|« Back to Article|
Gridlock in DC fueled EPA proposal
Express-News Editorial Board : June 6, 2014 : Updated: June 6, 2014 4:44pm
Photo By David J. Phillip / Associated PressExhaust rises from smokestacks in front of piles of coal at an electricity generating plant near Houston. Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions and will have to work to meet the new standards proposed this week by the EPA.
SAN ANTONIO — There will undoubtedly be a legal and political fight over the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
At its root, though, the EPA's proposal, announced Monday, is a product of Congress' abject failure to address the effects of emissions — and the humans who produced them — on global climate.
Four years ago, a climate bill in the U.S. Senate stalled, reflecting a nagging inability by lawmakers to address complicated issues.
With scientific consensus that humans are contributing to recent climate change, and the tremendous environmental and economic consequences future generations will live with, the U.S. must take action.
Enter the EPA's proposal to slash carbon pollution from power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. This proposal has been cheered by environmentalists and renewable energy supporters and blasted by business interests, particularly the coal industry.
Texas will again be front and center in this debate about clean air.
The Lone Star State, largely because of population, leads the nation in carbon dioxide emissions. Our 2011 emissions were nearly double California's, which ranked second.
Everything is bigger in Texas, right?
Texas will have its work cut out to meet the EPA's proposed regulations. In 2012, Texas' power plants produced 1,298 pounds of carbon emissions per megawatt hour. That will have to drop to 791 pounds, the EPA has said.
Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is running for governor on the GOP ticket, has characterized the proposal as “a job-killing agenda” that he would fight, if elected.
We don't doubt his promise. Abbott has sued the EPA several times, often losing. The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled against Texas and other states that the EPA can regulate pollution from coal-fired power plants that wafts across state lines.
And in 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that the EPA can regulate not only vehicle emissions, but also the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change, unless science proved otherwise.
Science is not proving otherwise. Quite the opposite. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said there is a 95 percent certainty, or greater, that humans are the leading cause of recent warming.
In light of this judicial history and scientific urgency, Abbott should not fight the proposed regulation as attorney general or if elected governor. It is an unrealistic request, we know, but one dictated by facts on the ground — and in the air.
The EPA's proposal is deferential to state's rights. Perhaps too deferential. It offers incredible flexibility for states to achieve these tough emissions goals. These range from shutting down coal plants to relying on more renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power.
Another possibility would be interstate cap-and-trade programs.
There is an upside for Texas beyond just combating global warming. A switch from coal to natural gas could be a boon. Texas is rich in natural gas and would benefit from new markets.
Opponents will attack this proposal as a job killer. We see opportunity. To diversify our economy? Yes. But also to assert the United States as a global leader in clean energy and technical innovation.
Emerging economies such as China and India, two significant polluters, could well follow our example.
What's frightening here isn't the EPA's proposal. It is congressional failure to act in the face of clear and compelling evidence.
The administration's efforts to curb emissions are necessary because of this inaction. They are no substitute, however, for a broader effort that tackles emissions from all sources across the broad economic spectrum. Needed: a price on carbon, congressionally enacted.
Congress should expend no effort fighting the EPA on this; it should approve solutions of its own. And failure to do so should be considered at the polls this November.