Click For Photo: https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/opengraph_1_91x1/public/images/2018/08/depositphotos_84913502_l-2015.jpg?itok=1sGVsNVtClick For Photo: https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/images/2018/08/depositphotos_84913502_l-2015.jpg?itok=NZAj4JPh
Such a reduction was projected to create $20 billion in climate benefits and $14 billion to $34 billion in health benefits by preventing 3,600 premature deaths, 1,700 heart attacks, 90,000 asthma attacks, and 300,000 missed work and school days each year, according to the EPA.
In contrast, Trump's EPA estimates its plan would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide equivalent to taking five million cars off the road by 2030—about 3 percent of the reductions projected under the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. It would make U.S. electricity prices cheaper by half a percent at most compared to the Clean Power Plan, but increase coal production for energy by up to 6 percent.
Rule - States - Coal - Plants - Janet
The rule appears “to direct states, if they wish, to work to make coal plants more efficient,” says Janet McCabe, former acting head of the EPA’s air office under Obama. McCabe worked on the Clean Power Plan. “Efficiency improvements at a coal plant are not even near as clean as moving to wind, solar, or even natural gas.”
And more efficient power plants can still emit more pollution overall if they run for longer periods. Meanwhile, states would have the discretion to decide how best...
Wake Up To Breaking News!