The vicious coal industry/right-wing attack on President Obama’s proposed Clean Power Rule is not fundamentally about the rule itself. Substantively, the proposal is simply the fulfillment of one of George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign promises—to clean up carbon pollution from power plants.
Photo credit: Shutterstock
Amidst groans and outcries of Presidential overreach, the reality is that such a rule was mandated by the Supreme Court. It establishes a carbon dioxide emission limit for each state’s utility sector by 2030. State targets vary depending on how easy or hard it will be for them to clean up. States are given a wide choice of techniques to meet the emission targets. They can use any combination of technologies they choose, as long as they get the job done. Some utilities vociferously oppose the rule others support it, while a third group is asking for modifications in exchange for support.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has estimated that about 1/7, 50 GW, of the nation’s coal fired power plants are likely to be retired as a result. By contrast, EPA’s recent mercury rule is expected to shut down 1/5 of the fleet, far more plants than the carbon rule.
So why the outcry against the Clean Power Rule? Quite simply, its adoption will establish that U.S. is serious about averting the threat of global warming, that coal’s future as a primary fuel is coming to an end, and that the U.S. utility sector is poised to go through the most fundamental changes in 90 years.
As a result, the arguments being made are almost devoid of policy substance—because they are not really about the rule, but about what the rule symbolizes. Most of the attacks focus on legal technicalities and overheated constitutional rhetoric. None of them convincingly argues that cleaning up carbon pollution and shutting down outmoded, dirty power plants will be bad for the American economy.
A group of states has already sued EPA for example, arguing that a missing comma in the Senate passed version of the Clean Air Act prevents EPA from regulating power plant carbon pollution under Section 111(d) because it is already regulating toxic pollutants from those plants under another Section. Lawyers say the courts could go either way. But it’s clear that the Clean Air Act did not intend to force EPA to choose between cleaning up toxics or cleaning up carbon. No one has offered a rational basis for handicapping the agency in this way. It’s just a glitch.
Then there is the argument, best explained by David Roberts in Grist, that states should be able to comply with EPA rules using flexible approaches, but EPA cannot consider these opportunities.
EPA wants to allow states to reduce emissions not only by cleaning up individual power plants, but also by encouraging energy efficiency and other system wide reforms. Critics argue that Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act allows power companies this kind of flexibility in meeting EPA’s standards once they are set, but that EPA cannot consider such flexibility in setting the standard. Again the courts will decide how the law should be read. But allowing flexibility is clearly good public policy. If inefficiencies in the electric sector are driving up pollution and it’s cheap to clean it up, why shouldn’t state standards reflect that opportunity?
Finally, Peabody Coal hired Harvard constitutional law scholar Lawrence Tribe to thunder that the Clean Power rule will rend the fabric of American society by depriving the states of their autonomy and his client, Peabody, of its property.
This argument is so difficult to make that a lawyer of Tribe’s caliber was clearly needed. (And why Tribe, whose career was built on protecting vulnerable clients like he disabled wrongly deprived of their pension benefits should take Peabody as a client, a company which exploited federal bankruptcy law loopholes to strip thousands of long time workers, many disabled, of health care and pensions is perplexing.
Fortunately Tribe fails. His brief for Peabody offers standard constitutional principles, but applies them to utterly phantasmagoric facts, perhaps provided by Peabody. Ignoring decades of regulation of power plant pollution, and the signature by three US Presidents on international agreements calling for halting global warming, Tribe begins by claiming that there is an established national policy of favoring coal and leaving its pollutants unregulated. He then argues that the Clean Power Rule upends that policy. It thus… represents a radical shift in federal policy that upsets settled, investment-backed expectations…” Therefore the Rule violates the 5th Amendment because it effectively destroys the value of Peabody’s vast coal reserves.
But the rule does not even regulate Peabody. Its only impact will be fewer customers for less coal—but dozens of previous EPA rules have similarly impacted the market for various products, including coal. Tribe bases his 5th amendment taking claim on an allegation that the Clean Power Rule’s “intent” is to shut down all coal usage in the U.S.—which is perfectly preposterous, whatever I and climate scientists might like EPA to do. The rule will leave plenty of coal plants up, running and interested in Peabody’s coal—if the price is right.
Tribe also claims that the rule “seeks to commandeer state governments in violation of the Tenth Amendment.” Why? Because. The Proposed Rule goes to great lengths to appear as though it permits states some degree of freedom, but in truth it offers only Potemkin choices. The state is given leeway to “assign the emission performance obligations to its affected (power plants),” but only “as long as, again, the required emission performance level is met.”
This last sentence is true—and irrelevant. Under the proposed rule EPA sets the emission limit for each state. The standard must be met—or EPA will write its own plan for the state. But this is how the Clean Air Act has worked since 1970. EPA sets standards. States can meet them. If they fail EPA writes its own plan. Tribe never even hints at why carbon pollution from power plants should be different from fluoride pollution from chemical factories.
Tribe’s overall argument on behalf of Peabody is also in shocking contrast to his earlier views on the role of EPA in regulating carbon dioxide. In 2010 he argued that the courts lacked legal standing to take up the issue of nuisance damages from climate change, precisely because EPA had been delegated to regulate global warming pollutions:
“Congress, through the Clean Air Act and other measures, has empowered the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases, and that agency has begun to do so, prodded by a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Massachusetts when the state sued the EPA to compel it to take up the problem. The courts should reject the political and administrative roles that would be thrust upon them by litigants dissatisfied with Congress’s decision to entrust the EPA with this challenging mission.”
An old legal saw says, “When the facts are on your side, argue the facts. When the law is on your side, argue the law. When neither is on your side, pound the table.” It’s sad to watch Larry Tribe pound the table—but neither the facts nor the law are on his side.
The real arguments against the Clean Power Rule are quite different—they are that carbon pollution should not be regulated at all, because global warming is not a sufficiently serious threat. But these arguments were dismissed by the Supreme Court years ago—so opponents of the EPA plan have been forced back on desperate legalisms to hold back the future—whose outlines I will look at in my next two postings.
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.