The United States has declared in its document for COP21 that greenhouse gas emissions in the country will be gradually declined to reach a value at least 26 percent lower than the emissions of the country in 2005. A plausible strategy for reducing overall emissions is calling the states to take responsibility for their own emissions and reduce overall emissions based on a state organized and implemented sets of policies. This method allows states to exercise with greater flexibility than if federal regulations were forced nationwide, hopefully leading to greater success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Because the reduction target is based on a percent reduction of data reported for 2005, each state will have a different amount of greenhouse gasses to reduce. Each state also has different degrees of infrastructure that is already in place that relies heavily on the ability to pump out their current level of greenhouse gas emissions. Some states have already been transitioning to alternative sources, so it will be easier for them to continue to transition than it will be for states which have stagnant growth of renewable or clean alternatives.
Carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels is focused on so heavily not because it is the most prominent greenhouse gas, but rather because it is the greenhouse gas that humans have total control over. Despite the evidence put forth of the positive trend between the production of carbon dioxide and global temperature, starting as early as 1938 with G. S. Callendar’s compilation of related data, humans have continued to increase emissions year after year. Thomas Friedman, a climate change activist, recognizes that enacting change on a large scale without strong collectivism is a difficult task, especially when one of the two parties responsible to propose and integrate action to lower carbon dioxide emissions is strongly averse to the repercussions of fighting climate change.
Quite generally, the issue of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not embedded in science or scientific discussions. Instead, combatting climate change has moved on to become a purely political issue. It is no longer reasonably questioned scientifically whether climate change is occurring. In addition, scientists largely agree that the climate change the globe is experiencing is human influenced, primarily from the burning of fossil fuels into carbon dioxide and other products. This leaves each state with a scientifically straightforward challenge of reducing carbon dioxide emissions: burn a lower mass of fossil fuels. Each state is then left with the politically complicated challenge of how to do so.
In particular, Tennessee emitted 126.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide as product of the combustion of fossil fuels in the year of 2005. Tennessee is taxed with the responsibility to emit no more than 74 percent of that 2005 level by the year 2025. This does not halt emissions completely; Tennessee could still produce up to 93.9 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year to satisfy the power generation, industrial, commercial, residential, and transportation sectors of fossil fuel use. In 2013, Tennessee had already reduced emissions to 96.7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide, leaving a difference to be made up of only 2.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. For comparison, Texas has to reduce yearly carbon dioxide emissions by 184 million metric tons between 2013 and 2025. Tennessee has a much less drastic challenge with its yearly reduction in carbon dioxide emissions being 233 hundred thousand metric tons per year until 2025. On the other side of the table, Texas has to implement a robust set of policies if it hopes to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by its yearly goal of a reduction of 15.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year between 2013 and 2025 [U.S. Energy Information Administration – EIA – Independent Statistics and Analysis].
The Tennessee Valley Authority, the power generating corporate agency in Tennessee, has been the driving force of reducing carbon emissions in the state. Like other power companies, Tennessee Valley Authority relied heavily on the consumption of fossil fuels. However, TVA has declared that it has put a great emphasis on decreasing the reliance to coal plants and increasing power generation that is cleaner and abides by current and future regulations [Tennessee Valley Authority Website]. This attitude toward energy has greatly influenced Tennessee’s progress in reducing emissions.
The Environmental Protection Agency has been offering states guidance in reducing carbon emissions. For sake of comparison, the relations between Texas and the EPA are so sour that Texas fights against the EPA’s efforts even to collect data [Henry]. This prevents the EPA from analyzing the situation in depth to forge any kind of guidance to the state. However, the EPA and Tennessee interact much more cordially. The EPA suggested that Tennessee grow nuclear and renewable sources of energy production. The Tennessee Valley Authority replied to the EPA that it was already planning on doing so [Barton]. Agreement between TVA and the EPA indicates strongly that the state is on track.
The Tennessee Valley Authority is in the business of generating power. Of course, shutting down a coal burning plant would lead to less power generation and lower profit for the company. However, the TVA is in a position where the effects of shutting down a coal burning plant would not significantly damage the company. The Gallatin Fossil Plant has been emitting a nearly constant amount of carbon dioxide centered around 7.5 million metric tons per year since 1995. The Gallatin Fossil Plant is one of TVA’s smaller coal burning plants at a capacity of 976 megawatts. All the other coal burning plants have demonstrated a decrease in emissions, while this one has not made significant progress. The TVA also has a unit on a nuclear site that is coming into operation in 2016 with a capacity of 1100 megawatts [Tennessee Valley Authority Website]. This will more than make up for the deficit in energy production if the Gallatin Fossil Plant shuts down. If the Gallatin Fossil Plant is shut down, Tennessee would achieve the 26 percent reduction in carbon emissions and would be in good position if further regulations were implemented. The state of Tennessee should enact a policy where the Tennessee Valley Authority is required to shut down a coal burning plant; the Gallatin Fossil Plant would be a very logical candidate to retire from operation.
The policy should also include some incentive for the Tennessee Valley Authority to cooperate. A monetary sum is simple and, if big enough, should appease the TVA’s reaction to a direct government mandate. However, much of the population living in Tennessee is quite poor, so hiking up taxes would not be optimal or viable even. The governor of Tennessee, Bill Haslam, states in his submission of the state budget that there was a deposit of $36.5 million into a reserve that allows the state to be prepared for any unforeseen needs the state encounters. This policy would argue that a portion of that could be used to aid the Tennessee Valley Authority in its transition to cleaner energy. There has been slow economic growth in Tennessee, so the state can afford this. Also, the energy industry contributes greatly to the economy of Tennessee, so the investment should bring returns.
This policy should be quite popular as it stimulates an important part of the economy of Tennessee, reduces carbon dioxide emissions well past the required level, and does not directly impact the citizens.