Obama’s Big Climate Plan Is Now Final—and It’s Even Stronger Than Expected

But there’s still much more to do.

Drop of Light/Shutterstock

t’s finally here, the biggest climate action of Obama’s presidency: On Monday morning, the EPA will issue a final Clean Power Plan rule that will, for the first time, govern carbon emissions from power plants. And it’s stronger in several ways than the draft plan that was released in June 2014.

The White House began bragging about its accomplishment on Sunday. First it released a feel-good video. Then there was a press call with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. On Monday, President Obama himself will speak about the plan.

Even before any of that, the accolades from environmental and public health groups started rolling in. Carol Browner, former EPA administrator and now chair of the League of Conservation Voters, was typical in calling it “a visionary policy that sets our nation on the path to cleaner, renewable energy for the future.”

Here’s why: The Clean Power Plan, assuming it survives legal challenges, is set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. It’s the biggest component of Obama’s Climate Action Plan, and the centerpiece of any realistic program to meet our emission-reduction pledges from the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and the intended targets we have outlined ahead of the Paris climate talks that will take place later this year.

Read the rest at Grist.

 

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1OLsW6t

But there’s still much more to do.

Drop of Light/Shutterstock

t’s finally here, the biggest climate action of Obama’s presidency: On Monday morning, the EPA will issue a final Clean Power Plan rule that will, for the first time, govern carbon emissions from power plants. And it’s stronger in several ways than the draft plan that was released in June 2014.

The White House began bragging about its accomplishment on Sunday. First it released a feel-good video. Then there was a press call with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. On Monday, President Obama himself will speak about the plan.

Even before any of that, the accolades from environmental and public health groups started rolling in. Carol Browner, former EPA administrator and now chair of the League of Conservation Voters, was typical in calling it “a visionary policy that sets our nation on the path to cleaner, renewable energy for the future.”

Here’s why: The Clean Power Plan, assuming it survives legal challenges, is set to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. It’s the biggest component of Obama’s Climate Action Plan, and the centerpiece of any realistic program to meet our emission-reduction pledges from the 2009 Copenhagen Accord and the intended targets we have outlined ahead of the Paris climate talks that will take place later this year.

Read the rest at Grist.

 

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1OLsW6t

Statistics says the long-term global warming trend continues

A new study has just been prepared for an upcoming climate meeting of the US Climate Variability and Predictability Program. This group has an annual summit and this year will have a special science session with papers and presentations devoted to the so-called “hiatus”. The “hiatus” has taken many meanings. In the popular press, it is often used to falsely claim that global warming stopped. As I’ve written many times, global warming has not stopped; the Earth has been continuing to gain energy because of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In other cases, the “hiatus” refers to a reported slowdown in temperature increases. This too is not seen in the ocean data or in sea level rise. It is only seen in surface temperatures (temperatures of the surface of land and ocean regions). 

What my colleague and I wanted to know was, is this slowdown real or not? Specifically, we wanted to know whether it passed mathematical tests for statistical significance. My colleague, who is an expert is statistics, and operates a climate website, downloaded the surface temperature data from NASA and detrended it (removed the long term increase in temperatures). The difference between the red trendline and the black dots is called the residual. We wanted to increase the odds that we would find a “hiatus” by stopping our analysis in 2013 (omitted the hottest year on record, 2014).

NASA temperature anomalies from Foster and Abraham, 2015.

If you plot the residual over this time period, it looks like the image below.

NASA temperature residuals from Foster and Abraham, 2015.

We wanted to know whether there is any trend in these residuals. If the global warming trend had slowed recently, you would expect residuals to become more negative. We found that there was no statistically significant change to the residuals since 1970.

Next, we grouped years together into groups that ranged from 3 years long to 20 years long and searched for changes to the residuals in those groups. Again, we found no significant change. Our findings are best summarized by our concluding paragraphs.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1KMENQQ

A new study has just been prepared for an upcoming climate meeting of the US Climate Variability and Predictability Program. This group has an annual summit and this year will have a special science session with papers and presentations devoted to the so-called “hiatus”. The “hiatus” has taken many meanings. In the popular press, it is often used to falsely claim that global warming stopped. As I’ve written many times, global warming has not stopped; the Earth has been continuing to gain energy because of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

In other cases, the “hiatus” refers to a reported slowdown in temperature increases. This too is not seen in the ocean data or in sea level rise. It is only seen in surface temperatures (temperatures of the surface of land and ocean regions). 

What my colleague and I wanted to know was, is this slowdown real or not? Specifically, we wanted to know whether it passed mathematical tests for statistical significance. My colleague, who is an expert is statistics, and operates a climate website, downloaded the surface temperature data from NASA and detrended it (removed the long term increase in temperatures). The difference between the red trendline and the black dots is called the residual. We wanted to increase the odds that we would find a “hiatus” by stopping our analysis in 2013 (omitted the hottest year on record, 2014).

NASA temperature anomalies from Foster and Abraham, 2015.

If you plot the residual over this time period, it looks like the image below.

NASA temperature residuals from Foster and Abraham, 2015.

We wanted to know whether there is any trend in these residuals. If the global warming trend had slowed recently, you would expect residuals to become more negative. We found that there was no statistically significant change to the residuals since 1970.

Next, we grouped years together into groups that ranged from 3 years long to 20 years long and searched for changes to the residuals in those groups. Again, we found no significant change. Our findings are best summarized by our concluding paragraphs.

Click here to read the rest

from Skeptical Science http://ift.tt/1KMENQQ

A ‘simple urine test’ for pancreatic cancer? Not just yet.

Pancreatic cancer has one of the poorest survival rates of any common cancers, with only three per cent of patients still alive five years after diagnosis.

And despite our advances in understanding the disease, this figure has barely budged in the last 40 years.

One reason for the lack of improvement is pancreatic cancer often doesn’t have early-stage symptoms, and so is often very advanced by the time patients are diagnosed.

In fact, more than eight out of 10 people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when their cancer has already spread, which means that surgery to remove the tumour is sadly no longer an option.

But at the moment, there are no reliable ways to detect the disease early – and one is desperately needed.

So, naturally, when one catches wind of any advances in early detection in the pancreatic cancer field, there’s always a certain amount of raised hope and excitement.

Possibly a bit too much excitement, as is the case with today’s story.

Today’s headlines read “simple urine test” for pancreatic cancer – but as we’ve said before these tests are rarely “simple” and in many cases, like this one, they aren’t even ‘tests’ yet.

So what’s the actual story?

A step forward

While there is a protein in the blood, CA19-9, which some pancreatic cancers secrete, it’s not produced by all types of tumours. This is why at the moment it‘s used by doctors alongside other tests to help diagnose patients who are already suspected of having the disease.

And while some research has shown CA19-9 levels might be raised in patients up to two years before they’re diagnosed, it’s not yet accurate enough to use to diagnose patients.

So a team of scientists at Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, decided to look for proteins in urine that could help identify patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer.

One of the advantages of a urine-based test is that urine is, in general, much less complex to analyse and less invasive to collect.

Find out more about pancreatic cancer by watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1fh4FQs1p4

To find out if there were any measurable signs linked to cancer, the team – led by Dr Tatjana Crnogorac-Jurcevic – looked at levels of 1,500 proteins in urine samples from 18 patients – six of whom had pancreatic cancer, six who had a benign inflammatory disease of the pancreas called chronic pancreatitis (which can increase your risk of developing pancreatic cancer) and six healthy individuals.

They noticed that three proteins – LYVE-1, REG1A and TFF1 – were higher in pancreatic cancer patients.

These proteins, they suspected, could potentially be used to help distinguish patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer from healthy individuals.

And further studies they carried out, in a larger number of patients, showed tentative signs that this might be the case.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, there’s still a long way to go before we know if this research could lead to a test that would help detect pancreatic cancer early.

The study only validated how well these three proteins predicted things using 488 urine samples, from 192 patients with pancreatic cancer, 92 patients with chronic pancreatitis and 87 health volunteers.

This analysis showed that urine from patients with pancreatic cancer showed elevated levels of each of the three proteins when compared to healthy individuals. So in combination, the set of proteins seems to be fairly good at differentiating healthy individuals from patients.

But – crucially – the protein levels couldn’t reliably tell the difference between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer patients. And this could be a fairly big stumbling block for a useful test, and might have implications for who it could potentially benefit.

So before we go galloping down the road to clinical tests, there are some key questions that still need answering.

Key questions

The first one being: even if this test were proven reliable in future studies, who would you offer it to?

The test is unlikely be used on the general population due to the relative infrequency of pancreatic cancer, which would mean it wouldn’t be time or cost-effective. A useful test for pancreatic cancer is rather more likely to be targeted towards groups at higher risk, such as those with chronic pancreatitis, or with a family history of the disease.

Any test that aimed to spot pancreatic cancer would also need to be able to reliably tell the difference between cancer, and other non-cancerous conditions like chronic pancreatitis, or diabetes. And, as mentioned previously, this ‘three protein’ method can’t yet reliably discriminate between those with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer is much less reliable.

Another question we have is whether the protein levels are still as accurate at predicting cancer when the control group (healthy people) is as old as the pancreatic cancer patients?

The median age of healthy patients on the study, and those with pancreatic cancer, differed by over 20 years. As the risk of cancer increase with age, it is crucial to see if the results are the same when comparing apples to apples.

Next steps

To address some of these questions, the team is now planning further research on urine sample from high risk groups, as well as collecting more long–term data to see if the proteins are present in urine in the time between the genetic changes that could cause the cancer to develop, and diagnosis.

But the key thing that needs to be proven, in future research, is whether the ability to detect pancreatic cancers using this test translates into earlier diagnoses and lives saved.

But the question of whom could benefit from such a test still remains.

This story touches on two hugely important areas – pancreatic cancer, and the search for ways to diagnose cancer earlier. These are both areas we’re prioritising in our new research strategy, so it’s always welcome when new findings move things forward.

But we need to be careful not to over-egg things, and raise false hope of new blood tests, when there’s such a long way ahead.

Misha

Reference

• Crnogorac-Jurcevic, Tatjana. ‘Identification Of A Three-Biomarker Panel In Urine For Early Detection Of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma’. Clinical Cancer Research 21.15 (2015): 3512-3521. 

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1N4LBtk

Pancreatic cancer has one of the poorest survival rates of any common cancers, with only three per cent of patients still alive five years after diagnosis.

And despite our advances in understanding the disease, this figure has barely budged in the last 40 years.

One reason for the lack of improvement is pancreatic cancer often doesn’t have early-stage symptoms, and so is often very advanced by the time patients are diagnosed.

In fact, more than eight out of 10 people with pancreatic cancer are diagnosed when their cancer has already spread, which means that surgery to remove the tumour is sadly no longer an option.

But at the moment, there are no reliable ways to detect the disease early – and one is desperately needed.

So, naturally, when one catches wind of any advances in early detection in the pancreatic cancer field, there’s always a certain amount of raised hope and excitement.

Possibly a bit too much excitement, as is the case with today’s story.

Today’s headlines read “simple urine test” for pancreatic cancer – but as we’ve said before these tests are rarely “simple” and in many cases, like this one, they aren’t even ‘tests’ yet.

So what’s the actual story?

A step forward

While there is a protein in the blood, CA19-9, which some pancreatic cancers secrete, it’s not produced by all types of tumours. This is why at the moment it‘s used by doctors alongside other tests to help diagnose patients who are already suspected of having the disease.

And while some research has shown CA19-9 levels might be raised in patients up to two years before they’re diagnosed, it’s not yet accurate enough to use to diagnose patients.

So a team of scientists at Barts Cancer Institute, Queen Mary University of London, decided to look for proteins in urine that could help identify patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer.

One of the advantages of a urine-based test is that urine is, in general, much less complex to analyse and less invasive to collect.

Find out more about pancreatic cancer by watching this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1fh4FQs1p4

To find out if there were any measurable signs linked to cancer, the team – led by Dr Tatjana Crnogorac-Jurcevic – looked at levels of 1,500 proteins in urine samples from 18 patients – six of whom had pancreatic cancer, six who had a benign inflammatory disease of the pancreas called chronic pancreatitis (which can increase your risk of developing pancreatic cancer) and six healthy individuals.

They noticed that three proteins – LYVE-1, REG1A and TFF1 – were higher in pancreatic cancer patients.

These proteins, they suspected, could potentially be used to help distinguish patients with early-stage pancreatic cancer from healthy individuals.

And further studies they carried out, in a larger number of patients, showed tentative signs that this might be the case.

But before we get ahead of ourselves, there’s still a long way to go before we know if this research could lead to a test that would help detect pancreatic cancer early.

The study only validated how well these three proteins predicted things using 488 urine samples, from 192 patients with pancreatic cancer, 92 patients with chronic pancreatitis and 87 health volunteers.

This analysis showed that urine from patients with pancreatic cancer showed elevated levels of each of the three proteins when compared to healthy individuals. So in combination, the set of proteins seems to be fairly good at differentiating healthy individuals from patients.

But – crucially – the protein levels couldn’t reliably tell the difference between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer patients. And this could be a fairly big stumbling block for a useful test, and might have implications for who it could potentially benefit.

So before we go galloping down the road to clinical tests, there are some key questions that still need answering.

Key questions

The first one being: even if this test were proven reliable in future studies, who would you offer it to?

The test is unlikely be used on the general population due to the relative infrequency of pancreatic cancer, which would mean it wouldn’t be time or cost-effective. A useful test for pancreatic cancer is rather more likely to be targeted towards groups at higher risk, such as those with chronic pancreatitis, or with a family history of the disease.

Any test that aimed to spot pancreatic cancer would also need to be able to reliably tell the difference between cancer, and other non-cancerous conditions like chronic pancreatitis, or diabetes. And, as mentioned previously, this ‘three protein’ method can’t yet reliably discriminate between those with chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer is much less reliable.

Another question we have is whether the protein levels are still as accurate at predicting cancer when the control group (healthy people) is as old as the pancreatic cancer patients?

The median age of healthy patients on the study, and those with pancreatic cancer, differed by over 20 years. As the risk of cancer increase with age, it is crucial to see if the results are the same when comparing apples to apples.

Next steps

To address some of these questions, the team is now planning further research on urine sample from high risk groups, as well as collecting more long–term data to see if the proteins are present in urine in the time between the genetic changes that could cause the cancer to develop, and diagnosis.

But the key thing that needs to be proven, in future research, is whether the ability to detect pancreatic cancers using this test translates into earlier diagnoses and lives saved.

