The question is, are we a country of laws made by our representatives, or a country of laws made by bureaucrats? The constitution provides only one answer, and Ms. Jackson would do well to read it.
Latest News release from the EPA:
CONTACT:
EPA Press Office
February 9, 2011
Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Opening Statement Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Energy and Power
As prepared for delivery – Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify about Chairman Upton’s draft bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air Act, the landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to protect them from harmful air pollution.
The bill appears to be part of a broader effort in this Congress to delay, weaken, or eliminate Clean Air Act protections of the American public. I respectfully ask the members of this Committee to keep in mind that EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur when smokestacks and tailpipes release unrestricted amounts of harmful pollution into the air we breathe.
Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept American kids healthy and in school.
EPA’s implementation of the Act also has contributed to dynamic growth in the U.S. environmental technologies industry and its workforce. In 2008, that industry generated nearly 300 billion dollars in revenues and 44 billion dollars in exports.
Yesterday, the University of Massachusetts and Ceres released an analysis finding that two of the updated Clean Air Act standards EPA is preparing to establish for mercury, soot, smog, and other harmful air pollutants from power plants will create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court concluded in 2007 that the Clean Air Act’s definition of air pollutant includes greenhouse gas emissions. The Court rejected the EPA Administrator’s refusal to determine whether that pollution endangers Americans’ health and welfare.
Based on the best peer-reviewed science, EPA found in 2009 that manmade greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people.
EPA is not alone in reaching that conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the climate is changing and that the changes are caused in large part by human activities. Eighteen of America’s leading scientific societies have written that multiple lines of evidence show humans are changing the climate, that contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science, and that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and the environment.
Chairman Upton’s bill would, in its own words, repeal that scientific finding. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific question– that would become part of this Committee’s legacy.
Last April, EPA and the Department of Transportation completed harmonized standards under the Clean Air Act and the Energy Independence and Security Act to decrease the oil consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of Model Year 2012 through 2016 cars and light trucks sold in the U.S.
Chairman Upton’s bill would block President Obama’s plan to follow up with Clean Air Act standards for cars and light trucks of Model Years 2017 through 2025. Removing the Clean Air Act from the equation would forfeit pollution reductions and oil savings on a massive scale, increasing America’s debilitating oil dependence.
EPA and many of its state partners have now begun implementing safeguards under the Clean Air Act to address carbon pollution from the largest facilities when they are built or expanded. A collection of eleven electric power companies called EPA’s action a reasonable approach focusing on improving the energy efficiency of new power plants and large industrial facilities.
And EPA has announced a schedule to establish uniform Clean Air Act performance standards for limiting carbon pollution at America’s power plants and oil refineries. Those standards will be developed with extensive stakeholder input, including from industry. They will reflect careful consideration of costs and will incorporate compliance flexibility.
Chairman Upton’s bill would block that reasonable approach. The Small Business Majority and the Main Street Alliance have pointed out that such blocking action would have negative implications for many businesses, large and small, that have enacted new practices to reduce their carbon footprint as part of their business models. They also write that it would hamper the growth of the clean energy sector of the U.S. economy, a sector that a majority of small business owners view as essential to their ability to compete.
Chairman Upton’s bill would have additional negative impacts that its drafters might not have intended. For example, it would prohibit EPA from taking further actions to implement the Renewable Fuels Program, which promotes the domestic production of advanced bio-fuels.
I hope this information has been helpful to the Committee, and I look forward to your questions.
____________________________
EPA Seal You can view or update your subscriptions or e-mail address at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page . All you will need is your e-mail address. If you have any questions or problems e-mail support@govdelivery.com for assistance.
This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
h/t to WUWT reader Michael C. Roberts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I cut back on chiliheeseburgers and went to oatmeal. What a life of regrets. It was the air. She saved me. I was raised on a farm and ingested fugitive waste (formerly known as dust) Worked in unventilated grain bins. I am surrounded by many relatives that live into their 90’s that inhaled soot from tractors and dust. We all do much better healthwise on raw milk, pork and butter than city people that do whole Foods organic.
Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives; avoided more than 100,000 hospital visits; prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays; and kept American kids healthy and in school.”
Just like the stimulus saved all those millions of jobs.
Australia again promotes uneducated cre###s
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/flannery-comes-in-from-cold-to-head-panel-20110210-1aol4.html
This is the person who said (and published) that Queensland would no longer see any rain.
