Skip to footer

Four gambits Obama could try to boost election prospects

3. Ease up on coal regulations

M. Spencer Green/AP/File
This Feb. 29, 2012, file photo shows Midwest Generation's Crawford Generating Station, a coal-fired power plant, in Chicago. The share of US electricity that comes from coal has fallen to its lowest level since World War II.

  • By Linda Feldmann Staff writer

Easing up Environmental Protection Agency regulation of coal-fired power plants would not be as grabby a maneuver as approving the Keystone XL pipeline or embracing the Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan. But if Obama were to make moves to ease new regulations on coal-fired plants, it could curry favor in parts of key battleground states – Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Advocates of reduced regulation argue that new federal mandates governing emissions from coal- and oil-fired plants will hurt the US economy as they cause energy prices to rise.

Last December, the EPA unveiled standards to limit mercury and other toxic emissions from the power plants. Supporters of the regulations say that the health benefits reduced air pollution. Opponents say that the rules could force the closure of some plants and threaten the reliability of the nation’s power grid.

On June 20, a Republican-led effort in the Senate failed to gather enough votes to scuttle the new regulations. Obama has touted the new rules, while promising flexibility to protect industry.

But if Obama wanted to ease some of the opposition he faces in coal country, he could take steps to dial back the regulations. That would likely be seen as a desperation move, after billing himself as the “green president.” But if it spells the difference between victory and defeat in Ohio and Virginia, it might be tempting.

3 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.