What Angers Environmentalists About Obama’s Global-Warming Rule

A lion is given a shower to cool down as temperatures rise at a zoological park in the Indian city of Jamshedpur on May 2, 2014. As temperatures continued to rise across northern India, Meteorological Department officials predicted a high of 42 degrees by the end of the week. 
National Journal
Add to Briefcase
Clare Foran
June 2, 2014, 6:42 a.m.

Green groups are pub­licly prais­ing Pres­id­ent Obama’s glob­al-warm­ing rules, but the plan doesn’t go as far as many had hoped — and the groups are pre­par­ing a fight to toughen the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s pro­posed car­bon cuts.

The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency re­leased draft reg­u­la­tions on Monday that the agency says would cut power plants’ green­house-gas emis­sions by 30 per­cent from their 2005 levels by 2030.

Green groups are flum­moxed over the use of the 2005 baseline, which is more in line with what power-plant op­er­at­ors asked for than what en­vir­on­ment­al­ists de­man­ded.

Here’s why: Car­bon emis­sions from the U.S. power sec­tor have fallen since 2005, a de­crease at­trib­ut­able to the eco­nom­ic down­turn and a switchover to nat­ur­al gas and away from car­bon-heavy coal. Giv­en that de­cline, en­vir­on­ment­al­ists lob­bied the ad­min­is­tra­tion for cuts re­l­at­ive to a more re­cent baselines year, when emis­sions were lower than in 2005, be­cause that would rep­res­ent a great­er total re­duc­tion.

But that’s not what the greens got.

And as res­ult of the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s 2005 baseline, power plants are already well on their way to meet­ing the tar­get. Ac­cord­ing to EPA, car­bon pol­lu­tion from elec­tri­city gen­er­a­tion de­creased by 16 per­cent from 2005 to 2012, a re­duc­tion that re­gisters as roughly half of the 30 per­cent tar­get man­dated by the reg­u­la­tion.

That’s left some en­vir­on­ment­al­ists dis­ap­poin­ted. “It sounds like a riddle: When is 30 per­cent not really 30 per­cent? When it’s 30 per­cent of an in­flated baseline,” said Frank O’Don­nell, the pres­id­ent of Clean Air Watch.

The next step, green groups say, is to press the ad­min­is­tra­tion for a more strin­gent stand­ard. The rule isn’t ex­pec­ted to be fi­nal­ized un­til June 2015 — and between now and then, EPA will be the sub­ject of massive lob­by­ing ef­forts from greens and in­dustry ad­voc­ates alike.

“We’re fo­cused on the near-term tar­get — 25 per­cent be­low 2005 by 2020. This is a strong tar­get but we think even more is pos­sible us­ing some of the com­pli­ance op­tions that EPA laid out, par­tic­u­larly en­ergy ef­fi­ciency. We’ll be work­ing to show EPA this via our com­ments,” said Lena Mof­fitt, Na­tion­al Wild­life Fed­er­a­tion’s cli­mate and en­ergy pro­gram man­ager.

Greens’ baseline beef doesn’t mean they won’t fight tooth-and-nail to de­fend the rule as a whole. En­vir­on­ment­al­ists are wa­ging a two-track battle aimed at do­ing everything they can to win pub­lic sup­port for the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s car­bon reg­u­la­tions while more quietly push­ing of­fi­cials to make them stronger.

“There is no doubt that health and en­vir­on­ment­al groups will heap praise on this pro­pos­al, since it is the only game in town when it comes to cut­ting car­bon from power plants. But I be­lieve groups will also press for the strongest pos­sible fi­nal stand­ard,” O’Don­nell said.

That ten­sion speaks to the un­der­ly­ing re­la­tion­ship between green groups and Obama’s White House. It’s a close al­le­gi­ance, but there are cracks over the pres­id­ent’s vo­cal praise for fossil-fuel de­vel­op­ment — par­tic­u­larly nat­ur­al gas, which yields few­er emis­sions per power unit than oil and coal.


Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.