EPA Press Office
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.
RE: “Administrator Jackson discussed how this resolution would undermine EPA’s common-sense approach to addressing climate change…”
Sometimes ‘common sense’ is hard to distinguish from acquired popular nonsense.
Ed Murphy says: June 8, 2010 at 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!
What world are you living in. She voted for health care and every other socialist spending package put forth by Obamanation. Here is her National Taxpayers Union rating:
ARKANSAS
Lincoln, B……………F…………16%
Pryor, M………………F…………..9%
State Average …………………..13%
By the way, F is a failing grade.
If she supports Murkowski, you wouldn’t know it by her votes. Here’s HIS ratings:
ALASKA
Begich, M ……………F…………..7%
Murkowski, L ………B- ……….71%
State Average …………………..38%
Oh! I so trust that statement, “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.” Which laws have been rescinded on average, compared to laws that remain on the books? Any greenie who falls for that line needs to learn my lesson. I voted for Obama and trust me, the ass he is kicking is MINE!
Last but not the least: All those nice jobs will be created where labor is cheaper, where NOW Ipods and Ipads and all electronics and even your underwear are manufactured, so do not hallucinate.
Chad Izier at 3:27 am wrote:
“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.
See, now that there is funny. +1 for the Bigfoot solution.
Henry Chance – please give us the source for your “40,000 will die” because of “tiny cars” comment?
This is a persistent and ridiculous meme to say that small cars are in some way unsafe. In Europe we have the NCAP ratings which actually measure a car on several safety parameters. I would recommend Googling that and checking the facts before coming out with what I suspect is unattributable scare-mongering.
There is a statement up front that this is about “Energy Independence”. That is way different from reducing carbon emissions. The trouble is that although America has sme oil, it does not have enough oil for energy independence. So the two ways to address this are: A) supply side – find other sources of energy and B) demand side, reduce energy usage.
So everybody who replied “bah – [snip]” to this post had not read the title and was addressing the wrong question.
Lisa Jackson said Senator Murkowski’s resolution would “ … take away EPA’s ability to take action on climate change.” My response: It’s about time.
The EPA wants to regulate anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions based on the argument that greenhouse gases in general and CO2 in particular are pollutants. The EPA’s justification for classifying CO2 as a pollutant comes from a Supreme Court ruling (EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0318, July 11 2008) stating that greenhouse gases (GHGs) meet the definition of a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA), and CO2 is a GHG. For the Supreme Court to so rule, either (a) the CAA definition of a pollutant is poorly written, or (b) the US Supreme Court wants to limit anthropogenic CO2 emissions for ulterior motives, or (c) both.
The EPA’s position can be described by taking literary license with the Cinderella fable. Cinderella’s all-knowing stepmother seeks power and money principally for herself but also to save the kingdom from its know-nothing inhabitants and to raise revenues to cover her profligate spending. She connives to acquire the power/money she craves by pushing one of her daughters to marry the Prince. Being fully aware that the Prince is unlikely to court her rather plain-looking daughter, Cinderella’s stepmother convinces her daughter to attend the royal ball wearing a mask that transforms her daughter’s homely appearance into beauty beyond description. When the Prince rejects Cinderella’s stepsister as his true love because the glass slipper doesn’t fit, Cinderella’s stepmother sues the Prince on the grounds that (a) according to the Comfortable Clothing Act (CCA) [enacted by the king to prevent clothing manufacturers from dumping uncomfortable clothing into the kingdom], the CCA’s definition of a “clothing fit” is: “the body part being ‘fitted’ can be ‘snugly and comfortably’ placed inside the article of clothing,” and (b) by that definition the slipper fits Cinderella’s stepsister. The case eventually winds its way to the Supreme Court, where the Court asks the Prince to describe the events of the “trying on of the glass slipper.” The Prince testifies that “To get the stepsister’s foot entirely inside the slipper, the toes had to be scrunched up something awful, and the skin on the top, sides and heel of the foot had to be scraped off.” The Supreme Court asks the Prince if the stepsister screamed during the fitting. The Prince says “No, but she sure grunted and grimaced a lot.” Dazzled by the beauty of the stepsister (with the mask on), the Supreme Court rules in favor of Cinderella’s stepmother arguing that (a) scraped skin and scrunched toes are proof of snugness, and (b) screaming, not grunting and grimacing, is the legal test of being uncomfortable.
