State of Union: Ecological Gains to be Tempered by Economic Improvements

Location: New York

Date: 2013-02-13

Last night’s State of the Union address is the second part of the president’s inaugural speech. Without having to face the electorate again, he is using his podium to espouse liberal thinking, particularly in the area of climate change.

Climate change, of course, should be dictated by science, not by the political donations that Republicans and Democrats receive from their respective constituencies. But that’s not the case. Regardless, Obama is a firm believer that emissions from coal-fired power plants are tilting the scales when it comes to global warming. He will thus push harder in his second term for new actions. Those moves, however, will emerge from the regulatory agencies, and not from the Congress where any bill would be unable to pass both chambers.

"For the sake of our children and our future, we must do more to combat climate change," Obama said in his speech. "Yes, it’s true that no single event makes a trend. But the fact is, the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15. Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, and floods – all are now more frequent and intense. We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence. Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science – and act before it’s too late."

In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. And on December 15, 2009, the EPA published its final rule, noting that such releases would endanger public health and welfare. Congress, obviously, has the power to alter or to suspend that authority.

Progressives note that the world's leading scientists have reached the undeniable conclusion that manmade emissions from greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm. They acknowledge that some of the same scientists have published a few faulty conclusions but that the overarching findings remain untarnished.

Conservative lawmakers disagree with the fundamental assertion that manmade greenhouse gases from power plants and automobiles are causing global warming. They not only think legislation is unnecessary. They also think that the EPA has gone overboard here.

“Without coal, consumers will face increased energy costs, making America less competitive in the global marketplace,” says Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-KY. “Roughly 40 percent of our electricity is supplied by coal, and attacking coal as some in Washington tend to do and making it harder for coal-fired power plants to operate will not only hurt our consumers, but will also negatively impact jobs.”

The lawmaker is insisting that any bill that would negatively affect coal will fail to pass the House. He is also saying that the Obama White House will have a difficult time getting more Environmental Protection Agency regulations enacted.

Coal-related Actions

Last spring, EPA proposed restricting carbon dioxide emissions from power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt hour of electricity burned. That ruling would effectively prevent any coal from getting built unless it could capture and bury the carbon dioxide. Right now, those technologies are not commercially available and they are prohibitively expensive. Coal plants now emit more than double the heat-trapping than what would be allowed.

EPA is vigorously defending itself, noting that by acting to limit carbon emissions it is safeguarding the environment and protecting jobs. Without such regulatory actions, former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said that power plants and other industrial types would have "little incentive" to implement modern technologies.

Meantime, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has issued an unanimous finding calling EPA’s judgment “unambiguously correct.” It said that it does not have the authority undercut the federal agency. EPA’s adversaries, which consist of coal-burning utilities and oil companies, may take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The American people know President Obama is right. We must take bold action now to reduce industrial carbon pollution from power plants and other large sources that are fueling the climate disruption we’re already enduring ..." says a joint statement by nine prominent environmental groups.

What else might come out of the White House in a second term? Insiders are suggesting that the president may clamp down on existing coal-fired power plants. TheWall Street Journal has written that new rules may get released to minimize pollution from particulate matter, mercury and other toxins such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

"The good news is, we can make meaningful progress on this issue while driving strong economic growth," Obama intoned. "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change ... But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."

Indeed, President Obama's 2013 inaugural speech called climate change an important national challenge. His State of the Union has detailed some of what will emerge over the next four years. His environmental moves will be tempered, however, given that his legacy depends also on economic gains.

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energycentral.com

To subscribe or visit go to: http://www.energybiz.com