The question is, are we a country of laws made by our representatives, or a country of laws made by bureaucrats? The constitution provides only one answer, and Ms. Jackson would do well to read it.
Latest News release from the EPA:
CONTACT:
EPA Press Office
February 9, 2011
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Opening Statement Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power
As prepared for delivery – Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about Chairman Upton’s draft bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act, the landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful air pollution.
The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken, or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public. I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.
Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept American kids healthy and in school.
EPA’s implementation of the Act also has contributed to dynamic growth in the U.S. environmental technologies industry and its workforce. In 2008, that industry generated nearly 300 billion dollars in revenues and 44 billion dollars in exports.
Yesterday, the University of Massachusetts and Ceres released an analysis finding that two of the updated Clean Air Act standards EPA is preparing to establish for mercury, soot, smog, and other harmful air pollutants from power plants will create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court concluded in 2007 that the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutant includes greenhouse gas emissions. The Court rejected the EPA Administrator’s refusal to determine whether that pollution endangers Americans’ health and welfare.
Based on the best peer-reviewed science, EPA found in 2009 that manmade greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people.
EPA is not alone in reaching that conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the climate is changing and that the changes are caused in large part by human activities. Eighteen of America’s leading scientific societies have written that multiple lines of evidence show humans are changing the climate, that contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science, and that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and the environment.
Chairman Upton’s bill would, in its own words, repeal that scientific finding. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question– that would become part of this Committee’s legacy.
Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to decrease the oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of Model Year 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.
Chairman Upton’s bill would block President Obama’s plan to follow up with Clean Air Act standards for cars and light trucks of Model Years 2017 through 2025. Removing the Clean Air Act from the equation would forfeit pollution reductions and oil savings on a massive scale, increasing America’s debilitating oil dependence.
EPA and many of its state partners have now begun implementing safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution from the largest facilities when they are built or expanded. A collection of eleven electric power companies called EPA’s action a reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of new power plants and large industrial facilities.
And EPA has announced a schedule to establish uniform Clean Air Act performance standards for limiting carbon pollution at America’s power plants and oil refineries. Those standards will be developed with extensive stakeholder input, including from industry. They will reflect careful consideration of costs and will incorporate compliance flexibility.
Chairman Upton’s bill would block that reasonable approach. The Small Business Majority and the Main Street Alliance have pointed out that such blocking action would have negative implications for many businesses, large and small, that have enacted new practices to reduce their carbon footprint as part of their business models. They also write that it would hamper the growth of the clean energy sector of the U.S. economy, a sector that a majority of small business owners view as essential to their ability to compete.
Chairman Upton’s bill would have additional negative impacts that its drafters might not have intended. For example, it would prohibit EPA from taking further actions to implement the Renewable Fuels Program, which promotes the domestic production of advanced bio-fuels.
I hope this information has been helpful to the Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
____________________________
EPA Seal You can view or update your subscriptions or e-mail address at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . All you will need is your e-mail address. If you have any questions or problems e-mail support@govdelivery.com for assistance.
This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
h/t to WUWT reader Michael C. Roberts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The letter states: “Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept American kids healthy and in school.” I would like to see a list of names that goes along with these numbers otherwise it’s just useless conjecture once again being passed off as fact.
Notice she did not mention the IPCC, though the Endangerment Finding relied upon it literally hundreds of times.
I hope they hold hearings on the science, or lack of, on AGW. Done correctly, this could expose a lot of fraud and show that the science is NOT settled.
Well what can you say to such well intentioned but misguided people…
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/ontario-energy-policy.html
I recommend the following article at the bottom of the page.
“I also did a review of the Ontario Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Power Workers’ Union in 2004.
* McKitrick, Ross R. (2004). “Power Plants, Air Quality and Health: The Case for Re-examining Ontario’s Coal Policy” Prepared for the Power Workers Union, May 2004.
A related paper is my 2004 paper on particulates and affluence, published in the Fraser Forum.”
Ross has written a number of papers and articles and made presentations on how the stats simply don’t support the models. A conclusion I am sure will not surprise most of you…
First question: Administrator Jackson, can you please read into the record the first ten names on the list of 160,000 people who would be dead today if not for the Clean Air Act.
Second question: Administrator Jackson, what percentage of the Earth’s atmosphere consists of man-made CO2 and how much lower does the EPA want that percentage to be?
“The Clean Air Act, which was last amended in 1990, requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act established two types of national air quality standards. Primary standards set limits to protect public health, including the health of “sensitive” populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards set limits to protect public welfare, including protection against decreased visibility, damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings.” (http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html)
The US Supreme Court ruled in April, 2007 that EPA had the authority to regulate the emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended. The Supreme Court decision was based on the potential endangerment which could be caused by climate change driven by CO2 and other GHG emissions, rather than on direct human endangerment resulting from exposure to these gases.
