Last Sunday (June 30), the editorial board of The Plain Dealer published an editorial titled “Don’t bypass Congress on climate-change policy,” which criticized President Obama’s climate policy speech at Georgetown on June 25. In the piece, the board argued that the President is acting inappropriately by taking executive action to tackle the US’s greenhouse gas emissions through the Environmental Protection Agency. They note that the proposed regulations on GHG emissions from existing coal-fired power plants would “drive many of them out of business.” They continued:
Such plant closures would disproportionately hurt coal-dependent states such as Ohio. It is unfair to expect one region or small group of states to shoulder the chief economic impacts of a radical policy shift without subsidies or offsets.
An extreme U.S. policy aimed at divesting the nation from coal-fired energy should not be decided by the White House alone.
Unfortunately for the PD editorial board (and the public in Northeast Ohio it’s supposed to inform), this argument is a house of cards that one can easily dissect. So allow me to do so.
First, the board refers to the proposal as one of the “mandates that need no congressional approval” of which Americans must be “wary.” Nowhere in the piece does the board mention the fact that in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA (2007, PDF) the US Supreme Court ordered the EPA to determine if carbon dioxide constitutes a danger to public health in the country, the so-called “endangerment finding”. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, noted that:
Because greenhouse gases fit well within the [Clean Air] Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases…
On December 7, 2009, the EPA issued the results of its endangerment finding, noting that
the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases…in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.
Yet, despite this judicial ruling that EPA regulate GHGs, the editorial board makes no reference to the jurisprudence or the endangerment finding. It treats the President’s actions as if they were capricious and unexpected, rather than mandated by the highest court of the land.
Secondly, the editorial board criticized the President for not working towards the consensus it reveres so highly. “Consensus” and “bipartisanship” are the buzzwords of the day for the Very Serious Persons who sit on editorial boards around the country. Yes, if only President Obama could reach out to Congressional Republicans and bring them to the table on climate action.
Of course, this belief completely belies reality. The modern Republican Party is the only opposition party in the world that steadfastly denies climate science. Moreover, the party remains completely obsequious to the fossil fuel industry. According to a recent study from the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University, 411 elected officials around the country have signed a pledge to the Koch brothers-funded Americans for Prosperity promising to avoid taking action on climate change.
Furthermore, while VSPs at the PD and The Washington Post continue to write ballads about their fantasy carbon tax, recent evidence suggests that the EPA route may be the better alternative. A report from Resources for the Future suggests that, depending on the details, EPA regulation would likely be more effective at reducing GHG emissions than a carbon tax. This is particularly true, given the carbon tax that would likely come out of the current Congress – none.
Thirdly, the PD editorial board asserts, without providing any evidence, that the President’s climate plan will necessitate “sweeping economic sacrifice” and will change the “lifestyles and energy sources” of Ohioans. Once again, the board refused to let fact get in the way of a [not so] good argument.
For decades, industry shills and their supporters have cried out against EPA regulations, claiming they would destroy the American economy. Yet, in case after case, the benefits of these regulations have far exceeded estimates, while the costs have been vastly lower than projected. The Edison Electric Institute claimed (PDF) that the 1990 Clean Air Act (CAA) amendments would carry $4-5 billion in annual compliance costs. The actual annual cost? $836 million. They were only off by 81.4%. According to a 2010 study, the benefits of the CAA and the 1990 amendments outweighed the costs by a ratio of 32.1 to 1 ($23.42 trillion in benefits to $730 billion in costs).
A recent study from the Natural Resources Defense Council suggest that EPA regulations on GHG emissions will once again provide a significant net benefit. In December, NRDC put together a proposed set of regulations for EPA to implement. This plan would set state-by-state emissions reductions standards, allowing coal-dependent states like Ohio to make a more gradual shift to more renewable energy sources. According to their assessment, the plan would reduce GHG emissions by 26% by 2020; its benefits would be roughly 6 to 15 times greater (PDF) than its associated costs.
NRDC recently had a respected firm run an economic assessment of this plan (PDF). The firm, Synapse Energy Economics, found that, contrary to the warnings of the naysayers at the PD, this plan would create 210,000 jobs and reduce electric bills by $0.90 per month through 2020.
Ohio, one of the 14 states included in the analysis, would particularly benefit. The state would gain an additional 12,000 jobs – second only to Florida – and households would pay $1.03 less per month for electricity. Moreover, these regulations would simply speed up the transition away from coal that the state is already making. Under SB 221, Ohio is already obligated (PDF) to improve its energy efficiency by 22.2% and get 12.5% of its energy from renewable energy sources. Rather than increasing prices or killing jobs, a study from Ohio State has concluded that the policy saved ratepayers $170 million on their electric bills from 2008-2012 and created 3,200 jobs in the state.
Lastly – and unsurprisingly, given Ohio’s fealty to the coal industry – the editorial fails to mention any of the serious consequences of the state’s dependence on coal. A myriad of studies shows that coal carries significant costs for public health and well-being. According to a 2011 research article (PDF),
the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are
costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.
If we were to internalize these externalities, the authors estimate that the price of coal-fired electricity would double or triple, making it noncompetitive with renewables. The Clean Air Task Force has concluded (PDF) that coal plants are responsible for 13,200 premature deaths, 20,400 heart attacks, and 217,600 asthma attacks annually in the US. Given Ohio’s dependence on this filthy fuel, the state ranked 2nd in 2010 for in coal-related mortality risk, hospital admissions, and heart attacks. The Cleveland metro area ranked 8th for mortality. All in all, evidence suggests that, for every $1 in economic benefits from coal, it carries $2 in costs to the public.
The Plain Dealer‘s editorial is just the latest in a series of inaccurate claims that EPA regulations will doom the American economy. They have proven wrong, time and again, and the PD will almost certainly be wrong here. The editorial is inaccurate, shortsighted, and – to be frank – an extremely lazy argument. As President Obama said in his climate speech,
[T]he problem with all these tired excuses for inaction is that it suggests a fundamental lack of faith in American business and American ingenuity. These critics seem to think that when we ask our businesses to innovate and reduce pollution and lead, they can’t or they won’t do it. They’ll just kind of give up and quit. But in America, we know that’s not true.
The next time the PD wants to write about climate policy, I suggest the editorial board actually does its homework, rather than relying on a tired set of easily disproved talking points.