Michael Coste

May 13, 2015

mcoste@linfield.edu
Research Paper

TOPIC: Clean Energy

FINAL QUESTION: Should the U.S. improve its climate change action plan by increasing its

carbon emission reduction goals and by mandating renewable energy around the country?
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 2

Table of Contents

Preface..3

Abstract7

Introduction..8

The Issue..8

U.S. Climate Action Plan Overview9

Renewable Energy.12

Energy Use Reduction...14

Greenhouse Gas Reduction...16

The Plans Effectiveness...17

Conclusion19

References.20
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 3

Preface

After writing this research paper and reflecting on my experience, I realize I have not

only learned more about the governments climate action plan, but I have also learned about

myself as a writer and as a student. The triumphs and tribulations I faced during the process of

researching and writing this paper enabled me to grow as a person. I struggled with small

grammatical errors and stress management, but I succeeded in the areas of improvement, hard

work and time management.

I believe I am a stronger writer now than I was at the beginning of the semester, when I

struggled with not only small grammatical errors, but with my natural vague writing style as

well. Naturally, I have a tendency to be a generalist, and sometimes it is apparent in my writing.

Rather than explain a sources assertion in detail, I tend to briefly discuss its content and

generalize its message and significance. After receiving feedback from my professors, I practiced

writing in more detail and I believe that it allowed me to improve over the course of the

semester. A vague writing style can pose serious problems because it disables the readers from

understanding the piece of writing as a whole. It is important to write in detail, especially in the

case of this research paper, where a strong understanding of a sources assertion is vital to

understanding how it relates to the policy issue. During the writing and research process, I

struggled locating opposing pieces of writing because many of the sources supported the same

side of the argument. It is important to have a variety of arguments in a research paper because it

enables greater understanding of the issue and creates a stronger debate. This extensive searching

process contributed to the stress I felt during the semester due to the time required to do well in

the class. In addition to my research challenges, I consistently made small grammatical errors in

my writing such as simple spelling mistakes and an excessive use of commas. Along with
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 4

misplaced commas, I misused colons and other forms of punctuation. These errors were quickly

expelled as I learned how to correct the issue from professor feedback.

The subject of learning and improvement leads me to explain some of the triumphs I

experienced over the course of the semester. I was able to learn from my mistakes and strengthen

my writing ability, which ultimately made the process faster and easier. After receiving

constructive criticism from my professors after each assignment, I found myself conscious of

areas I had previously made mistakes. Therefore, I discovered new areas my writing that could

be improved, and I learned new writing techniques along the way. As stated previously, locating

sources was challenging, but I felt more educated about the subject and I had a strong sense for

which direction the argument would follow. I had a structured plan for the format of the final

essay, which aided the researching and source-finding process. Another area where I found

success was the ability to incorporate determination and hard work into the writing process. I

took each assignment seriously and I was determined to turn in a strong piece of writing that

would be beneficial to the final research paper. This was because I understood that the class was

front-loaded, and the discovery of strong, usable sources would benefit my paper at the end of

the semester. This also led to a strong and detailed argument that fully explores the climate

change policy issue.

The writing and research process is strenuous; it is a challenge to find and analyze

reliable sources that will contribute to the final research paper. This caused a large amount of

stress, but it also taught me about time management and which motivation techniques enable me

to work most efficiently. I also learned how to balance my time between school, an almost full-

time job, my family and my friends. It was difficult, but I found an effective way to balance my

time between these different parts of my life, which aided my success in the class and my sanity
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 5

throughout the semester. I was able to work on classwork in increments to ensure quality and to

reduce stress. Ultimately, this process displayed what I am capable of as a student, and that will

be the most beneficial experience to me.

This would not have been possible without the constant support and guidance from my

instructors, Professor Brad Thompson and Susan Barnes-Whyte. The two aided my success in

the class because of their constructive feedback and their knowledge about researching and

writing. Although the class challenging, I gained experience and knowledge about myself as a

person as well as a writer. In addition to the support from my instructors, I must acknowledge my

family and friends who supported me throughout the process. Without their encouragement, the

class would have been more difficult for me. They helped me any way they could, and

understood why they would not see me for a day or two. Lastly, I want to thank the authors and

writers who I referenced in the paper because of the knowledge I gained from their work, and for

the reliable and interesting information included in my research essay.

For future students, I would recommend that they buy an organizer to disperse their time

among the different parts of their lives. In all classes, especially in Information Gathering (Info),

it is important to be organized and plan time for each assignment. Each assignment requires a

strong effort and a significant amount of time, so it is important to manage ones time as

efficiently as possible. In addition, although the class is strenuous, it is important that students do

not let Info take over their lives. Reflecting on the semester now, I stressed about the class more

than I should have. I constantly thought about the class when I was not working on assignments,

which enhanced Infos stress level during the semester. This is why it is important to organize

ones time. In addition, since the class work is front-loaded, students should take time to find

strong, reliable sources that can be used in their final essays. This will save them time on the
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 6

annotations and make the entire process quicker and more efficient. It is also important that

students take time to edit their papers. Although some students may think this means quickly

scanning the paper right before its due, it is important, as our instructors have told us, for

students to let their paper get cold so it is not so fresh in his/her mind that errors are

overlooked. If students have enough time to edit small errors and they are able to understand

what the paper is lacking, the final product will be better. That being said, it is vital for future

Information Gathering students to listen to their instructors feedback and use it to learn and

improve. This class will be one of the hardest classes students will take, but it will also be the

most beneficial one.

Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 7

Abstract: This paper will explore the components of the U.S. Climate Action Plan, and will

compare its strengths and weaknesses. The government (Office of the President, n.d.) says its

plan to combat climate change will focus on the reduction of greenhouse gases, a stronger

reliance on renewable energy and a decrement of energy waste. Some sources like Ausubel

(2007) and Bezdek (2014) argue the efficiency of renewable energy and the environmental issues

carbon poses, whereas other sources such as McNerney and Cheek (2011) agree with the plans

serious call for action. Along with the debate about the effectiveness of the climate action plans

central goals, some sources like Laird (2009) support climate action but question whether the

plan should be improved. This paper will explore both sides of the argument and answer whether

the government should improve its plan by increasing its emission reduction goals and creating a

stronger reliance on renewable energy.

Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 8

The Effectiveness of the U.S. Climate Action Plan

Introduction

Climate change, an issue that involves temperature changes and extreme weather, is

claimed to pose a threat to the livelihood of society and the planet. Many scientists say climate

change is entirely human-caused because of the worlds pollution levels and increased energy

waste (Samenow, 2015). The Office of the President (n.d.) says this atmospheric pollution is

causing temperatures to rise across the U.S., which is reiterated by the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Associations titling of 2014 as the hottest year to date. In contrast, University of

Washington Professor Cliff Mass says global warming is not uniform, which means some states

will experience different extreme temperatures than others (Samenow, 2015). Therefore, the

focus should not be placed on the global average temperature. According to the government

(Office of the President, n.d.), not only will the U.S. observe a temperature increase, but climate

change will also create economic issues and lead to more severe natural disasters. The

government says more severe natural disasters have already cost the U.S. economy more than

$100 billion (Office of the President, n.d.). To combat climate change and avoid serious

consequences, the U.S. government must implement a strong, effective plan in a timely manner.

The Issue

Climate change and its effect on the world. Many scientists accredit humans as the

main cause of climate change. According to Philip Mote, a director at Oregon State University,

the incremental global temperature increase will add up over time (Samenow, 2015). This, Mote

says, is mainly caused by humans increased pollution of greenhouse gases. The Office of the

President (n.d.) says U.S. greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, which makes up 82 percent

of total emissions, fluorinated gases, nitrous oxide and methane. In 2012, the three largest
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 9

contributors of greenhouse gases in the U.S. came from the power, transportation and industrial

sector. According to the government (Office of the President, n.d.), the majority of these

emissions are caused by power plants, which account for one-third of the U.S.s total emissions.

