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.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 8, 2010 7:14 pm

“This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change. . .”

This of course is the administration—and establishment—line, but one has to wonder, do Ms. Jackson and her confreres actually believe it? Are they so brainwashed by the incessant repetition of this catechism that they lack the capacity for independent, critical thought? Or are they they genuinely convinced by the evidence in the literature? Has Ms. Jackson ever perused the ample resources of climate realists?
It is just hard to fathom the mindset of someone who follows the company line to the exclusion of rationality or common sense. But I suppose they are all over Washington, and indeed, most of the country. You want to print up a pile of WUWT threads and send them to her, but, alas, it would just be fodder for the shredder.
/Mr Lynn

savethesharks
June 8, 2010 7:44 pm

More “public servants” using the public money to spew forth their own version of propaganda.
As far as the press release, it is unfortunate, because some of the things she says is semi-good…
But then she throws it all away when she starts talking about “climate change” and then has the audacity to bring up the oil spill in a classic [and utterly distasteful] capitalize-on-disaster-to-advance-one’s-agenda technique.
I fully believe bureaucrats like her [from both sides of the political aisle] would never survive a day at a REAL company that actually depended upon profits for survival
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Ed Murphy
June 8, 2010 8:45 pm

I am pleased and grateful Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln moveon.org’d Lt Gov Bill Halter out of the way in the primary run-off election. Blanche is a proud Murkowski supporter.
She is also trying to be one of the few moderates up there in a sea of extremists with absolutely no horse sense!

Cecil Coupe
June 8, 2010 9:51 pm

There are no incentives for the EPA to piss off the boss *and* the legislative branch. They will do what they are told to do or be replaced by someone who will do what they are told to do. People are quite capable of believing they are doing God’s Work or saving the planet or rescuing mankind without a shred of evidence that we need to be saved or that their solution works.

jorgekafkazar
June 8, 2010 10:03 pm

Stephen Melinger says: “We have plenty of wind and sunlight. We should be focusing on renewable energy instead of drilling for more oil.”
Keep coming back, Stephen. You might learn something.

kramer
June 8, 2010 10:17 pm

Stupid question but why can’t we have our oil while we fund and develop new energy sources?

Charles Higley
June 8, 2010 10:50 pm

tallbloke says:
“So what has the economics of energy production got to do with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency anyway?”
One must understand that by controlling and regulating CO2 the EPA would have control of the economy all the way down to how we do our everyday activities. This is power at an unprecedented level and all concentrated in a single government agency, ignoring the legislative process.
This all comes from some vague wording in a poorly written law giving the EPA the power to regulate air pollutants – defining air pollutants as anything emitted into the atmosphere, regardless of whether it is harmful or not. All they have to do is decide that something is harmful and they can regulate it. This is not what Congress intended, but it gives Obama the weapon that says that, if we do not pass a cap and trade tax package, the EPA will do it for us. Now there’s a choice we all want – door number 1 or door number 1? You decide.

Jim G
June 8, 2010 11:22 pm

If they’re really so concerned about the “largest environmental disaster”, why haven’t they been all over it since day one?
I wonder how many fire booms have been put into action since they realized that it was US policy since 1994.
Why didn’t BP crimp the well pipe below the BOP or just above it right away to minimize the volume of leakage? Of course, they wouldn’t be able to collect the oil from this gusher like they’re trying to do now.
It’s sad that no one, WH Admin or BP, has wanted to stop this thing right away.

Martin Brumby
June 9, 2010 12:08 am

Only a point of detail. But:-
“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.”
But, apparently sticking up windmills at a rural farm and using cotton burrs for insulation is the way forward?
Really?
This speech is so riddled with stupidity & bare faced dishonesty that I’m sure even the politicians and journalists must blush when reading it.
And, incidentally, for those promoting windmills and solar cells – and suggesting big taxes on oil imports to drive this forward, can you explain where the rare- earth metals you will need will come from? Isn’t it 93% of world resources that China controls? And, as has already been pointed out, how are you going to store your wind and sunshine energy for those cold nights and wind free days?
Just thought I’d ask.

