EPA's action Jackson on the "resolution of disapproval"

EPA Press Office

press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2010

Administrator Jackson: Keep Moving America Forward Into Energy Independence

Addresses upcoming “resolution of disapproval” vote in remarks before small business owners

WASHINGTON – In remarks today at EPA’s 2010 Small Business Environmental Conference, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson outlined the impact of a so-called “resolution of disapproval” of the EPA’s endangerment finding in the Senate. Administrator Jackson discussed how this resolution would undermine EPA’s common-sense approach to addressing climate change, move America a “big step backward in the race for clean energy” and “double down on the energy and environmental policies that feed our oil addiction.”

Administrator Jackson noted that increasing our oil addiction “…at the very moment a massive spill – the largest environmental disaster in American history – is devastating families and businesses and destroying wetlands is contrary to our national interests.” Administrator Jackson also reminded these small businesses that EPA has finalized a rule specifically designed to protect them from regulation – focusing EPA’s efforts on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, like power plants and oil refineries.

The administrator’s full remarks are below. Video of these remarks are available at http://www.epa.gov/administrator

Remarks of U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

2010 Small Business Environmental Conference

June 8, 2010

(As prepared for delivery.)

I’m happy to have the chance to welcome you today. I want to use my time here to speak about a question before Congress this week – a question that involves small businesses and our clean energy economy. But let me begin by saying that in the last 18 months this administration has been working to strengthen the prospects for American small businesses.

We are facing the worst economic challenges of any generation since World War II. The recovery we envision is a recovery focused on Main Street – a recovery that provides economic security through good wages, affordable health care, and a strong, stable horizon for investing in new businesses, new ideas and new workers. We know that at the core of that recovery are American small businesses. That’s why these first months have been full of bold steps to help you prosper.

The needs of small business have also factored into the response in the Gulf. The worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history is also an economic catastrophe for the small business there – the fishers and shrimpers and restaurant owners who live off the resources of the water. There are billions of dollars and thousands of jobs at stake in travel, tourism, food and other industries. Because those industries make up the foundation of these economies, those effects can be expected to ripple outwards. President Obama has made clear to BP that the protection and compensation of small businesses is a priority. In a meeting I attended with the President last Friday, he said in no uncertain terms that the needs of the people and the businesses in that area come before the needs of BP shareholders.

When it comes to the environmental issues you are here to discuss, small businesses play a critical role as the drivers of innovation. Today we’re honoring innovative small businesses that are leading the way – like the Dull Homestead, a family farm in Brookville, Ohio. The first wind generator went up on the Homestead in 2004. Today there are six wind turbines, a fuel cell generator, geothermal and biomass heating, and other renewable energy technologies. That work earned the Dull Homestead the small business environmental stewardship award.

We also see innovative products like Greensulate from Ecovative Design in New York. Greensulate is a natural form of insulation made from locally-grown materials. They use rice hulls from the Midwest, or cotton burrs from the South – keeping costs and transportation emissions down. Unlike most insulation that gives off significant CO2 emissions during production, Greensulate is organically grown, not manufactured. And the idea began as a spark in the mind of an entrepreneur, an idea that moved from the drawing board to the market place with the help of a Small Business Innovation Research grant.

These are the kinds of innovations that have allowed us to grow our economy and protect our environment. In the last 30 years, emissions of six dangerous air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, lead poisoning and more decreased 54 percent. At the same time, gross domestic product grew by 126 percent. That means we made huge reductions in air pollution at the same time that more cars went on the road, more power plants went on line and more buildings went up. That kind of progress only happens when innovations are encouraged to take shape and take hold – and our nation’s best innovators come from our small businesses.

So – at a time of extraordinary challenges, this administration and this EPA are working to ensure that the foundations you need to thrive are strong and protected. As the drivers of economic growth and technological innovation, we also want to ensure that you have the resources and the flexibility you need to invest in new directions. That is what “Expanding Partnerships to Meet the Changing Regulatory Landscape is All About.” Which brings me to the question before Congress this week.

