Here’s the op-ed.
Denying the costs of coal regulation
By Guest Columnist<http://www.gjsentinel.com/staff/detail/98/>
Sunday, November 6, 2016
In a recent Facebook interview, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged
the obvious—that she supports the Environmental Left’s “Keep it in the Ground”
policy. In an online “Mashable” discussion with science editor Andrew Freedman,
McCarthy said of anti-coal activists, “I think we share the same goal.” She
also admitted that the economies of coal states are “in trouble,” and even
allowed that EPA’s regulations “steepen the curve” of their decline.
But like a Formula One driver veering from a collision, McCarthy quickly dodged
responsibility for this “trouble” by blaming market competition. “Frankly, the
coal industry has been going downhill since the 1980s,” she told Mashable.
This is nonsense. Coal production rose steadily from 1980 until 2009.
Production in 1980 was 830 million tons and in 2008 it was 1.2 billion tons.
Coal employment climbed from 2000 through 2011, reaching a level not seen since
1994. And so, before the Obama Administration decided to destroy it, coal’s
share of the nation’s power generation market hit 51 percent—higher by far than
competing fuels. Coal also broke records for exports and drove increasing
high-wage employment, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs paying an
average of $84,000 per year with great benefits.
But beginning with a “MATS rule” in 2011, coal lost half of its entire power
generating fleet — sparking a gradual decline in market share that soon
accelerated, thanks to a regulatory barrage capped by the Clean Power Plan. In
fact, the Energy Information Administration estimates the CPP will shut down
another 56 coal plants nationwide. McCarthy and others might point a finger at
the market impact of expanding natural gas production, but a recent study by
the King University business school showed that natural gas had only a modest
effect on coal production. That analysis found EPA regulations actually
destroyed five times as much coal demand. And, a Duke University study
concluded that less than 10 percent of America’s coal fleet was threatened by
natural gas before EPA’s regulations kicked in.
In exchange for leaving the nation with a less diverse energy supply, and
global CO2 levels that will remain virtually unchanged, EPA’s climate
regulations have contributed to the loss of 68,000 jobs in coal communities —
with more layoffs to come. The resulting “trouble” is serious enough that
McCarthy’s own administration has proposed a $3 billion aid package to repair
the damage. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton believes the damage merits
$30 billion in federal aid.
In short, coal’s distress is not the result of market competition. The MATS
rule, the Clean Power Plan, renewable fuel standards, New Source Performance
Standards, the retroactive vetoes of mining permits, hefty federal subsidies
for competing fuels — none of these is the result of “market conditions.” They
are government decisions.
Coincidentally, the same week that McCarthy was denying the cost of her
regulations, a federal judge sought to clarify them. In a summary judgement
against EPA, Judge John Preston Bailey berated EPA for ignoring its legal
obligation to weigh regulatory costs. “EPA cannot redefine statutes to avoid
complying with them,” he said. “Nor can EPA render them superfluous or contrary
to their original purpose by simply defining them to be.”
Not to be outdone, McCarthy has claimed that she can’t find “one single bit of
evidence” of job losses stemming from her climate change regulations. Maybe she
hasn’t bothered to look.
Point is, if we’re going to agree on enduring environmental solutions, we need
an honest discussion about the costs as well as the science. And that begins by
acknowledging the importance of advanced technologies that can make coal
cleaner, rather than poorly designed and costly federal measures. It’s time let
America’s engineers find climate solutions, not Washington’s regulators.
Luke Popovich is a spokesman for the National Mining Association.
Here’s the letter I wrote in response.
A recent op-ed piece by Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining
Association, left out at least two bits of information critical to
understanding the current situation with coal. First, he used the acronym MATS
but didn’t say what it stands for. It is Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
This rule is extremely important in reducing emissions of hazardous chemicals
from coal burning. The Supreme Court rejected the MATS rule last year because
EPA had not done a cost-benefit calculation before beginning to write the
regulation. It has now done so and reaffirmed the rule. The rule is designed to
accelerate the updating of power plants to reduce harmful pollution. The new
cost-benefit calculations show that this makes economic sense. Costs to the
coal industry are less than the health (and other) benefits from cleaner air.
