By Jim Martin 10:31 a.m. EDT, September 24, 2014
Featured in the Virginia Daily Press
The president’s climate agenda, which calls for a 30 percent reduction in U.S. carbon emissions by 2030, could bring unacceptable consequences for many Virginians struggling to get by. His singular focus on reducing carbon emissions ignores the rising of cost of energy — particularly to those living on fixed and low-incomes, including senior citizens.
Rising electricity prices are forcing many Americans to make heartbreaking choices. Folks shouldn’t have to choose between running an air conditioner during a scorching summer afternoon or having enough money for food and medicine.
The Kaiser Family Foundation found that 1 in 7 seniors is now living in poverty — a number expected to rise as 70 million baby boomers reach the retirement age. Instead of obsessing solely on cutting carbon emissions, we need to think long and hard about how we can reduce the cost of energy — or at least hold it steady. The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently reported that electricity prices jumped more than 6 percent in the Mid-Atlantic states just in the last year. Targeting coal, which generates about 41 percent of the nation’s electricity and is our most affordable source of power, with new regulations is a mistake.
The president envisions greater use of natural gas and high-cost renewable sources of power. That’s a recipe for higher electricity prices. In Germany, now in the midst of a mandated rapid transition to wind and solar power, consumers pay three times more for electricity than Americans.
Paying for the president’s campaign against carbon will not be shared equally. The Stanford Institute for Economic Policy recently concluded that carbon regulations are regressive. They equate to an electricity tax felt most sharply by the middle and lower income brackets. To reduce carbon emissions, households in the bottom 10 percent of our income distribution will pay roughly three times what the richest 10 percent pay as a percentage of their income.
While the U.S. may reduce its carbon emissions, global carbon emissions will almost certainly continue to rise. China, not the U.S., is the world’s largest carbon emitter. The Chinese are now burning more coal than the rest of the world combined. And India, like other emerging economies, is relying on coal to bring electricity to tens of millions of people who still have no access to it.
European nations, too, looking for alternatives to dependence on Russian natural gas, are burning more coal as well. Norfolk’s bustling port is evidence of this. U.S. coal exports to Europe, largely from Norfolk, hit an all-time high in 2012.
The bottom line is this: Global warming, by its very nature, requires global action. Action in one country, focused squarely on one energy source, is not the answer. Sound policy shouldn’t rest on the hope that other nations might follow our climate lead. Unless major emitting countries agree to sacrifice economic growth or energy security to reduce emissions, why should Americans?
The challenges of addressing an issue as large as reducing global carbon emissions shouldn’t be an excuse for inaction. But, the president’s approach, which seemingly ignores global energy trends while placing an undue burden on America’s most vulnerable energy consumers, is not the right path forward. We need an energy policy that places economic growth, energy security and most importantly, the cost of energy, before a misguided climate crusade.
Martin is chairman of the non-partisan 60 Plus Association. The national seniors advocacy group, which is based in Virginia, has more than 7.2 million senior supporters including 157,000 in the commonwealth.
Published in the Virginia Daily Press: http://www.dailypress.com/news/opinion/local-voices/dp-nws-oped-martin-0924-20140924,0,5648576.story