The UK is now ruled by regulators and councils that do the dirty work politicians cannot or will not do and get reelected.
The power of regulators and councils destroy the value of the vote of citizens and the representation expected from each individual vote. And like regulators here they are off the rail on common sense and respect for the people paying their salary.
The entire opening statement was no more than a complaint that the congress is attempting to interfere in the operation of the EPAs rogue agenda to destroy the coal, oil and natural gas industry and to promote green energy. She does not seem to have a clue that the American people don’t want what she is promoting as reflected in the last election.
Bottom line people do not want nor do they like contrived sacrifice.
How many deaths have been caused by asbestos and lead paint removal? How many deaths have been caused by malaria? How many deaths have been caused by poverty that is the result of a failing economy? Good job EPA.
She wants to regulated GHG’s, but never mentions the the number one gas: Water Vapor. Nor the second: Methanes…
Nope, ONLY the 3% of .03% of Co2 in the atm is “causing” the 1/2deg per century rise in temps, an we’re all gonna die.
Idiot.
Senators should take turns playing good cop, bad cop with her. She should be treated like the perpetrator she is. Creating jobs works like this: the price of everything goes up, especially gasoline and electricity. More people go below the poverty line and so we need to hire more bureaucrats for things like food stamps. Then we need more inspectors of businesses to make them “compliant” with the new rules. Then we need more enforcers, etc. Then revenues to government increase (Lisa is deluded to think) because of all the fines, so they can hire new union workers to watch the others work.
Americans, write your Senators and Representatives! Specifically, argue that we should:
* Exclude so-called ‘greenhouse gases’ from EPA regulation.
* Introduce ‘sunset’ provisions into the EPA enabling legislation, which will require that cost-benefit analyses be done for any regulatory activity, and require that the Agency desist if diminishing returns render the regulation moot.
• Abolish the EPA altogether, and devolve any essential functions to agencies specifically charged with overseeing waterways, industries, etc.
We might get somewhere in the current House of Representatives. The Senate will be a tougher nut to crack.
/Mr Lynn
So the EPA’s implementation of the clean air act has saved millions of adults & children from debilitating illnesses. Millions? Really? To be sure, some environment regulations are necessary, but don’t con me. And don’t tell me the EPA has added to the economy. If that were the case then let’s make all federal agencies 10 times larger & watch the unemployment rate ‘skyrocket’ downward, & this feeble recovery ‘skyrocket” upward. Think that’d happen? Don’t insult us, Liss.
I wonder if those are 300,000 “good” jobs? At $100K per good job, that’s about $300 billion in salary alone. If those people consumed office supplies, electricity, or attempted to actually make something, you’d need to add in those costs. Wonder where the money comes from?
Dear reader:
As you know, the children are our future. We protect children from evil. Children are happier now than children ever were. Because of our child protection of children, your children will be children for children. Child children, youth, protection and child. Child is the rallying children cry of the children.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with children and child, or doesn’t want to protect children and their children must be some kind of horrible child killing monster. Are you a child killing monster? If not, then children must be protected using child and children.
(Jackson’s shameless plea to position anyone who disagrees with her political agenda as a child hating monster is one of the most repulsive things I’ve ever seen.)
The EPA is a scam. Public preasure on congress and business regarding a real threat to the environment would accomplish the same results. Dismantal the EPA just like was done to the Civil Aeronautics Board.
“Based on the best peer-reviewed science, EPA found in 2009 that manmade greenhouse gas emissions do threaten the health and welfare of the American people.”
Notice she can’t say that the best peer-reviewed science finds that greenhouse gas emissions threaten the health and welfare of the American people. It’s only her take on what spin the EPA can put on their warped reading of the literature. It’s jobs for the boys, and a one way street. The EPA are looking for bogeymen, and CAGW just seems to be the easiest one to find at the present.
“EPA is not alone in reaching that conclusion. The National Academy of Sciences has stated that there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that the climate is changing…”
Hang on, the EPA conclusion she just mentioned was her own take about deleterious effects on “the health and welfare of the American people”. She can’t say that others are reaching that conclusion. And to wheel out that the NAS says there is a strong body of evidence that climate is changing still does not support her conclusion. She is deliberately conflating two separate issues and the evidences therefor.