Second, and perhaps more egregious, is his attribution of all the woes of the
coal industry to the EPA, ignoring the huge changes in the world coal market,
in particular Chinese imports. These went from about zero in 2000 to well over
300 million metric tons in 2013 but then took a huge nose dive, to 200 million
metric tons in 2015 and a likely further decline of 20 million metric tons in
2016. The U.S. coal industry benefitted from the growth in Chinese demand; now
that international demand has fallen, the industry is feeling the effect of
these market forces.
Finally, I’d like to read the Duke University study that “concluded that less
than 10 percent of America’s coal fleet was threatened by natural gas before
EPA’s regulations kicked in.” The conclusion flies in the face of all economic
analyses I’m aware of.
Perhaps Mr. Popovich can provide a bit more detail or a reference so those who
are interested in assessing his statements have enough information to do so.
Gerald C. Nelson
Professor Emeritus, UIUC
+1 217-390-7888 (cell)
+1 970-639-2079 (land line)
http://bit.ly/1arho7d
From: <envreseconepa-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Alecia Cassidy
<aawaite@xxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: "envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 5:16 PM
To: "envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [envreseconepa] Re: Organized statement on climate change
Hi Jerry,
Your link doesn't work, but I'd like to see your article. Can you post a valid
link?
Thanks,
Alecia
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Nelson, Gerald C
<gnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Let me suggest some other actions that might be useful in the longer run but
won’t directly affect the formation of this administration. The people on this
list are for the most part academics, present, past, and possibly future. So
you bring your expertise to the table and your assessment that climate change
is already bad for our species and will get worse.
My guess is that the vast majority of voters for the incoming president don’t
hold your views about climate change because their information sources have
told them that it doesn’t exist or is not a problem. My suggestion is that each
of us commit to doing one action a month to provide some evidence to the
contrary in a local forum. It could be a letter to the editor of a local paper
responding to a particularly egregious case of truthiness; it could be
appearing on a local radio or tv show; it could be going to meetings where you
know something false will be spread and speaking up about it. Speak as an
academic, not as an advocate. Use language a lay person can understand.
Here’s a letter I wrote to our local newspaper in response to an op-ed piece by
Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining Association (op ed is at
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/denying-the-costs-of-coal-regulation)<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gjsentinel.com_opinion_articles_denying-2Dthe-2Dcosts-2Dof-2Dcoal-2Dregulation-29&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=U_yoTzpF5FX7LaYgWCwCRwOLG6cISFwSbZSa1jSPRYg&m=KPJMnwEfZylnuvPYyHqtsAmqfmjshONDIanll5OMhDU&s=qQ7n3ki2tRTFzQi3SmQDRM7C11Q_8t51IO4IiW9fuF8&e=>.
A recent op-ed piece by Luke Popovich, spokesman for the National Mining
Association, left out at least two bits of information critical to
understanding the current situation with coal. First, he used the acronym MATS
but didn’t say what it stands for. It is Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.
This rule is extremely important in reducing emissions of hazardous chemicals
from coal burning. The Supreme Court rejected the MATS rule last year because
EPA had not done a cost-benefit calculation before beginning to write the
regulation. It has now done so and reaffirmed the rule. The rule is designed to
accelerate the updating of power plants to reduce harmful pollution. The new
cost-benefit calculations show that this makes economic sense. Costs to the
coal industry are less than the health (and other) benefits from cleaner air.
Second, and perhaps more egregious, is his attribution of all the woes of the
coal industry to the EPA, ignoring the huge changes in the world coal market,
in particular Chinese imports. These went from about zero in 2000 to well over
300 million metric tons in 2013 but then took a huge nose dive, to 200 million
metric tons in 2015 and a likely further decline of 20 million metric tons in
2016. The U.S. coal industry benefitted from the growth in Chinese demand; now
that international demand has fallen, the industry is feeling the effect of
these market forces.
Finally, I’d like to read the Duke University study that “concluded that less
than 10 percent of America’s coal fleet was threatened by natural gas before
EPA’s regulations kicked in.” The conclusion flies in the face of all economic
analyses I’m aware of.
Perhaps Mr. Popovich can provide a bit more detail or a reference so those who
are interested in assessing his statements have enough information to do so.
You can also ask your local paper to require op ed writers to provide complete
references, sources or data, etc.
All for now.
