Note: It’s best to add to or modify the script below to personalize if possible. Add details from the talking points in SaveEPA’s excellent guide linked here or other information you are aware of or are concerned about.
You could also:
Say why it’s important to you.
Mention if you were close to or affected by a recent extreme weather event.
Say if you are seeing impacts of climate change in your community or area.
The effects of climate change are real. The Supreme Court has ruled that EPA has a responsibility to address CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan makes sense because it addresses the largest source of US carbon emissions. It was the subject of extensive public input, and as a result is fair to regulated facilities and gives flexibility to states to develop their own strategies. Most importantly, it is fair to the American people, who look to EPA to protect them from the real harm caused by climate change. In doing so, the CPP further ensures that electricity will be affordable and reliable and that co-pollutants like particulates will be reduced. EPA’s rigorous analysis shows that implementing the Clean Power Plan would avoid 1,500 to 3,600 premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks in children, up to 1,700 heart attacks, 1,700 hospital admissions, and 300,000 missed workdays and missed school days by 2030. Repeal would allow more pollution that harms the health and welfare of the American people.
EPA should not change the well-documented, fair and reliable cost-benefit information and analysis used in development of the CPP. In contrast, the changes proposed to the analysis by the current administration are not consistent with the best science, economic information and analytical discipline. For example, in an approach that is contrary to US values and national security interests, the new analysis does not include international impacts. National security interests are key because of the destabilization that climate change brings worldwide. The new approach discounts impacts to future generations’ health and welfare more than any recent federal environmental analysis. It reduces or ignores the health and cost benefits of reducing other harmful pollutants as a result of implementing the Clean Power Plan.
EPA should not withdraw or modify the Clean Power Plan. EPA should base important decisions about climate change on scientific findings and analytical discipline. The Agency should fulfill its statutory responsibilities for protecting the public and implement the Clean Power Plan as soon as possible.
Tell EPA NOT to rollback the landmark Clean Power Plan. Click here or on the Comment Now link on this page to add your comment.
The Supreme Court determined that EPA is required to address CO2 as a contaminant pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The Clean Power Plan (CPP) is the most powerful action by the Obama administration to meet this responsibility. It addresses the country’s biggest source of climate pollution, fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Now the Trump administration is proposing to repeal the CPP without proposing an alternative. The CPP was finalized after years of public engagement on the best strategies for reducing carbon pollution from the power sector. It establishes state-specific emission targets and gives states flexibility to design their own plans for cutting CO2 pollution from fossil-fuel-fired power plants. By 2030, the CPP would help achieve a 32 percent reduction in CO2 emissions from 2005 levels from the power sector. Other pollutants associated with increases in heart attacks, hospital admissions for asthma attacks, and deaths would also be reduced. EPA’s 2015 analysis shows that the health, environmental and other economic benefits of the CPP dwarf the costs to comply. The net benefits range from between $26 billion to $45 billion in 2030. The Trump administration has produced a new economic analysis that omits some benefits and changes key assumptions, producing a different assessment to support the repeal.