On Monday, the EPA director, Scott Pruitt, announced the end of the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was a program, started under the Obama administration, that sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from our power grid by 32 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 levels. It focused on reducing the use of coal and other fossil fuels in power plants and the use of renewable energies increased. The plan also required that each state meet its own individual specific standard. Pruitt was one of the most ardent opponents of the Clean Power Plan, while attorney general of Oklahoma, and filed lawsuits to stop its implementation. There have been studies that have shown the levels of carbon dioxide are going down and it looks like the program goals could be met. The program itself, though, has been seen as a jobs killer and has had a negative impact on several industries. Should the EPA have ended the Clean Power Plan?
The arguments against the Clean Power Plan are powerful. One of those is the fact that the EPA exceeded its authority by putting out the new regulations. Many people feel it is the place of Congress to do those things, not the EPA. People also feel that these standards deliberately targeted industries that were not well liked by the Obama administration and were meant to benefit industries they preferred. Also the new standards could devastate the economies of poor states like West Virginia, whose main industry is coal.
Those against ending the program see this as another sign that Scott Pruitt is in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. This has long been an accusation against him, going back to his days in Oklahoma. They see the Trump administration as more interested in doing what is right for the fossil fuel industry and not what is right for the people and the planet. They believe that, by ending the Clean Power Plan, we are one step closer to making the planet unlivable for our children and grandchildren.
With the end of the Clean Power Plan, Scott Pruitt fulfilled a promise made by President Trump to the fossil fuel industry. He has ended a program that many people did not like. But by doing so, there are many who believe he has hurt the people who live on this planet for generations to come.
This Los Angeles Times video explains the end of the Clean Power Plan.
Should the EPA have ended the Clean Power Plan? Is this an attempt to end a job-killing program put in place by an organization that is exceeding its authority? Or, is this another example of an administration that is more interested in pleasing big business than caring for the people?
In support of the EPA ending the Clean Power Plan
Those in favor of ending the program point out how the EPA exceeded its authority when it put it in place, and how it is killing jobs in the fossil fuel industry.
Name 5 things Obama's #CleanPowerPlan improved. Please be specific.
— Jerry Jones (@Bud_Doggin) October 9, 2017
Hyperbole. This doesn't mean Trump & Pruitt want dirty air & water. They'll replace Obama-era regs w/regs that that actually reach the goal.
— JustBrenda (@Purrcival) October 9, 2017
Scott Pruitt is rightfully getting rid of past administrators laws. Those laws should be passed by congress, not one person. @EPA
— Optimistic American (@tcotonleftcoast) October 9, 2017
In opposition to the EPA ending the Clean Power Plan
Those against ending the program see an administration in the pocket of big business, hurting the people. They believe that ending the program puts us one step closer to an unlivable planet.
To my child who may read this in the future
I'm sorry EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt & Trump abandoned the clean power plan
They did this pic.twitter.com/BvvS7U2pxN
— Red T Raccoon (@RedTRaccoon) October 9, 2017
Donald Trump and Scott Pruitt want to destroy the EPA for their own personal gain. This is the world they want.https://t.co/16MHgFKtOY
— Randy Bryce (@IronStache) October 8, 2017
— Megan Boone (@MeganBoone) October 10, 2017
— J A F (@Reborninthe60s) October 10, 2017
What do you think? Should the EPA have ended the Clean Power Plan?