Last Wednesday, the EPA finalized plans for its latest rollback of a landmark Obama-era climate policy. It currently looks to replace it with a rule protecting the declining coal industry.
Former President Barack Obama’s rule, the Clean Power Plan (CPP), was the U.S. government’s only policy aimed at directly curtailing pollution caused by carbon-fueled plants. Research suggests President Donald Trump’s new plan would not only harm the environment, but also create major health risks.
Ramifications of Trump’s ACE Rule, According to the EPA
According to the EPA, if the CPP were to be implemented, it would prevent 3,600 premature deaths annually. Additionally, it could prevent over 1,700 heart attacks and 90,000 asthma attacks. Trump’s plan, in comparison, could lead to 460 to 1,400 more premature deaths annually and cause exacerbated cases of diseases like asthma.
The Trump administration’s Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule will significantly loosen regulations imposed on coal-fueled power plants. The ACE rule would grant states more flexibility in deciding whether to require limited efficiency upgrades. The new rule, signed by EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler, will allow power plants to operate without adhering to strict national regulation.
“We are gathered here today because the American public elected a president with a better approach,” Wheeler said. “One of the president’s first acts in office was to issue an executive order to promote energy independence. In it, he instructed EPA to rescind, replace, or revise the Clean Power Plan.”
Wheeler also criticized the CPP by saying the plan would create an economic burden on low- and middle-income Americans. Ultimately, the regulation was blocked by the Supreme Court after facing legal opposition from 28 states and hundreds of companies.
Differences Between the CPP and ACE
Through the CPP, Obama pushed for the reconstruction of power grids to lessen the country’s reliance on coal and fossil fuels for energy. He also called for a fixed national emissions limit. The plan aimed to slash U.S. power sector emissions up to 32% below 2005 levels by 2030.
While the ACE rule still complies with the EPA’s legal obligation to reduce carbon emissions, it does so on a much smaller scale. Under this plan, the United States would only cut 0.7-1.5% of emissions by 2030.
“The Trump plan is founded upon a warped reinterpretation of the Clean Air Act that allows states to decide whether or not to regulate one of the largest sources of carbon emissions in our country,” Democrat Senator Tom Carper of Delaware said about what he calls a “dirty power plan.”
Reactions to Trump’s ACE Rule
It’s likely Trump will face the same legal turmoil as his predecessor while trying to impose the ACE rule. Already, attorney generals from California, Oregon, Washington State, Iowa, Colorado, and New York have announced plans to sue the U.S. government to halt the rule. Environmental groups will likely join the legal battle against the new rule too.
However, one group largely backing this new plan is perhaps obvious: coal miners. Throughout Trump’s campaign, he has vocalized his support for the revitalization of the coal industry.
Trump’s Advocacy for the Coal Industry
While on the campaign trail in 2016 amidst “Trump Digs Coal” signs, the president repeated at rallies, “We are putting our great coal miners back to work. I’m coal’s last shot.” Trump has made a point to advocate against the “war on coal,” and in agreement with this belief, one of Trump’s first moves as president was the cessation of the CPP.
Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist himself, emphasized the benefits the ACE rule will have on rural communities dependent on the coal industry for employment.
“I’m glad that the current leadership here at the EPA understands that we can have smart environmental regulations and protect coal jobs and our economy at the same time,” Republican Representative Bill Johnson of Ohio said in support of Trump’s new rule.
Despite Trump’s advocacy for the coal industry, far more coal-fueled power plants closed down than in Obama’s first term. As found by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, national coal consumption has plummeted 39% to the lowest level it has seen in 40 years. Competition from other energy sources, including natural gas and wind energy, explains this drop.
Conclusions on EPA Rollbacks
So while it’s clear that the coal industry is declining, Trump’s new plan may stall its downfall. The ACE rule displays the stark contrast between Obama and Trump’s approach to environmental regulation. This new rule further shows in the battle for environmental protection, Trump will continue to side with big coal.
Emily is a Writer at The Rising, a Copywriter for Medius Ventures, a Business student at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and a former writer for the Daily Illini. For any inquiries or story pitches, reach out to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Let’s Say Trump Starts A War With Iran. What Would Happen To The Environment?
Since President Trump assassinated Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani via drone-strike on January 3rd, the world has stood still with bated breath. Will war break out between the United States and Iran? If it does, it will certainly destroy lives, properties, and economies. But how would war with Iran affect the environment?
A War With Iran Could Expedite Ecocide
One of the many tragedies of war is the environmental toll it inflicts. And this toll will only be compounded by the constantly rising threat of climate collapse. As the climate crisis becomes more and more dangerous in the 2020s, war (let alone world war) will only expedite its advance.
