President Obama Takes Positive Action on Climate Change

Speaking from the historic steps of Old North on the Georgetown University campus on June 25, 2013, President Obama unveiled a detailed plan to address the causes and impacts of climate change. In his words, the president promised, “I’m directing the Environmental Protection Agency to put an end to the limitless dumping of carbon pollution from our power plants, and complete new pollution standards for both new and existing power plants.”

Not quite a year later on June 6, 2014, Gina McCarthy, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, responded by proposing “state-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide emissions from the power sector, as well as guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to achieve the state-specific goals.” Accordingly, “states may rely on measures that they already have in place, including renewable energy standards and demand-side energy efficiency programs, and the proposal details how such existing state programs can be incorporated into state plans. States will also be able to participate in multi-state programs that already exist or may create new ones.” In other words, each state will have specific goals that may be met according to methods developed at the state level. By 2020, the United States will decrease carbon emissions from existing power plants by 25 percent from 2005 values and by 2030, by 30 percent from 2005 levels.

This historic event is the first time a president of the United States has taken action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama did so using the authority granted to him by the Clean Air Act of 1970 that was signed by President Nixon after being passed unanimously by the Senate and one vote shy (375 to 1) of being passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. He did so with the sanction of the Supreme Court who, in 2007, ruled that greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide emissions came under the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of “air pollutant.” He did so alone because today’s Congress is unable to pass any legislation limiting the emissions of carbon dioxide, thus forcing the president to act.

The choice of 2005 as the base year for emissions reduction is an important one. It matches the time frame set by the U.N., who in 2009 targeted a 17 percent emissions reduction in all sectors of the economy from the base year 2005 to 2020. After rising from 1990, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions peaked in 2005, then dropped in 2012, decreasing by10 percent below 2005 levels. This decrease was due to many factors: a turn down in the economy from 2007 to 2009; a decrease in the carbon intensity of fuels consumed by power producers paralleling a decrease in the price of natural gas; a decrease in transportation sector emissions attributed to an increase in fuel efficiency across different transportation modes and limited new demand for passenger transportation; and warmer winter conditions resulting in a decreased demand for heating fuel in the residential and commercial sectors. The electric power sector is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for 2.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide emission in 2005 and slightly over 2 billion tons in 2013. Thus, we are already 0.4 billion tons toward satisfying these new goals without any proposed intervention.

Consequently, because of this head start, the 2025 emissions goal can be reached with only a fraction of coal power plants converting to gas or renewable energy. Moreover, if a state wishes to cut down the use of electricity through efficiency or smarter grids, this goal can be reached with a minimal impact on the actual operation of the power plants.

Even though this action causes only a minimal decrease in the emission of greenhouse gasses, it still is a major accomplishment in the war on climate change. Domestically, it sets the tone for people to accept changes in the source of energy from fossil fuels to renewables as well as for finding alternative ways of reducing carbon emissions. Such a positive change in attitude can result in the opening of new and vital markets, investments in new and better technologies and eventually the creation of new jobs. Internationally, this action will tell the world we are serious about saving the planet. The U. S. is the major factor in world economics, politics, and society. If we don’t react positively to climate change, we can hardly expect others to do so. China has already shown that they would benefit by cutting down the dense pollution they have from the massive burning of coal. If they see the U.S. factoring the environment into our economic equations, they will feel more inclined to do so, even if it is just to remain competitive in the world market place. Others will follow. Then perhaps everyone may have a chance for a better future and a more vibrant world to live in.

Ron Sass, Ph.D., is the fellow in global climate change at the Baker Institute and the Harry C. and Olga K. Wiess Professor of Natural Sciences emeritus at Rice University. He consulted for the Environmental Protection Agency and advised the United Nations Development Programme Interregional Research Program on methane emission from rice fields in Asia. His work with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change helped establish guidelines and values for national greenhouse gas inventories throughout the world.

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.