John M.Taylor - Supporting EPA Clean Power Plan 7/30/2014 

1'rri John Taylor (jtaylor162@aol.com ), and I'm experienced as a pharmaceutical executive in the US and 

Japan, a trade policy advisor and as an economic policy advisor in New lersey and as a corporate 

governance consultant in the United States and in lapan. My wife Takako is a licensed physician in 

Japan where she practiced gastroenterology for several years, and has worked for many years as an 

immunology researcher and freelance interpreter here in the Washington DC area, as well. 

I helped brief Ronald Reagan's second US Trade Representative Clayton Yeutter as he began his tenure 

by setting the biotechnology background as it affected international trade pvlicy concerns at that time, 

proposed the negotiating agenda on biological products, and advised Governor Tom Kean (also a 

Republican) during his final years as New Jersey governor, until his last term ended in 1990. 

OK, here's someone with what might once have been considered conservative instincts. That's why I 

am appalled at my country's role in global warming and too many other environmental crises we face, 

nationally and globally — to use conservative vernacular, becoming the ultimate "taker" state, we seem 

unable to bear our own weight, let alone help lead developed nations and those at different stages of 

development. "Frustrating" is an understatement. 

In a more perfect world, minimalist government intervention, in the form of a substantial, phased-in 

carbon tax (ideally applying the same principle to issues such as water in the western states), would 

move us from the tail end to the forefront of humanity's essential and inevitable move to save itself, at 

bare minimum cost to our economy. Winners would vastly outnumber losers from such an approach, 

but by producing revenue it would offer the resources to soften the burdens on any perceived victims, 

or to reduce other tax burdens. 

But above all, it would harness market forces instead of working against them to substantially drive 

down our carbon output, and all that means for our planet's future. Such a tax system may be a long 

shot in the politics of the moment, but future generations will judge our era on whether we were able to 

summon the courage to sew this stitch in time soon enough. Some say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the 

only one! 

If, sadly, for the very near term, sensible pricing of carbon is dead in the water (as a carbon tax or even 

in the form of a carbon credit scheme), the most conscientious conservatives are foursquare behind the 

EPA's proposal, joining hands with everyone else sharing a stake in public health, and in saving ourselves 

and future generations from catastrophic weather and sea level changes. How can we not?? The next 

best solution is to direct!y regulate carbon emissions, and it is right in the EPA's toolbox. 

Under these circumstances there is no ethical alternative to strongly supporting the EPA's plan at least 

to limit carbon pollution from power plants. These sources account for some 40 percent of the carbon 

pollution emitted in this country. 

The case would be overwhelming solely on the basis of our ethical obligation to lead rather than follow 

in the noblest obligation of our time, to rein in carbon dioxide emissions and mitigate unacceptable 
global climate effects — to help the world steer as clear as possible of tipping points as we flirt with 

catastrophes like sea level rise, desertification, and irreversible loss of biological diversity. 

But today's choice is rendered even easier if we consider the bigger picture of power plant carbon 

emissions. When fossil fuels are burned, the emissions include not only carbon dioxide, but, as EPA's 

own data attest, a range of other pollutants that burden downstream neighbors as so many have 

testified yesterday and today. They include larger hydrocarbons, and even particulates that undermine 

air quality on fronts America has been fighting for since before we had an EPA. We know they are linked 

to asthma, costly emergency room visits, other medical costs and premature death. 

And, as I mentioned, I'm a dreamer. With a policy like this in place, lobbyists serving the most efficient 

players in the energy sector — those who produce the highest value even after fully incorporating the 

true costs of carbon pollution — will learn to love economy-wide carbon taxation. In my crystal ball, I see 

them just around the corner, spearheading political consensus for the one policy— sensible carbon 

pricing — that will one day make measures like the Clean Power Plan that are absolutely necessary in the 

absence of sensible carbon taxation, unnecessary and redundant one day. But until Capitol Hill and the 

White House act on taxation, it is clearly the job of the EPA to get carbon pollution under control as 

effectively and efficiently as possible, by any means necessary.