Business
              In this Sept. 20, 2013, photo, President Barack Obama gestures as he speaks to workers at the Ford Kansas City Stamping Plant in Liberty, Mo.  Obama arrives at the United Nations on Monday, Sept. 23, with diplomatic openings, the result of help from unexpected partners, on three fronts: Iran, Syria, and elusive peace between Israel and the Palestinians. All three pathways are fraught with potential pitfalls and hinge on cooperation from often unreliable nations. (AP Photo/Orlin Wagner)

EPA admits banning coal plants won’t impact global warming

The Obama administration is effectively banning the construction of new coal-fired power plants, a move officials admit will have little to no impact on global warming.

“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission change … by 2022,” the agency writes in its proposal to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

“EPA knows there aren’t benefits,” Dan Simmons, director of regulatory and state affairs at the Institute for Energy Research, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “EPA and environmentalists are being disingenuous when they claim this rule will have an impact on the climate or the environment.”

Last week, the EPA unveiled the first ever carbon emissions limits for new power power plants, hailing them as the first step to combating global warming and protecting future generations.

“Climate change is one of the most significant public health challenges of our time. By taking commonsense action to limit carbon pollution from new power plants, we can slow the effects of climate change and fulfill our obligation to ensure a safe and healthy environment for our children,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.

The rule “will contribute to the actions required to slow or reverse the accumulation of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere, which is necessary to protect against projected climate change impacts and risks.”

Why ban coal power if it won’t even put a dent in global warming? Critics say this is because the EPA is trying to mask the high costs of compliance by not claiming that the proposal would create any benefits.

“They don’t want to quantify the damages,” Simmons said. “They know the rule will create large harms, but they don’t want to be held liable.”

By claiming monetized benefits from cutting carbon emissions from power plants, the EPA would also have to calculate the costs — meaning how the rule would impact the coal industry, employment and the economy.