is Obama’s plan ambitious enough? As he acknowledged himself, “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2015/aug/03/obama-clean-power-climate-change-plan-video">there is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change</a>”. We suggest precisely that: his plan is too little, given that it has arrived so late.</p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan aims for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions associated with coal, oil, and gas-fired power plants by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. It focuses on the electricity sector, which is a good thing. Electricity generation from fossil fuels is the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html">largest single industrial source</a> of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions and 31% of the US total.</p>
<p>The plan gives US states a flexible deadline of September 2016 to submit plans for emissions reduction. They must comply by 2022. States have a few different policy options:</p>
<ul>
<li>Set a standard for power plants</li>
<li>Energy efficiency measures</li>
<li>Increased gas and/or renewable energy production</li>
<li>Carbon taxation</li>
<li>Emissions trading among power plants owned by the same operator</li>
<li>Emissions trading between power companies and across state lines</li>
</ul>
<p>Yet, if they do not draw up a plan for reducing emissions, the EPA will impose emissions trading by <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/fs-cpp-overview.pdf">default</a>.</p>
<p>As with any climate policy, the ambition of an instrument must be judged in terms of the detail and much of that will depend on how the states react. At this point, we take issue with two aspects of the scheme: first, the ambition of the emissions target and industrial coverage; and second, the potential loophole that emissions trading will create.</p>
<h2>Lack of ambition</h2>
<p>Obama is right to start with the <a href="http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf">emissions-intensive</a> electricity sector. However, we should remember that energy exports, transport, agriculture, mining and industrial emissions are outside the scope of the scheme.</p>
<p>This is a common problem in climate policy. All too often, major “national” economic drivers of greenhouse emissions do not fall into the scope of federal climate policy. For instance in Australia, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-australia-must-stop-exporting-coal-9698">booming energy export market</a> has contributed to a major increase in global greenhouse emissions, but only the “fugitive” emissions associated with mining were regulated under the former carbon trading scheme.</p>
<p>Then there is the <a href="http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/climate-showdown-has-the-us-uk-or-germany-done-more-to-cut-emissions/">2005 baseline</a> the US has chosen, while the Kyoto Protocol established a baseline of 1990. Why? Because from 2005 on the US has experienced a shale gas “revolution”, which crowded dirty coal out of the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/06/02/coal_power_plant_carbon_emissions_new_epa_rules_use_one_trick_that_undermines.html">energy market</a> and reduced emissions.</p>
<p>While the Clean Power Plan is clearly a step in the right direction, it is a case of too little given the world’s largest economy is acting so late. We need much more ambitious action from the US and other like nations, if we want to have a realistic chance of staying within the globally agreed 2°C, or better 1.5°C of “safe” global warming.</p>
<h2>Carbon trading - a potential loophole</h2>
<p>The Clean Power Plan is <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/08/04/clean_power_plan_obama_s_climate_plan_is_cap_and_trade_after_all.html">likely</a> to become a patchwork of emissions trading schemes, something not emphasised in the initial proposals. However, the EPA’s January <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-proposed-federal-plan.pdf">proposal</a> and <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule.pdf">the final rule</a> single out emissions trading as a preferred policy option.</p>
<p>If a state does not deliver a plan for emissions reduction, then a federal cap-and-trade program becomes the default policy. States are also able to link to existing state-level emissions trading programs, the California cap-and-trade scheme and the <a href="http://www.rggi.org/">Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative</a>. How this is managed has been a subject of debate, particularly regarding carbon offsets.</p>
<p>Thankfully, the use of “carbon offset” credits from sectors outside the electricity sector for compliance purposes is not likely to be possible. The use of carbon offsets would not qualify under the EPA’s definition of the “best system of emissions reduction” for purposes of the Clean Air Act section 111(d) (see Section V <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule.pdf">pp. 517-520</a> of the rule). States which include trading schemes like the California cap-and-trade scheme which relies on forest carbon offsets to a significant degree will have to demonstrate that emissions reductions have occurred in the power sector.</p>
<p>Some states and carbon trading advocates <a href="http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/em-opinion-em-yes-the-us-epa-can-and-should-allow-offsets-under-the-clean-power-plan/">have been unhappy</a> that carbon offsets cannot be used. It is for the best they have not been successful in the call for “flexibility” through offsetting. The introduction of carbon-offset credits in the Clean Power Plan would have made it similar to the Australian <a href="http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction-fund">Direct Action Plan</a>. In the Australian scheme, the “safeguard mechanism” to keep emissions to a minimum seems likely to be turned effectively into a baseline-and-credit <a href="http://reneweconomy.com.au/2014/anyone-notice-australia-now-carbon-trading-scheme-87832">carbon trading scheme</a>. This means any kind of “cap” the safeguard mechanism could impose on the most heavy emitters will be undermined.</p>
<p>While the US Clean Power Plan is an improvement on the Australian situation, we remain concerned about the direction of US climate policy, particularly the likelihood a jumble of emissions trading schemes will be created. In our recent <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17583004.2014.990679#.VciSl_mzmiw">published research</a>, we find carbon trading lacking on a number of counts. There have been numerous problems with carbon trading, including ineffectiveness, weak regulation and implementation, instances of fraud, little or no emissions reduction and major legitimacy issues for governments and the private sector.</p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan design makes a complex set of carbon trading arrangements likely, which may in turn replicate the problems of existing carbon trading schemes across the world. Given the increasingly urgent timeline within which we need to act to radically reduce emissions, the incorporation of carbon trading as an option in the Clean Power Plan is half-baked.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/46048/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steffen Böhm has received funding from: British Academy, East of England Co-operative Society, Green Light Trust, Swedish Energy Agency and the ESRC, though he writes in a personal capacity.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Pearse is employed on research projects funded by the Australian Research Council and has in the past received funding from UN Women and Friend of the Earth International. She writes in a personal capacity.</span></em></p>The unambitious Clean Power Plan is too little, very late.Steffen Böhm, Professor in Management and Sustainability, and Director, Essex Sustainability Institute, University of EssexRebecca Pearse, Research associate, University of SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/459192015-08-13T05:54:58Z2015-08-13T05:54:58ZYour brief to the Paris UN climate talks: how we got here and what to watch for<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91341/original/image-20150810-11062-1dh3ydx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Bonn in June: just a few steps away from the big show in Paris later this year. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/unfccc/18451724915/in/dateposted/">unfccc/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As the preparations for the global climate change conference in <a href="http://www.cop21.gouv.fr/en">Paris</a> in December heat up in parallel with the planet, negotiators in the United Nations climate talks recently released a proposed skeleton <a href="http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/6911.php?priref=600008595">agreement</a>. The draft includes the key pieces of a legal agreement that are meant to be finalized by nearly 200 countries in Paris. </p>
<p>The text is very much an early draft, littered with alternative wordings and unsettled provisions, but it provides the clearest illustration to date of what kind of agreement countries are heading toward. </p>
<p>The documents also bring to light the many politically sensitive issues negotiators will need to grapple with in Paris. </p>
<h2>Why Paris is different</h2>
<p>Typically, global environmental treaties, including earlier ones on climate change from <a href="http://unfccc.int/key_documents/the_convention/items/2853.php">1992</a> and <a href="http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php">1997</a>, set out comprehensive legal commitments – a cornerstone of international law. But the ill-fated <a href="http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop15/">Copenhagen meeting in 2009</a> showed in spectacular fashion that this approach is no longer possible on climate change. There, the United States, China, India and other leading countries outside the European Union sharply rejected the idea that each country in the United Nations process should take on negotiated, legally binding targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>Instead, the hastily scrambled together <a href="http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php">Copenhagen Accord</a> ended up a political document, merely encouraging countries to submit voluntary, and widely varying, greenhouse gas targets for 2020. Since then, the leaders of China, the United States and other countries have voiced support for more concerted action, but many still prefer to keep any national targets voluntary. In typically awkward UN-speak, these are called Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (<a href="http://unfccc.int/focus/indc_portal/items/8766.php">INDCs</a>).</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91344/original/image-20150810-11077-mzzktn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=506&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Copenhagen talks of 2009 marked a dramatic shift away from trying to establish legally binding treaties signed by all countries in the UN climate change process.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4197460651/in/photolist-7oV5Pe-7oYYmm-7oV7bB-7oZbTG-7oYXsJ-7iweVL-7oXA5s-7oNgPw-77FocT-77Kh1Q-749BnV-77KkVQ-5ubEco-aZkP3Z-aTxroz-7oDrVn-31aBcw-7oDrTn-7oYrpn-5u6M9P-bV2BvC-cPfS3o-7oFpd3-7oFoYs-7oBwVi-7oBwqR-7oBw9R-7oHjvC-7oDrNx-7oDrQn-74c2rB-74c2v8-7ogK8c-9578vj-8rZ3hf-fS1U7e-aCbevn-4rY8Sz-gAgjHG-7pD881-gAgAXY-gAgCon-hiznUt-swhesJ-gyvkeX-7mbFdw-fS2LeS-75zJ7v-8h2zNJ-75754e">The White House</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Consequently, countries in Paris will seek to develop a new hybrid approach. The intent is to establish a universal legal agreement that lays out basic provisions, but each countries’ INDCs are submitted separately, and implementation issues are intended to be addressed in political decisions adopted separately at the Paris meeting.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674035430">Defenders</a> of international law often prefer treaties because binding commitments are legally strong. Countries sometimes violate legal obligations, but most countries follow most international law most of the time. Countries also often think twice before violating their legal obligations, because international law creates stability and predictability. And countries that renege on legal commitments risk losing one of the most priced commodities in international relations – other countries’ trust that may be needed in future cooperation.</p>
