2014 -- the hottest year ever. Or, at a minimum, in a long, long time.

Nope, it wasn't just our imagination, or the power of suggestion. NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) has confirmed that "the globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880." (And although Pennsylvanians may think of last year as mild because of our relatively easy summer, recall that California and the west suffered a brutal weather year.)

Six months in 2014 set new records for warmth: May, June, August, September, October and December. October tied for record warmest.

If you are not convinced that looking at just one year, or five months within that year, shows a significant change, then how about this: 19 of the 20 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 20 years. The 10 warmest years on record have occurred after 2002 (with the exception of 1998).


With all this bad news, are we making any serious progress with those who run the financial and business sectors of our economy? An encouraging sign is this recent quote about climate change in Fortune magazine: "The investment community... has woken up to this threat. It is demanding more information from companies about their exposure to climate events, as well as the prospective cost of their carbon emissions.”

Are we making progress in Congress? Perhaps a tiny little bit. Last week, more than 60 senators agreed that climate change is real and is caused by human activity. Sad as it as, this represents serious forward movement over the past decade. But we have to move faster.

The bright spots in federal leadership remain the Obama Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In last week's State of the Union address, the President said much about the issue, including this: "The best scientists in the world are all telling us that our activities are changing the climate, and if we do not act forcefully, we'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods, and massive disruptions that can trigger greater migration, conflict, and hunger around the globe. The Pentagon says that climate change poses immediate risks to our national security. We should act like it."

The EPA has taken action by proposing rules to limit global warming pollution from any new and existing  fossil fuel-fired power plants and new and modified oil and gas wells. A good start, but we need federal and state governments to do so much more. We inch toward progress while the temperatures race up the scale.

Every decision maker needs to feel the heat (literally and figuratively) to act now.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Eight million strong are demanding action on climate change

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officially closed the public comment period on December 1 on their proposed standard to limit carbon pollution from existing (think "dirty old") power plants. This follows closely on the heels of another proposed standard from EPA that would limit carbon pollution from not-yet-built power plants.

It's great news that more than 8,000,000 Americans weighed in officially in support of these two proposed standards. There are so many reasons to support EPA on this: Concern about our children's future and everyone's health; worries about the economic devastation caused by ever-increasing extreme weather events; threats to national security; fear for wild animals and wild places; and more.

PennFuture's senior energy analyst, Rob Altenburg, an expert in federal and state legislation, did a great job explaining the human side of regulations in an interview he gave to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette earlier this week.

Our staff gathered on December 1 alongside dozens of volunteers at EPA's Region III headquarters in Philadelphia to thank the agency for its great work, specifically on the proposed carbon pollution limits. Susan Saxe, a volunteer with the Philadelphia chapter of Pa. Interfaith Power and Light, baked an apple pie as a thank-you to EPA staff, because...protecting the environment is as American as apple pie!

"Kudos and Cookies" (led by Susan Saxe) baked a pie for the EPA.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Even the grand old guys know we have to cut carbon

Those of us who have been adults for several decades remember the sway that big accounting firms used to have in the business world. PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) is one of those well-respected names that can still turn heads when they speak.

PwC just issued its 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index.

Not good news. To quote the report, "For the sixth year running, the global economy has missed the decarbonization target needed to limit global warming to 2 degrees C."

To stay on track for the two-degree-max target, we would have had to cut our carbon emissions by 6 percent in 2013. How did the world do? A miserable 1.2 percent decrease.

Last year's lapse means we now need to speed up even more to achieve the goal, specifically cutting carbon by 6.2 percent in 2014—five times last year's rate. Doesn't seem likely, does it?

To be sure, these are global measurements and projections. But is Pennsylvania doing its part? This is an especially painful question at the moment, given the horrendous step backward that the our General Assembly has just taken: They passed H.B. 2354, which throws a monkey wrench into the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal to limit CO2 from coal-burning power plants in Pennsylvania, the major source of carbon pollution in this country.

Read what Mother Jones has to say about PwC's bad news.


Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

Sept 25: Tell the Corbett administration your views on carbon pollution from power plants

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has announced a listening session to hear what the public thinks of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed standard to limit carbon pollution from coal-fired power plants:

         Thursday, Sept. 25, starting at 9:00 a.m.
         333 Market Street
         Harrisburg, PA

Anyone can speak; you need to register by Monday, Sept. 22. To do so, contact:
         Tammey Adams
         taadams@pa.gov
         717-772-2725

We're sorry to report that the DEP, under the Corbett administration, has been much more negative than we would have wanted in response to the EPA's proposal to limit CO2 from dirty, old, coal-fired power plants, the source of 40 percent of this nation's carbon pollution. This specific proposal is part of President Obama's Clean Power Plan, which PennFuture supports.

You don't need to be an expert on energy or climate change to testify. You simply need to be a citizen concerned about the future we're leaving our kids.

PennFuture will post talking points available for use at the DEP listening session next week -- stay tuned.

Register soon! And please let me know if you've registered so we can connect in Harrisburg on Sept. 25.

Speak out now -- it matters. Really.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director. She's based in Philadelphia, but will be in Harrisburg on September 25. Look for her there.

One citizen's motivation to testify at the upcoming EPA hearing on the Clean Power Plan

PennFuture has a terrific set of volunteers. Tom Mullaney, who lives in my neck of the woods (just outside of Philadelphia), has been helping us out for about six months now and he's a delight to work with. Tom is so committed to the effort to slow climate change that he's making the round trip to Pittsburgh on July 31 so that he can testify in person at the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) hearing on its long-overdue proposal to limit carbon pollution from dirty power plants. Tom shared his testimony with me earlier this week, and it really touched me. He has kindly agreed to share his testimony here. Thanks, Tom!

My name is Tom Mullaney and I am a resident of Glenside, Pennsylvania. I am a high school history teacher.

I am fully supportive of the EPA's proposed standard. It should be implemented promptly and without being weakened in any way.

As a history teacher, I hope that as I approach retirement in the early 2040s, I will teach my students about a time when Americans were concerned about carbon emissions in the atmosphere. I want to explain to my students that the problem is considered history and not a crisis in their lives because, in 2014, our government took action resulting in reduced carbon in the atmosphere and increased willingness of other countries to follow this example.

I am looking forward to my lesson on how the United States got carbon emissions under control. As a history teacher, I look back as well. To understand why we are here today, we need to know the EPA has the authority, granted by a bipartisan vote of Congress, signed into law by a Republican president, and confirmed by Supreme Court decision written by conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, to set standards for industrial carbon pollution from power plants.

Setting reasonable carbon pollution standards for power plants will cut the primary driver of climate change. Carbon dioxide traps heat. That is a scientific fact. Since the dawn of the industrial age, we have increased carbon emissions, something that has been irrefutably measured and documented. In that time, temperatures have consistently risen, so much so that, globally, we’ve now had 351 consecutive months above the long-term average. That means a 29-year-old has never lived through a “cooler than normal” month. This fuels extreme weather such as Superstorm Sandy, which closed my school for three days in October 2012.

When southeastern Pennsylvania students miss three days of school because of inclement weather in October, the problem is not theoretical. It is real and already impacting our daily lives.

Please take action by implementing the proposed standard. I want my students in the 2040s to know about this problem because I teach it to them, not because they experience it. Thank you.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia. You'll find her in Pittsburgh on July 31 and August 1 for the EPA hearings.

Ready to #ActOnClimate? Here's what you need to know.

How many times do you really have the opportunity to be part of an historic event? Now is your chance! The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding hearings in Pittsburgh on July 31 and August 1 to accept public comments on its proposed limits for CO2 from dirty, old power plants. Power plants are the nation’s largest source of carbon pollution, which exacerbates climate change. These common sense limits proposed by EPA will protect our communities and human health. This is a BIG DEAL! There will also be a huge rally on July 31 conjunction with the hearing.

Surely you want to be a part of this so we’ve made it easy for you to get involved. We’re providing a FREE bus from the Harrisburg area to Pittsburgh on July 31 for folks wishing to speak at the hearing and for those wanting to attend the rally, and we’re also providing a FREE lunch.

