According to the April issue of Rural Montana, the leadership of our national and state electric cooperatives is using its political clout to limit the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regulating carbon dioxide emissions. For this purpose they will be including stamped post cards in the May issue of Rural Montana and encouraging its readership to send their message on to our congressional representatives.
I believe that these actions are both inappropriate and unwise. This message is clearly based only on the leadership’s understanding of the short-term economic effects of addressing climate change. As Glen English, the CEO of the National Rural Electric Cooperative, stated in that April issue: “Affordable electric bills must be at the heart of the debate and we’re fighting on behalf of the consumers.” As reasonable as this statement appears to be at first glance, it is certainly not a valid reason for preventing EPA’s participation in the climate change problem. The coop leadership’s argument is void of at least two other elements that are also at the heart of the issue. One of these is the long-term welfare of US citizens and the other is an acknowledgement that the physical forces of Mother Nature will always trump economic preferences. The mission of the EPA, on the other hand, is to deal precisely with these two aspects of all environmental issues.
It is also important to recognize that the scope of the EPA-sponsored Clean Air Act has not been limited to the regulation of just a few common pollutants, such as the oxides of sulfur and nitrogen, as Mr. English stated in his article. Instead, the EPA’s role has been continuously adjusted to deal with all potential threats to our environment as each of these has been recognized. For example, the EPA’s role has thereby increased to include the control of ozone levels in the atmosphere – both at ground levels where too much of it can result from man-caused photochemical smog, and in the stratosphere where its concentration can be diminished by various man-made chlorine- and bromine-containing compounds. Note also that ozone, like carbon dioxide, is a naturally-occurring compound and, by that measure, alone, some have claimed that carbon dioxide should not be labeled as a “pollutant” to be controlled by the EPA. This is an entirely moot point, however, because large changes in the levels of either ozone or carbon dioxide are certain to have horrendous long-term consequences on our environment. The same can be said of sulfur dioxide, which is also both a naturally-occurring compound and a well-known pollutant.
As I write this, I don’t know what choices the readership of Rural Montana will be given for input to their congressional representatives on the post cards referred to above. If an appropriate selection of choices is not provided, I recommend that something like the following be written on them before sending: “While input from the leadership of the Electric Cooperatives concerning their predicted costs of addressing climate change merits careful consideration, their additional input concerning the EPA’s role in controlling CO2 emissions should be ignored.”
Eric Grimsrud is a recently retired atmospheric scientist and chemistry professor now living near Kalispell. His current activities are described on his Web site, ericgrimsrud.com.