geoff: Today the environmental
protection agency laid out its
latest move to cut the
greenhouse gasses that are
driving climate change,
unveiling a sweeping new set of
guidelines for the power plants
that generate America's
electricity. William brangham
has been covering this, and he
joins us now.
Tell us more about this move by
the EPA.
How does this fit within
president Biden's climate
agenda?
>> This is the third major move
the administration is made to
cut greenhouse gas emissions
that are heeding this planet to
a dangerous degree.
The first was the passage of the
inflation reduction act.
Last month the EPA issued these
very strict rules on auto
emissions, and now today we have
power plants.
The issue with generating
electricity in this country is
that creates about 25% of all of
America's pollution, so it is a
big jump.
The EPA is saying to these power
plants and utilities around the
country who have got to cut
those emissions, and it is got
to use existing technology and
you have got to do it quickly,
as much as 90% in the near
future.
Dba says that the air we breathe
will be cleaner and we will make
a significant dent in the
emissions that we are putting up
that are causing climate change.
Some environmentalists say the
EPA needs to do more, but many
environmentalists are cheering
this move.
Earlier today I talked to the
president and CEO of the natural
resources defense council.
Here is what he had to say.
>> The urgency of the climate
crisis cannot be overstated.
But what we have seen in the
past year finally positions the
United States to take a
leadership role in tackling the
crime -- climate crisis.
We have seen a historic triple
play for climate action.
>> He is talking about the
urgency, but how will these
plants actually do that work?
>> The EPA is not saying you
have to use this particular type
of technology.
It is worth noting there is a
true revolution going on in
clean energy.
The costs of wind and solar and
geothermal are just falling.
The venerable Wall Street firm
Lazard did an analysis and said
large scale solar and wind
utilities can go toe to toe
economically not with the
dirtiest, cheapest energy
sources, so the economic
argument is being made.
For power plants if there are a
couple of ways they can do this.
They can mix incomplete or --
mix in cleaner fuels, they can
Matar the plan or they can use
carbon capture and
sequestration, which is a fancy
way of saying you grab the
carbon and stick it underground
where it does not cause
problems.
The tricky part is ccs is not
being utilized anywhere in the
United States.
This is what the industry says
it is, look, you are asking us
to use this very aggressive rule
based in part on a technology we
think is not ready for prime
time.
Earlier today I talked to a
lawyer who represents a lot of
industry edit our associates.
>> There is a very bright future
for carbon capture and
sequestration.
There are big industrial
projects, multibillion-dollar
projects being constructed, for
example, in the midwest to deal
with the emissions that come
from biofuel production, but in
the power sector there are very
few examples of commercials:
Application of ccs.
>> That is the industry's
arguments.
The EPA points to a factory in
Canada operating for 10 years
very successfully.
They say this technology is
ready.
Geoff: The EPA's climate moves
have previously been challenged
in court.
Do we expect that this time
around?
>> 100%.
Most of those will be driven by
industry or the Republican
attorneys general to very
successfully sued the Obama
clean power plants several years
ago and blocked that from
happening, so that will
definitely happen.
You are seeing industry critics
coming out saying this will be
too costly for us, too costly
for consumers who want to
plug-in everything in their
homes, and there are also
criticisms within the democratic
party itself.
Joe Manchin whose own personal
fortune is very dependent on
coal called this a radical
climate agenda.
He said these rules are trying
to regulate coal and gas plants
out of existence.
Lots of critics are out there.
I think it is worth saying in
this conversation though that
the EPA did not just
capriciously decide to do this.
This is there mandate.
The courts have held the sub,
legislation has all this up.
It is their duty to regulate
carbon dioxide emissions.
How aggressively they do that is
definitely what will be fought
over?
Geoff: Thank you so much for
that reporting.
♪♪