Because these greenhouse gases cause an increase of extreme weather, they are the direct cause

of health problems. The government says extreme weather causes climate change-related health

problems such as heat stress, polluted air, dangerous weather and exposure to diseases (Office of

the President, n.d.).

U.S. Climate Action Plan Overview

The U.S. government has created a climate action plan that focuses on a greenhouse gas

emission reduction, an increased reliance on renewable energy and a reduction of energy waste.

According to the government, these major components of the plan play a large role in terms of

climate change action and have already contributed to the U.S.s climate action progress. In an

attempt to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the government has planned the creation of actions

and regulations similar to the Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) Clean Power Plan. The

EPAs historic emission standards are the main force behind the governments action to reduce

greenhouse gas pollution. This plan, released by the EPA in June of 2014, aims to reduce carbon

emissions from power plants by 30 percent by 2030 (Office of the President, n.d.). According to

the government (Office of the President, n.d.), this plan serves as the first-ever set of carbon

pollution standards and will help protect the health of future generations. As of now, the U.S.s

major emission reduction progress is the implementation of the EPAs new plan, which will have

the largest and most immediate effect on climate change.

In addition to a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the government climate action

plan calls for an increased reliance on renewable energy. This includes support for renewable
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 10

energy markets and incentives for renewable energy projects. The government saw progress in

this area early in President Barack Obamas first term, when the nations generation of wind and

solar energy more than doubled (Office of the President, n.d.). The government says since the

President Obama took office, the Department of Interior has issued more than 50 wind, solar and

geothermal utility projects that could create more than 20,000 jobs and provide electricity to

more than four million homes (Office of the President, n.d.). Along with a focus on increasing

renewable energy usage, the U.S. plans to encourage a clean energy infrastructure that supports

energy efficiency and ensures the efficiency of transportation.

The governments climate action plan also focuses on cutting energy waste in homes,

businesses and factories because it is the most cost-effective way to reduce energy waste, save

money and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Office of the President, n.d.). The government has

made process due to its provision of $250 million to aid rural businesses and residences reduce

their energy bills by making energy efficient upgrades and by increasing their reliance on

renewable energy. In addition, during the presidents first term, the government completed

energy efficient upgrades in over 2 million homes, which saved residents money and reduced

energy waste (Office of the President, n.d.). Because of the U.S.s large reliance on electricity,

energy waste is common and the U.S. plans to reduce it by providing business incentives and by

supporting energy efficient upgrades and programs.

Although this document serves as a plan to combat climate change by reducing

greenhouse gas emissions, increasing reliance on renewable energy and by decreasing energy

waste, the plan also serves as a preparation tool. In the plan, the government discusses the

importance of immediate climate action, and it claims that the U.S. must prepare for the future

effects of climate change. The government says part of preparing for the future includes creating
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 11

an impact assessment, which will provide tools for decision makers to develop effective plans of

action. In addition, the government says it must maintain the U.S.s agricultural strength by

providing assistance to farmers and landowners. This will provide them with the knowledge

required to prepare for climate change and will help them understand the seriousness of the

climate change issue. It is important that the U.S. maintains its agricultural productivity to

support the economy and to avoid climate change-related food shortages. Lastly, the plan aims to

decrease wildfire and drought risk. According to the government, this plan will help communities

find the assistance needed to adapt to drier conditions caused by climate change.

Climate Action Plan support. In support of this section of the climate action plan,

southern-California resident Tristan Ritter (2015) explains her vast experience with wildfires and

droughts. Her mothers home in Bel Aire, California, burnt down when she was a child and she

has dealt with the effects of climate change-caused wildfires ever since. The risk of wildfires has

made it hard for her family to obtain home insurance, and it has even forced her family to plan an

evacuation route to save their lives and save their valued belongings. Ritter (2015) claims the

increase of natural disasters is caused by climate change. In addition to the threats these disasters

pose on society, they also force people to change their lifestyles to avoid worsening the issue.

