We begin with
The New York Times editorial board’s support of President Obama's new climate change plan:
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, announced on Monday, is unquestionably the most important step the administration has taken in the fight against climate change.
It imposes the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, the source of 31 percent of America’s total greenhouse gas emissions. It will shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and give fresh momentum to carbon-free energy sources like wind and solar power, and possibly next-generation nuclear plants. And when taken together with the administration’s other initiatives, chiefly the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, it reinforces Mr. Obama’s credibility and leverage with other nations heading into the United Nations climate change conference in Paris in December.
Eugene Robison at The Washington Post analyzes the GOP field on climate change and, surprise, it's not pretty:
The vast majority of scientists who have devoted their professional lives to studying the Earth’s climate believe human-induced warming is an urgent problem requiring bold action. Republican candidates for president insist they know better.
With one possible exception — Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who barely registers in the polls — GOP contenders either doubt the scientific consensus on climate change or oppose attempts to do anything about it. This promises to be one of the starkest ideological divides facing voters next year.
No pressure; it’s only the fate of the planet hanging in the balance.
More on the day’s top stories below the fold.
The Des Moines Register:
While the hysteria from some critics is an over-reaction, it reveals the challenge in dealing with climate change through government regulation. Yet this nation must take serious action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to curb its own contributions to global warming and to set an example for the rest of the world. The Clean Power Plan will not solve the problem by itself, but it is an important step in the right direction [...] Such industry initiatives are encouraging, but energy producers and consumers need incentives to continue moving from fossil fuels to renewables. And rules like those announced Monday by the Obama administration are equally important to level the playing field nationally and show the world that the United States is committed to confronting climate change.
Alex Morales at Bloomberg has a detailed background on tackling climate change:
The arguments that crippled the Kyoto Protocol have hardly changed. There’s a vociferous army of global-warming skeptics who lobby politicians and blog on the topic. UN scientists in November published their biggest climate change assessment to date, warning of irreversible damage if the globe doesn’t stem emissions from burning fossil fuels. Even the pope has weighed in on the subject, endorsing the UN’s science. Developing countries insist that their priority is to take people out of poverty as quickly as possible, and tapping fossil energy is often the cheapest way to do so. They say it’s up to the developed world to act first and help fund efforts in poorer nations. Industrialized countries are wary of losing jobs to lower-cost markets. Policy makers must decide how quickly to scale back fossil fuels and push into intermittent renewable technologies such as wind and solar. Those are often more expensive, though prices are falling. There’s also plenty of ambiguity over the form and enforceability of any new global pact, setting the stage for more disagreements as the deadline approaches.
Coral Davenport and Julie Hirschfield Davis report at The New York Times on the behind-the-scenes planning of the fight against President Obama's plan:
In the early months of 2014, a group of about 30 corporate lawyers, coal lobbyists and Republican political strategists began meeting regularly in the headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, often, according to some of the participants, in a conference room overlooking the White House. Their task was to start devising a legal strategy for dismantling the climate change regulations they feared were coming from President Obama.
The group — headed in part by Roger R. Martella Jr., a top environmental official in the George W. Bush administration, and Peter Glazer, a prominent Washington lobbyist — was getting an early start.
Even
The Chicago Tribune...
You hear a lot of flattering but unverifiable numbers and predictions attached to the Obama administration's plan to reduce carbon emissions from power plants. (It'll be like removing 166 million cars from the highway! The health savings will far outstrip the cost!)
But if you focus on one scary fact — climate change is happening — you come around quickly to the idea that this new energy blueprint is sound, if imperfect. [...] We'd prefer to know with more certainty what the risks are to the planet and what the economic costs and benefits of aggressive action will be. But we can't know for certain. We can only combine science and common sense and say the right path is to clean up industrialization's awful mess in the skies and present future generations with a healthier Earth. [...]
One way or another, though, America has to diminish its reliance on coal. The quality of our future on this planet hangs in the balance.
The Tampa Bay Times:
The carbon-cutting plan that President Barack Obama announced Monday is good news for consumers, the environment, public health and the economy. The measure gives states and the energy sector the certainty they need to move toward cleaner energy sources, and it provides a model as world leaders prepare to gather in Paris in December to craft a larger approach to climate change. As a low-lying coastal state, Florida has every reason to work with the Obama administration on adopting a viable plan rather than waging another politically charged legal battle against the president.
And, on a final note, here's
USA Today's take:
If carbon dioxide emissions were purple and pungent, instead of colorless and odorless, the clean-power standards President Obama announced Monday wouldn’t be necessary. Public outcry over the smelly purple haze would have long ago prompted Congress to put a price on carbon pollution and make alternative energy sources far more competitive. [...] The longer the world waits to act, the greater the risk that the damage will be irreversible. As Obama put it Monday afternoon, "Climate change is no longer just about the future that we're predicting for our children or our grandchildren; it's about the reality that we're living with every day. … There is such a thing as being too late when it comes to climate change."
Opponents of the president’s plan trotted out the usual dire warnings about rising electric bills and economic ruin, particularly in the states most dependent on coal-burning plants. But the history of environmental regulations has been that markets adjust and industry's claims of doom turn out to be overstated. [...]
Those are the visible manifestations of the hidden buildup of greenhouse gases. In other words, what you can’t see can hurt you.