This comment by Stephen Segrest is interesting and relevant (see the two links included in the comment):

>"Many of us “Green Conservatives” (also called Green RINOs by our fellow Republicans) believe the “correct” approach to reduce carbon emissions is through international free trade agreements.

We dislike a carbon tax as any way you slice or dice it, it is a regressive tax. We dislike cap/trade, since after all it will be a financial derivative (and we saw how that worked out in the housing market). We really hate Government command/control “top/down” approaches. The Conservative approach is a bottom/up approach, allowing flexibility and creativity.

While I don’t blog much, I did write 2 articles on this:

http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2013/11/using-international-trade-to-lower.html

http://greenenergy.blogspot.com/2013/11/where-obama-is-wrong-on-coal.html#internationaltradelcs "

The next US President will almost certainly be a Democrat; but the election does offer voters an opportunity to shake the cage a bit and demonstrate just how daft and destructive these measures are going to be.

I note the author leaves the more critical question to the end then dismisses it in a paragraph. He essentially says US reductions will help, but not enough. He evades the more relevant question: Is this effort worth the cost? The glaringly obvious answer is "NO".

This stupid attempt at climate mitigation will fail to alter the world's temperature by anything detectable, but will cost $trillions and slow development and progress both in the USA and worldwide. The best conditions for environmental action remain in strong, rich economies, not in struggling ones.

The author also evades the other question of why Obama couldn't get this through the congress. He couldn't because it is stupid to mortally wound your own economy and even congressional zealots know they won't be voted back in if they trash an already shaky economy. Obama's not up for reelection so he's acting as an absolute monarch issuing decrees he know's won't be supported by the representatives of the people. He is acting against democratic principles.

This may not go as well as hoped. US emissions declined 2008-2012 due to driving less and gas replacing coal generation then increased in 2013. Without knowing the detail of the new EPA rules I suspect there are many ways to get around them. New Jersey for example just opted out of the ETS for the northeastern states. Will the federal US government punish them some years from now? Probably not.

I can imagine a coal state stalling for years by saying they intended to fit CCS carbon capture and storage technology but it didn't work out. Hey we tried so no hard feelings. Another ruse is carbon credits of no relevance or lasting impact on world emissions. I note the California ETS links to the Quebec scheme but not to the EU which they think is too dodgy. My hunch is that no new coal plants will be built in the US but the existing ones will be worked harder as the gas price rises. An economic slowdown will stabilise emissions. That should delay things until 2025 or so.