But the question of whom could benefit from such a test still remains.

This story touches on two hugely important areas – pancreatic cancer, and the search for ways to diagnose cancer earlier. These are both areas we’re prioritising in our new research strategy, so it’s always welcome when new findings move things forward.

But we need to be careful not to over-egg things, and raise false hope of new blood tests, when there’s such a long way ahead.

Misha

Reference

• Crnogorac-Jurcevic, Tatjana. ‘Identification Of A Three-Biomarker Panel In Urine For Early Detection Of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma’. Clinical Cancer Research 21.15 (2015): 3512-3521. 

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1N4LBtk

Seis cosas que cada estadounidense debe saber acerca del Plan de Energía Limpia

Por la administradora de la EPA Gina McCarthy

Hoy, el Presidente Obama develó el Plan de Energía Limpia de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE.UU. (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés)–un paso histórico para recortar la contaminación de carbono que propulsa el cambio climático. He aquí seis cosas claves que cada estadounidense debería saber:

1. RECORTA LA CONTAMINACION DE CARBONO QUE GENERA EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO.

La contaminación climática de las centrales eléctricas es el principal propulsor del cambio climático de nuestra nación—y amenaza lo más importante—la salud de nuestros chicos, la seguridad de nuestros vecindarios y la habilidad de las personas en Estados Unidos a ganarse la vida. El Plan de Energía Limpia fija metas de sentido común, que se pueden alcanzar conforme a las metas estatales para reducir la contaminación de carbono de las centrales eléctricas a través del país. Basándose en los esfuerzos demostrados a nivel local y estatal, el Plan encamina nuestra nación para recortar la contaminación de carbono del sector energético por 32 por ciento por debajo de los niveles del 2005 para el 2030, y lo logrará mientras mantiene la energía fiable y asequible.

2. PROTEGE LA SALUD DE LAS FAMILIAS.

La transición hacia la energía limpia está sucediendo más rápidamente que lo esperado—y eso es algo bueno. Eso significa que la contaminación de carbono y del aire ya está disminuyendo, y mejorando la salud pública cada año. El Plan de Energía Limpia acelerará este impulso, y nos coloca en un ritmo para reducir esta peligrosa contaminación a niveles históricamente bajos. Nuestra transición hacia la energía más limpia protegerá mejor a los estadounidenses de otros tipos de contaminación dañina, también. Para el 2030, veremos reducciones importantes de contaminantes que pueden crear el peligroso hollín y smog, lo que se traducirá a beneficios significativos de salud para el pueblo estadounidense. En el 2030, evitaremos hasta 3,600 muertes prematuras menos; 90,000 ataques de asma menos en niños; 1,700 admisiones menos a los hospitales; y evitará 300,000 ausencias escolares y laborales. El Plan de Energía Limpia es un paso histórico hacia adelante para ofrecer a nuestros hijos y nietos el futuro más limpio y más seguro que se merecen.

3. LE DA LAS RIENDAS A LOS ESTADOS.

El Plan de EnergÍa Limpia fija normas uniformes de contaminación de carbono para centrales eléctricas en el país—pero fija metas estatales individuales basadas en la combinación de recursos energéticos estatales vigentes y donde existan oportunidades para reducir la contaminación. Los estados entonces formularán planes individuales para cumplir sus metas en maneras que hagan sentido en sus comunidades, negocios y servicios públicos. Los estados podrán operar sus plantas más eficientes con mayor frecuencia, cambiar a combustibles más limpios, usar más energía renovable, y sacar partido al intercambio de emisiones y opciones de eficiencia energética.

Debido a que los estados lo solicitaron, la EPA también está proponiendo una norma modelo que los estados pueden adoptar inmediatamente—una que es costo-efectiva, garantiza que ellos cumplan con los requisitos de la EPA y permitirá a las centrales eléctricas a usar el intercambio estatal inmediatamente. Sin embargo, los estados no tienen que usar nuestro plan—ellos pueden recortar la contaminación de carbono de la manera que haga más sentido para ellos.

Las tasas nacionales uniformes en el Plan de Energia Limpia son razonables y alcanzables, porque ninguna de las centrales las tiene que cumplir solas o todas a la vez. Por el contrario, ellas las pueden cumplir como parte de la red eléctrica o a lo largo del tiempo. En fin, el Plan de Energía Limpia le da las riendas a los estados.
4. HA SIDO ELABORADO CON EL INSUMO DE MILLONES DE ESTADOUNIDENSES.

El Plan de Energia Limpia refleja un insumo sin precedentes del pueblo estadounidense, incluyendo 4.3 millones de comentarios sobre el plan borrador e insumo de centenares de reuniones con estados, servicios públicos, comunidades y otros. Cuando la gente planteaba preguntas sobre la equidad y justicia, nosotros escuchamos. Por eso la EPA está fijando normas uniformes para asegurarse que plantas similares sean tratadas de la misma manera a través del país.

Cuando los estados y servicios públicos expresaron su preocupación sobre la rapidez con la cual los estados tendrían que reducir las emisiones bajo el Plan borrador, nosotros escuchamos. Por eso el Plan de Energía Limpia extiende el plazo para las reducciones obligatorias de las emisiones que comenzarían en dos años, hasta el 2022, por lo tanto los servicios públicos tendrán tiempo para hacer las mejoras e inversiones que necesiten.

Para alentar a los estados a permanecer a la delantera y no retrasarse en la planificación de inversiones o aplazar el inicio de los programas que necesitan tiempo para dar resultados, estamos creando un Programa de Incentivos de Energía Limpia para ayudar a los estados en la transición a la energía limpia más rápidamente.

Este es un programa voluntario de equiparación de fondos en el cual los estados pueden usar para fomentar inversiones tempranas en proyectos de energía eólica y solar, así como proyectos de eficiencia energética en comunidades de bajos ingresos. Gracias al valioso insumo que recibimos del público, la norma final es aún más justa y más flexible mientras recorta la contaminación aún más.
5. NOS AHORRARÁ MILES DE MILLONES DE DÓLARES CADA AÑO.

Con el Plan de Energía Limpia, Estados Unidos está liderando con su ejemplo—al demostrarle al mundo que la acción climática es una oportunidad económica increíble. Para el 2030, los beneficios netos a la salud pública y aquellos relacionados al clima del Plan de Energia Limpia son estimados por un valor de $45 mil millones cada año. Y a propósito, se proyecta que la factura promedio de electricidad en Estados Unidos bajara por 7% en el 2030. Obtendremos ahorros al recortar el desperdicio de energía y mejorar la eficiencia energética en general—pasos que hacen sentido para nuestra salud, nuestro futuro y nuestras billeteras.

6. COLOCA A E.E.U.U. EN UNA POSICIÓN PARA LIDERAR EN ACCIÓN CLIMÁTICA.

Hoy, los Estados Unidos están generando tres veces más de energía eólica y 20 veces más de energía solar que cuando el Presidente Obama juramentó. Y la industria de la energía solar está añadiendo empleos a un ritmo 10 veces mayor que el resto de la economía. Por primera vez en las próximas tres décadas, importaremos menos petroleo extranjero y produciremos nacionalmente y usaremos menos en general.