Jerry
Gerald C. Nelson
Professor Emeritus, UIUC
+1 217-390-7888<tel:%2B1%20217-390-7888> (cell)
+1 970-639-2079<tel:%2B1%20970-639-2079> (land line)
http://bit.ly/1arho7d<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__bit.ly_1arho7d&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=U_yoTzpF5FX7LaYgWCwCRwOLG6cISFwSbZSa1jSPRYg&m=KPJMnwEfZylnuvPYyHqtsAmqfmjshONDIanll5OMhDU&s=8XjDvvV2LXy_iZAFeJivhQkiadO8y3kNZlmomDQFN4Y&e=>
From:
<envreseconepa-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:envreseconepa-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
on behalf of Katherine von Stackelberg
<kvon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kvon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Reply-To: "envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 4:20 PM
To: "envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: [envreseconepa] Re: Organized statement on climate change
I would also keep in mind that the incoming administration is going to crumple
up and toss in the trash any statement longer than a tweet. (140 words?)
On Nov 16, 2016, at 4:58 PM, Rob Williams
<roberton3@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:roberton3@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Keep in mind that RFF is explicitly non-partisan, and doesn't take political
positions. RFF researchers certainly can, but only as individuals. I think
that restriction gives RFF more credibility and thus a lot more long-run
influence, but it can be a limitation in the short run. So you can (and
should) get RFF researchers involved, but not RFF as an organization.
As for contributing to other, more activist organizations, be sure to look
carefully at what positions that organization is taking. The Sierra Club, for
example, just worked to defeat a carbon tax ballot proposition in Washington
state. Based on that (and, to a lesser extent, on some other positions they’ve
taken), I’ve been encouraging everyone I know to stop giving to the Sierra
Club, and to direct donations to other environmental groups instead. (See
Lucas Davis’s blog post at
https://energyathaas.wordpress.com/2016/10/31/why-arent-environmentalists-supporting-a-carbon-tax-in-washington-state/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__energyathaas.wordpress.com_2016_10_31_why-2Darent-2Denvironmentalists-2Dsupporting-2Da-2Dcarbon-2Dtax-2Din-2Dwashington-2Dstate_&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=U_yoTzpF5FX7LaYgWCwCRwOLG6cISFwSbZSa1jSPRYg&m=vwmA9WRfNRVgmh82QHoc5LA0t5tzlwzKyi1gIFkZcXk&s=xWqBWGKggM7paEk_IkW-tHAC8B9equZDvOae3XfMzD8&e=>
for more detail on the ballot proposition and why some environmental groups
opposed it.)
-Rob
Roberton C. Williams III
Professor, University of Maryland
Senior Fellow and Director of Academic Programs, Resources For the Future
Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research
Email: roberton@xxxxxxx<mailto:roberton@xxxxxxx> or
williams@xxxxxxx<mailto:williams@xxxxxxx>
On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Thomas Lyon
<tplyon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:tplyon@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Getting RFF, one of the very few evidence-based think tanks, into the
discussion would be a great step.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Clifford Hutt
<cliffordhutt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cliffordhutt@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
RFF would be a great group to include in this discussion!
On Nov 15, 2016 10:52 PM, "Ashley Camhi"
<alcamhi@xxxxxxx<mailto:alcamhi@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
Here is a short blog from RFF on the possible implications for the climate with
a Trump administration:
http://www.rff.org/blog/2016/trump-administration-and-climate<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.rff.org_blog_2016_trump-2Dadministration-2Dand-2Dclimate&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=U_yoTzpF5FX7LaYgWCwCRwOLG6cISFwSbZSa1jSPRYg&m=vwmA9WRfNRVgmh82QHoc5LA0t5tzlwzKyi1gIFkZcXk&s=Ps-xvS9ZWJLpB2OzL1oRPfapW22UNGqWqfDZi2nbNBE&e=>
I think Resources for the Future could be a great ally since they are D.C.
based, often have interactions with policymakers, and are well respected for
their work. I have a few friends there if you think it would be worthwhile to
try and include them in our conversations.
Ashley Camhi
On Nov 15, 2016 9:10 PM, "Clifford Hutt"
<cliffordhutt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:cliffordhutt@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hey folks, I work in the DC area for NOAA Fisheries. Personally, my work really
has little to nothing to do directly with climate, but I have connections whose
work does in both the federal and NGO community. I intend to share this
listserv and email chain with several of them.