Details

Bus

Pick-up site:   Target (parking lot) 
                       6416 Carlisle Pike
                      Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Please park far from the building at the southern end of the lot.
We will be leaving Mechanicsburg at 6:30 a.m., please be on time.

 

We will depart Pittsburgh at 3 p.m. and should return to Harrisburg by 7 p.m.
There will be no stops, so please bring drinks and snacks. Buses are restroom-equipped.

Hearing

Moorhead Federal Building
1000 Liberty Ave., Room 1310
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

July 31, 9:00 a.m. – 8:00 p.m.

August 1, 9:00 a.m – 8:00 p.m.

Since the hearing is held at a U.S. government facility, you must pass through a security screening and provide a valid picture ID (e.g. driver’s license or government-issue ID).

Please bring two copies of your comments/testimony.

We can send you suggested comments in advance of the hearing and are more than happy to work with you on your comments. In the meantime, feel free to review this recent blog post with talking points.

Rally

August Wilson Center
980 Liberty Ave
Pittsburgh, PA 15222

July 31, 11 a.m.- Noon

There will be FREE boxed lunches available after the rally.  (Who ever said there's no such thing as a free lunch?)

Driving

If you are driving to Pittsburgh, you can park at the Grant St. Transportation Center.

Lodging

If you are looking for an affordable place to stay in Pittsburgh, please email me: Quinn@pennfuture.org.

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

How can YOU weigh in on the EPA climate standard?

We at PennFuture are completely over-the-moon excited about the announcement this week of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed standard to limit carbon pollution from filthy, old power plants.

But it's a long, long road till this takes effect. What started with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy's announcement on Monday will take years to finish.

We're now in the first phase, which is is the comment period of the proposed rule. This is when we the public (this means you and me!) get to tell EPA what we think of the proposal. (Here's your chance to tell them: Click here.)

The comment period will be open throughout the summer. EPA will track the content of the comments (to look for substantive suggestions or criticisms). And they will also tally the number of  supportive comments versus  non-supportive comments to gauge public sentiment.

This is why it's so important that those of us who want this rule to go into effect take action and tell the EPA about our support. (So easy to do: Just click here.) We need to ensure that the pro-rule comments vastly outnumber the anti-rule comments.

In addition to submitting a comment electronically to the EPA, we urge anyone who can to come to the EPA hearing in Pittsburgh on Thursday, July 31 (9 a.m. to 8 p.m., Wm. S. Moorhead Federal Bldg., Rm. 1310, 1000 Liberty Ave., Pittsburgh 15222).

It's always best to pre-register for a hearing. To request a time, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett of the EPA at 919-541-7966 or at garrett.pamela at epa dot gov .

Simply put, we need to pack the room in Pittsburgh on July 31. Our plans are just emerging, and PennFuture is hoping to organize carpools, vans, and perhaps buses to Pittsburgh from around the state. Wanna learn more? Send me an email: bergey at pennfuture dot org.
 
We can supply you with talking points and background material for your testimony. The EPA wants to hear from community activists, health care providers, gardeners, bus drivers -- in other words, regular folks. Please don't think you need to have any special qualifications in order to testify.

If you care about climate change, and want the EPA to act, let us know (reach me at bergey at pennfuture dot org) and we'll help you get involved.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and based in Philadelphia.

Serious, sobering news on climate change

Last week, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (a group of federal agencies whose tag line is Thirteen Agencies, One Vision: Empower the Nation with Global Change Science) published the 2014 edition of the National Climate Assessment (NCA).

There was not much good news, not surprisingly.

There's still time to avoid the worst scenarios around climate change, but only if we move quickly. ("We" means the federal government, in this case -- and since Congress still refuses to act...thankfully, the executive branch is acting. More on this below.)

Climate change is hitting home, already.

The report chapter that focuses on states in the Northeast begins this way: "Heat waves, heavy downpours, and sea level rise pose growing challenges to many aspects of life in the Northeast. Infrastructure, agriculture, fisheries, and ecosystems will be increasingly compromised. Many states and cities are beginning to incorporate climate change into their planning."

This is hitting home viscerally to so many of us. Remember the gentle spring rains that were a standard feature of just a few decades ago? Now downpours, storms, and floods are the new standard.

