Guest essay by Steven Capozzola, CAP Media
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preparing to finalize its Clean Power Plan, which aims to reduce power plant carbon dioxide emissions by 30% from 2005 levels over the next 15 years.
Looking at some of the best-case scenarios for CO2 reductions, the plan could potentially cut roughly 300 million tons of CO2 annually.
Because global man-made CO2 emissions reach roughly 30 billion tons annually, it’s estimated that the EPA plan could result in a possible 1% reduction in annual man-made CO2.
Overall, man-made CO2 accounts for only 4% of total atmospheric CO2. So the true atmospheric reduction in CO2 from the EPA plan would be approximately 0.04%.
The cost for this plan is estimated at $50 billion annually, with the loss of roughly 15,000 U.S. jobs each year. Increases in household utility bills could reach $100 billion annually.
These high costs have prompted diverse criticism.
Dr. Charles Steele, Jr., the president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), is troubled by the higher utility rates that consumers will face.
“The EPA’s plan will do next to nothing for global warming but will raise the cost of electricity for both homes and businesses,” said Dr. Steele. “As a person who has spent a lifetime fighting on behalf of poor people, this concerns me greatly.”
Terry Jarrett, who has served on both the Missouri Public Service Commission and the National Association of Regulatory Utilities Commissioners, says the potential risk to the U.S. electrical grid in term of lost generating capacity is significant.
“Under the EPA’s ‘Clean Power Plan,’ consumers will undoubtedly pay higher electricity bills,” said Jarrett. “But the more tragic problem is the possibility of widespread power outages during the coldest parts of winter. The EPA’s regulatory plan amounts to very reckless toying with the nation’s power grid.”
As the U.S. contemplates climate issues, one has to ask whether the EPA plan represents a sound approach, both logistically and financially.
On the other hand, China agrees with the EPA’s plan and they are our friends, right? I imagine North Korea would be on board with it as well as other countries who only have our best interests at heart, along with reputable organizations such as al qaeda and isis. It’s hard to say no to all that affirmation.
Effect of Going back to the Stone Age (minus Campfires)
“Eliminating all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 would reduce the warming by 0.014oC (as per the EPA MAGICC model). This is an amount of warming that is much smaller than the uncertainty in even measuring the global average temperature.”–Prof. Judith Curry, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
Georgia Institute of Technology
Help please! I struggle with the arguments concerning the contribution of fossil-fuel burning to the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere. I understand that the atmosphere is constantly exchanging CO2 with sources and sinks thereof, so for example the respiration of animals converts O2 to CO2, while that of plants takes in CO2 and produces O2. Similarly the oceans and the atmosphere exchange CO2 on the basis of the relative concentrations therein and the solubility of CO2 at the prevailing water temperature. In the absence of any fossil-fuel burning (and I guess volcanic activity), at a given global temperature distribution (not realistic I know, but bear with me), presumably a rough equilibrium will exist between CO2 absorbed from and given up to the atmosphere? If you then start up the power stations and generate “man-made” CO2 (the global temperature distribution staying more or less the same) this would increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere so that the previous equilibrium would be disrupted. With a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere the oceans would absorb more (and so too presumably would plants and other sinks) until a new equilibrium were achieved. This new equilibrium would involve a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. The bit I struggle with is why, when the fossil-fuel burning contribution to CO2 emissions is of the order of 4% (or so I have been led to believe), does the new equilibrium result in around a 30% increase in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? This seems excessive unless the sinks are close to saturation?
This is an easy answer. Run the EPA’s climate model with and without those changes? What is the difference?
Next!
There goes the neighborhood.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
We have met the enemy, and it is the EPA.
The right way to formulate an environmental policy by calculating it is to express its bottom line in human lives.
The Clean Air Act kills at least hundreds, probably thousands of people a year (by forcing them into smaller cars that don’t protect them in wrecks). Compare that to how many fewer people per year are killed by air pollution than in 1970 (when the Act took effect). I’d guess that number to be fewer than 20.
Result: everyone involved in enacting, enforcing, renewing, or strengthening the Act should be put on trial for murder.
But since the air is even cleaner now, obviously a similar calculation for the new bill will find against it even more strongly.
Then do similarly with the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and all other environmental laws.
I want the job of head prosecutor in a new agency that will carry out these reforms.
Yes, the correct job loss estimate due to the EPA’s clean power plan (according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) is 224,000/annually.
Here’s the link and key points:
https://www.uschamber.com/press-release/energy-institute-report-finds-potential-new-epa-carbon-regulations-will-damage-us
The analysis found that EPA’s potential new carbon regulations would:
-Lower U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $51 billion on average every year through 2030
-Lead to 224,000 fewer U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030
-Force U.S. consumers to pay $289 billion more for electricity through 2030
-Lower total disposable income for U.S. households by $586 billion through 2030