A few years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a plan to redu

Question

A few years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed a plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 30% by 2030. Here is a link to a U.S.A. Today article on the subject: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/06/02/epa-proposes-sharp-cuts-power-plant-emissions/9859913/ Here are two contrasting responses to the plan: From the Americans for Prosperity: “Once again the Obama Administration is putting its own global-warming ideology ahead of the interests of hardworking taxpayers. These proposed EPA rules will lead to higher energy bills for families, lost jobs, and diminished economic growth. Even worse, this proposal comes just days after it was revealed that last quarter the U.S. economy actually shrank for the first time in three years. The tragedy is that while the new EPA regulations will hit taxpayers square in the pocketbook, even the administration admits they are ‘unlikely’ to have any meaningful impact on the environment. The new EPA regulations are a lose-lose. Americans can’t afford more Obama regulations fueled by ideology.” From the Sierra Club: "As dire warnings from climate scientists continue to escalate and what were once rare extreme weather events become increasingly common, we at the Sierra Club applaud today's announcement from the Environmental Protection Agency outlining its proposed protections from dangerous carbon pollution from existing power plants. These standards won't just take a big bite out of climate disruption, they’ll also help us tackle other serious power plant pollution that threatens our health, air and water - pollutants including soot, smog, and mercury." What do you think about this proposed program to reduce carbon emissions? Is it even necessary, if other countries are not taking steps to reduce theirs? Is it a good idea but too expensive? Is this too little too late? You don't have to answer each of these questions, but please research the topic and provide your thoughts.

Explanation / Answer

If i have to give an honest answer i totaly support the idea of this change switching to a more environment friendly way of generating energy.Bt honestly speaking the EPA agenda is aiming a very fast paced change.The energy industry is in transition.The whorl world is shifting to clean sources bt EPA aims to reduce to 30% percent as a whorl this means some states who heavily depend of coal as an energy source would have to shift in such a small gap of time Ohio- 28%, Kentucky 18% and Wyoming, 19%,New York-44% .More over people will lose jobs in minning sector and the cost would be more.

Other countries are not taking this initiative doesnt mean the idea is wrong.The coal emission although has global impact but has more severe impcat locally creating dense smoge,breathing problems heart disease etc.So it is necessary for individual nation to take part in this.

yeah it is a good idea aiming for a bigger picture although its implementatin will be tough and will cost jobs and money.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.