Obama’s “Historic” Rule: Good or Bad for the Environment Overall? – Blog Post 11 - October 7

    In June of 2014, President Barack Obama used his executive power to pass a new rule with the Environmental Protection Agency to lower carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by thirty percent of its 2005 levels by 2030.  He could do this because he has the ability to make executive decisions and rules based on the Clean Air Act.  President Obama decided to act in this way because he thought that something needed to be done about climate change and knew that Congress would not allow anything to get passed.  Although coal lobbyists are screaming out energy crisis claims and a rising cost of electricity for the general American, Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator, points out that this rule will lower medical costs, protect our jobs, and fight the environmental injustice that surrounds power plants (Obama Unveils). 

            This is a groundbreaking rule for many reasons.  First of all, this is the first time that any president has tried to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants emit (Obama Unveils).  Second of all, it shows that environmental groups are finally having their voices be heard.  Finally, it shows that things can still be done in the government, even with lobbyists and a stalemated Congress.  This event is definitely a huge moral victory for the environmental movement as a whole.

            The question I pose is, will this rule necessarily help the environment overall?  Generally speaking, carbon emissions from coal power plants was decreasing overall because of the drop in the economy and because natural gas is on the rise in the United States (Obama Unveils).  Additionally, not all of the strategies to reduce carbon emissions from coal power plants are that environmentally friendly.  For example, natural gas could just take over for coal in energy generation.  Natural gas burns cleaner and releases less carbon into the atmosphere than coal.  But natural gas is still a fossil fuel that needs to be harvested, processed, and delivered, which creates many environmental problems of its own. 

            Another option may be to begin using carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) at coal power plants.  Canada recently started up their first carbon capture power plant, which is estimated to reduce carbon emissions from coal ninety percent.  That is equivalent to about one million tons a year, or about 250,000 cars.  This is a great technology because it enables society to keep using a similar infrastructure while reducing carbon emissions, until other alternative energies can be fully phased in.  The only problem is, the process is so expensive that it is argued that the only way that a carbon capture power plant can be economical is if the coal is nearby and if they sell the carbon dioxide to help in priming oil fields in the surrounding area (Canada Switches).  This limits how much the technology may be able to be used, and encourages the production of oil. 

            Other ways to lower coal power plant emissions would be to reduce energy usage overall or to begin phasing in alternative energy sources such as wind energy or solar photovoltaics.  Unfortunately, these alternative energy industries may not capitalize on the opportunity as well as the natural gas industry does because natural gas companies are already very powerful and can implement their technologies faster than most alternative energy companies can.

            Overall, I think that President Obama’s rule with the Environmental Protection Agency is a good thing, at least for the momentum for the environmental movement.  Environmental rules like this need to keep being associated with protecting jobs, public health, and increasing environmental justice to gain momentum, because the coal industry will lobby hard to say that it will lose jobs and cost the economy dearly.  People need to realize that acting in environmentally-friendly ways has many positive benefits to many other areas of life that may affect them more directly.  Unfortunately, I think that this rule may just increase the amount of natural gas that is used, which I do not like because I feel like their impacts on the environment are many times even greater than coal’s!  Hopefully, coal tries to clean up its practices to lower its environmental impact, and alternative energy companies take advantage of the more expensive energy prices to start implementing themselves further into society.  Different states have different rules that they need to comply with under this law, so alternative energy companies targeting states with higher amounts of regulation may make their products more competitive.  Carbon capture and sequestration seems too expensive to be practically implemented on a large scale at this time, so I doubt it will be. 

Works Cited

Goldenberg, Suzanne. "Obama Unveils Historic Rules to Reduce Coal Pollution by 30%." The Guadian. N.p., 2 June 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/02/obama-rules-coal-climate-change>.

Goldenbern, Suzanne. "Canada Switches on World's First Carbon Capture Power Plant." The Guardian. N.p., 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 16 Oct. 2014. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/01/canada-switches-on-worlds-first-carbon-capture-power-plant>.