Much of war’s environmental consequences arise from chemical pollution. Especially in war zones with heavy military vehicle presences, the oil residue will contaminate natural resources. In addition, the uranium found in discarded ammunition rounds can cause radiation, which hurts both plant and human life.
Ramifications of Chemical Weapons
Chemical weapons can also easily produce carcinogenic environments. High radiation levels from chemical warfare can increase the risk of cancer around war zones — alongside poisoning soil, water, and crops.
Not only that, but air force bases can generate toxic fuel spills. These spills contaminate drinking water sources and pollute land and natural resources. Wartime destruction of infrastructure, oil fields, and military bases also cause widespread oil and chemical leaks.
Deforestation Becomes a Bigger Threat
Deforestation becomes a bigger threat during wartime as well. As warfare increases the number of displaced peoples, they often must resort to using timber for warmth in the winter months. Warlords can then take advantage of this demand, furthering deforestation.
To make matters worse, bases will oftentimes purposefully burn military garbage. These ‘burn pits,’ alongside causing long-term health problems, are disastrous for the environment.
And What About Nukes?
A war with Iran, in particular, may promise an added threat. The U.S. has an extensive supply of nuclear weapons at its disposal, although Iran has not pursued a nuclear arsenal. If the U.S. or any other nuclear powers choose to pursue nuclear warfare, the environmental outlook is grim.
Researchers have analyzed the environmental consequences of small-scale nuclear war. Only 100 deployed nuclear weapons would toss so much sun-blocking soot into the atmosphere that the global temperature would lower one degree Celcius.
This may sound like a possible combative to global warming, but the temperature drop would distribute unevenly, mainly targeting inland areas responsible for agriculture. This could cause food insecurity — or nuclear famine — that could reach the whole globe.
If that doesn’t sound too pleasant to you, then you probably won’t like to hear that global precipitation rates would also plummet, as would the security of many food chains.
The U.S. Department of Defense’s Carbon Footprint
All those consequences would certainly create an enormous environmental disaster. Unfortunately, another (even larger) environmental disaster must be considered. That disaster is the astronomical carbon footprint of the U.S. Department of Defense, which would only increase in the event of a war with Iran.
Since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. military has emitted around 1,212 million metric tons of greenhouse gases. This is a larger figure than the greenhouse gas emissions of 140 nations combined.
And, based off of 2017 estimates, the military has emitted 59 million tons of carbon dioxide. The Department of Defense is also the number one institutional user of petroleum across the globe. Even without a war with Iran, these numbers are unsustainable.
And, in comparison, the U.S.’s climate defense budget is 0.2% of the Department of Defense’s budget.
All these alarming numbers add up to one climate catastrophe. If a war with Iran is imminent, so is further climate collapse.
“Addressing climate change” is the #1 issue for 14% of voters in the 2020 election, poll finds
The last year seems to have been an environmental wake-up call for many, realizing addressing climate change should be a top priority. From company policies to green technology, more and more organizations are engaging with eco-friendly practices. But it’s not just companies — it’s also people like you and me.
It’s not just anecdotal either. Polls and studies are repeatedly finding that people are indeed dedicated to addressing climate change — especially in the 2020 elections.
With the 2020 elections fast approaching, the public is constantly assessing the qualities of presidential candidates. A new poll finds, almost unsurprisingly, that addressing climate change and protecting the environment are top priorities for many American voters.
New Poll Shows Addressing Climate Change is a Priority
According to an Environmental Voter Project poll, environmental issues are one of the leading voter concerns.
In fact, after assessing 1,514 U.S. registered voters, the team found that 14% of the sample designated “addressing climate change and protecting the environment” as their single most important issue. Additionally, the research notes that the group is primarily composed of 18-29-year-olds, Democrats, and individuals who self-identify as “very progressive”.
Although seemingly small, these numbers show exponential growth from previous data collected 4 years ago. During the 2016 Presidential election, only 2-6% of registered voters considered addressing climate as their prioritized issue.
Environmental Voters Show Outstanding Dedication
Compared to previous years, individuals show a record-breaking motivation to participate in the 2020 presidential election.
In fact, some 35% of sampled voters were willing to wait over an hour to cast their ballot.
However, out of all categories, individuals who listed addressing climate change as their most important issue seem to display the most dedication to their civic duties. In this group, voters are willing to wait an average of an hour and 13 minutes to cast their ballot. This is approximately 10 minutes more than the next longest wait time.