<p>But not <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/in-climate-talks-soft-is-the-new-hard-and-thats-a-good-thing/?_r=0">all analysts</a> believe that legal obligations are always superior to more political approaches. Because countries tend to respect international law, they may simply elect to not sign up to rules they cannot (or do not want to) abide to. In that case, the choice is between a legal treaty with only a few members, and a legally weaker agreement with more members. With the top 10 emitting countries responsible for <a href="http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/infographic-what-do-your-countrys-emissions-look">two-thirds of global emissions</a>, leaving any of these countries standing on the sidelines would be highly problematic to any multinational climate agreement.</p>
<p>Since Copenhagen, the international political scales on climate change have tipped away from the traditional treaty system to one that embraces a higher degree of voluntarism. This has paid some dividends in the form of greater participation. Among those that have already <a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx">submitted their INDCs</a> for 2030 are China, the United States, the European Union and Japan. </p>
<h2>How solid is US commitment?</h2>
<p>But despite this political buy-in from leading emitters, there are several potential pitfalls ahead.</p>
<p>International legal agreements depend on countries’ willingness to incorporate them into national law and to implement and enforce their obligations through domestic institutions. Once international commitments are enshrined in domestic law, there is a significant hurdle for political leaders to backtrack, which would have both national and international implications.</p>
<p>Yet in some instances, countries may more actively follow through on voluntary promises to cut greenhouse gas emissions by, for example, expanding renewable energy generation and improving energy efficiency. This is in large part because what countries set out to do in their INDC is often already national policy and/or measures they are confident will be adopted later. In other words, countries are prone to only submit INDCs that are clearly within reach. </p>
<p>But all of this is dependent on one critical aspect: that future national political leaders honor political promises made by today’s leaders in Paris. This is true for all countries, but uncertainties about the future path of the United States, in particular, stand out.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91343/original/image-20150810-11104-16hsgrq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Green Climate Fund is designed to fund climate change mitigation and adaptation steps in developing countries, but rich countries have yet to deliver on the commitments.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/jbdodane/15385190414/in/photolist-prx86G-q77oRt-5XgyjA-qomh9F-6nei6Q-6pNMZ1-5XcgNV-5Xgusu-5Xgu6Q-5XgubA-5XgwxY-dJBUvu-tJXKy-6naaax-p6vQv5-rvnfz5-9DiNku-qQW2Ps-rMQPZc-rMVS96-rtBgpx-rKD2wm-rvtw4D-ojjYdU-rvtuC2-rvnevS-rMQSRe-rMQQ6V-rtBfUp-rMQRTT-rvneYW-rKD5qC-qQW1bs-rMQNN4-rtBkdV-qQW4B5-rvnfa7-rvnfoJ-qQW2ZN-rKD1YY-rMPhNC-rKD189-rMQRk8-qR93bp-qQW3x1-rvm2RQ-rMPh5o-rMPfBd-6oZUdL-CZzFQ">jbdodane/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Obama administration favors voluntary INDCs partly because the US contribution was formulated within the executive branch and so does not require congressional approval. The Obama administration this month released the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a> that sets limits on carbon emissions from power plants. That mandate along with fuel efficiency standards for vehicles and other measures are the primary methods for meeting the US emissions reductions pledge. </p>
<p>However, this means that the <a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-builds-legacy-on-climate-change-with-epa-clean-power-plan-45641">next White House occupant</a> is free to decide US international climate change policy. Here, the very large differences between presidential candidates on climate change can have substantial national and foreign policy ramifications, as countries and trading partners will expect the US to fulfill earlier promises.</p>
<h2>Follow the money (or lack thereof)</h2>
<p>Another central issue that the skeleton agreement draws attention to is financial support for developing countries to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change. </p>
<p>These are, in many instances, both among the first ones to feel the negative impact of, for example, temperature increases and changes in precipitation and weather patterns, and those that struggle the most to deal with growing adaptation needs. They have also contributed very little to the problem, having historically low emissions.</p>
<p>The UN-organized <a href="http://news.gcfund.org">Green Climate Fund</a> is intended to generate $100 billion a year from public and private sources by 2020, but we have so far seen little of that. Connected to a much larger and longstanding debate about funding for sustainable development, developing countries insist that financial contributions from donor countries should be mandatory, but industrialized countries prefer voluntary mechanisms.</p>
<p>These fundamental financial disagreements also tie in with related debates around how to best to prepare developing countries and transfer technologies for climate change mitigation and adaptation. </p>
<p>These discussions are further complicated by the lack of consensus on how to design the basic mechanisms for monitoring, reporting and verifying countries’ measures for emissions reductions.</p>
<p>At the same time, developing countries are increasingly forced to quickly figure out how to best limit negative consequences of climate change and how to design working strategies to reduce vulnerabilities and enhance resilience. Here, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=225&v=8NxX-oCIijM">the rich can start learning from the poor</a>, who are the ones doing much of the on-the-ground experimentation and innovation.</p>
<h2>Two degree Celsius target slipping away</h2>
<p>Critically, we will likely not be able to keep average global temperature increases under two degrees Celsius, an important benchmark climate scientists have recommended to avoid more dramatic disruptions. </p>
<p>The latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (<a href="http://www.ipcc.ch">IPCC</a>) calculated that total, cumulative anthropogenic carbon emissions need to stay below 1,000 gigatons of carbon in order to not exceed the two-degree threshold. By 2011, countries had already emitted over half of this <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.UmY-FJTF1pe">budget</a>, and if current emission trends continue, we will exceed the budget before 2050.</p>
<p>The Paris pledges and other mitigation efforts so far are not ambitious enough to keep us below the 2 degrees Celsius <a href="http://www.climateactiontracker.org">target</a>, according to independent research initiative Climate Tracker. And even after emissions are drastically reduced, the climate changes that occur will be with us for the next thousand <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704.full?wptouch_preview_theme=enabled">years</a>. Thus, the Paris negotiations and our actions in the next three decades will determine the future of the climate for the next millennium.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45919/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Henrik Selin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s pledge season: countries are beginning to submit carbon reduction commitments for the Paris climate talks later this year. What’s the US doing and can it meet its targets?Henrik Selin, Associate Professor in the Frederick S Pardee School of Global Studies, Boston UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458162015-08-13T05:36:38Z2015-08-13T05:36:38ZStop the wishful thinking: Obama’s feeble power plan still isn’t clean enough<p>No doubt, you heard the good news. Barack Obama has announced the US is pushing through <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-33753067">plans to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases</a>. Rejoice! Rejoice! We’ve got this climate problem licked – hurrah!</p>
<p>Hold the champagne – and not just because it’s full of bubbles of carbon dioxide – while we do a reality check. This is a distinctly underwhelming development. Let’s pick apart the spin from the reality.</p>
<p>First, the way the story has been told – the US commits to a 32% reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases by 2030. This is being pushed through by tightening the rules governed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – a federal agency that the US president can instruct, without the need to get past those pesky filibusterers in the dysfunctional, Republican-dominated houses of Congress. The EPA is confident that its rules have a firm legal footing and will be able to withstand the inevitable court challenges. </p>
<p>The effect of the rules will be to clobber the production of electricity using coal. This is certainly “a good thing”. Quite apart from <a href="http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/report/IPCC_SRREN_Annex_II.pdf">coal’s high carbon-intensity</a> as a means of producing power, it is dirty in other ways – resulting in pollution that is harmful to human health as well as to the environment.</p>
<p>With this commitment, the US can enter the climate negotiations in Paris with its head held high and can push for a global deal to head off dangerous climate change. Whoo-hoo!</p>
<p>The reality – it’s a development that is both fragile and feeble.</p>
<p>Fragile, because unless every occupant of the White House between now and 2030 is a Democrat, it can be unpicked. Remember the bit about the EPA being a federal agency that the US president can instruct? Well, if the president happens to be a climate-denying Republican (the two words are almost, but not completely, <a href="http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/11/429781692/where-presidential-candidates-stand-on-climate-change">interchangeable</a>), he or she could countermand the previous instruction. Of course, the ruling now will inform business decisions and will have a long-lasting effect, regardless of whether the rules are subsequently reversed, but believing that this announcement sets in stone the target of a 32% reduction in emissions requires a degree of optimism that lies somewhere between the heroic and the delusional.</p>
<p>It’s feeble too. A 32% reduction by 2030 sounds quite impressive until you realise it is baselined on 2005 figures. By 2013 (the latest data available) it <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/inventoryexplorer/#allsectors/allgas/econsect/all">had already fallen by 15%</a> so the rate of improvement required in the next 15 years is actually slower than what has already been achieved. From 2005-2013, emissions fell at a rate of 2.0% per year – to meet the commitment, emissions would need to fall by just 1.3% per year between 2013 and 2030. And the 32% reduction figure only relates to the emissions from power generation, which makes up <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/co2.html">less than a third</a> of total US emissions.</p>
<p>How does the rate of committed reductions compare with what is actually required to achieve temperature rises of less than 2°C above pre-industrial levels? According to <a href="http://www.trillionthtonne.org">trillionthtonne.org</a> – a website that tracks these things – to have a better than 50% chance of avoiding such dangerous climate change would require emissions to decrease by more than 2.6% per year. For the rest of time. Globally.</p>
<p>Not that the US should come in for special criticism – the commitments from the EU and from China are similarly insufficient to head off the threat of dangerous climate change.</p>
<p>So why hasn’t this been reported? I think what is going on here is partisanship and a well-intentioned desire to boost the prospects of a meaningful deal in Paris.</p>
<p>Climate-denying Republicans hate this plan (of course), therefore all good climate realists see it as a triumph. But it is a tiny, tiny step in the right direction and climatically immaterial.</p>
<p>Ah yes, you say, but it’s politically important – the world’s hegemonic power has made a commitment, and that creates a foundation upon which greater progress can be made. Let’s not be pessimistic – this could be the start of a global deal.</p>
