Carbon Wars

President Obama wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 17% by 2020. This involves a significant shift in resources and in philosophy. The legislature has consistently voted against such proposals; even the super-majority in Obama's first two years voted the cap-and-trade plan down. Consequently these current plans are being carried out with executive and bureaucratic fiat, that is, bypassing the legislative process. 

There are new efficiency standards for home appliances, heavy-duty trucks and, in particular, the electric industry. Electricity relies on coal-fired power and coal-fire plants account for about 33% of American greenhouse gases. Daniel Shrag of Harvard, an Obama science adviser, told the New York Times that "Politically, the White House is hesitant to say they're having a war on coal. On the other hand, a war on coal is exactly what's needed."

There is a lot at stake. The U.S. has become an attractive option for manufacturing because our coal and gas is plentiful and thus cheap. There is a noticeable uptick in foreign business activity. But a good way to stop that would be for the administration to declare war on the carbon that makes such business development attractive. Of course, the purpose of such a war is to do exactly that. And there is an effect on the existing economy as well. It is estimated that every $1 billion spent complying with an EPA rule threatens 16,000 jobs and cuts GDP by $1.2 billion.

Fortunately complex problems are always made clear in the minds of the righteous.