Obama to unveil historic
climate change plan to cut US
carbon pollution
• Proposed regulations could cut carbon pollution by up to 25%
• President still faces potential opposition from Republicans
Suzanne
Goldenberg, US
environment correspondent
President
Barack Obama will unveil a plan on Monday that will cut carbon pollution from
power plants and promote cap-and-trade, undertaking the most significant action
on climate change in American history.
The
proposed regulations Obama will launch at the White House on Monday could cut
carbon pollution by as much as 25% from about 1,600 power plants in operation
today, according to those claiming familiarity with the plan.
Power
plants are the country's single biggest source of carbon pollution –
responsible for up to 40% of the country's emissions.
The rules,
which were drafted by the Environmental Protection Agency and are under review
by the White House, are expected to do more than Obama, or any other president,
has done so far to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions responsible for climate
change.
They will
put America on course to
meet its international climate goal, and put US diplomats in a better position
to leverage climate commitments from big polluters such as China and India,
Obama said in a speech to West Point graduates
this week.
“I intend
to make sure America
is out front in a global framework to preserve our planet,” he said. “American
influence is always stronger when we lead by example. We can not exempt
ourselves from the rules that apply to everyone else.”
It won't be
without a fight. Obama went on in his remarks at West
Point to take a shot at Republicans who deny climate change is
occurring, and the White House press secretary, Jay Carney, on Thursday accused
critics of making “doomsday claims” about the costs of cutting carbon.
But the
White House still showed some signs of nervousness about a political backlash,
releasing a report about expanded oil and gas production on Obama's watch and
adding to the furious spinning by environmental and industry groups about the
potential costs and benefits of the EPA regulations.
“We
actually see this … as the Super Bowl of climate politics,” said Peter Altman,
director of the climate and clean air campaign for the Natural Resources
Defense Council, which produced a model carbon-cutting plan that has helped
guide the EPA regulations.
But if all
unfolds according to plan, Obama will have succeeded in overcoming blanket
opposition – and outright climate denial in many cases – from Republicans and
some Democrats in Congress, an industry-funded misinformation campaign, and a
slew of anticipated lawsuits.
Obama had
originally hoped to cut carbon pollution by moving a bill through Congress.
Four years after that effort fell apart, campaigners say the EPA rules could
deliver significant emissions cuts – near the 17% Obama proposed at the Copenhagen climate summit
– and the cap-and-trade programmes that were so reviled by Republicans.
The EPA,
using its authority under the Clean Air Act, proposed the first rule phase,
covering future power plants, last September.
In this the
more politically contentious phase of the plan, it is widely believed the EPA
will depart from the “inside the fence-line” convention of earlier
environmental regulations for mercury and other pollutants, which focused on
emissions-scrubbing on specific power plants.
The EPA
administrator, Gina McCarthy, is seeking steep reductions – as much as 25% –
but she has hinted repeatedly that she will allow states latitude in how they
reach those targets.
The plan
would allow electricity companies to reduce pollution by shutting down the
oldest and most polluting coal plants. They can install carbon-sucking
retrofits. They can expand wind and solar energy, upgrade the electrical grid,
encourage customers to update to more efficient heating and cooling systems, or
more efficient appliances and lightbulbs.
“They have
recognised huge emissions reductions opportunities are often cheaper than
trying to do it all inside the plant,” said David Doniger, who heads the
climate programme at the NRDC. “If you want to get substantial reductions and
you want to get it economically, you have to take into account a system-wide
approach.”
The EPA to
expected to try to soften the impact of the regulations by coming out with a
range of targets, taking account of the energy mix in different states, and by
allowing a two-step phase-in of the targets, with steeper cuts delayed until
2030.
But
campaigners and industry are bracing for a fight.
The Chamber
of Commerce, one of the major opponents of the environmental regulations, said
in a report on Wednesday the EPA regulations would cost $51bn a year in higher
electricity prices and lost jobs and investment – but those figures were
disputed.
Coal mining
companies, power plant operators that are heavily dependent on coal, attorney
generals in about a dozen Republican-controlled states, and conservative think
tanks also argue the system-wide approach oversteps the EPA's authority, and
are lining up for legal challenges.
“I suspect
we will see more environmental litigation as it relates to CO2 emissions going
forward from a variety of sources,” said Karen Harbert, who heads the Chamber's
energy institute.