La transición hacia la energía limpia en nuestro país está sucediendo más rápidamente que se había anticipado—aun cuando propusimos esta norma el año pasado. La tendencia de aceleración hacia la energía limpia y el creciente exito en los esfuerzos de eficiencia energética significna que las emisiones de carbono ya están bajando, y el ritmo se acelerará. El Plan de Energía Limpia asegurará y acelerará estas tendencias y nos impulsará hacia un futuro de energía más limpia.

El cambio climático es un problema global que exige una solución global. Con el Plan de Energía Limpia, colocaremos a EE.UU. en una posición para liderar. Desde que el Plan fue propuesto el año pasado, Estados Unidos, China y Brazil, tres de las economías más grandes del mundo—han anunciado sus compromisos para reducir significativamente la contaminación de carbono. Estamos confiados en que otras naciones vendrán a la mesa listos para alcanzar un acuerdo climático internacional en Paris luego este año.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1P0wUsz

Por la administradora de la EPA Gina McCarthy

Hoy, el Presidente Obama develó el Plan de Energía Limpia de la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE.UU. (EPA, por sus siglas en inglés)–un paso histórico para recortar la contaminación de carbono que propulsa el cambio climático. He aquí seis cosas claves que cada estadounidense debería saber:

1. RECORTA LA CONTAMINACION DE CARBONO QUE GENERA EL CAMBIO CLIMÁTICO.

La contaminación climática de las centrales eléctricas es el principal propulsor del cambio climático de nuestra nación—y amenaza lo más importante—la salud de nuestros chicos, la seguridad de nuestros vecindarios y la habilidad de las personas en Estados Unidos a ganarse la vida. El Plan de Energía Limpia fija metas de sentido común, que se pueden alcanzar conforme a las metas estatales para reducir la contaminación de carbono de las centrales eléctricas a través del país. Basándose en los esfuerzos demostrados a nivel local y estatal, el Plan encamina nuestra nación para recortar la contaminación de carbono del sector energético por 32 por ciento por debajo de los niveles del 2005 para el 2030, y lo logrará mientras mantiene la energía fiable y asequible.

2. PROTEGE LA SALUD DE LAS FAMILIAS.

La transición hacia la energía limpia está sucediendo más rápidamente que lo esperado—y eso es algo bueno. Eso significa que la contaminación de carbono y del aire ya está disminuyendo, y mejorando la salud pública cada año. El Plan de Energía Limpia acelerará este impulso, y nos coloca en un ritmo para reducir esta peligrosa contaminación a niveles históricamente bajos. Nuestra transición hacia la energía más limpia protegerá mejor a los estadounidenses de otros tipos de contaminación dañina, también. Para el 2030, veremos reducciones importantes de contaminantes que pueden crear el peligroso hollín y smog, lo que se traducirá a beneficios significativos de salud para el pueblo estadounidense. En el 2030, evitaremos hasta 3,600 muertes prematuras menos; 90,000 ataques de asma menos en niños; 1,700 admisiones menos a los hospitales; y evitará 300,000 ausencias escolares y laborales. El Plan de Energía Limpia es un paso histórico hacia adelante para ofrecer a nuestros hijos y nietos el futuro más limpio y más seguro que se merecen.

3. LE DA LAS RIENDAS A LOS ESTADOS.

El Plan de EnergÍa Limpia fija normas uniformes de contaminación de carbono para centrales eléctricas en el país—pero fija metas estatales individuales basadas en la combinación de recursos energéticos estatales vigentes y donde existan oportunidades para reducir la contaminación. Los estados entonces formularán planes individuales para cumplir sus metas en maneras que hagan sentido en sus comunidades, negocios y servicios públicos. Los estados podrán operar sus plantas más eficientes con mayor frecuencia, cambiar a combustibles más limpios, usar más energía renovable, y sacar partido al intercambio de emisiones y opciones de eficiencia energética.

Debido a que los estados lo solicitaron, la EPA también está proponiendo una norma modelo que los estados pueden adoptar inmediatamente—una que es costo-efectiva, garantiza que ellos cumplan con los requisitos de la EPA y permitirá a las centrales eléctricas a usar el intercambio estatal inmediatamente. Sin embargo, los estados no tienen que usar nuestro plan—ellos pueden recortar la contaminación de carbono de la manera que haga más sentido para ellos.

Las tasas nacionales uniformes en el Plan de Energia Limpia son razonables y alcanzables, porque ninguna de las centrales las tiene que cumplir solas o todas a la vez. Por el contrario, ellas las pueden cumplir como parte de la red eléctrica o a lo largo del tiempo. En fin, el Plan de Energía Limpia le da las riendas a los estados.
4. HA SIDO ELABORADO CON EL INSUMO DE MILLONES DE ESTADOUNIDENSES.

El Plan de Energia Limpia refleja un insumo sin precedentes del pueblo estadounidense, incluyendo 4.3 millones de comentarios sobre el plan borrador e insumo de centenares de reuniones con estados, servicios públicos, comunidades y otros. Cuando la gente planteaba preguntas sobre la equidad y justicia, nosotros escuchamos. Por eso la EPA está fijando normas uniformes para asegurarse que plantas similares sean tratadas de la misma manera a través del país.

Cuando los estados y servicios públicos expresaron su preocupación sobre la rapidez con la cual los estados tendrían que reducir las emisiones bajo el Plan borrador, nosotros escuchamos. Por eso el Plan de Energía Limpia extiende el plazo para las reducciones obligatorias de las emisiones que comenzarían en dos años, hasta el 2022, por lo tanto los servicios públicos tendrán tiempo para hacer las mejoras e inversiones que necesiten.

Para alentar a los estados a permanecer a la delantera y no retrasarse en la planificación de inversiones o aplazar el inicio de los programas que necesitan tiempo para dar resultados, estamos creando un Programa de Incentivos de Energía Limpia para ayudar a los estados en la transición a la energía limpia más rápidamente.

Este es un programa voluntario de equiparación de fondos en el cual los estados pueden usar para fomentar inversiones tempranas en proyectos de energía eólica y solar, así como proyectos de eficiencia energética en comunidades de bajos ingresos. Gracias al valioso insumo que recibimos del público, la norma final es aún más justa y más flexible mientras recorta la contaminación aún más.
5. NOS AHORRARÁ MILES DE MILLONES DE DÓLARES CADA AÑO.

Con el Plan de Energía Limpia, Estados Unidos está liderando con su ejemplo—al demostrarle al mundo que la acción climática es una oportunidad económica increíble. Para el 2030, los beneficios netos a la salud pública y aquellos relacionados al clima del Plan de Energia Limpia son estimados por un valor de $45 mil millones cada año. Y a propósito, se proyecta que la factura promedio de electricidad en Estados Unidos bajara por 7% en el 2030. Obtendremos ahorros al recortar el desperdicio de energía y mejorar la eficiencia energética en general—pasos que hacen sentido para nuestra salud, nuestro futuro y nuestras billeteras.

6. COLOCA A E.E.U.U. EN UNA POSICIÓN PARA LIDERAR EN ACCIÓN CLIMÁTICA.

Hoy, los Estados Unidos están generando tres veces más de energía eólica y 20 veces más de energía solar que cuando el Presidente Obama juramentó. Y la industria de la energía solar está añadiendo empleos a un ritmo 10 veces mayor que el resto de la economía. Por primera vez en las próximas tres décadas, importaremos menos petroleo extranjero y produciremos nacionalmente y usaremos menos en general.

