Issued today 4/28/2010

EPA Press Office
202-564-4355
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 28, 2010
Statement of Lisa P. Jackson Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Legislative Hearing on Clean Energy Policies That Reduce Our Dependence on Oil
House Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment
WASHINGTON – Chairmen Markey and Waxman, Ranking Members Upton and Barton, Chairman Emeritus Dingell, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify about the Environmental Protection Agency’s work to reduce America’s oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. That work stems from two seminal events.
First, in April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Massachusetts v. EPA that the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollution includes greenhouse gases. The Court rejected then-Administrator Johnson’s refusal to determine whether that pollution from motor vehicles endangers public health or welfare.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, and based on the best available science and EPA’s review of thousands of public comments, I found in December 2009 that motor-vehicle greenhouse gas emissions do endanger Americans’ health and welfare.
I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. Scientists at the 13 federal agencies that make up the U.S. Global Change Research Program have reported that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions pose significant risks to the wellbeing of the American public. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that the climate is changing, that the changes are mainly caused by human interference with the atmosphere, and that those changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken.
The second pivotal event was the agreement President Obama announced in May 2009 between EPA, the Department of Transportation, the nation’s automakers, America’s autoworkers, and the State of California to seek harmonized, nationwide limits on the fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of new cars and light trucks.
My endangerment finding in December satisfied the prerequisite in the Clean Air Act for establishing a greenhouse gas emissions standard for cars and light trucks of Model Years 2012 through 2016. So I was able to issue that final standard earlier this month, on the same day that Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood signed a final fuel efficiency standard for the same vehicles.
Using existing technologies, manufacturers can configure new cars and light trucks to satisfy both standards at the same time. And vehicles complying with the federal standards will automatically comply with the greenhouse gas emissions standard established by California and adopted by 13 other states. This harmonized and nationally uniform program achieves the goal the President announced last May.
Moreover, the EPA and DOT standards will reduce the lifetime oil use of the covered vehicles by more than 1.8 billion barrels. That will do away with more than a billion barrels of imported oil, assuming the current ratio of domestic production to imports does not improve. The standards also will eliminate more than 960 million metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution.
But if Congress now nullified EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas pollution endangers the American public, that action would remove the legal basis for a federal greenhouse gas emissions standard for motor vehicles. Eliminating the EPA standard would forfeit one quarter of the combined EPA-DOT program’s fuel savings and one third of its greenhouse gas emissions cuts. California and the other states that have adopted California’s greenhouse gas emissions standard would almost certainly respond by enforcing that standard within their jurisdictions, leaving the automobile industry without the nationwide uniformity that it has described as vital to its business.
I would like to mention one more action that EPA has taken to reduce America’s oil dependence and greenhouse gas emissions. In February, I signed a final renewable fuels standard. It substantially increases the volume of renewable products – including cellulosic bio-fuel – that refiners must blend into transportation fuel. EPA will implement the standard fully by the end of 2022. In that year alone, the standard will decrease America’s oil imports by 41 and a half billion dollars. And U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that year will be 138 million metric tons lower thanks to the standard.
EPA’s recent work on vehicles and fuels shows that enhancing America’s energy security and reducing America’s greenhouse gas pollution are two sides of the same coin.
R133
==============================
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.
This is IT!
Our vehicles will become little suicide machines. As the survivor of a near-fatal head-on collision, I value my big bumper and weighty pickup truck. looks like I’ll be driving older vehicles unless we can stop this madness.
But, but, but, the
EPA doesn’t use science. They use emotional stories that are published in the AR4 from the IPCC>
……………”motor vehicles endangers public health or welfare.”
But she will ignore studies that show exploding death rates from accidents involvng small cars.
No, no no, Lisa. We must reduce our dependence on FOREIGN oil by producing our own. The levels of CO2 in our atmosphere today are dangerously and unprecedentedly low, compared to the Cambrian explosion era when life boomed, and we must try to generate more CO2 for the sake of the rain forests and the polar bears (the latter which depend on seals, that depend on fish, that depend on algae, that depend on CO2, etc.). This position is not controversial – it is a precautionary principle we must accept for our planet, flora and fauna, and our generations to come. We can no longer resort to wind energy, swatting helpless birds from the sky, nor blot out the sunlight with acres of solar panels, depriving the fertile land beneath them of needed sunlight and rainfall, snails and burrowing owls. We must act soon, by 2012 at the very latest, before a tipping point occurs when life as we know it may cease to thrive or exist.
In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, and based on the best available science and EPA’s review of thousands of public comments, I found in December 2009 that motor-vehicle greenhouse gas emissions do endanger Americans’ health and welfare.
Too bad the best available science was based on a false premise (increased CO2 causing global warming) and hysteria (Gore’s movie).
And the standard on biofuel to be fully implemented by 2022 will increase prices of food by how much, and will increase the world’s deforestation by what percentage as more forest is cleared in order to produce this low energy density fuel which will lower mileage in vehicles using it?
