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
If you believe that man made CO2 emissions have any effect on the climate you ought to read this interview with Swedish Dr Fred Goldberg in of all places People’s Daily on line. (Don’t worry, it is in English.)
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6959757.html
Maybe Lisa P. Jackson should also read the article.
Anybody looking for a remote place in the Ozark Mountains to build a bunker for when tshtf, I may be able to help you out.
John Peter says, April 29, 2010 at 9:37 am :
Kind of a white flag being raised. Hmmm….WUWT stroke hard. (he quotes the UHI and surface stations errors). That’s good, cool it down babies and everything will be fine again. Quite a complicated issue that of a faked global warming/climate change and worst the selected protagonist “star”. (Al baby?…come on!)
Veronica says:
April 29, 2010 at 3:33 am
My Audi TT does 35 mpg and 100 miles per hour on a 2 litre engine. But as the price of fuel rockets. I’m thinking of buying the diesel version next time, which is closer to 55 mpg with the same kind of performance.
If you don’t want your Audi TT, can I have it?
You going to have it chushed?
“John Peter says:
April 29, 2010 at 9:37 am
If you believe that man made CO2 emissions have any effect on the climate you ought to read this interview with Swedish Dr Fred Goldberg in of all places People’s Daily on line. (Don’t worry, it is in English.)
http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90777/90853/6959757.html
”
The linked page does some cross-site scripting, it seems. Be careful. Chinese.
DirkH says: The linked page does some cross-site scripting, it seems. Be careful. Chinese That’s true but the antivirus can handle it, in any case just don’t accept the download of the chinese symbols.
My old 1987 Porche 944 does 33 mpg highway with a redline of 140 mph. I am unimpressed by the Audi. I bought my Porche 3rd hand for $5K. It gets around 26 mpg in the city with its 4 banger.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
April 29, 2010 at 7:37 am
I know Bill. But what the people there want isn’t going to matter much just as what the people here want isn’t mattering much.
Roger that. I’m hoping the Congers will still be in “tread lightly” mode and shy away from another HellCare™ debacle in hopes that people’s ire will fade before November. If they are, I don’t think they’ll be able to raise the necessary votes.
“Drill baby drill.” I suggest that the pro-oil visitors to this site all gather their buckets and spades and go help clean up the horrible mess that is developing down in the Gulf of Mexico. Just one of the many reminders of why we need to switch over to clean energy, e.g solar and wind.
yours sincerely
MJK
“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.” Jackson
Just what does “human interference” really mean?? Is she referring to some kind of tachyon ray aimed into the sky that is causing the stratosphere to heat up? Could this be a hail mary attempt to deflect dozens of alien ships landing near Stephen Hawing’s house? Stay tuned for the next exciting episode of “What’s ‘Up Against the Wall’ Mean?”
mjk says: Oil is NATURAL!
Lisa, better try singing !
Enneagram: Yes: Oil is naturally occuring, but it is far from “clean”. It causes mass environmental and econimic damage when there is a spill. Can’t you see the difference. Suggest you go down to the Gulf, take a dip and feel how “Natural” this whole mess is. And while you are at it, try and convince the local fisherman what a Natural thing this spill is.
Actually, the Clean Air Act definition of air pollution includes any “substance or matter” which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such definition unarguably also includes oxygen, water, nitrogen, etc.
So if she, in her sole opinion, decided that oxygen “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” then the EPA could regulate oxygen.
Again, I think this needs to be attacked on the basis of reasonableness.
mjk said on April 29, 2010 at 1:34 pm:
If you had read this recent WUWT article on underwater asphalt volcanoes and the comments, you would realize that petroleum leaks are a natural occurrence, that nature has survived for quite some time.
This is not an Exxon Valdez level event, and our responses to oil spills has gotten better since then. This leak should be stopped in a bit. Granted, experts are saying if they end up drilling relief wells then this might go on for one or two years. Experts also said the Kuwaiti oil field fires would be burning for more than a decade.
If the slick hits the shores it may inconvenience thousands of sea birds. Therefore in place of the energy this well would yield we can put up a massive wind farm, place it offshore like they are planning to do in the UK. Then we can have clean wind energy, when the wind blows, and chop up hundreds of thousands of sea birds every year. Which will make environmentalists happy as wind energy is needed to save the planet. Clean and green is the way to go, always. Better to have some surviving sea birds than none at all after the runaway global warming destroys all life on Earth, right?