Storming Polling Booths in Waves
According to Nathaniel Stinnett, the founder of the project, “There are almost 30 million climate voters who are already registered to vote. That’s a huge constituency”. He continues to note that these numbers are approximately “four times the number of NRA members”. Historically, the NRA is a group that helped influence previous elections.
These numbers can only increase. With this, the overall political advocacy for the environment should strengthen over time.
Summary (oh, and Register to Vote!)
Although other matters such as healthcare and immigration seem to play an important role in voters’ minds, it’s comforting to see a trend in environmental dedication. However, it does not stop here.
From raging bushfires in Australia to the melting of the Arctic, it is evident that more effort needs to be put into addressing climate change.
Fortunately, we are becoming rapidly weary of the implications climate change has on the planet. Despite tens of millions of individuals already committed to voting for the environment, you can still play a role.
The Real MEAT Act Of 2019: A Vicious Political Attack On Plant-Based Meat
Plant-based meat has gained significant traction in the past year as companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods released their products to a mainstream audience. Using ingredients like soy, beetroot, and herbs to create a surprisingly convincing plant-based burger, these companies have received generally positive reception from consumers and critics alike.
The market is growing at a rapid pace too; in fact, some estimates show that the plant-based meat market could reach $85 billion in the next decade. Hence, it is unsurprising that the beef industry is worried about plant-based meat taking market share. But what is surprising is the way the industry is fighting back.
Introducing the Real MEAT Act, a piece of legislation supported by strong political and financial backing from some of the most prominent companies in the meat industry.
How the Fight Between Plant-based Meat and the Meat Industry Began
Though on one hand consumers have found plant-based meat to be tasty, they are also an environmentally-friendly substitute. Providing a valuable nutrition source at a fraction of the energy necessary for naturally-sourced beef, plant-based meat is giving the beef industry a run for its money.
Today, the methane that cows belch out is one of the many sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, cattle herds require wide swaths of cleared land. Land clearing has most recently allowed the Amazon fires to ensue.
These sustainability concerns have made plant-based meat all the more appealing for consumers and companies like Beyond Meat and others.
The beef industry is worried; hence, it is looking to take competitors down with legislation.
Introducing The Real MEAT Act of 2019
In October, Representatives Roger Marshall (Republican, Kentucky) and Anthony Brindisi (Democrat, New York) introduced the Real MEAT Act to the House.
MEAT stands for Marketing Edible Artificials Truthfully, which nicely caps off an obvious bow to vested interests with a succinct acronym. The bill received raucous applause from NCBA (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association) elites, their profits seemingly assured.
The bill asserts that plant-based meat products are confusing customers. Though the bill makes no specific mention of any companies, it seems to assert that companies like Beyond Meat are ruthlessly deceiving customers.
The Real MEAT Act would force these companies to stop using words like “burger”, “sausage”, and “meat” in their products. Instead, legislation would force companies that sell plant-based meat to use clinical and un-appetizing adjectives to describe their products.
That, unsurprisingly, would likely lead to decreased sales.
Understanding the Real MEAT Act and Its Interests
More recently, Nebraska Senator (Republican) and career cattle rancher Deb Fischer proposed the Real MEAT Act in the Senate. She defended her bill in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal.
The article features a plethora of willfully obstinate and patently false arguments, but this is one of them:
“Many of these fake-meat companies are running smear campaigns against actual beef, using deceptive labeling and marketing practices. This has left consumers confused about the ingredients and nutritional values of so-called beef alternatives.” — Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer
What the Real MEAT Act Means for Plant-Based Meat
The bill seems to have a nefarious motivation behind it, but there’s a chance that it still passes. On the bright side, a federal judge recently swatted down a similar bill from Arkansas state legislature.
The Real MEAT Act, however, is supported by financial and political backing on a nationwide scale.
What You Can Do Today To Help
If you are for free-market competition in the beef industry, consider calling your Congressional Representative today. Urge them to speak against the Real MEAT Act.
Subscribe for the most important sustainability stories sent to your email every morning!
Thank you for subscribing.
Something went wrong.
Business1 week ago
JetBlue Airways Will Become Carbon Neutral By July 2020, Making It The First In US History
Politics1 week ago
Let’s Say Trump Starts A War With Iran. What Would Happen To The Environment?
Sustainability4 days ago
What You Need To Know About Sustainable Transportation: Obstacles, Progress, And More
Action3 days ago
How Can YOU Help In The Fight Against The Australia Fires?
Business22 hours ago
This Restaurant Giant Is Making An Ambitious Commitment To Sustainable Packaging