What are the economics behind the EPA's newly proposed regulations? It is estimated that one-third of the United States energy came from coal in 2012. However, coal has also been blamed for a large amount of the US's carbon emissions. Does regulating and reducing carbon emissions result in lost jobs and increased energy prices, or are the coal companies simply blowing smoke? The guests for Tuesday' show were Laura Arenschield, an environmental reporter for the Columbus Dispatch, Jade Davis the director of state affairs for the american coalition for clean coal electricity, and Trish Demeter, director of energy and clean air programs for the ohio environmental council. Arenshield explained that under the new rules, Ohio wold be required to reduce it's carbon emissions by almost 30 percent. She said that while coal companies might take a hit, their clean-energy counterparts may actually see a boost in profits. Davis proposed that with new technologies, coal could become a clean burning fuel with little damage to the environment. He also explained that even if the United States drastically reduced it's emissions, the other countries in the world without such regulations would still act to pollute the skies. Demeter politely disagreed, and related the United States should be a role model in the international community for green energy and reduced emissions. Who made the better argument? Will this plan to reduce carbon emissions by 30 percent benefit the economy or act to hurt it? Find out who you think made the best case for coal or clean energy, by listening to the full hour of the show.
Guests
- Laura Arenschield, Environmental reporter for the Columbus Dispatch
- Jade Davis, Director of State Affairs for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
- Trish Demeter, Director of Energy and Clean Air Programs for the Ohio Environmental Council