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
Henry chance
June 8, 2010 1:50 pm

Smaller cars she calls clean?
Larger cars are dirty?
Smaller children/toddlers are clean and large people are dirty?
Is dirt by the spoon full cleaner than dirt from a shovel?
She also is not serious about dependence on foreign oil. We can convert domestic coal to either gas or liquid fuel.
We could send our awesome host to her house for an ambush interview. Have her splain and do so by showing her work how CO2 goes up and it still cools off after sunset. Does CO2 drop at night?

Tom in Florida
June 8, 2010 1:51 pm

Et tu Lisa?

rogerL
June 8, 2010 1:52 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” – raising the cost these small businesses pay for energy – driving still more of our industry off-shore.

June 8, 2010 1:55 pm

We have plenty of wind and sunlight. We should be focusing on renewable energy instead of drilling for more oil.

Scarface
June 8, 2010 1:59 pm

Small businesses should realize that consumers will end up having less spending power after all the taxes that those consumers will be paying thanks to EPA-regulations. It will hurt small businesses as much as the rest of the economy. Maybe even worse.
Vote EPA out!
I’m not US-citizen and I am completely shocked about the US democracy. I always thought it was very direct, but it’s not. Now it’s getting even further away from people than here in Europe. Welcome to the jungle, but leave it while you can!

Andreas
June 8, 2010 1:59 pm

So is the EPA under any kind of democratic control or is it just a eco-fascist government organization with unlimited power? The American EPA sounds very scary to me as a Swede, it’s like if our green party would be put in power and have sole responsibility of environmental errands and politics.

Henry chance
June 8, 2010 2:07 pm

I just hung up the phone. Sears called and offered a free set of estimates for improving energy efficience in my home.
Federal tax subsidized windows.
Energy Star Appliances.
I pay for an inspection which is a car and gallons of gas. Pay some federal Union approved folks to come out and do what I can do myself and run all this thru red tape and borrow money from China. This ordeal would generate 15 grand in taxes and purchases, burn up a lot of petrol and save a few dollars a month on the 70% increase in energy prices Obama promised. Tell Jackson to leave us alone. May electric bill was 43 dollars. June will have more a/c days. Most of these energy saving endeavors are energy wasters.

AndrewS
June 8, 2010 2:08 pm

“Simpsons – the movie” becomes more and more close to reality. Remember Eepah?

June 8, 2010 2:12 pm

We are currently facing the 21st Century version of taxation without representation, as unelected, unacountable beauracrats seek to impose their political and economic agenda upon the American people.
This will not end well, one way or the other.

Enneagram
June 8, 2010 2:13 pm

This is IT!

H.R.
June 8, 2010 2:21 pm

“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.””
EPA and common sense in the same sentence?
Hah!
“… big step backward in the race for clean energy”?
Hah! Leave CO2 alone and put a stop to soot, mercury, and SO2 emissions. (Oh wait… we’ve had scrubbeers since the ’80s…)
“… environmental policies that feed our oil addiction.”
Huh?! I thought unrestricted access to world oil supplies helped keep us addicted to oil. US environmental policies seem to do everything possible to prevent access to US oil. And what do US environmental policies have to do with foriegn trade? Seems a bit out of the EPA’s jurisdiction, if you ask me.

a dood
June 8, 2010 2:25 pm

The scary thing is, I think she genuinely believes she’s doing good. Yipes

Joe Crawford
June 8, 2010 2:27 pm

Does anyone know the current status of the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s lawsuit (here) that challenges the EPA’s global warming regulations? Also, I thought somebody was also suing the EPA for not following “EPA Quality Guidelines”, discussed here at Climate Audit. Is this still active, and, if so, is their any status available?
I would hope either or both of these might just put a rather large crimp in the EPS’s plans for regulating CO2.

HankHenry
June 8, 2010 2:27 pm

“EPA’s common-sense approach to addressing climate change”
If common sense is what’s called for what do we need with an EPA? Common sense rules are what legislatures are designed to make. This business is too important to be handled by an agency whose head thinks her country suffers from an “oil addiction.” Talk of an “oil addiction” is soap box rhetoric that has little to do with the nature of our predicament in the gulf.
The reality is that there is no hope of any innovation coming out of the EPA, heads of agencies should not be cursing our modern way of life, and Lisa Jackson’s answers for our oil addiction problem is horse sh&t — literally if we lose are modern modes of transportation .