La transición hacia la energía limpia en nuestro país está sucediendo más rápidamente que se había anticipado—aun cuando propusimos esta norma el año pasado. La tendencia de aceleración hacia la energía limpia y el creciente exito en los esfuerzos de eficiencia energética significna que las emisiones de carbono ya están bajando, y el ritmo se acelerará. El Plan de Energía Limpia asegurará y acelerará estas tendencias y nos impulsará hacia un futuro de energía más limpia.

El cambio climático es un problema global que exige una solución global. Con el Plan de Energía Limpia, colocaremos a EE.UU. en una posición para liderar. Desde que el Plan fue propuesto el año pasado, Estados Unidos, China y Brazil, tres de las economías más grandes del mundo—han anunciado sus compromisos para reducir significativamente la contaminación de carbono. Estamos confiados en que otras naciones vendrán a la mesa listos para alcanzar un acuerdo climático internacional en Paris luego este año.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1P0wUsz

6 Things Every American Should Know About the Clean Power Plan

By EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

Today, President Obama will unveil the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan—a historic step to cut the carbon pollution driving climate change. Here are six key things every American should know:

1. IT SLASHES THE CARBON POLLUTION FUELING CLIMATE CHANGE.

Carbon pollution from power plants is our nation’s biggest driver of climate change—and it threatens what matters most – the health of our kids, the safety of our neighborhoods, and the ability of Americans to earn a living. The Clean Power Plan sets common sense, achievable state-by-state goals to cut carbon pollution from power plants across the country. Building on proven local and state efforts, the Plan puts our nation on track to cut carbon pollution from the power sector 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, all while keeping energy reliable and affordable.

2. IT PROTECTS FAMILIES’ HEALTH.

The transition to clean energy is happening even faster than we expected—and that’s a good thing. It means carbon and air pollution are already decreasing, improving public health each and every year. The Clean Power Plan accelerates this momentum, putting us on pace to cut this dangerous pollution to historically low levels. Our transition to cleaner energy will better protect Americans from other kinds of harmful air pollution, too. By 2030, we’ll see major reductions of pollutants that can create dangerous soot and smog, translating to significant health benefits for the American people. In 2030, we’ll avoid up to 3,600 fewer premature deaths; 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children; 1,700 fewer hospital admissions; and avoid 300,000 missed days of school and work. The Clean Power Plan is a historic step forward to give our kids and grandkids the cleaner, safer future they deserve.

3. IT PUTS STATES IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT.

The Clean Power Plan sets uniform carbon pollution standards for power plants across the country—but sets individual state goals based on states’ current energy mix and where they have opportunities to cut pollution. States then customize plans to meet their goals in ways that make sense for their communities, businesses, and utilities. States can run their more efficient plants more often, switch to cleaner fuels, use more renewable energy, and take advantage of emissions trading and energy efficiency options.

Because states requested it, EPA is also proposing a model rule states can adopt right away–one that’s cost-effective, guarantees they meet EPA’s requirements, and will let their power plants use interstate trading right away. But states don’t have to use our plan—they can cut carbon pollution in whatever way makes the most sense for them.

The uniform national rates in the Clean Power Plan are reasonable and achievable, because no plant has to meet them alone or all at once. Instead, they have to meet them as part of the grid and over time. In short, the Clean Power Plan puts states in the driver’s seat.

4. IT’S BUILT ON INPUT FROM MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.

The Clean Power Plan reflects unprecedented input from the American people, including 4.3 million comments on the draft plan and input from hundreds of meetings with states, utilities, communities, and others. When folks raised questions about equity and fairness, we listened. That’s why EPA is setting uniform standards to make sure similar plants are treated the same across the country.

When states and utilities expressed concern about how fast states would need to cut emissions under the draft Plan, we listened. That’s why the Clean Power Plan extends the timeframe for mandatory emissions reductions to begin by two years, until 2022, so utilities will have time to make the upgrades and investments they need to.

But to encourage states to stay ahead of the curve and not delay planned investments, or delay starting programs that need time to pay off, we’re creating a Clean Energy Incentive Program to help states transition to clean energy faster.

It’s a voluntary matching fund program states can use to encourage early investment in wind and solar power projects, as well as energy efficiency projects in low-income communities. Thanks to the valuable input we heard from the public, the final rule is even more fair and more flexible, while cutting more pollution.

5. IT WILL SAVE US BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR.

With the Clean Power Plan, America is leading by example—showing the world that climate action is an incredible economic opportunity. By 2030, the net public health and climate-related benefits from the Clean Power Plan are estimated to be worth $45 billion every year. And, by design, the Clean Power Plan is projected to cut the average American’s monthly electricity bill by 7% in 2030. We’ll get these savings by cutting energy waste and beefing up energy efficiency across the board—steps that make sense for our health, our future, and our wallets.

6. IT PUTS THE U.S. IN A POSITION TO LEAD ON CLIMATE ACTION.

Today, the U.S. is generating three times more wind energy and 20 times more solar power than when President Obama took office. And the solar industry is adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy. For the first time in nearly three decades, we’re importing less foreign oil than we’re producing domestically—and using less overall.

Our country’s clean energy transition is happening faster than anyone anticipated—even as of last year when we proposed this rule. The accelerating trend toward clean power, and the growing success of energy efficiency efforts, mean carbon emissions are already going down, and the pace is picking up. The Clean Power Plan will secure and accelerate these trends, building momentum for a cleaner energy future.

Climate change is a global problem that demands a global solution. With the Clean Power Plan, we’re putting America in a position to lead. Since the Plan was proposed last year, the U.S., China and Brazil – three of the world’s largest economies – have announced commitments to significantly reduce carbon pollution. We’re confident other nations will come to the table ready to reach an international climate agreement in Paris later this year.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1P0wVN6

By EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

Today, President Obama will unveil the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan—a historic step to cut the carbon pollution driving climate change. Here are six key things every American should know:

1. IT SLASHES THE CARBON POLLUTION FUELING CLIMATE CHANGE.

Carbon pollution from power plants is our nation’s biggest driver of climate change—and it threatens what matters most – the health of our kids, the safety of our neighborhoods, and the ability of Americans to earn a living. The Clean Power Plan sets common sense, achievable state-by-state goals to cut carbon pollution from power plants across the country. Building on proven local and state efforts, the Plan puts our nation on track to cut carbon pollution from the power sector 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, all while keeping energy reliable and affordable.

2. IT PROTECTS FAMILIES’ HEALTH.

The transition to clean energy is happening even faster than we expected—and that’s a good thing. It means carbon and air pollution are already decreasing, improving public health each and every year. The Clean Power Plan accelerates this momentum, putting us on pace to cut this dangerous pollution to historically low levels. Our transition to cleaner energy will better protect Americans from other kinds of harmful air pollution, too. By 2030, we’ll see major reductions of pollutants that can create dangerous soot and smog, translating to significant health benefits for the American people. In 2030, we’ll avoid up to 3,600 fewer premature deaths; 90,000 fewer asthma attacks in children; 1,700 fewer hospital admissions; and avoid 300,000 missed days of school and work. The Clean Power Plan is a historic step forward to give our kids and grandkids the cleaner, safer future they deserve.

3. IT PUTS STATES IN THE DRIVER’S SEAT.

The Clean Power Plan sets uniform carbon pollution standards for power plants across the country—but sets individual state goals based on states’ current energy mix and where they have opportunities to cut pollution. States then customize plans to meet their goals in ways that make sense for their communities, businesses, and utilities. States can run their more efficient plants more often, switch to cleaner fuels, use more renewable energy, and take advantage of emissions trading and energy efficiency options.

Because states requested it, EPA is also proposing a model rule states can adopt right away–one that’s cost-effective, guarantees they meet EPA’s requirements, and will let their power plants use interstate trading right away. But states don’t have to use our plan—they can cut carbon pollution in whatever way makes the most sense for them.

The uniform national rates in the Clean Power Plan are reasonable and achievable, because no plant has to meet them alone or all at once. Instead, they have to meet them as part of the grid and over time. In short, the Clean Power Plan puts states in the driver’s seat.

4. IT’S BUILT ON INPUT FROM MILLIONS OF AMERICANS.

The Clean Power Plan reflects unprecedented input from the American people, including 4.3 million comments on the draft plan and input from hundreds of meetings with states, utilities, communities, and others. When folks raised questions about equity and fairness, we listened. That’s why EPA is setting uniform standards to make sure similar plants are treated the same across the country.

When states and utilities expressed concern about how fast states would need to cut emissions under the draft Plan, we listened. That’s why the Clean Power Plan extends the timeframe for mandatory emissions reductions to begin by two years, until 2022, so utilities will have time to make the upgrades and investments they need to.

But to encourage states to stay ahead of the curve and not delay planned investments, or delay starting programs that need time to pay off, we’re creating a Clean Energy Incentive Program to help states transition to clean energy faster.

It’s a voluntary matching fund program states can use to encourage early investment in wind and solar power projects, as well as energy efficiency projects in low-income communities. Thanks to the valuable input we heard from the public, the final rule is even more fair and more flexible, while cutting more pollution.

5. IT WILL SAVE US BILLIONS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR.

With the Clean Power Plan, America is leading by example—showing the world that climate action is an incredible economic opportunity. By 2030, the net public health and climate-related benefits from the Clean Power Plan are estimated to be worth $45 billion every year. And, by design, the Clean Power Plan is projected to cut the average American’s monthly electricity bill by 7% in 2030. We’ll get these savings by cutting energy waste and beefing up energy efficiency across the board—steps that make sense for our health, our future, and our wallets.

6. IT PUTS THE U.S. IN A POSITION TO LEAD ON CLIMATE ACTION.

Today, the U.S. is generating three times more wind energy and 20 times more solar power than when President Obama took office. And the solar industry is adding jobs 10 times faster than the rest of the economy. For the first time in nearly three decades, we’re importing less foreign oil than we’re producing domestically—and using less overall.

Our country’s clean energy transition is happening faster than anyone anticipated—even as of last year when we proposed this rule. The accelerating trend toward clean power, and the growing success of energy efficiency efforts, mean carbon emissions are already going down, and the pace is picking up. The Clean Power Plan will secure and accelerate these trends, building momentum for a cleaner energy future.

Climate change is a global problem that demands a global solution. With the Clean Power Plan, we’re putting America in a position to lead. Since the Plan was proposed last year, the U.S., China and Brazil – three of the world’s largest economies – have announced commitments to significantly reduce carbon pollution. We’re confident other nations will come to the table ready to reach an international climate agreement in Paris later this year.

 

from The EPA Blog http://ift.tt/1P0wVN6

President Obama Just Finalized His Plan to Fight Climate Change

The EPA’s new rules will crack down on emissions from coal-fired power plants.

President Barack Obama has been more vocal than any previous president about the need to combat climate change, and on Monday his administration is releasing a package of rules that will likely be the most important—and most controversial—piece of his climate legacy.

“Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video released early Sunday morning. The Clean Power Plan, as the rules finalized Monday are known, is “the biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken to combat climate change.”

Coal-fired power plants are the country’s biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions and the chief culprit driving global warming. They’re responsible for even more CO2 pollution than all the nation’s passenger vehicles. The new plan aims to slash those emissions by requiring every state to reduce the carbon “intensity” (that is, emissions per unit of energy produced) of its energy sector. By 2030, the plan is expected to slash the carbon footprint of the nation’s power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels—a more rigorous target than the 30 percent reduction outlined in a draft version of the rules released last summer.

In the final draft, the administration has relaxed deadlines for meeting the new carbon targets—states will now have until 2018 to propose a carbon-cutting strategy and until 2022 to implement it, according to leaked versions—a serious concern for environmentalists who have stressed the necessity of immediate action to limit climate change. And although the targets might sound ambitious, they might not actually be too different from what many states would achieve without them, thanks to a boom in clean energy that is already underway. Moreover, many of the changes required by the rules will play out under Obama’s successor, leaving open the possibility that they could be undermined by a climate change-denying president.

Still, the significance of this official crackdown on the gas behind global warming is hard to overstate, said David Doniger, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“The very fact that they’re regulating carbon pollution from power plants is a historic step, a huge step,” he said. “This is part of using the existing law to turn the US from doing nothing, to playing a leadership role to curb climate change.”

Draft versions of the rules, designed by the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of the Clean Air Act, were first unveiled last summer. In the time since, as they underwent public review and revision, they’ve faced a backlash from Republican lawmakers in statehouses and in Congress, and from some major energy companies. The critics claim (probably without merit) that the rules will cause electric bills to skyrocket and blackouts to sweep the country. Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) penned an op-ed calling on states to simply ignore the rules. Meanwhile, a major coal company teamed up with a dozen coal-reliant states to challenge the draft rules in federal court. The court declined to hear the challenge because the rules hadn’t yet been finalized.

But as of today the rules are final—and another round of legal challenges is inevitable, said Tomas Carbonell, director of regulatory policy at the Environmental Defense Fund.

“We are likely to see some of the opponents of the Clean Power Plan file a motion for a stay, which is an attempt to prevent it from going into effect,” he said. “We’ve heard grumblings, but nobody’s done anything yet.”

Before the final plan was even released, it drew fire from GOP presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who said it could cause electric bills to go up by “a couple of hundred dollars.” Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton came out in support of the plan, saying that if elected president she would work to protect the rules from “Republican doubters and defeatists.”

It’s not surprising that the coal industry has fiercely opposed to the rules. Under the plan, every state gets a customized target for reducing its carbon intensity. In most cases, meeting these targets will lower the state’s total carbon emissions; in some cases, economic growth in a state could offset some of the intensity gains and the state’s total emissions could stay flat or even go up. But the idea is that they’ll be lower than they would be otherwise.

The EPA came up with these targets based on its analysis of what each state can reasonably and cost-effectively achieve over the next couple decades. Although states will have a menu of options for reaching their individualized carbon targets—including building more renewable energy and improving energy efficiency standards—coal is likely to be a big loser. A lot of coal plants will shut down, switch to running on natural gas, or simply get used less as cleaner energy sources pick up more of the demand.

In some cases, state governments and power companies will have to spend money to make these changes happen. But according to a recent NRDC analysis, improving efficiency and relying more on high-performing clean energy will actually save power companies up to $9 billion by 2030. Those improvements could also reduce consumers’ electric bills, create jobs in the clean energy industry, and reduce the terrible and costly public health impacts of coal use. The rules are also a major piece of how the Obama administration plans to back up its promise to the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Paris to reduce total US carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. And the changes not just being pushed by a cabal of environmentalists: Last week the sustainable business group Ceres released a letter supporting the rules from 365 major companies, including General Mills and Unilever.

