Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants

[webfact]

Climate change: Obama orders steeper cuts from power plants
By JOSH LEDERMAN

WASHINGTON (AP) — Aiming to jolt the rest of the world to action, President Barack Obama moved ahead Sunday with even tougher greenhouse gas cuts on American power plants, setting up a certain confrontation in the courts with energy producers and Republican-led states.

In finalizing the unprecedented pollution controls, Obama was installing the core of his ambitious and controversial plan to drastically reduce overall U.S. emissions, as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming. Yet it will be up to Obama's successor to implement his plan, which reverberated across the 2016 presidential campaign trail.

Opponents planned to sue immediately, and to ask the courts to block the rule temporarily. Many states have threatened not to comply.

The Obama administration estimated the emissions limits will cost $8.4 billion annually by 2030. The actual price won't be clear until states decide how they'll reach their targets. But energy industry advocates said the revision makes Obama's mandate even more burdensome, costly and difficult to achieve.

"They are wrong," Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy said flatly, accusing opponents of promulgating a "doomsday" scenario.

Last year, the Obama administration proposed the first greenhouse gas limits on existing power plants in U.S. history, triggering a yearlong review and more than 4 million public comments. On Monday, Obama was to unveil the final rule publicly at an event at the White House.

"Climate change is not a problem for another generation," Obama said in a video posted to Facebook. "Not anymore."

The final version imposes stricter carbon dioxide limits on states than was previously expected: a 32 percent cut by 2030, compared to 2005 levels, the White House said. Obama's proposed version last year called only for a 30 percent cut.

Immediately, Obama's plan became a point of controversy in the 2016 presidential race, with Hillary Rodham Clinton voicing her strong support and using it to criticize her GOP opponents for failing to offer a credible alternative.

"It's a good plan, and as president, I'd defend it," Clinton said.

On the Republican side, Marco Rubio, a Florida senator, predicted increases in electricity bills would be "catastrophic," while former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush called the rule "irresponsible and overreaching."

"Climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy," Bush said.

Obama's rule assigns customized targets to each state, then leaves it up to the state to determine how to meet them. Prodded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a number of Republican governors have said they simply won't comply. If states refuse to submit plans, the EPA has the authority to impose its own plan, and McCarthy said the administration would release a model federal plan that states could adopt right away.

Another key change to the initial proposal marks a major shift for Obama on natural gas, which the president has championed as a "bridge fuel" whose growing use can help the U.S. wean itself off dirtier coal power while ramping up renewable energy capacity. The final version aims to keep the share of natural gas in the nation's power mix at current levels.

Under the final rule, states will also have an additional two years — until 2022 — to comply, yielding to complaints that the original deadline was too soon. They'll also have an additional year to submit their implementation plans to Washington.

In an attempt to encourage earlier action, the federal government plans to offer credits to states that boost renewable sources like wind and solar in 2020 and 2021. States could store those credits away to offset pollution emitted after the compliance period starts in 2022.

Twenty to 30 states were poised to join the energy industry in suing over the rule as soon as it's formally published, said Scott Segal, a lobbyist with the firm Bracewell and Giuliani who represents utilities. The Obama administration has a mixed track record in fending off legal challenges to its climate rules. GOP leaders in Congress were also weighing various legislative maneuvers to try to block the rule.

The National Mining Association lambasted the plan and said it would ask the courts to put the rule on hold while legal challenges play out. On the other end of the spectrum, Michael Brune, the Sierra Club's executive director, said in an interview that his organization planned to hold public rallies, put pressure on individual coal plants and "intervene as necessary in the courts" to defend the rule.

By clamping down on emissions, Obama is also working to increase his leverage and credibility with other nations whose commitments he's seeking for a global climate treaty to be finalized later this year in Paris. As its contribution to that treaty, the U.S. has pledged to cut overall emissions 26 percent to 28 percent by 2025, compared to 2005.

