Abstract
War on coal is a term used by coal industries and their supporters to describe the regulations by Obama administration impact on coal power. Environmental protection agency is identified as one of the main agencies participating in this initiative. Many coal supporters claim that the regulations will make them suffer, but, on the other hand, many claim that coal industries, considered to be hazardous, cause problems with human health and environment. This paper will evaluate positive and negative aspects of war on coal and its regulations. It will discuss how coal usage affects the environment along with health problems. It also highlights how forcing regulations on coal industries would cause unemployment, increase in taxes, and significant amount of loss in income to many citizens. A personal stance on this matter will be considered with the final analysis of the best way to make war on coal a better solution for both population and environment.
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
Greenhouse gas pollution causes changes in the climate of America with the negative effects on both human health and the environment. CO2 is the main greenhouse gas pollutant representing 84% of the US gas discharges. New energy sources have emerged that are not harmful for the environment and are less dangerous for human health. By using less CO2 emissions and new energy sources, the climate will be less polluted leading to a stable climate situation and more promising health benefits (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015); (Weiss & Lambert, 2015).
1.2 Thesis statement/Stance
2.0 Argument 1
2.1 Support stance
2.1.1 Reducing the use of coal leads to the prevention of many health threats. It will protect American citizens (especially children) from the diseases caused by a range of pollutants, such as asthma attacks. (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015)
2.1.2 Moreover, the research indicates that coal burning leads to more than 3,500 premature deaths annually. Using less coal power means preventing at least 3,500 premature deaths every year. It also means that it will prevent more than 1,000 heart attacks and hospitalizations every year related to air pollution (Weiss & Lambert, 2015).
2.1.3 At the same time, the clean power plan will reduce the carbon pollution to approximately 30% compared to the 2005 levels. It will also cut down the pollutants that cause up to 25% of the diseases that make people sick as a result of smog and soot. The reduction will lead to a better climate and environment which will further prevent an average of 5,000 premature deaths and 150,000 asthma attacks (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015).
3.0 Argument 2
3.1 Support stance
There are many positive aspects of war on coal related to the environment.
3.1.1 Firstly, pollution affects the ozone layer that may serve as a negative factor for the increase of the respiratory diseases such as the asthma attacks. A decrease in pollution would diminish the negative effect on the ozone layer meaning decrease in high temperatures and less pollen seasons as well. With less pollen seasons, the allergies will lessen in a significant amount (Zhang, 2015).
3.1.2 Furthermore, the climate affects the rise of sea levels causing droughts and floods. Control of the emissions of CO2 reduces the harm to the climatic peculiarities which in turn reduces the rise of the sea level. It means that natural disasters such as droughts and floods that cause hunger and poverty would decrease in the course of time (Zhang, 2015).
3.1.3 Finally, the use of coal would also pollute water. Rivers and streams have already been affected by the CO2 emissions. Some water resources have not been able to neutralize the acid load caused by CO2 emissions naturally. It means that deposits of drinking water will be devastated (Center for Media and Democracy, 2015).
4.0 Counterarguments
4.1 Refute
On the other hand, some argue that war on coal has many negative sides.
4.1.1 The first consideration refers to the increase of unemployment war on coal would cause. Many companies would shut down or move to other countries due to the regulations against coal power. It would lead to the decrease of 300,000 jobs annually. It also means that there would be a total income loss of $7,000 per person. Low-income families would suffer the most due to the regulations (Loris, 2016).
4.1.2 Another negative aspect of war on coal is the rise of taxes and having much more expensive electricity bills. Taxes will increase by 12-17%, and consumers of electricity will see double-digit price increase (Sheehan, 2015). Also, Loris (2016) states that electricity price will increase at an amount of 20% in the short run leading to more chaos.
4.1.3 However, the harm caused by war on coal cannot be fully justified, as the harmful effects related to health and environment far outweigh the negatives (Loris, 2016).
5.0 Conclusion
5.1 Restatement of issue
Therefore, this essay showed my stance on how the use of coal affects and causes a harmful change in the American environment. It also demonstrates the negative effects it causes regarding people’s health. The contrasting view was also shown in regards to the rise of unemployment, rise in taxes, and loss of income with more pressure on coal industries based on certain regulations.
5.2 Recommendation/warning/solution/implication
After looking at the subject from different views, it is clear that both the use of coal power and regulations forced referred to war on coal would cause many difficulties in the American society. In order to solve the issue, the government should find a way to lower the CO2 emissions and, at the same time, solve the problem without causing serious damage to the national economy. In order to satisfy both parties, regulations have to be applied to the coal industry, but without the increase of electricity bills and taxes. Another solution would be the use of new energy sources that would help lower the CO2 emissions and, at the same time, it will give new opportunities for citizens to find a job.
References
Center for Media and Democracy. (2015, March 16). Environmental impacts of coal. Retrieved from Source Watch: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Environmental_impacts_of_coal
Loris, N. (2015, July 7). The Many Problems of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan and Climate Regulations: A Primer. Retrieved from Heritage: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/the-many-problems-of-the-epas-clean-power-plan-and-climate-regulations-a-primer
Sheehan, L. (2015, November 9). New Analysis Underscores Power Plan’s Costly Consequences. Retrieved from America's Power: http://www.americaspower.org/press_release/new-analysis-underscores-power-plans-costly-consequences/
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015, August 3). Learn About Carbon Pollution From Power Plants. Retrieved from EPA: https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/learn-about-carbon-pollution-power-plants#what
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2016, February 2). FACT SHEET: Clean Power Plan Benefits: WHY WE NEED A CLEANER, MORE EFFICIENT POWER SECTOR. Retrieved from EPA: https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/fact-sheet-clean-power-plan-benefits
Weiss, M., & Lambert, K. (2015, May 4). Benefits of Clean Power Plan are clear. Retrieved from Harvard Gazette: http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/05/benefits-of-clean-power-plan-are-clear/
Zhang, S. (2015, August 4). Obama’s Climate Change Plan Is Actually About Public Health. Retrieved from Wired: http://www.wired.com/2015/08/obamas-plan-rein-coal-big-win-public-health/
