Monday, July 21, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 11 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

EPA to seek to cut power plant carbon by one-third

By Associated Press

LAST UPDATED: 05:09 p.m. HST, Jun 01, 2014

WASHINGTON >> The Obama administration on Monday will unveil a plan to cut earth-warming pollution from power plants by 30 percent by 2020, setting in motion one of the most significant actions to address global warming in U.S. history.

The rule, which is expected to be final next year, will set the first-ever national limits on carbon dioxide, the chief gas linked to global warming from the nation's power plants. They are the largest source of greenhouse gases in the U.S., accounting for about a third of the annual emissions, and make the U.S. the second largest contributor to global warming on the planet.

The regulation is a centerpiece of President Barack Obama's plans to reduce the pollution linked to global warming, a step that the administration hopes will get other countries to act when negotiations on a new international treaty resume next year.

Environmental Protection Agency data shows that the nation's power plants have reduced carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 13 percent since 2005, or about halfway to their goal. But with coal-fired power plant already beleaguered by booming natural gas supplies and other environmental regulations, experts on Sunday said getting there won't be easy. The EPA is expected to offer a range of options to states based on where they get their electricity from and how much carbon dioxide they emit in the process.

Obama has already tackled the emissions from the nation's cars and trucks, announcing rules to reducecarbon dioxide emissions by doubling fuel economy. That standard will reduce carbon dioxide by more than 2 billion tons. The power plant proposal will prevent about 650 million tons of carbon dioxide from reaching the atmosphere, based on the 30 percent figure.

The EPA refused to confirm the details of the proposal Sunday. People familiar with the proposal shared the details on condition of anonymity, since they have not been officially released.

The details were first reported Sunday by The Wall Street Journal.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 11 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
AFishOutofH20 wrote:
They should set the deadline for 2020!!!!!!!! We can't wait till 2030!!!!!!!!
on June 1,2014 | 01:34PM
Kawipoo wrote:
Someone is going to burn the coal and it wll be China. They will release more pollutants than American industry burning the same coal. Typical liberal BS where one believes the US alone will stop global warming. In the meantime hand all our natural resources to other countries. Real Smart!!
on June 1,2014 | 02:36PM
sailfish1 wrote:
You may need glasses - the article says 2020.
on June 1,2014 | 08:36PM
CEI wrote:
Barack Nero fiddles while America burns. If he would just stop giving hollow and meaningless speeches "earth warming" gases would be sharply reduced. Then we could continue to enjoy the cheap and abundant energy that clean coal technology provides not to mention the well paying jobs that are associated with coal.
on June 1,2014 | 01:46PM
headcheese wrote:
Since 1900, technological developments in the coal mining industry have dramatically increased miner productivity; thus, while U.S. coal production is currently at a record high, mining employment is a fraction of what it was during the heyday of coal mining in the 1910's and 20's. Currently less than 83,000 jobs in the USA are related to mining and transporting coal. The Kohl brothers are the highest paid in the coal industry.
on June 1,2014 | 03:41PM
headcheese wrote:
Clean coal is a term for technology (Clean coal technology) that mitigates emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gasses that arise from the burning of coal for electrical power. We do not have clean coal now, but may in the future.
on June 1,2014 | 03:43PM
DowntownGreen wrote:
But if people keep repeating it enough, there are those who will believe the technology already exists. How convenient for the coal industry, eh?
on June 1,2014 | 05:04PM
Winston wrote:
The technology to achieve what you describe has never been validated on a large scale. Aside from a fairly favorable (to success) prototype application at (I believe) only one plant has employed such. The likely reality is that it either will not work on a large scale or will greatly exceed cost estimates, meaning that utility rates will "necessarily skyrocket", to quote Barack the Omnipotent, unfortunately, for the peasants in coal country and the midwest. Naturally, peasants being short term thinkers, the great impact of these noble regulations will only be felt well after the next election or two (Have we seen this movie?)
on June 2,2014 | 05:01AM
HD36 wrote:
Oregon will be taxing people based on the miles driven because too many people bought gas saving hybrid vehicles. So do they really want to save the planet or find another way to add taxes. My guess is the later. Just like Obama Care, the government is getting into your life any way it can. There is no escape with this regime. Total control is the goal. Wealth confiscation and redistribution is the result.
on June 1,2014 | 08:06PM
sailfish1 wrote:
Reducing U.S. power plant pollution linked to global warming is not going to make the world a better place. Irreversible damage has already been done and there are plenty of developing countries that will produce more pollution. It's just talk that gives everyone a good feeling.
on June 1,2014 | 08:52PM
Winston wrote:
This AP story is more evidence that every other journalist should be shot (This is humor). Why? Not one mention of cost, direct or otherwise, and not one mention of the impact of the new regulations on global warming or climate change or whatever it's called this week.

Utility rates up, jobs down, impact on global warming, zilch (due to fact that China/India are building new coal plants a furious pace).

According to the head of EPA, this hair shirt we're about to put on will “position(s) the U.S. for leadership on this issue.” How nice. We'll be in position for leadership (after abandoning global leadership in almost every category.

on June 2,2014 | 04:51AM
Breaking News