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 »
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”
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.”