In two days, the Senate is scheduled take a vote that will have a significant impact on our regulatory future. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has proposed a resolution of disapproval of EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. As you know, EPA followed both the science and the Supreme Court last year to issue a finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health and welfare. That was a historic decision. And it obligated our agency to find ways of reducing greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Supporters of Senator Murkowski’s resolution, including the oil industry and their lobbyists, claim that the endangerment finding will force small businesses – restaurants, coffee shops and mom-and-pop stores – to comply with burdensome, potentially bankrupting regulations. I hope the small business owners in this room will be sure and write to the big oil companies to thank them for looking out for the little guys and taking up this noble cause. However, I have to say I agree with their concerns. I know that the local Starbucks and the backyard grill are no places to look for meaningful CO2 reductions. That is why – before we issued the endangerment finding – EPA went to work on a rule that protects small businesses. Under what we call the tailoring rule, small sources would be exempted from regulations for the next six years. That should be more than enough time for Congress to pass a law with permanent exemptions.

Senator Murkowski’s resolution would undermine that common sense approach. It would take away EPA’s ability to take action on climate change. And it would ignore and override scientific findings, allowing big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. Finally, it will result in exactly zero protections for small businesses.

What is will do is move America a big step backward in the race for clean energy. It will double down on the energy and environmental policies that feed our oil addiction. That addiction to oil pollutes the air we breathe. It sends billions of our dollars to foreign countries. And it leaves American small businesses and American drivers at the mercy of fuel price spikes, like the $4 a gallon prices we were paying not so long ago. The BP oil spill is a tragic reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction. It highlights just how important it is that we keep moving America forward, into energy independence.

For those reasons and more, we’ve taken significant steps forward. In addition to the tailoring rule, EPA joined President Obama, automakers, the Department of Transportation, governors from across the country and environmental advocates to craft an historic agreement. The clean cars program that we built will make American cars more fuel efficient than ever and cut oil consumption by billions of barrels. It will also mean new innovations.

American scientists can step up to produce new composite materials that make cars lighter, safer and more fuel efficient. Our inventors and entrepreneurs can take the lead in advanced battery technology for plug-in hybrids and electric cars. And manufacturers across the country can produce these new components – which they can then sell to automakers in the US and around the globe.

The Murkowski resolution would gut EPA’s authority in the clean cars program. Our dependence on oil would grow by 455 million barrels. That dependence rises to billions of barrels when you factor in the effect on a follow-on program that expands fuel efficiency to heavy-duty vehicles and extends beyond the 2016 model year. Undermining a program supported by our automakers and autoworkers, environmentalists and governors from across the country seems questionable at any time. But going back to a failed approach and deepening our oil addiction at the very moment a massive spill – the largest environmental disaster in American history – is devastating families and businesses and destroying wetlands is contrary to our national interests.

This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change, despite the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that EPA must use the Clean Air Act to reduce the proven threat of greenhouse gases, and despite the fact that leaving this problem for our children to solve is an act of breathtaking negligence.

Supposedly these efforts have been put forward to protect jobs. In reality, they will have serious negative economic effects. The clean cars program could be put on indefinite hold, leaving American automakers once again facing a patchwork of state standards. Without a clear picture of greenhouse gas regulations, there will be little incentive to invest in clean energy jobs. America will fall further behind our international competitors in the race for clean energy innovation. Finally, the economic costs of unchecked climate change will be orders of magnitude higher for the next generation than it would be for us to take action today.

I can’t in good conscience support any measure that passes that burden on to my two sons, and to their children. I find it hard to believe that any parent could say to their child, “We’re going to wait to act.” It ignores the responsibility we have to move the country forward in a way that creates jobs, increases our security by breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the air and water we rely on.

At no point in our history has any problem been solved by waiting another year to act or burying our heads in the sand. Our oil addiction is not going to go away unless we act. Now is not the time to go back. Rather than increasing our addiction, we need to keep moving America forward into a clean energy future. As we move forward, we’ll need the help of our small business community – our nation’s innovators and job creators. Your cooperation and coordination are vital to meeting both our economic and our environmental goals. I look forward to working with you. Thank you.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Enneagram
June 8, 2010 1:07 pm

I can not opine but I do express my sincere condolences.

June 8, 2010 1:08 pm

Bull!

tallbloke
June 8, 2010 1:09 pm

So what has the economics of energy production got to do with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency anyway?