Due to the current water rationing regulation caused by a southern-California drought, residents

are fined for excessive water use and for having green grass (Ritter, 2015). Ritter (2015) says the

issue has become very serious, especially since she is directly related to the dangerous weather.

The source is in support of the climate action plan, as she claims the government is doing

everything possible to combat climate change. Ritter (2015) says the U.S. must encourage the

world to follow its lead of action, because the U.S. only makes up a small portion of global
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 12

pollution in comparison with large countries like China. If immediate action is not taken, the risk

of climate change-caused wildfires and droughts will increase.

Renewable Energy

Renewable energy opposition. The governments call for an increased reliance on

renewable energy has created a debate about its effectiveness. Some people support renewable

energy and others, like Jesse Ausubel (2009), oppose it. Ausubel (2009) says that renewable

energy is not beneficial for the environment because of the natural resources it requires for

operation. Ausubel is a self-proclaimed green whose primary concern is land use, therefore he

critiques the effectiveness of energy sources based upon their land use. He claims that hydro,

wind and solar power are not beneficial renewable sources because of their damage to the

environment. For example, he says hydropower plants only dam rivers and damage natural

habitats, which is harmful to the environment (2009). In addition, Ausubel says that these

sources are not effective because they require a large amount of space to operate and produce a

small amount of power, which decreases their effectiveness (2009). According to the author,

these renewable sources make up less than 25 percent of the U.S.s electricity supply. Because

these sources produce a small amount of energy, the author says the government should rely on

nuclear power. Ausubel (2009) says this energy source creates more power without wasting land

space, which ultimately makes nuclear power more efficient than renewable energy.

This rejection for renewable energy is reflected by the states actions in Christopher

Martins (2014) article. He claims more than half of U.S. states are removing renewable energy

mandates because of an extreme drop in natural gas prices. Because of the cost-effectiveness of

natural gas, many states are considering the removal of renewable energy mandates. This

extreme decrease in cost is because of a new technology that enables old oil reservoirs to be
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 13

drilled for natural gas (Martin, 2014). This will result in a lessened reliance on renewable energy

and it also reflects the U.S.s dedication to renewable sources. It shows that many states,

although willing to invest in renewable energy, are primarily concerned about the cost of the

nations energy sources rather than their environmental benefits.

Renewable energy support. According to the Peak Oil Theory, the U.S. was projected to

reach its pique oil supply in 1970, which signifies an almost 50 year decrease of oil supply

(McNerney & Cheek, 2011). According to the authors, the U.S. will experience severe starvation

and a weakened economy if it does not lessen its dependence on oil. McNerney and Cheek

(2011) say this is dangerous because powerful countries like China rely on American foes for

their oil supply, and a lack of production could demote the U.S.s strong global presence. This

could also pose threats to the U.S.s food supply, national security and transportation (McNerney

and Cheek, 2011). To solve the issue, the authors suggest the U.S. invest in abundant, renewable

energy. This form of energy, the authors claim, is more reliable and more beneficial for the nation

(McNerney and Cheek, 2011). In addition, it is important that the government creates a

structured plan that encourages a clean energy infrastructure to accompany its lessened reliance

on oil. According to McNerney and Cheek (2011), this will enable a strong economy, ensure

good health among Americans and maintain the U.S.s strong global presence.

However, Robert Bryce (2012) argues renewable energy mandates are harmful to the

environment, and their costs outweigh any of their benefits. Due to a lack of government support,

29 states created renewable energy mandates that set a standard renewable energy use for utility

companies (Bryce, 2012). Bryce says there is evidence these mandates are more expensive than

they are effective. The equipment required to construct these power plants and maintain them is

too expensive, and this increase in cost could be dangerous to the success of the economy
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 14

(Bryce, 2012). For example, Oregons electricity rate increased by 14.5 percent due to the cost of

a transmission line required to connect customers with a wind power farm in Wyoming (Bryce,

2012). The increased regulation of coal power plants has also had an effect on the rising

electricity costs. Bryce (2012) suggests the government performs a financial analysis to

determine whether renewable energy mandates are effective and whether the costs are affordable.

