Environmental group says Obama could bypass Congress to impose pollution standards
WASHINGTON — President Obama could slash one-third of power plant emissions by 2025 without Congress' approval, a major environmental group said on Tuesday.
He could save at least $25 billion annually in reduced health and pollution costs by using the Clean Air Act to require that plants reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, according to an analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The group said the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to set state-specific emission rates and give states flexibility to implement them.
As nations meet this week in Doha, Qatar, to negotiate a climate change treaty and Obama prepares to begin a second term, the NRDC proposed a new approach that bypasses Capitol Hill. In 2009, the House of Representatives approved a “cap and trade” bill to limit overall emissions but allow companies to trade pollution credits. The bill died in the Senate.
The group said the EPA, which has proposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, should set rules for hundreds of fossil-fueled plants, which it says account for 40 percent of the nation's carbon pollution.
“We know where the pollution is. Now we have to go after it,” Peter Lehner, the group's executive director, said. The NRDC said its federal-state approach would cost $4 billion annually but would save up to $60 billion each year in reduced pollution-related illnesses such as asthma. By emphasizing energy efficiency and cleaner fuels, it said, its plan would cut carbon pollution — compared to 2005 levels — 26 percent by 2020 and 34 percent by 2025.
Critics say it's just another version of cap-and-trade. David Kreutzer, an energy expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said it would allow states to trade emission credits across a multistate region — similar to the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a non-profit group that holds carbon auctions involving nine Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states.
Kreutzer said natural gas production is driving down carbon pollution and even if the NRDC's plan brought further cuts, China's emissions alone would more than offset any climate benefit.
Carol Raulston, spokeswoman of the National Mining Association, said her group was reviewing the proposal but expected it would mean more coal industry layoffs. She said EPA rules affecting coal-based power generation have cost more than 4,000 mining jobs.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.