Federal Vs. State Government Re: the Environment: Resolving the Inconsistency
Now here’s a little piece of raw curiosity for you. When it comes to fuel standards for autos, the Trump administration wants the states to subjugate their authority to the federal government; in fact, it’s suing to force the state of California to lower its standard.
But now we learn that Trump will be unveiling a plan to let the states regulate the burning of coal, reversing the progress on clear air (the Clean Power Plan) that had been made in the Obama era. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated in a 300-page analysis that the plan would affect about 300 coal plants, likely keeping them in operation.
What could lie behind this apparent inconsistency? Could it be the support-at-any-cost of the fossil industry? Yes, this will mean frustrating the will of the people, as, according to Pew Research, 65 percent of Americans say the development of renewable energy should take precedence over fossil fuels. But that never has been a big issue with this, or any other administration, for that matter.
From this article: “Emissions are going to go up, and I don’t mean from where they would have been under the Clean Power Plan, but relative to the trends now,” Conrad Schneider, advocacy director for the Clean Air Task Force, told the New York Times. “This is to put the thumb on the scales and bring coal back.”
Craig,
My goodness you do have a talent for juxtaposing different issues don’t you?
The rival arguments of Federal v State power on automotive fuel standards are pretty complex and both sides have a lot of merit and precedents to advance. In the absence of Federal legislation, it will be a real fight for the lawyers acting for the the administration.
If I were a Judge on the US Supreme Court I would be inclined to refuse the administration argument on the basis that Congress is the right place to have the debate, not the Court.
The Trump administration is simply carrying out it’s election promises in relation to the Coal industry.
Naturally, you’ll find the NYT at the forefront of anything anti-Trump. But it’s not just the NYT that’s being close minded,biased and just plain ignorant regarding coal. Many environmentalists have fallen into an obsession about coal, and refuse to even learn about the amazing strides in Clean(er)Coal technology.
Nothing else can bring down emissions as quickly, reliably or as economically as Clean Coal technology !
Why do you persist in refusing to even explore the possibility of this technology helping to rescue the environment ? What are you so scared of ? Being wrong ? Is that it, or have you got so used to having a scapegoat to blame for so long, you can’t bear to discover they might not be the enemy after all ?
I always try to be objective and listen to both sides with an open mind and heart.
Craig,
Sorry, I got interrupted and had to close before finishing.
” frustrating the will of the people, as, according to Pew Research, 65 percent of Americans say the development of renewable energy should take precedence over fossil fuels”
Actually, that’s not accurate. As is in the case of all polls, it depends on how you ask the questions. Most people, once they understand the possibilities of Clean(er) coal technology become ardent supporters.
Unfortunately the mainstream media, along with the left and professional greens, just refuse to even look at the new developments.
What are you so afraid of ? You bitterly complain about climate skeptics, yet you are behaving in exactly the same manner. The environment and technology doesn’t care whose in power politically, the environment just wants the benefits of reducing harmful emissions.
Why not at least listen ?
What is this clean(er) coal technology you speak of? I’ve never heard of that, all I’ve heard is that there’s solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal for clean energies. This is the first time I’ve heard of this new technology!
Hi Susan,
Thank you for your interest.
Environmental advocates fall into two distinct groups. The first, and loudest advocates argue the only solution to climate change is by radical political action and social revolution.
They argue ‘science’ indicates environmental problems are so overwhelming only a revolution can save the planet.
In their opinion social change must be the result of government intervention and enforced by government agencies. Only governments can select and “approve” transition technologies.
These sort of advocates only exist in democratic Western nations and are usually affiliated with the political left.
These folk are more defined by what they’re against. than what they’re for. They hate fossil fuels, pipelines, hydraulic fracking, oil drilling, etc. Their views on climate change science are always taken from wildly alarmist and extreme scenario’s.
They “preach” environmentalism with all the fervor and fanaticism of a fundamentalist demagogue.
