Tell the EPA to Toughen Up on Carbon
- by: Food & Water Watch
- recipient: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Burning fracked gas instead of coal does next to nothing to address global climate change, but the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is pushing gas as a climate solution. It's up to us to set the record straight.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced new rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions. While we applaud the President for taking action, these rules won't give us the emmission reductions we need and could lead to more fracking!
Under the proposal, power plants, mainly coal-fired plants, would have to reduce their carbon emissions. One way the electricity companies would be allowed to do this is by switching from coal-fired plants to gas-fired plants. The EPA still considers gas a cleaner fuel than coal, because they don’t count the full life of fracked gas. But we know that fracked gas can be as bad for the climate as coal.
Urge the EPA to rework the proposed rule and to actually reduce our carbon emissions to help avoid drastic climate change.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced new rules to limit carbon dioxide emissions. While we applaud the President for taking action, these rules won't give us the emmission reductions we need and could lead to more fracking!
Under the proposal, power plants, mainly coal-fired plants, would have to reduce their carbon emissions. One way the electricity companies would be allowed to do this is by switching from coal-fired plants to gas-fired plants. The EPA still considers gas a cleaner fuel than coal, because they don’t count the full life of fracked gas. But we know that fracked gas can be as bad for the climate as coal.
Urge the EPA to rework the proposed rule and to actually reduce our carbon emissions to help avoid drastic climate change.
Dear [Decision Maker],
I am submitting these comments in response to the administration's proposed rule for carbon emissions at existing power plants (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602).
Climate change is too important for us to pursue half measures that will not prevent us from experiencing global warming over 2 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, the proposed rule will not meet this target.
1 - The rule should not incentivize shifts to using more natural gas by counting changes to fracked gas power plants as an emissions reduction. Fracked gas has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions close to, and possibly worse than, coal.
2 - The rule should not allow states to use cap-and-trade programs to meet the emissions targets. Cap-and-trade is designed to benefit big corporate polluters who can decide for themselves how to limit their emissions based on profit motive. This makes it cheaper for the dirtiest power plants to simply pay for permits instead of cleaning up pollution.
3 - The rule must not allow states to let polluters buy pollution offsets to meet emissions requirements. Current cap-and-trade programs allow polluters to pay farmers, foresters and others to reduce their emissions, then claim those cuts for themselves to meet emissions targets. Power plants keep polluting, and the families living in their shadow continue to breathe toxic emissions. Given the 50-year lifespan of carbon in the atmosphere after is it released, offsetting also poses a real risk to long-term climate stability.
[Your comment will go here]
I urge you to rework the proposed rule and to issue a stronger rule that will actually lead to reductions in carbon emissions and help us avoid drastic climate change.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
Sign PetitionSign PetitionI am submitting these comments in response to the administration's proposed rule for carbon emissions at existing power plants (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602).
Climate change is too important for us to pursue half measures that will not prevent us from experiencing global warming over 2 degrees Celsius. Unfortunately, the proposed rule will not meet this target.
1 - The rule should not incentivize shifts to using more natural gas by counting changes to fracked gas power plants as an emissions reduction. Fracked gas has lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions close to, and possibly worse than, coal.
2 - The rule should not allow states to use cap-and-trade programs to meet the emissions targets. Cap-and-trade is designed to benefit big corporate polluters who can decide for themselves how to limit their emissions based on profit motive. This makes it cheaper for the dirtiest power plants to simply pay for permits instead of cleaning up pollution.
3 - The rule must not allow states to let polluters buy pollution offsets to meet emissions requirements. Current cap-and-trade programs allow polluters to pay farmers, foresters and others to reduce their emissions, then claim those cuts for themselves to meet emissions targets. Power plants keep polluting, and the families living in their shadow continue to breathe toxic emissions. Given the 50-year lifespan of carbon in the atmosphere after is it released, offsetting also poses a real risk to long-term climate stability.
[Your comment will go here]
I urge you to rework the proposed rule and to issue a stronger rule that will actually lead to reductions in carbon emissions and help us avoid drastic climate change.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
See more petitions:
You have JavaScript disabled. Without it, our site might not function properly.
By signing, you accept Care2's Terms of Service.
You can unsub at any time here.
Having problems signing this? Let us know.