"We're positioning the United States as an international leader on climate change," said Brian Deese, Obama's senior adviser.

Power plants account for roughly one-third of all U.S. emissions of the heat-trapping gases blamed for global warming, making them the largest single source.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-08-03

[Trouble]

Okay Obama wants to reduce emissions by 26-28%. First question, of the 33% of emissions that power plants cause how much of that can they actually reduce with his new rules (if it is possible). How much is this going to cost the consumer? Where does the rest of the emission reduction come from? Lastly, does he really think that countries like China, India, and most of Africa are going to reduce their emissions?

Realizing that it is of course desirable to reduce emissions, simply putting new rules on the books without the technology to do that and at what cost is certainly not a clear path to the end goal. It is all just placating people like the Sierra Club. I have no doubt that emissions can be reduced but what will electricity cost and how will that effect growth and the economy?

[sirineou]

If only Obama read the TV forum, America would be in much better shape,

If only.....

[sdanielmcev]

Political grandstanding, nothing more. And it won't just be Republican states. It will burden states like California more than anyone else. Another failed attempt at 'legacy.'

[hawker9000]

Political grandstanding, nothing more. And it won't just be Republican states. It will burden states like California more than anyone else. Another failed attempt at 'legacy.'

Oh, he'll have a "legacy" alright ...

[Jimbolai]

Political grandstanding, nothing more. And it won't just be Republican states. It will burden states like California more than anyone else. Another failed attempt at 'legacy.'

Oh, he'll have a "legacy" alright ...

oBummer will be known in history as enemy umber One.

Revered in the moooslim world.

Reviled in the free world.

[elgordo38]

Okay Obama wants to reduce emissions by 26-28%. First question, of the 33% of emissions that power plants cause how much of that can they actually reduce with his new rules (if it is possible). How much is this going to cost the consumer? Where does the rest of the emission reduction come from? Lastly, does he really think that countries like China, India, and most of Africa are going to reduce their emissions?

Realizing that it is of course desirable to reduce emissions, simply putting new rules on the books without the technology to do that and at what cost is certainly not a clear path to the end goal. It is all just placating people like the Sierra Club. I have no doubt that emissions can be reduced but what will electricity cost and how will that effect growth and the economy?

You touch on many good points but read the following quote "as he works to secure a legacy on fighting global warming" At this point in his presidency its all about leaving his mark his legacy. Male lions and tigers and the rest of the cat family do this all the time when a tree is available and mankind is no different once they achieve power. In the wild wild west years ago they used branding irons to leave a mark but humans are more civilized maybe. We have not advanced that much from our chest beating days when we conquered a foe on the field of battle. Its also the deal with Iran, the TPP(these two are rated as a poor deal is better than no deal), Obamacare plus others that will cause him to beat his chest to the world. Hail Caesar!!

[chuckd]

The good thing is it will keep the lawyers of the Justice Department busy for years.

The bad thing is it will keep the lawyers of the Justice Department busy for years.

Just another over reaching Executive Order to appease Tom Steyer, George Soros and the greenie world.

[timendres]

Achievable at a cost of $8.4B annually?! Seriously? Anyone believing that number also believes that Obama-care is fixing the US Healthcare system.

First, there should be regulations that encourage more efficient energy use, which by definition reduces emissions. For instance, a small tax on household energy use above a certain level (in other words, large homes using too much electricity), with the revenues generated guaranteed to go only for energy research. Second, those costs they want to impose on the utilities would be better spent on research to find alternative energy sources, means of reducing energy use, and emissions technology that actually solves a problem. Just saying reduce it by 30% or put money into the Federal coffers is not very helpful or practical. Just a boondoggle for the Feds while trying to convince the voters they are fixing something.

[stevenl]

Finally somebody is doing something.

[Chicog]

They could pay for some of it by removing the subsidies they give to the oil companies.

It's not like they need them.