<p>Well, this emperor has no clothes. The pronouncement reminds me of <a href="http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/peacetime.html">the words of Neville Chamberlain</a> on his return from the Munich Conference in 1938: “I believe it is ‘peace for our time’. Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45816/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tim Kruger receives funding from the Oxford Martin School, which is part of the University of Oxford</span></em></p>After all the jubilation about the president’s plan, it’s time for a reality check.Tim Kruger, James Martin Fellow, Oxford Martin School, University of OxfordLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/458032015-08-07T19:06:40Z2015-08-07T19:06:40ZRather than make energy more expensive, it’s time to invest in the technologies of tomorrow<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91196/original/image-20150807-27587-cgmtd4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The EPA Clean Power Plan imposes limits on power plants' carbon emissions. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ataferner/17266641021">ataferner/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Democrats (myself included) enjoy ridiculing Republicans who deny the scientific consensus behind climate change. But we then deny the inconvenient truth behind our own preferred climate policies: they will have regressive impacts on the poor and middle class. </p>
<p>The Energy Information Agency (EIA) projected in May that President Obama’s new <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/epa-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> (CPP) will lead to <a href="http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/powerplants/cleanplan/">retail electricity prices 3%-7% higher</a> for the nation as a whole in 2020-25, before falling to “near-baseline” levels in 2030. Yet speaking in the White House on August 3, the president denied the CPP would “cost you more money.”</p>
<p>Region by region, according to the EIA report, the CPP will cost some ratepayers quite a bit more money. Electricity prices in 2030 are expected to be 10% higher in Florida, the Southeast, the Southern Plains and the Southwest. Obscuring this fact, the White House says the “average American family” will save on their energy bills by 2030. </p>
<p>Democrats should be wary of this denial strategy, because higher electricity costs burden the poor far more than the rich. The National Bureau of Economic Research, an independent research firm, has <a href="http://www.nber.org/digest/jan10/w15239.html">shown</a> that higher energy prices create a burden relative to income that is six times greater for those in the bottom income quintile compared to the top income quintile. </p>
<p>Speaking at the White House, Obama specifically dodged the issue of higher short-run energy costs for the poor and minorities, and for some regions higher long-run costs as well. Instead, he changed the subject to talk about reduced asthma risks. Obama does not have to run for office again, but Democrats who support his CPP, like Hillary Clinton, will need to find a better explanation for its regressive impacts on minorities and the poor. The issue is already giving Republicans an undeserved opportunity to pose as populists. Marco Rubio uses this line to rip the CPP: “If you’re a single mom in Tampa, Florida, and your electric bill goes up by $30 a month, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/08/02/at-koch-summit-rubio-says-new-epa-rule-will-be-catastrophic/">that’s catastrophic</a>.” </p>
<h2>Renewables to the rescue?</h2>
<p>Progressive Democrats have been tripped up by this issue once before. In the 2009 cap-and-trade debate in Congress, Warren Buffett, who was an early supporter of Barack Obama, said cap-and-trade was “<a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/buffett-cap-and-trade-is-a-regressive-tax/?_r=0">pretty regressive</a>.” Obama’s press secretary at the time did not deny the assertion, and said the president looked forward to “working with Congress to put a solution together.” But a solution was never found, and cap-and-trade (which Republicans rebranded as “cap-and-tax”) failed in Congress. The fear that climate policy would lead to higher energy costs contributed to Democrats losing control of the House in the 2010 midterm election, so Obama decided to avoid the issue completely when seeking his own reelection in 2012.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=246&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=246&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=246&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91192/original/image-20150807-27582-u2mk86.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=310&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Can innovation make low-carbon energy cheaper?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/deapeajay/3789399078/in/photolist-6LREjS-nPRNGZ-5gprcZ-nR54yM-oX2LF3-bL6qEH-6A5nS-ehh8M7-8fsj1n-37sZmR-37t7j6-379p3x-37sNMc-37t2PX-37tjbP-37xEUf-37e4XQ-37xrWC-37xTDC-37sViZ-fQgApw-brkvQk-cR5KuU-bdg1D4-EUkiQ-gGYE6-dhgUBC-kmu8nH-8nSpUr-e9ruQr-pMBzuc-9bGHDi-41b7bg-5x34pj-7QWpMT-nv4rUs-6PFXbE-dHMVuu-krqaLN-i8gBY-pPotKv-bgMQ1-8nWRwy-fUoFsz-ibha4-kmu5HV-7deXYt-nJGpW9-5RZh9J-4HjbTQ">David Joyce/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Are there ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without placing a disproportionate burden on the poor? Using federal subsidies and tax breaks to speed the deployment of solar panels and wind turbines seemed like the answer several years ago. Yet despite billions of dollars in wind and solar subsidies since 2009 (including US$16 billion in guaranteed loans over four years, through the Department of Energy’s <a href="http://energy.gov/lpo/services/section-1705-loan-program">1705 program</a>), the share of America’s energy consumption satisfied by non-hydro renewables increased just slightly, from <a href="http://www.state.gov/e/oes/rls/rpts/car6/index.htm">4.7% up to 6.5%</a> from 2008 to 2012.</p>
<p>Our installed capacity – or potential power from renewables – has increased thanks to the subsidies, but actual energy production, not so much. America’s <a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vtvo&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A%7E%7E%7E%7E%7EELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A%7EELEC.GEN.SUN-US-99.A&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A%7EELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A%7EELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A%7EELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A%7EELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A%7EELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A&freq=A&start=2001&end=2014&chartindexed=0&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&pin=&rse=0&maptype=0">net energy generation from solar and wind</a> grew from 1.8% in 2009 to 4.9% in 2014. In 2013, Obama’s own EIA projected the impact of extending tax credits and subsidies for renewables out to the year 2040, and found that doing so would slow the increase in America’s energy-related <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383%282013%29.pdf">CO2 emissions only slightly</a>, and not result in an actual decline.</p>
<h2>Tepid R&D</h2>
<p>Progressives not afraid of more radical change have championed an alternative approach called <a href="https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/">fee-and-dividend</a>, which limits the burning of fossil fuels either with direct taxes or auctioned permits, and then delivers some or all of the revenue back to households or individuals in a progressive manner, ensuring that the poor get back more than they had to pay. </p>
<p>Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, progressive to a fault, <a href="http://grist.org/climate-energy/sanders-and-boxer-introduce-fee-and-dividend-climate-bill-greens-tickled-pink/">has favored this approach</a>. Yet the fee-and-dividend approach fails to gain much political traction, because it implies a vast and unpopular expansion of Internal Revenue Service intrusion into the nation’s economy, and because it requires a controversial new overlay of tariffs and export subsidies at the border, to preserve America’s competitiveness abroad.</p>
<p>Over the long run, the only way to make climate policies both effective and less regressive is to lower the present high cost of non-fossil energy. Forcing out coal to scale up today’s wind and solar technologies will be regressive, so we should be working harder to speed the discovery of tomorrow’s low-carbon technologies. One way to do this is with larger federal R&D investments. </p>
<p>It is a scandal that the Department of Energy (DOE) today is spending less than half as much on energy R&D as it did in the 1970s, before our climate crisis emerged. In constant dollars discounted for inflation, the DOE spent only $3.7 billion on energy R&D in 2013, compared to $8 billion in 1979. Even more scandalous, only 19% of today’s DOE research spending goes for renewables, versus <a href="https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS22858.pdf">24% still going for fossil fuels</a>.</p>
<h2>Investment in innovation</h2>
<p>One forward-looking, nonregressive federal climate policy would be the creation of a Low-Carbon Energy Research Trust Fund, modeled on the Interstate Highway Trust Fund. </p>
<p>This fund could be built and replenished through a carbon fee small enough to have no impact on the poor, yet large enough to fund the needed public research. As improved low-carbon technologies emerge from the research pipeline, they could be deployed without the energy cost penalties implied in the CPP.</p>
<p>This research-led approach could also help secure adequate international climate cooperation. With today’s technologies, coal-dependent rising powers such as China and India will restrain carbon emissions only at the margin, where they can capture direct benefits in the form of less soot in the air, or less energy waste. They will not sacrifice their own economic growth to solve the collective problem of climate change driven by growing atmospheric CO2 accumulations. If America’s R&D investments can deliver alternatives to coal that are cheap enough to operate without any sacrifice of economic growth, prospects for international burden sharing with these countries will improve.</p>
<p>Hillary Clinton’s Vision for Renewable Power energy plan does include, a bit as an afterthought, a call for more investment in innovation. She should enlarge this part of her program by setting specific spending targets for federal R&D outlays, and by pledging to create a self-sustaining Federal Low-Carbon Research Fund.</p>
<p>We cannot decarbonize our economy and also protect the poor and middle class if we attempt a forced-pace scale up of the wind and solar technologies available today. Progressive Democrats should lead in demanding more public money to speed the arrival of tomorrow’s improved low-carbon alternatives.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45803/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Paarlberg does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Poor Americans suffer disproportionately from higher energy prices. Energy policies should fund innovation to make low-carbon energy cheaper.Robert Paarlberg, Adjunct Professor of Public Policy, Harvard UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456492015-08-06T01:48:19Z2015-08-06T01:48:19ZObama’s new climate plan is leadership fuel for other nations<p>President Obama’s new <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan">Clean Power Plan</a> is not just a step towards a US economy that does less damage to the climate. It will also encourage further action by other countries and improve prospects for this year’s international negotiations – and will make countries like Australia think even harder about their own strategies. </p>
<p>Listening to Obama announcing the plan earlier this week, you might think he has succeeded in solving the climate change dilemma. Well, not so of course. But the policy is likely to make a difference to the US energy system, and it will bolster confidence in the <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-2015-climate-summit-countries-targets-beyond-2020-38427">pledges</a> for the Paris climate negotiations. And it raises questions for Australia’s climate and energy policy too. </p>