EPA issued an Endangerment Finding regarding greenhouse gases in December, 2009. (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment.html) The language reproduced above states that EPA must now set an NAAQS for CO2 as well as the other listed greenhouse gases. The contemporaneous EPA Cause or Contribute Finding was limited to new motor vehicles, though they are obviously not the only sources of CO2 and other GHG emissions of concern. For example, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO) has determined that “the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport.” (http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html)
EPA has already been petitioned to set the NAAQS for CO2 at 350 ppm. (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/global_warming_litigation/clean_air_act/pdfs/Petition_GHG_pollution_cap_12-2-2009.pdf) Dr. James Hansen of NASA-GISS and others assert that 350 ppm is the maximum safe atmospheric concentration of CO2. This assertion is based on the outputs of climate models, rather than on any rigorous experimental demonstration of endangerment. EPA could elect to set the NAAQS at some other atmospheric concentration.
Fortunately, the NAAQS process includes an “escape hatch” for exceedances resulting from “pollution” from non-state sources, including non-US sources such as China and India. Unfortunately, each US state would have to comply with the NAAQS, with the exception of “pollution” from non-state sources, even in the face of continuing increases in emissions from those non-state sources.
An NAAQS set at 350 ppm would arguably require not only the total elimination of CO2 emissions by each US state, but also the installation of facilities deemed capable of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations by ~40 ppm below current levels during the compliance period. Presumably, the capacity of the US facilities to remove existing CO2 from the atmosphere would be limited to the capacity to remove CO2 from “state sources”.
Historic NAAQS compliance periods have been less than 10 years. A similar compliance period for CO2 would make the “83% by 2050″ touted by the Obama Administration pale in comparison. This would be the case, not only because the required investments would have to be made over an extremely compressed time frame, but also because many potential technologies, which might have become economically viable both for producing energy without CO2 emissions and for removing CO2 from the atmosphere, would likely not be commercially available during the dramatically shortened compliance time frame.
Regardless, absent a dramatic change of course by the developing world, the actual atmospheric concentration of CO2 would continue to increase, though arguably at a somewhat slower rate than would otherwise have occurred. That means that an NAAQS set at 350 ppm could not possibly be achieved in reality without rapid and coordinated action by all of the nations of the globe to both halt current emissions and to install and operate facilities to remove CO2 already in the atmosphere. The discussions at COP 15 in Copenhagen in December, 2009 suggest that such action is highly unlikely, absent some cataclysmic event(s).
The International Energy Agency (IEA) has estimated that the investment required to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at ~450 ppm by 2050 would be ~$45 trillion over and above the business as usual scenario; and, could be more than double that amount if technology advances do not occur as rapidly as they project. (http://www.iea.org/techno/etp/fact_sheet_ETP2008.pdf) The investments required to stabilize atmospheric carbon concentrations at ~350 ppm by 2050 are not estimated, but would certainly be more than $100 trillion, since the emissions reductions required would double and additional investments would be required to remove carbon already in the atmosphere. A dramatically shortened compliance time frame would increase these investments significantly.
I remain convinced that the ultimate intent of the AGW CO2 “mitigation” effort is the total elimination of anthropogenic carbon emissions. Should EPA actually establish an NAAQS for carbon dioxide at a concentration at or below ~400 ppm, that intent would be confirmed; and, the timeframe for compliance would be dramatically shortened compared with the timeframes contemplated in the various House and Senate bills proposed in the US.
The FACT that the atmospheric concentration would not actually be stabilized at that level, since accomplishing that is clearly beyond the capability of the US, would have no bearing on EPA’s enforcement of the NAAQS. The only advantage of an NAAQS which is clearly unachievable in reality would be its susceptibility to being overturned by the courts, which still appear to retain the ability, if not the willingness, to separate fantasy from reality.
I feel that the whole release can be summed up with: “I hope this information has been helpful to the Committee, and I look forward to your questions.” Information not at all helpful and she looks forward to answering questions like looking forward to a root canal sans novacane.
If these people are serious about cuting CO2, they should make an example with their own lives. Stop driving, stop flying, stop using electricity, stop heating their homes, and most importantly stop breathing. People that would do those simple things would show some real commitment to the cause.
A classic case of a bureaucrat spinning unfounded scare stories in a hopefully futile attempt to keep funding at record high levels for his or her now largely pointless bureaucracy.
The EPA was once a great idea, which enforced beneficial policies and programs. Once its original goals were achieved, it should have been downsized. Unfortunately it was allowed to morph into a cancer-like organism, concerned only with its own growth and totally ignorant of the damage it was causing to its host.
