Here's the correct URL:
http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/denying-the-costs-of-coal-regulation
J.
**************************************************************************
Joy E. Hecht, PhD
Consultant on Environmental Economics and Climate Change
Email: jhecht@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Phone: 1-202-494-1162
From within Canada: 709-725-2420
URL: http://www.joyhecht.net/professional/consulting.html
<http://www.joyhecht.net/>
Skype: joy.e.hecht
**************************************************************************
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 7:19 PM, Nelson, Gerald C <gnelson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
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>
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 (cell)
+1 970-639-2079 (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> on behalf of Katherine von
Stackelberg <kvon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Reply-To: *"envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Date: *Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 4:20 PM
*To: *"envreseconepa@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <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> 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 or williams@xxxxxxx
On Nov 16, 2016, at 10:54 AM, Thomas Lyon <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>
wrote:
RFF would be a great group to include in this discussion!
On Nov 15, 2016 10:52 PM, "Ashley Camhi" <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> 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> 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
Phone: 1-202-494-1162
From within Canada: 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>
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
On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Thomas Lyon <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> 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
Phone: 1-202-494-1162
From within Canada: 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> 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
--
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
--
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
