Yesterday, Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and majority leader, is urging governors to defy President Obama by refusing to implement the administration’s global warming regulations.
The Obama administration is working on an aggressive climate change agenda to reduce the number of green house gas emissions that are coming out of our nation. He is working towards making the country a greener place, even if it means cutting some of the energy sources in our nation. The Keystone XL Pipeline is one piece of legislation in the news today that is working against Obama’s climate change agenda. Obama is working with the EPA and creating rules, which should be finalized in the summer, requiring each state to submit a plan detailing how it would cut coal-fired power plant pollution. Once implemented, the plans could lead to the closing of hundreds of coal plants. This would then lead to what the administration says, “a transformation of the nation’s energy economy away from fossil fuels and toward sources like wind and solar.” This sounds like a great idea for many environmentalists because it would decrease the nation’s largest source of planet-warming pollution, but many states and production plants are wary of this plan.
States like Kentucky, the state McConnell represents, that rely heavily on coal production or coal-fired electricity are worried that this legislation could ultimately freeze demand for coal. Republicans are also saying that Mr. Obama’s climate change policies are an example of government overreach that could threaten jobs in the coal industry and many more. Already, 12 states, including McConnell’s home state Kentucky, have filed lawsuits opposing the plan and at least a dozen more are expected to file similar suits.
Mr. McConnell told the press that he wants the states to not listen to ignore the EPA. He is out right telling states to violate what could be federal law if they listen to him. Mr. McConnell urged governors to fight the regulations by simply refusing to submit their state plans to the federal government. McConnell has made clear that he intends to use all legal, legislative and political means available to fight Mr. Obama’s climate agenda. This will be easier for him now that Republicans have majority power in Congress.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/mcconnell-urges-states-to-defy-us-plan-to-cut-greenhouse-gas.html?ref=politics&_r=0
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/mitch-mcconnells-message-states-ignore-the-epa
http://www.bna.com/mcconnell-pushes-say-n17179923648/
13 comments:
I agree with you, Guru. I think that it is important for President Obama to make this move. It is no secret that the environment is changing due to the emissions that stem from our modern world. There are many technologies such as solar energy and wind energy such as Guru refereed to. These will allow us to get the energy that we need without emitting the harmful things that we have for a long time. However, I think that this plan could harm the economies of many of the states, which has resulted in all of the lawsuits that Guru referred to. However, I think that this is a problem for such states that can be fixed. The new environmentally friendly sources of power are going to be in great demand soon and offer a great financial opportunity. I think that in the end this will a lll come together because this is something that everybody knows needs to be done in order to protect the future of our world and our nation.
Perhaps the greatest threat to the survival and prosperity of the human race is the destruction of the environment. Normally, I would side with the republicans on their concerns with the economic stability of our states, however not in this case. The environment is currently unstable as it is with more and more species dying off every year. It is important to remember that we are in the greatest period of extinction since the great extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs millions of years ago. I bring this up because sometimes the economic prosperity and security of some people is not worth the potential danger of the general public. In this case we most prioritize and attempt to create a better future for our society. As Will said , there are many opportunities to capitalize on more natural and cleaner forms of energy. These would allow people to make a substantial amount of money and still be clean and meet the regulations that the Obama administration is pushing for with this new agenda.
Guru,
I agree with you, Will and Jack; I believe that it’s vitally important that the United States drastically reduce its fossil fuel emissions. Global warming is a real threat that affects not just the United States, but the whole world; it is time that the government step in and help wean Americans off of their dependence on nonrenewable resources. Furthermore, many nations look to America for guidance in policy making, and if the United States were to significantly reduce it’s carbon footprint, other nations would be more likely to follow in suit.
