The Impact Of The Clean Air Act

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.

The first one 2007 Carbon Neutrality for Municipal Operations by 2020, the second one in 2014 Net-Zero Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2050 and lastly and most recent in 2015 with the Adoption of the Austin Community Climate Plan to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions. Another policy is The Paris Agreement which was created on December 12, 2015 to battle climate change.195 countries including the U.S signed and agreed to the treaty but our current president Donald Trump stated he was planning to leave the treaty suggesting the treaty was “blocking the development of clean coal in America.” (Trump,2017) According to Citizen.org “ Texas is uniquely positioned to lead in the race for switching to renewable energy. We're the only state with large areas of both wind and solar potential and currently rank #1 of any state in installed wind capacity.” (Public

The U.S. submitted its INDC to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level by 2025. With this plan, the U.S. has several laws related to its environmental policies. Among them, these are main four Acts (Korea Institute of Energy Research [KIER], 2016a): The Energy Policy Act established in 1992 was to secure energy security and revised in 2005 to decrease the reliance on oil and coal energy; The Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) legislated in 2007 due to the necessity for energy independence caused by the unstable Middle East and high oil prices, so President Bush announced the 'Twenty in Ten Initiative ' that aimed to reduce 20% of the gasoline consumption by 2017; The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was enacted in 2009 as one of the reflationary measures, and this included $8.5 billion investment for energy-related policies; The Clean Air Act (CAA), made in 1970, regulated the atmospheric pollution sources and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used CAA to restrict the greenhouse gas.

In Jan. 2011, the EPA decided to veto the dumping of waste from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. But the agency’s efforts have so far been rebuffed by the courts as an overreach: Under the weird legal regime that governs mining, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which has the ultimate say-so over those permits. In 2012, the D.C. district court ruled that EPA lacked authority to veto the permit after the Corps had issued it. However, in fact EPA's decision is based on evidence from scientific research on serious environmental harm from mining. In May 2013, a coalition of Appalachian and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to set a numeric water quality standard under the Clean Water Act to protect streams from pollution caused by mountaintop removal mining . They claimed that “State politics and industry pressure have so far failed to end this pollution without such a standard and more and more streams and communities who rely on those waters are left vulnerable. We need EPA to act now.” The EPA’s authority over the Clean Water Act in respect to Spruce Mine No. 1 was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level.[1] It is one of the United States' first and most influential modern environmental laws, and one of the most comprehensive air quality laws in the world.[2][3] As with many other major U.S. federal environmental statutes, it is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in coordination with state, local, and tribal governments.[4] Its implementing regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R. Subchapter C, Parts 50-97.

McCarthy accomplished plentiful, as she encouraged new rules for cleaner fuels and cars, and desired to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants, (EPA, 2017). This makes logical sense given her background and desire to make a change in air pollution. "On February 17, 2017, the United States Senate confirmed Scott Pruitt as the 14th Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [under President Donald Trump]," (EPA, 2017). Pruitt is a controversial administrator. According to CBS news, "Pruitt has embarked on record-setting rollbacks," (2017). Many individuals view this poorly because he is changing concepts that are incredibly important in environmental safety. In conclusion, the history of the EPA expresses how much the agency has achieved in a whole.

Congress amended the Clean Air Act to set national standards for air quality, auto emission and anti-pollution in 1970 as well. In 1971 Congress restricts lead-based paint in homes and on cribs and toys. The EPA bans DDT a carcinogenic pesticide and requires a review of all pesticides in 1972 and Congress passes the Clean Water Act limiting raw sewage and other pollutants in fresh water such as lakes, rivers, and streams. In 1973 the EPA issues its first permit limiting a factory’s polluted discharge into water. In this same year, the OPEC oil embargo triggers an energy crisis which stimulates conservation of fossil fuels and research on alternative fuel sources. Congress passes the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 which allows the EPA to regulate the quality of public drinking water. Two years later President Gerald Ford signed the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 to reduce environmental and human health risks. This resulted in Congress passing the Resource Conservation Act regulating hazardous waste from its production to its disposal and the EPA begins to phase out carcinogenic polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) production and use. The following year President Jimmy Carter signs the Clean Air Act amendments to strengthen air quality standards and protect people’s health, and the federal government bans chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) the year after that since research found