P Walker
June 8, 2010 2:31 pm

This the same tripe they’ve been spewing ever sine the big O came into office and it’s all false , starting with the Supreme Court decision . As far as I could tell , the SCOTUS told the EPA that in order to regulate CO2 , they would have to find that CO2 was an endangerment . We all know how the EPA arrived at that finding – they could have found otherwise but didn’t . Hell , they even stacked the deck .
As for the rest of it ….. well , if we all start smoking from that pipe , we’re in deep doo .

Dr. Schnare
June 8, 2010 2:35 pm

Now you all know what I have to put up with on a day to day basis.

June 8, 2010 2:39 pm

Nice to see the govt thinks we are a bunch of idiots that will believe anything they say. Unfortunately for them, we can think & they will see the results of that in Nov. The energy addiction metaphor is an insult to all those who are afflicted with true addictions. ….but they don’t really care about people the way they claim anyway. Decreasing foreign energy dependance is a good thing, doing thru a mythical CO2 boogieman is not. They need to learn that we will respect honest talk on these matters.

latitude
June 8, 2010 2:40 pm

“Stephen Melinger says:
June 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
We have plenty of wind and sunlight. We should be focusing on renewable energy instead of drilling for more oil.”
Stephen, until we figure out how to make that work, what do you propose we do in the mean time? That all sounds warm and fuzzy, until you have to do without some things you may be used to. Like food.

R. Craigen
June 8, 2010 2:42 pm

I have to admit that it is extremely tempting, given Jackson’s (and other’s, including Obama here) invocation of the Gulf spill in this context, to subscribe to (or invent if it doesn’t exist already) a “Gulf Oil Truther” conspiracy theory.
Yep, here’s how it goes: When the spill first happened Obama or some high official decided not to let this crisis go to waste and thus deliberately neglected (possibly illegally) to implement the national contingency plan for oil spills. They even suppressed any move toward using the well-established bioremediation technology that could possibly forestall a major environmental disaster! Doesn’t it all add up?
The objective was clear: by sacrificing a small ecosystem they could gain the political capital needed to ram through unpopular environmental legislations and policy initiatives. Don’t forget that BP was a major contributor to Obama’s election campaign.
Clever plan. Until the surely-soon-to-be-released homemade video “Loose Hope and Change” goes viral! Heh-heh!
Maybe they even intervened at a higher level earlier in the game, either conspiring with BP insiders to install faulty equipment or going as far as sabotage.

Ed Caryl
June 8, 2010 2:53 pm

The crux of the problem is this: the Liberal Democrats literally do not understand what they are doing to our economy.
See:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703561604575282190930932412.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Nolo Contendere
June 8, 2010 2:55 pm

Is every appointee of this administration some combination of idiot, socialist, and criminal? Sure seems like it.

Matt
June 8, 2010 3:01 pm

Stephen Melinger says:
June 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
We have plenty of wind and sunlight. We should be focusing on renewable energy instead of drilling for more oil.
Stephen,
Wind and sunlight are not comparable to oil. Oil is used for transportation, manufacturing of plastics, asphalt for roads, etc. There are alot of industrial uses for oil and it is plentiful. Wind and sunligh cannot be converted into anything that will replace oil with the exception of electricity to power some transportation.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
June 8, 2010 3:02 pm

In the US, from the government to the citizens, the public transport network for most of the country seems to be seen as something that only poor or mental people should use. When the US gets serious about its public transport networks then I’ll take its ramblings about energy policy seriously. Everything until then is just talk and suicidal legislation.

DirkH
June 8, 2010 3:19 pm

“Stephen Melinger says:
June 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
We have plenty of wind and sunlight. We should be focusing on renewable energy instead of drilling for more oil.”
You have no storage facilities.

rbateman
June 8, 2010 3:19 pm

It’s the “Moving America Foraward” dept. that worries me.
As in over a towering economic cliff.
In the name of Science, so she says.
Coming from folks that don’t know the difference between C0 and C02, that’s a real stinker.
Beaurocratic Hogwash Island effect.
This is the same EPA that told BP it was ok to use dispersants known to kill the fish.
Please save us from the EPA.