Winston Armani, Deseret News
Some national business organizations have hammered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for proposing new rules on carbon pollution from existing power plants, cutting carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2030, using 2005 levels as a baseline. These arguments are not tenable.
Climate change is happening, and it will affect every industry. It’s irresponsible for large business advocacy organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, to think that our government should stand by and do nothing, while climate-related disasters in 2012 caused more than $139 billion in damages. U.S. taxpayers shelled out $96 billion in climate-related damages in 2012 alone or while sea levels rise 6.6 feet by 2100 – enough to swamp Miami.
The costs from carbon pollution will be terrible for business. Climate change poses tremendous risks: Insurance premiums will skyrocket, electricity prices will soar, jobs will be lost, food and transportation costs will dramatically rise and taxes will likely increase in order to pay for needed infrastructure upgrades.
That’s why business organizations like ours, and many of America’s largest companies, reject the notion that EPA’s rules will destroy the American economy.
A poll released in June by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) found that 64 percent of small business owners believe government regulation is needed to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. This is important because, as the same poll shows, about 1 in 5 small business owners said climate change has already harmed their operations.
Perhaps climate skeptics fail to see that the EPA’s proposal will define a market for solutions, not dictate what the solutions are. Perhaps they are unaware that the standards provide for flexibility on the part of governors, or that carbon reductions will enhance this nation’s international credibility and competitiveness. Entrepreneurial activity and private sector capital follows closely in response to government action to address climate change.
Under this plan, states would have extensive options to choose how they meet these standards - and businesses, including utilities, will have time to adapt. EPA’s goals take into account each state’s unique and current energy mix. This is a smart approach that recognizes the dynamic nature of the market and the power of businesses to innovate.
Electricity generation accounts for a third of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, more than any other economic sector. Coal plants are the worst offenders of all. In 2012, coal energy was responsible for nearly a quarter of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The 100 dirtiest power plants in this country are responsible for 3.2 percent of global CO2 emissions - and all but two are coal-fired plants. Cutting these emissions is crucial, but there are multiple paths to accomplish that.
A state like Kansas, which had as many as 4,000 jobs supported by wind energy in 2013, could invest in more wind power. Arizona, which led in solar energy per capita in 2012, could continue its rapid growth. The same could go for Washington State, the leader in hydropower. And states that want to join regional cap-and-trade systems can do so. EPA’s proposal will let states set their own course to meeting these standards.
Smart business people know that clear market signals and regulatory certainty drive investment. EPA’s carbon rules will lead to greater profit and prosperity, boosting economic growth and creating jobs.
What the EPA and many business leaders understand is that failure to address climate change is what will cause the most economic pain. It’s time to tackle climate change before it costs our people, businesses and nation even more.
Richard Eidlin is director of public policy for the American Sustainable Business Council. A previous version of this piece was published in the Daily Progress of Charlottesville, Virginia, and other publications.
- Dan Liljenquist: In order to confront Islamic...
- Robert J. Samuelson: Making the workplace...
- George F. Will: Republican governor hopes to...
- My view: Laws should protect practice of...
- In our opinion: Legislature should look to...
- In our opinion: Legislature should give SAGE...
- Letter: Parade prep
- My view: Legislature should invest in...
- My view: Laws should protect practice... 128
- Robert Bennett: Are Republican... 49
- Kathleen Parker: Republican candidates... 37
- Charles Krauthammer: Republicans should... 36
- Letter: Where's our winter? 33
- Dan Liljenquist: In order to confront... 31
- Allowing export of U.S. crude oil would... 22
- Mark Reynolds: Pipeline alternatives... 21