I can attest the atmosphere in DC right now is pretty somber. We were all blind
sided by the results of the election. At this point, all organizations are
still trying to figure out what comes next, and how to move forward. Hopefully
this listserv can be a resource for collaboration in the years to come.
Clifford Hutt
NOAA Fisheries Service
On Nov 15, 2016 9:44 PM, "Joy Hecht"
<jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I've been getting emails and fbook notifications from various NGOs that I
sometimes support - the Southern Poverty Law Center, on civil rights issues,
the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists - but they never talk about
what their strategy is. They just ask for money. It may be that contributing
to these organizations is actually the most useful thing we can do, if we
aren't going to actually take jobs working for them, but I would still like to
know how exactly they hope to go about influencing things.
Joy
**************************************************************************
Joy E. Hecht, PhD
Consultant on Environmental Economics and Climate Change
Email: jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-202-494-1162<tel:1-202-494-1162>
From within Canada: 709-725-2420<tel:709-725-2420>
URL:
http://www.joyhecht.net/professional/consulting.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.joyhecht.net_&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=U_yoTzpF5FX7LaYgWCwCRwOLG6cISFwSbZSa1jSPRYg&m=vwmA9WRfNRVgmh82QHoc5LA0t5tzlwzKyi1gIFkZcXk&s=SxLPW0MivzsNc44TYWeKP7aTfyQVcnmmtWRHn_GWEp4&e=>
Skype: joy.e.hecht
**************************************************************************
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 9:44 PM, Sarah Jacobson
<sarah.jacobson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.jacobson@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dear friends,
I am happy to sign onto any statement or petition in this vein, but I second
Joy's call for insight about more concrete actions we can take. We all have
advanced degrees and relevant expertise; we should be able to help stop climate
policy from backsliding, even if the new federal administration is not friendly
to climate progress. But many of us simply don't know where to start--we don't
have contact with the policymakers or NGOs that may be at the forefront of the
fight over the coming years.
The environmental / resource economics organizations I belong to are
professional organizations. Would now be a time for a more engagement- /
advocacy-oriented organization to channel our energies? Should we reach out to
existing organizations, and if so which ones?
-Sarah
--Sarah Jacobson
Williams College
sarah.jacobson@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:sarah.jacobson@xxxxxxxxx>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Lyon
<tplyon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:tplyon@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
This is a good point, Joy. A statement from 500 Fortune 500 CEOs would have a
lot more impact. But I don't know how to get them on board.
Tom
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016, Joy Hecht
<jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Circulating this letter and obtaining as many signatures as possible certainly
seems like a reasonable thing to do. If, as many others in this discussion
have suggested, you circulate it beyond business schools, then of course you'll
have to change the text to reflect who is actually signing it.
But I can't quite imagine the new Trump administration could actually care less
what we think on this topic, as he has already happily rejected the notion that
preventing climate change is more important than any short-term costs that
might impose.
I'm wondering, therefore, whether people here are working on (or know other
networks working on) determining what exactly we can do to keep key actors in
our country on track even if the new president is working against it and the
new administration does not actually implement the terms of the Paris accord.
I've seen a few ideas around - that corporations will want to reduce GHG
emissions irrespective of the policies of the current government either because
they believe it is going to be required at some point and it's better to begin
sooner, or (perhaps?) because they may not be able to export to key
destinations if they are not reducing emissions, or because at least in some
cases there is a financial payoff to reducing emissions. I've also seen it
suggested that even if the federal government is not dealing with the issues,
we should be working to implement state and municipal policies to reduce
emissions, because much may be possible at those levels.
I haven't done much reading (or googling) on this yet, but I'm wondering what
else people may have heard about specific actions that could reduce harm. I'm
also wondering what other websites, networks, or organizations you all may be
aware of where we can learn more.