[Linky]

After GWB the rest of the world consider Obama shining light. Thank you US people for voting in a true gobal statesman. A truly global move by Obama doing this, more govts will follow. ?

Now please only leave Trump in for a while for the laugh factor.

[chuckd]

This nonsense will never see the light of day.

There are already nearly 30 states signed up to join together and fight it. It will be tied up in the courts for years.

[Usernames]

Achievable at a cost of $8.4B annually?! Seriously? Anyone believing that number also believes that Obama-care is fixing the US Healthcare system.

First, there should be regulations that encourage more efficient energy use, which by definition reduces emissions. For instance, a small tax on household energy use above a certain level (in other words, large homes using too much electricity), with the revenues generated guaranteed to go only for energy research. Second, those costs they want to impose on the utilities would be better spent on research to find alternative energy sources, means of reducing energy use, and emissions technology that actually solves a problem. Just saying reduce it by 30% or put money into the Federal coffers is not very helpful or practical. Just a boondoggle for the Feds while trying to convince the voters they are fixing something.

"For instance, a small tax on household energy use above a certain level (in other words, large homes using too much electricity . . . "

That is how the IRS got started. Pretty soon, that small tax would get much larger and drift down all the way onto everyone except welfare recipients.

[Steely Dan]

Until recently I was agnostic regarding the degree of man made climate change, however I now suspect it all to be hooey, seeing as so many of its proponents appear to be charlatans serially wrong on just about everything they meddle in.

[pattayasnowman]

The great global warming (now climate change ) swindle is finally being exposed . Over the past 15 years there has been no significant rise in global temperatures despite continues increases in atmospheric CO2.

But still these uninformed Politicians push a debunked theory for Political expediency and to line the pockets of their corporate sponsors

[RickBradford]

Finally somebody is doing something.

The politicians' action manual:

1 ) We must do something.

2) This is something.

3) Therefore we must do it.

Most probably, Obama has finally realized what a chump he looks after signing a deal with China which allows that country to keep increasing its CO2 emissions until 2030, which renders any other climate 'solutions' worthless.

Anyway, by that time, according to leading scientific voices such as Bob Geldof, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Prince Charles and the Pope, it will be too late anyway.

In a world in which politicians are popularly regarded as scumbags and pathological liars, fighting climate change casts them as admirable. They're going to trade on that as often as they can.

[arjunadawn]

The Leviathan has fully arrived. Welcome to the regulatory state. Add to the mix congressional abrogation, judicial activism, and executive usurpation and you have a fully functional despotism in the guise of a once great republic.

The notion that the executive, by virtue of creeping regulatory infringement on lawmaking, can act upon the economy by virtue of a pen- fiat- is anathema to the design of a representative republic.

[Shawn0001]

Okay Obama wants to reduce emissions by 26-28%. First question, of the 33% of emissions that power plants cause how much of that can they actually reduce with his new rules (if it is possible). How much is this going to cost the consumer? Where does the rest of the emission reduction come from? Lastly, does he really think that countries like China, India, and most of Africa are going to reduce their emissions?

Realizing that it is of course desirable to reduce emissions, simply putting new rules on the books without the technology to do that and at what cost is certainly not a clear path to the end goal. It is all just placating people like the Sierra Club. I have no doubt that emissions can be reduced but what will electricity cost and how will that effect growth and the economy?

Take a look at how much Germany have reduced their emissions, and they are not in such a fortunate position as the US in this regard. It can save the consumer money. What rest of what emissions? Why should it not all come from the power plants? What have China, India and Africa got to do with the USA's emissions? Is your point that if they have emissions then we may as well? How about leading the way for a change instead of expecting to follow China's lead?

[Shawn0001]

The great global warming (now climate change ) swindle is finally being exposed . Over the past 15 years there has been no significant rise in global temperatures despite continues increases in atmospheric CO2.

