EPA's action Jackson moving forward

Issued today 4/28/2010

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Lisa_P_Jackson_-_nomination_announcement.jpg
Lisa P. Jackson - EPA

EPA Press Office

press@epa.gov

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

184 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
James Sexton
April 28, 2010 9:03 pm

ZT says:
April 28, 2010 at 8:25 pm
“One has to admire Lisa’s Cnut-like confidence in proclamation.
Wasn’t there a time when the US, in an age of reason, threw off the yoke of crazed monarchist oppression? (That was a time of unfair taxes too).”
It is assumed that ……….it was just ethnic people that didn’t want to share what was unjustly acquired. Can’t you see the evilness of it?
This is probably the wrong forum for such a discussion…….sadly, because of the people such as Ms. Jackson, it is impossible to separate the issues. The temps are wrong. The math is wrong. The science is wrong. The economics are wrong. ……but they’re executing the politics in an almost perfect manner.

TomRude
April 28, 2010 9:09 pm

Well isn’t that the way democracy works… LOL

pat
April 28, 2010 9:15 pm

29 April: ABC Australia: NASA Space balloon crashes into car in Alice
A multi-million dollar scientific space balloon has crashed on take-off in Alice Springs, destroying its payload, tipping over a car and sending observers running for their lives.
WATCH EXCLUSIVE VIDEO OF THE CRASH…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/04/29/2885724.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/29/2885563.htm?section=justin

Tom T
April 28, 2010 9:16 pm

Well if in Cuba they can drive around in 1950s cars maybe I can get 30 years out of my Ford Explorer. No micro car for me.

Tom T
April 28, 2010 9:18 pm

Is the EPA charged with “reducing dependency on oil”. That doesn’t sound like an environmental concern to me.

stan stendera
April 28, 2010 9:22 pm

Ms. Jackson needs to put up a birdfeeder and tend that instead of tending to the world. Unfortunately, if she tends the bird feeder like she tends the world, very few birds will get fed.

jorgekafkazar
April 28, 2010 9:28 pm

MJ says: April 28, 2010 at 4:21 pm: “…I assume that there will be inspections of motor vehicles at designated facilities with appropriate Carbon Offset certificates ready for purchase. And will this “certificate” have a picture of Al Gore on it?”
No, but the 100 trillion US dollar bill you’ll need to pay for the inspection will have Obama’s picture on it.

Don Shaw
April 28, 2010 9:32 pm

Chris
April 28, 2010 at 7:38 pm
The commercial cellulosic plants were promised to be in operation by now and producing the ethanol volume goal documented by the EPA. These plants were built with huge government subidies and are experiencing technical difficulties according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and are way behind schedule. One plant is producing methanol instead in much less volume than promised. Methanol can already be produced more efficiently with existing technology. As I recall from the WSJ they are experiencing some problems with catalyst cost. Generally the feedstock is wood via cutting down trees therefore the carbon foot print is comparable to gasoline acording to the EPA studies.
Can someone explain to me the wisdom of cutting down trees that absorb CO2, and waste a portion of the energy in the wood to produce ethanol that has 2/3 the BTU content of Gasoline?
Since this technology is failing to meet expectations, the Obama administration has announced that it will increase the government subsidy in an attempt to produce the target ethanol volume via cellulosic means.

Noelene
April 28, 2010 9:44 pm

The day will come when people are limited by the government on how much driving they can do.
Oh well,at least it would cut the crime rate.

David Ball
April 28, 2010 10:14 pm

Some amazing comments by all. G.E.S. , you write what I am thinking. I tip my hat once again.

David Ball
April 28, 2010 10:23 pm

All this is going to (snipping) do is put a nice shiny coat of wax on the trillion dollar ( US ) debt. The general public is on to them, I hope. C’mon, common man.

Graeme From Melbourne
April 28, 2010 10:57 pm

stan stendera says:
April 28, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Ms. Jackson needs to put up a birdfeeder and tend that instead of tending to the world. Unfortunately, if she tends the bird feeder like she tends the world, very few birds will get fed.

The following birds will be fed well.
[1] birds with only a left wing.
[2] birds that are deserving of redistributed bird seed.
[3] birds that are illegally in the garden
The following birds will not be fed, and will be deprived of any excess seed found in their possession.
[1] Birds that are willing and able to find their own seed.
[2] Birds that can fly away will have their wings clipped.
[3] Birds that were born in the garden.