Moreover, if the United States were to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, it would also mean that the United States would be less dependent on foreign nations, particularly in the Middle East, for energy. This means that the American economy would be far less vulnerable to the whims of OPEC, as these oil rich nations have demonstrated time and time again that they have the ability to essentially crash our economy by raising the price oil. For example, in the mid 1970s and early 1980s, OPEC’s oil embargo essentially caused the U.S. economy to crash as it directly contributed to the massive supply shocks in the U.S. economy that ultimately led to stagflation.
Clearly, a major reason for why Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would want governors to ignore Obama’s environmental reform plan is the fear of angering his constituency. To illustrate, since McConnell is from Kentucky, which Guru pointed out is a big proponent of the coal industry, he would want to protect the jobs of his constituents, as angry and unemployed voters are typically will not vote for the man, who allowed their jobs to be taken away. However, this fear is probably over exaggerated, as the government will probably subsidise coal producers, in order to keep the industry from collapsing.
Source:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/2014/1114/ifdp1114.pdf
Gurumeher, you bring up an important topic. To respond to your questions in order:
1) This "war", as you call it, is stupid. Straight up. Its filled with psuedo-science and conscious ignorance on the part of those who oppose Obama's climate change precautions, that threatens not only the very constituents that these senators and representatives are claimed to speak for, but threatens the entire world as we know it.
2) The EPA legislation provides a unique issue; is it necessary? entirely. Is it overreaching? Sounds like it could be. A big issue that can be seen here is the method to what the republicans are calling Obama's madness; he is, without intending too, directly targeting large portions of these Republicans constituents, endangering their current livelihood in an attempt to save that of their future. The job of these representatives is to protect their constituents in the present, so even though Obama is working on a bigger scale towards a bigger goal, his attempts to create positive change are not being received properly.
3) Overall, Obama is doing the exact right thing. Again, as I said in answering your last question, his path to this may be flawed, but the end goal of turning the U.S. into a greener and more sustainable country is beneficial, and necessary to our survival.
Obama's big challenge with this will be finding was to go back tot he drawing board and start over, passing the legislation he intends to this summer in a slower and more effective manner that doesn't endanger the livelihood of so many people. If he can do that, then he will still be able to institute a large majority of his new EPA rules, without costing anyone in the process.
Guru, et al.
While I agree with you all on the fact that the Obama administration and the EPA's regulations are the right way to go, I think McConnell has some point to what he says. As he said an op-ed for the Lexington Herald Leader, the people and states must "consider how extreme this regulation is. According to a respected group of economists, the regulation could cost our country about a third of a trillion dollars in compliance costs and cause electricity price hikes in nearly every state." As a Senator, he must be concerned for the welfare of his people, especially if they are going to have to pay more. Furthermore, he lists exactly who struggles from this price hike: "lower-income families[, s]eniors on Social security and a fixed budge[, and t]hose who struggle to just get by." He has merit to this claim, as well as the one that the goal industries would lose business and money after the public switches away from them. While one hopes the Obama administration would subsidise them, that is not guaranteed.
With that said, I would like to point out that his ideas are more flawed than finessed. Yes, it is true that shutting down coal plants would result in job losses, but the EPA already estimates job losses of between 11,500 to 14,300 in coal from 2017 to 2020. Conversely, they predict gains of 15,800 to 19,100 in renewable energy over the same period. The EPA also predicts 76,200 to 112,000 jobs created solely by the energy efficiency sector in 2025. This negates McConnell's argument about lost jobs. Many of McConnell's other arguments can also be negated: states refusing to submit plans would give more time to weigh lawsuits against the EPA, yet the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the EPA is allowed to regulate greenhouse gasses (Massachusetts v. EPA), the fundamental basis of the lawsuits; he also claims the US's switch will have negligible effect, but as one of the leading emission producer, if we switch, other countries will follow suit.
Though I started off with saying that McConnell's claims did have some merit, and that still stands, I think it would behoove states to disregard McConnell's op-ed and instead follow the EPA like they're supposed to. If they need further convincing, states should remember that Republicans (McConnell included) long used China's refusal to cut emissions as justification for the US not doing so, but while China has agreed to cut emissions, McConnell and others still vehemently oppose. If one doesn't think that irony characterises the Republican Party, then he or she must be in support of McConnell's plea over the EPA.