Worsening public health

Those of us who routinely read global warming reports know about the "usual suspects" on the list of serious health threats that an overheated atmosphere brings: More cases of respiratory diseases such as asthma due to polluted air (warmer temps make smog worse), and diseases caused by insect vectors (Lyme disease, dengue fever, West Nile virus, among others). The NCA chapter on public health discusses these.  

What I find particularly interesting are two public health threats included in the NCA that I can't recall seeing associated with climate change until now:

• Mental health and stress-related disorders. If one loses their home -- or even a loved one, heaven forbid -- in a flood, of course that person could be more vulnerable to these sorts of mental health problems.
• Respiratory diseases will likely increase due to the  growth of indoor mold, mildew, and fungi. All those soggy basements from all these extra floods we just talked about will lead to more sick people.

What is the federal government doing?

Since Congress has refused for more than a decade to pass legislation to put a price on carbon dioxide, it falls on the executive branch to act (as required by the Clean Air Act). Fortunately, President Obama has instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to put forth standards to limit carbon dioxide from power plants (the biggest domestic source of industrial carbon pollution).

Stay tuned for the EPA's announcement on June 2 for how they propose to limit CO2 from existing power plants (including all those dirty old coal plants across Pennsylvania).

We promise that PennFuture will be all over this issue for the foreseeable future.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture and based in Philadelphia.

A nasty circle: A warming atmosphere and diminished power reliability

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has issued its second important report within a month. "Power Failure: How climate change puts our electricity at risk—and what we can do about it" raises some important questions. As science has been telling us for years, extreme weather events due to climate disruption will increase over time. And "global weirding" (as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman refers to global warming) seems to already have visited too many of us in the Mid-Atlantic.

Concerns about climate change are not new. But the UCS report connects some dots in a way that spells big trouble ahead: The country's infrastructure for distributing electricity from power plants to homes and businesses (a.k.a. the grid) is aging. And its age increases its vulnerability to extreme weather events.

A few examples from the report:

• Power plants are vulnerable to water-related risks. Because fossil fuel and nuclear power plants rely on copious amounts of water for cooling, they are invariably located on rivers or bays. Many of these plants are ancient, relatively speaking, and were not engineered for warmer water.
• Sea level rise threatens coastal power facilities in particular. Climate Central reports that about 100 power plants and substations are within four feet of local high tide. And with science predicting likely sea level rises of 1.6 to 6.6 feet above 1992 levels by 2099, we'd better be making some new plans.
• Heat waves are a double whammy: reducing efficiency at power plants while simultaneously increasing demand ("Honey, it's too hot in here! Turn up the A/C.")

This is where it hits home for me, literally. I experienced days-long power outages from  Superstorm Sandy in late October 2012 and again this past winter, the third snowiest on record for Philadelphia.

So what's to be done? We need to find the collective will to "harden" our electricity infrastructure—burying power lines and building sea walls, that type of thing. But it's expensive. So let's really fix the problem and move toward a cleaner energy future, where generating electricity doesn't make climate change worse, which further threatens our aging grid—a positive feedback loop we just can't accept.

See PennFuture's Clean Energy Wins report, just released in March, that offers a roadmap as to how Pennsylvania can displace fossil fuels with clean energy and energy efficiency.

Please help keep the lights on -- and the planet safer.

This offending branch that knocked out my neighborhood's power for 2+ days in February

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia. She tweets @joybergey.

More disturbing news on climate change

This week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its latest assessment of global progress -- or lack thereof -- on tackling climate disruptions: "Impacts, Adaptations, and Vulnerabilities."

As noted in the New York Times, the report makes clear that climate change is already visibly changing our world: Arctic sea ice is melting precipitously -- and contributing to rising sea levels that threaten coastal populations (think Miami); mountain snowpack is melting earlier each year, leading to more frequent summer droughts (think western wildfires); and increased incidents of extreme weather are killing those least able to defend themselves (think everywhere).

The authors do a great job connecting the dots on the physical manifestations of climate change with likely impacts on geopolitics:

"Throughout the 21st century, climate-change impacts are projected to slow down economic growth, make poverty reduction more difficult, further erode food security, and prolong existing and create new poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hot spots of hunger."