<p>Obama is clearly looking for a legacy on climate change. The United States has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/31/fact-sheet-us-reports-its-2025-emissions-target-unfccc">already announced</a> an emissions target of a 26-28% reduction by 2025, relative to 2005. That’s less of a cut than would be expected from the US as part of strong global climate change action. But it is nonetheless a significant pledge, doubling the annual rate of emissions reduction from the existing 17% reduction target for 2020.</p>
<p>Talk can be cheap of course, and the question is always how to deliver on a given target. The United States is on track to meet its 2020 target, thanks in part to cheap natural gas and the recession, but also manifold policy efforts. The next step could be a little harder, depending on gas prices, the cost of renewables, and progress in energy savings. But emissions savings usually come <a href="http://awsassets.wwf.org.au/downloads/fs077_australia_can_cut_emissions_deeply_and_the_cost_is_low_21apr15_v3.pdf">cheaper than expected</a>, so the 2025 target is not at all unrealistic. </p>
<p>The new target for the power sector is a 32% emissions cut by 2030, relative to 2005 – so is roughly in line with the overall national trajectory. US power sector emissions account for a little less than a third of overall US greenhouse gas emissions, and the Clean Power Plan might contribute <a href="http://www.vox.com/2015/8/2/9086559/obama-climate-plan-preview">a quarter</a> of the reductions needed to reach the US national target. Much more is planned, including in industry, agriculture, transport, and housing. </p>
<p>But crucially, the power sector plan is a strong expression of political will – and political will is the fuel of the negotiating process. US leadership throughout Obama’s second term has <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-paris-climate-talks-wont-be-another-copenhagen-39591">helped move the international process</a> towards a meaningful new climate agreement.</p>
<h1>Policy as assurance</h1>
<p>At the Paris negotiations in December, it is unlikely that national emissions targets will be a part of a legally binding treaty. But that is not a problem, as long as countries can reassure each other that they are serious in achieving their targets. The best way to do that is to lay out a credible plan complete with policy instruments.</p>
<p>The Obama administration’s earlier strategy was to go for a national emissions trading scheme. California <a href="http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm">already has one in place</a>, and the northeastern states have <a href="http://www.rggi.org/">traded power-sector emissions</a> for many years. But getting a national emissions trading scheme through Congress is a political impossibility. </p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan is Obama’s answer to the political blockage: using executive powers under the Clean Air Act to mandate maximum emissions at the state level. Targets are differentiated, and it is left up to each state how to achieve it. That could turn out to be a smart move to help with acceptability, as it will give each state leeway to arrange things in a way that deals with the specific local political economy, as well as economic and technical aspects.</p>
<h1>But will it live?</h1>
<p>Probably, yes. First though, it will undergo ordeal by litigation, a common feature of serious reform efforts in the United States. As Lynette Molyneaux <a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-takes-biggest-step-on-us-climate-policy-experts-react-45644">has already observed on The Conversation</a>, efforts to reduce air pollution in the 1990s faced repeated and lengthy legal challenges before they succeeded. The new plan allows for this, with states not being required to finalise their strategies until 2018. </p>
<p>Neither will it be easy for a hostile future administration to torpedo the plan. This would require a repeat of the arduous <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/outreach-reducing-carbon-pollution-existing-power-plants">consultation process</a> the Environmental Protection Agency has carried out since 2013, in order to publish new draft and then final replacement regulations. Assuming the plan survives the litigation planned by political and industry opponents over the next couple of years, chances are it will remain in place – and perhaps in time achieve the same iconic status as the 1990s legislation.</p>
<h1>Meanwhile, back in Australia…</h1>
<p>…the Government is in the last stages of preparing its post-2020 climate target (called an intended nationally determined contribution, or INDC) to take to the Paris climate negotiations in December. To be credible to other countries, this must include a target at least as ambitious as the American one and commitment to a set of policy instruments that can demonstrably deliver the target. </p>
<p>If the government does this it will confound those who see it as a lost cause, provide the basis for stable national policy on climate change that business is calling for and boost prospects for a substantial result in Paris. Most importantly, it would place Australia and its people on a pathway to prosperity in the new global economy that every day turns further away from the fossil fuel dependency of the past.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45649/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Frank Jotzo has received research funding from various organisations. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Howard Bamsey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>President Obama’s new targets for emissions from electricity are a crucial step towards a credible US climate policy. And where the United States leads, others are more likely to follow.Frank Jotzo, Director, Centre for Climate Economics and Policy, Australian National UniversityHoward Bamsey, Adjunct Professor, Regulatory institutions Network, Australian National UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456392015-08-05T12:51:28Z2015-08-05T12:51:28ZHow should we define success for the EPA Clean Power Plan?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90819/original/image-20150804-12023-137mwfj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">EPA to states: we need a reductions plan.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/captainkimo/6702244011/in/photolist-bdfKDe-9ybcrM-7cZW4U-jAtHvQ-vyVL-pbKkbV-9o12JA-8171YW-9ivc1p-9QiHb-n4JeK-8tsrzA-fPYHyj-djgyAE-oLKmzH-9ytL2f-9tvVqi-4ZpYU3-oBLEy-9QiqL-pT3Ybo-pjCygM-oXPhq7-q6ehNu-4t6fJV-pKjrhC-nQpe4V-opA8tA-9a17aU-9LHHJ-g1cGjP-a2NpTF-omotMk-9BN2mM-p7JTnP-mNayH-6A2zdU-ekyb2n-d9KUna-4tpps4-dJvBSm-5AZ9rY-9Jwfoz-8ZnUY-aBxsrs-dddwSA-otwWW-bxZmo6-8JuKMz-2kEwq6">captainkimo/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On August 3, the United States crossed a major threshold in the effort to mitigate climate change. With the release of the final <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/clean-power-plan-existing-power-plants">Clean Power Plan</a>, the nation’s fleet of existing power plants now face mandatory limits on how much CO2 they can emit – a key contributor to global climate change.</p>
<p>With congressional action to address climate change unlikely in the foreseeable future, the Obama administration is implementing the new emissions limits pursuant to existing authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA).</p>
<p>The rule is complicated and controversial, and it can be difficult to wade through the talking points to evaluate the merits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) actions. Here are three factors for assessing the long-term success of the Clean Power Plan: the likelihood it will result in cost-effective CO2 emissions reductions, survive legal scrutiny and lay the groundwork for future steps to address global climate change.</p>
<p>Now with the final rule finally available, we can assess these questions in detail.</p>
<h2>Achieving cost-effective emissions reductions</h2>
<p>At the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change">rollout</a> of the rule, the president, the EPA administrator and the US surgeon general highlighted many reasons to address global climate change, citing impacts on health, economics and quality of life. The rule is projected to reduce power sector emissions 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. Equally important, requiring emissions reductions creates demand for new, affordable options for generating electricity without emitting CO2, which could result in even lower emissions by 2030 than required under the Clean Power Plan.</p>
<p>The EPA <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/fs-cpp-by-the-numbers.pdf">projects</a> that the total cost of the rule will reach US$8.4 billion. <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule-ria.pdf">Projected benefits</a> fall in the range of $34-$54 billion after accounting for the benefits derived from reducing CO2 emissions as well as the public health benefits of reducing other pollutants emitted from fossil fuel-fired power plants. </p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly for electricity consumers, the EPA <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/fs-cpp-by-the-numbers.pdf">also projects</a> that the Clean Power Plan will reduce bills by about $7 per month. The actual costs will vary across the country, and any attempt to predict electricity prices 15 years into the future should be taken with a grain of salt. But, by providing states with the flexibility to tailor their compliance plans to specific circumstances, states and power plant operators can pursue cost-effective implementation strategies.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90820/original/image-20150804-12011-15xskgy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Obama in Copenhagen in 2009. The EPA Clean Power Plan is a signal to other countries that the US is regulating carbon emissions, a key point in international climate negotiations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/4198219356/in/photolist-7oYYmm-7oZbTG-73Lmw6-7oYXsJ-7oYX2S-749Bo2-7oV63t-7S1pBj-77KjSo-77Foec-77KquJ-fTbzkx-7iweVL-7oKRLF-7nMthv-7oDrLe-7oHjHG-7oDc3x-7oV5Pe-7oV7bB-7oXA5s-7oNgPw-77FocT-77Kh1Q-749BnV-77KkVQ-5ubEco-aZkP3Z-cPfS3o-aTxroz-7oDrVn-31aBcw-7oDrTn-7oYrpn-5u6M9P-bV2BvC-7oFpd3-7oBwVi-7oFoYs-7oBwqR-7oBw9R-7oHjvC-7oDrQn-7oDrNx-74c2rB-74c2v8-9578vj-8rZ3hf-fS1U7e-4rY8Sz">The White House</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In addition to putting the nation’s electric power sector on a trajectory toward lower CO2 emissions and lower costs, the Clean Power Plan also sends an important signal to the rest of the world. As the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases, the US must demonstrate that it takes the problem seriously, and that we are willing to do something about it if we expect other countries to make similar commitments. </p>
<p>The next step in international negotiations happens in Paris this November. Releasing this rule before the negotiations should help build momentum toward further action at the international level.</p>
<h2>Preparing for legal challenges</h2>
<p>Although the CAA has been in place since 1970, the section at issue here – <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/7411">111(d)</a> – has been triggered so rarely that there is no direct judicial precedent interpreting the specific legal provisions. That means the EPA must balance the desire for aggressive emissions reductions with a strategy that is likely to survive court challenges, and it must do so without specific guidance from the courts.</p>
<p>Nonetheless, the CAA provides some important instructions to the EPA. The emissions standards must reflect the “best system of emissions reductions.” In other words, the EPA must identify a system, that system must reduce emissions, and it must be the best system. Furthermore, the EPA must consider costs and other environmental and energy system impacts, and the system must be “adequately demonstrated.” This broad language defines the scope of regulatory options available to the EPA.</p>
<p>It is no secret that <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-legal-challenges-to-the-epa-clean-power-plan-will-end-up-at-the-supreme-court-45686">legal challenges</a> lie ahead for the EPA, and the rule will likely end up before the US Supreme Court. A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/us/obama-unveils-plan-to-sharply-limit-greenhouse-gas-emissions.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news">strategy</a> to undermine the Clean Power Plan has been in the works as long as the EPA has been crafting the rule. </p>
