EPA regulations are notorious for being a polarizing issue in among Democrats and Republicans, and the upcoming 2016 elections are no exception. The main issue at hand is whether environmental regulations should be dealt with at the local, state level or at the federal level. As we discussed earlier in the semester, there are several benefits and drawbacks associated with the level at which environmental issues are regulated. Highlights of state regulation include innovative policy that is much easier to pass because of less partisan conflict. For instance, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a mandatory, market-based CO2 emissions regulation program-the first of it's kind in the nation. RGGI is a wonderful example of what can be accomplished at the state level. On the other hand, state policy can also lead to patchwork regulation. Other state's actions can undermine the efforts of others. For instance, emissions from coal fired powerplants in the Midwest and South undermines the efforts of Northern states to comply with federal requirements to minimize acid rain through strict regulations on industry and citizen. States need to maintain economic viability if they are dominated by energy-intensive industries, who tend to be influential constituencies in terms of either preventing or rolling back regulation. Catherine Aust, COS '16, says, "We are at a time of ecological crisis. It is ridiculous that the issue of climate change is not being taken more seriously by candidates. The time for coordinated action is now."
As a result of all of these factors there is a consistent and conflicting dilemma in EPA regulations and if there should be federal environmental regulations or state. The candidates of the 2016 presidential election all have strong stances on this issue, divided between Republicans and Democrats. Democratic candidates Clinton and Sanders favor federal environmental regulations and as such support the EPA. In addition, they both support the EPA's Clean Power Plan, a law recently passed that limits pollution from power plants, particularly coal-fired ones. In an article with the New York Times, Clinton was quoted saying, "The reality of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers say." Democratic candidates recognize the severity of the issue of climate change, which explains why they are so popular among young people.
In a speech to the League of Conservation voters, Clinton said that in addition to defending the Clean Power Plan, she expressed that an economic program must be put in place that would go along with combatting climate change. She recently proposed a $30 billion dollar plan to help displaced coal workers find new jobs and continue receiving health benefits. Her plan would be to provide economic incentives to coal country that would help that region transition to the production of renewable energy, thus mitigating job loss.
As a result of all of these factors there is a consistent and conflicting dilemma in EPA regulations and if there should be federal environmental regulations or state. The candidates of the 2016 presidential election all have strong stances on this issue, divided between Republicans and Democrats. Democratic candidates Clinton and Sanders favor federal environmental regulations and as such support the EPA. In addition, they both support the EPA's Clean Power Plan, a law recently passed that limits pollution from power plants, particularly coal-fired ones. In an article with the New York Times, Clinton was quoted saying, "The reality of climate change is unforgiving, no matter what the deniers say." Democratic candidates recognize the severity of the issue of climate change, which explains why they are so popular among young people.
In a speech to the League of Conservation voters, Clinton said that in addition to defending the Clean Power Plan, she expressed that an economic program must be put in place that would go along with combatting climate change. She recently proposed a $30 billion dollar plan to help displaced coal workers find new jobs and continue receiving health benefits. Her plan would be to provide economic incentives to coal country that would help that region transition to the production of renewable energy, thus mitigating job loss.
Sanders has expressed that greater technological progress in wind and solar power generation needs to be accelerated, a view that resonates with many youth voters, myself included. Takanori Masui, a recent UC Berkeley graduate says, "EPA regulations don't really take precedence for me when it comes to the election. I am more concerned with energy policy, such as whether or not the federal tax credit for residential solar will be renewed." Sanders believes that we need to move away from dirty, polluting sources of fuel such as coal and oil, and towards renewables. Sanders has a demonstrated track record of supporting the Clean Power Plan, voting twice against legislation that would block the plan from taking effect. According to the Hill, the measures would "stop the carbon dioxide emissions limits for existing power plants, which mandate a 32 percent cut in the power sector's carbon emissions by 2030." The other measure would "move to block the related carbon rule for newly built power plants."
Republican candidates believe that restricting emissions contributes to job loss and strongly support cutting back EPA regulations and transferring the handling of energy issues to the states. Republican candidate Jeb Bush is strongly against EPA regulations. He believes that the Clean Power Plan was an overreach of federal authority that took away power from states and local communities, and that the plan should be repealed. In an August 2015 statement about the Clean Power Plan, he said, "The rule runs over state governments, will throw countless people out of work and will increase everyone's electricity prices...climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy." Senator Chris Christie is on the same page as Jeb Bush. He believes that the EPA under the Obama administration oversteps their authority by imposing regulations that are too restrictive. He believes that laws such as the Clean Power Plan make it more difficult to do business in America.