Joy Hecht
**************************************************************************
Joy E. Hecht, PhD
Consultant on Environmental Economics and Climate Change
Email: jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Phone: 1-202-494-1162<tel:1-202-494-1162>
From within Canada: 709-725-2420<tel:709-725-2420>
URL:
http://www.joyhecht.net/professional/consulting.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.joyhecht.net_&d=DQMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=U_yoTzpF5FX7LaYgWCwCRwOLG6cISFwSbZSa1jSPRYg&m=vwmA9WRfNRVgmh82QHoc5LA0t5tzlwzKyi1gIFkZcXk&s=SxLPW0MivzsNc44TYWeKP7aTfyQVcnmmtWRHn_GWEp4&e=>
Skype: joy.e.hecht
**************************************************************************
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Thomas Lyon
<tplyon@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:tplyon@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Dear Concerned RESECON Colleagues,
I wanted to share with you a discussion that is going on in other parts of my
network. A group of business school faculty are thinking about a joint
statement that would address the broad issue of climate change and Trump's
pretense that is does not exist. This may make more sense than a quick outcry
about appointing climate denier Myron Ebell to guide the energy and environment
transition. We may also want to add a comment about the Clean Power Plan into
this. At this point it is just a first draft.
But it might be something that would attract broad support from environmental
and resource economists, too, if a few of the words were changed. I suppose
that raises the question of whether we might broaden the language to include
economists as well as business school faculty, and present this all under one
umbrella, or whether it is better to have two separate statements.
The draft is below. Your thoughts are most welcome.
Best wishes,
Tom Lyon
A Public Expression of Concern on Climate Change: A Call for Action in
Business and Business Schools
As a general rule, academics in business schools do not take political
positions with respect to developments in national (or international or local)
politics. Our role is primarily to do research and to teach the next
generation of business leaders. However, the surprising election of Donald
Trump as the next President of the United States, along with his promise to
renege on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, which has just entered into
force on November 6, 2016 (with ratification to date by 110 countries including
the U.S.), compels us to depart from this general rule and to make a statement
in opposition of President-elect Trump’s position. We urge him to reconsider
taking this course of action.
For many years, academics like us have been studying the challenges posed by
climate change from a business point of view, even as scientific studies have
shown, with increasing certainty and detail, that climate change poses a
significant threat to the very foundations of human civilization. If effective
measures are not taken to reverse rising levels of greenhouse gas emissions,
then, as scientists tell us, there will be extreme consequences in terms of
rising sea levels, increasingly heavy precipitation events, higher temperatures
(including heat waves and more frequent forest fires), and more severe droughts
and water shortages. Human consequences will include mass starvation,
exponentially increased refugee flows, increasing range of formerly “tropical”
diseases, and new wars over food and water. In light of these predicted
consequences to the very fabric of human civilization, we cannot as academics
stay silent in the face of a political call to ignore science and to allow the
United States to reverse course on climate policy. We therefore call in the
strongest possible terms for President-elect Trump to stay his hand with
respect to the Paris Agreement. The United States should not become a rogue
nation with respect to climate change; instead it should remain at the
forefront of international policy and dialogue.
In any event, regardless of whether we can have an influence over decisions of
a new Trump Administration, we call on our fellow business academics and, most
importantly, business people themselves, to redouble their efforts and
commitments to adopt climate friendly policies and practices. Over the last
several decades, we have witnessed a strong increase in the commitment of many
business firms to take climate change seriously and to become “part of the
solution” rather than “part of the problem.” We reaffirm efforts to advance
the cause of climate resilience in the business community. After all, as
David Brower has famously said: “There is no business to be done on a dead
planet.”
We urge President-elect Trump to listen to the world’s leading scientists and
the great weight of international political opinion as expressed by the 197
parties to the Paris Agreement and to stay the course with respect to this
Agreement. In addition, in light of the political threat to progress on
climate change, we urge business schools and business firms to redouble their
efforts to confront this real and immediate threat to human civilization.
There is no time to wait.
The undersigned business faculty members of the Alliance for Research in
Corporate Sustainability and the Organizations and Natural Environment section
of the Academy of Management.
--
Thomas P. Lyon
Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Policy
Ross School of Business
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
701 Tappan St., Room 6366
Ann Arbor, MI 48409
734-615-1639<tel:734-615-1639>
--
Thomas P. Lyon
Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Policy
Ross School of Business
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
701 Tappan St., Room 6366
Ann Arbor, MI 48409
734-615-1639<tel:734-615-1639>
--
Thomas P. Lyon
Dow Chair of Sustainable Science, Technology and Policy
Ross School of Business
School of Natural Resources and Environment
University of Michigan
701 Tappan St., Room 6366
Ann Arbor, MI 48409
734-615-1639