<p>To address some of the potential vulnerabilities, the EPA retooled the formula it used to create state targets. The rule now follows a similar approach used in past EPA actions, creating separate standards for natural gas and coal. Energy efficiency is no longer used to calculate the targets, avoiding the legal argument that the EPA is forcing power plants to reduce demand for their product. Despite the changes to the emissions target formula, states still have broad discretion for developing compliance strategies.</p>
<p>The EPA also extended the timelines for states to submit plans and for utilities to begin complying with the rule, <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/fs-cpp-ceip.pdf">providing credit</a> if investments in renewables and energy efficiency occur before the rule goes into effect in 2022. By delaying its start two years, power plant operators are allowed more time to prepare. </p>
<p>The delay also mitigates a potent legal argument that opponents will likely advance at the beginning of the litigation process – that courts need to delay the rule until the conclusion of the litigation process because otherwise states and power plant operators must make immediate investments.</p>
<h2>Laying the groundwork for future climate policy</h2>
<p>The Clean Power Plan is a critical first step in limiting the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, but much more is necessary to effectively mitigate climate change.</p>
<p>The EPA makes it relatively easy for states to allow power plant operators to opt in to emissions trading markets if doing so is financially advantageous – either because they have emissions credits to sell or because buying emissions credits is less expensive than taking other actions.</p>
<p>If power plant operators take advantage of this option, regional or national emissions markets could emerge. Future steps to reduce CO2 emissions could build upon the trading infrastructure later to incorporate new sectors of the economy, to tighten the cap after 2030 or to import the system into a broader federal legislative framework.</p>
<p>There is much more to come as lawsuits commence and states evaluate potential compliance options. For now, the Clean Power Plan has shifted the debate from whether to address power sector CO2 emissions to how best to do so. That, by itself, is a success.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45639/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jonas Monast receives funding from the Energy Foundation, the Merck Family Fund, and the Roy A. Hunt Foundation.</span></em></p>Complicated and controversial, the EPA Clean Power Plan is well-conceived and has the potential to curb emissions but still faces serious hurdles.Jonas Monast, Climate and Energy Program Director, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions; Senior Lecturing Fellow, Duke Law School, Duke UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456862015-08-04T21:38:26Z2015-08-04T21:38:26ZWhy legal challenges to the EPA Clean Power Plan will end up at the Supreme Court<p>Even before President Obama announced the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan on August 3 to regulate carbon emissions from power plants, there were a number of legal challenges to block the law at its proposal stage – none of them successful. Earlier this year, the DC Circuit Court told opponents, which included a coal company joined by 12 states, that their arguments were premature.</p>
<p>Now that the rules are final, the new court challenges will come fast and heavy. The legal arguments against the plan will be focused on two issues. </p>
<p>The first is based on an unusual legislative drafting inconsistency, whereby the House and Senate versions of the key Clean Air Act provision lead to different conclusions about the EPA’s authority here. In the rush to complete its 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act, Congress allowed two inconsistent versions of the statute to pass through the conference committee, never to be reconciled. One would allow regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants under the provision being used in the Clean Power Plan; the other arguably would not. No court has ever addressed the question. Call this a drafting-error argument.</p>
<p>More centrally, the Clean Air Act language at issue is inherently ambiguous, as many texts are. It calls for the EPA to set standards for pollution reduction that are based on the “best system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated.” Any first-year law student would know to ask: What’s a “system”? How do we know what’s the “best system”? And what level of demonstration is “adequate”?</p>
<h2>Counter to conservative thinking</h2>
<p>The EPA has taken a broad view of these terms, setting pollution reduction standards that assume states can, and should, do a lot to limit carbon dioxide from fossil fuel–powered plants. That includes things far outside the fenceline of those plants, such as creating incentives to ramp up solar power installations in urban neighborhoods. </p>
<p>To the EPA, “systems” are capacious, and “best” means we shouldn’t think small. Opponents in industry counter that this provision was never about making changes outside the property lines of the regulated emissions sources themselves. To them, the EPA’s stance is an unauthorized reach.</p>
<p>Both the drafting-error argument and the statutory ambiguity argument will come down to how much discretion one thinks the EPA should have to interpret its own legislative mandates. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90814/original/image-20150804-11971-147dzz5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=769&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide the EPA Clean Power Plan’s fate?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bootbearwdc/37621686/in/photolist-4jPBL-2PPH15-oXcPWR-5nGB65-87xmzS-6xaviY-xj8mr-tbJue-pLFihs-9sMTg8-pwoRPY-ct5639-xj8dC-cjK4o3-fUJT36-3P99ph-a7Ttts-5Y3htE-pLGztn-6xavfj-btfutY-pVDtsm-oXchvs-7j4MSv-eXMwpm-APqHp-9sMQEz-djzBuH-conrr3-cjK2zL-z5HAY-6x6kmn-etjK2-mFPdVW-6K2mxv-6x6kaD-aofJU-9sMMC6-4bD4UB-5acLkp-5Vnu54-eWs9A5-oXceR9-peG69R-oXcUFm-7YWhrB-ro6AW6-6YsKD3-byuha4-my1QAP">bootbearwdc/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Traditionally, courts have deferred to agencies where they are acting in their areas of delegated power. And there are good reasons for courts to curtail the instinct to second-guess expert agencies when statutes can be interpreted more than one way. But this tradition of deference has run smack into the modern line of conservative thinking that maligns federal bureaucracy. </p>
<p>This case will almost certainly reach the US Supreme Court, given the force and funding of the opposition and the importance of the issue to federal energy policy. If and when it does reach the highest court, it is hard to say whether the EPA’s rule will be seen as an agency power grab, or, alternatively, as a reasonable exercise of authority given mandates that necessarily require interpretation.</p>
<p>The court’s most recent environmental cases suggest that the agency is on a shortening leash. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court <a href="https://theconversation.com/justices-debate-benefits-and-costs-of-epa-mercury-power-plant-rule-39551">ruled</a> that the EPA misinterpreted the Clean Air Act in regulating mercury levels from power plants, by failing to consider costs early enough. The court’s reasoning betrayed an impatience with deferring to the EPA. </p>
<p>For now, we can only wait to see how the legal drama will play out.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45686/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cara Horowitz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The expected barrage of legal attacks on the EPA Clean Power Plan hinge on two arguments, which may ultimately go to the US Supreme Court.Cara Horowitz, Co-Executive Director, Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, UCLA School of Law, University of California, Los AngelesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456772015-08-04T18:13:02Z2015-08-04T18:13:02ZFour things that you should know about the EPA Clean Power Plan<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90803/original/image-20150804-11999-oko6d5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Now regulated for carbon emissions.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/89545244@N03/8569718518/in/photolist-e4h3Ky-a4Rg33-6Xz2Rt-7fPE9v-a3Tyfw-okPdBy-NZMvj-PxoJa-dGFCs-4tNaFB-jmSVUo-6PTx9x-6SMry8-jGjdgM-7yXdPs-6jJko4-bD8hKH-jzafuK-b7BhF-9AyRh4-5uQyKS-j65SPQ-9p3fhZ-zXQN4-9csBg6-9yE9gH-9ouoxs-hHo7c-9zRogi-4B11e8-bk5t8E-6yUeQP-4e4xhC-jBRW4x-9p2Hsw-jpXwFF-iiWAo8-qPYxpd-63NeUj-vyVL-6wrLqJ-9xSWWe-e3BW9E-fmYcT5-a1ecna-9o12JA-7egxnG-6VJXqq-5nCcEv-6SMD1X">Ismo/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on August 3 released the final rule of the <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan">EPA Clean Power Plan</a>, regulations that limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in the US. </p>
<p>In the days and years ahead, the<a href="https://theconversation.com/obama-builds-legacy-on-climate-change-with-epa-clean-power-plan-45641"> Clean Power Plan</a> will loom large, both as it works its way through legal challenges and at states as they implement their plans to reduce power utility emissions. </p>
<p>Here are four key points about the plan from my perspective as an agricultural economist. </p>
<p><strong>1. Action on climate is important.</strong> Greenhouse gases are <a href="http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/">warming the planet</a>, and broad-based international action is needed. It is a significant step to see the US finally taking action in a way that could influence international efforts to reduce emissions.</p>
<p><strong>2. The overall approach in the Clean Power Plan is <a href="http://www.robertstavinsblog.org/2014/06/19/what-are-the-benefits-and-costs-of-epas-proposed-co2-regulation/">economically reasonable.</a></strong> Greenhouse gas emissions are what economists call uniformly dispersed; a pound of CO2 from Sacramento or Singapore has the same effect as a pound from Miami or Madrid. So an economically efficient policy reduces emissions where it can be done most cheaply. The Clean Power Plan includes numerous provisions that seek to reduce costs. Most prominently, it encourages states to take a cap-and-trade approach in which one polluter could reduce its emissions below its limit, generating credits that could be sold to another polluter that needs to emit above its initial limit. This creates an incentive for innovation, generates savings, and makes it possible to pursue a more aggressive climate goal.</p>
<p><strong>3. This was not Plan A.</strong> Concern about climate change has existed for decades and environmentalists have been pressing for a law to address climate change. The closest the US came to substantive federal legislation was the Waxman–Markey Bill, which the House passed in 2009, but the Senate did not pass a companion bill. </p>
<p>As late as 2010, most observers felt that the EPA did not have the authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) to implement an economically efficient climate change policy. </p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan is an innovative and yet-to-be-tested interpretation of Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act. It is controversial, not only because of the fact that there are two conflicting versions of this <a href="http://www.masseygail.com/pdf/Tribe-Peabody_111%28d%29_Comments_%28filed%29.pdf">section of the act</a>, but also because 111(d) focuses not on emissions but on what are called “<a href="http://www.epa.gov/ttnatw01/landfill/app_g.pdf">standards of performance</a>.” The agency worked around this by first defining rate-based goals, or reductions in CO2 per megawatt-hour, and then converting those to mass-based goals in tons of CO2, which offer more flexibility and are more amenable to trading. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=391&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/90805/original/image-20150804-12023-omjny4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=492&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Supreme Court obliged the EPA to regulate carbon emissions if they were found to be harmful, as they were. But the Clean Power Plan now faces a barrage of legal challenges.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/kubina/307639437/in/photolist-tbJue-pLFihs-9sMTg8-pwoRPY-ct5639-xj8dC-cjK4o3-fUJT36-3P99ph-a7Ttts-5Y3htE-pLGztn-eXMwpm-btfutY-pVDtsm-oXcPWR-6xavfj-APqHp-oXceR9-peG69R-9sMQEz-oXcUFm-7YWhrB-djzBuH-conrr3-cjK2zL-z5HAY-etjK2-mFPdVW-6K2mxv-ro6AW6-6YsKD3-aofJU-9sMMC6-4bD4UB-byuha4-my1QAP-5Vnu54-eWs9A5-6x6kmn-6x6kaD-5acLkp-4Q42k7-aFfq3j-9s8LrU-H587R-aC9aKG-rufcPC-5ncCKb-7tLNFt">Kubina/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While the lawyers at the EPA are convinced that they’re on solid legal ground, Congress’s inaction on passing federal laws to lower carbon emissions forced the EPA to shoehorn a regulatory approach to climate policy onto the CAA. As a result, it is not certain that the policy will withstand legal challenges.</p>
