トランプ政府の石炭発電新ルール 早死にが年1400人増 CO2減0.7-1.5%

Cost of New E.P.A. Coal Rules: Up to 1,400 More Deaths a Year,The New York Times,18.8.22

The Trump administration has hailed its overhaul of federal pollution restrictions on coal-burning power plants as creating new jobs, eliminating burdensome government regulations and ending what President Trump has long described as a “war on coal.”

The administration’s own analysis, however, revealed on Tuesday that the new rules could also lead to as many as 1,400 premature deaths annually by 2030 from an increase in the extremely fine particulate matter that is linked to heart and lung disease, up to 15,000 new cases of upper respiratory problems, a rise in bronchitis, and tens of thousands of missed school days.

Officials at the Environmental Protection Agency, which crafted the regulation, said that other rules governing pollution could be used to reduce those numbers.

“We love clean, beautiful West Virginia coal,” Mr. Trump said at a political rally Tuesday evening in West Virginia, the heart of American coal country. “And you know, that’s indestructible stuff. In times of war, in times of conflict, you can blow up those windmills, they fall down real quick. You can blow up pipelines, they go like this,” he said, making a hand gesture. “You can do a lot of things to those solar panels, but you know what you can’t hurt? Coal.”・・・・・・


Trump administration proposes rule to relax carbon limits on power plants,The Was,hington Post.18.8.21

The Trump administration on Tuesday proposed rewriting pollution standards for power plants across the country, a move that could keep aging coal-fired plants running longer and slow the decline of carbon emissions in the United States.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s “Affordable Clean Energy” rule, which the president will tout at a roundtable in Charleston, W.Va., this evening, represents the administration’s most ambitious proposal yet to bolster the nation’s coal industry. It would replace an Obama-era rule that set strict carbon dioxide limits for each state and encouraged utility companies to shift to natural gas and renewable energy to slow the pace of global warming.・・・・・

One of the measure’s biggest impacts could be on public health, since it would allow coal-fired plants to run longer if they became more efficient, which could increase the total amount of soot and smog-forming pollutants they emit. The EPA projects that if finalized, the rule could lead to between 470 and 1,400 premature deaths each year compared to the Obama-era rule.

“There is nothing clean or affordable about this rule,” said Carter Roberts, president and CEO of the World Wildlife Fund, an advocacy group, in a statement. “Coal plants emit more carbon pollution than all other sources. They’re often more expensive than natural gas, solar, or wind energy. And worst of all, they impose severe public health costs on us all.”

But Bill Wehrum, who heads EPA’s air and radiation office, told reporters Tuesday that the proposal would provide companies with an incentive to update their operations and that the agency has other policies that reduce traditional pollutants.

“What we’re dealing with here are greenhouse gases,” Wehrum said. “We have abundant legal authority to deal with those other pollutants directly, and we have aggressive programs in place that directly target emissions of those pollutants.”

The agency estimates that the power sector’s greenhouse gas emissions would continue to decline in coming years, but almost entirely due to market pressures. By 2030, carbon dioxide levels would be between 0.7 percent and 1.5 percent lower than they would have without any regulation in place, according to an EPA analysis.

By contrast, the Obama administration projected that its rule would have cut emissions 19 percent compared to business-as-usual over the same time frame. However, the updated EPA analysis says that because emissions are dropping faster than previously expected, due to utilities’ ongoing shifts to natural gas and renewable power, the Obama rule would now translate to a roughly 4 percent reduction.

Environmentalists and several Democratic attorneys general said they would seek to challenge the proposed rule in court. They said they were confident that they would prevail because the rule would delegate too much authority to the states.・・・・・・