Economic Impact Of The Clean Power Plan

His administration insists that with these new rules going into an effect will cut emissions of carbon dioxide and other deadly gases by thirty percent between the years 2012-2016 (Baker,2010). Unfortunately Obama’s new policy will only help conserve for the next six years. The following resource plan will not only help do the same but will hopefully have the same if not better results even farther into the future.

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

But so has population, which means per capita energy use is unchanged. And per capita GDP has risen substantially, so we are using 40 percent less energy per dollar output. Which is one reason there is no energy crisis…” (Will, par. 3). Will gives another example of a so called environmentally friendly decision when he says “…in 1996 President Clinton put 68 billion tons of America's cleanest-burning coal, located in Utah, off-limits for mining, ostensibly for environmental reasons…” (Will, par. 5). This, Will says, was really all about political and financial kickbacks “Now power companies must import clean-burning coal, some from mines owned by Indonesia's Lippo Group, the heavy contributor to Clinton, whose decision about Utah's coal vastly increased the value of Lippo's coal” (Will, par. 5). Will then gave us facts about how much energy is really out there waiting to be harnessed in our own backyard, “The government estimates that beneath the U.S. outer continental shelf, which the government owns, there are at least 46 billion barrels

The Alternative energy industry in the United States has been at a steady rate of growth for the past decade, however there is still controversy over the use of renewable energies, their impact on the economy, and their impact on the environment. As controversial as the topic is, the argument boils down to a moral need to support environmental regulations, and an economical need to sustain domestic growth in the Energy industry of the United States. Mainly, the question is can alternative energy effective replace fossil fuels? There are of course arguments for both sides of this question.

The argument about man’s role in climate change and the role of government, the role of industry and the role of citizens is a significant challenge that crosses all levels of government, crosses all geopolitical boundaries and crosses all sectors of business. National governments across the globe are dealing with the issue in different ways, but one overarching aspect of control and mitigation can be seen in the oversight and regulation of the electric energy industry. One significant challenge facing each nation is the cost to lower carbon emissions and the question of who will pay the additional cost for compliance. Though the cost issue is significant, a much more difficult question is whether any decision on lowering emissions can make

This year we have seen more electric and hybrid vehicle startups than ever before.” (Morrison) Nearly everyone recognizes the benefits of the shift, both in terms of how it would help our environment in the long term, but also the economic impact it would have, (reduced gas costs, lower electric and other utilities bills... etc.) But still, many large companies work to impede the progress in favor of maintaining our dependence on fossil fuels. The American Petroleum institute has worked with many oil industry protection companies to stymie the renewable energy movement, even in some cases, “posing as environmentalist groups in order to attract the support of environmentalists while simultaneously pushing their anti-renewable agenda.” (Blankenhorn) Many of these companies striving against renewable energy also support the building of the Keystone pipeline, using the justification that the building of the pipeline would lower gas prices. But what they fail to acknowledge is the basic economic fallacy of this, “Fossil energy prices are not going to fall. The more you remove carbon-based resources from the ground, the more it costs to get more.”

Author Lawrence M. Ling is a Project Pull Mentor’s Assistant in the Policy and Government Affairs Team of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. He is an undergraduate student at the University of California: Los Angeles who majors in Political Science, and he strongly believes that CleanPowerSF is the best solution to the growing trend of global warming.

With our modern technology, yes, we can burn our coal within the limits of the Clean Air Act” (Reagan,1980) and Reagans lack of policy regarding the environment while pushing for increased coal production seem to mirror his skepticism regarding the environmental issues of the time. The partisan nature of environmental policy spending can be shown most clearly when Reagan’s nonchalant approach to the environmental policy when they are compared to the new technologies that were put in to place during the presidency of Jimmy Carter. In an address to a joint session of congress in 1977, Carter outlined a national energy plan which included “We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century” (Carter, 1977) and this included “In the long term, to develop renewable and essentially inexhaustible sources of energy for sustained economic growth” (Carter, 1977). This brings a different perspective to the policy changes that are now occurring in the government in a change from President Obama to President Trump. Just as Reagan followed Carter and the shift on environmental policy was moved from developing new technologies to returning to coal burning as a primary source of energy, the change from Obama’s policies to Trump’s may not be totally

The Clean Power Plan sets national standards on limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants as means to bring clean energy technologies. "The world won't get any cooler," Rubio said. "The seas won't get any lower. It will only increase the cost of living in this country,” Rubio said. “We are tying our own hands under this new regulations as higher utility bills will devastate many Americans trying to raise her children in Cleveland, Ohio or Miami, Florida or anywhere else in this country sees that her bills go up by 50 dollars a month, that’s devastating,” Rubio said. “You know what that means? 50 dollars a month. That means the kids don’t get new shoes this

The following paper is a comprehensive energy policy platform for a candidate running the 2020 presidential election. This candidate is considered to be a centrist when it comes to energy policy. They have liberal and conservative ideas depending on the issues. Overall, the candidate would like to instate a plan that preserve American energy independence while also becoming a leader in the international green energy market. Cutting taxes for green energy companies, instituting a carbon tax, revitalizing the nuclear energy market and raising CAFE standards for the automotive industry are the cornerstone pieces of this policy. Long term goals include phasing out all coal plants, reducing dependence on natural gas, developing affordable

The issue of carbon emissions is an important one not only from an environmental perspective but also an economic one. While reducing carbon emissions is an important one for the health of human beings as well as that of the environment, the larger question is what type of policy strategy is best for both reducing such emissions which might have an impact on efforts to mitigate the effects of pollution on climate change. While ther are options to consider which does not rely on economics-- technological or output standards achieved by command and control regulations--they are often fraught with political resistance by industry because they do not allow industry to make any choices or play a role in solving the problem of

Shifting the majority of energy consumption in the U.S. to clean energy would affect people and businesses both in and outside of the nation. This inevitably creates concern surrounding the topic and causes delays due to necessary controversy and questioning. While plenty of concerns are valid, others have been answered by studies and reports by various organizations but have yet to reach the public in masses.

In the article “A Unified West Coast,” investigative reporter and author Arun Gupta presents the unification of California as a model to build towards a net-zero emission. To reach net-zero emission and prevent later environmental issues, Gupta explains politicians and leaders must grasp the power of the monopolistic energy companies. He says that once politicians begin resisting the use of fossil fuels and the harm that they bring, communities all over will continue to form and support the progress towards a cleaner world.

Coal’s reputation has become as black as coal itself, but without it the quality of life that hundreds of millions of people enjoy today would not be possible. Coal has been used in many ways throughout history and it will continue to be a vital resource in supplying the energy needed to fuel an energy hungry world. Research cited throughout this paper suggests that coal is an energy source for the future because it is stable and reliable with abundant reserves, it is the most affordable and efficient fuel source used to produce power, and because of new clean coal technologies, coal can be burned with minimal to no damage to the environment.

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing