New Greenhouse Gas Rule Will Benefit Both Climate and Health

Tomorrow, President Obama is expected to announce a major step in U.S. carbon regulation. Using executive authority, the President will issue a new rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in the United States.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Tomorrow, President Obama is expected to announce a major step in U.S. carbon regulation. Using executive authority, the President will issue a new rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in the United States. This ruling could have many other benefits, including reducing soot, smog, and early-deaths due to repiratory and other illnesses.

According to the President, "[in] just the first year that these standards go into effect, up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks will be avoided – and those numbers will go up from there.”

These illnesses are largely caused by particulate matter (PM), a mix of liquid and solid particles that can contain sulfates, nitrates, ammonium, carbon, metals, and an array of allergens. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) these emissions lead to asthma and other respiratory illnesses, lung cancer and cardiopulmonary diseases. Globally, an estimated 800,000 early deaths occur each year as the result of combustion-related emissions (both particulate matter and ozone) - 200,000 of these are in the United States.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


While these particles can come from non-human sources (e.g. volcanoes), anthropogenic sources are the major contributors in cities. Particulate matter that is smaller than 10 micros in diameter (PM10) primarily comes from combustion – in car engines (both diesel and gasoline), power plants (coal, heavy oil and biomass), and other industrial activities (for example mining, the manufacturing of cement, and smelting).

The rule itself will target carbon dioxide emissions. Approximately 37% of electricity in the United States is generated using coal-fired power plants. Last year, 38% of carbon dioxide emissions come from the electricity sector, mostly coal-fired power plants that represent 37& of electricity generation in the nation. Under this new rule, emissions from existing coal-fired power plants would be reduced by 20%. The EPA already has rules in place for emissions limits for new power plants.

The new rule will be issued under the 1970 Clean Air Act section 111(d), which allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate pollution from existing sources. State regulators can deisgn strategies to either meet or beat the EPA's recommendations. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide and other pollutants that contribute to global climate change in 2007. Since this time, an EPA rule-making has been viewed as an executive-branch backstop if the legislative branch was unable to agree on federal standards for carbon dioxide emissions.

Such an agreement was attempted in 2009 with the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). However, while the bill narrowly passed a vote in the House of Representatives (219 for and 212 against), the bill did not make it through the Senate. If passed, H.R. 2454 would have established a national emissions trading scheme similar to that seen in Europe.

Instead, the EPA will regulate these emissions under the new rule, which will be announced tomorrow.

Photo Credit: Photo of W.A. Parish Power Plant and a coal-filled train © Copyright roy luck and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe