Media Production Editor
On Oct. 10, Scott Pruitt, administrator of the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) announced plans to implement the repeal of the Obama-era Clean Power Plan of 2014. Industry and Trump supporters everywhere applauded this decision, celebrating the economic benefits of avoiding inconveniences for coal plants and championing industry. However, environmental groups and supporters of the plan see things in a different light.
The Clean Power Plan, was expected to cut down on the catastrophic carbon emissions in the air by 32 percent by 2030. Coal emissions make up 68 percent of such air pollution, and without the announcement of a replacement plan for the CPP, environmental progressives rebuked the repeal, seeing it as one step back in the improvement of the world’s air quality. The science community, already livid at previous scientifically incorrect comments made earlier in his term, reproached Trump’s decision.
Pruitt and the EPA argue that the Obama administration pushed its limits with the CPP, namely criticizing the factoring in of global warming in other countries and other pollutants along with carbon dioxide. The EPA also cites that by taking into account the possibility of reducing non-greenhouse gases, the true price of the CPP would be more prohibitively expensive. The agency believes that although the CPP may be reasonable in theory, the execution, namely its 33 billion dollar cost, would produce problematic outcomes. The validity and accuracy of the Obama’s administration predictions for the CPP comes into question, along with the administration’s transparency of the plan with state governments. The Trump administration emphasizes how this repeal reinstates full disclosure of government plans with the public, along with stating the CPP in fact opposes with the Clean Air Act.
The responses to the repeal of the CPP come down to the argument between the industry and the environment. With the repeal, coal plants flourish, supporting the economies of coal-based states such as Wyoming. Without it, there comes the possibility that the Clean Power Plan can cut down on dangerous emissions. Environmental pioneers hope for a transition from coal to cleaner natural gases, and worry that this decision may cause states that have begun this transition to cut them down.
(Sources: ABC, NY Times, EPA)