At the same time, notwithstanding the Republican party’s “war on coal” rhetoric, it’s important to remember that this trend is well underway already, even before the Clean Power Plan comes into effect. The United States is using less coal than it has at anytime since the Industrial Revolution, thanks to cheap natural gas from fracking, the booming market for solar and other renewables, and regulations on other nasty pollutants from coal plants. As of last month, up to 40 percent of the US fleet of coal plants was scheduled to retire within a decade, according to the Sierra Club.

Because of those trends, the targets should be readily achievable. For example, an analysis from the Southern Environmental Law Center found that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, all of which are big coal consumers, are already on track to be at least 80 percent of the way to their proposed Clean Power Plan goals based on existing state-level plans and policies.

“This is not triggering a seismic shift in the energy industry,” said SELC senior attorney Frank Rambo.

Does that mean the rules are weak or pointless? Certainly they’re nowhere near what would be needed to completely de-carbonize the energy system, which is the ultimate goal for climate activists. But the NRDC’s Doniger said the rules are necessary to keep existing progress from backsliding.

“The power sector has been changing,” he said. “But just because the car is rolling doesn’t mean it will keeping rolling. You have to keep pushing it.”

The bigger question is what will happen to the rules if Americans elect a president who isn’t strongly committed to tackling climate change, or denies that it exists at all, which describes—to varying degrees—every Republican candidate in the race. It’s up to the EPA to enforce the rules, so a future president could take steps to dismantle them. But if President Trump wanted to change or eliminate the rules, he would have to kick off the same process of public review and revision that was required to put the rules in place.

“They can’t just unilaterally yank it,” Rambo said.

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1IHmPzC

The EPA’s new rules will crack down on emissions from coal-fired power plants.

President Barack Obama has been more vocal than any previous president about the need to combat climate change, and on Monday his administration is releasing a package of rules that will likely be the most important—and most controversial—piece of his climate legacy.

“Climate change is not a problem for another generation,” Obama said in a video released early Sunday morning. The Clean Power Plan, as the rules finalized Monday are known, is “the biggest, most important step we’ve ever taken to combat climate change.”

Coal-fired power plants are the country’s biggest source of carbon dioxide emissions and the chief culprit driving global warming. They’re responsible for even more CO2 pollution than all the nation’s passenger vehicles. The new plan aims to slash those emissions by requiring every state to reduce the carbon “intensity” (that is, emissions per unit of energy produced) of its energy sector. By 2030, the plan is expected to slash the carbon footprint of the nation’s power sector by 32 percent below 2005 levels—a more rigorous target than the 30 percent reduction outlined in a draft version of the rules released last summer.

In the final draft, the administration has relaxed deadlines for meeting the new carbon targets—states will now have until 2018 to propose a carbon-cutting strategy and until 2022 to implement it, according to leaked versions—a serious concern for environmentalists who have stressed the necessity of immediate action to limit climate change. And although the targets might sound ambitious, they might not actually be too different from what many states would achieve without them, thanks to a boom in clean energy that is already underway. Moreover, many of the changes required by the rules will play out under Obama’s successor, leaving open the possibility that they could be undermined by a climate change-denying president.

Still, the significance of this official crackdown on the gas behind global warming is hard to overstate, said David Doniger, director of the clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“The very fact that they’re regulating carbon pollution from power plants is a historic step, a huge step,” he said. “This is part of using the existing law to turn the US from doing nothing, to playing a leadership role to curb climate change.”

Draft versions of the rules, designed by the Environmental Protection Agency under the authority of the Clean Air Act, were first unveiled last summer. In the time since, as they underwent public review and revision, they’ve faced a backlash from Republican lawmakers in statehouses and in Congress, and from some major energy companies. The critics claim (probably without merit) that the rules will cause electric bills to skyrocket and blackouts to sweep the country. Earlier this year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) penned an op-ed calling on states to simply ignore the rules. Meanwhile, a major coal company teamed up with a dozen coal-reliant states to challenge the draft rules in federal court. The court declined to hear the challenge because the rules hadn’t yet been finalized.

But as of today the rules are final—and another round of legal challenges is inevitable, said Tomas Carbonell, director of regulatory policy at the Environmental Defense Fund.

“We are likely to see some of the opponents of the Clean Power Plan file a motion for a stay, which is an attempt to prevent it from going into effect,” he said. “We’ve heard grumblings, but nobody’s done anything yet.”

Before the final plan was even released, it drew fire from GOP presidential contender Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.), who said it could cause electric bills to go up by “a couple of hundred dollars.” Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton came out in support of the plan, saying that if elected president she would work to protect the rules from “Republican doubters and defeatists.”

It’s not surprising that the coal industry has fiercely opposed to the rules. Under the plan, every state gets a customized target for reducing its carbon intensity. In most cases, meeting these targets will lower the state’s total carbon emissions; in some cases, economic growth in a state could offset some of the intensity gains and the state’s total emissions could stay flat or even go up. But the idea is that they’ll be lower than they would be otherwise.

The EPA came up with these targets based on its analysis of what each state can reasonably and cost-effectively achieve over the next couple decades. Although states will have a menu of options for reaching their individualized carbon targets—including building more renewable energy and improving energy efficiency standards—coal is likely to be a big loser. A lot of coal plants will shut down, switch to running on natural gas, or simply get used less as cleaner energy sources pick up more of the demand.

In some cases, state governments and power companies will have to spend money to make these changes happen. But according to a recent NRDC analysis, improving efficiency and relying more on high-performing clean energy will actually save power companies up to $9 billion by 2030. Those improvements could also reduce consumers’ electric bills, create jobs in the clean energy industry, and reduce the terrible and costly public health impacts of coal use. The rules are also a major piece of how the Obama administration plans to back up its promise to the upcoming United Nations climate summit in Paris to reduce total US carbon emissions 26 to 28 percent by 2025. And the changes not just being pushed by a cabal of environmentalists: Last week the sustainable business group Ceres released a letter supporting the rules from 365 major companies, including General Mills and Unilever.

At the same time, notwithstanding the Republican party’s “war on coal” rhetoric, it’s important to remember that this trend is well underway already, even before the Clean Power Plan comes into effect. The United States is using less coal than it has at anytime since the Industrial Revolution, thanks to cheap natural gas from fracking, the booming market for solar and other renewables, and regulations on other nasty pollutants from coal plants. As of last month, up to 40 percent of the US fleet of coal plants was scheduled to retire within a decade, according to the Sierra Club.

Because of those trends, the targets should be readily achievable. For example, an analysis from the Southern Environmental Law Center found that Virginia, North Carolina, and Tennessee, all of which are big coal consumers, are already on track to be at least 80 percent of the way to their proposed Clean Power Plan goals based on existing state-level plans and policies.

“This is not triggering a seismic shift in the energy industry,” said SELC senior attorney Frank Rambo.

Does that mean the rules are weak or pointless? Certainly they’re nowhere near what would be needed to completely de-carbonize the energy system, which is the ultimate goal for climate activists. But the NRDC’s Doniger said the rules are necessary to keep existing progress from backsliding.

