Carbon Wars: The New EPA Rules to Reduce Carbon Emissions at U.S. Power Plants

[tigerade]

The Most Ridiculous Responses To Obamas New Climate Rules | ThinkProgress

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is perhaps the Senate’s most infamous climate denier, who has said the United Nations invented the “global warming thing” as a power grab. He once built an igloo on the National Mall and called it “Al Gore’s New Home.”
So it’s not particularly surprising that Inhofe’s reaction to the EPA’s new rule was to call it “a green agenda that has been dreamed up by the environmentalist community for decades” because the EPA has admitted that greenhouse gases “do not cause direct adverse health effects.”

A full-page ad running in Politico today details the “radical” organization that is the EPA, implying an “anarchist,” “militia,” “terrorist” organization whose regulations “threaten to shut down 25 percent of the electric grid.”
The ad, which manages to be both offensive and wildly untrue, comes from “EPAFacts.com,” a site run by right-wing PR flack Rick Berman. Berman’s site is dedicated to exposing the EPA’s “agenda-driven science,” implies that mercury pollution and smog are not harmful to one’s health, and says sunlight hitting wind turbines can cause seizures.
Berman has long history of making hyperbolic claims paid for by moneyed interests, including websites claiming that trans fats fight cancer, that high-sugar soft drinks improve athletic performance, and that sugar is not bad for your teeth. According to a Huffington Post report, Berman has also previously attacked organizations like the Humane Society of the United States and Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and campaigned against minimum-wage increases and unionization.

For a party that has used the term “scare-tactics” to describe climate scientists’ predictions about what will happen to the world if carbon emissions aren’t reduced, Republican leaders seem to be using a lot of violence-related language when it comes to the new climate rules.
“Today’s announcement is a dagger in the heart of the American middle class,” said Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) in a press release this morning. “This rule is all pain, no gain,” Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) said in a statement. “It’s a sucker punch for families everywhere,” wrote Boehner.
Of course, Obama’s new climate regulations won’t stab you in the heart or punch you without warning. Politicians and the public have known these regulations were coming since 2009, when the EPA designated carbon dioxide as an air pollutant. This happened two years after the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA had the authority and responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases if they were a threat to human health and welfare.
What’s more, the EPA estimates the regulations will actually prevent deaths — up to 6,600 premature deaths avoided from pollution reduction, and 150,000 avoided asthma attacks in children.

 

[FlasherZ]

Some just demonstrated the very point that I was making. Some reacted emotionally, spewed a bunch of crap at me that was completely unrelated to the point and you failed to address it. Maybe I agree that the climate is changing. Maybe I do or don't believe that it's man-made. Maybe I do or don't believe that we can do anything about it. As I said in the other thread months ago, you're not addressing the public policy implications of the argument.

All the data-heavy stuff that is trying to beat me down to prove me wrong (yet odd as I didn't even make any anti-climate-change assertions) - as tigerade said - belongs in the other thread, the academic thread on climate change.

Most importantly, you didn't address the fundamental point - most people/consumers don't care about sea level because their houses aren't floating away yet. In fact, some states might be happy that they're going to become oceanfront property. But I guarantee when these new regulations cause consumers' power prices to increase by 50%+ that the greater majority won't care what 97% of those scientists think. Maybe you'll find the top 10% and bottom 10%, but 80% care more about how the price affects their quality of life. And a $100 power bill per month that becomes $200/month is going to be a hell of a lot more important than global climate change, especially since the models have failed spectacularly (we were told in 1995 that no rain would fall any more across the midwestern US by 2000).

So no need to try to beat me down, no one here is addressing the public policy implication of the science. Try that and I'll be happy to discuss.

 

[SwedishAdvocate]

I’ll just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[ggies07]

Some just demonstrated the very point that I was making. Some reacted emotionally, spewed a bunch of crap at me that was completely unrelated to the point and you failed to address it. Maybe I agree that the climate is changing. Maybe I do or don't believe that it's man-made. Maybe I do or don't believe that we can do anything about it. As I said in the other thread months ago, you're not addressing the public policy implications of the argument.

