6 Governors Who Refuse to Comply With Obama's Clean Power Plan
Next week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce what may be the Obama administration's most far-reaching climate change initiative: its final rule for cleaning up existing electric power plants, the single largest source of U.S. carbon pollution. Dubbed the Clean Power Plan, it will require each state to submit its own individual strategy for cutting emissions.
The rule came under heavy fire when the EPA first floated the proposal a year ago. Shortly after it was announced, a dozen states and Murray Energy, the country's largest privately held coal mining company, challenged it in federal court. Although the lawsuits were dismissed last month because you can only contest a final rule, they were just the opening salvo of what promises to be a protracted legal battle.
In Congress, fossil fuel industry-funded lawmakers have introduced a bill that would give states the choice to opt out of the rule and postpone implementation until all legal challenges are resolved. Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell—the top recipient of coal industry campaign contributions last year—has publicly urged state governors to violate federal law by refusing to submit rule compliance plans. So far, at least a half dozen governors—including presidential hopefuls Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Scott Walker of Wisconsin—have heeded McConnell's call.
And there's more to come. A number of coal-producing states and business associations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are poised to sue after the final rule comes out. And at least one state attorney general, Oklahoma's Scott Pruitt, jumped the gun. He filed a lawsuit in early July seeking a court order declaring the rule exceeds the EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act, despite the fact the Supreme Court ruled otherwise in 2007. "The Clean Power Plan," Pruitt said in a statement, "is an unlawful attempt to expand federal bureaucrats' authority over states' energy economies in order to shut coal-fired power plants and eventually other sources of fossil fuel-generated electricity."
But why would anyone be against reducing U.S. reliance on coal? Coal-fired power plants are not only the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions—accounting for roughly 33 percent—they're also the leading industrial source of such toxic pollutants as mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which have been linked to a range of cancers and cardiovascular, respiratory and neurological diseases. All told, coal's lifecycle damage—from mining to processing to burning—costs Americans hundreds of billions of dollars annually. Given that there are viable alternatives, doesn't it make sense to transition to cleaner energy sources as soon as possible?
The standard response from Clean Power Plan opponents is cutting carbon will wreck the economy, the same fallacious argument industrial polluters have been making about environmental safeguards for decades. The reality is the benefits of environmental regulations far outweigh their costs.
For his part, McConnell insists the proposed rule is technologically unattainable, will dramatically increase electricity rates, and will throw "countless" people out of work. Echoing McConnell, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey maintains it will have "devastating effects" on his state's jobs and economy by forcing some coal-fired power plants to close.
In fact, states can accomplish much more that the EPA's proposed carbon reduction targets. Many states have already shown that replacing dirty, outdated coal plants with renewable energy can actually lower electricity rates. And any job losses in the coal industry—which the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data peg at only 70,000 people nationwide—will be more than offset by new jobs in renewable energy and other sectors. Even more encouraging, when it comes to the Clean Power Plan, more than half the states are already in good shape to meet the EPA's proposed near-term targets, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and more than a dozen are on track to exceed them.
EPA's Carbon Reduction Targets Should Be Stronger
The EPA's proposed goal to cut U.S. carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 is not only technologically feasible, it also underestimates what readily available, cost-effective renewable energy sources can achieve. According to a 2014 UCS analysis, the EPA could nearly double the amount of renewable energy projected for its state targets, from 12 percent of total 2030 U.S. electricity to 23 percent. That alone would increase the rule's emissions reductions from 30 percent to approximately 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
"The Clean Power Plan does not adequately capture renewable energy deployment rates that states are already achieving," UCS found. "The plan also fails to reflect the continued growth and falling costs of renewable energy projected by market experts. Indeed, the EPA's proposal falls short of the national renewable energy levels that the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects would occur in 2020 under a business-as-usual approach [and] the proposal's 2030 results are only marginally higher than the EIA's projections."
Renewables Have Lowered Electricity Rates
Replacing coal-fired electricity with carbon-free renewable power at worst has a marginal impact on the cost of electricity. At best, renewables lower rates.
Last year, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and National Renewable Energy Laboratory published a joint cost-benefit analysis of state standards requiring utilities to increase their use of renewables by a certain percentage by a specific year. Targets currently range from 10 percent by 2015 in Michigan and Wisconsin to 33 percent by 2020 in California. Their analysis—based on data from 24 of the 29 states with such standards—found the standards on average affected retail electricity rates by only one percent between 2010 and 2012, although there was a wide variation across states.
