Published on
On Monday, June 2, the Obama administration made environmental headlines when it announced new standards to reduce carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Why coal? Probably because in spite of the increased use of natural gas over recent years, coal still provides about 40% of the electricity produced in the United States (followed by gas, at 30%, and nuclear, 19%).
The Obama administration says that climate change cost the US economy $100 million in 2012 and that the electric power sector accounts for one third of the country's greenhouse gas emissions.
From a political point of view, Obama is taking on a powerful lobby. Coal is still mined in 26 American states, including some where Democrats have been elected. This lobby has also funded several anti-climate, anti-environment campaigns in the States and even in Canada in recent years. The Kosh brothers alone have spent more than $67 million since 1997 on campaigns against measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In Obama's first term, he had tried to convince Congress to adopt a new law. This time, he bypassed Congress, using his own executive authority directly through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA plans to cut carbon emissions from existing coal-fired power plants by 30% over 2005 levels by 2030.
According to the EPA, these measures will lead to climate and health benefits of an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030, and will help avoid the premature deaths of between 2700 and 6600 people, and from 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.
On this side of the border, it is another blow to Mr. Harper, who has said that he wanted to follow the lead of the United States on climate change. This excuse worked well when Obama's efforts were paralyzed by Congress, but now? We'll see if the emperor is wearing any clothes.
This article by Steven Guilbeault, senior director of Equiterre, originally appeared in French in the Métro newspaper.
