elections in syria and how that's affecting neighboring country. that's coming up at the 1:00 p.m. edition of al jazerra america. for more updates throughout the day head to our he be website aljazerra.com. inside story with ray suarez is next. >> the environmental protection agency has set new standards for the environment. can they do it? that's the inside story. >> hello, i'm ray suarez. the epa is moving ahead without

congress to put tougher standards for carbon emissions. basically saying to the 50 states look at your total emissions in 2005. by 2030, 16 years from now, the total emissions have to be a third less. on this edition of inside story we're not going to have an argument about whether it's the right thing to do or a back and forth about global warming whether it's happening or so on. this time on the program we'll look at the mandated reductions and ask how do you do it, whether you can do it. already new extraction techniques and new supplies of natural gas are helping, but at the same time energy hunger is huge, add to the fridge, the dishwasher, the air conditioner, the washer dryer, the new world of phones, laptops, cable boxes and even automobiles connected

to household current. how do we one industry and energy-hungry households and do it without burning as much without making electricity ruinously expensive. >> for the sake of our family's health and our kids' future we have a moral responsibility to act on climate. >> while attempt to go show leadership in the global fight in climate change. >> we'll turn risks of climate into business opportunity. we'll spur invasion and investment and build a worl world-leading clean energy economy. the risks are clear and high cost of climate in action keep piling up. >> in an historic move and under executive order the white house with the environmental protection agency released guidelines that

aimed to slash carbon solution by 30% of 2005 levels. about 40% come from these power plants which is the single largest source of co2 pollution. nearly of the 600 coal-fired power plants are aging. 14 years ago coal power provided more than half of the country's electricity. today it provides just a third of the country's power. >> we know that coal and natural gas they play a significant role today in a diverse energy mix. that this plan does not change that. it recognizes that there are opportunities to modernize aging plans, to increase efficiency and oh lowe

paves the power forward to constrain carbon fuels in the carbon-constrained future. >> under the act the government sets limits in the emission of arsenic, mercury, sulfur dioxide. this law does not apply to carbon dioxide. but the epa hopes it won't have to tell states what to do. >> there is no one size fits all solution. states can pick from a portfolio of options to meet regional, state, and community needs. it's up to states to mix and match to get their goals. >> each state will have to determine on its own how to reduce emissions. the epa will provide states with a variety of options and suggests like wind, solar and others.

cap and trade, could also be used to reach lower levels by phasing in tougher standards over time. >> so the idea of setting higher standards to cut pollution is not new. it's time for washington to catch up with the rest of the country . special interests and their allies in congress will claim that these guidelines will kill jobs and crush the economy. let's face it. that's what they always say. >> reporter: this white house action will undoubtedly face challenges in courts and congress. republicans and democrats from coal-producing states have already voiced their concern over strengthening the epa's mandates. >> the administration has set out to kill coal and it's 800,000 jobs. if it succeeds in death by regulation, we'll all be paying a lot more money for electricity if we can get it. our pocketbook will be lighter, but our

. >> affordable and reliable, sure we can. we can and we will. critics claim that your energy bills will skyrocket. well, they're wrong. shall i say that again? they're wrong. >> the epa estimates that utilities will have to spend under $9 billion a year to comply with the new rules. the administration plans to finalize the new guidelines next year and the rules wouldn't go into effect until 2015. meanwhile the summit of world leaders to discuss climb change. the question is whether the u.s. action on emissions can act as a catalyst for world action. even if the united states in western countries make progress it won't be enough unless the ever growing industrial powers like china and india take action, too.

>> the how of hitting the new emissions targets introduced by the epa, they're already being called coal killer and job killer by opponents with supporters lining up to talk about all the new jobs and new business activity created by a new energy economy. joining us for that conversation from washington, vickie arroyo, executive director of the georgetown climate center from georgetown school of law. from francisco, managing director of the analysis group, and also mark mrano, public rights of the website energy depot.com. you heard the administrator extolling the do ability of this grand goal. she called it ambitious but achievable. is it both? >> yes, i have been calling it ambitious, but reasonable today. it really allows so much flexibility for states to figure out where to go.

i think of this as a gps system, epa said where are you going, but you can choose your root. it is not anti-coal. it is not anti-fossil fuel. it is anti-carbon emissions, and it really allows a reasonable time frame for the country doing more of what it's been doing for the past few years. it's really doable. >> mark, same question, ambitious and achievable. >> i would say it's ambitious and probably a sad day for american history. here we have a president who--a long history. we signed u.n. treaties but failed to ratify them. we signed the cap and trade in 2005, 2008, the american people could not be more clear that they don't want this, and congress never wanted this. and it wasn't politically popular. the republicans and democrats who supported the original cap and trade climate bill regulations, if you will, in 2009, many of them were voted out.