The Clean Air Act provides:
<blockquote?“The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
I hope Ms. Jackson is prepared to justify the whole part about “which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” I don’t think CAGW is a reasonable anticipation of danger.
However, there could be some procedural hurdles in making sure SCOTUS doesn’t determine that Mass v EPA didn’t already determine this question and gave the Administrator full discretion regardless of reasonableness.
The woman is an absolute criminal.
Another fine performance by a delusional Warmist. If you want independence of energy sources, then why not develop them in America rather than seek to punish trhwe economy and Americans for simply breathing.
The way to reduce our dependance on foreign oil is to drill here in the US.It’s been known for years there is plenty of oil here but all of the enviromental wackos won’t let us drill.We got plenty of oil but we can’t get it so we have to pay 3 prices .Now we’ve getting alternative energy but WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH IT .We having no vehicles that run off of alternative fuel and if we ever do they will cost at least twice what they do now.The Hybrid cost 4000. 00 more than the standard gas model.Now how many years will it take to make up that 4000.00 sticker price and it doesn’t do as goog on the highway as it does in the city.
I like that picture…
What federal building in Washington DC is the ‘Office of the President Elect’ located?
I will know the government is truly serious about dumping the internal combustion engine as the primary means of transportation, when they finally let us in on the alternative technology they have had available since the 40’s when they brought in all the Nazi Scientists under project, “Paperclip”.
Insanity!
“Moreover, the EPA and DOT standards will reduce the lifetime oil use of the covered vehicles by more than 1.8 billion barrels”
I wonder how many less barrels of oil we’d use if every nut on the planet that believes in AGW actually stopped driving their cars to “save” the planet.
The U.S. gubment owns Jeep. They are in the process of giving it to Fiat. The engine is available in the Liberty. Here is an example of how two groups in one government want to operate like communists and declare solutions and prevent them at the same time.
If we can smuggle in illegals, why would we ned to smuggle in fuel efficient autos? It is horrible how short the cruising range is on a Jeep wrangler. with diesel, it improves a lot. But then they want to peddle cars that are electric and run 40 miles per 3 hour charge.
What with this & Cast Iron Dave…
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100036997/tories-will-quickly-introduce-a-bill-to-launch-a-green-energy-revolution/
Lots of poor people are gonna die.
Then again, isn’t that the idea?
DaveE.
Ms. Jackson believes in the idea of Climate Debt/Guilt.
As long as the people you have running your country believe that self-flagellation is the proper way to show the world that America deserves to be punished for developing a Superior culture and way of life, you are screwed.
Sounds like a politically defensive move to fend off potential moves at removing CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases from the Clean Air Act’s purview.
From Geoffrey Lean’s article:
[snip] pray tell, are climate rejectionists.
Did I hear somewhere recently that biofuels increase gg emissions? Is that incorrect?
I will never vote for another Democrat for as long as I live. Not even if they mend their ways. I can’t believe the mindset of supposedly educated and enlightened people. We are moving towards the dark ages and it is because of my party. I once thought the Republicans headed that charge with their religiosity. My bad. Dems are just as bad with their own form of religiosity. My vote for Obama has been rescinded.
A switch away from burning fossil fuels is not a bad idea. The world may not be warming, but it still has only finite fossil fuel reserves. We will have to make such a switch some time this century. The question is one of timing. Forcing this change too early will cause unnecessary economic harm.
However encouraging a switch to biofuels is a big mistake. It isn’t energy efficient and diverts precious land to the production of fuel – land that could be used to produce food to feed a hungry world or for its natural conservation value. I can’t understand why environmentalists seem so infatuated with biofuel given that it requires a huge acreage of land be handed over to the production of a monoculture crop.
A much better idea with long term potential is a switch to either hydrogen or electric powered vehicles, with the hydrogen/electricity supplied by nuclear power. This doesn’t waste land.
Let the lawsuits begin.
This could be the end of the Obama adminsitration’s vacation in office. People are now seeing that the Adminstration is divisive, political opportunists, and misinformed about the public’s support.
I wager that this will be the straw.
I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. Scientists at the 13 federal agencies…
Amazing that they are able to find federal agencies who funding comes from Washington to agree with Washington. How did they do it?
Louise still manages to get a CAGW story out of this…
28 April: UK Tele: Louise Gray: Melting sea ice would cause sea levels to rise by ‘hair’s breadth’
Researchers at the University of Leeds calculate that around 1.5 million Titanic-sized icebergs each year are melting into the sea every year in the Arctic and Antarctic. This is causing sea level to rise by just 49 micrometers per year – around a hair’s breadth.
At that rate it would take 200 years for the oceans to rise by 1cm as a result of melting sea ice. If all the floating ice in the world melted it would cause sea levels to rise by just 4cm. In comparison if all the ice on land melted it would cause a rise of 70m.
But Professor Andrew Shepherd, one of the authors of the study published in Geophysical Research Letters, said the tiny rise caused by melting ice was still significant. …
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7645112/Melting-sea-ice-would-cause-sea-levels-to-rise-by-hairs-breadth.html