The Register's Editorial: New EPA rules important for Iowa and Earth
There has been a lot of talk about the effect of climate change on agriculture, cities, people and economies. Now there might actually be some action.
A new federal goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions was announced Monday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is a step toward a modest reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide from the production of electricity. That carbon dioxide is the primary source of the heat-trapping gas that is blamed for the rising temperatures that are already having a serious affect on global climate.
The EPA proposal should be applauded — and implemented.
The EPA wants to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent over the next 15 years. This would be achieved largely by reducing reliance on existing coal-powered electric generation. That includes shifting to natural gas, wind and solar power and increasing energy efficiency so we burn less coal.
The EPA laid the groundwork for this proposal by meeting with state and local officials, power industry groups and inviting public comment. Each state will have at least two years to chart its own course for meeting the goals tailored to its existing carbon output by 2030.
Iowa is already ahead of the game. By 2016, four Iowa utilities will have closed 13 coal-burning electric generating units, some of which are more than 60 years old. Iowa utilities have largely replaced this generating capacity with wind power, and they have made strides toward more efficiency to rely less on burning coal.
Still, the proposed carbon-reduction goal was denounced even before the details were released. Opponents of federal regulations in general and the Obama administration in particular went on the attack, saying the new EPA strategy would cost jobs, increase energy costs and hurt the economy. The EPA said that reducing air pollution from power plants will create jobs and grow the economy. It is far too soon to say which is true without having more information about how the proposed rules would affect each state.
The predictable attack is a response not to the merits of the proposed regulations but on the very idea of the government regulating carbon emissions. Some of the criticism is not only misplaced but was based on inaccurate predictions of what the EPA would propose. The critics reacted without waiting to read the 645-page document.
The question is whether the federal government should attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The answer is yes if we care about the quality of life of our children, grandchildren and generations beyond. Climate change is already affecting the intensity of storms and in the future will have a profound effect on the planet in many ways.
Even assuming scientists are wrong about the cause of climate change, the new regulations will mean energy will be conserved, renewable fuels will reduce coal burning and the air and people's lungs will be cleaner.
The fact is, energy production in this country has long been regulated by the states and the federal government to assure clean, reliable and affordable energy for business, industry and homeowners.
Since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, the federal government has regulated the pollutants power plants can put into the air. Many utilities already have invested in equipment to lower emissions. But that's not enough.
Coal still represents the largest single source of power generation in this country, and it will be the major source for many years to come. But there are realistic alternatives. Many of America's coal-fired power plants are reaching the end of their life cycles, and it makes sense to give power generators incentive to begin finding cleaner alternatives now.
The fate of the Earth may depend on it.
READ THE RULES
You can read the proposed goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions at EPA.gov.