<p><strong>4. To some extent, the EPA had to act.</strong> The Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf">Massachusetts v the EPA</a> required the EPA to “ground its reasons for action or inaction” on greenhouse gases. Since science strongly indicates that <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/">CO2 is a harmful pollutant</a> and Congress failed to act, the EPA had little choice but to treat CO2 as a pollutant that falls under the CAA. The administration deserves credit for choosing to take serious (<a href="http://350.org/press-release/clean-power-plan-is-significant-but-not-enough/">though many still argue inadequate</a>) steps and to push the limits of the action, and for doing so in a way that is relatively cost-effective.</p>
<p>Overall, the CPP is a significant step forward for the US and one that doesn’t appear to be that expensive. </p>
<p>The EPA estimates that the CPP will increase electricity prices by only <a href="http://www.epa.gov/airquality/cpp/cpp-final-rule-ria.pdf">a few percent in 2020 and less than one percent in 2030</a>. Given those low costs, not only should we hope the plan passes legal muster, but we should be pushing the next administration to go even further.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45677/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Richard Woodward does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>How the US ended up regulating carbon emissions using the 1970 Clean Air Act rather than a national cap-and-trade emissions trading system.Richard Woodward, Professor of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456412015-08-04T15:38:49Z2015-08-04T15:38:49ZObama builds legacy on climate change with EPA Clean Power Plan<p><em>Editor’s note: Years in the making, the EPA Clean Power Plan will go down as President Obama’s signature policy in regulating carbon emissions from the electricity sector. If it survives certain legal challenges and is embraced by future presidents, it will lead to profound changes in how the US generates power, notably accelerating a shift away from coal. We’ve assembled a panel of scholars to explore the significance of the landmark regulations.</em></p>
<hr>
<h2>A global impact</h2>
<p>*<em>Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman professor of economics and the director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of Chicago, and Mark Templeton, an associate clinical professor of law and director of the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School.
*</em></p>
<p>When the history books are written, the <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/climate-change#section-clean-power-plan">Clean Power Plan</a> will mark the turning point at which the United States decisively committed itself to confronting climate change – firmly entrenching our nation as a global leader in the fight of this generation. </p>
<p>Enforcing the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act, it obligates states to reduce harmful emissions from power plants that are already changing our climate and exposing our children and their children and so forth to the risks of disruptive climate change.</p>
<p>While giving each state flexibility in the methods that it chooses to reduce emissions, the plan makes tremendous strides in encouraging the development of a carbon price in our nation. Analysts of all political stripes have long agreed that putting a price on carbon is the cheapest and quickest way to reduce emissions. </p>
<p>The trading markets in California and the Northeast have both been successful in reducing greenhouse gas emissions costs effectively. As more states join these trading programs or create their own, the resulting pricing of carbon will help to create a financial incentive for innovation in low-carbon energy, which is necessary to reduce the costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions.</p>
<p>What is often missed in calculating the paybacks of climate policies is that reductions in one place produce benefits around the world. Indeed, the biggest payoff from the Clean Power Plan may be the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that it spurs in other nations. </p>
<p>As the worldwide community heads toward the Paris climate talks later this year, the rule provides critical leverage for negotiating carbon emissions reductions from other countries – helping everyone, including us here in the US. </p>
<p>Indeed, the promise of this plan was enough to help produce the historic <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change">US–China climate agreement</a> earlier this year. Now, the US will enter these climate negotiations in an even stronger position of leadership and with greater ability to address the problems of climate change.</p>
<hr>
<h2>A path toward cleaner energy</h2>
<p><strong>Robert Percival, the Robert F. Stanton professor of law and the director of the Environmental Law Program at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law.</strong></p>
<p>Eight years ago, the US Supreme Court declared that the Clean Air Act required the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to determine whether emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) endanger public health or welfare. After carefully studying the scientific literature, the EPA determined that GHGs do endanger us by contributing to global warming and climate change. Despite a legion of legal attacks launched against this finding, it was unanimously upheld in court.</p>
<p>Now the EPA finally has adopted regulations to control GHG emissions from electric power plants – the largest sources of GHG emissions in the US. </p>
<p>Called the Clean Power Plan, the regulations set emissions targets that will reduce GHG emissions by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030. This will produce enormous benefits for public health, saving thousands of lives and putting the country on a path to a greener energy future.</p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan also will confirm that the US has resumed its global leadership in the battle against climate change at a particularly crucial time. In December, world leaders will meet in Paris to negotiate a new global agreement to control GHG emissions. These actions have dramatically improved the prospects for a strong global agreement in Paris.</p>
<p>EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan only after considering 4.3 million <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/06/18/2014-13726/carbon-pollution-emission-guidelines-for-existing-stationary-sources-electric-utility-generating">comments</a>, the most the agency has ever received in any rule-making action during its 45-year history. </p>
<p>The final regulations include some significant changes from the agency’s initial proposal, indicating that EPA listened carefully to the comments it received from electric utilities, the states, the public, trade associations, environmental groups and others concerned about the regulations. </p>
<p>The EPA has, for example, increased the flexibility afforded states in designing plans to determine the most efficient way to reduce emissions. It also has delayed for two years the initial compliance date for power plants, while providing incentives for early action to invest in renewable energy sources. </p>
<p>Since the signing of the Clean Air Act in 1970, any time the EPA has adopted significant new regulations there have been cries of doom from industry opponents.</p>
<p>When auto emissions standards were adopted, when ozone-depleting substances were banned, and when lead additives were removed from gasoline, naysayers said it would be impossibly costly. Yet each of these regulatory initiatives has been an enormous success, which is why the US has avoided the kind of air pollution currently choking hundreds of millions of people in China, killing more than <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/world/asia/air-pollution-linked-to-1-2-million-deaths-in-china.html">1.2 million Chinese</a> each year.</p>
<p>Opponents of the rules will wage fierce legal and political battles against them. Last year, before the rules were even issued, they sued the EPA, but their lawsuits were tossed out of court as <a href="http://www.fierceenergy.com/story/final-word-court-rules-epa-clean-power-plan-legal-challenge-premature/2015-06-11">premature</a>.</p>
<p>With the changes the EPA made between its proposed and final rules, the agency should finds itself on an even firmer legal footing as it steers the country toward a new era of clean energy.</p>
<hr>
<h2>The weight of future presidents</h2>
<p><strong>David Konisky, associate professor of public and environmental affairs at Indiana University, Bloomington.</strong></p>
<p>The EPA Clean Power Plan represents the federal government’s first direct effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Along with <a href="http://www.usclimatenetwork.org/resource-database/carbon-pollution-standards-faqs/">new rules</a> limiting emissions from newly constructed and modified power plants, the federal government finally has, after decades of debate, a program in place to cut emissions from the electric power sector.</p>
<p>The EPA has made a genuine attempt to address many of the criticisms of the Clean Power Plan as it was proposed last year. Among the key changes are modifying the clean energy targets states will have to achieve, delaying the timing of states’ compliance, allowing states more leeway to count nuclear power in compliance and providing guidance on the use of regional approaches – including <a href="http://www.epa.gov/captrade/basic-info.html">cap and trade</a> – in meeting targets. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, and unsurprisingly, the Clean Power Plan has already attracted vociferous opposition (soon to be followed by lawsuits) from the coal industry and recalcitrant states, not to mention the candidates comprising the <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/gop-presidential-candidates-pounce-climate-plan">GOP presidential primary field</a>. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uYXyYFzP4Lc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">The White House released a video explaining the EPA Clean Power Plan over the weekend.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>While some are raising legitimate questions about the ambitiousness of the Clean Power Plan, there is no denying its political significance. </p>
<p>No credible effort to address the causes of climate change can proceed without addressing the emissions from the electric power sector, which presently accounts for about <a href="http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources/electricity.html">one-third of all US greenhouse gas emissions</a> and 40% of CO2 emissions.</p>
<p>Moreover, the coal industry and its political supporters have fought against <em>any</em> efforts to address the climate problem. The willingness and steadfastness of President Obama and the EPA to take on these emissions – even if they do not go far enough – should not be discounted.</p>
<p>It is also essential to put the Clean Power Plan in context with the administration’s other climate policies that include huge investment in renewable energy development through the stimulus package and other programs, stronger fuel economy standards for the nation’s cars and trucks, and the regulation of mercury and other toxic substances which have hastened the retirement of large numbers of old, dirty coal-fired power plants that emitted considerable amounts of CO2.</p>
<p>The real fight over the Clean Power Plan, and to some degree all of President Obama’s efforts to address climate change, will take place in the years to come. </p>