For anyone (including the Supreme Court) to label atmospheric CO2 a pollutant is ludicrous beyond comprehension. CO2 occurs naturally in the earth’s atmosphere, and more importantly is essential to life as we know it. Without CO2, photosynthesis can’t take place. Without photosynthesis there would be no plant life. In fact, to promote plant growth many greenhouses are flooded with CO2 at levels three times normal atmospheric CO2 levels. Without plant life, there would be no animal life. The only rationale for calling CO2 a pollutant is to argue that too much CO2, not CO2 itself, is a pollutant. Since it can be argued that too much of anything is a pollutant, anything and everything qualifies as a pollutant. Somehow I think giving the EPA the authority to classify ‘fill-in-the-blank’ as a pollutant and thereby the authority to regulate “fill-in-the-blank” is an overextension of the EPA’s charter. Why, it could be argued that the EPA itself is a pollutant because EPA personnel exhaling CO2 contribute to “too much atmospheric CO2.” I won’t hold my breath (pun intended) waiting for the EPA to call itself a pollutant, much less pass regulations that limit either the size or the authority of the EPA.
Energy is critical to society; and it’s been argued by many economists that restricting the means of energy production will send the world’s economy into a tailspin. Not only is there risk to the world’s economy, there’s risk to the EPA itself. For example, assume, as some scientists believe, that the sun controls global temperatures, and that the recent historical and near-future projected period of a “quiet sun” imply we’re headed for global cooling, not global warming. If we’re at the start of a global cooling period and the EPA acts of the basis of UN IPCC CO2-driven computer models which predict increasing temperatures, the computer models will be equated with the stepsister’s mask, and the unmasking won’t be pretty for the UN IPCC, the Supreme Court, or the EPA. After all, who wants to finance an agency that enacts regulations that (a) worsen not alleviate adverse natural phenomena, and (b) destroy the world’s economy in the process. Given the cost associated with maintaining the EPA and the damage to the economy contemplated by the EPA, I believe the EPA has not justified its existence. As such, if I were king, I’d abolish the EPA right now. However, if (a) natural global cooling is our future, and (b) to retard or prevent nonexistent global warming the EPA enacts regulations that have an ancillary effect of contributing to a downturn in the economy, it won’t be just me and a few others calling for abolition of the EPA, it will be an army.
Addiction? The only addiction I can see going on here is the addiction to autocratic power on the part of unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats like Lisa Jackson.
Speaking of an “addiction to oil” is just Lackoffian “control the framing of the issue” doublespeak.
Veronica says:
June 9, 2010 at 9:51 am
Henry Chance – please give us the source for your “40,000 will die” because of “tiny cars” comment?
This is a persistent and ridiculous meme to say that small cars are in some way unsafe. In Europe we have the NCAP ratings which actually measure a car on several safety parameters. I would recommend Googling that and checking the facts before coming out with what I suspect is unattributable scare-mongering.
Passing a set of standardized tests does not make something safe. All those crash tests mean nothing when you run a red light in your Smart Car and get broadsided by a 5500-lb Suburban at 50 mph. Accidents like that happen every day and the big guy usually wins. People die in cars with 5-star crash ratings every day. Increasing the number of small cars on the road may actually save lives, but it will be the lives of those in the ‘burbs and crew-cab dually pickups, not the small cars.
Yes, we’re addicted not just to ‘fossil fuel’ but ‘addicted’ to everything it’s ‘done’ to us for over the last 150 years like improve our living standards for all social classes, increase life expectancy, improve working conditions, extend leisure time, make long distance travel affordable.. etc.
Lisa Jackson doesn’t know it but she and the EPA have an addition as well but to one that cannot be claimed to afford us any such benefits as the above – an addition to POWER. That is all she cares about, her POWER over us little people who are supposed believe her fear mongering and give up our God given liberty.
If I had to pick a speech from any bureaucrat in DC to exemplify the problem with failing to observe the intention of our US Constitution to limit government – this one is at the top of the list.
Lisa Jackson, it’s We the People who are supposed to be trusted to insure our destiny … NOT YOU!!!!
Yes Veronica. Using the term “Energy Independence” makes her statement and future plans for us MUCH more trust worthy, and makes me forget all about carbon emissions regulations and the hand rifling through my change purse.
“That work earned the Dull Homestead the small business environmental stewardship award.”
Sounds like those little red flags “Best worker of the week” got in the USSR.