All the data-heavy stuff that is trying to beat me down to prove me wrong (yet odd as I didn't even make any anti-climate-change assertions) - as tigerade said - belongs in the other thread, the academic thread on climate change.

Most importantly, you didn't address the fundamental point - most people/consumers don't care about sea level because their houses aren't floating away yet. In fact, some states might be happy that they're going to become oceanfront property. But I guarantee when these new regulations cause consumers' power prices to increase by 50%+ that the greater majority won't care what 97% of those scientists think. Maybe you'll find the top 10% and bottom 10%, but 80% care more about how the price affects their quality of life. And a $100 power bill per month that becomes $200/month is going to be a hell of a lot more important than global climate change, especially since the models have failed spectacularly (we were told in 1995 that no rain would fall any more across the midwestern US by 2000).

So no need to try to beat me down, no one here is addressing the public policy implication of the science. Try that and I'll be happy to discuss.

I find your "quality of life" statement ironic. The only way to have a better life is to destroy the planet we live on? One, im not sure why rates have to go up because of a cap, that seems more like industry greed and bullying to me and we MUST transition to better ways of producing energy, so we are just going to have to suck it up through the growing pains.

 

[nwdiver]

Some just demonstrated the very point that I was making. Some reacted emotionally, spewed a bunch of crap at me that was completely unrelated to the point and you failed to address it. Maybe I agree that the climate is changing. Maybe I do or don't believe that it's man-made. Maybe I do or don't believe that we can do anything about it. As I said in the other thread months ago, you're not addressing the public policy implications of the argument.

All the data-heavy stuff that is trying to beat me down to prove me wrong (yet odd as I didn't even make any anti-climate-change assertions) - as tigerade said - belongs in the other thread, the academic thread on climate change.

Most importantly, you didn't address the fundamental point - most people/consumers don't care about sea level because their houses aren't floating away yet. In fact, some states might be happy that they're going to become oceanfront property. But I guarantee when these new regulations cause consumers' power prices to increase by 50%+ that the greater majority won't care what 97% of those scientists think. Maybe you'll find the top 10% and bottom 10%, but 80% care more about how the price affects their quality of life. And a $100 power bill per month that becomes $200/month is going to be a hell of a lot more important than global climate change, especially since the models have failed spectacularly (we were told in 1995 that no rain would fall any more across the midwestern US by 2000).

So no need to try to beat me down, no one here is addressing the public policy implication of the science. Try that and I'll be happy to discuss.

If you want to have a policy debate and move beyond the settled science then I would recommend against comments like this;

especially since the models have failed spectacularly (we were told in 1995 that no rain would fall any more across the midwestern US by 2000).

That's only going to invite a rebuttal like this;
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models-intermediate.htm

In terms of POLICY... the vast majority of people... judging by savings rates this applies to Americans more so than Europeans for some reason... think short-term more than long term. So we MUST find a way to give long-term goals short-term benefits. 70% of solar installs in California are leases despite the fact that long-term an outright purchase is more beneficial.

The Federal Reserve has been giving banks loans at 0% for years now to stimulate the economy. We also heavily subsidize student loans... If we(the government) offered a 20 year loan at 0% for a solar install the monthly payments would be lower than the monthly savings on electric bills. Solar PV would instantly be at grid parity in 49/50 states.

The elimination of "net-metering" and replacing it with a feed-in tariff would create an incentive for consumers to store or use power as it's generated instead of exporting/importing allowing solar to expand beyond what our current infrastructure would otherwise allow.

The EPA is giving states the flexibility to reduce emissions as they see fit... should they choose to offer 0% financing on solar to generate more clean energy they can do that.

 

[ZsoZso]

Hmmmm policy debate...
Economic factors indeed are more important for some people than the future of our environment, our grand-children's ability to LIVE on this planet.
I heard a phrase from my daughter that is very simple yet illustrates the point pretty well:

If you think economy is more important than the environment, then try to count your money while you hold your breath.

