WashPost: “EPA likely to delay climate rules for new power plants”

The Obama Administration has, tragically, signaled it may retreat on two major climate issues.

The UK Guardian reported Friday:

Barack Obama’s grand vision of action on climate change shrank to $200m a year to fund research into clean fuel cars, with signs of retreat on the big environmental issues of the day….

But on the most immediate environmental decision in his in-tray — the future of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project – White House officials indicated on Friday that Obama’s green and liberal supporters would be in for a disappointment. Officials signalled that the president was inclined to approve the project.

I must say that this $200 million a year, which has zero chance of seeing the light of day in the Tea-Party-controlled House of Representatives, is perhaps the tiniest bone one could imagine throwing the climate community in return for a decision to help unleash the uber-dirty tar sands.

And as if that wasn’t enough to suggest Obama’s recent strong words on climate (“If Congress Won’t Act Soon To Protect Future Generations, I Will“) were just that — words – the Washington Post reported on Friday:

The Obama administration is leaning toward revising its landmark proposal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants, according to several individuals briefed on the matter, a move that would delay tougher restrictions and could anger many environmentalists.

I have also heard from a source very familiar with the regulatory process that EPA now believes it screwed up the initial proposal, potentially subjecting it to court challenge.

Rewriting the proposal would significantly delay any action…

While the move could bolster the administration’s legal justification for regulating power plants’ carbon emissions, any delay on the rules would be a blow to environmental groups and their supporters, who constituted a crucial voting block for President Obama and other Democrats in last year’s elections.

As is typical of the WashPost, the administration’s moved is framed entirely as “a blow to environmental groups” rather, than, say, a blow to the environment itself or as a blow humanity.

The White House appears utterly clueless about the importance of these issues and the self-destructive nature of its “all of the above” energy strategy, as the WH official quoted by the Guardian makes clear:

The official dismissed environmental groups’ contention that building the pipeline would open up vast deposits of the Alberta tar sands, and so increase the emissions that cause climate change. “There have been thousands of miles of pipelines that have been built while President Obama has been in office, and I think the point is, is that it hasn’t necessarily had a significant impact one way or the other on addressing climate change,” the official said.

He added that Obama’s environmental policies would more than make up for any negative impacts from the Keystone XL project. “There’s no question of that.”

Seriously, that’s the White House defense for Keystone: We’ve opened thousands of new spigots for oil (and gas), so what’s one more?

Memo to White House: We are far past the point where breaking even on carbon emissions – or doing a little better than break even —  is a rational goal.

Yesterday, EPA released a new report that showed major fuel efficiency gains in American vehicles.

EPA’s annual report that tracks the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the United States is signaling a significant 1.4 mile per gallon (mpg) increase for 2012 cars and trucks – along with a continued decrease in carbon pollution.

The expected 1.4 mpg improvement in 2012 is based on sales estimates provided to EPA by automakers. EPA’s projections show a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to 374 grams per mile and an increase in average fuel economy to 23.8 mpg. If achieved, these would be among the largest annual improvements since EPA began reporting on fuel economy. These improvements would more than make up for a slight 0.2 mpg decrease in 2011 that resulted primarily from earthquake and tsunami-related disruptions to vehicle manufacturing in Japan. From 2007 to 2012, EPA estimates that CO2 emissions have decreased by 13 percent and fuel economy values have increased by 16 percent.

The report goes on to estimate that from 2007 to 2012, fuel economy increased 16 percent, with a 13 percent decline in carbon dioxide emissions. As Gina McCarthy put it, this saves money at the pump, reduces GhG emissions, and cleans the air.

We can expect the Obama Administration’s National Clean Car Program standards to double increase fuel economy by 2025, saving Americans $1.7 trillion dollars on gasoline. By the end of the program, this works out to $8,000 in savings per vehicle, and 2 million fewer barrels of oil every day.

Last year’s report only included data from vehicles power by gasoline or diesel, while this year’s report has a section on alternative fuels: electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and compressed natural gas. The report also includes corrected estimates following the probe into inflated fuel economy numbers from some automakers.

Some pertinent highlights from the executive summary:

CO2 emission rates and fuel economy values reflect a very favorable multi-year trend, beginning with model year (MY) 2005.

The U.S. personal vehicle market is diversifying, and consumers now have a much broader range of vehicle choices with respect to fuel economy/CO2 emissions performance and powertrain technology. The number of SUV, pickup, minivan, and van models that have combined EPA label values of 20 mpg or more have increased by 71%, from 38 in 2007 to 65 in 2012.

Read more

Opine away.

It Would Have Been Sooner

By Alex Hallatt, the Cartoonist Group