CO2 and water vapor are not pollutants!
Fire Jackson. Now.
She is spoiling for a fight. I hope someone explains to her that she is not a peer of Congress but a servant of Congress.
Excuse my apparent ignorance here but isnt the issue hand here specifically CO2 regulation?
The submission seems shy away from specifically stating that C02 is the harmful pollutant in question and seems to mention everything else except Co2.
Ms Jackson:
This tells you everything you need to know about governmental mentality. Removing mercury, etc. from powerplant emissions is a noble societal goal, but will not and cannot “create” jobs. It will add to the price of electricity, which is a basic economic input into……..everything. It will reduce manufacturing competitiveness driving actual productive jobs overseas or even better, north, it will reduce disposable income for consumers, reducing demand and jobs. Government (BO) talking about creating jobs is laughable. Getting help from a rent seeker like Jeff I’llmelt GE down to a shadow of itself is even funnier. That clown couldn’t run a lemonade stand. They just don’t get it.
The absurd part is reducing CO2 output isn’t even useful.
The attempt to regulate CO2 is only one aspect of out of control lunacy at the EPA. They have also proposed regulating milk spills at dairies and “agricultural dust.” Apparently these people, with their “superior,” “elite” educations don’t understand how a plow works. The EPA did a lot of good, but emphasis should be on the past tense: “did.” Time to shut them down completely.
It’s shocking the way “carbon” appears to be used interchangeably to refer to soot, along with its unquestioned health hazards, and CO2 which hasn’t been shown as a cause of anything.
Double-think at its best.
Does anyone anywhere doubt that enforcing clean-air standards is a very good thing? (assuming you get rid of the very odd idea that fizzy water contains something dirty!)
Well I would have no quarrel with improving energy efficiency and reducing emissions of POLLLUTANTS, but something’s got to be done about this CO2 sham. They are ramming this stuff through as the global temp is cooling and all the dire predictions of the past 30 years have failed to materialize. The political activists haver been getting more and more anxious, desperate and dangerous.
It would be the best thing that could happen for the EPA to have to back down. BUT rest assured that result, will send the whole climate change push into an overdrive frenzy with much gnashing of teeth, foaming at the mouth and the usual doomsaying.
But it needs to be done. Good Luck!
Bait….
… and switch!
My impression of the EPA over the years is that it is a typical growing bureaucracy which started with mostly good intentions for a more responsible approach to caring for our national environment. I witnessed the transformation of some of our polluted waterways to noticeably cleaner conditions. Same with the air. The problem is they never seem to know when to quit. As with most of our bureaucracies, they morphed into a self-serving entity with an insatiable appetite for more control and funding.
Over the years they have produced ever more stringent requirements for more control over an ever expanding array of human activities. In my opinion, we are well past the point of a reasonable return on our investment as each cycle of regulations are now producing very marginal, even questionable, returns at greater and greater cost. We could spend the entire GDP trying to achieve “perfection in protection.” and not succeed. We need some reasonable people to say what needs to be “managed” by the EPA, what does not, and what level of protection is enough. GHG should not be an EPA responsibility.
Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma
And this has what to do with CO2 exactly?
“Based on the best peer-reviewed science…”
Really? I’d hate to see the worst.
1. I think the lightbulbs with mercury pose a bigger threat than CO2.
2. How can EPA further regulate mercury and meanwhile promote the use of it?
“two of the updated Clean Air Act standards EPA is preparing to establish for mercury, soot, smog, and other harmful air pollutants from power plants”
Strange…
None of which can be blamed on CO2 emissions.
Time for some defunding.
Start with NASA/GISS . . . then go for the Big Kahuna . . the EPA itself.
Push comes to shove.
She simply uses the tried and true Alarmist ploy of conflating real, as in smog-producing pollutants, which can cause some health problems given the right conditions with what she coyly refers to as “carbon”, but really means carbon dioxide, which can only cause health problems at extremely high (as in thousands of ppm). Does she really think she can get away with that?
The environmentalist Left (in the guise of the EPA) is out of control, because the “best peer-reviewed science” is demonstrably incompetent (e.g., “CO2 is a pollutant”). This shows how corrupted peer-review is, in the age of federally-funded science — it is a feudal system of fief lords, perpetually funded “principle investigators”, jealous of their privileges and hence closed to outsiders, no matter how expert. The underlying problem is that people are too divided to provide common sense and a tight rein on the processes at work, in both politics and science (or rather, to elect a President with the necessary common sense and leadership ability). People are accustomed to this in politics, and apathetic; they cannot imagine it is just as bad in science now — but it is, and it is a crisis of incompetence in science.