Richard111
April 28, 2010 11:03 pm

“”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.””
Sorry, I gave up reading at this point. How do these mad people intend to legislate against
against water vapour, the dominant “greenhouse gas” of the atmosphere?

Graeme From Melbourne
April 28, 2010 11:04 pm

Don Shaw says:
April 28, 2010 at 9:32 pm

Since this technology is failing to meet expectations, the Obama administration has announced that it will increase the government subsidy in an attempt to produce the target ethanol volume via cellulosic means.

Graeme’s First Subsidy Law. The amount of government subsidy attracted by a new technology is inversely proportional to the efficacy of the technology.
I.e. the worse the technology is, the more government money it attracts.

Richard111
April 28, 2010 11:07 pm

“”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.””
Sorry. I gave up reading at this point. How do these mad people intend to legislate
against the dominant “greenhouse gas”, water vapour?

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 28, 2010 11:55 pm

Graeme From Melbourne says:
April 28, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Is that what “immigration reform” is for – to bolster the ranks of available democrat voters and keep them in power forever.
Yes.
There is also a move in Washington to make Puerto Rico become a State which would add ~1.8 millions voters, most of whom will vote Democrat , also adding 2 more Democrat Senators, and 6 Democrat Congressmen.

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 29, 2010 12:17 am

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.”
~ C.S. Lewis

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 29, 2010 12:18 am

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.”
~Plato

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 29, 2010 12:19 am

“Tyrants have always some slight shade of virtue; they support the laws before destroying them”
~Voltaire

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 29, 2010 12:27 am

“There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice.”
~Charles de Montesquieu

Amino Acids in Meteorites
April 29, 2010 12:28 am

“A great wave of oppressive tyranny isn’t going to strike, but rather a slow seepage of oppressive laws and regulations from within will sink the American dream of liberty”
~George Baumler

April 29, 2010 12:39 am

Funny how it is suddenly: “oil dependence and …. oh, what was that other thing which used to be so important before climategate ….. it’s on the tip of my tongue …. come on you know the thing …. it’s all around us … we all breath it out …. come on help me out!”

Roger Carr
April 29, 2010 1:14 am

Graeme From Melbourne says: (April 28, 2010 at 11:04 pm) Graeme’s First Subsidy Law. The amount of government subsidy attracted by a new technology is inversely proportional to the efficacy of the technology.
We did not need the subsequent simplfied version, Graeme; we were already sighing in resignation.

Peter Miller
April 29, 2010 1:18 am

While the comments about greenhouse gases and biofuels are clearly alarmist/stupid, there is a crying need for Americans to become more fuel efficient.
One way of achieving this is by increasing fuel taxes – only Venezuela has lower fuel taxes than the USA – in fact, they have negative taxes!!
The benefits of the US reducing oil consumption are: i) lower budget deficits, ii) lower oil imports and therefore dependence on outside sources, and iii) consequential lower oil prices.
An even better way for the US to reduce crude oil consumption is to switch from gasoline to diesel powered vehicles and then tax gasoline to make it more expensive than diesel.
In Europe, there has been a big switch from gasoline to diesel powered vehicles – for the same performance you get 25-30% more mileage per gallon. If all automobiles in the US had diesel engines, the reduction in daily crude oil consumption would be around 1.5-2.0 million barrels per day.

April 29, 2010 2:15 am

Lisa Jackson’s experience in the federal EPA and both New York’s and New Jersey’s DEP have been solely in the field of enforcing compliance. She’s a bureaucrat who used threats and lawsuits to get her way, yet made a complete hash of the work she was supposed to do — her policies led to lawsuits against property owners who trimmed the weeds in drainage ditches on their property because they were “modifying seasonal waterways” and against farmers who *built* stock ponds because they “interfered with the free replenishment of natural streams” — even though the nearest free-flowing natural stream may have been three miles away and on the opposite side of a ridgeline.
Jackson’s MO consisted of requiring mountains of paperwork to be completed before any toxic remediation could even begin. I can speak from experience that, in New Jersey, the paper-pushers loved her and the people who had to do the actual cleanup work hated her guts.