Then there’s a second group of environmentalists, quieter less emotive. This group are often labelled “deniers” “skeptics” or even “trolls” by the first group for daring to challenge the wild assertions of the first group.
This second group seeks practical, sensible technical solutions that can reduce emissions without being disruptive or destroying the economy and certainly doesn’t advocate a destructive social “revolution”, just a measured “evolution”.
Let’s call the first group “true believers” and the second group “practical reformers”.
But really, it’s all about clean, or at least cleaner, energy technology.
Susan, the main problem is separating all the passion, emotion and advocacy from technology.
It’s about careful analysis and removing politics from any plan of action. Too much effort has been wasted in idealistic gestures, political posturing and ‘moral’ advocacy, and not enough time and effort analyzing the best way forward for all nations.
Any “solution” that doesn’t include the PRC, India and the developing world isn’t going to work ! These nations need large amounts of “energy on demand”, that sort of demand can only be supplied by coal.
Solar, hydroelectric, wind, geothermal technologies have all proved inadequate for the power demands of industrial and developing nations. (Although you left out the use Of Thorium advanced nuclear technology, which is also zero emissions and delivers very high energy yields).
The only really large scale reduction in greenhouse emissions has been as the result widespread use of natural gas to replace aging coal fired plants. Natural gas derived from “fracking’ technology.
“Practical” environmentalists have taken a different approach to coal fired electricity generation. Instead of “leaving coal in the ground” , these engineers and scientists started to research how to remove and neutralize the harmful emissions.
The first of the technologies was called carbon sequestration and although successful in removing the toxic and harmful gases like C02, proved expensive and impractical.
In the USA, the coal industry lost investment and momentum as the Obama administration openly waged a political “war on coal”. The US got lucky when the Exxon and the other oil majors discovered a whole suite of new technologies to release massive new reserves of natural gas and shale oil, or by now the US economy would be in ruins.
Hydraulic fracking bought the US time and economic revival. It brought sufficient wealth to continue researching and developing renewable technologies.
Obama’s policies didn’t help the environment, they simply shifted the problems to China, India and the developing world. (along with employment and investment). Globally, emissions continued to rise.
Outside the US, other nations continued to research Clean Coal Technology, particularly China and India.
(The term Clean(er) coal is often used because no energy is completely without pollution of some sort).
The 2016 election of President Trump brought about a reversal of US federal policy toward clean coal technology. The President’s personal intervention persuaded China, India and other major Coal nations to collaborate and invest in building a large research facility in Wyoming to develop clean(er) coal technologies.
The results have been spectacular, but largely ignored by the Western media who remain stuck in a Never-Trump, Never Coal, time warp.
Today, Clean coal technology has advanced way beyond just sequestration technologies. Not only in the future will it be possible to extract cheap clean energy from coal without harmful emissions, but those emissions will be turned into valuable by-products !
Some of those by-product will have the capacity to reduce the pollution created by other major emitting industries, thus further reducing emissions. Over 300 uses for the by-products of Coal have been identified, ranging from production of environmental concrete to baking soda!
The real advantage of clean coal technology is the ability to make a rapid, reliable and practical reduction of climate change emissions on a massive scale without needing “social revolution” or government intervention.
Clean Coal isn’t the ultimate answer, just one of many solutions to be pursued, but it shouldn’t be ignored. The technologies emerging from clean coal R&D are simply astounding, and the best is yet to come.
It will be very important for the health of the planet for clean coal technology to replace kerosene and wood burning with electricity in third world nations.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/technology/concrete-carboncure/index.html
https://bigleaguepolitics.com/clean-coal-summit-prove-us-china-ready-cooperate-energy-policy/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2018/05/31/could-clean-coal-actually-become-a-reality/#3a2407a24eab
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2018/04/27/trump_backs_developing_countries_energy_plans_110288.html
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/clean-coal-technologies.aspx