In March, the venture capital firm DBL Investors published a study that looked more closely at how various state renewable electricity standards are performing. It found that states with the highest percentage of renewable-generated electricity often have lower average retail prices than both the national average and states with the smallest percentage of renewable-generated electricity.
UCS energy analyst Jeff Deyette, a co-author of UCS's Clean Power Plan study, expects renewable standards to continue to reduce retail prices. "Most renewable energy technology costs are incurred up front," he said. "After the equipment is manufactured and installed, the 'fuel' —the sun or the wind—is free, which certainly is not the case with coal, natural gas or nuclear power plants. That fact helps stabilize electricity prices and lock in long-term savings."
The Clean Power Plan Will Generate New Jobs
The number of people working in the coal mining industry has declined dramatically over the last three decades, but not because of stricter pollution controls. The main culprits have been automation, higher worker productivity, and a shift from underground mining to surface mining and mountaintop removal, which require fewer workers. In 1983, 175,640 workers produced 782 million tons of coal, according to the EIA. Thirty years later, in 2013, the coal industry employed 79,400 people—60 percent less—who produced 985 million tons. Cheap natural gas, aging coal plant closures, and slow growth in electricity demand also have added to the coal industry's woes over the last few years.
Coal jobs—which today number only 70,000 nationwide—are even scarce in top coal-producing states, according to the most recent government data. Although Wyoming produces 39 percent of the nation's coal, the industry there employs only 6,700 workers, which amounts to only 2.3 percent of state residents working in private, nonfarm jobs. West Virginia mines account for 12 percent of the industry's tonnage, but only employ 10,356 people—1.35 percent of the state's workers. And the jobs that Mitch McConnell keeps talking about in his home state of Kentucky? The state may produce 8 percent of U.S. coal, but the industry there supports only 9,500 people -- a measly 0.5 percent of the state's total private, nonfarm workforce.
Now consider the phenomenal job growth in the renewable energy sector. As of last November, the solar industry supported 157,500 full-timers and another 16,300 who worked at least 50 percent of their time on solar projects, according to the Solar Foundation. That represents a 22 percent jump over the previous year. The American Wind Energy Association, meanwhile, estimates its industry employed 73,000 workers at the end of 2014. Together, their combined workforce is three and a half times the size of the coal industry's.
Contrary to McConnell's dire predictions, the Clean Power Plan is projected to create tens of thousands of new jobs -- in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors. A 2013 Synapse Energy Economics study calculated that job gains from carbon controls would more than compensate for the inevitable coal industry job losses. Synapse estimated an initial net gain of 76,000 jobs nationally in 2016 and 210,000 in 2020 if emissions dropped 26 percent from their peak levels in 2005. The actual EPA proposal would make deeper cuts, reducing power plant emissions 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. Granted those new jobs may not do much to prop up coal communities, but they could. There are a number of public and private initiatives underway in West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to diversify local economies. That's where McConnell should focus his attention, instead of trying to sabotage government efforts to combat climate change.
A Majority of States are Well on Their Way to Meeting Their Targets
Thanks to planned coal plant retirements, mandatory renewable and energy efficiency standards, and other measures such as regional carbon emissions caps, 31 states are more than half way toward achieving the proposed Clean Power Plan's 2020 interim carbon reduction benchmarks, according to a June UCS analysis. Although the Obama administration reportedly will give states until 2022 to meet those interim goals, UCS's findings demonstrate that the plan's timeline and trajectory are not only workable, but also could be much more aggressive.
"Opponents of the Clean Power Plan have claimed that the emissions reduction requirements go too far too fast, and are therefore not achievable," said UCS President Ken Kimmell, former head of the Massachusetts Department of the Environment. "Our research shows this Chicken Little forecast is unfounded."
Surprisingly, six of the states that were party to last year's dismissed lawsuit against the proposed EPA rule are well along the way to surpassing their 2020 benchmarks. Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio—which were assigned modest goals due to their heavy dependence on coal—are on pace to meet them, while Alabama, South Carolina and Wisconsin are more than 50 percent of the way there. Regardless, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker have announced that their states will not comply with the rule without significant changes that would roll back state emission reduction targets. (The other governors who have said no to the plan include Phil Bryant in Mississippi, Mary Fallin in Oklahoma, Bobby Jindal in Louisiana, and Earl Ray Tomblin in West Virginia).