Sure. Just as soon as the anti-oil visitors to this site gather their buckets and spades and start cleaning up the natural oil seeps, which are far greater environmental polluters.
Here in Alberta we put our money where our mouths are. We are doing our best to clean up the worst natural oil disaster in the world, also known as the Athabasca Tar Sands… a giant desolate area with stunted plant life and non-potable rivers and streams. When we’re done, the area will be pristine. And STILL there are “environmentalists” trying to block the whole thing. I think they’re nuts.
Those windmills you love so much will kill a lot more birds than the oil slick. Both solar and oil are way too expensive. We are drowning in nat gas though. At least it is a good energy source, like oil and coal.
“solar and oil are way too expensive” should have been “solar and wind are way too expensive”
neill says:
April 28, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Did I hear somewhere recently that biofuels increase gg emissions? Is that incorrect?
___________________________________________________________________________
Yes it does increase GG emissions according to David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/july05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
CodeTech says:
April 29, 2010 at 3:08 pm
“When we’re done, the area will be pristine. And STILL there are “environmentalists” trying to block the whole thing. I think they’re nuts.”
No. The oil sands is a giant cash cow the enviros are extorting full tilt. That’s why a few hundred dead mallards became international news a few springs ago. It was a system breakdown, and after four more migration seasons (and counting) there haven’t been any more dead ducks. That must be very depressing for the eco-extortionists.
Does anyone know why BP didn’t just let the oil keep burning?
Domino’s falling!
http://www.heliogenic.net/2010/04/29/dominos-falling-australia-new-zealand-germany/
Graeme in Melbourne
Thank you for your reply to my comment. I will pay you the highest compliment:
“I wish I had thought of that.”
#
#
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 28, 2010 at 4:34 pm
Who elected this woman? This bureaucratic dictator.
_______________________________________________________
THAT is a major problem here in the USA. The bureaucratic dictators are NOT elected and are selected but the Mega Corporations and bankers to oversee themselves. That means ignore non-conformance by the big guys and go after the little guys.
I ran across this comment made in another forum.
“…worked for the EPA in oil field site inspections. Consistently he was tasked with fining, and shutting down mom, and pop outfits, but consistently was ordered to leave the big boys like Exxon Mobil alone..”
Hear is an example from the corrupt USDA, where efforts of Food inspectors to bring problems with HACCP ignored by USDA management. From the Apr 17, 2008 Testimony:Mr. Stan Painter, Chairman, National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals:
In December 2004 Union president Stan Painter receive reports from union member that SRM regulations are not uniformly enforced. Painter writes to the Assistant FSIS Administrator for Field Operation about enforcement problem. USDA responses by placed Painter on disciplinary investigation status and contacts the USDA Office of Inspector General about filing criminal charges. In response his Union in December 2004 filed Freedom of Information Act requests and in August 2005 Over 1000 non-compliance reports – weighing some 16 pounds — were turned over. The Japanese had also filed FIA requests.
“….It (the recall of Hallmark/Westland Meat) highlights one of the problems that we have attempted to raise with the agency ever since 1996 when the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection system was put in place. There seems to be too much reliance on an honor system for the industry to police itself. While the USDA investigation is still on going at Hallmark/Westland, a couple of facts have emerged that point to a system that can be gamed by those who want to break the law. It (HACCP) shifted the responsibility for food safety over to the companies ….”
http://domesticpolicy.oversight.house.gov/documents/20080418113258.pdf
George E. Smith says:
April 28, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Well of course it has nothing to do with climate or the health of the American People or energy independence; these people are all plain Marxists who have been working on getting into power for years;….
________________________________________________________________________
I am afraid you are correct, and I thank God I never had any children.
What I can not understand is that if you point out where all this is taking us to well educated “progressives” who have children, they know they are condemning their children to a much lower standard of living and rejoice! One even told me he had spoken to his kids and they were all OK with it. In the next five minutes the kids were grinning as they showed off Daddy’s new SUV.
These people are truly “useful idiots”