Analyzing the EPA's decision to cut the Clean Power Plan
OUR MISSION: The
mission of the EPA is to protect human health and the environment.
Look at the Environmental Protection Agency website and that
sentence stands by itself at the top of the mission page. Now, note the comments made by EPA
Administrator Scott Pruitt upon the rescinding of the Clean Power Plan: “The
war on coal is over”, he said, and he focused on jobs when pressed about the
consequences of his decision. This alone
shows how the dismissal of the Clean Power Plan this past week is yet another
example of unethical politics as this administration ignores their moral
obligation to the country, but let’s delve further into the situation to
explain why this is so.
First, though, let’s put this in perspective with a strikingly
similar example that we’ve seen in our recent past. When research started to come out about the
dangers of cigarettes, many people didn’t want to believe it. The tobacco industry and their supporters paid for their
own ‘research’ that supposedly disputed these findings and confused much of the
public for a while. ‘Big Tobacco’ spent
large amounts of money on lobbying efforts and, thus, had some politicians in
their corner. Besides, it would ‘harm
jobs and local economies to regulate tobacco’, they argued. Does any of this sound familiar? Luckily, smarter and more ethical heads
prevailed and we’re much healthier for it.
And, of course, cigarettes and tobacco are still around, just as coal would
be, but they are regulated and the dangers are muted as the health implications are now well accepted and undeniable. Can
you imagine that, if instead, we had our president and head of an organization
tasked with improving the health of American citizens saying that the ‘war on
cigarettes is over’, disputing the science, and encouraging the opening of more cigarette manufacturing
companies to bring about job growth? Hopefully,
that sounds as asinine to you as it should.
Some will say that it's not the same thing, and it's not. But, hopefully, you can see the direct parallels to Trump and Pruitt’s
actions.
·
EPA - Their title is the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION Agency. Their mission is to
protect the human HEALTH and the ENVIRONMENT.
Yes, other factors of course play a role, but Pruitt makes no secret
that he is favoring the coal industry and his close ties to the oil and gas
industry are well known. Obviously,
though, helping the coal industry is NOT HIS JOB! I can understand saying that there is a
possibility that the regulations may have been too stringent, but then tell us what your suggestion or plan is before disbanding the regulations all together. His goal
clearly appears to be helping the polluters over any improvement to health and
environment.
·
Okay, he has made it clear that he wants to take into
account how businesses are affected, so let’s think like a successful business
for a second. First of all, a target is
typically set to stretch the company’s or employee’s ingenuity and resources
and is not something that you already know you can meet. Most of us learn that at a young age. Perhaps more importantly, though, if the target
is found to be too difficult, maybe you adjust it a bit to make the target a
little more reasonable. You don’t just
do away with the target altogether without a replacement, and you most
definitely don’t go in the complete opposite direction, as promoting coal
companies would do in this case.
·
Most complaints about the efficacy of the CPP
focus on the CO2 information, but that is just part of the
issue. Remember that the mission of the
EPA is to protect human health and the environment. Well, there is a scientific consensus that
there is NO SAFE LEVEL of coal-fired power plant pollution that is healthy to
breathe. They have literally found NO
threshold, says George Thurston, professor of environmental medicine at NYU,
and saying otherwise is ‘completely in conflict with scientific knowledge’. Therefore, doing away with the CPP without
any kind of replacement in place while promoting coal burning plants goes directly against their mission. Harmful effects of climate related changes are
widely accepted and most serious to children.
Specifically related to CO2 emissions, here is just one study, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3196488/. You can easily look up data on asthma, illnesses, and
deaths related to pollution. Just make
sure to use common sense. Look at data
comparing more polluted vs. less polluted areas and direct relations to
diseases with pollution. Many will
confuse the issue by showing such things as asthma rates rising even as air
quality improves, but this is obviously because of dramatic rises in other
asthma contributing factors such as obesity.
·
You may be arguing that the EPA is working on a
replacement based on a few statements and stories put out there. First, it’s a requirement that the EPA accept public comment on the repeal and a
discussion on a replacement and that, obviously, should have been done in
advance of repealing the CPP. But, believe
it or not, it’s right in their proposal to cut the CPP that the EPA has yet to
determine whether or not they will
create an additional rule on the regulation of greenhouse gasses!
·
Those who focus their argument on scientific
factors say that the CPP was useless because the calculations show it potentially
would only have resulted in a 2% reduction in atmospheric CO2 and 0.01 degree C
drop in temperature. On the face of it,
this sounds like a fair and cogent argument. The
problem is that it is such a short-sighted, biased, and morally lacking
argument as to be scary in its implications.
As mentioned previously, the CPP also improved breathing conditions from
coal-fired plants, and it also addressed SO2 and NOx
emissions (remember acid rain and smog?), both of which have significant
health effects. But, to specifically
address the CO2 and temperature data, we knew when the plan was put into place
that it was possible that those changes by the US alone may be small, especially
in the short term, which is why it’s vital to educate yourself on why the plan
was implemented. For one, CO2 effects on
climate extend potentially thousands of years after emissions cease as it
lingers in the atmosphere1. We
were the first, and worst, at putting these pollutants into the air and the
rest of the world followed. The US is
(was?) looked upon as a world leader. Now,
seeing the damage and extreme danger, we attempted to do the opposite; to do
our part to clean up the environment and set an example that would be the impetus
for the rest of the world to follow.
This was essential because the data shows that it’s going to take a
world-wide effort to possibly make the needed changes to meet the necessary
differences in levels. And, it worked. China, another historically large CO2
polluter, submitted a plan to the U.N. to reduce fossil fuel emissions, and
almost every other country across the globe has pledged to address the issue. So, what does the US do now? We not only decide the plan is not worth it
for us, but we go even further and plan to go back to putting MORE pollutants
into the air! I guess, for this
administration, the wealth of the rich is more important than the health of the
people. Luckily, at this point, it looks like we’ve lost our role as a leader and we’re looked upon as
fools, in this area at least, and other countries are sticking to their plans,
probably because they also see an economic and political power benefit from it
as well as environmental and recognize the shifting tides in energy. Hopefully, our lack of foresight doesn’t
result in other countries deciding to follow in our footsteps.
·
Finally, the EPA has both a LEGAL and MORAL
obligation to limit carbon pollution. The
‘endangerment finding’ was issued in 2009 after the US Supreme Court ruled in
2007 (and upheld in 2012) that the ‘EPA not only had the authority to regulate climate
gases as pollutants under the federal Clean Air Act, but was obligated to do
so. The court directed the EPA to examine the scientific evidence and determine
if greenhouse gases posed a threat to the public. The EPA did that — examining everything from
the potential for more damaging hurricanes, to death rates due to ozone and
heat exposure, to deadly exposure to pathogens — and concluded in unambiguous
terms that there was “compelling” reason to believe the gases threaten the
health of Americans, and that the threat would get worse. The agency’s conclusion rested on thousands
of pages of peer-reviewed research, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, from the U.S. Global Climate Research Program, and from the National
Research Council. The agency wrote its rules and subjected them to public
criticism. The public submitted voluminous comments, all of which were reviewed
by the EPA before it issued a final rule.’ (https://www.propublica.org/article/is-the-epa-landmark-endangerment-finding-now-itself-imperiled).
So, no
matter what the head of the agency or the president thinks they believe, they
are legally required to act on carbon emissions unless they have the facts to
the contrary to prove their case.
What’s right for the greater good and long-lasting benefits
to human beings? Let’s put our focus on
making the world the best possible place for both us and our future generations
so they can continue to thrive. That
SHOULD be the priority, especially when that’s your job!
No comments:
Post a Comment