"Nobody on this planet is going to be untouched by the impacts of climate change," said Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, at the public release of the report on March 31.

The IPCC reports have huge academic credibility, representing the best scientific thinking from experts around the world, with the report this week representing the work of 243 lead authors and 436 additional experts.

So what does all this have to do with Pennsylvania? Our relatively small population of 12+ million people creates nearly one percent of the world's heat-trapping emissions -- a hugely disproportional ratio, given a global population of 7 billion.

So I would argue that Pennsylvanians bear extra responsibility to take action, since Congress won't. Here's an easy step you can take right now and it won't take more than a minute.Tell the EPA to move quickly and decisively to limit industrial climate pollution from power plants.

Future generations will thank you.

Joy Bergey is PennFuture's federal policy director and is based in Philadelphia.

EPA acts to limit industrial carbon pollution from new power plants

Since we last weighed in on this in November, we're delighted to report that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally proposed a standard to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from new power plants (the source of 40 percent of the country's global warming pollution).

Since Pennsylvania is the third worst state in the country in terms of global warming pollution -- and home to some of the dirtiest power plants in the country, to boot -- we have a special responsibility to act.

As Congress, apparently cowed by the many science deniers in their ranks, flat out refuses to limit carbon pollution from power plants, federal law requires the President to invoke his executive powers to act.

Requiring any new power plants to be cleaner

In April 2012, EPA first proposed a rule to limit CO2 from any new plants to be built. EPA later announced a delay to the finalizing of that rule.

Then, in September 2013, EPA released a modified version of its original proposal, opening the public comment period (Send a comment to the EPA), even though the rule hadn't been published in the federal register.

On January 8, EPA published the proposed rule in the register, which started the clock ticking on the final 60 days in which to comment on the rule -- the window will close on March 10.

The EPA will consider all comments and issue a final rule by June 2015, with states required to act (i.e., limit CO2 emissions from any new coal plants) by June 2016.

The authority to regulate CO2 from new power plants derives from Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS. (Here is some background for those of you who want to wade into the weeds on this.)

What about cleaning up the existing power plants?

There's another equally important front on this battle to slow climate change: limiting the CO2 that belches forth from existing coal plants. This will be an even tougher political battle than new plants. The EPA is scheduled to propose a standard aimed at existing plants this June.

Stay tuned.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture, based in Philadelphia.

A quick overview of EPA's plans for power plants

The EPA is finishing up a series of listening sessions (informal hearings) in 11 cities around the country to gather the public's thoughts on what the rule on existing power plants might look like. PennFuture took the lead in the Philadelphia listening session on November 8, helping to generate 76 testifiers in support of the rule, with 16 opposed and 2 neutral comments.

An overview of EPA's process for limiting CO2 from power plants

PennFuture is delighted to see the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moving ahead with plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants (the source of 40 percent of the country's global warming pollution). By the way, this forward motion by the EPA is required by law.

EPA is acting in parallel on two different aspects of power plant emissions: setting emissions standards on new (not-yet-built) power plants, and setting standards for existing power plants.

Quite different approaches are needed for regulating new versus existing plants, even though both are driven by the Clean Air Act. Here's a bit of background on each.

Regulating new power plants

You may recall that in April 2012, EPA first proposed a rule to limit CO2 from not-yet-built plants.  EPA later announced a delay to the finalizing of that rule.

In September 2013, EPA released a modified version of its original proposal, and the public comment period has been reopened. (Send a comment to the EPA). The EPA will consider all comments and issue a final rule by June 1, 2015, with states required to act (i.e., limit CO2 emissions from any new coal plants) by June 2016.

The regulation of new plants derives from Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS. Note that NSPS rules are applied at the plant level. For example, technology is incorporated into the power plant to capture or reduce CO2, and CO2 levels can be measured to ensure compliance (this is a somewhat simplified depiction). The emissions standards that were proposed include limiting CO2 emissions from 1,000-to-1,100 pounds of CO2/megawatt-hour. These emission rates are equivalent to a high efficiency, combined cycle natural gas plant.

This is quite different from the likely model for regulating existing power plants.

