Environmental Issues > Global Warming Main Page > All Global Warming Documents

Landmark Pollution Bill Tackles Smog, Global Warming Together
Comprehensive package charts cost-effective course for 21st century health and environmental protection.


Air pollution from power plants takes a terrible toll on the health of Americans, and is a leading cause of global warming. But for the first time, Congress is debating a comprehensive package that charts a cost-effective course for bringing U.S. air pollution standards into the 21st century, while improving both the technology and efficiency of our electric power system.
Back to Clean Power Act Index

Despite cleanup efforts, air pollution in the United States continues to cause 30,000 premature deaths and several million lost workdays nationwide every year due to asthma and other respiratory ailments. Scientists say these losses will be increasingly compounded by global warming, which accelerates smog formation and increases the risks of fatal heat stress.

These problems share a common origin: pollution from the nation's more than 1,000 electric power plants. In response, Congress is debating landmark legislation to tighten controls on emissions responsible for respiratory threats and -- for the first time -- limiting the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that cause global warming. Dubbed the Clean Power Act, the bill also strengthens protections against acid rain, and adds new limits on mercury, a potent neurotoxin.

Introduced in the Senate by Jim Jeffords (I-VT), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), the Clean Power Act promises to bring U.S. air pollution standards into the 21st Century, while improving both the technology and efficiency of our electric power system. Because power plants built today will operate for many decades, the benefits of the legislation would continue for 50 years or more.

According to the Energy Information Administration, the comprehensive Clean Power Act would save consumers more money than either maintaining business-as-usual or a power plant cleanup that ignores global warming pollution.


Bold Measures to Solve Big Problems

Often described as a "four-pollutant" bill, the Clean Power Act establishes a new, integrated approach to power plant cleanup. It would cut nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions (the sources of smog, lung-clogging particulates and acid rain) 75 percent; slashes mercury output 90 percent; and cuts carbon dioxide emissions roughly 25 percent, reducing them to 1990 levels.

At the same time, the Clean Power Act attacks pollution from the demand side by requiring robust energy efficiency programs and by providing new incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power -- steps that would cut electric bills for businesses and consumers alike.

Last year's Clean Power Act (S. 556) was passed by the Environment & Public Works committee, then chaired by Sen. Jeffords, but was not taken up by the full Senate. Companion legislation, the Clean Smokestacks Act (H.R. 1256), was sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and 132 other members, but did not get a vote in the House of Representatives. Both bills will be pushed again in 2003.


Plan B: A Bush Administration Alternative That Comes Up Short

The Bush administration opposes the Jeffords-Collins-Lieberman bill, and has proposed an alternative that addresses only the first three pollutants -- leaving out the global warming pollutant, carbon dioxide. Besides ignoring a pressing health and environmental challenge, this also would lead power plant owners to invest in "end-of-pipe" pollution controls that do nothing to reduce CO2, making it much more expensive to address global warming in the future.

The administration proposal, inappropriately dubbed "Clear Skies," would also delay reductions in the other three pollutants compared to what could be achieved by vigorous enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.

The president's three-pollutant approach reverses a promise he made as a candidate during the 2000 campaign, and continues to leave the White House without a meaningful global warming strategy following the United States' withdrawal from an international global warming treaty last summer.


Energy Department Study Says Clean Power Act Saves Money

A study released in October 2001 by the Energy Department's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that the Clean Power Act would save U.S. businesses and consumers $16 billion in net electricity costs in 2010 compared with business-as-usual, despite a slight electricity price increase. Projected savings stem from energy-saving measures in the bill, which would cut energy use. By 2020, savings would reach more than $40 billion. With more advanced energy savings measures, EIA pegged net savings at $27 billion by 2010, and $60 billion in 2020.

The EIA study also compared the Clean Power Act to a hypothetical three-pollutant approach -- like the one backed by President Bush -- and found 2010 electricity costs would be $20 to $30 billion lower under the more comprehensive, four-pollutant strategy, depending on whether modest or advanced efficiency measures are adopted. That translates to yearly household savings between $15 and $60 under the Clean Power Act.