<p>The next president – Democrat or Republican – will have to decide whether to sustain President Obama’s policies. And, while most of the current attention is to the question of what will happen if a Republican president takes over, the same question could (and should) be asked of a future Democratic president. </p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan pushes the United States, even if only gently, closer to decarbonizing the electric power sector, but future administrations will need to do more to reduce these and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions if the United States is to do its part in achieving the targets that the scientific community tells us are necessary.</p>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45641/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mark Templeton receives funding from the Joyce Foundation.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Greenstone owns a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds that may be subject to regulations under the Clean Power Plan. His research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, EPA, USAID, the MacArthur Foundation, the Sloan Foundation, and several other sources. He is a Fellow with the Brookings Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robert Percival does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A panel of scholars provide analysis of the Obama administration’s EPA Clean Power Plan and its impact on the electricity sector, the climate and politics at home and abroad.David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityMark Templeton, Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Abrams Environmental Law Clinic, University of ChicagoMichael Greenstone, Professor in Economics; Director, Energy Policy Institute, University of ChicagoRobert Percival, Professor of Environmental Law, University of MarylandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/456442015-08-04T03:59:28Z2015-08-04T03:59:28ZObama takes ‘biggest step’ on US climate policy: experts react<p>US President Barack Obama has unveiled what <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33753067">he describes</a> as his biggest and most important climate policy yet. The <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan">Clean Power Plan</a>, to be run by the Environmental Protection Agency, will see greenhouse emissions from US power stations cut by 32%, relative to 2005 levels, by 2030.</p>
<p>The policy has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/04/opinion/obama-takes-a-crucial-step-on-climate-change.html">hailed as a crucial step</a> towards reducing US greenhouse emissions, around one-third of which come from electricity generation. It sends a potentially decisive signal to other nations ahead of December’s United Nations climate talks in Paris. </p>
<p>Our experts react to the news, with more updates to follow. </p>
<h2>The costs and benefits</h2>
<p><strong>John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics, University of Queensland</strong></p>
<p>The really striking feature of Obama’s climate change plan is the <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/learn-about-carbon-pollution-power-plants#health">calculation</a> that the local environmental and health benefits of reducing the use of coal to generate electricity will far outweigh the direct economic costs, even without considering the impact on CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. This is consistent with economic research on the subject, most notably <a href="http://www.econ.yale.edu/%7Enordhaus/homepage/documents/EnvAccount_MMN_AER0811.pdf">this 2011 review</a>, which concluded that the overall damage done by coal is potentially several times larger than the benefits. </p>
<p>A similar assessment is reflected in the Chinese government’s decision to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/beijing-to-close-all-major-coal-power-plants-to-curb-pollution">close down all the coal-fired power stations in the vicinity of Beijing</a> and other major cities.</p>
<p>This means we are still in the region of “no regrets” policies on climate change, in which measures to reduce CO<sub>2</sub> emissions are beneficial even without taking climate change into account. The fact that so much can be achieved with so little downside is largely due to the availability of so much “low-hanging fruit” in energy efficiency measures, and even more to the startling reductions in the cost of renewable energy, particularly solar photovoltaics. These reductions have rapidly reached the point, where, depending on the vagaries of electricity pricing, renewables are often cheaper than new coal-fired power plants.</p>
<p>On the other hand, it’s sobering that no national government has yet been prepared to incur any substantial economic cost (say, more than 1% of national income) in the effort to stabilize the global climate. If it were not for the fortunate availability of so many “no regrets” policies, the planet would already be facing a quite literally unmitigated disaster.</p>
<p><strong>Malte Meinshausen, Australian-German Climate & Energy College, School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>There are two sides of the coin. On the golden side: The EPA Clean Power Plan is a crucial signpost that points coal towards the exit door and starts to roll out the red carpet for renewables on a larger scale. The EPA estimates that this will deliver between US$25 billion and US$45 billion in avoided health and climate damages in 2030. The CPP is hence a crucial geopolitical signal to other heavily coal-dependent economies and large emitters that it is time to act. The Obama administration is not only announcing nationwide 2025 targets, but is also putting even longer-term climate policies in place that have teeth. So far, so positive.</p>
<p>On the other side of the coin: the reduction level of 32% is grossly insufficient. The US power sector has already reduced its emissions substantially in recent years (and was already at 20% below 2005 levels by 2012). So to achieve the economy-wide emissions-reduction target of 26-28% by 2025 – and to continue on a trajectory towards an 80% cut by 2050 – the other sectors will have to pick up the slack. This could be challenging, given that the power sector is not asked to do much more. In fact, only reducing 32% in the power sector would mean a cut of just 15% below 2012 levels, leaving sectors like transport, industry, waste and agriculture with a whopping 36-38% reduction until 2030 below current (2012) levels. </p>
<p>In other words, achieving the long-term emission targets would require from other sectors more than twice as much as from the power sector. That cannot be the best way forward. Thus, unless the power sector overachieves on its EPA targets, the CPP can only be seen as an upper limit and we have to hope that the power sector will finally deliver more reductions once the full dynamic of the new state-level regulations kicks in.</p>
<h2>The regulations</h2>
<p><strong>Katherine Lake, Research Associate, Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>This is an innovative plan to tackle emissions from power stations in the United States, based on the EPA’s approach to reducing other air pollutants such as mercury and sulphur through successful state and federal partnerships. It strikes a balance between setting rigid emissions limits for each state while providing flexibility in achieving those limits. It explicitly encourages market mechanisms such as emissions trading in and between states. </p>
<p>The legal authority for the plan is <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/what-epa-doing#overview">Section 111 of the Clean Air Act</a>, a cornerstone piece of environmental regulation under which local and state governments work with the EPA to tackle air pollution. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4k-cNN8J6wY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">How the new plan will work under the existing US Clean Air Act.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Key to the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases was the <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16923241216495494762&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">Supreme Court’s crucial 2007 ruling</a> that CO<sub>2</sub> is an air pollutant under the Act. While there will no doubt be legal challenges to the new plan, the EPA is on a strong legal footing.</p>
<p>The plan supports the United States’ <a href="https://theconversation.com/paris-2015-climate-summit-countries-targets-beyond-2020-38427">formal pledge</a> to cut emissions by 26-28% by 2025, an ambitious commitment that encapsulates the “bottom up” approach in cutting CO<sub>2</sub> that is emerging at the international level as well in other countries, including in Australia.</p>
<h2>The legal hurdles</h2>
<p><strong>Lynette Molyneaux, Researcher, Energy Economics and Management Group, University of Queensland</strong></p>
<p>Obama and the EPA may well have to run the gauntlet of many years of litigation before this can be enacted. US power station history is littered with legal challenges to environmental policy. The regulation of sulphur dioxide emissions in 1990 was only achieved after the failure of 70 pieces of legislation which sought the installation of scrubbers to reduce acid rain. </p>
<p>I don’t see a significant impact on international coal markets as a result of Obama’s plans, at least until the legislation is bedded down.</p>
<p><strong>Samantha Hepburn, Professor, Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University</strong></p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan is unprecedented but is it legally sound? It requires states to cooperate with some 1,000 fossil fuel power plants across the country, effectively requiring US coal production to be significantly reduced and a new energy mix put in its place. </p>
<p>The plan is to be implemented via the existing Clean Air Act, a Federal Pollution Act which (thanks to the Supreme Court’s <a href="https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16923241216495494762&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr">ruling that greenhouse gases are pollutants</a>) allows the EPA to set performance standards for power stations. These standards would then be used to ensure emission cuts.</p>
<p>The EPA sets the guidelines for these standards but they are to be implemented by the states. Next year, each state will submit a plan showing what their emissions are and how they propose to reduce them (the final deadline for these plans, after stakeholder consultation, is 2018). On the way to the 2030 target (specifically in 2022-29), states will also be required to demonstrate that CO<sub>2</sub> emission reductions are being accomplished in line with each state’s planned emissions trajectory.</p>
<p>The legality of the plan has been discussed extensively by the <a href="http://energycommerce.house.gov/subcommittees/energy-and-power">Senate’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power</a> but is yet to be tested in the courts. </p>
<p>Legal challenges by Republican states such as Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia are imminent, on the basis that the new plan does not conform with the congressional regime of cooperative federalism as it expands federal authority over states’ energy policies. </p>
<p>It has also been suggested that the EPA lacks statutory and constitutional authority to implement the provisions. Republican states have argued that section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act does not support the regulation of “existing sources” of pollution such as coal emissions, given its focus on “new sources”. </p>
<p>But my reading of the scope of the Clean Air Act is that the plan clearly comes within the broad ambit of the legislation and that section 111 authorizes the use of many types of flexible approaches for the purpose of regulating air pollution.</p>
<h2>The politics</h2>
<p><strong>Peter Christoff, Associate Professor, School of Geography, University of Melbourne</strong></p>
<p>President Obama regards getting the United States to tackle climate change as one of the most important challenges of his second term in office. The US target to cut emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, announced by the White House last year, has been seen as a <a href="https://theconversation.com/us-china-climate-deal-at-last-a-real-game-changer-on-emissions-34148">game changer</a> in the runup to crucial UN climate negotiations in Paris later this year.</p>
