Comments on the EPA CPP Regulation

[August 25, 2015 update: For a commentary on what Ms. McCarthy actually said see here.]

On August 11, 2015, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy presented her views on “The Promise of the Clean Power Plan” in Washington, DC. I prepared a handout on behalf of the Cooler Heads Coalition. The handout was as follows:

You are unlikely to hear today why the EPA so-called “Clean Power Plan” (CPP) needs to be rescinded, so this is an alternative view for your consideration concerning the Plan:

O Will not reduce global CO₂ levels or temperatures to any measurable extent even assuming faulty UN climate models, while other countries are rapidly increasing coal use and emissions.
O No need for action, especially drastic action. No increase in average global temperatures for over 17 years; non-hydro “renewables” unlikely to do anything except raise energy prices.
O Purely symbolic; will not result in any meaningful new international climate treaty, its current alleged purpose. Only large contributions to the UN funds for distribution to less wealthy countries over many years might possibly do that at great cost to US and other taxpayers.
O Justified by the usual EPA air “playbook” with its dubious if not imaginary health “co-benefits.” If these benefits actually exist why has EPA not already obtained them directly and more efficiently using “conventional” pollutant regulations?
O If fully implemented, electricity rates will skyrocket, just as Obama promised. This hurts everyone except wind and solar industries, particularly lower income Americans and those working in industries that will leave the US in search of lower electricity rates. Some Americans may even be sent into energy poverty, as has already happened in Western Europe.
O So no measurable environmental benefits and huge costs that hurt everyone but wind and solar industries.
O Violates at least 10 provisions of the Clean Air Act and even the Constitution, usurps state sovereignty, and leads to endless litigation. Tries to intimidate states into changing their laws.
O Does the opposite of what is needed–to leave energy policy decisions to the marketplace and the states, which would yield far better decisions, both economically and environmentally.

Cooler Heads Coalition, 12th Floor, 1899 L Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036

A few useful sources of further information independently produced by some of our members:

Our Website.
Detailed authoritative reports on climate science.
Heritage Foundation energy and environment reports.
Ten International Climate Change Conferences.
Science and Environmental Policy Project weekly reports.
General interest books. In 2015 these have included Climate Change: The Facts edited by Alan Moran, available here; and Environmentalism Gone Mad by Alan Carlin, available here.