Later today, US President Barack Obama will unveil the final version of the centrepiece of his climate legacy: the Clean Power Plan.
It is designed to speed up the retirement of coal-fired power plants 鈥� the most carbon-intensive way of generating electricity 鈥� and could the rate of their closures by 2040.
In a , Obama called the Clean Power Plan 鈥渢he biggest, most important step we鈥檝e ever taken to combat climate change鈥�. While that may be true, it鈥檚 not saying a whole heck of a lot.
Advertisement
As I wrote last year when the details were initially announced, many states to achieving the required reductions, thanks in part to a recent boom in cheap natural gas and the Obama administration鈥檚 choice of 2005 as the basis year for cuts, which was close to America鈥檚 all-time peak in carbon emissions. Obama鈥檚 plan is significant, but it鈥檚 not bold.
A previous version of the targets, announced last year, would have required states to begin implementing changes to their power-producing mix in 2020. The final version, to be announced today, gives states and utilities an extra two years. The targets will , depending on their current energy mix, and states will have flexible ways of achieving emissions reductions, including an option to join an interstate cap-and-trade scheme.
Business as usual
All this will be for some coal-intensive states, like Wyoming, but it鈥檚 being heralded as largely 鈥渂usiness as usual鈥� for some states, , that have already made significant efforts to shift their energy mix.
We can, and should, do much more. According to and 鈥� which helps keep world leaders honest in the run-up to this year鈥檚 international climate negotiations in Paris 鈥� the new provision puts America on a middling emissions-reduction pathway, at best.
It has been that the plan would shave just 6 per cent from US carbon emissions by 2030. Climate science and international equity by then. We鈥檙e nowhere near that pace.
Still, this plan is not nothing. In its coverage, The New York Times includes this hopeful gem: 鈥淏ut experts say that if the rules are combined with similar action from the world鈥檚 other major economies, as well as additional action by the next American president, emissions could level off enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change.鈥�
That鈥檚 a lot of hedging on which to base a climate legacy.
In fact, when compared with the climate plans of his would-be successors on the left 鈥� Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O鈥橫alley 鈥� Obama鈥檚 in terms of ambition.
Kicking the can forward
Clinton, who has frequently with the president on climate, announced a preview of her own climate plan last week. It鈥檚 fractionally more ambitious than Obama鈥檚, but it essentially another few years.
And as Slate鈥荣 , there鈥檚 no guarantee the plan will endure in its current form after the president leaves office. Obama鈥檚 plan faces a phalanx of attacks , and legal challenges 鈥� which may take several years 鈥� to the Supreme Court.
Obama has any actions by a hostile Congress to weaken it, as long as he remains in office. It has been noted that the next president , so the ultimate fate of Obama鈥檚 climate legacy will be in the hands of others.
Doing all we can
In , Obama鈥檚 lead environmental advocate, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy, said that if the rule moves forward, 鈥淲e鈥檒l know we鈥檙e doing all we can, together, to take action against climate change.鈥�
That鈥檚 simply not true. We can, and should, do much more.
Last week, former NASA climate scientist James Hansen, fresh off a , had harsh words for the slow, incremental progress that鈥檚 formed essentially the entirety of American鈥檚 climate ambition to date. 鈥淲e have two political parties, neither one of which is willing to face reality,鈥� Hansen . 鈥淐onservatives pretend it鈥檚 all a hoax, and liberals propose solutions that are non-solutions.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 just plain silly,鈥� said Hansen, speaking specifically of Clinton鈥檚 planned renewable energy push. 鈥淣o, you cannot solve the problem without a fundamental change, and that means you have to make the price of fossil fuels honest.鈥�
In the end, our climate won鈥檛 care about how we fix this problem. But it鈥檚 clear that . If Obama truly wants to go all-in on climate change, he should meet Republicans where they are 鈥� as painful as that might be 鈥� and negotiate a way to pass a carbon tax. (I鈥檓 going to get a flood of email saying how na茂ve I am for saying that, but it鈥檚 true.)
Don鈥檛 get me wrong; the Clean Power Plan, if fully enacted as it is, would definitely help reduce our carbon emissions. But to imply that today鈥檚 nudge toward cleaner electricity will bring about a bold new era in American climate leadership is disingenuous. Growing economic headwinds in the fossil fuel sector 鈥� particularly in and 鈥� may bring about much sooner than Obama鈥檚 Clean Power Plan.
If Obama really wants to make a lasting impact on global warming, he can work or in Beijing, to work toward implementing a meaningful, economy-wide carbon tax as quickly as possible. Just because such a breakthrough feels impossible doesn鈥檛 mean it isn鈥檛 necessary.
This article was first published by