Disputin
June 9, 2010 1:39 am

Jim G says:
June 8, 2010 at 11:22 pm
“If they’re really so concerned about the “largest environmental disaster”, why haven’t they been all over it since day one?”
A very good question.
“Why didn’t BP crimp the well pipe below the BOP or just above it right away to minimize the volume of leakage?”
Well, there’s the small matter of it being under about a mile of sea water, but the main factor is the fact that BOPs stand on the seabed, so how do you get below it (under a mile of sea water)? Besides which the (American designed, built and operated) BOP is supposed to stop such blowouts automatically or, if that fails, manually, anyway.
kramer says:
June 8, 2010 at 10:17 pm
“Stupid question but why can’t we have our oil while we fund and develop new energy sources?”
Not really a stupid question (The only stupid question is the one you were afraid to ask for fear of looking stupid). I fear the answer has to do with the other defining characteristic of H. sap. (after stupidity), i.e. idleness. While you have plenty of food in the larder you don’t go hunting. Whether this argument is true or not, I don’t know, but it seems probable that people will not spend large amounts of resources developing alternatives for what they’ve already got. Governments and other control freaks of course will say that this shows the need for them to take the lead in developing the next generation of xyz, but bitter experience of socialist grand plans shows that this never works because no-one can predict successfully the way things will turn out. As an example, in about 1895 some far-sighted people were getting very worried by the rate of increase of horses in London because of rising prosperity. Where will all the hay come from to feed them? Will there be enough space in the Pool of London to accommodate all the barges bringing food in? Are we going to be up to our oxters in horsesh*t? It’s worse than we thought! We’re all doomed!!
And what happened? The underground railways expanded, and the Infernal Combustion Engine introduced the car, which doesn’t sh*t quite so obviously. Now we worry about the cars. Where will all the oil come from to power them? Will there be enough storage and distribution facilities? Are we going to choke on fumes? It’s worse than we thought! We’re all doomed!!
Plus ça change…

UK Sceptic
June 9, 2010 2:29 am

“Administrator Jackson discussed how this resolution would undermine EPA’s common-sense approach to addressing climate change…”
Demonising CO2 and setting up the US for a trillion dollar bill is a common sense approach? Jackson wouldn’t recognise common sense if it walked up, doffed its hat and introduced itself.

old construction worker
June 9, 2010 3:08 am

Charles Higley says:
June 8, 2010 at 10:50 pm
‘This is not what Congress intended, but it gives Obama the weapon that says that, if we do not pass a cap and trade tax package, the EPA will do it for us. Now there’s a choice we all want – door number 1 or door number 1? You decide.’
At least, the EPA can be sued.

Chad Izier
June 9, 2010 3:27 am

“At no point in our history has any problem been solved by waiting another year to act or burying our heads in the sand.”
Actually, that’s exactly how we solved the Bigfoot problem.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
June 9, 2010 3:28 am

“JimBob says:Public transportation isn’t the answer for large parts of the country. I live near Wichita, Kansas with a population of somewhere around 350,000. I can climb in my car and drive completely across town in the amount of time I’d have to wait at a bus stop.”
That’s simple enough to understand but places like Wichita are going to always grow. That’s what towns do. Urbanism is inevitable in many cases because not everybody wants to leave their town to go to an already crowded city. With that in mind it helps to have an transport infrastructure ready to accommodate growing towns which will inevitably merge with nearest towns to create larger towns and so on until they become a city.
Without that you end up with something like Los Angeles where the trains only cover a tenth of the region and buses are avoided by most in favour of cars because the wealthier classes don’t want to mix with the poorer classes.

Dave L
June 9, 2010 4:29 am

Another incompetent in an incompetent administration. In case you haven’t noticed, incompetence breeds incompetence.

