The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Michael Brune Frances Beinecke
2012 was a historic year for climate disasters. Between a devastating drought, raging wildfires and the superstorm Hurricane Sandy, millions of Americans saw the very real toll that climate disruption is having on our country. But it’s not just extreme weather events—according to data from NOAA, 2012 is on track to be the hottest year ever for the contiguous U.S.
As we enter 2013, President Barack Obama faces a major challenge on how to address climate disruption. The nation—and the world—are looking to him for bold action and to see whether America will finally take the steps needed to address one of the biggest crises our planet has ever faced.
President Obama has not been shy about acknowledging the problem. During the campaign, the President said:
“Climate change is not a hoax. More drought and floods and hurricanes and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And we can do something about it.”
On election night, Obama said:
“We want our children to live in an America that isn't burdened by debt, that isn't weakened by inequality, that isn't threatened by the destructive power of a warming planet.”
And just recently he told TIME Magazine that climate change is one of his top three priorities for his second term.
In his first term, President Obama took decisive action to cut global warming pollution from cars and trucks, setting the nation’s second largest carbon polluters on a clean-up path that will rebuild the auto industry, enhance our energy security, and save American consumers billions of dollars.
Now, as President Obama starts his second term, it is critical to turn his full attention to the biggest carbon polluters of them all—the aging power plants that generate our electricity. Together, they churn out more than two billion tons of carbon pollution every single year.
The President has taken the first step by proposing strong carbon standards that will kick in when new power plants are built. But unlike our cars, which get replaced every 10 or 15 years, old power plants go on and on. So we cannot clean up the country’s biggest carbon polluters unless we deal with the existing power plant fleet—especially the biggest coal-fired plants that keep polluting for 60 years or more.
The carbon pollution from old coal-fired plants won’t take care of itself. We’ve already secured major victories to clean up the toxic chemicals and dangerous pollutants that poison our air and that are making thousands of Americans sick every year. In addition, the Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council have continued to work with communities across the country, fighting at the local level for smart decisions by state energy and air pollution agencies to replace aging power plants with energy efficiency and renewable power sources like wind and solar.
This state and local action must be matched by strong action from our national government. That’s why it’s so important that President Obama use his full authority under the Clean Air Act, the law on the books that’s protected Americans’ health and well-being for more than four decades, to set strong carbon pollution standards for the nation’s entire power plant fleet.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency can set national standards for the carbon pollution from existing power plants that slow climate change and save lives while creating jobs and growing our economy. It can be done in a way that achieves huge health and climate benefits at surprisingly low cost, that’s fair and flexible for each state and power company, that holds power bills down, and that triggers huge job-creating clean energy investments that can’t be outsourced. It’s an approach that even some power companies are praising.
The President just needs to say the word.
2012 was the year that climate disruption finally hit home for millions of Americans. The next four years will go quickly for President Obama, and with it, the chance to be a leader in the climate fight. Firm action to cut the carbon pollution from our aging fleet of power plants could be a major part of the legacy that the President leaves to future Americans.
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
georgeclerk / E+ / Getty Images
By Jennifer Molidor
One million species are at risk of extinction from human activity, warns a recent study by scientists with the United Nations. We need to cut greenhouse gas pollution across all sectors to avoid catastrophic climate change — and we need to do it fast, said the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
This research should serve as a rallying cry for polluting industries to make major changes now. Yet the agriculture industry continues to lag behind.
"The Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources Conservation and Tourism wishes to inform the public that following extensive consultations with all stakeholders, the Government of Botswana has taken a decision to lift the hunting suspension," the government announced in a press release shared on social media.
Company Safety Data Sheets on New Chemicals Frequently Lack the Worker Protections EPA Claims They Include
By Richard Denison
Readers of this blog know how concerned EDF is over the Trump EPA's approval of many dozens of new chemicals based on its mere "expectation" that workers across supply chains will always employ personal protective equipment (PPE) just because it is recommended in the manufacturer's non-binding safety data sheet (SDS).
By Grant Smith
From 2009 to 2012, Gregory Jaczko was chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which approves nuclear power plant designs and sets safety standards for plants. But he now says that nuclear power is too dangerous and expensive — and not part of the answer to the climate crisis.
By Brett Walton
When Greg Wetherbee sat in front of the microscope recently, he was looking for fragments of metals or coal, particles that might indicate the source of airborne nitrogen pollution in Rocky Mountain National Park. What caught his eye, though, were the plastics.
In a big victory for animals, Prada has announced that it's ending its use of fur! It joins Coach, Jean Paul Gaultier, Giorgio Armani, Versace, Ralph Lauren, Vivienne Westwood, Michael Kors, Donna Karan and many others PETA has pushed toward a ban.
This is a victory more than a decade in the making. PETA and our international affiliates have crashed Prada's catwalks with anti-fur signs, held eye-catching demonstrations all around the world, and sent the company loads of information about the fur industry. In 2018, actor and animal rights advocate Pamela Anderson sent a letter on PETA's behalf urging Miuccia Prada to commit to leaving fur out of all future collections, and the iconic designer has finally listened.
If people in three European countries want to fight the climate crisis, they need to chill out more.
"The rapid pace of labour-saving technology brings into focus the possibility of a shorter working week for all, if deployed properly," Autonomy Director Will Stronge said, The Guardian reported. "However, while automation shows that less work is technically possible, the urgent pressures on the environment and on our available carbon budget show that reducing the working week is in fact necessary."
The report found that if the economies of Germany, Sweden and the UK maintain their current levels of carbon intensity and productivity, they would need to switch to a six, 12 and nine hour work week respectively if they wanted keep the rise in global temperatures to the below two degrees Celsius promised by the Paris agreement, The Independent reported.
The study based its conclusions on data from the UN and the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) on greenhouse gas emissions per industry in all three countries.
The report comes as the group Momentum called on the UK's Labour Party to endorse a four-day work week.
"We welcome this attempt by Autonomy to grapple with the very real changes society will need to make in order to live within the limits of the planet," Emma Williams of the Four Day Week campaign said in a statement reported by The Independent. "In addition to improved well-being, enhanced gender equality and increased productivity, addressing climate change is another compelling reason we should all be working less."
Supporters of the idea linked it to calls in the U.S. and Europe for a Green New Deal that would decarbonize the economy while promoting equality and well-being.
"This new paper from Autonomy is a thought experiment that should give policymakers, activists and campaigners more ballast to make the case that a Green New Deal is absolutely necessary," Common Wealth think tank Director Mat Lawrence told The Independent. "The link between working time and GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions has been proved by a number of studies. Using OECD data and relating it to our carbon budget, Autonomy have taken the step to show what that link means in terms of our working weeks."
Stronge also linked his report to calls for a Green New Deal.
"Becoming a green, sustainable society will require a number of strategies – a shorter working week being just one of them," he said, according to The Guardian. "This paper and the other nascent research in the field should give us plenty of food for thought when we consider how urgent a Green New Deal is and what it should look like."
- Reduced Work Hours as a Means of Slowing Climate Change ›
- How working less could solve all our problems. Really. | ›
- Needed: A shorter work week – People's World ›