Editorials and Opinion
EDITORIAL: A warming response; So far, public reaction seems positive (Daily Camera [CO] , 06/04/14)
"[H]ere in Colorado, voters and lawmakers alike have favored increasing renewable energy sources and requiring a reduction in emissions since before the 2005 benchmark. We're well-poised to meet and exceed the federal regulations. ... If ever there was an issue that could lower the temperature in our hyper-partisan era, it's climate change — not to mention pollution, which is pretty much universally loathed. Choose your poison: Kids with asthma, brown clouds hovering over major cities, dead fish."
Meet power-plant pollution rules with 'can-do' spirit: Editorial (South Jersey Times [NJ], 06/04/14)
"The power-plant regulations that emerged from the Obama administration this week are of great interest in South Jersey. The first-ever federal limits on carbon emissions aim for a 30 percent reduction by 2030. This is a welcome effort against pollution that respects no borders ... In all probability a coal-is-king state or two will run to court,"a
Editorial: EPA rules will help, but battle goes on (Concord Monitor [NH] , 06/04/14)
"The new rules to curb carbon emissions from power plants announced by the EPA this week are a huge win for New Hampshire. The regulations were crafted to comply with President Obama’s executive order to reduce pollution that’s fueling global warming and harming human health. The rules, which could force the closing of some of the nation’s dirtiest coal plants, mean cleaner air and fewer smog days for New England. Fewer pollutants mean fewer asthma attacks and fewer deaths from conditions aggravated by poor air quality. The rules, if they survive the inevitable legal challenges, will mark a big step toward taking the need to combat human-induced climate change seriously."
The Register's Editorial: New EPA rules important for Iowa and Earth (Des Moines Register [IA] , 06/04/14)
"A new federal goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions was announced Monday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. It is a step toward a modest reduction in the emission of carbon dioxide from the production of electricity. That carbon dioxide is the primary source of the heat-trapping gas that is blamed for the rising temperatures that are already having a serious affect on global climate. The EPA proposal should be applauded — and implemented.... Iowa is already ahead of the game"
Editorial: Our View: Time to take the medicine (South Coast Today [MA], 06/04/14)
"The president's plan — to be administered through the Environmental Protection Agency — would allow states to set their own path to carbon dioxide reductions and give them credit for the work done so far.... In Massachusetts, the fastest growing job growth is in the renewable energy sector, from development to deployment, lab coat to blue collar. aIncentives to move toward renewables — hydro-electric, wind and solar — have made the difference in the commonwealth, and should do the same across the country."
EDITORIAL: Embarrassing retreat (Akron Beacon Journal [OH], 06/04/14)
"As Ohio retreats from its energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, the Obama White House unveils a draft rule to reduce carbon emissions to combat climate change, placing a heavy emphasis on states designing their own plans for compliance. ... there is the greater expense in ducking the challenge, picking up the tab for torrential rains and other damaging effects ... advances must be made, and the strongest aspect of the EPA proposal is the political element ... To be sure, this is just a beginning. Still, the way is open, states with helpful flexibility, the understanding more plain: Action now promises to be less costly than waiting while the risk builds and the trouble deepens."
EDITORIAL: A kick-start to clearing the air; The EPA proposes a carbon cut (Chicago Tribune, 06/04/14)
"The EPA promises flexibility for states to meet reduction targets. It certainly promotes a healthier environment.... Congress has done nothing and there are no signs that the gridlock will ease anytime soon. Advantage, EPA. ... The costs and benefits, the success or failure, of this EPA rule will be determined as the various states assess how they can implement it. That may require some significant changes as it goes through the regulatory process. It will have to withstand legal challenges."
EDITORIAL: Our View: Curb the toxic politics and clear the air (Herald News [Fall River, MA], 06/03/14)
"President Barack Obama’s plan announced Monday, aiming for a 30 percent cut in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030 ... is a long-overdue step for our nation, which has lagged behind much of the industrialized world in addressing climate change.... the plan is a win for Massachusetts"
EDITORIAL: Editorial: Carbon emissions proposal gives U.S. a leadership role (News & Observer [NC], 06/03/14)
"The proposal to reduce carbon emissions from power plants is part of the president’s effort to fight climate change, but the immediate effect would be a reduction in the amount of pollution Americans breathe.... The proposal to reduce carbon emissions from power plants is part of the president’s effort to fight climate change, but the immediate effect would be a reduction in the amount of pollution Americans breathe.... this is a good rule for North Carolina"
EDITORIAL: Obama’s emissions plan will protect the air and Americans’ health (Kansas City Star, 06/03/14)
"A strong and detailed plan unveiled by President Barack Obama promises to reduce pollution, protect the health of Americans and promote the use of cleaner energy.
And the cost of electricity will not come close to skyrocketing. Yet here come the knife-bearing opponents who support dirty air ... Look for their lawsuits as well as misleading tales ... In Kansas and Missouri, utilities already have taken progressive steps ... cutting carbon emissions will improve the lives of Americans, which is reason enough to support it."