 

[FlasherZ]

Like I said, it doesn't matter what I personally think here. I'd love to change the world. I'm but one voice, though, and I'm certainly not average - in many ways.

Spend a month shadowing an average family. Ask them how much they care about climate change, and ask them where that compares relative to putting food on the table for their families. Ask them if they would pay double their current electric bill per month if it would increase the chances of combating climate change by an unspecified amount. See what answer you get.

I can appreciate the passion that many of you have. Your passion is unfortunately clouding your judgment, as you're identifying me as an enemy of your cause. I have not tipped my hand fully as to my beliefs, yet you're making the assumption that I'm some "climate denier". Policy debate is not science - it's an art.

 

[tigerade]

Spend a month shadowing an average family. Ask them how much they care about climate change, and ask them where that compares relative to putting food on the table for their families. Ask them if they would pay double their current electric bill per month if it would increase the chances of combating climate change by an unspecified amount. See what answer you get.

The argument that increasing energy efficiency and moving to cleaner sources of energy will almost certainly raise electricity prices is probably not as solid as you are presuming it to be. People could be a lot more receptive to making their homes more energy efficient, saving energy and using cleaner energy. 100,000+ people have just installed solar and are saving on their energy bills, mostly within the past 5 years or so. People are buying more energy efficient appliances, light bulbs, etc. I am not the most well-researched in this, but I do know that it is happen. The point being is that I don't think the argument that (less coal + (more renewables + more efficiency) = higher consumer elec prices) is as knock-down as you think. I would like to substantiate it a little more before using it again.

 

[nwdiver]

Spend a month shadowing an average family. Ask them how much they care about climate change, and ask them where that compares relative to putting food on the table for their families. Ask them if they would pay double their current electric bill per month if it would increase the chances of combating climate change by an unspecified amount. See what answer you get.

Thank you for illustrating why we NEED public policy to take action... the "average family" doesn't care about costs in 20 years. But someone needs to have the courage to act or in 20 years we're screwed. It's easy to point out flaws in the current solution... FAR FAR more challenging to come up with a better one... what's yours?

 

[dsm363]

Like I said, it doesn't matter what I personally think here. I'd love to change the world. I'm but one voice, though, and I'm certainly not average - in many ways.

Spend a month shadowing an average family. Ask them how much they care about climate change, and ask them where that compares relative to putting food on the table for their families. Ask them if they would pay double their current electric bill per month if it would increase the chances of combating climate change by an unspecified amount. See what answer you get.

I can appreciate the passion that many of you have. Your passion is unfortunately clouding your judgment, as you're identifying me as an enemy of your cause. I have not tipped my hand fully as to my beliefs, yet you're making the assumption that I'm some "climate denier". Policy debate is not science - it's an art.

People will almost always be more concerned about their immediate challenges than some far off potential danger. That's just human nature. Those that are more financially secure can more easily afford to think about more abstract and far off dangers. Just dumping increased costs on people without a plan isn't right either. Pushing new standards and more efficient appliances....etc over time is one way to accomplish goal of using less every, helping reduce environmental impact and even saving consumers money. It's hard to convince people to look at total cost of ownership. All they see is one light bulb cost 30 cents and the other costs $3. If we truly want to shut down all coal plants the everyone should chip in somehow to blunt impact on areas heavily dependent on coal until the transition is over.

 

[stopcrazypp]

Spend a month shadowing an average family. Ask them how much they care about climate change, and ask them where that compares relative to putting food on the table for their families.

There are two approaches to this. One is to focus more on how to show the public the science so they even know that climate change is an issue and would care in the first place. It's unfortunate that in the US, climate change has become a political issue rather than a scientific one. Even people in countries like China recognize it's a problem that needs to be addressed (although their government disagrees about whether to look at things per country or per capita). However, in our country, roughly half of the population feels climate change is BS in the first place. Until we get this half to recognize it's a problem, it'll be tough to get this side to agree to any changes.

