Summary: Made in accordance to the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) was an Obama-era legislation that aimed to scale back carbon emission from power plants by 32% from their 2005 levels by 2030 (The Economist). The plan has yet to come into effect due to legal challenges by coal states, but on August 21, 2018, the Trump administration introduced a new legislation, the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule to replace the CPP before it even comes into effect. The ACE essentially allows states to decide their own emission reduction targets -- according to the EPA, this plan would increase coal use by as much as 9.5% by 2035 (The Economist). Most reductions in noxious gas emissions imposed by the new plan is considerably less ambitious. For example, according to The Economist, whereas the CPP is would reduce sulfur-dioxide and nitrogen-oxide by more than 20%, ACE would only reduce these gases by 1-2%. Further analysis by The Economist predicts that like the CPP, ACE would likely face legal challenges; it is unlikely for the new proposal to be enacted before Trump’s term ends.
Opinion: Just from the statistics, I find ACE a disturbing replacement to the CPP. The Economist explains that the market itself is beginning to rely less on coal and more on Natural Gas (a fuel cheaper, cleaner, and more readily available due to fracking -- which is the extraction of gas from underground rock). Renewable energy is becoming less expensive and more viable as an alternative, and mining of coal itself has become more efficient due to automation (therefore needing less workers). The market can handle less coal, there’s less demand for coal and coal workers, so why adopt ACE? Even if coal production was increased, I feel like it wouldn’t create that many more jobs because of automation -- if the government really wanted to preserve jobs for the “little guy,” they should focus on AI and machinery regulation which can replace human workers -- just saying.
Questions:
--Discuss the Affordable Clean Energy rule. Is it something that worries you?
--Why do you think the Trump administration made this proposal? Who are they trying to appeal to? --Discuss the politics behind climate change.
--Would allowing more coal output generate a significant amount of additional jobs? Do your own research and discuss.
--Do you agree with the Economist’s analysis that the lessening use of coal is more due to market than government intervention? Why or why not?
Sources:
2 comments:
The Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule definitely worries me, considering the fact that it would only reduce harmful gases by 1-2%, which is barely anything in comparison to what the Clean Power Plan (CPP) could have accomplished in the estimate provided by the article, which states that a 20% decrease in these gas emissions could have been achieved. Fracking also harms our biosphere as well, so I believe that either way, giving states that might have their own motives the power to decide their own emission reduction targets is heavily loosening up on regulations that were previously protecting resources from being deplenished too quickly.
Aside from the obvious environmentalist concerns, I also think that allowing more coal output will not necessarily generate a significant amount of additional jobs. According to an article in the New York Times from a year ago, "Today’s Energy Jobs Are in Solar, Not Coal," there are statistics from the Department of Energy that suggest that solar energy jobs can be twice as abundant as coal ones, although at the same time, while "solar has more jobs across the country... coal is a more important employer in some states." Maybe lowering coal output will target certain states more than others, but following that same logic, by increasing coal output, certain states will be able to benefit while others will not have such an advantage.
By making this proposal, the Trump administration could definitely be trying to appeal to states like Wyoming and West Virginia, which both voted for Trump in the last presidential election, and also to companies that want to keep a competitive presence in the market and don't want to lag behind other companies in different nations that might not be bogged down by regulations about their energy sources; the issue of whether or not climate change is considered a crisis to address immediately plays a role in this new decision that gives states the power to decide their own limitations.
Finally, while I see the point that the Economist makes about market demand lessening the use of coal, I think the ACE can still help prop up the coal industry and potentially increase said industry's prevalence through its very existence, especially considering how the coal industry is more concentrated in certain states than in others, so I don't necessarily agree that government intervention has a lesser impact on the usage of coal.
Post a Comment