Is Obama’s Biggest Climate Move Already Done?

Power-plant rules headline action plan, but fuel-economy standards could mean bigger cuts.

WASHINGTON - MAY 25: An enlarged label shows fuel economy information of a 2011 Nissan Leaf is displayed during a news conference to announce new fuel economy labels for auto vehicles at the Department of Transportation May 25, 2011 in Washington, DC. The new labels will provide more fuel efficiency information, including estimated annual fuel costs, savings, and information on vehicles' environmental impact. 
National Journal
Jason Plautz
June 2, 2014, 12:12 p.m.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion’s pro­pos­al for ex­ist­ing power plants to slash emis­sions by 30 per­cent by 2030 is be­ing hailed by sup­port­ers as the center­piece of the pres­id­ent’s cli­mate ac­tion plan.

But it’s pos­sible that Pres­id­ent Obama’s biggest cli­mate move came in his first term, when he ushered in rules that would double the fuel eco­nomy of vehicles by 2025. The fuel-eco­nomy and green­house-gas-emis­sions stand­ards for cars and light trucks fi­nal­ized in 2012 could make a big­ger dent in emis­sions than the power-plant rule, with more in­dustry in­volve­ment.

Those vehicle rules, which re­quire a fleetwide fuel-eco­nomy av­er­age of 54.5 miles per gal­lon by 2025, are pro­jec­ted by EPA to cut 580 mil­lion met­ric tons of green­house gases by 2030.

It’s tough to make a dir­ect com­par­is­on with the power-plant rules, but The Wash­ing­ton Post says those rules will cut 550 mil­lion met­ric tons by 2030 (ac­cord­ing to EPA’s rules, a state com­pli­ance mod­el would mean a re­duc­tion of 555 mil­lion met­ric tons, while a re­gion­al com­pli­ance ap­proach would mean 545).

Ex­perts say the flex­ib­il­ity built in­to the power-plant rule makes an ex­act fig­ure dif­fi­cult to es­tim­ate be­fore know­ing how states will choose to meet EPA’s 30 per­cent re­duc­tion goal.

Ac­cord­ing to EPA, elec­tri­city gen­er­a­tion is the na­tion’s largest source of green­house-gas emis­sions, con­trib­ut­ing 32 per­cent of the na­tion’s total. Trans­port­a­tion is a close second, ac­count­ing for 28 per­cent of green­house-gas emis­sions in 2012.

It’s also worth not­ing that while the power-plant stand­ards are al­most sure to be chal­lenged in court — po­ten­tially delay­ing or blunt­ing their im­pact — the fuel-eco­nomy stand­ards were craf­ted with the auto in­dustry’s in­put. Auto­makers, con­cerned about the threat of a state-by-state frac­tured ap­proach driv­en by Cali­for­nia, backed a single na­tion­wide stand­ard and helped ne­go­ti­ate the fi­nal res­ult.

While some Re­pub­lic­ans have said the fuel stand­ards will weak­en pub­lic safety and raise the cost of cars, there’s been little real move­ment to kill them. A 2012 re­port from House Over­sight Com­mit­tee Chair­man Dar­rell Issa al­leging that the rules were the res­ult of a back­room deal ul­ti­mately made little head­way.

A midterm re­view in 2017 could al­low the in­dustry to roll back the stand­ards in re­sponse to mar­ket con­cerns, but it’s too early to know how that re­view will go.

In a man­u­fac­tur­ers’ per­form­ance re­view cov­er­ing mod­el year 2012, EPA found that auto­makers are slightly ahead of pro­jec­ted emis­sion re­duc­tions for the first year of the stand­ards.

Dan Beck­er, ex­ec­ut­ive dir­ect­or of the Safe Cli­mate Cam­paign, said that loop­holes in both rules will ul­ti­mately dic­tate their ef­fic­acy, but that the in­dustry re­sponse to the fuel-eco­nomy stand­ards should provide a mod­el for util­it­ies.

“What we saw in the car rule was the in­ev­it­ab­il­ity that there would be changes forced the auto in­dustry to be­gin plan­ning well be­fore the ef­fect­ive date of the rules,” Beck­er said. “I ima­gine many in the util­ity sec­tor will be smart and say, ‘This is com­ing, let’s fig­ure out the most ef­fect­ive way to meet it.’ “

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
2 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
3 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×