MattN
June 8, 2010 1:10 pm

I got to the words “oil addiction” and had to excuse myself to the bathroom to throwup. What a load of horse$#!t. Stop acting like we just figured out this crude oil stuff was good for making things run.
Nothing but sound and fury….

latitude
June 8, 2010 1:10 pm

No wonder people are sitting on their hands waiting to see what happens in November.

Doug Janeway
June 8, 2010 1:12 pm

She sounds really nervous about the outcome of the vote. Was oxygen on that list?

Jay Cech
June 8, 2010 1:16 pm

Once again, the administration mixes up the rhetoric between real pollutants (smog generating pollutants and lead) , energy security (importing oil) and climate change.
Don’t let them conflate the two issues!
Disconnect the two, and most people would go along with reducing toxic emissions (CO2 is not toxic to life at the concentrations we are dealing with-and good for plants) and detaching from foreign oil imports.
So, regulate lead, mercury from coal burning, and nitrous oxides etc, and put a big tax on IMPORTED oil.
But there is no crisis that would justify cap and trade carbon trading as a big giveaway to the Goldman Sachs crowd.

Coalsoffire
June 8, 2010 1:18 pm

I don’t recognize this line of thinking as being anything like a free and democratic country. How can a non-elected body formulate and enforce such a highly legislative agenda? To say it’s scary is not even close. It’s stooopid scaaary. She barely even mentions the environment. Does she really have a mandate to ensure energy self sufficiency? That seems to be her biggest focus. How is that environmental protection? Of course I don’t live in the US. But I was under the misunderstanding that you had a democracy of some sort going on there.

Dave Wendt
June 8, 2010 1:20 pm

Good Lord, this BS is getting to be incredibly depressing.

Curiousgeorge
June 8, 2010 1:20 pm

Well, of course. You didn’t think for a second she would support the Murkowski “gut the EPA” bill did you? I mean, we’re talking about her political and financial future here!

Hoskald
June 8, 2010 1:25 pm

Coalsoffire,
…so did I….
America, designed by Geniuses, run by Idiots….

Henry chance
June 8, 2010 1:28 pm

11 died on the drilling platform. How sad. 40,000 will die in car accidents due to the tiny car regulations.
Fake green is around us.

Jay Cech
June 8, 2010 1:31 pm

I just contacted Sen. Durbin’s office by phone. He will vote against the resolution.
The staffer had no clue, saying if CO2 were to high, it would be bad for our health.
He had no counter to the lack of political accountability of the EPA vs Congress’s action and the false connection to the BP oil mess.

Gary from Chicagoland
June 8, 2010 1:32 pm

Historically, US did not outlaw the horse for the car to take over our transportation needs. Why do we need to place a heavy tax on combustion products like CO2 today? My understanding is that this would increase the cost of every day products and inflate our electrical bill without an increase in salary. Not a good deal, vote down any tax on CO2. Yes, getting US energy independent is wonderful goal but it is a separate issue. Allowing the electric engine to continue to improve the efficiency and decrease the cost should be the driving force behind replacing gasoline as our transportation fuel within the free world marketplace. Remember electric cars still need electrical power plants to supply their horsepower.

Henry chance
June 8, 2010 1:33 pm

Jackson is very dishonest. When folks have addictions, their brain releases chemicals and endorphins. Oil creates nothing more than ambivalence. It is a strawman fetish that triggers her false claims.
Humans eat food. Hopefully daily. For the most part we don;’t accuse them of being addicts. Much of our petrol consumption is used to raise food for the world. Our use of petrol for food production is actually getting more efficient. More tons of food for less tons of petrol. We are wasting millions of tons of petrol under the notion that ethanol is cleaner CO2 from the exhaust than the Co and CO2 from a gasolene exhaust.

June 8, 2010 1:34 pm

This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change, …
I throw the BS flag. There is no science on the dangers of climate change. There is speculation and modeling (which can be the samething) but no science.

Dusty
June 8, 2010 1:36 pm

“Administrator Jackson also reminded these small businesses that EPA has finalized a rule specifically designed to protect them from regulation – focusing EPA’s efforts on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, like power plants and oil refineries.”
IOW, we’re lining you up for the guillotine, tallest to shortest.

Tom T
June 8, 2010 1:38 pm

Re: Coaloffire June 8th 1:18 pm
That is exactly right it is as if the FAA declared that trains can fly and then made rules to regulate trains.

Bruce
June 8, 2010 1:38 pm

Dear Jay (C[z]ech?),
Nice thought (tax on oil imports). Alas, with the way the oil market is set-up (internationalized, with ALL transactions originating in USD), this would be hard to implement (this is why it is almost impossible to single-out the prevention of imports from specific countries).
Of course, the conflation by Jackson of the EPA is so obvious on this, a Middle Schooler would see through it with ease. This is not going to help the admin. in November, as people do not like being treated like fools.
Bruce

June 8, 2010 1:39 pm

I note that this press release is full of distortions and hides the economic burden of socialist mandates dictating design “changes” that only increase costs and decrease efficiency. (For example, the EPA mandates on regional differences in summer time fuel blends increase both the price of gasoline everywhere, but also the amount of energy needed to refine it.)
Likewise, strong-arming (forcing) democratic governors (who receive government money! and union money! and union votes ! to support the unions in Detroit who received government money to bail out the their union pension funds and auto manufactures to support the government position that the government should change car designs by arbitrary reductions in gas mileage is NOT a “scientific” argument.
It is a political statement that makes political patrons of unions, of less safe cars, of less powerful cars happy.
It can accurately be argued that Pelosi’s restrictins on offshore drilling and ANWAR drilling restriction in early 2007 led DIRECTLY to the higher fuel prices in 2007 through late summer 2008. Higher fuel prices broke the car and manufacturing and distribution and housing industries and air and travel industries. Those losses – wih the arbitrary and fake market for alternative (more expensive!) “fuels” such as bio-fuels to “solve” the CO2 problems then collapsed the housing and mortgage and financial industries that led to our current worldwide recession/depression. IF the gas prices had not risen as democrat energy policies were implemented through Pelosi (House) and Reid (Senate) control – and not effectively opposed by Bush – then the financial crash in September would not have happened.
Then again, without that September crash, and the energy-induced recession, Obama and the democrats would not be in power now. (Would says a little job loss is not a good thing, or a “we should not let a good crisis go to waste”?)

Dan in California
June 8, 2010 1:39 pm

I fail to see how levying taxes and fines on the coal-burning electric power industry is going to help small business. Higher rates for electricity are beneficial … how?

geoff pohanka
June 8, 2010 1:39 pm

Her comments are typical, and they are mostly entirely wrong. I am in the auto industry, and the fuel economy standards (CAFE) are already set by NHTSA for 2016, and the Murkowski resolution will do nothing to change them. Today, there are three fuel economy standards, California, EPA, and NHTSA. There should only be one, NHTSA. But EPA wants to control fuel mileage standards by control of CO2. The Murkowski resolution must pass, to put the EPA in control of our economy, our transportation, and our lives, would be a serious and tragic mistake.
The Murkowski resolution simply keeps the control in Congress, and prevents the EPA from rewriting the Clean Air Act.

Eric Gisin
June 8, 2010 1:41 pm

Anyone who talks about “our oil addiction” does not belong in government, put them in the loony bin with the other radical greens.

Adolf Balik
June 8, 2010 1:45 pm

There is Garrett’s phenomenon, which tells us that planet Earth GDP is directly proportional to energy consumption: 9.7 mW x year per US $1 inflation-adjusted to prices 1990. Thus, it is law-governed the carbon sequestration chokes grow of the world and aggravates the crisis. As exactly measured in Spain, 1 artificially created “green” job means destruction of at least 2.3 jobs in really productive economics. EPA brutally kills grow, jobs and welfare.

Dan in California
June 8, 2010 1:49 pm

Administrator Jackson clearly believes there is a connection between burning carbonaceous fuels and climate change. She just as clearly does NOT see a connection between her agency paying scientists, and those same scientists telling her what she wants to hear.
Why is it that people in the pay of Big Business are automatically evil and not to be trusted, but scientists and bureaucrats in the pay of Big Government are honest and without doubts? Conflict of interest ethics should prohibit EPA from funding climate science. “We need to regulate more things, so let’s fund some studies showing all the additional things that need to be regulated.”

1 2 3 6