"It defies logic and reason that states already demonstrating their ability to make significant cuts in carbon emissions would sue the agency claiming undue hardship," said UCS energy analyst Jeremy Richardson, a co-author of the organization's recent analysis of potential state compliance. "These six states are doing a great job proving the EPA's case—that states can meet these new standards affordably and reliably given they already have commitments in place to help them do so."
The U.S. can meet the Clean Power Plan's overarching emissions reduction goal of 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, Richardson pointed out, because 29 states have renewable electricity standards, 24 states have energy efficiency standards, and there are plans to close at least 295 coal generating units by 2020. That amounts to more than 10 percent of total U.S. coal-fired electricity generation and roughly 13 percent of the current U.S. coal power plant fleet.
"As of next week, the country will have a roadmap for reducing power sector carbon emissions," Richardson said. "If states stay the course and continue to develop their renewable energy potential, cut their energy use, and even join forces with their neighboring states in regional cap and trade compacts, they should have no trouble meeting their 2030 goals."
Elliott Negin is a senior writer at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
OlgaMiltsova / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Gwen Ranniger
In the midst of a pandemic, sales of cleaning products have skyrocketed, and many feel a need to clean more often. Knowing what to look for when purchasing cleaning supplies can help prevent unwanted and dangerous toxics from entering your home.
1. Fragrance – Avoid It<p>One of the fastest ways to narrow down your product options is immediately eliminating any product that promotes a fragrance, or parfum. That scent of "fresh breeze" or lemon might initially smell good, but the fragrance does not last. What does last? The concoction of various undisclosed and unregulated chemicals that created that fragrance.</p><p>Many fragrances contain phthalates, which are linked to many health risks including reproductive problems and cancer.</p>
2. With Bleach? Do Without<p>Going scent-free should have narrowed down your options substantially – now, check the front of the remaining packaging. Any that include ammonia or chlorine bleach ought to go, as these substances are irritating and corrosive to your body. While bleach is commonly known as a powerful disinfectant, there are safer alternatives that you can use in your home, such as sodium borate or hydrogen peroxide.</p><p>While you're at it, check if there are any warnings on the label – "flammable," "use in ventilated area," etc. – if the product is hazardous, that's a red flag and should be avoided.</p>
3. Check the Back Label<p>Flip to the back of the remaining contenders and check out that ingredient list. Less is more, here. Opt for a shorter ingredient list with words you recognize and/or can pronounce.</p><p>You may notice many products do not have ingredient lists – while this doesn't necessarily mean they contain toxic ingredients, transparency is key. Feel free to look up a list online, or stick to products that are open about their ingredients.</p>
4. Ingredients to Avoid<p>We already mentioned that cleaners containing fragrance or parfum, and bleach or ammonia should be avoided, but there are other ingredients to look out for as well.</p><ul><li>Quaternary ammonium "quats" – lung irritants that contribute to asthma and other breathing problems. Also linger on surfaces long after they've been cleaned.</li><li>Parabens – Known hormone disruptor; can contribute to ailments such as cancer</li><li>Triclosan – triclosan and other antibacterial chemicals are registered with the EPA as pesticides. Triclosan is a known hormone disruptor and can also impact your immune system.</li><li>Formaldehyde – Causes irritation of eyes, nose, and throat; studies suggest formaldehyde exposure is linked with certain varieties of cancer. Can be found in products or become a byproduct of chemical reactions in the air.</li></ul>
Cleaning Products and Toxics: The Bottom Line<p>Do your research. There are many cleaning products available, but taking these steps will drastically reduce your options and help keep your home toxic-free. Protecting your home from bacteria and viruses is important, but make sure you do so in a way that doesn't introduce other health risks into the home.</p><p><em>Reposted with permission from </em><em><a href="https://www.ehn.org/how-to-shop-for-cleaning-products-while-avoiding-toxics-2648130273.html" target="_blank">Environmental Health News</a>. </em><a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/r/entryeditor/2649054624#/" target="_self"></a></p>
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
JasonOndreicka / iStock / Getty Images
Twenty-five years ago, a food called Tofurky made its debut on grocery store shelves. Since then, the tofu-based roast has become a beloved part of many vegetarians' holiday feasts.
By Jessica Corbett
A leading environmental advocacy group marked Native American Heritage Month on Wednesday by urging President-elect Joe Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Kamala Harris, and the entire incoming administration "to honor Indigenous sovereignty and immediately halt the Keystone XL, Dakota Access, and Line 3 pipelines."
