| This week, the EPA unveiled its new rule to cut carbon emissions by 30% by 2030 (that is, 30% from 2005 levels). Most of those cuts will come from burning less coal, which is currently the source of about 38% of the United States' electricity. Conservatives rushed to oppose the new rule, calling it "Obama's War on Coal". However, the Washington Post points out, many Republicans relied on pre-prepared statements that leaned heavily on a Chamber of Commerce study, which came out last week and assumed the EPA rule would require a 42% cut in emissions. From a regulatory perspective, Tyler Cowen says the EPA plan reminds him a lot of the original version of the Clean Air Act, passed in 1963. It was so ineffective at that point, he writes, that it had to be amended in 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and finally again in 1990. Further, "a lot of actual progress in the fight against air pollution came through the replacement of dirty coal by natural gas". Paul Waldman argues that the war has already been lost. "One argument against waging war on coal—that it will cost too many jobs—isn't really persuasive, because there just aren't that many coal miners anymore". There are less than 100,000 coal miners left in the US — we've lost 85% of the industry since the 1920s. The real problem right now, says Daniel Gross, is that the energy industry is just lazy. This could end up being good for the economy. "We shouldn't underestimate the advances that can take place when the extremely powerful force of corporate investment latches on to energy innovations that have a negative cost", he writes. Noah Smith agrees that cutting coal emissions won't tank the US economy. However, he says, the bad news is that even with the new EPA rule, the biggest threat to the global climate is China (where coal is huge). He says, "since China's overwhelming priority is economic growth, this means we need to help it get rapid access to energy sources that A) produce less carbon than coal, and B) are cheaper than coal emissions". On the plus side, China announced today it will set a cap on its total CO2 emissions in 2016. John Cassidy is slightly more optimistic, arguing that the US making this move might spur the international community to act — something almost every country in the world needs to do. On the heels of the EPA rule is a new report by the International Energy Agency, which says the world isn't investing enough in energy innovations. The real tragedy, says Matt Yglesias, is that those with the power to stop apocalyptic climate change aren't the ones who will be hurt the most by it (the regions hovering near the equator are generally the most vulnerable). Climate change is "a global threat to worldwide interests, and the people with the most at stake don't get a vote", he writes. — Shane Ferro On to today's links: Billionaire Whimsy
Meet the entrepreneurs cashing in on r > g - Max Abelson Yep
Maybe it's time to agree on what "income" is - Nick Bunker Big Brother
The Secret Service is building a sarcasm detector for Twitter (lulz) - Washington Post Profiles in Capital
Steve Cohen just doesn't understand why all this bad stuff keeps happening to him - NY Mag Bubbly
Jared Leto, venture capitalist - CNN Legitimately Good News
Solar power could destroy electric utilities - Rob Wile Compelling
The question of our time: Is imported Nutella actually different than the domestic stuff? - Jim Webster Takedowns
"The pork-barrel world of FIFA politics cannot continue" - FT Old Normal
Why the response to the financial crisis wasn't like what happened after the Great Depression - John Judis Legal Arcana
What is a pyramid scheme - Dan McCrum | 
No comments:
Post a Comment