many republicans, particularly. the idea that the president is turning to this executive order, in a way it's strategically brilliant because he by passes congress, but first, should we be demonizing co2 to the level that they have done. it's horrible what they've done. they're linking it to storms in the report. the president is implying that these alleged--the goals of reductions are going to alter future storms, hurricanes, floods and draws droughts. they're bastardizing science. this is a sad day. >> in fact, do we have a dictation? the path is open. >> sure. >> we've been told what the finish line is, and everybody has been told how you get there is your business. how is that the government dictating. >> the finish line.

you can go to any hotel in the world but you got to at a thick hotel. you can take th the back road or highway, but what if we don't want to go to that hotel. the economic growth, jobs, the growth of focusing on gas in the atmosphere as the big boogeyman and then altering policy and making the gps system the one destination. that should not be our destination. it should be economic growth, jobs, and an energy abundance where the saudi arabia of coal. we're the saudi arain of fracking, if you will. this is good news for putin, this is good for china. we're shooting ourselves in the foot with "hocus pocus" science. it won't even effect co 2, levels in the end considering how fast there is advancement. >> how were these levels arrived

at? i can't believe that it was just picked out of the hat. >> sure, and just to be clear on a couple of fronts. one, this is not done by executive order. it's a cleaner act, a statute we've had in place for 40 years. it's achieved significant air pollution reductions while we've improved the economy. while mark thinks it's a good day for our foes in other parts of the world, i think it's a great day for the state. and we work with the u.s. states of all stripes, red states and blue states, and the majority of those states, 35 states have had energy efficiency renewable goals set, and many of their targets are more ambitious than the numbers pointed out today. epa translated that into different numbers based on where states are starting from, what their energy mixes are, what their policies are, and they've give them 15 years to get there

and they can collaborate with other states if they like. >> they're doing that in the northeast and haven't they achieved big reductions? >> they've had a cap and trade in place initiated by republican governors, pataki and romney at the time. nine states have been trading carbon emissions and reinvesting in that region and an analysis that showed that it has brought $1.6 billion of net benefits to the region and jobs because they're plowing some of those proceeds into weatherization programs, installing alternative energy. diversification of our energy system is really important. >> sue teirny. we have heard some supporters of the new standards, try to reassure people who have an interest in coal remaining part of the energy mix, is that a political reassurance or is that an arrangement that we can reach those

2030 targets and still have coal as part of the energy mix. >> i think we have a chance to have a well diverse system going forward. mark would have us think that this proposed rule would rely on that we've never seen before and fuels that are not available in the united states. neither of those is true. there is coal here. coal does have higher emissions for power generation than natural gas, and certainly compared to existing nuclear, wind and solar. there will still be a role for coal. any state that feels it has a coal plant it wants to protect, that state can figure out a way to protect that plant, make a proposal of what it will do for the rest of the system so on average they can make progress on the target. this is not an anti-coal program. right now one-third of our

generating capacity is coal-fired capacity, and going forward we're likely to see still a very large and substantial role for coal in the future. >> mark, we'll talk more-- >> but it does have to be cleaned up. >> we'll talk more about coal after the break. we'll take a short break. when we come back we'll talk about what i is tantalizingly around the corner and down the road for what is in store for fossil fuels. fossil fuels.

you. >> welcome book inside story. i'm ray suarez. coil-fired power plants are the single largest source of power for the united states. exempting existing plants from the more strenuous standards with this latest proposal the epa is including existing plants giving them new targets by 2030 would be impossible without including them. mark morano, when we talk about coal, in west indies, a major coal producer and user for its own energy mix saying the hidden reason for this is to kill coal. while we heard the epa administrator talk about an all of the above

strategy that includes coal. >> this is an epa regulation. these regulations are announced as one thing and they'll continually evolve, change and likely expand as you go through court cases, go through future administrations. if this is allowed to be implemented, and the next president goes through with it, whatever we're talking about today won't be relevant. they're going to change all these goals, these standards. the argument here that $50 billion and a quarter million jobs lost because of these standards. it's hard to have an accurate number because we don't know the future. plus each state may have energy mixes. every state is going to be u uneven. ultimately this is a time planned by the united states government at a time when spain is walking away.

at a time when germany is pore dependent on power, and australia weakened away from these reductions. so the united states is committing itself to something that the rest of the world is probably scratching their head at this point. again, it's not going to achieve anything for the climate. it won't achieve global co 2, reduction. it's pure symbol iism. this is not an insurance boil against policy of lower levels. >> put it that way, if you lose a job from one cause you never will get another one from another. is he assuming that technology is static, unless we use the machines we already have today we won't invent new ones that burn coal more cleanly or scrubbers to put on stacks over things that use come bucs in a

more virtue way i mean, is he thinking about a static universituniverse here. >> it's not one that i recognize. if you look at the history of air pollution regulation it's spurred innovation. the real surprise years down the road is how these opportunities are met. you save lives and money and it's a win-win that is one important sector that they tackle. really it's ban better thing to be more efficient and more competitive part of the world. >> at a time when the clean air act has been promulgated, have

we not seen predictions of what the effect is going to be? have we managed? briefly did we manage? >> we did, but correlation is not causation. just because you passed regulations and we had radical improvement in water quality we had radical water technological improvement which happened. the coal plants are radically changed. not everything can be regulated. the anti-thesis of innovation is to have a government unelected bureaucracy like the epa dictating energy policy and a president on record who said he wanted electricity prices not to necessarily skyrocket. and saying one of the hazards of a free society is having energy too cheap and in auburn dance.