America's carbon dioxide emissions have
been falling over the last few years to the lowest levels since the 1990s,
because of a switch from coal to cheaper natural gas, and on a smaller scale
increased investment in renewables. The economic downturn also reduced demand
for electricity.
The White
House said those changes – which were mainly market-driven – showed the EPA
regulations would not hurt the economy as critics claim.
“We can
transform our energy system to be less carbon intensive while still growing the
economy,” Obama's counsellor, John Podesta, told a conference call.
The EPA
rules would fix those reductions in place and – as several campaigners and
energy analysts noted – be a relatively easy reach for a large number of states
which have already moved to cut emissions and expand wind and solar power.
More than
30 states already have regulations promoting renewable energy. Minnesota and Colorado
are pledged to get 30% of their power from renewables by 2020.
Meanwhile,
nine north-eastern states and California
are already rewarding power companies which cut carbon through operating
cap-and-trade systems.
Those
changes in the energy landscape – and an intense outreach campaign by McCarthy
and other officials – could defuse of the opposition, said Paul Bledsoe, an
energy consultant who served on Bill Clinton's climate change task force. “I
think there is a divide between the companies,” he said. “Coal heavy companies
are going to fight it tooth and nail, especially behind the scenes, legally.
The more gas, nuclear and renewable-heavy companies are going to be more
sanguine about it.”
The EPA
rules could also end up vastly expanding regional cap-and-trade programmes.
Kelly Speakes-Backman, who heads the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the
north-east, said she had already had quiet approaches from a number of state
officials.
She said
the nine states in RGGI had already cut carbon dioxide emissions 40% from 2005
levels, and were aiming to halve carbon pollution by 2020. The new EPA rules
would be a “game-changer” for cap-and-trade.
Once Obama
makes his announcement on Monday, the clock starts ticking. The EPA will have
one year to take public comment from anyone from Greenpeace to Peabody Coal
before finalising the new standards in June 2015.
Once those
rules are final, the states will have one year, or until June 2016, to submit
their plans for meeting the new EPA targets.
With
Obama's term ending in January 2017, those are tight deadlines – especially
with the legal and political battles ahead. But it does put Obama in position
to fulfill the promises he made on climate change when he was first elected in
2008.
“This whole
suite of policies is getting us within shooting range of where we could have
been with a cap-and-trade bill,” said Vicki Arroyo, who heads the climate
centre at Georgetown
University law school. “If
the EPA is really restructuring programmes to take advantage of systems wide
benefits … then that is just huge.”
Carbon pollution Q&A: why
Obama's proposal could make climate history
EPA-drafted regulations could cut carbon emissions responsible for
climate change. Here's everything you need to know
Suzanne
Goldenberg, US
environment correspondent
Why is
Obama doing this instead of Congress?
The House
voted for cap and trade in 2009, but the bill died in the Senate. Congress has
shown no interest in taking up the issue – and half of the Republican members
deny climate change is occurring or oppose measures to cut emissions.
Obama said
last year he would use his executive authority to deal with climate change, and
now he is.
Why is this
a big deal in terms of climate change?
Climate
legislation would have imposed economy-wide limits on carbon pollution. With
that option off the table, this is the next best thing. Power plants are the
single biggest source of carbon pollution, responsible for up to 40% of the
carbon dioxide emissions that cause climate change. Much of that carbon
pollution is produced by burning coal, especially in old plants.
Obama
already cut emissions from the second biggest source – transport – with new
rules for cars during his first term.
Will they
still be able to keep the lights on without coal?
Yes. Cheap
natural gas, now available because of fracking, was already squeezing out coal
in power plants, and now accounts for about 30% of electricity generation,
according to official figures. Hydro, solar, wind, and geothermal power are
expanding and make up about 12%. Nuclear accounts for about 19%
Will this
mean many more nuclear plants?
Unlikely –
because of the multi-billion dollar price tags and long lead time in permitting
and construction. Energy experts expect the emissions reductions to come from
retrofits, expanding renewable power, and finding ways to reduce waste, such as
modernising the electricity grid.
What should
I look out for on Monday?
It's still
not clear how tough the new regulations will be. Industry and environment
groups will be looking at the emissions reductions target but just as much at
the starting and finishing lines. Carbon pollution from power plants has been
dropping since 2007, because of natural gas and the downturn. A 25% cut on 2005
levels would be much easier to reach than a 25% cut on the – already lower –
2012 levels. People will also be watching to see whether Obama sets even
stricter targets farther out in time, for 2030 or 2040.