Editorial: EPA emission rules a good, but not great, step forward (St. Louis Post-Dispatch [MO], 06/03/14)
"Some scientists argue that mankind is in the middle of what, in geologic time, will be the “Sixth Extinction.” Not too many generations hence, they say, significant numbers of the Earth’s species will be eliminated as a result of catastrophic climate change.... both Sens. McConnell, 72, and Blunt, 64, will be dead and gone when the global warming bill comes due. In the meantime, they can pander to donors and voters and keep their jobs.... If we don’t lead, why should the world act? If the world doesn’t act, our grandchildren’s children will curse our names."
Editorial: Finally, US gets serious about climate change (Boston Globe, 06/03/14)
"THE NEW regulations on power plant emissions announced yesterday by President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency mark the nation’s first truly serious assault on climate change.... It is, in every sense, a major step — and a long overdue and welcome one....Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell of coal-state Kentucky laughably warned of a “unilateral dismantling of our own economic supremacy.” That’s refuted by the entire history of environmental protection"
EDITORIAL: President Barack Obama’s tough love for the planet (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [WI], 06/03/14)
"The Obama administration finally took the leadership role it needs to take on climate change when the Environmental Protection Agency announced a plan Monday to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.... the administration has set the right target, and, done right, the rule could lead to significant mitigation of climate change if other nations follow, as well as a stronger economy through the development of new technologies and new markets."
Editorial EPA plan to curb carbon emissions is pragmatic, smart and overdue (Los Angeles Times, 06/03/14)
"Federal law compels the EPA to reduce harmful air pollutants, and carbon dioxide from power plants is the largest contributor by far to changes in the climate that could be ruinous to the planet....The EPA's expansive approach is certain to be tested in court by those upset about the prospect of more expensive electricity. ...Global warming threatens to be an environmental catastrophe, and the U.S. must prevent as much of the damage as it can. As multiple recent studies have concluded, the cost of dealing with the worst effects of climate change will far outweigh the cost of preventing them."
NJ should applaud Obama crackdown on power plants: Editorial (Star-Ledger Newark [NJ] , 06/03/14)
"President Obama’s announcement yesterday of new carbon rules to fight global warming is the most important thing he’s done in office, along with health care reform. Not only will it force reductions in carbon pollution from our nation’s coal-fired power plants, it will put a burner under research into green technologies, which in the end is our only hope to reduce the threat of climate change....New Jersey should be especially glad about this, given that most of the coal emissions we breathe float our way from the Midwest and South, where the plants don’t have to use anti-pollution equipment to filter out the worst soot. The new federal limits are going to greatly benefit our health, preventing countless asthma attacks and premature deaths."
EDITORIAL: Breathing easier: Obama takes a historic step on climate change (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [PA] , 06/03/14)
"While it builds on past policies and the authority of the Clean Air Act, President Barack Obama’s proposal to tackle the carbon pollution that fuels climate change is the most significant step yet....The president’s plan takes climate change seriously, although it can be faulted for actually not going far enough."
Editorial: Obama’s effort to reduce coal is groundbreaking, but not in California (Sacramento Bee [CA] , 06/03/14)
"Aimed at slashing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, the new rules – like the EPA’s recent California-based fuel economy standards – have the larger mission of curbing greenhouse gases....the blowback has begun, with threats of lawsuits and congressional intervention.... the rules will have this local impact: California will finally have some meaningful company in the quest to do something about coal-fired climate change."
Editorial: Forget hyperbole and adopt EPA rules (Battle Creek Enquirer [MI], 06/03/14)
"Far from the calamity the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and people on the right have forecast, the Environmental Protection Agency’s draft rule to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants is modest in its aims and, at face value, its potential economic impact....Even in Michigan, no bastion of environmental progressiveness, utilities are already on track to meet those standards."
EDITORIAL: IN OUR VIEW/EPA AND THE CLEAN POWER PLAN; Real cuts to carbon pollution (Herald [WA] , 06/03/14)
"It's a fair and backbone-ish rule, designed to enhance public health, all the while casting the United States into a leadership role in the battle against global climate change.... The EPA's proposed rule reflects farsighted leadership consistent with the public interest. And the Pacific Northwest leads the way."
Editorial: Nearing a Climate Legacy (New York Times, 06/03/14)
"The greenhouse gas reductions required by the Obama administration’s proposed rule on power plants will not get the world to where it has to go to avert the worst consequences of climate change. But they are likely to be enormously beneficial: good for the nation’s health, good for technological innovation, good for President Obama’s credibility abroad, and, in time, good for the planet and future generations."
EDITORIAL: WE SAY CARBON POLLUTION; CO2 reduction plan welcome, overdue (Austin American-Statesman [TX] , 06/03/14)
"The Obama administration’s plan to cut the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030 is an overdue step toward addressing global warming. It carries a cost, but a necessary one. And over time, its benefits should far outweigh its costs, both for the country and for Texas."
Editorial: Air pollution proposal animates the usual critics (Charleston Gazette [WV] , 06/03/14)
"Predictably, West Virginia conservatives went ballistic over the Obama administration’s modest, reasonable attempt to reduce air pollution and curtail global warming caused by coal-burning power plants.... As we’ve said before, instead of raging against pollution controls — or trying to score political points — West Virginia leaders should launch intelligent planning for the inevitable future when coal is gone....Out-of-control climate change is inflicting horrendous costs on America through worse tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, seashore loss and other painful effects of global warming — including loss of lives. The Obama administration is wise to try to reduce the hundred-billion-dollar toll."