US President Declares War on Coal

Last week, the American Environmental Protection Agency produced a new report on climate change, which was full of familiar findings: melting glaciers, rising sea levels—also in the Gulf of Mexico. More forest fires, more extreme weather — the report was relentless. In respect to global warming, “Americans need to use less energy for heating and more energy for air conditioning.” The question is what the source of this energy should be — the core of the problem lies in its consumption. It is irrelevant whether it is for warmth or cold.

The EPA has delivered an initial response this Monday. The agency that is in direct contact with Barack Obama wants to curb greenhouse gases emitted by American power plants. They are to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030. For many of the 600 coal-fired power plants this will mean the end; in some places coal extraction will also die out. Obama’s office is declaring war on coal, nothing more.

The opportunity for it is convenient. For some time now, the U.S. has been experiencing a gas boom. A large amount of shale gas, which was gained through the controversial fracking technology, has shown us that we can actually function without coal; moreover, gas creates a more favorable climate. Indeed, negative emissions have seen a decrease of 10 percent since 2005, and a stronger decrease from power plants. This is not because, but in spite of Obama: in spite of him failing in climate politics so far and despite all the big, ultimately inconsequential announcements he made.

This Motion Could Have Consequences on Climate Politics Worldwide

The most recent announcement, however, could have consequences both nationally and internationally — nationally because it could lead to a long-awaited policy change in relation to energy politics. Indeed, U.S. states now have to think about how and with what they will be producing energy in the medium term, whether its use would both be greener and more efficient. It would be a conversion to long-term energy strategies after decades of not paying attention to the future.

In the U.S., 600 coal-fired power plants are operational. They produce 40 percent of electricity and are responsible for one-third of the country’s CO2 emissions. President Obama is now increasing environmental protection—“as a president and a father.”

Internationally, the motion is at least as important, since the world lies in some sort of climate-related political coma. Countries have decided to wait until the end of the next year to establish a new climate agreement. Yet they have not even reached a consensus regarding their intentions. For instance, the Europeans, who are usually the driving force of climate protection, are holding back regarding concrete promises. However, if Washington is now pressing ahead with such issues, it will put pressure on others, such as China. The Europeans have dismally failed in that role.

Obama is risking a lot, not least with regard to the congressional election in the fall. In the following months, American states will witness a severe fight over coal — something that is bound to happen when dealing with infrastructures that have shaped a country for decades. However, without a change of infrastructure in energy supply, the battle against global warming will not be won. This is also mentioned in the EPA’s most recent report.