![]() Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple of big issues with relying on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.įirst, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism? The latter opens the door to tactics such as pricing carbon dioxide emissions or optimizing the power grid to shift to lower-carbon energy sources that can lead to larger reductions in emissions. The ruling criticized the EPA’s position that it’s only allowed to regulate emissions directly at the source - the power plants themselves - rather than across the power sector as a whole. “Because promulgation of the ACE Rule and its embedded repeal of the Clean Power Plan rested critically on a mistaken reading of the Clean Air Act, we vacate the ACE Rule and remand to the Agency,” reads the unsigned opinion. Finally, on January 19, the DC Circuit court ruled that the Trump EPA’s ACE rule was flawed. The effort to repeal and replace the Clean Power Plan was part of the Trump administration’s broader attack on climate change policies implemented under Obama, from withdrawing the US from the Paris climate agreement to relaxing fuel economy standards on cars and light trucks.īut the ACE rule also came under attack, with Democrat-led states arguing in court that the regulation didn’t go far enough. Air pollution from sources such as power plants, which worsens heart and lung problems, remains a major public health scourge. The Trump EPA’s own regulatory impact assessment showed that the extra pollution stemming from the ACE rule could cause between 460 and 1,400 additional deaths per year by 2030, alongside worsening maladies like asthma. One study found that the ACE rule would cause 28 percent of model coal plants to spew more carbon dioxide by 2030 compared to a scenario with no policy at all. This has the side effect of making fossil fuels more cost effective. drawing more energy from each unit of fossil fuels. While the Obama rule allowed power plants to use a variety of tactics to reduce their emissions, the Trump rule centered on increasing efficiency - i.e. ![]() One quirk of the ACE rule is that it was actually worse for the environment than doing nothing because it created incentives to burn more fossil fuels. So the Trump administration couldn’t simply repeal the Obama-era regulation it had to come up with a replacement. Power generation is the second-largest source of greenhouse gases in the United States, and the EPA is required to regulate these emissions under the Clean Air Act, according the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Massachusetts v. (Obama’s Clean Power Plan never took effect - a number of Republican state attorneys general sued to block it, and the Supreme Court issued a stay to allow those lawsuits to proceed.) The rule replaced President Barack Obama’s 2015 Clean Power Plan, which aimed to reduce US power sector emissions by 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. ![]() The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down the 2019 Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule, the Trump administration’s effort to lower power sector emissions by a tepid 11 million tons, or between 0.7 and 1.5 percent, by 2030. ![]() On President Donald Trump’s last full day in office, a federal court struck down his final effort to undo his predecessor’s legacy on climate change, handing President-elect Joe Biden a clean slate to craft regulations for greenhouse gases from power plants. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |