Every time I visit my in-laws in southern Illinois, I pass coal mines and electric plants where large banners denounce President Barack Obama as a hater of coal (and by extension, an enemy of all who live and work in this very state from whence the President hails.) It now seems the debate is about to heat up even more.
By announcing tough new greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has raised the heat on recalcitrant politicians -- both in Washington, as well as Ottawa -- to effectively address climate change.
Since the Copenhagen Accord was initialed in late 2009, Ottawa and Washington have shared the same target: to reduce GHG emissions by 17 per cent by the year 2020, compared to 2005 levels. Both countries released similar regulations on future fuel efficiency standards for trucks and cars. The difference, however, was that the U.S. is on target to achieve their goal. Meanwhile, Canada's emissions are rising and even Environment Canada has reported that the country will miss its promised goal.
This announcement in Washington changes the terrain, leaving Canada's federal Conservatives increasingly unable to respond by inaction. The former Mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, stated, "Other countries have been waiting for the U.S. to lead by example, and (this) action will make it harder for them to remain on the sidelines. As the United Nations special envoy for cities and climate change, I see firsthand how closely the world is watching what America does. This step will help give President Obama the credibility he needs to persuade other countries to take action."
By the new EPA guidelines, the U.S. power sector must now cut carbon dioxide emissions 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. States are free to develop their own strategies to meet their goal: options could include developing alternative energy sources, retrofitting buildings and conserving, or even developing cap-and-trade markets for carbon. However, these new guidelines are expected to affect coal-fired plants most severely - since the roughly 1,000 coal-fired plants in the USA produce almost 40% of America's electricity - but also almost 40% of the nation's GHG emissions. The most likely response is for America to massively move to gas-fired electricity plants, since producing the same amount of energy by burning gas produces only half the emissions as does coal. Not only does America have natural gas in abundance, but current gas-fired plants are only operating at 45% of production.
Nonetheless, opposition to the EPA announcement will be brutal. President Obama only moved this way because his cap-and-trade proposal had been previously blocked, and Congress will not support a climate plan from his Administration. Already, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, called the proposal, "a dagger in the heart of the American middle class." This rhetoric comes in spite of the fact that some 13,000 Americans are killed by pollution from coal-fired plants every year, and sickens thousands more. The EPA estimates nearly $90 billion will be saved in healthcare and insurance premiums if these actions to mitigate the effects of climate pollution are taken.
The response in Canada to the new EPA measures has been muted. Regrettably, Canada has yet to establish a GHG reduction plan, and the long-promised regulations for the Canadian oil and gas sector have been repeatedly postponed. Perhaps now that the U.S. plan covers both new and old power plants, the long-awaited Canadian regulations will not be limited to regulating new facilities.
By the EPA action, it seems clear that President Obama wants an ambitious international climate agreement to back up his own initiatives. Canada, which has pulled out of the Kyoto Accord and has refused in 2013 to ante up the $400 million contribution to the UN's Green Fund (which we had provided to underdeveloped countries in each of the previous three years) appears to be increasingly offside with the global effort. Will Canada now be forced to do something positive at upcoming UN climate meetings -- such as the 2014 COP in Lima or COP 2015 in Paris where a new global accord must be signed? More pressing yet, Prime Minister Harper has not yet accepted the UN Secretary General's invitation to September's Climate Summit at the UN in New York.
Here at home, the Pembina Institute remarked, "The EPA's climate rules send a strong signal that the United States is serious about addressing its largest source of greenhouse gas pollution. In contrast, the Canadian government continues to resist action on addressing its major emissions growth problem -- the rapidly increasing greenhouse gas pollution from oilsands production." Archbishop Desmond Tutu's recent visit to the oilsands and his references to them as "filth" have created international attention which cannot be to Ottawa's favour.
To be sure, these recent policy moves in Washington fall short of the carbon pricing plan that CPJ believes we need. Nonetheless, they represent a significant and achievable step forward that should pressure Ottawa, and all Canadians, to improve our own policies and performance in reducing carbon emissions.
ALSO ON HUFFPOST:
