Contrary to the Daily Mail's July 1 editorial, "The administration is not just killing coal: Why do Senate Democrats back such dishonest regulatory practices?" the administration isn't trying to kill coal.
It is trying to reduce the carbon pollution that is threatening our health, our planet and the future for our children.
The Natural Resources Defense Council in December laid out a cost-effective road map to this safer future that would cut carbon emissions by 26 percent in 2020, yielding benefits of $25 billion to $60 billion at a price of $4 billion in 2020, or roughly 1 percent of electric industry revenues.
Our proposal includes a strong emphasis on cutting waste and improving efficiency, saving money for many consumers. We used the same economic model industry uses, and explained our calculations.
Nothing 'deceptive' or 'dishonest' about it. Contrary to your implication, we didn't rely solely on government estimates of the social costs of carbon, and we made our calculations before that figure was raised.
Otherwise, our projected benefits would be higher.
We also included health benefits from reductions in sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which are linked to asthma in children, respiratory illness in seniors, and other diseases.
Carbon pollution's costs are real: last year's droughts, floods, storms, and wildfires, worsened by climate change, inflicted $140 billion in damage across the United States - including derecho-devastated West Virginia.
Denying climate change and its impacts is what people should be angry about.
Lashof is director of the council's Climate and Clean Air program.