The other approach is indirectly limit carbon emissions by focusing on other issues (like non-GHG pollution, and efficiency/sustainability in general). However, the latter, being indirect does not really address the root of the issue.

Ask them if they would pay double their current electric bill per month if it would increase the chances of combating climate change by an unspecified amount. See what answer you get.

First of all, saying double their electric bill is clearly a scare tactic in the first place. First of all, all the renewable-only energy plans I have seen only need a fee well under $10 to support. There are also ways to reduce carbon emissions without any change to electric bills, for example rebates to help households increase efficiency and cut down on unnecessary use. The EPA proposal gives enough flexibility to allow for these schemes.

Also, a lot of the per-kWh costs of renewable energy is as low, if not lower than carbon-heavy sources. The only thing is that the initial cap-ex is high, and there's no incentive to spend that cap-ex unless there are other factors to make that investment make sense. In the end, a couple years down the road the price of electricity might actually be even lower after the changes (which is what the EPA is predicting).

 

[RichardC]

Like I said, it doesn't matter what I personally think here. I'd love to change the world. I'm but one voice, though, and I'm certainly not average - in many ways.

Spend a month shadowing an average family. Ask them how much they care about climate change, and ask them where that compares relative to putting food on the table for their families. Ask them if they would pay double their current electric bill per month if it would increase the chances of combating climate change by an unspecified amount. See what answer you get.

I can appreciate the passion that many of you have. Your passion is unfortunately clouding your judgment, as you're identifying me as an enemy of your cause. I have not tipped my hand fully as to my beliefs, yet you're making the assumption that I'm some "climate denier". Policy debate is not science - it's an art.

Disregarding for a moment the obvious factual errors in your statements, if it were to prevail, your logic would have prevented all public health and building code requirements (do you have any idea how much cheaper houses would be if there were no requirement for septic sewers or an approved septic system) after all the human race had survived for tens of thousands of years without toilets or sewers. How about the changes which have made cars less dangerous and less polluting (all of which were certain to make cars completely unaffordable - according to the manufacturers, at the time these requirements were introduced)? Work place health and safety laws, elimination of lead from gas, constraints on acid rain producing emissions, the list goes on-and-on. All of these changes, according to the affected industry, at the time they were introduced were certain to destroy the economy, make life for the average American unaffordable, etc., etc.

The role of public policy is to make well-informed decisions, in this case on the basis of the rock-solid scientific consensus (see Climate Change thread), as to the best way to save the human race from itself. That is what is being done here and it would be completely justified even is there were to be (which I would dispute as a factual matter, given the rapidly falling cost of solar energy) a short term increase in the cost of electricity (which if it were to occur would provide the market signal for further development of increasingly cheaper renewable energy).

In light of the clarity of the science on this point (see the most recent reports from the IPCC, AAAS, etc.), the only reason that there are not effective laws in place already, relates to the wholesale corruption of the political system and the ability of concentrated industry economic interests to effectively and completely subvert the public policy apparatus to their ends (rather than those of the public).

As previously noted, any disputes as to the validity of the scientific consensus should be raised in the Climate Change thread, not here. The submissions in this thread should proceed on the assumption that the uncontradicted 200 year history of climate science, the IPCC, the AAAS, all national science academies, all other national and international scientific associations of any standing, the International Energy Agency, the IMF, the World Bank, the OECD, even the oil companies, and virtually every other responsible organization (which, of course, excludes astroturf and lobbying organizations) are correct in their determination that manmade GHG emissions are causing climate change, rising seal levels, rising temperatures, ocean acidification, etc., etc., such that GHG emissions are appropriately the focus of public policy attention. If you disagree with the science, please explain why in the Climate Change thread.

 

[nwdiver]

However, in our country, roughly half of the population feels climate change is BS in the first place. Until we get this half to recognize it's a problem, it'll be tough to get this side to agree to any changes.