Press Contact
Jon Coifman, NRDC Climate Center, 202/289-2404

Related NRDC Pages
Regulating Four Power-Plant Pollutants More Cost-Effective Than Three

last revised 1.24.03

All Tags [ View Popular Tags ]:
AB 1493
AB 32
ACES
agriculture
air pollution
air quality
Alaska
algae
AliyaHaq
Arctic
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
asthma
automakers
BeckyHammer
BenChou
biodiesel
biofuels
cabon
California
cap 2.0
cap and trade
carbon assessment
carbon capture and storage
carbon dioxide
carbon emissions
carbon footprint
carbon offsets
carbon pollution
carbon standard
caribou
cars
causes of global warming
CCS
Chile
china
Clean air
Clean Air Act
clean energy
clean energy economy
clean power plan
climate
Climate Action Plan
climate change
climate disruption
climate disruption tax
climate legislation
Climate Security Act
coal
coal plants
coal-fired power plants
coastal flooding
consequences
coral
CPS
DanLashof
dirty fuels
drilling
drought
earth day
economy
Elizabeth Kolbert
emissions
endangered species
endangered species protection
energy
energy efficiency
energy efficient buildings
energy policy
energy security
environmental protection agency
EPA
extreme weather
farming
fish & fishing
flooding
floods
florida
food
Forests
fuel
fuel efficiency standards
fuel savings
Gary Braasch
gas prices
global warming and health
global warming and the economy
global warming emissions
global warming emissions copenhagen accord
global warming legislation
global warming treaties
Great Lakes
Great Lakes National Parks
green buildings
green jobs
green sports
greenhouse gas
greenhouse gas emissions
greenhouse gas regulations
greenhouse gases
grizzly bear
growing green awards
habitat loss
Harmful Algal Blooms
health
health effects
health effects of pollution
health impacts
heat
heat wave
heat waves
holiday
hurricane
hurricane Irene
Hurricane Katrina
Hurricane Sandy
hurricanes
hybrid
hybrid vehicles
India
India Initiative
infrastructure
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
International
international agreements
interviews
IPCC
KellyHenderson
KimKnowlton
Kyoto protocol
LarryLevine
Latin America
LCFS
legislation
liquid coal
livestock
marine conservation
Massachussetts v EPA
McKinsey
melting ice and glaciers
Mexico
MiriamRotkin-Ellman
Montreal Protocol
mortality
mountain pine beetle
mountaintop removal mining
national parks
natural gas
new energy economy
nuclear energy
ocean acidification
ocean policy
ocean pollution
oceans
oil
oil shale
oil shale development
oil shale development in colorado river basin
oil shale impact on water
ozone
PeteAltman
photos
polar bears
polar ice cap
policy
power plants
public transportation
record-high temperatures
refrigerants
renewable energy
renewable energy/clean energy
renewables
respiratory illness
Rocky Mountains
salmon
Sandy
sb375
science
sea levels
sea-level rise
ski
smart growth
smog air pollution
solar power
solutions
species protection
sprawl
StarlaYeh
storms
stormwater pollution
Supreme Court
sustainable communities
tar sands
tennessee
testimony
tourism
toxic waste
transportation
transportation bill
trout
U.S.
VEETC
vehicle emissions
vehicles
water
water conservation
water supply
water sustainability
weather
Western Arctic
what you can do
white bark pine
whitebark pine
Wilderness Preservation
wildfires
wildlife
winter sports
Yellowstone

Sign up for NRDC's online newsletter

See the latest issue >

This Is Global Warming

YouTube Video
Watch the Video »

Our new video shows the effects of global warming in the world today.

Give the Gift That Will Make a Difference: Clean Energy Boost

NRDC Gets Top Ratings from the Charity Watchdogs

Charity Navigator awards NRDC its 4-star top rating.
Worth magazine named NRDC one of America's 100 best charities.
NRDC meets the highest standards of the Wise Giving Alliance of the Better Business Bureau.


Donate now >

Share | |