This New York Times article presents the pros, cons, and future challenges of Obama's proposed rule to end coal fueled power plants. The EPA claims that this proposal would reduce carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour. Obama's proposal call for the switch from coal to natural gas. This new rule would only be applied to new plants, leaving old ones unaffected.
This idea has many proponents as well as opponents. Ms. Jackson called the proposed rules “a common-sense step to reduce pollution in the air, protect the planet for our children and move us into a new era of American energy.” I feel that this opinion rings of exaggeration of the proposals effects and is limited in its scope. The proposal, while reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the US, is not dramatic enough in my opinion. I feel that a more effective way to implement this proposal would be to make it applicable to all plants, old and new. If there is a change to be made, why not make it more widespread, and thus more effective? I also think that Ms. Jackson's idea of protecting our planet for future generations and providing them with "a new era of American Energy" is limited in its scope. She fails to take into account that with the change to natural gasses, that we will be reliant on those countries which provide it, seeing as the US is not the most lucrative source. Rick Santorum (in a very exaggerated manner) addresses Ms. Jackson's failings in claiming, "President Obama’s environmental agenda kills American jobs, creates higher energy prices and weakens our nation’s security,” he said. “America is the Saudi Arabia of coal, and we could create our own energy if the government would let us. Instead, Barack Obama would rather pick winners and losers in the energy field.”
This proposal, and the subsequent reactions to it, beg the question: Which do we hold to be of upmost importance A) reducing the harmful effects of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere? or B) whether or not we are a "winner" or a "loser" in the energy field?
I agree that the plan is not drastic enough for substantial change. It is important for the emissions created by old plants to be controlled in some way, as they will only continue to cause the same amount of harm to the environment if left untouched. I am not very familiar with Obama's plan, but perhaps beginning to close or renovate older plants to use more sustainable energy sources would be more effective than continuing to add to our carbon footprint. I am also concerned that the EPA's statistics are overly ambitious, especially since the same amount of carbon dioxide will still be released into the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteI'm not entirely sure of how an EPA proposed rule gets passed, but it must go through some sort of vote by the Senate or House. With the majority of Congress being Republican, it is difficult to see how this rule will be passed without some sort of concession to the coal industry.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is important for politicians to realize that we should not just rely on one source of fuel. More than likely, the United States will require some sort of energy cocktail before we can transition fully into clean and renewable energy sources. Even though the coal industry will probably have to lose some jobs in the future, there will be more jobs added with the finding of new fuel sources.
One of the main problems with the coal-burning power plant industry is that there is no current, cost-effective carbon capture technology. If there were, coal-burning plants would be able to reduce their carbon footprint while at the same time not lose too much of their energy yield. This proposed rule from the Obama Administration could provide economic incentive for the discovery of such technology. Coal-burning power plants that integrate effective carbon capture technology would be able to continue burning cheap coal and stay under this 1,000 level. Since America has such an abundance of coal, it would be to the benefit of our economy to exploit these resources. However, this technology hasn't been developed yet, and so in the mean time, the American economy would suffer in hope that in the long term there will be more benefit, both economic and environmental benefit.
ReplyDelete