This is important because this analysis will ensure the mandates benefit the environment as well

as the economy.

Although Bryce says these mandates are expensive and dangerous, Travis Hoium (2014)

says the U.S. has observed an increase in renewable energy use. Renewable energy still only

makes up about 3.2 percent of U.S. power, but wind power production has increased by 309

percent and solar power generation has increased by 607 percent (Hoium, 2014). Along with an

increased use of renewable energy, the industry has also experienced a decrease in cost. For

example, Hoium (2014) says the cost of solar power generation has fallen 99 percent. During the

same time period, coal power generation dropped by more than 24 percent. Lowered costs and

potential benefits have fueled the growth of a renewable energy industry, which will strengthen

the economy as well as benefit the environment (Hoium, 2014). Hoium says that due to climate

concerns and lessened costs, the industry will continue to grow (2014).

Energy-Use Reduction

Waste reduction support. The government (n.d.) plans to reduce energy waste by

encouraging energy efficient heating, cooling and lighting. In agreement with the governments

energy waste concerns, Ozzie Zehner (2012) says the U.S. does not have an energy supply issue,

but rather an energy waste issue. He claims that a complete energy system shift would be

expensive, which is why society must learn to conserve energy. Zehner claims the renewable
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 15

energy hype and media promotion only provides false hope about its benefits (2012). In addition,

he says renewable energy is expensive and is far less clean than it is said to be. Because

renewable energy sources are dirty, unreliable and expensive, society must quit focusing on

energy production and begin increasing reduction (Zehner, 2012).

One way companies are taking action is by reducing waste is through energy efficient

programs similar to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). This program

provides the framework for the construction, design, operations and maintenance of green

buildings. One example of an LEED project is Sue Buel Elementary School (SBES) in

McMinnville, Oregon. According to Kurt Zenner (2015), a project manager for Mahlum

Architects, SBES was the first school west of the Mississippi River to receive the LEED for

Schools Gold certification. This level of certification was achieved through building design with

features that incorporated natural lighting, energy efficient lighting, heating and plumbing. In

addition, the design enabled a 40 percent water use reduction and on-site renewable energy

(Zehner, 2015). Many schools and businesses around the nation have invested in LEED certified

features to reduce energy waste and support the environment. According to Zehner, LEED

certification is beneficial for the environment and he acknowledges that every action helps, but

says there is more to be done (2015).

McNerney and Cheek (2011) agree with the governments plan to reduce energy waste

because the two authors say energy independence is essential to the future success of the U.S. In

their book, McNerney and Cheek explain the dangers of a continued dependence on oil, and

claim that a detailed, effective plan is required to help the U.S. avoid the consequences of climate

change (2011). Programs similar to LEED are the result of government action that aids the

climate change issue on a smaller scale. This is the type of action that can make a difference
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 16

without completely refurbishing the energy system. McNerney and Cheek (2011) support the

governments plan to reduce energy waste, but they claim the government must create a way for

the economy to thrive without the aid of oil.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction

Greenhouse gas effect on climate change. The government (Office of the President,

n.d.) claims greenhouse gases are human-caused and are one of the primary causes of climate

change. Therefore, it is essential that greenhouse gas emission is reduced. The governments plan

includes a 700 million metric ton reduction including methane, a greenhouse gas that makes up

for 10 percent of the U.S.s total emissions. The government plans to reduce greenhouse gases

with vehicle fuel and coal power plant regulations, both of which are areas the U.S. has already

observed progress in. This part of the climate action plan has received resistance because the

difficulty to reduce emissions is determined by the size and type of company.

