From the FT:
The Obama administration will on Monday unveil the most far-reaching action on climate change in US history by imposing stringent emissions cuts on the power sector, a move that faces ferocious opposition from political rivals and industry.
…Overall, it will demand that the US power sector reduces carbon emissions by 32 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, a more stringent target than the 30 per cent mooted last year.
It also raises the pressure on power utility companies to invest more in renewable energy by dropping the idea of letting them use natural gas — which produces half as much carbon as coal when burnt — as a “stepping stone” between coal and renewables.
Under the final rule, the share of US power generated from renewables is projected to be 28 per cent by 2030, compared with 22 per cent under the draft version. The Environmental Protection Agency, the regulator behind the plan, will also encourage the use of bolder energy efficiency projects.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a coal industry group, said: “Irrespective of what is in the final plan, it is illegal and we will not stop opposing it until it is withdrawn completely.
Meanwhile bakome, from BS:
Only 30 of Australia’s top 150 polluters will be forced to reduce carbon emissions under the Abbott government’s climate change policy, new analysis shows.
The report by energy and emission market analysts Reputex also found not one of the nation’s top 20 polluters would have to cut emissions under the scheme.
The government last year replaced Labor’s carbon tax with its direct action policy, which pays polluters not to pollute out of a $2.55 billion kitty.
The issue is not that Direct Action won’t work. It does. The issue is what it will cost and who will pay for it. At the moment the scheme is paralytically underfunded to the tune of tens of billions of dollars if it is to curb emissions on current targets, let alone the beefed-up one in the pipeline.
The second issue is why make taxpayers pay for it via the Budget when a carbon price makes the polluter pay for it instead? And no, households don’t pay via price rises with a carbon price, they are compensated with tax cuts.
And yes, that is how self-defeating the carbon “tax” debate was at the last election. Taxpayers voted to pay for carbon cuts over getting them for free. That’s got to be first.
