The price of new wind power, for example, is lower than that of coal in most parts of the country.
Critics continue to argue that we shouldn’t reduce our coal use until China and other countries do so. But that’s like saying, “We won’t stop killing our people until you stop killing yours.” Not only would it be absurd, it would also be economically foolish.
Cities that take action to reduce their emissions and clean their air reap significant economic gains. Beijing recently announced that it was closing its four coal-fired power plants––not out of altruism, but because its leaders recognize that dirty air is harmful to the city’s business environment and public health.
Many cities in the U.S. have demonstrated how cutting carbon emissions and expanding economic growth go hand-in-hand. In fact, mayors in both parties have set exactly the kind of efficiency and renewable energy goals that the EPA has just adopted, and an increasing number of business leaders have done the same.
As President Barack Obama said Monday: “The idea of setting standards and cutting carbon pollution is not new, it’s not radical. What is new is that starting today, Washington is starting to catch up with the vision of the rest of the country.”
He’s right, and while some of us had hoped the EPA’s plan would include even bolder targets and timelines that reflect the major progress that cities, states and industries are already making, he’s acting not a moment too soon.
Over the next few months, world leaders will be negotiating a global agreement on climate change. The EPA’s new rules allow the U.S. to show that we are leading by example, putting more pressure on other countries to act.
Even those Americans who are skeptical of climate change ought to support the EPA’s new plan. It will save lives and create jobs in red and blue states alike. And it will help ensure that in the so-called war on coal––which is really a battle to protect communities from coal’s harmful effects––the American people emerge victorious.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.