But still these uninformed Politicians push a debunked theory for Political expediency and to line the pockets of their corporate sponsors

What your "debunkers" with an agenda fail to note is that the temperature goes up and down a bit but that the trend remains upwards, perhaps this graph will help you to understand.

It is a real shame that so many people have been convinced by people who really want to keep making money out of energy that it is actually the people trying to stop people using energy that are trying to make money. It is also incredible that people are so gulible as to believe that the green energy market is worth anything like what the fossil fuel market is.

[chuckd]

They could pay for some of it by removing the subsidies they give to the oil companies.

It's not like they need them.

Talking about something not needed...

They should close down the EPA. The approved budget for F/Y 2015 is $8,139,887,000.

Problem solved all the way around.

[hawker9000]

What your "debunkers" with an agenda fail to note is that the temperature goes up and down a bit but that the trend remains upwards, perhaps this graph will help you to understand.

KH_myth_4951_image001_wblog.GIF

It is a real shame that so many people have been convinced by people who really want to keep making money out of energy that it is actually the people trying to stop people using energy that are trying to make money. It is also incredible that people are so gulible as to believe that the green energy market is worth anything like what the fossil fuel market is.

Just out of curiosity, could we have the source for that chart?

Talking about something not needed...

They should close down the EPA. The approved budget for F/Y 2015 is $8,139,887,000.

Problem solved all the way around.

...along with at least half a dozen other federal agencies...

oBummer will be known in history as enemy umber One.

Revered in the moooslim world.

Reviled in the free world.

They should put up a statue of him in Tehran.

[sdanielmcev]

I'm all for alternative energy. Previous place I had, back in the US, I had solar panels and built a few wind generators. That said, government intervention, as this is will not work. If the federal government wants some change, then let them do it first. Retro-fit their buildings. Government buying on that scale would reduce the price solar panels and wind generators.

[hawker9000]

I'm all for alternative energy. Previous place I had, back in the US, I had solar panels and built a few wind generators. That said, government intervention, as this is will not work. If the federal government wants some change, then let them do it first. Retro-fit their buildings. Government buying on that scale would reduce the price solar panels and wind generators.

What was the Scarlet Pimpernel's favorite expression?? "Sink me!" Yeah, great. A brand new tax to fund solar panels for all federal buildings. Geez. They'll build new buildings just so they can claim to have a reason to buy solar panels for it! (Then of course we'll need a new agency to oversee that; 'have to expand the EPA to ensure compliance; for sure a feasibility study first; then environmental impact studies, etc.., etc., etc., etc., etc.)

[MZurf]

After GWB the rest of the world consider Obama shining light. Thank you US people for voting in a true gobal statesman. A truly global move by Obama doing this, more govts will follow. ?

Now please only leave Trump in for a while for the laugh factor.

Hear, hear. The US will probably never again elect a Republican president - just look at the shifting demographics. Have a look at the posts of the rabid Obama haters on this forum to see why any GOP candidate has to distance himself from the anti-science, anti common sense, flag waving, bible thumping, gun toting loony teabaggers to have any chance of getting elected.

President Obama; I applaud you, Sir, for doing this.

"After GWB the rest of the world consider Obama shining light."

Well, after W just about anyone would be a shining light...

[halloween]

The great global warming (now climate change ) swindle is finally being exposed . Over the past 15 years there has been no significant rise in global temperatures despite continues increases in atmospheric CO2.

But still these uninformed Politicians push a debunked theory for Political expediency and to line the pockets of their corporate sponsors

What your "debunkers" with an agenda fail to note is that the temperature goes up and down a bit but that the trend remains upwards, perhaps this graph will help you to understand.

KH_myth_4951_image001_wblog.GIF

It is a real shame that so many people have been convinced by people who really want to keep making money out of energy that it is actually the people trying to stop people using energy that are trying to make money. It is also incredible that people are so gulible as to believe that the green energy market is worth anything like what the fossil fuel market is.

