Some of the reporting of the climate impacts of the Dirty Power scheme has been inaccurateLast October,then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the agency would repeal the Obama administration’s Clean Power scheme. But because the Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that carbon dioxide is an air pollutant and the Obama EPA correctly concluded that it poses a threat to public welfare via climate change, the EPA is legally obligated to accomplish something to address that threat. That meant they needed a replacement scheme.final week, and the Trump EPA unveiled that scheme and inaccurately named it the ‘Affordable Clean Energy Rule. The rule basically just extends the life of some dirty coal power plants and encourages them to run a bit more efficiently. The rule’s costs in worsening public health far exceed its monetary benefits. It would more accurately be named the ‘Expensive Dirty Power scheme.’One of the remarkable things about the modern EPA assessment released for Trump's power scheme,isn't even related to the modern scheme.
The EPA has radically reduced the estimated impact of Obama's Clean Power scheme. 1/900 more premature deaths per year40000 more annual cases of asthma42000 lost work days60000 more school absence days230000 more restricted-activity days for kidsIn short, Obama’s CPP is a no brainer — small cost, or huge benefits. And remember,this is according to figures buried in calculations released alongside the announced scheme to repeal the CPP.
Yet, Trump has asserted for years that the CPP was a costly mistake, and that’s why the U.
S. had to become the only major country in the world to withdraw from the Paris climate accord.
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com