With Republican President, Donald Trump, and the Republican Party holding the majority of both chambers of the 115th Congress, passing environmental protection legislation doesn’t seem to be a priority (or even a thought). Not only are Congress and the President ignoring environmental protection, but they have also worked together to reverse current environmental protection regulations. Normally, repealing any form of legislation is a lengthy and challenging task. However, during the spring of 2017, the Legislative and Executive branches were able to quickly and easily get rid of two environmental protection rules. This ease of change definitively had do with the legislation being bureaucratic agency rules and laws. Though, not only were

Subsequently to this, carbon dioxide emissions were set to be regulated under the EPA as well due to its effect on the surrounding biota and abiota, primarily concerning motor vehicle gas emissions and other industrial generators. Many power companies disputed the EPA’s regulation and question the legality of them. Once brought to the attention of the D.C. Circuit Court, the power company’s claims against the EPA were rejected by all the present judges, yet it still was accepted by the Supreme Court for review. Scalia’s opinion on this case deems the most interesting. He stated that the CAA has requirements specified for any such pollutant sources that can emit up to 250 tons per year; however, because the pollutant sources were previously specified in the past to encompass only air pollutants that were regulated, greenhouse gases were not affiliated with this. The EPA was able to navigate around this, but their proposed plan was still objected against. Overall, the court did gave right to the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases, but they were to be regulated as a pollution source that is subject to regulation. Consequently to Scalia, Breyer, Ginsburg, and others stated that the EPA should hone the ability to broadly define any air pollutant; this would allow them to

Pursuant to energy efficiency policies, controversy swirls as climate changes are experienced in the U.S. and around the globe. When energy efficiency steps are put into place, economic outlooks turn positive. Obama’s policymaking in this arena makes “critical investments in advanced vehicle and fuel technologies, public transit, and high speed rail” (United Press International). With new fuel efficiency standards that will improve fuel economy by 2025, and other initiatives that he enacted, “12 billion barrels of oil will be saved and American consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump, and greenhouse gas emission standards for commercial trucks, vans, and buses for are projected to save over 500 million barrels of oil and save vehicle owners and operators an estimated $50 billion in fuel costs” (United Press

On August 3, 2015, President Obama announced new carbon pollution standards for power plants under the Clean Power Plan (CPP).[1] The purpose of the plan was to decrease carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to promote better air quality. This plan will impact not only coal fired power plants and the coal industry, but also individuals who live around them and the greater populous. This paper seeks to answer if such a plan should go forward and the impacts of such a plan on the parties listed above. To answer this question, this paper will look

The EPA works hand in hand with each state to organize and plan varies types of federal environmental programs. Each state is given the authority to oversee the federal programs as along as they encompass laws and guidelines that are at least as strict as the federal laws that are in place. The EPA has to have constant contact with state officials in order to develop health, agricultural and environmental protocols for any studies that may need improvement to meet the necessary requirements for decreasing toxics or pollution. Even though the state has control over certain aspects of the Clean Air Act they still have to comply with federal laws that are in place regarding any drinking water, storm water, waste water or solid

The Issues the cap-and-trade programs and the clean power act are facing is the effect it could have on the economy and the lack of authority to put into effect. "energy companies would pass along the cost of the permits in their prices, pushing up the relative price of Co2 intensive goods"(Cap-and-Trade programs: Should Congress enact a Cap-and-trade program to limit carbon dioxide emissions?). The Clean Power Plan would affect the coal industry preventing the creation of new coal power plants. "Lawmakers from Kentucy, Pennsylvania, West Virgina, and Wyoming strongly opposed the Clean Power Plan, fearing it may hurt their local economics"(Clean Power Plan: Should the Environmental Protection

Finally these standers will put an end to all of this pollution, these standards will eliminate the advantage of low cost power plants. Because some power plants are 40 years old and they have never been updated. So they will have to compete and give a fair share of the market to the newer plants.

The commission has postponed the auctioning of some other allowances since 2014. And in 2015, it established the Market Stability Reserve, an institution that will manage supply problems from 2019. Yet European carbon prices remain low and oversupply is unsolved. On 15 February, the European Parliament voted to decrease the cap on emissions by 2.2% per year from 2021 (the current annual decrease is 1.74%). The reforms have been criticized by non-governmental organizations, such as Climate Action Network Europe in Brussels, as not going far enough. California is also experiencing low carbon prices and low demand for credits. The scheme launched in 2013 as part of the state's suite of policies for achieving its ambitious emissions-reduction