Too big to ignore

Kristin Smith

When President Barack Obama announced the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Clean Power Plan, it was met with mixed reviews. Certainly, reducing carbon emissions to 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 will have huge ramifications on the power industry especially, which accounts for one-third of the country’s carbon emissions. Many in the recycling and construction industry also may be wondering how this new policy will affect their businesses.

These are the first national limits on carbon in U.S. history. The landmark rule leaves it up to each individual state to determine how it will achieve this goal.

One can hardly argue the environmental impact of climate change, which can in part be contributed to greenhouse gases. The Clean Power Plan is projected to contribute significant pollution reductions, resulting climate and health benefits, including up to $45 million in climate and health benefits and the avoidance of thousands of premature deaths, heart attacks and asthma attacks that result from air pollution.

A statement from U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM) President and Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said, “Cities have been leading the way since 2005 with over 1,000 mayors pledging to reduce their carbon emissions below 1990 levels through their efforts to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy, retrofitting lights and buildings, reducing waste, increasing recycling efforts and reducing landfill emissions.”

While groups like the USCM have come out in support of the plan, many industries and politicians alike have been vocal in their opposition.

The Portland Cement Association’s (PCA’s) stance on the ramifications could be alarming to those in the construction and related industries. “These unprecedented regulations will have enormous impact,” said PCA President James Toscas. “Everybody, including EPA, agrees that they will boost the cost of electricity, which in turn will increase the cost of making and using nearly everything. Higher costs hurt every American’s pocketbook and mean fewer investments, fewer construction projects and fewer jobs.”

PCA also notes that industrial processes used to make electricity, cement and other commodities and combustion have always produced carbon dioxide (CO₂) and that these industries have gradually reduced their emissions over the last decade. The association notes that to reduce CO₂ to the EPA regulations would result in massive investments in new plants and technologies, “some of which don’t exist today.”

I don’t think anyone disagrees that reducing carbon emissions is a good thing. Many companies are voluntarily finding ways to reduce their use of fossil fuels by increasing their use of renewable fuels. What is at issue is the level at which the plan is asking. If the goal does prove unachievable, then it will be up to industry associations like the PCA to speak up so the EPA can adjust its requirements to a more realistic level.