The climate change policy that President Barack Obama proposed last week panders to environmentalists’ visions of a pollution-free, energy-efficient world, but is so out of touch with the economic and energy realities of today, it’s sure to remain just a dream.
Through presidential decree, Obama aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which are said to cause global warming, by nearly one-fifth by 2020. His proposal accomplishes this by giving the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to regulate and cap carbon emissions from existing power plants, all without any congressional input. The president’s plan is dependent on the notion that the U.S. will lessen its reliance on coal, which now powers about 40 percent of U.S. electricity.
The president’s anti-carbon stance is “for the sake of our children,” he said to the American public at least nine times in a 10-minute speech given last week, threatening anyone, especially industry, to stand up against him. His plan, however, when combined with current EPA environmental standards, may drive about one-third of U.S. coal-fired power plants into retirement, cause regional unemployment, and make electricity bills spike nationwide, according to industry analysts. In his speech last week, the president told us not to worry about these concerns.
He also glossed over the fact that the U.S. alone can’t solve the problem of global warming — that any plan we try to enact is futile unless the entire world agrees to it. If the U.S. completely banned greenhouse gas emissions — a measure beyond what the president is currently calling for — the bulk of global warming, projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, would occur anyway. The U.S. is only responsible for about two-tenths of a degree centigrade of global warming through the year 2100, the Institute for Energy Research estimates.
By global standards, America is already a leader in clean energy. U.S. coal accounts for just six percent of global emissions. Last year, U.S. utilities burned 825 million tons of coal, down from 1.045 billion tons in 2007. Meanwhile, China’s coal consumption skyrocketed to 4.33 billion tons, up from 2.97 billion tons in 2007.
The president’s call to further reduce U.S. emissions in an effort to lead the world by example is nice rhetoric, but in reality, we can’t expect developing nations to follow us anytime soon. To these countries, global warming is a first-world problem. While Americans worry about the fuel-efficiency of their vehicles, 300 million people in India — about the entire U.S. population — still live without electricity. The political conversation in that country isn’t about how to more efficiently harness solar power, but how to import more coal to help build infrastructure.
For developing countries, burning fossil fuels is simply cheaper and more reliable than its environmentally friendly alternatives. Coal fuels 80 percent of China’s electricity partly because clean-burning natural gas is almost four times more expensive in Asia than in the U.S. In India, officials are seeking ways to boost coal-powered utilities, as the country battles chronic power shortages that blunt its economic growth, and domestic sources of natural gas are in short supply.
Limiting a developing nation’s ability to burn coal to produce electricity will hinder, not accelerate, that country’s path to prosperity. It’ll be tough for the president to convince poorer nations to let their people remain at a relative economic disadvantage, all in the name of global warming. Although offering economic incentives, like lowering tariffs on clean-energy technologies, sounds like a good place to start with foreign countries, there’s still no cheaper alternative to energy production than burning coal, especially when the infrastructure is already in place.
Until the rest of the world is willing to embrace an anti-carbon stance, any unilateral moves by the U.S. to enact a climate control policy will prove futile. The president’s plan will only weaken U.S. industry, increase average utility bills, and raise unemployment, all while the U.S. economy is trying to recover from the worst recession since the Great Depression. Now is not the time for sweeping climate change policy — the global economy and marketplace are simply not ready for it.
Kelly Riddell was a Washington-based reporter for Bloomberg News for six years, covering the intersection between business and politics through a variety of industry-based beats. She now is a conservative columnist, writing for US News and World Report, the Washington Times, and other media outlets.