he talked about it with contempt. this is an administration that is driven by ideology. it's not science. why would we make these sciences? why would we turn over our innovation, creativity, business and technology to the dictates and women's of the environmental protection agency who can do pretty much whatever the hell it wants to as we go forward here. >> when we come back we have to talk more about what happens inside marketplaces for anything when you change the regulatory environment that they live in. stay with us. >> al jazeera america's presents the system with joe burlinger observing a crime >> a shocking number of these eyewitnesses get it wrong >> how much would you remember? >> dark complected... medium height... you described most of the majority of the men in america >> sometimes witnesses get it right >> when you have an eyewitness to say i saw him do it, that is the best evidence. >> and sometimes sometimes they don't >> no one is listening to us... george is innocent... >> the system

with joe burlinger only on al jazeera america

fault lines the school to prison pipeline only on al jazeera america >> welcome back to inside story. i'm ray suarez. we're talking about the new emissions standards issued by the environmental protection

agency in some of the swift andage stated reaction is some of the swift and agitated reaction a symptom of the can't-do spirit in the 21st century america. are w 2030 is a long way off. if electricity were more expensive 16 years from now would we also use it differently? better, more efficiently, get more bang from the same burn? sue, you heard mark give a brief on whether this made any sense. otherwise. >> i don't know how to respond to mark because it provides a dismal outlook for the united states. the history of the united states has been that we have innovated time and time again in response

to having goals set by government. especially in this area one of the amazing parts of the clean air act is that it allows for tremendous innovation as a way to get--to address these issues. and we've seen from the history of the last 20, 30 years what happened to the cost of power generation technologies, and fuel production technology. when people have set the target for how to get there then you unleash the entrepreneurs of the united states. that's what happened with shell gas production. wind generation technology, turbine technology, solar energy, all around both conventional and unconventional technology are more than what we

first thought when we set our eyes on it . >> when we look down the road and figure out what this is going to cost the country, do we as accurately measure what a day of asthma or a businessing day from work costs compared to and a more expensive ton of coal or kilowatt hour of electricity. are we very precise on those targets and fuzzy on the other things. >> sure, that's right. the industry estimates are always overblown in retrospect with years down the road. and it is hard to put a dollar value on a human life, an asthma case. an emergency room visit with your child who you think might not make it. but the truth of if is it's a matter of dollars and cents.

states are taking these action, and to invest in renewables and invest in efficiency unless it's promoting jobs in their region and state and gaining efficiency that is are saving their customers money. even though there might be a small rate increase from the cap and trade program they've plowed those proceeds in weatherizing people's homes and helping them in their efficiencies to where their bill over all decrease: there are net benefits to things like the economy, reliability of energy from diversifying from being more efficient. from investing in wind and solar which are very cost in part because policies. >> even absent this latest set of epa regs, see where there have been tremendous reductions maybe they don't need to be gived in the behind in quite this way. will they do it any way?

>> who could have foreseen the fracking revolution that brought our emissions down to mid 1990's levels and the u.s. is doing better than the european in many ways with our reductions through technology. we don't need this. i would argue that the only change in climate that we're going to see from these epa resolutions are political climate where many democrats are running very scared of this. the white house has said it's okay if they don't want to support it or criticize it. they're sensitive to the politics of this, but it could be devastating for them because the american republic is not going to like the bureaucracy taking over energy roles. >> you said that the next president will follow through on this policy. >> i said it depends on what the next president does. i don't know what the next president will depend.

>> are we looking at tons of litigation. >> there will be tons of litigation. you hear mark saying they were doing this any way. well, we were already halfway there as a nation. >> but this will evolve. next year, five years from now. once you give them this expanded bureaucratic power there is no limit where they will go, whatever whims and dictates. >> that's a different conversation, but we will have that one, mark. thanks for being here. sue and vickie, good talking to you all. this brings us to the end of this edition of inside story. >> start with one issue ad guests on all sides of the debate. and a host willing to ask the tough questions

and you'll get... the inside story ray suarez hosts inside story weekdays at 5pm et / 2pm pt only on al jazeera america >> nato approves a plan to strengthen its military presence in eastern europe as tensions simmer over ukraine. u.s. president's been drumming up support for his plan during a visit to poland, warning russia to respect yuen's sovereignty or expect the consequences. i'm david foster. you're hearing the news from london. bashar al-assad's side is sure to