This isn't pessimism but acknowledging reality... THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. We'll get most of our energy from unicorn farts before we get traction there. WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

Meet "Joe Six-pack"


25% believe the sun revolves around the earth...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...ink-the-sun-goes-around-the-earth-survey-says

54% don't know Sudan is country in Africa
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/0502_060502_geography.html

A former Vice-Presidential candidate didn't understand Africa was a continent
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/05/palin-didnt-know-africa-i_n_141653.html

AND... >20% believe humans and T-Rex coexisted.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/06/01/2012-gallup-poll-on-evolution/

 

[tigerade]

Additional thought bubble of mine: In an ideal world, I'd say to start from a totally clean slate. Take away all subsidies and tax incentives for all forms of energy (fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables). You're at a clean slate now. Then, factor in all the externalized costs of the form of energy (health and environmental costs of fossil fuels, military expenditures, security at nuclear plants, etc). Now you've got the negative externalizes factored into the price of energy. Then at that point, I am absolutely, perfectly fine with letting the market forces do their work. I say play ball. Again, this is an ideal world.

But we don't live in an ideal world. Instead we live in a world were millions deny science and congress is thoroughly owned by the fossil fuel industry. So, the EPA's tactic of "Thou shalt reduce thy emissions" will have to do.

AND... >20% believe humans and T-Rex coexisted.

So you're telling me that Jurassic Park isn't real? Thanks for shattering my dreams.

 

[nwdiver]

As if more was needed... if you still think we should wait 'till more Americans understand climate change... go type "Free Energy" into YouTube...

 

[miimura]

There are places in the country that have electric rates and typical electric bills that are half that of what we have in California. If they have carbon intensive electric generation and it will require them doubling electric bills to meet the new regulations, then in my mind they're just "catching up" to where we are. We have Title 24 for energy efficiency standards and it's getting tighter all the time. Is it a pain when you are building or remodeling a house? Yes. Does it save people money in the end? Yes. Smart people will not see this as a "go kicking and screaming" issue, they will buckle down and see what they can do in their own home if and when their electric rates go up. I understand that not every location or even specific building is suitable for a residential solar installation, but it's the best money I've ever spent. Compared to what I would be spending on my electric bill, I'm saving money every month, from day 1 even including the principal and interest from borrowing the money for the installation. Of course, if you're paying 9 cents/kWh, you won't be saving money like I am because our rates pretty much already include the cost of reducing the carbon intensity of electric generation because we have portfolio standards.

This is the New Normal, people. Get used to it.

 

[tigerade]

I agree, and this is precisely the difference between the "at-any-cost, shut down every coal plant RIGHT NOW" strategy that the "settled-science" academics keep pushing and the practicality of adoption by the public. This is why public policy formation frustrates academics... they keep shouting things like "we're here, get used to it!" and "settled science, so shut up and just ban it all already!"

The key is not to avoid conflict but rather to decide what one thinks is worth fighting for. I know what I'm willing to fight for. Do you?

 

[FlasherZ]

The key is not to avoid conflict but rather to decide what one thinks is worth fighting for. I know what I'm willing to fight for. Do you?

Yes. I'm willing to fight for practical solutions that make sense and won't bankrupt hundreds of thousands of families and will still accomplish the same end-game but with much less "battle". My experience is that such approaches are indeed more successful than the scorched-earth "at any cost" policies that are espoused here by the academics.

My best to you all in your quest.

 

[dsm363]

I would think the natural gas industry would actually be a natural friend in this fight (although I don't really think it is a fight simply progress). Natural gas is also a stepping stone but one we'll likely need for decades.

 

[FlasherZ]

I would think the natural gas industry would acutely be a natural friend in this fight (although I don't really think it is a fight simply progress). Natural gas is also a stepping stone but one we'll likely need for decades.

It's likely they're trying to be friends - just like the nuclear industry (or what's left of it) - but the very same people screaming "no coal" are also screaming "no fracking", "no burning fossil fuels", "no nukes", "wind farms kill birds", and "not in my backyard". It leaves very few options, unfortunately - and is another example of having to figure out the best mix of trade-offs that the public can accept at the right costs.