Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Editorial

News Opinion Editorial

Lighting the way on climate change

The regulations released last week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to limit carbon emissions from new power plants are so clearly necessary — and have been in the works for years — that it's difficult to even think of them as somehow controversial. That is, unless, one continues to deny the existence of man-made climate change.

If you are a denier, well, there's not much to be said on the subject. It requires only that you ignore that global warming is happening at an unprecedented rate, that the heat-trapping effects of carbon dioxide have been documented since the mid-19th century, and that oceans are warming, sea levels are rising and glaciers have been retreating to a record extent.

Coal-fired power plants are a major contributor of greenhouse gases and, as the U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed, the EPA has the authority to regulate those emissions as pollutants. For the agency to have ignored what is so obviously the most pressing environmental issue of our times would have been the real outrage.

But easily lost in the rule-making are two critical points. First, the EPA has not banned coal-fired power plants but has set stricter emissions standards. It's possible for a new plant to meet them, but it will require technology to capture and store carbon. At least four U.S. plants are either planned or currently under construction that will have such an ability.

Second, these regulations are hardly the death-knell for coal — at least not in and of themselves. That industry faces many other pressing issues, from the other pollutants that burning coal produces, such as mercury and arsenic, to competition from natural gas. The rise of hydraulic fracturing has made natural gas a far more affordable alternative fuel for power generation, particularly as it produces less carbon.

That's a big reason why the outlook for U.S. coal, at least for domestic use, was lousy long before the EPA published the new rules. That's not a happy situation for coal-producing regions of the country, including Western Maryland, but job losses in Appalachian coal mines are not an adequate reason to ignore dirty, coal-burning power plants that generate an estimated one-third of U.S.-produced greenhouse gases.

The more challenging regulations aren't expected until next year when the EPA tackles greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. Should the agency require plants to be retrofitted with carbon capture technology or gradually be shuttered, the economic impact will be considerably larger. But that is a fight for another day.

Critics are correct about one thing. It likely would have been better if Congress had been writing the rules on greenhouse gas emissions and developed them as part of a broader energy policy. But as this week's standoff over financing government and defunding health care reform has proven so masterfully, Washington has become far too dysfunctional and partisan to handle anything more debatable than putting air traffic controllers back to work after their jobs were foolishly trimmed by sequestration.

What they have wrong is that this is somehow an affront to the economy or to middle-class families. Whatever increase in energy costs these rules may entail — and it's not even clear that there will be much of one — it pales compared to the consequences of climate change and the costly devastation that it may well represent.

In a hearing last week, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was asked how the new rules will reduce specific climate change measures like droughts or heat-related deaths. She said it's not possible to predict. But what she did make clear is that reducing carbon emissions will make it possible for the U.S. to convince other nations to take similar measures. And when countries like China and India are on board, real progress on carbon may be possible.

Maryland has more to lose than most states should the U.S. and other countries fail to take action, as ocean levels could rise two to six feet by the end of the century. That makes this not part of an Obama administration "war on jobs" that some conservatives claim but a war for self-preservation in the face of a looming and very real threat.

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • The wrong turn in the Arctic

    The wrong turn in the Arctic

    Nobody in their right mind vacations in the Chukchi or Beaufort seas. Only hard core geography buffs can even name them. Instagram isn't filled with photographs of close encounters with Arctic whales or polar bears. It is a cold and hostile environment.

  • The danger of climate denial

    The danger of climate denial

    It's Memorial Day, and the forecast is for renewed mocking and derision regarding man-made climate change from the know-nothing, science-averse wing of the Republican Party. President Barack Obama's warning — issued during his commencement address at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduation ceremonies...

  • Elsa and Olaf: climate change ambassadors

    Elsa and Olaf: climate change ambassadors

    Do you want to build a snowman?

  • Maryland needs renewable energy

    Maryland needs renewable energy

    The first day of spring ironically delivered another snowstorm in Maryland ("Before spring, snow threatens Baltimore once more," March 19). Fluke weather patterns are expected to become more severe as climate change persists. The extreme shifts from warm sunny days to cold, wintry ones takes a...

  • Climate change is real (despite what some Md. legislators say)

    Climate change is real (despite what some Md. legislators say)

    I'm glad the climate change bill was approved by the Maryland Senate but sorry to see it passed strictly along partisan lines ("Climate change bill passes Senate on party line vote," March 10).

  • Snow falls, climate changes

    Snow falls, climate changes

    For those who have found the cold, snowy winter of 2014-2015 more than mildly irritating and the words, "be grateful you don't live in Boston" insufficiently comforting, today's snowfall may have pushed you over the edge. Not only because it shut down schools, governments and businesses and left...

  • Romney's climate change conversion

    Romney's climate change conversion

    I couldn't help noting the irony of your recent editorial on the last days of climate-change denial appearing shortly after Mitt Romney announced his decision not to run for the White House in 2016 ("Last gasp for climate change denial?" Feb. 2).

  • Last gasp for climate change denial?

    Last gasp for climate change denial?

    Editor's note: This editorial has been updated to reflect that Resources for the Future is not a part of Stanford University. The Sun regrets the error. 

Comments
Loading

54°