A report released by the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, states that the EPA's Clean Power Plan will create 100,000 more jobs than will be lost. The report looked at both direct job creation, such as solar industry jobs, and indirect employment, such as waitressing jobs in a mining town or railroad jobs, places where miners spend their paychecks that will be the most affected by EPA regulation. The report noted that policies to address specific groups most impacted by the rule will be crucial, such as the Obama administrations efforts to mitigate losses to coal worker's pensions and health care coverage. An EPA reports estimates that the Clean Power Plan will have climate and health benefits worth $55 billion to $93 billion by 2030. The proposed Fiscal Year 2016 Budget provides more than $55 million in funding for job training, economic diversification and other economic efforts in places such as Appalachia that have experienced job loss due to the declining coal industry. Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton's economic plan also provides incentives to coal industry workers for job training to transition to a clean energy economy.
Republican candidates believe that restricting emissions contributes to job loss and strongly support cutting back EPA regulations and transferring the handling of energy issues to the states. Republican candidate Jeb Bush is strongly against EPA regulations. He believes that the Clean Power Plan was an overreach of federal authority that took away power from states and local communities, and that the plan should be repealed. In an August 2015 statement about the Clean Power Plan, he said, "The rule runs over state governments, will throw countless people out of work and will increase everyone's electricity prices...climate change will not be solved by grabbing power from states or slowly hollowing out our economy." Senator Chris Christie is on the same page as Jeb Bush. He believes that the EPA under the Obama administration oversteps their authority by imposing regulations that are too restrictive. He believes that laws such as the Clean Power Plan make it more difficult to do business in America.
A report released by the Economic Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank, states that the EPA's Clean Power Plan will create 100,000 more jobs than will be lost. The report looked at both direct job creation, such as solar industry jobs, and indirect employment, such as waitressing jobs in a mining town or railroad jobs, places where miners spend their paychecks that will be the most affected by EPA regulation. The report noted that policies to address specific groups most impacted by the rule will be crucial, such as the Obama administrations efforts to mitigate losses to coal worker's pensions and health care coverage. An EPA reports estimates that the Clean Power Plan will have climate and health benefits worth $55 billion to $93 billion by 2030. The proposed Fiscal Year 2016 Budget provides more than $55 million in funding for job training, economic diversification and other economic efforts in places such as Appalachia that have experienced job loss due to the declining coal industry. Democratic candidate Hilary Clinton's economic plan also provides incentives to coal industry workers for job training to transition to a clean energy economy.
Climate change is the defining issue of my generation and I would say that the majority believes in climate change, wants to mitigate it and transition to a more sustainable future. I support the Democratic candidates that favor EPA regulations because while local movements in support of climate change are important, it is only with large scale regulation that meaningful reductions in greenhouse gases will be accomplished. Reductions in greenhouse gases will be good for the environment and for public health. Paul Bologona, a recent Political Science graduate of Northeastern says, "The EPA is a big issue for me personally when it comes to the elections." Candidates that support the EPA implicitly support public health, an issue that I care deeply about. We need the government to set strict national standards on emissions and pollution control in order to have an effect on the environment and have cohesive action. I believe that EPA regulations will be a driver in innovation for renewables. Clinton and Sanders are both socially liberal candidates, especially with their stances on EPA regulations, a philosophy I adhere to.
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/12/clinton-to-help-coal-workers-move-to-green-jobs.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2015/10/29/energy-spotlight-where-do-the-candidates-stand/
http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on-cpp.pdf
https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/260507-senate-votes-to-strike-down-obamas-climate-rules
https://jeb2016.com/jeb-bush-statement-on-obamas-clean-power-plan/?lang=en
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/09/3667715/clean-power-plan-will-power-economy/
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/11/12/clinton-to-help-coal-workers-move-to-green-jobs.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2015/10/29/energy-spotlight-where-do-the-candidates-stand/
http://www.lcv.org/assets/docs/presidential-candidates-on-cpp.pdf
https://berniesanders.com/issues/climate-change/
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/260507-senate-votes-to-strike-down-obamas-climate-rules
https://jeb2016.com/jeb-bush-statement-on-obamas-clean-power-plan/?lang=en
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/09/3667715/clean-power-plan-will-power-economy/