EPA finally gets U.S. into climate game: Our View

USA TODAY

The Editorial Board, 

2 p.m. EDT June 2, 2014

It's not how much comes out of every smokestack but the total amount of emissions.

In recent weeks, the scientific warnings about global warming have been coming in faster than a line of summer thunderstorms. Authoritative studies have documented rising sea levels, "irreversible" ice sheet melting, a northward migration of the tropics, and climate-induced conflict and instability.

There's no guarantee that the Obama administration's new limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants, announced Monday, can reverse these ominous trends. Global warming is, by definition, a global problem. So even if America meets the administration's goal of a 30% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030, the U.S. reductions will be swamped by increases elsewhere if other big polluters don't follow suit.

Does this mean the new rules aren't worth the effort? Hardly. If the plan survives the inevitable political and legal assaults, it will prevent a not-inconsequential hundreds of millions of tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. It will make renewables such as solar and wind power more competitive with fossil fuels. And it will improve public health at home by reducing soot and smog-forming emissions from coal-burning power plants, the largest source of greenhouse gases.

NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION: A better pathway

Most important, the proposal will give the United States, the world's second largest carbon emitter after China, far more leverage in upcoming international climate talks. "Every country is watching what every other country is doing," says David Doniger, director of the climate and clean air program at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which proposed a strategy similar to the one the Environmental Protection Agency announced. "This is the United States' way to show it is in the game."

Because a head-in-the-sand Congress has refused to put a price on carbon pollution, the administration opted for the next best approach. The EPA is using its authority under the Clean Air Act to set state standards, based on their energy mixes. States can use a variety of ways to meet their goals. These flexible rules recognize that what's important is not how much comes out of every smokestack, but the total amount of emissions. This is not a new idea: California and nine Northeast states already have "cap-and-trade" programs that limit overall emissions but allow polluters to buy government-issued credits from clean-energy producers.

Even before the new EPA rules were announced, they set off the usual flurry of warring economic prognostications. Business groups warned of skyrocketing utility bills and job losses. The NRDC and other environmental groups claim that electric bills will actually drop, and that new green-energy jobs will replace lost coal-related ones.

Who's right? The history of environmental regulations has been that the biggest scare stories haven't panned out. Cleaner air and cleaner water have been achieved at manageable costs. But it's reasonable to conclude that the new regulations will cause electric rates to rise in some regions, particularly in coal-dependent states such as Kentucky, Wyoming, West Virginia, Indiana and North Dakota.

That's part of the price of an accelerating shift away from coal toward natural gas and renewables. Perhaps the new standards will make clean-coal and carbon recapture technologies more economically feasible. And perhaps low-income energy assistance could be increased to consumers in coal-dependent places to help ease the transition. In any case, a singular focus on electric bills overlooks the high costs of inaction for taxpayers everywhere — in storm damage, sea wall construction and drought relief.

There's a tiny chance, of course, that the scientific consensus on human-induced climate disruption is too alarmist. But there's also a chance that it might be too conservative, that scientists are being overly cautious for fear of being labeled alarmist.

Prudent risk management involves leaving a margin for error when the fate of the planet is at risk. It involves preparing for the worst and hoping for the best. So far, the nation's policy has mainly involved preparing for the best case scenarios and hoping against the worst ones.

Monday's announcement marks the start of a far saner approach for the United States, one that will resonate globally.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.