<p>Obama’s new, parallel aim is for the United States to reduce its emissions from electricity generation by 32% below 2005 levels by 2030. The Clean Power Plan will require existing power plants to meet tough new emissions standards or close within 15 years. The plan has been <a href="http://www.ceres.org/issues/climate-change/clean-power-plan/clean-power-plan-map.pdf">publicly endorsed and supported</a> by a wide group of major US businesses.</p>
<p>Emissions from electricity production comprise only 32% of total US emissions, and this move is only one step towards a still-undefined national emissions goal for 2030. Given the powerful vested interests supporting fossil fuels, Obama has thrown down the gauntlet to their champions in Congress and in the national power sector and also made climate an issue in the presidential campaign.</p>
<p><strong>John Mathews, Professor, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie University</strong></p>
<p>The Clean Power Plan represents a wholly positive step forward for the United States. Despite the inevitable litigation, this will send a strong signal to business that it makes sense to invest in new sources of electric power and in fossil-fuelled power plants that use cleaner sources and have lower emissions. </p>
<p>This step from the federal presidency has to be viewed alongside complementary steps from the states such as California’s target of <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/calif.-gov.-jerry-brown-calls-for-50-renewables-by-2030">50% of power generation from renewables by 2030</a> – the same year that Obama’s new plan envisages that carbon emissions will be reduced by 32% relative to 2005 levels. I agree with John Quiggin (above) that the benefits from this move will outweigh the costs, particularly in the sphere of energy security. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/03/fact-sheet-president-obama-announce-historic-carbon-pollution-standards">White House statement</a> does not emphasize the point, but the reality is that promoting renewables promotes regional economic activity, employment, exports and energy security, based on the fact that renewables are products of manufacturing. The same considerations would underpin a commitment in Australia to reach a target of <a href="https://theconversation.com/50-renewable-energy-would-put-australia-in-line-with-leading-nations-45152">50% of electric power generation to come from renewables</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45644/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Quiggin is a Member of the Climate Change Authority</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Malte Meinshausen receives funding from the Australian Research Council, advises the German Ministry of Environment and other national and international bodies on climate policy and science. He was formerly a founding Director of Climate Analytics, but is now only affiliated with The University of Melbourne and the Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research. He is Director of the Australian-German College of Climate & Energy Transitions.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Mathews, Katherine Lake, Lynette Molyneaux, Peter Christoff, and Samantha Hepburn do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>US President Barack Obama’s new climate plan aims to cut greenhouse emissions from the nation’s coal-dominated power sector by 32% by 2030. Will it get through, and how will it affect this year’s climate talks?John Quiggin, Professor, School of Economics , The University of QueenslandJohn Mathews, Professor of Strategic Management, Macquarie Graduate School of Management, Macquarie UniversityKatherine Lake, Research Associate at the Centre for Resources, Energy and Environmental Law, The University of MelbourneLynette Molyneaux, Researcher, Energy Economics and Management Group, The University of QueenslandMalte Meinshausen, A/Prof., School of Earth Sciences, The University of MelbournePeter Christoff, Associate Professor, School of Geography, The University of MelbourneSamantha Hepburn, Professor, Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/453432015-07-30T18:56:18Z2015-07-30T18:56:18ZHillary Clinton stakes out safe political ground with energy and climate plan<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/90347/original/image-20150730-25769-4hslgq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">More of this, says Hilary Clinton. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/brookhavenlab/8164351795/in/photolist-drsrm8-BEWMc-aBzALN-9NX8eC-drsBDA-5u43jk-5u8stC-5u8rRY-5u45kP-5u8sj7-5u8rqA-5u8sbw-5u42Wi-5u44mc-5u8t6u-5u8sQm-5u453c-4XSd7e-9NTU5X-9NWJms-9NWHsQ-on382y-9NX91q-9NWJx3-cgC8X7-aBzAph-aBzAxb-aBwWkg-aBwWBD-9BrK27-aHCRgt-4c1MqY-9NUibi-srPjih-cJWo63-9Brne7-9BrFwL-9NTTVF-9NTUnk-fwZzwN-5zoGv6-cmFw3U-511NZm-9BofoB-bF1WUh-9BrBNj-95rNew-8PNGMc-5HSW8i-cxN7i">Brookhaven National Laboratory</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Earlier this week Hillary Clinton began to unveil components of her policy agenda on <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/the-four-fights/economy-of-tomorrow/climate/">energy and climate change</a>. Clinton had previously indicated that these issues would be top priorities if she were to be elected president, but in a <a href="https://www.hillaryclinton.com/p/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/26/renewable-power-vision/">video</a> released by her campaign on Sunday night she for the first time included specific objectives. Grabbing the headlines were two aspirational goals regarding renewable energy:</p>
<p>• The United States will have more than half a billion solar panels installed across the country by the end of Hillary Clinton’s first term.</p>
<p>• The United States will generate enough clean renewable energy to power every home in America within ten years of Hillary Clinton taking office.</p>
<p>According to the accompanying analysis provided by the campaign, these goals would equate to a 700% increase in installed solar panels compared to current levels by 2020, and a total of 33% of electricity generated from renewable sources by 2027.</p>
<p>On the surface, these targets sound ambitious. Are they achievable and, from a political point of view, how will the embrace of renewable energy play with voters? </p>
<h2>Piggybacking current policies</h2>
<p>To achieve these goals, Clinton indicates that she will aggressively defend President Obama’s <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan">Clean Power Plan</a>, which the EPA is expected to release in its final form in the coming days. </p>
<p>Reaching her renewable energy goals would also require keeping other current policies in place, including the <a href="http://energy.gov/savings/residential-renewable-energy-tax-credit">federal solar investment tax credit</a> as well state <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/tech_deployment/state_local_governments/basics_portfolio_standards.html">renewable portfolio standards</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_metering">net metering</a> policies. </p>
<p>In this sense, it is important to keep in mind that the goals announced by Clinton would piggyback on existing policies. </p>
<p>That is, even in the absence of new policy, tremendous growth in renewable energy is expected in the coming years, particularly in solar power as detailed in this <a href="http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/can-the-us-reach-hillary-clintons-new-solar-goal">analysis</a> from Shayle Kahn at Greentech Media. </p>
<p>To generate additional gains, Clinton also announced that she would initiate a Clean Energy Challenge that would leverage partnerships with states, cities, and rural communities to expand the deployment of clean energy. This new program would introduce a grant competition for states that exceed carbon emissions standards and Solar X, a competition among communities to lower the costs of rooftop solar installations. </p>
<h2>Resonating on health benefits</h2>
<p>Clinton’s policy announcement was met with mixed reaction from the environmental community. </p>
<p>Climate activist Tom Steyer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/07/26/clinton-to-unveil-climate-change-plan/?action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=RelatedCoverage&region=Marginalia&pgtype=article">praised</a> the plan, while activist Bill McKibben expressed <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-lays-out-climate-change-plan.html">disappointment</a> that Clinton did not come out in opposition to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/keystone-xl">Keystone XL pipeline</a>. </p>
<p>And, while the Clinton campaign has played up the boldness of the plan, some analysts have questioned its ambition. </p>
<p>For example writing for Slate, meteorologist and writer Eric Holthaus <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/07/28/hillary_clinton_s_clean_energy_challenge_doesn_t_match_up_with_climate_science.html">concludes</a> that Clinton’s commitments fall considerably short of the clean energy plans of her Democratic primary opponents, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley.</p>
<p>Environmental activists may be divided, but Clinton’s policy goals are likely to strongly resonate with citizens and voters. </p>
<p>It is noteworthy that in releasing these initial components of her energy and climate policy agenda, Clinton focused on renewable energy. </p>
<p>More so than fossil fuels and nuclear power, the American public expresses overwhelming support for the expansion of electricity generated from solar, wind, and other renewable sources. <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/09/13/energy-what-americans-really-want/SdM914A5hoIK4rKP2rKn3O/story.html">Public opinion surveys</a> over the past decade repeatedly show that upwards of 75% of Americans want to see the use of renewables increased. </p>
<p>Moreover, in justifying her goals, Clinton smartly emphasized the public health benefits (such as premature deaths and asthma attacks avoided) that come from using renewable energy, as opposed to coal and other fossil fuels. </p>
<p>My <a href="https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/cheap-and-clean">research</a> with Harvard University’s Steve Ansolabehere shows that people’s perceptions of environmental harms associated with energy use is the most important factor in their support or opposition to different sources of energy. </p>
<p>Clinton’s emphasis on the public health benefits of expanding renewables will increase the public’s receptivity to her proposals. </p>
<h2>Harder questions to come</h2>
<p>Clinton’s commitment to defend the EPA’s Clean Power Plan will also resonate with many citizens and voters. Unlike a carbon tax or a cap and trade program, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide emissions enjoys strong support among the American public.</p>
<p>Although the political rancor in Washington over the plan – exemplified by the efforts in the Republican controlled Congress to block it – and the opposition in some state capitals might suggest otherwise, public opinion data show that Americans support the EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants. </p>
<p>For example, a <a href="http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/article/americans-support-co2-limits-on-existing-coal-fired-power-plants/">report</a> last year from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication found that two-thirds of the public supported such limits.</p>
<p>Clinton has promised further policy commitments on energy and climate change, and she (and the rest of the Democratic and Republican candidates) will be asked to stake out positions on controversial issues such as the Keystone XL pipeline, natural gas and oil exports, exploration in the Arctic, coal leasing on public land, as well as whatever the outcome is of the international climate negotiations that will occur in Paris later this year. </p>
<p>Citizens and voters are more divided on these issues than renewable energy and EPA regulation, so it is not a surprise that the campaign has decided, at least for now, to focus on these areas for which there is widespread support.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45343/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Konisky receives funding from the National Science Foundation.</span></em></p>Hillary Clinton’s energy and climate platform emphasizes renewable energy and the health benefits of the plan – a position that will resonate with many voters.David Konisky, Associate Professor of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.