Your graph would have more meaning if it had a named vertical scale. making the assumption it is degrees (c or F???) and the average temperature has risen 1 degree in 40 years, and may rise another degree in the next 40 years, you will pardon me if I fail to panic.

You might also consider that a graph over a considerably longer time scale might have much more meaning. Could it be the upswing in a much longer cycle?

[Publicus]

The vested interests of both the industry and ideology are mobilising against transformational change on yet another issue that is yet another guaranteed loser for them.

They'll tie it up in the courts for several years but that's all the satisfaction they'll ever get in defense of the status quo and the old order which must and will necessarily pass.

It is the natural course of events. New technology produces new bases of energy which in this case means improved quality of life. The energy companies will not do it themselves. National government policy is the only way and means. It is all a part of the democratic course of events which threatens no one and advances everyone.

GOP = Gone Old Party.

RIP GOP

[Shawn0001]

What your "debunkers" with an agenda fail to note is that the temperature goes up and down a bit but that the trend remains upwards, perhaps this graph will help you to understand.

KH_myth_4951_image001_wblog.GIF

It is a real shame that so many people have been convinced by people who really want to keep making money out of energy that it is actually the people trying to stop people using energy that are trying to make money. It is also incredible that people are so gulible as to believe that the green energy market is worth anything like what the fossil fuel market is.

Just out of curiosity, could we have the source for that chart?

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/02/23/opinion-the-latest-myth-from-global-warming-deniers/

[Publicus]

What your "debunkers" with an agenda fail to note is that the temperature goes up and down a bit but that the trend remains upwards, perhaps this graph will help you to understand.

KH_myth_4951_image001_wblog.GIF

It is a real shame that so many people have been convinced by people who really want to keep making money out of energy that it is actually the people trying to stop people using energy that are trying to make money. It is also incredible that people are so gulible as to believe that the green energy market is worth anything like what the fossil fuel market is.

Just out of curiosity, could we have the source for that chart?

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/02/23/opinion-the-latest-myth-from-global-warming-deniers/

Excellent source thx.

[Shawn0001]

The great global warming (now climate change ) swindle is finally being exposed . Over the past 15 years there has been no significant rise in global temperatures despite continues increases in atmospheric CO2.

But still these uninformed Politicians push a debunked theory for Political expediency and to line the pockets of their corporate sponsors

What your "debunkers" with an agenda fail to note is that the temperature goes up and down a bit but that the trend remains upwards, perhaps this graph will help you to understand.

KH_myth_4951_image001_wblog.GIF

It is a real shame that so many people have been convinced by people who really want to keep making money out of energy that it is actually the people trying to stop people using energy that are trying to make money. It is also incredible that people are so gulible as to believe that the green energy market is worth anything like what the fossil fuel market is.

Your graph would have more meaning if it had a named vertical scale. making the assumption it is degrees (c or F???) and the average temperature has risen 1 degree in 40 years, and may rise another degree in the next 40 years, you will pardon me if I fail to panic.

You might also consider that a graph over a considerably longer time scale might have much more meaning. Could it be the upswing in a much longer cycle?

The first graph I posted was in Fahrenheit.

Here is one over a a little longer time scale:

And one over the past 2000 years.

Your little theory that we could be seeing part of a much longer cycle certainly doesn't show within the last 2000 years, we are currently off the scale it what would seem to be a fairly constant upward downward fluctuation.

You can be forgiven for thinking that a 1 degree temperature increase is nothing to worry about, it sounds so small, and in the warmer countries is may not make much difference at all. However, in the northern and southern parts of the globe the effects are exasperated by greater extremes of colder winters and hotter summers, just like we have been seeing already, only worse. Another 1 degree increase is expected to bring 10% heavier rains in the rainy season and 10% worse droughts in the dry season. It is also expected to reduce the number of storms but to increase the remainders intensity. The further the temperature increases the more extreme the weather will get, to the point of us being unable to provide enough food.