For example, Cascade Steel Rolling Mills (CSRM) is a steel-manufacturing company in

McMinnville, Oregon, that uses recycled metal and steel products to create the companys steel

products. According to Craig Hlady (CSRM, 2015), there are two major types of steel

manufacturing processes, the Integrated Steel process and the Electric Arch process. CSRM uses

the Electric Arch method, which means 97 percent of the finished product comes from recycled

steel and the other three percent comes from coal, whereas the Integrated Steel process relies

primarily on natural iron ore as its main ingredient (CSRM, 2015). Because the Electric Arch

process melts recycled steel to create a new product, Craig Hlady (CSRM, 2015) says the

companys waste reduction level is high. Hlady (2015) claims coal and electricity are essential to

the steelmaking process, so there is no way to avoid energy usage and pollution. He says that it is

important to reduce greenhouse gases because he claims there is a direct relationship between
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 17

greenhouse gases and climate change. Hlady (CSRM, 2015) says the U.S. must reduce its

emissions, but he acknowledges it is difficult to become more energy efficient when CSRM is

already doing all it can to reduce its waste. This example represents why it is difficult for some

companies to reduce their emissions, because a company like CSRM is already doing all it can to

reduce its emissions.

In disagreement with the governments claims, Douglas Fischer (2009) says a National

Center for Atmospheric Research report claims a 70 percent greenhouse reduction would

stabilize the earths rising temperatures. Although stabilization of temperature seems appealing,

it would not stop the world from observing the effects of climate change (Fischer, 2009). Fischer

says it is important to remember that a 70 percent reduction, although essential, will not

completely stop the earth from warming, it will just stabilize temperatures. This reduction is

important, however the U.S., nor the rest of the world, is expected to reduce emissions by 70

percent in a timely matter. Although this is dangerous to some, Robert Bezdek (2014) claims

carbon is beneficial for the environment. Reducing carbon emissions is the focus of the climate

change debate, but Bezdek says it does not need to be. Carbon is the basis of life on earth and it

helped create the complex society that exists today (Bezdek, 2014). Therefore, Bezdek (2014)

claims carbon provides social benefits rather than expenses, which is why a high presence of

carbon is not negative for the environment or society.

The Plans Effectiveness

The plans effectiveness and improvement. In disagreement with the governments

weak call for climate change action, Jim Diamond (2015) says the government is taking a step in

the right direction, however, it is merely taking a baby step. Diamond supports the climate action

movement, but says the U.S. must do more to combat climate change. A 70 percent reduction is
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 18

projected to slow global warming and save the U.S. from experiencing serious consequences, but

it is unlikely that the U.S. reaches this point in a timely manner (Fischer, 2009). The author

claims this change would require complete global cooperation and a reworking of the fossil fuel-

based economy, (Diamond, 2015). It would be difficult and is unlikely that this is accomplished,

but Diamond (2015) claims it is vital that the minimum greenhouse gas reduction requirement is

increased and that the U.S enhances its global environmental influence. The Department of

Homeland Security (DHS) (2014) released an appendum that explained the climate action plan in

greater detail to address concerns similar to that of Diamonds (2015). It discusses how the

success of the plan is based upon its implementation and transition (DHS, 2015). This includes

the efficiency of/information about environmental policies and the timing of government action.

According to Frank Laird (2009), increased renewable energy reliance is the most

important component of the climate action plan, but the government must restructure the energy

system to accommodate the new energy source. This reorganization includes the creation of new

policies that ensure a smooth transition between energy sources and encourage change at the

social and political level (Laird, 2009).

For example, a type of program the government has already implemented focuses on the

energy efficiency of agricultural industry. In the governments climate action plan, there is an

emphasis on the survival and success of agriculture and because of this, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) created energy efficiency incentives to benefit farmers as well as the earth.

According to Nick Kostora (2015), the USDA offers incentives to farmers looking to invest in

geothermal heating and cooling. This is the governments way of benefitting both sides of the

issue: the livelihood of agriculture, and energy efficiency and effectiveness. Another climate

policy is the government mandated renewable energy policy for utility companies, which
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 19

requires them to provide a certain amount of renewable energy to customers. According to

Matthew Deppe (2015), these incentives are beneficial to the environment because they

encourage energy efficiency and benefit the environment. However, Deppe says these incentives

must be increased to have an effect on climate change. In addition, the implementation of these

new policies must be incremental to ensure affordability and effectiveness (Deppe, 2015).

