ursprünglich gepostet in:Secular Sevens
Obama announced [url=http://www.vox.com/2014/6/1/5770556/EPA-power-plant-rules-explainer]executive action[/url] that the EPA is set to take to put a limit on carbon emissions from power plants across the United States. The ultimate goal is to reduce emissions from the power industry by 30% from 2005 levels. Power plants make up about 40% of the CO2 emissions in the US, and overall emissions have already declined pretty significantly since 2005 because of the financial crisis (so a good deal of the effects of the policy will probably be in preventing a lasting growth-related increase), which means that the actual cut will be quite a bit less than 30% of total emissions in the US, but it's still a lot more than has ever been done on a federal level there to address climate change, as far as I'm aware.
The interesting thing, though, is the way it's being done. The EPA will set individual emissions limits for each state, and the respective state governments will have the freedom to choose how they meet those limits - they get to choose the best way to go about it (or they can go with something other than an ETS). As an Australian who's witnessed the big political fallout from federal implementation of a carbon price over the last few years, this seems like pretty clever politics, to me: set the limits and let the states have the big political arguments over how to handle it instead of giving the right room to pretend they're in favour of 'more efficient' ways to tackle climate change when in reality they're in favour of as little action as possible.
And that's really what this policy is: a workaround. Firstly, of congress, by using agency already vested via the executive branch of government, but also of the political argument by giving as little room as possible to a political opposition to do anything but deny the science (which they've also tried to sidestep by marketing it as a health initiative). There's the possibility that what the EPA is trying to do could get struck down in some way in the Supreme Court, which would be a serious shame, but for now it stands. I've got to say, I was sceptical when Obama insisted he would move along policy initiatives without congress that he'd be able to do anything of substance, but this bodes well for the rest of his term, even if, as is likely, little changes in the midterms.
Thoughts?
-
Bearbeitet von Diplomat: 6/14/2014 2:35:43 AM>set the limits and let the states have the big political arguments over how to handle it instead of giving the right room to pretend they're in favour of 'more efficient' ways to tackle climate change when in reality they're in favour of as little action as possible. Does the right really say this? I usually just see conservative pundits flat out deny the existence of climate change, while simultaneously saying that reducing emissions will elicit negative economic effects. To the people complaining: executive orders are not unconstitutional. They have a firm basis in the Constitution. George W Bush made 291 executive orders during his presidency, and Ronald Reagan made 381. Hell, FDR made over 3,500 executive orders during his tenure. Thus far, Obama has made less than 200. He's just using his bully pulpit to the greatest effect, like all presidents do. Edit: Oh, and it's likely that any Supreme Court action will target narrow issues (i.e. if the EPA can regulate the emissions of power plants under the authority it has to regulate new cars) over more controversial ones (if the EPA can regulate emissions at all). All in all, their efforts probably won't be dampened too much.
-
Thank you based reason.
-
Found a figure: coal mining jobs constitute less than a tenth of a percent of the labour force in the United States. I don't think that's nearly a significant enough figure for people to be too worried about the frictional unemployment that would be associated with the loss of a fraction of those jobs over 15 years, though I could be wrong.
-
Yay, more of Obama's "i dun get my way so ill just use executive orders"! And yay for endangering energy jobs that can put people out of work and increase energy costs! Obama is the best president ever!
-
Prepare for less jobs and rolling black outs. But of course it'll be bush's fault
-
lol anyone who thinks this is good economics, or will actually do anything to help the climate, is probably a liberal.
-
-
If the next thing he tells us we all need to buy a Prius I'm moving to Canada.
-
Notice how china is now on top they don't listen to all these liberal nuts
-
-
[quote]Thoughts?[/quote] I can see the opposition argument. OBUMMER IS BEING A TYRANT KING! REDUCING EMISSIONS IS GOING TO HURT THE ECONOMY! (I particularly love this one since the implication is that the economy is such a fragile and delicate thing that we can't do shit without fear of destroying it.) I'M BLIND OR SIMPLY DON'T CARE TO THE LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF OUR CURRENT SELF DESTRUCTIVE HABITS.
-
What a idiot economy>all other things seriously this is why we're in debt
-
KING OBAMER BIN LADEN IS TAKIN' MUH FREEDUMB!!
-
Next up, the US government should be funding the implementation of solar roads.
-
Bearbeitet von Madman Mordo: 6/4/2014 6:49:17 PMI'm not saying we shouldn't try to cut our CO2 emissions down by a substantial degree, but at this stage we've pretty much passed the point of no return in regards to climate change even if we did somehow magically cease all CO2 emissions globally. This could've, and should've been implemented earlier.
-
Why people are saying Obama is taking jobs away itt, when [url=http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000]there has been consistent job gaining and the unemployment rate has been dropping[/url] in the recent years, I will never know. I'm in favor of this. Oil and coal isn't going to keep us alive forever. I mean, it's not like scientists have already stated that we can't reverse what we did.
-
Great, now my electric bill will go up even more... Thanks Obama
-
I'm glad, but the fact that it took this long for laws to be made over the environment is quite disappointing to me.
-
It should be a step in the right direction. Time will tell though.
-
Glowball Warning!
-
I can't wait for states to turn toward nuclear energy and the EPA put in a cap on that as well.
-
Too bad he isn't the President of India and China. Nothing more than lip service until they clean up their acts.
-
-
Should have happened years ago. Probably too little too late.