We’re already paying the costs of climate change. The new power plant emissions standards could not be more timely.
For citizens of a democratic society, there may be no greater obligation than to act today to protect future generations from the threats of tomorrow.
That is what the Obama administration did on Friday, when it stood up to protect our children from the widening ravages of global climate change. It moved to set in place the first-ever limits on dangerous carbon pollution from the power plants we’ll build in the years to come.
Climate change is the leading environmental challenge of our time. It is posing large and growing costs on our nation and imperiling the future of the world.
Globally, the ten hottest years ever recorded have all occurred since 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record across the continental United States: 3.3F above the 20th-century average.
We spent, in this country, $140bn to cover the costs of crop losses, wildfires, hurricanes, floods and other weather-related disasters made worse by climate change. And the government picked up the lion’s share of the tab – to the tune of $1,100, on average, per American taxpayer.
We cannot consign our children to a future where these costs and risks continue to rise unchallenged.
In the United States, our power plants are the single largest source of the carbon pollution that’s driving climate chaos. About 1,500 of these plants, in fact, account for 40% of our national carbon footprint.
We limit the amount of mercury, arsenic and soot these plants may release into our atmosphere. And yet, astonishingly, there are no limits on how much carbon pollution they may emit.
At least, not until now.
The carbon standards announced Friday by Gina McCarthy, administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, will set reasonable limits on carbon pollution from the power plants of tomorrow, those that are yet to be built.
The standards have been developed based on sound science, available technology and extensive input from industry, which will have additional opportunity to comment in the months before the standards become final.
The standards are flexible, allowing utilities to determine the most cost-effective ways to meet the targets. They are achievable, using technology that is available today. They are essential.
And yet, these common-sense standards are opposed by some in the coal industry, who contend that cleaning up new power plants could hurt coal sales.
Coal is an important part of the US energy mix. The market for new coal-fired power plants, though, has largely dried up due to market conditions. It’s simply more cost-effective to build generators powered by wind or natural gas, or to promote investments in efficiency that reduce energy waste.
Still, coal-fired plants of the future can hit the carbon-reduction targets by capturing that pollution from exhaust gases before they leave the smoke-stack; by turning coal to gas and taking the carbon out; or by burning coal with pure oxygen, instead of air, and taking the carbon out of the emissions.
The technology for these so-called “carbon capture” processes is already in use in places like Alabama, Maryland and Oklahoma. There are advanced pilot projects up and running in West Virginia, Wisconsin and other locations. And there are still others being planned or built in Mississippi, Texas, California and elsewhere.
For this particular fuel, this is the future: technology that can reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90% or better.
In the coming months, EPA officials will be meeting with state and local leaders, members of the utility industry and the business community more broadly and others, to discuss the next step in the essential task of reducing our carbon footprint: cleaning up the carbon from our existing power plants. Proposed standards for those plants are due next June – and we must all support the effort to get these standards right, too.
We face no greater environmental challenge today than the widening scourge of climate change. We face no greater obligation than to protect our children from it. We may face no greater opportunity, either.
Related articles