Regulating existing power plants

The EPA announced in October 2013 that it will formally propose a rule in June 2014 to regulate CO2 from existing power plants, driven by Section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act.

Unlike new plants, where technology to limit CO2 can theoretically be incorporated when plants are designed and built, it's not always economically or technically feasible to retrofit existing power plants to limit CO2.

Hence, the approach will be entirely different from the NSPS rule on new plants. The rule on existing plants will likely be a regional approach, with a number of strategies deployed to lower the overall levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions within a given area. EPA will likely establish procedures and guidelines for the states to use in determining tailored strategies to meet emissions performance requirements. The states will develop these plans and seek review and approval from EPA to implement the emissions reduction strategies.

PennFuture hopes to provide input to the shaping of Pennsylvania's state plan. And we're quite optimistic that the state can meet the likely targets proposed by the EPA. The World Resources Institute has put together a terrific overview of how this might be accomplished in Pennsylvania.

Stay tuned for more information on this important and complex process as the rule takes shape in the months and years to come. You can trust us to keep you up to date.

Three cheers! EPA moves ahead with carbon standards for power plants

Great news: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the direction of President Obama, is preparing to set limits on carbon pollution from power plants that burn fossil fuels. These power plants are responsible for 40 percent of the country's carbon pollution, and Pennsylvania has some of the dirtiest and oldest of these plants.

The EPA has formally proposed a standard that would limit CO2 from any new (i.e., not-yet-built power plants), and is currently accepting comments on this standard.

Perhaps even more exciting, EPA is preparing to go straight at the big, old, dirty plants. EPA has announced it will formally propose a standard for these plants in June 2014. (Prepare for a huge fight over this one, my friends.)

EPA will hold a listening session on Friday, November 8 in Philadelphia to gather comments from the public on the standard aimed at existing plants. PennFuture is leading the charge to get people to attend the session, either to testify to EPA, or to be part of the audience urging on the speakers.

If you care about climate change, this is a wonderful opportunity to show EPA that there's strong public support for action.

Can you join us in person? Register here to attend and/or speak on this Friday.

Can't get to Philly on November 8? Submit your comments to EPA online.

This is the time to speak out for strong action to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

Finally, we'll see limits on carbon pollution from new power plants

The country got great news last Friday from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): a proposed standard that will limit the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted from any not-yet-built power plant. Since Congress has long refused to do its job to limit global warming pollution, the Obama Administration is doing their job by issuing this proposed rule. (Actually, it's a re-proposed rule. It was first proposed over a year ago but withdrawn by the EPA since it was felt the rule as first written wouldn't withstand the inevitable court challenges from the fossil fuels industry.)

Ah, yes, speaking of the fossil fuels industry: If you've driven along the Pennsylvania Turnpike recently, you've probably seen the numerous billboards erected by the coal industry, touting "clean coal" (or "less filthy coal," as I like to think of it) as available and affordable and just all-around wonderful. So, one might have expected the coal industry to welcome the EPA's new standard. If coal is so clean, it would have no trouble meeting the new standard, right?

Wrong. The National Mining Association said the new standard “effectively bans coal from America’s power portfolio, leaving new power plants equipped with even the most efficient and environmentally advanced technologies out in the cold.”

Huh? What did I miss?

Note that the standard as proposed would not stop all CO2 from leaving the smokestacks, just 20 to 40 percent of it. That's a good start, but just a start.

And, for now, the dirty old power plants that already exist can continue to belch their carbon pollution unabated into our skies. (Fortunately, the EPA is on track to release another standard next June that will begin to limit the carbon dioxide emitted from existing plants. Stay tuned for what will be a lollapaloozah of a fight around that rule.)

The standard proposed on September 20 isn't a done deal yet. The public can submit comments for up to 60 days. And once the standard goes into effect sometime next year, Congress could still repeal it through an arcane provision called the Congressional Review Act. PennFuture will be there to fight that battle when it invariably arises.

Right now, we're celebrating that the federal government is finally taking action to directly limit emissions from a huge source of carbon pollution.

PennFuture applauds the EPA for this critically important step to protect our health, our kids' future, our economy, and the natural world.