(sheesh am I lame at writing – ‘addiction’ not ‘addition’! thanks for the prior fix BTW)
JimBob
“when you run a red light in your Smart Car and get broadsided by a 5500-lb Suburban at 50 mph.”
Well then, it’s the BIG car that’s causing the problem, right? LOL
Pamela
I don’t disagree that some of these quangos are power-crazed. I’m just saying that if this was an exam, most people posting here would have answered the wrong question.
DirkH says:
June 8, 2010 at 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.”
Plenty of sun and wind? Stephen obviously doesn’t live in Pa. By the way, were’s the global warming? They turned the heat back on at work. It’s mid June!!!!!
Pace Brian John, I’m surprised that more people here aren’t offended by this bureaucrat, acting in an official capacity, openly attempting to influence legislation.
Tim Clark,
Arkansans and Other Stakeholders Applaud Lincoln Effort to Block Heavy-Handed EPA Regulations
http://lincoln.senate.gov/newsroom/2010-1-26-1.cfm
http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2010/03/arkansas-lt-governor-bill-halter-to.html
Primary money providers for Halter:
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Democracy for America, MoveOn.org, Daily Kos, AFL-CIO, and the Service Employees International Union
You need not be concerned, she will lose to John Bozeman in Nov.
Geoff Sherrington says:
June 9, 2010 at 4:43 am
Part 2 of the lead (Pb) story and reverse causation.
The unproven scare about lead as a poison caused the removal of teraethyl lead from gasoline, and resulted in more gas being needed for the same number of car miles. This, of course, caused more GHG to go into the air. On a large scale.
A very effective way to lower GHG emissions would be to reverse the ban on leaded petrol.
This is an example of a seemingly small error having a huge economic effect. But nobody wants to raise it, because the science on lead is settled. The medical research grants institutions saw to that.
For the benefit of Henry Chance and friends, who believe that big SUVs are inherently safer than small cars, here is some data. It’s rough and ready because I spent all of five minutes Googling it but here we are:
In the UK we have smaller cars than you do in the US (the Mini, the Smart car, the Vauxhall Corsa, the Ford Fiesta, and other small “compact” and economy vehicles). We might also be said to have more dangerous roads because motorway speed limits are 70mph, rural roads are often narrow, and population density is greater, leading to more extreme traffic conditions than in the US.
However here are the statistics on car accident fatalities per head of population, as recent as I could find.
UK: population = 62.04 million. Fatalities in 2005 from road accidents = 3201. Fatalities per thousand population = 0.0516
US: population = 309.5 million. Fatalities in 2003 from road accidents = 42643. Fatalities per thousand population = 0.1378
I cannot correlate these figures absolutely with the presence of large cars, but you have to admit that they DO NOT suggest that places where smaller cars are the norm have more fatal accidents.
AHA say the warmistas! More vehicle CO2 emissions = more road deaths! The oil addiction – it kills us!
And of course, if you say – well fine, but I won’t be the first on in my town to get a small, fuel efficient car while everybody else still has a large, dangerous SUV, well, that’s the argument that exacerbated the Cold War and cost all our economies billions – Mutually Assured Destruction.
Ever google Jamaica’s vehicle accident rate? Now that is one scary country to drive in. It was such a scary ride from Mo Bay to Kingston that when the driver let us out, I wanted to pay to go back on the ride again! Beats the best roller coaster ride EVAH!
Brian John says:
June 9, 2010 at 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!!
Many moons ago, when I was stationed at Andrews Air Force Base (Morningside, Maryland), an officer for whom I’d worked informed me that regardless who gets elected to whatever office, that it is the bureaucracy which actually controls what happens on a daily basis.
I questioned that assertion, and he reminded me that even though the top gives orders for things to get done, that it was the mid structure which determined when and how such would happen, and indeed, whether it would happen at all.
The only time things happen quickly is when there is a perception of the fan being hit with fecal matter in the worst way!
Veronica says:
June 9, 2010 at 2:25 pm
JimBob
“when you run a red light in your Smart Car and get broadsided by a 5500-lb Suburban at 50 mph.”
Well then, it’s the BIG car that’s causing the problem, right? LOL
Be telling that to a 10 ton semi tractor-trailer rig, when one of the lightweight idiots decides to change lanes and then jambs on the brakes because she was going too fast and almost rear-ended the other driver, but then get creamed by the semi because she used up all of his braking space!