Introduction

Hi, my name is Shannon M. Reid. And the topic of this blog is about greenhouse power's effect on the environment. If modern day natural energy had no exact form and doesn't today, then it is clearly rooted all around us and it is visible because we humans are efficiently advanced creatures. And we'd have to be an incredibly underdeveloped civilization to not yet have achieved any developments that doesn't involve taking the very little things that make up our big world for granted. A reservoir of a thousand hydroelectric turbines here, a heap of two thousand sun panels there. Conservation. Sustainable energy is the study in conservation for both the environmental elements and us. The purer our surroundings the deeper we are in the pink. Today, that phase of Green politics isn’t so taken for granted anymore because there are companies who are utilizing sustainable energy for beneficial measures and there are interest groups who are making sure their line of work is an acceptable one, though the latter isn’t always the case. At the same time, rather than measuring our health, our surroundings do tend to measure our tolerance. Environment is vitally important to both lives and jobs. When we are determined to save one, we place the other in danger’s way. This blog’s focal point will be directed onto those two aspects we tend to overlook.

Bye, Bye Clean Power

On August 21^st 2018, President Donald Trump vouched to take regulatory latches off greenhouse gas emissions for coal-fired plants allowing states to regain full privilege of their coal burning industries. This is intended to repeal a completely different rule adopted by Barack Obama that laid the groundwork to haul control of climate change which many people, including regulators, thought was a really good deal.  

The incentives of expectancy that outline Donald’s Trump’s proposed rule, dubbed “Affordable Clean Energy,” are these: to set alternatives for states to place sustainable energy plans neatly in order; to clean slate Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which sought to have fossil fuel usage greatly reduced to lower air pollution and to heighten environmental health; to terminate deadlines on when plants should upgrade their equipment for better emission control; and to enable states to assess their carbon usage on an hourly basis rather than an annual one.

However, the last incentive that militates the draft rule of Trump’s plan is as far away from the fire as the plan can take each and every industries’ feet. Economic pressures have led eleven out of fourteen of the coal plants in Pennsylvania to close down after 2010; the other three had switched to natural gas production (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 08/21/2018, Trump administration releases modest rule for coal plants). The director of PennFuture’s energy center said much more minor upgrades would be considered through hourly standards. That’s wasn’t a compliment. No upgrades would be considered at all which equals the risk of higher accesses each year. The EPA expects carbon usage to drop by 1 percent by 2030, whereas, the Clean Power Plan would’ve expected a 4 percent drop (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 08/21/2018, Trump administration releases modest rule for coal plants).
By then, the death toll from bronchitis and asthma would be about 1,400, as estimated by the administration. The EPA said that the already existing pollution rules will take the strength right out of those numbers — plus 21,000 school cancellation days — if maintained. They knew that much with the help from a three-part modeling system used to calculate pollution measures themselves. This same model takes many leaves out of  Harvard University's book, a study known as “Six Cities,” that defines the death toll’s linkage to air pollution from carbon emissions. With a separate rule on the way to draw the line from this word of caution, they’ll either overlook the results or pretend they varied between population per state. What they don’t know can’t hurt them (New York Times, 08/22/2018, Cost of E.P.A.'s Pollution Rules: Up to 1,400 Death a Year). It is not that they intend to do away with the ambitions of the original Obama-administered plan, in fact, the same thing is expected to follow on the coattails of the new plan. They just thought the original plan was overrated and wanted to set more realistic goals for states and their petrochemical producers, on a more flexible basis anyway. For one thing, the Clean Power Plan could've led to a tenfold increase in electricity prices in 40 states. For another, middle- and low-income tax families would pay twice the percentage of their income taxes on energy. Just imagine how much electrical companies could charge for so much as a nightlight left on. And when you're living at the bottom of the class ladder, it's either put food on the table or pay for electricity (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 08/21/2018, A Better Way to Ensure Clean, Reliable Energy). This didn't stop the criticisms that followed because the potentials for turning a blind eye are endless. That was just before the protestors got the bum’s rush while taking a day to clear their heads on why the EPA gave the plan the nod. It would’ve taken a very good lawyer to back the plan, because fossil fuel is an unanimous low by EPA standards. A lawyer who knew better than the rest about how green politics are addressed on the right wing. It can’t be said it was Donald Trump or an official of the plants, but we ought to know by now that however high Trump could stack his cards, he has many more to stack. 

William L. Wehrum

Now here comes EPA assistant administrator and attorney William L. Wehrum, a man who has done two things: run the Boston Marathon in a record time of 3 hours and 28 minutes and represented air pollution plants well since the Bush Administration. A regular bear for clients whose work was considered dangerous was William Wehrum. Thanks to the governments’ neglect to go back and look over and redraft the federal code of conduct for any kinks, you didn’t hear the end of haphazard developments through a mere court hearing waiting to be read in the papers--not while Wehrum was in his prime. A lobbyist cuts no ice with these ethic codes. It's the lawyers who get a foot in the door. Keep a black book handy. It was also Wehrum who advised the EPA to update the New Source Review, a program that requires petrochemical producers to undergo pre-construction test for sufficient environmental controls (New York Times 08/20/2018, Industry Insider Pushes to Erode Clean Air Rules). His work is vastly paralleled to a 13-page long memo sponsored to the EPA and came around the time Wehrum joined their party. So paralleled, that it is a safe bet that Wehrum didn’t want to admit joining the EPA without knowing the steps needed to carry out his agenda. The memo, by the way, was the inspiration for Wehrum’s presentation that called for possibly lower cost of upgrades, and modifications to the EPA’s current measuring unit that foretells the rises in air pollution on an hourly standard (Though the latter was not advocated for by Wehrum, the EPA could’ve appropriated it themselves for the sake of crossing T's and dotting I's.) It detailed a series of legislative tweaks that would serve petrochemical sectors well like the ones the Trump administration is currently advocating for. Donald Trump's plan is dangerous but William Wehrum's work makes him, as Bruce Buckheit said, an "aggressive and knowledgable fox" (New York Times 08/20/2018, Industry Insider Pushes to Erode Clean Air Rules)  

Anyway, it is Donald Trump’s Affordable Clean Energy rule that is next in line to be advanced by Wehrum, which really wouldn't have beaten the odds, previously mentioned, had Donald Trump not taken the steps to place the cards in his hands, if it was Donald Trump or any of the other officials who took the step needed to make it happen, that is. Wehrum called it a step closer to an environment that's as fair as it is healthy. It's fair because companies could afford to upgrade their equipment. It's healthy because companies could answer to upgrading on the barrel (New York Times 08/20/2018, Industry Insider Pushes to Erode Clean Air Rules).   

A word of convenience to this story: between 2005 and 2017, carbon emissions dropped by 14 percent while global emission rose approximately 20 percent. This trend followed another trend that began in the 1970's where emission levels of six air pollutants (carbon monoxide, lead, ground-level ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen and sulfur dioxide) plummeted by a whopping 73 percent. The bottom line is that it is convenient that reserving energy is a must for saving the environment from what's hurting it. And that it would be inconvenient for the Clean Power Plan's regulatory motives to over-egged that pudding. Convenience aside, it's a fact that carbon emissions, even under the Affordable Clean Energy rule, will continue to plummet (Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 08/21/2018, A Better Way to Ensure Clean, Reliable Energy).