Reading Los Angeles: Join The Times' new book club
Opinion Editorial

EPA plan to curb carbon emissions is pragmatic, smart and overdue

Global warming: U.S., and EPA, must prevent as much damage as possible
Why should U.S. utilities do nothing on global warming because global counterparts aren't doing enough?

The Obama administration's new effort to reduce carbon emissions from power plants is pragmatic, smart and overdue. Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule is already coming under attack from those who argue that it is economic suicide to force expensive and unilateral changes in the power grid just to lower carbon emissions in the United States. Those critics would have U.S. utilities do nothing about global warming simply because their counterparts in other countries aren't doing enough. That reasoning is perverse and unpersuasive.

Federal law compels the EPA to reduce harmful air pollutants, and carbon dioxide from power plants is the largest contributor by far to changes in the climate that could be ruinous to the planet. But the agency isn't seeking to cap the amount of CO2 coming out of smokestacks, as it has done with toxins such as mercury. Instead, it has proposed a unique emissions target for each state based on what the EPA believes local utilities can achieve. Exactly how the target would be met would be up to each state, but the pressure would be on utilities to shift away from the coal-fired plants that are the biggest carbon polluters.

Those plants produced 45% of U.S. electricity in 2010, or 5 percentage points less than they did at their peak in 2005, while coal use has grown rapidly around the world. Yet the United States still ranks as the second-largest carbon emitter. Even if lower emissions from U.S. plants aren't sufficient to stop global warming, they are a necessary part of the solution. And no one should expect the likes of China and India to do more to curb their plants' emissions if the U.S. isn't willing to act.

Some environmental groups, in fact, are disturbed that the EPA didn't propose larger cuts. Instead, the agency wisely based the targets on available methods for reducing emissions, which made the proposed rule less ambitious but more reasonable. Taking a cue from California, which is well on its way to meeting the agency's proposed target, the agency also let states look beyond their utilities' smokestacks for ways to reduce emissions. These include cap-and-trade systems for C02 and energy efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.

The EPA's expansive approach is certain to be tested in court by those upset about the prospect of more expensive electricity. Reducing emissions doesn't necessarily mean forcing consumers to spend more on energy, however. Just look at California, where efficiency standards have held monthly electric bills almost 25% below the national average even though electricity rates are among the highest in the country.

Besides, the country can't afford to ignore the problem posed by coal-fired plants. Global warming threatens to be an environmental catastrophe, and the U.S. must prevent as much of the damage as it can. As multiple recent studies have concluded, the cost of dealing with the worst effects of climate change will far outweigh the cost of preventing them.

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • The truth behind Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories
    The truth behind Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories

    Jade Helm 15 is a special forces training exercise scheduled to take place this summer across seven Southwestern states. It has sparked strong opposition and elaborate conspiracy theories. When Lt. Col. Mark Lastoria answered questions about the operation at a public meeting last month in Bastrop...

  • The job-killing-robot myth
    The job-killing-robot myth

    Are robots displacing millions of workers? Many people seem to think so. Recently, for instance, the New York Times ran an op-ed claiming that “the machines are getting smarter, and they're coming for more and more jobs.” On Tuesday the Wall Street Journal sounded the alarm that “robots are taking...

  • How an app destroyed their streets: Readers count the Waze
    How an app destroyed their streets: Readers count the Waze

    For many drivers in Los Angeles, the app Waze is a godsend, providing real-time, crowdsourced traffic tips to motorists desperate for alternatives to congested thoroughfares and highways that, during rush hour, make a mockery of the word "freeway." But to some residents of the formerly quiet neighborhoods...

  • While we focus on candidates, we lose sight of threats to democracy
    While we focus on candidates, we lose sight of threats to democracy

    Over the past few days, the field of declared 2016 presidential candidates has picked up a few more names, each announcement quickly detailed and closely analyzed. Does getting bounced from her seat running Hewlett-Packard, and conducting a solitary and abysmal U.S. Senate campaign, make Carly...

  • The USA Freedom Act: A smaller Big Brother
    The USA Freedom Act: A smaller Big Brother

    Last fall, Congress was on the verge of doing away with the most troubling invasion of privacy revealed by Edward Snowden: the National Security Agency's indiscriminate collection of the telephone records of millions of Americans. But then opponents cited the emergence of Islamic State as a reason...

  • Britain's election: A muddle across the pond
    Britain's election: A muddle across the pond

    Americans exasperated by the gridlock in Washington sometimes look enviously at Britain, where the parliamentary system combines executive and legislative duties and the prime minister almost always gets his or her way. Unlike a president who may face a Congress controlled by the other party —...