Geoff Sherrington
June 9, 2010 4:43 am

EPA talks about the hazard of lead and how good it was to lower it.
Anyone able to report a single USA human death from lead poisoning in the last 50 years?
There is another side to this, reverse causation, a logical trap that many climate science authors run into. Here is a counter argument on lead from two old friends who looked at the subject professionally for 60 years combined.
http://dnacih.com/SILVA.htm
Conclusion: “The arguments which have been put forward in support of the view that low level lead exposure causes mental deficit cannot be sustained and the reverse causation hypothesis is a much more plausible explanation of the facts.”
BTW, there are a few Web papers that give maps showing ambient or man-enhanced levels of soil lead. These do not always gel, because often they are high enough to excite an exploration geochemist to the stage of looking for an ore deposit. Most lead in soil is below about 75 ppm (=mg per Kg).

899
June 9, 2010 5:04 am

Remember now: You get the government you deserve.
Remember, Remember, voting day in November!

Brian John
June 9, 2010 5:36 am

Over on this side of the pond, a civil servant is not allowed to be partial. He/she is not allowed to criticise any bill brought by a member of the House.
Or is the US now run by the bureaucracy
Oh hang on we are as well from Brussels!!

Robert of Ottawa
June 9, 2010 5:47 am

The Murkowski resolution would gut EPA’s authority in the clean cars program
Isn’t that a good thing? And who gave it the “authority” in the first place?

Curiousgeorge
June 9, 2010 5:52 am

Geoff Sherrington says:
June 9, 2010 at 4:43 am
EPA talks about the hazard of lead and how good it was to lower it.
Anyone able to report a single USA human death from lead poisoning in the last 50 years?

Discounting fast moving small pieces of it, nope. 😉

Enneagram
June 9, 2010 6:01 am

If THEY succeed, and they WILL, they will reach their goal: A few companies, a few people, will own all the means of production of the world. But let us think: What then?, What for?, Will they become inmortal?, for to look for such a power, for to wish for such an inexhaustible wealth and endless resources one should have to be inmortal.
Then, inmortality should be the supreme goal for any living being, to overcome entropy by reaching every time a higher energy level, a higher frequency and a corresponding lower density as to “vibrate” for ever, almost like light itself. Then alchemical transmutation of inner energies should be our supreme goal and not that mounstrous want for acquiring power and money; that´s crazy and it leads only to degeneration of the succesive generations. It is frankly incomprehensible, so, instead of fighting against them, let us encourage them to attain their walhalah, their golden garden of eden, full of cancer, drugaddiction, of bleeding and wormful ulcers. That is what they are after:The ultra-maximum entropy. Hurray for them!

John Wright
June 9, 2010 6:17 am

“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.”
This has nothing to do with any program or ruling: low pollution “clean” cars are surely the result of scientific research and development, and that advances at its own rate – you can’t speed it up. In any case cars have never been so clean as they have been over the past few years. You can only legislate to ensure that the latest proven techniques are employed to that end – but Lisa, dear Lisa, there’s a hole in: your bucket: how can you make American cars more fuel efficient through legislation? You’re living in Fairyland.

David L.
June 9, 2010 7:11 am

So the EPA is all about American’s energy needs now? Don’t we have a Department of Energy? Energy is now the function of the EPA? If they are interested in “clean energy” why aren’t they exploring ways to clean up the use of fossil fuels rather than essentially ban them? It’s all about this nebulous “Clean Energy” nonsense. What’s clean energy? Solar panels? What energy is used to mine the silica and also make the solar panels? Corn? What energy goes into planting, growing, harvesting corn? It’s sad intelligence is so rare.

Tim Clark
June 9, 2010 7:18 am

Dave Wendt says:June 8, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Good Lord, this BS is getting to be incredibly depressing.

Ditto.

Enneagram
June 9, 2010 7:38 am

John Wright says:
June 9, 2010 at 6:17 am
You are right: Never, never, ingenuity and innovation came into existence by decree, from upside down, it is always the other way around, it comes from FREE individuals and in free competition, upwards; so , remember, if ground begins to move under your feet, a new era is growing up like a volcano and no one can stop it.