Sources:
http://www.kentucky.com/2015/03/03/3725288_states-should-reject-obama-mandate.html?rh=1
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/05/3630179/mcconnell-advice-epa-climate-rule/
I agree with you Gurumeher in the fact that, yes it might be difficult now to switch to another energy source but overall will be beneficial to the country. We only have so much time before we run out of fossil fuels and then what? No one knows yet and we shouldn’t wait until it’s too late to make a decision. This is something that should be dealt with immediately and I approve of Obama’s actions. As for McConnell I highly disapprove of his views on the environment he’s worried about the jobs which is a legitimate concern but switching to a new renewable energy source will provide new jobs to replace and expand the ones that were lost, as well as protect the environment. His disregard for the EPA is embarrassing, he is just making himself look bad not accepting the possible changing circumstances which will eventually happen. Whether it gets passed or rejected I think the states should accept it either way.
As Sophia said, it is vitally important that the U.S. as well as the rest of the world reduces its fossil fuel emissions now more than ever. Global warming and overall destruction of the environment is not something that is going to stop or slow down, and we certainly cannot just sit back and wait for something drastic to happen before we take action. Clean energy is ready to go whenever, and has been for a while. The problem is that it’s not as profitable as fossil fuels, coal especially. Because global warming and destruction of the environment is something that affects everyone, I believe it is time for the government to step in and make some change to secure a healthy and clean future. As Sophia said, a reduction in dependence on fossil fuels will in turn increase the United States’ ability to sustain its own energy demands with less dependence on other nations. Telling states to simply ignore the EPA and blatantly disregard the law (if it does, in fact, become law) is, in my opinion, just disrespectful. I feel that Mitch McConnell is, in this case, only considering the states that are dependent on the coal industry for jobs and income. He is failing to recognize the overall good for our nation as a whole that could come with Obama and the EPA’s new rules. While a potential loss of jobs is certainly something to be worried about, I believe the whole issue needs to be thought of in broader terms. Unemployment is fixable. The permanent damage that fossil fuels cause to the environment is not. I support Obama and the EPA’s plans for this, and think it is a change long overdue.
I agree with Sophia in that the United States needs to stop relying so heavily on nonrenewable resources. Since global warming is such a big issue, this problem needs to be fixed as soon as possible. At this point, I do believe that every decision regarding our environment should be researched extensively before any actions are taken. However, with Obama making such a big push to get rid of the coal mines, I think he should provide other job options for those who work in the mines. A lot of towns are built around the coal mines; it is their only source of livelihood and that should not be taken away from them.
Turning more towards solar and wind power also gives the United States a chance to further develop technology in those fields, which could provide more jobs to the American people. Also, the United States needs to take initiative in order to show the rest of the world that the protection of the environment is something that needs to be taken very seriously. Overall, I think that Mitch McConnell's reaction to this agenda is absurd. Even if he does not agree with it, he still should show Obama his respect as a common courtesy. Personally, I think this is just the beginning of a long list of disagreements that will occur in the future.
I agree with others that Mitch McConnell's actions are absurd. As Sophia pointed out, there is a clear conflict of interest here - McConnell wants to appease his constituency instead of consider the greater good. Studies have proven that climate change is real and it is one of the most dangerous threats facing our country today. I agree with Ryan L that McConnell is more concerned about the immediate effects of decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels. Yes, people will lose their jobs, but we also have to consider the long-term implications of ignoring the EPA's global warming regulations. If climate change continues at the current rate, the effects on our country in the future will be much more disastrous than in the short run. For example, if sea levels continue to rise, coastal communities around the country will be threatened and the tourism industry will suffer immensely, which will undoubtedly cause people to lose their jobs. Plus, as Bea noted, other countries may act based on how the US proceeds with this issue. We should set an example for other countries and do our best to curb the usage of fossil fuels.
