During my service as Maine’s attorney general, I filed several lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency because of its failure to take action under the Clean Air Act to reduce emissions of climate-changing pollutants.
In 2003, Maine and 10 other states joined with Massachusetts to challenge the EPA’s ruling that it lacked legal authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions. We eventually won.
This month, Maine and the nation celebrate the fifth anniversary of that landmark decision.
The case, Massachusetts v. EPA, remains one of the most significant environmental decisions rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court directed the EPA to decide whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions were pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The
decision ultimately forced the EPA to regulate those emissions. This occurred at a time when pressure from large corporate polluters prevented Congress from tackling carbon emissions.
Coincidentally, earlier this month, despite intense pressure from those same polluters — most from the coal industry — the EPA announced a new rule that would place the first nationwide limits on carbon pollution from new power plants. This is an essential step to protect the health of the American people as well as our nation’s environment and economy.
The new rule is not the only essential step, however. At some point soon, the EPA will need to take action to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants as well. After all, existing plants represent the largest source of heat-trapping pollution in the United States.
Each and every year, power plants emit more than 2 billion tons of dangerous carbon and other pollutants into the air. The buildup of this pollution creates warmer temperatures. Warmer temperatures increase the risk of harmful smog levels. More smog means more chronic respiratory problems, asthma attacks and serious complications for people with lung disease.
Unquestionably, children face the highest risk. Each year, thousands of Maine children experience asthma attacks. Because infants and children generally breathe more rapidly than adults, they have a higher rate of exposure to pollutants in the air. Moreover, because children’s
immune systems and organs are not mature, they are more susceptible to the deleterious health effects of air pollution, including reduction in lung function and other permanent damage.
Other adverse health effects associated with climate change and warmer temperatures include an increase in waterborne diseases as well as animal-borne diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile virus. Due to increasing temperatures and changes in rainfall patterns, mosquitoes, ticks and other disease carriers survive warmer winters and expand their range,
bringing health threats with them.
By issuing the rule with new power plant carbon emission standards, the EPA is simply doing its job under the Clean Air Act. Reducing harmful emissions and holding polluters accountable is what Americans want and need the agency to do.
Together with new clean car standards that will cut pollution from new vehicles nearly in half by 2025 (while helping rebuild the American auto industry and reducing gasoline costs), the new power plant standards will make significant reductions in harmful carbon pollution that threatens public health and causes climate change.
When Sen. Ed Muskie led the creation of the Clean Air Act more than four decades ago, he did not believe that government should compromise either on setting standards for environmental protection or on its responsibility to achieve those standards. That’s why he created a law that set deadlines, required the use of best available technology and established health-related air quality levels.
Through this monumental accomplishment, Sen. Muskie defined the environment as a core value for the nation. He believed that the air we breathe should be clean enough to protect the health of the most sensitive among us. He also believed that no person or entity had a “right” to pollute.
It’s good to know the EPA is on the job taking action consistent with the fundamental values expressed by Sen. Muskie in the Clean Air Act. Because of that action, the health of people in Maine and throughout our nation will be better protected.
Steve Rowe served as Maine’s attorney general from 2001 to 2009.
GRID scale WIND does not reduce Carbon release.
GRID scale WIND destroys Carbon sequestering trees.
WIND = 75% does not blow, 10-30% loss in transmission and a 5% draw from the GRID.
WIND is a failure.
Some one should go tell Alice that a lot of big time private investors are wasting investment capital. Alice still have a horse and Buggy?
Maybe you are onto something. The Amish in Fort Fairfield have no elec. lines going into their homes. They seemed quite happy and not at all inconvenienced.
Scrubbers should be mandated on all polluting smoke stacks. The carbon credit game is a politically motivated scam that keeps us Mainers breathing fouled air from the midwest as long as polluting industries can buy carbon credits from our useless wind “farms”. All gas powered vehicles at this stage of the game should be getting at least 50 or 60 mpg; why don’t they? Because if they did we wouldn’t buy as much gas and the oil industry runs this country. We should be banning all coal exports overseas. Why don’t we? Money and jobs trump clean air. What goes around comes around. We’ll be breathing the polluted air the Chinese coal fired power plants produce (using good old USA coal) for a long, long time. As if polluted air isn’t enough, we’re now changing Maine’s mining laws so we can start polluting our waters as well with mountain top mining, which goes along nicely with the federally subsidized mountain top industrial wind sprawl. Maine’s environment is in greater peril now than it ever has been. Why? Follow the money.
Penny- time to stand up and defend our rights. OCCUPY
And , if Maine’s climate warms up a bit (If Global Warming THEORY is true), Maine will be a net benefactor.
IF……….
“ARE WE FEELING LUCKY” to fully commit our economic future to an unproven theory?
As far as the climate, you know how it goes , we can clearly forecast a week out, can’t we?
I am also sure we can predict with certainly when a feckless wind turbine will power our state as well. Excuse,me, when a Maine Wind Turbine powers Boston from this corrupt plantation (state).
The science is solid. This is the 2nd year in three that maple syrup production in the Northeast has been impacted by warming. This years yield is off by 50%.
Really amazing that people still cling to the myth put forth by the fossil fuel produces.
And you have conclusive evidence that this was due to man made global warming?
I’m not making a global warming argument one way or the other, but your “scientific” conclusion about why syrup production is off is on no firmer footing than those views of the people you are criticizing. If syrup production is back on track next year, will that mean that there is no global warming?
82 at 5pm April 17th in Bangor, Maine and the misinformed are claiming climate science is unproven. What does it take?
Obviously the wind turbines are not making 1 iota of difference in combating climate change. Maybe because they require too much C02 to manufacture?
I love how the global warming crowd uses any warm spell as an example to prop up this discredited theory. If there is a cold snap next week will it be proof of global cooling?