On Monday, June 2, the Obama administration announced the latest in its ideology-driven attack on traditional energy production — a new rule to cut carbon-dioxide emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants across the United States. This proposed rule would cut as much as 30 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s power plants by 2030, based on 2005 emissions levels. Each state will have different percent reduction standards; the national average will be 25 percent by 2020 and 30 percent by 2030.
This new rule will have a huge impact on businesses and cost jobs and reduce economic growth.
A recent report from the US Chamber of Commerce found that the proposed rule will cost billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs, based its assumptions on a similar proposal by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The report found that carbon regulations would lower U.S. gross domestic product by $51 billion and lead to a loss of 224,000 U.S. jobs on average every year through 2030.
These proposed EPA rules will lead to higher energy bills for American families.
Energy consumers will face huge costs due to these carbon regulations. The Chamber of Commerce report found that the proposed rule would increase electricity costs by $289 billion through 2030 and lower households’ disposable income by $586 billion through that same time period. The report also estimates that consumer spending on energy will increase $17 billion per year from 2014 to 2030. While household budgets are stretched too thin and the national economy literally shrinks, now is not the time to raise energy bills on American energy consumers.
The EPA says that the rules give states flexibility, but this is flexibility in name only—no matter which “option” they choose, they will still be enacting the President’s climate tax plan.
The Administration claims that it is giving states flexibility in implementing these rules, but states can only choose from a host of damaging options. There are 4 ways of complying with the new rule: energy efficiency, fuel switching, renewables and moving energy use to off-peak hours. No matter which “option” they choose, they will still be enacting the President’s climate tax plan. This isn’t a market-driven, flexible approach — it’s top down regulation from the overreaching EPA.
This attempt to reduce carbon emissions will have a negligible effect on global carbon output.
Even if the U.S. reduced its carbon output to the even stricter standards of 42% below 2005 levels, as the Chamber study reflects, it would not drastically effect the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. Many of the quickly developing countries rely on high carbon output energy sources such as coal and show no signs of slowing down. Even if the US is successful by reducing its carbon output to these levels, resulting in 970 million metric tons of CO2 reduction, the rest of the world will increase in CO2 output by more than 4,700 metric tons. Without international cooperation to reduce carbon emissions, the only accomplishment is putting the United States at a disadvantage.