Conclusion

Climate Action Plan improvement. The government must improve its climate action

plan by acting promptly, by setting stronger goals and by creating a successful shift to the new

clean infrastructure. It is important that the government acts promptly due to the serious risks

climate change poses, such as extreme temperatures and severe natural disasters (Office of the

President, n.d.). In addition to acting promptly, Fischer (2009) and Diamond (2015) agree that

the U.S. must increase its carbon emission goal to 70 percent to avoid the disastrous effects of

climate change, even though there will still be a hotter average global temperature and the energy

system will have to be restructured. This shift is essential to moving the U.S. away from its fossil

fuel-based roots, which will ultimately benefit the environment and help combat climate change.

Lastly, the U.S. must create a stronger clean energy infrastructure by implementing new policies,

which will also ensure a smooth transition to the new energy system (Laird, 2009). The U.S. and

the rest of the world will experience climate change with or without action. Although society has

already damaged the planet, quick and effective climate action will ensure that the situation does

not worsen. As Wold (2012) says, the plan has been modest and expensive from the start, but

immediate action is required, so the government must improve its plan to achieve climate action

success.
Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 20

References

Ausubel, J. H. (2007). Renewable energy is not beneficial for the environment. International

Journal of Nuclear Governance, Economy and Ecology. 1(3), 229-235. Retrieved from

Gale Group Opposing Viewpoints.

Bezdek, R. H. (2014). The social costs of carbon? No, the social benefits of carbon. Washington,

D.C.: Management Information Services. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/qftdfkx

Bryce, R. (2012). The high cost of renewable-electricity mandates. New York: Manhattan

Institute. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/7poh2vo

Cascade Steel Rolling Mills. (2015, April 2). Observation by Michael Coste. From notes.

Condon, S. (2014, September 23). Facing resistance at home, obama urges climate action on

world stage. CBS News. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/mhx66cn

Department of Homeland Security. (2014, June). DHS climate action plan appendum. Retrieved

from http://tinyurl.com/ooqhh9p

Deppe, M. (2015, April 2). Interview by Michael Coste. From notes.

Diamond, J. J. (2015, March 9). Interview by Michael Coste. From notes and audio recording.

Fischer, D. (2009, April 14). Even deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions will not stop global

warming. Scientific American. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/nrvkmcf

Hoium, T. (2014, January 31). Renewable energy gaining on fossil fuels. USA Today. Retrieved

from http://tinyurl.com/mbds2oz

Kostora, N. (2015, March 23). USDA incentive funds renewable energy and energy-efficiency

projects. Focus. Retrieved from EbscoHost Business Source Premier.

Laird, F. N. (2009). A full-court press for renewable energy. Issues in science and technology,

25(2), 53-56. Retrieved from EbscoHost GreenFILE.

Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 21

Martin, C. (2013, April 23). U.S. states turn against renewable energy as gas plunges. Bloomberg

News. Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/pow8ow5

McNerney, G., & Cheek, M. (2011). Clean energy nation: Freeing America from the tyranny of

fossil fuels. New York, NY: AMACOM.

Ritter, T. (2015, April 26). Interview by Michael Coste. From notes.

Samenow, J. (2015, January 16). Scientists react to warmest year: 2014 underscores undeniable

fact of human-caused climate change. The Washington Post. Retrieved from

http://tinyurl.com/qc7b8qs

United States Executive Office of the President. (n.d.). The presidents climate action plan.

Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/mf8urk6

Wold, C. (2012). Climate change, presidential power, and leadership: We cant wait. Case

Western Reserve Journal of International Law, 45(1/2), 303-359. Retrieved from

EbscoHost Environment Complete.

Zehner, O. (2012). Green illusions: The dirty secrets of clean energy and the future of

environmentalism. Fournier, MT: Lincoln and London.

Zenner, K. T. (2015, April 2). Interview by Michael Coste. From notes.

Running Head: U.S. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN 22