I agree with you Will, that it is good that President Obama is looking out for America's precious environment. With many huge businesses and waste hurting the environment everyday it is critical to the future of the environment that we keep watch on it. The issue arises when environmental regulations interfere with industry. This is seen at its finest with the coal industry losing jobs and being hurt by environmental regulations. Although I love the environment, I am on the side of the coal industry. The coal industry is a way of life for the people in the Dakotas and the Appalachians. If that is taken away from them they will be pushed further into poverty and will have very few jobs to support them. These regulations need to be adjusted so they still allow for the coal industry to be successful and to prosper. Overall, the coal industry is vital to its workers as well as America. The regulations must be stopped or changed if we want our resource industry to continue to grow and meet the energy needs of America.
Energy sources used in America is a key issue in politics, but also an issue that reaches far beyond that. Politically speaking, Obama’s plan has many problems. Unlike oil, coal is a fuel source very potent in America. Though it may not have as many proud uses as oil and may have worse ecological effects, the fact of the matter is that coal is abundant and cheap. Additionally, by using coal we greatly lessen our demand for foreign oil. With this logic, I can see where McConnell is coming from by fighting this plan. However, our reliance on coal is a problem. Though it may be abundant, coal, much like oil, will not last forever. It may be decades in the future, but we must be prepared for when nonrenewable energy sources run out, and that preparation must start today. Aside from the risk of exhausting our resources, fuels like coal and oil and terrible for the environment. While the issue of running out may be years in the future, the negative effects of coal are have drastic repercussions now. CO2 emissions are reaching peak levels, creating greenhouse gases and melting the ice caps. Mining is disrupting habitats and defacing the great American landscape. Finally, ashes from coal waste are piling up, with nowhere to go, and contaminating everything. True, the hope to completely top using coal is completely irrational. Even with the political opposition, we definitely need to maintain coal as a fuel source for all of the positive reasons I mentioned earlier. However, due to the immense negative effects and all of the recent advances in renewable energy, I believe we must gradually shift our nation’s energy dependence away from coal and oil. That is just the goal of President Obama’s recent legislature. There is not demand to shut down the coal industry, merely a plan to utilize more renewable energy sources. At a certain point, the government must put aside economics and put some focus on the environment. Republican or Democrat, we all share this Earth and we are all responsible for preserving it for future generations. Even if Obama’s plan does not pass, compromises must be made to rectify our treatment of the environment, and renewable energy is an excellent start.
Sophia, Catie, and Allie, I also agree that McConnell’s actions in telling the leaders of the states to ignore the Environmental Protection Agency is completely ridiculous. I understand that changing energy sources may be difficult and tedious, but it is a change that the world is going to have to live with one day or another when we run out of nonrenewable energy. The EPA is in place because we need to take better care of our environment, or else pretty soon we will be living in a vast wasteland with no trees and surrounded by garbage that will continue to sit in landfills for thousands of years. I do agree with Obama’s efforts to make America ‘greener’ if you will, because this is as issue not of today only, but especially of the future. Decreasing pollution, consumer intact, and non-decomposable waste output would all help to clean the environment, but if McConnell continues to tell governors to ignore the EPA’s recommendations, these changes are never going to happen.
Guru, I agree with what many of the students have stated. Obama's new climate agenda is very aggressive. However, I think it is necessary. I think that Jack said it best. The economic prosperity of a few states is not worth the risk the current trend of the environment poses to the entire human population. Some states economy, such as Kentucky, will suffer but the overall impact of this legislation will benefit more people. The economy of the select states will eventually regain its strength but a country that destroys its environment is destined for failure.
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/politics/mcconnell-urges-states-to-defy-us-plan-to-cut-greenhouse-gas.html?ref=politics&_r=0
Post a Comment