“The power sector has been changing,” he said. “But just because the car is rolling doesn’t mean it will keeping rolling. You have to keep pushing it.”

The bigger question is what will happen to the rules if Americans elect a president who isn’t strongly committed to tackling climate change, or denies that it exists at all, which describes—to varying degrees—every Republican candidate in the race. It’s up to the EPA to enforce the rules, so a future president could take steps to dismantle them. But if President Trump wanted to change or eliminate the rules, he would have to kick off the same process of public review and revision that was required to put the rules in place.

“They can’t just unilaterally yank it,” Rambo said.

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1IHmPzC

Punks and anarchists unite! [Pharyngula]

I’m a bit shell-shocked today — man, that was a long drive yesterday — and I stumbled into work today thinking this might be a really good day to bag it early and take a nap. And then I found something in my mailbox that perked me right up.

As a little background, I’ll summarize my talk in St Louis. I pointed out that there was more to evolution than natural selection. Natural selection answers the question of adaptedness — how do organisms get so good at what they do — but there’s another important question, about diversity and variation — why do organisms do so many things in so many different ways? And I made the point with stories about people like Spencer and Galton, who so emphasized optimality and how Nature, red in tooth and claw, ruthlessly culls the weak allowing the survival of only the fittest. Spencerian evolution is a very narrow and limited kind of biology, but unfortunately, it often seems to be the only kind of evolution the general public has in mind.

And then I contrasted it with Kropotkin’s ideas about Mutual Aid (pdf), and the greater importance of cooperation in survival.

Thus by an unprejudiced observation of the animal kingdom, we reach the conclusion that wherever society exists at all, this principle may be found: Treat others as you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances. And when we study closely the evolution of the animal world, we discover that the aforesaid principle, translated by the one word Solidarity, has played an infinitely larger part in the development of the animal kingdom than all the adaptations that have resulted from a struggle between individuals to acquire personal advantages.

Kropotkin is the anti-Spencer. His is a position that we need to acknowledge more. I’ve spoken about the importance of cooperative exuberance, as opposed to selective pruning, several times now, including at the IHEU a few years ago.

So what got me enthused this morning? My review copy of Greg Graffin’s new book, Population Wars: A New Perspective on Competition and Coexistence, was waiting for me in my mailbox. I think we might be on the same wavelength here, at least from the cover blurb.

From the very beginning, life on Earth has been defined by war. Today, those first wars continue to be fought around and literally inside us, influencing our individual behavior and that of civilization as a whole. War between populations-whether between different species or between rival groups of humans-is seen as an inevitable part of the evolutionary process. The popular concept of “the survival of the fittest” explains and often excuses these actions.

In Population Wars, Greg Graffin points to where the mainstream view of evolutionary theory has led us astray. That misunderstanding has allowed us to justify wars on every level, whether against bacterial colonies or human societies, even when other, less violent solutions may be available. Through tales of mass extinctions, developing immune systems, human warfare, the American industrial heartland, and our degrading modern environment, Graffin demonstrates how an oversimplified idea of war, with its victorious winners and vanquished losers, prevents us from responding to the real problems we face. Along the way, Graffin reveals a paradox: When we challenge conventional definitions of war, we are left with a new problem, how to define ourselves.

Population Wars is a paradigm-shifting book about why humans behave the way they do and the ancient history that explains that behavior. In reading it, you’ll see why we need to rethink the reasons for war, not only the human military kind but also Darwin’s “war of nature,” and find hope for a less violent future for mankind.

I don’t think a nap is imminent, but maybe a quiet afternoon curled up with a book would be a good restorative.

Also, when I talked to the publicist about getting a copy of this book a few weeks ago, she mentioned that Graffin was looking for Q&A/interview opportunities, that sort of thing. I suggested that maybe he could make an appearance on Pharyngula and answer questions. Would anyone else be interested in that? If nothing else, I could do an interview and post it here.

The book will be available to the general public on 15 September, so I might try to arrange for something around that time. One chapter is available for a free preview right now.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KMbvSt

I’m a bit shell-shocked today — man, that was a long drive yesterday — and I stumbled into work today thinking this might be a really good day to bag it early and take a nap. And then I found something in my mailbox that perked me right up.

As a little background, I’ll summarize my talk in St Louis. I pointed out that there was more to evolution than natural selection. Natural selection answers the question of adaptedness — how do organisms get so good at what they do — but there’s another important question, about diversity and variation — why do organisms do so many things in so many different ways? And I made the point with stories about people like Spencer and Galton, who so emphasized optimality and how Nature, red in tooth and claw, ruthlessly culls the weak allowing the survival of only the fittest. Spencerian evolution is a very narrow and limited kind of biology, but unfortunately, it often seems to be the only kind of evolution the general public has in mind.

And then I contrasted it with Kropotkin’s ideas about Mutual Aid (pdf), and the greater importance of cooperation in survival.

Thus by an unprejudiced observation of the animal kingdom, we reach the conclusion that wherever society exists at all, this principle may be found: Treat others as you would like them to treat you under similar circumstances. And when we study closely the evolution of the animal world, we discover that the aforesaid principle, translated by the one word Solidarity, has played an infinitely larger part in the development of the animal kingdom than all the adaptations that have resulted from a struggle between individuals to acquire personal advantages.

Kropotkin is the anti-Spencer. His is a position that we need to acknowledge more. I’ve spoken about the importance of cooperative exuberance, as opposed to selective pruning, several times now, including at the IHEU a few years ago.

So what got me enthused this morning? My review copy of Greg Graffin’s new book, Population Wars: A New Perspective on Competition and Coexistence, was waiting for me in my mailbox. I think we might be on the same wavelength here, at least from the cover blurb.

From the very beginning, life on Earth has been defined by war. Today, those first wars continue to be fought around and literally inside us, influencing our individual behavior and that of civilization as a whole. War between populations-whether between different species or between rival groups of humans-is seen as an inevitable part of the evolutionary process. The popular concept of “the survival of the fittest” explains and often excuses these actions.

In Population Wars, Greg Graffin points to where the mainstream view of evolutionary theory has led us astray. That misunderstanding has allowed us to justify wars on every level, whether against bacterial colonies or human societies, even when other, less violent solutions may be available. Through tales of mass extinctions, developing immune systems, human warfare, the American industrial heartland, and our degrading modern environment, Graffin demonstrates how an oversimplified idea of war, with its victorious winners and vanquished losers, prevents us from responding to the real problems we face. Along the way, Graffin reveals a paradox: When we challenge conventional definitions of war, we are left with a new problem, how to define ourselves.

Population Wars is a paradigm-shifting book about why humans behave the way they do and the ancient history that explains that behavior. In reading it, you’ll see why we need to rethink the reasons for war, not only the human military kind but also Darwin’s “war of nature,” and find hope for a less violent future for mankind.

I don’t think a nap is imminent, but maybe a quiet afternoon curled up with a book would be a good restorative.

Also, when I talked to the publicist about getting a copy of this book a few weeks ago, she mentioned that Graffin was looking for Q&A/interview opportunities, that sort of thing. I suggested that maybe he could make an appearance on Pharyngula and answer questions. Would anyone else be interested in that? If nothing else, I could do an interview and post it here.

The book will be available to the general public on 15 September, so I might try to arrange for something around that time. One chapter is available for a free preview right now.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1KMbvSt