- Climate Crisis: What We Can Learn From Indigenous Traditions ... ›
- 10 Organizations Honoring Native People on Thanksgiving ... ›
- Biden Vows to Ax Keystone XL if Elected - EcoWatch ›
Returning the ‘Three Sisters’ – Corn, Beans and Squash – to Native American Farms Nourishes People, Land and Cultures
By Christina Gish Hill
Historians know that turkey and corn were part of the first Thanksgiving, when Wampanoag peoples shared a harvest meal with the pilgrims of Plymouth plantation in Massachusetts. And traditional Native American farming practices tell us that squash and beans likely were part of that 1621 dinner too.
Abundant Harvests<p>Historically, Native people throughout the Americas bred indigenous plant varieties specific to the growing conditions of their homelands. They selected seeds for many different traits, such as <a href="https://emergencemagazine.org/story/corn-tastes-better/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">flavor, texture and color</a>.</p><p>Native growers knew that planting corn, beans, squash and sunflowers together produced mutual benefits. Corn stalks created a trellis for beans to climb, and beans' twining vines secured the corn in high winds. They also certainly observed that corn and bean plants growing together tended to be healthier than when raised separately. Today we know the reason: Bacteria living on bean plant roots pull nitrogen – an essential plant nutrient – from the air and <a href="http://www.tilthalliance.org/learn/resources-1/almanac/october/octobermngg" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">convert it to a form that both beans and corn can use</a>.</p><p>Squash plants contributed by shading the ground with their broad leaves, preventing weeds from growing and retaining water in the soil. Heritage squash varieties also had spines that discouraged deer and raccoons from visiting the garden for a snack. And sunflowers planted around the edges of the garden created a natural fence, protecting other plants from wind and animals and attracting pollinators.</p><p>Interplanting these agricultural sisters produced bountiful harvests that sustained large Native communities and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/eam.2015.0016" target="_blank">spurred fruitful trade economies</a>. The first Europeans who reached the Americas were shocked at the abundant food crops they found. My research is exploring how, 200 years ago, Native American agriculturalists around the Great Lakes and along the Missouri and Red rivers fed fur traders with their diverse vegetable products.</p>
Displaced From the Land<p>As Euro-Americans settled permanently on the most fertile North American lands and acquired seeds that Native growers had carefully bred, they imposed policies that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/ahr/87.2.550" target="_blank">made Native farming practices impossible</a>. In 1830 President Andrew Jackson signed the <a href="https://guides.loc.gov/indian-removal-act" target="_blank">Indian Removal Act</a>, which made it official U.S. policy to force Native peoples from their home locations, pushing them onto subpar lands.</p><p>On reservations, U.S. government officials discouraged Native women from cultivating anything larger than small garden plots and pressured Native men to practice Euro-American style monoculture. Allotment policies assigned small plots to nuclear families, further limiting Native Americans' access to land and preventing them from using communal farming practices.</p><p>Native children were forced to attend boarding schools, where they had no opportunity to <a href="https://doi.org/10.5749/jamerindieduc.57.1.0145" target="_blank">learn Native agriculture techniques or preservation and preparation of Indigenous foods</a>. Instead they were forced to eat Western foods, turning their palates away from their traditional preferences. Taken together, these policies <a href="https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0802-7.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">almost entirely eradicated three sisters agriculture</a> from Native communities in the Midwest by the 1930s.</p>
Reviving Native Agriculture<p>Today Native people all over the U.S. are working diligently to <a href="https://www.oupress.com/books/15107980/indigenous-food-sovereignty-in-the-united-sta" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">reclaim Indigenous varieties of corn, beans, squash, sunflowers and other crops</a>. This effort is important for many reasons.</p><p>Improving Native people's access to healthy, culturally appropriate foods will help lower rates of <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/aian-diabetes/index.html" target="_blank">diabetes</a> and <a href="https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/ethnicity-health/native-american/obesity" target="_blank">obesity</a>, which affect Native Americans at disproportionately high rates. Sharing traditional knowledge about agriculture is a way for elders to pass cultural information along to younger generations. Indigenous growing techniques also protect the lands that Native nations now inhabit, and can potentially benefit the wider ecosystems around them.</p>
By Jake Johnson
Amid reports that oil industry-friendly former Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz remains under consideration to return to his old post in the incoming Biden administration, a diverse coalition of environmental groups is mobilizing for an "all-out push" to keep Moniz away from the White House and demand a cabinet willing to boldly confront the corporations responsible for the climate emergency.