I do hope all her hearers can see what cheap and nasty rhetorical tricks this woman is using.
“The question is, are we a country of laws made by our representatives, or a country of laws made by bureaucrats? The constitution provides only one answer, and Ms. Jackson would do well to read it.”
Anthony, this is ridiculous. The Constitution charges Congress to pass laws and the executive to implement them. Congress passed the Clean Air Act with explicit language that upon an endangerment finding the EPA “shall” do a number of things, including setting New Source Performance Standards and requiring Best Available Control Technology.
If you want to attack the endangerment finding that is one thing, but EPA is statutorily mandated by Congress to create these GHG rules. Read the CAA for yourself if you don’t believe me. And if the EPA didn’t follow the language of the CAA which they are charged with administering, they would be enjoined in court. Stop misleading your readers into thinking this is some out of control unitary executive.
Those standards will be developed with extensive stakeholder input, including from industry.
Okay, then We The Free People “stakeholders” need to get rid of the Anti-Constitutional Totalitarians, Anti-Evolutionary Death Worshippers, Luddite Ignoramuses, and Congenital Parasites such as Lisa Jackson.
She actually thinks being underdeveloped as a country and enslaved as a people is “healthy”?
Circular reasoning written down in black and white.
So the notion that Phil Jones as lead author for the IPCC is now meaningless? It’s agenda driven from here.
This is absolutely UNACCEPTABLE!
The LOADED language of “generalities” coming from these folks to justify their fat salaries.
They sound worse than demogogs of the right or left on political issues.
“Pollution killing children”…May they ROT IN HE-double toothpicks for this sort of thing.
Sorry, my 58 year old body recalls flying into Washington DC in 1970. Over the BROWN low lying stratus clouds. Brown because of the emissions from PA/VA/NY, etc. Flights into DC and out off these days…100 mile plus visibility!
I don’t want to get on my high horse too much, but let’s go over a list:
1. Since post WWII, in the northern climes, we have transitioned from SOFT COAL for heating to fuel oil, electric and natural gas. Strike ONE for staring clean up of the “atmopshere” in a dramatic way.
2. No ONE runs a smelting, blast furnace, power generation plant without precipitators and scrubbers. Strike 2 for air quality VASTLY IMPROVED from 1970.
3. From the mid 80’s on autos transitioned to FUEL INJECTION. Fuel formulations changed too. Now the output from most cars you can breath without killing you! (Pure CO2 and H2O, a little NOx) Strike three.
AIR POLLUTION? You’re OUT! Cleanest air in about the last 300 years in populated areas of the USA.
Now let’s get to the lakes and streams. Public Law 9200, 1979. By 1989, no legal discharge of any non-treated liquid (i.e., other than essentially pure water) into all lakes, streams and oceans, from Muni’s, industry, in the USA.
Mostly accomplished! (Some problems with run off from farms, being addressed now.)
TRANSLATION, what we DRINK and eat, clean…clean…clean.
NOW about 300 million people PRECEEDED us in the USA. They lived full and useful lives. Where there some damaged by “pollution”? Probably.
Are we “dying like flies” right now from “pollution”? NO, heck NO, absolutely NO!
But these idiots want to use the “crisis mentallity” to maintain their power, and their $$$. Time to put them on the DOLE, once and for all.
Max
America … land of the free
… unless you produce CO2, in which case the whole economy and anything to do with running that economy (basically anything anyone does) is controlled by a few bureaucrats.
here’s a few other things they could regulate:-
war … all that nasty toxins from high explosives.
buildings … polluting the environment
Herbicides, pesticides, i.e agriculture!
Population numbers … all those humans polluting the planet
The food you eat … it all comes out and it’s got to be regulated to stop you polluting the planet
Drugs … polluting the body
Ideas … polluting the young.
Sounds to me, there’s no longer any need for congress or the senate!
Satire Mode = On
In light of the EPS’s findings that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant, all citizens of the US, except for people in office and the wealthy who donate to these people in office, will be required to hold their breath for the rest of their lives.
We hope this won’t be an inconvenience to you.
😉
Well to the extent that we have an EPA, in the first place, I don’t have very strong objections to having such an outfit monitor the compliance with environmental laws.
BUT !!! I have a VERY STRONG OBJECTION to having ANY such outfit, monitoring compliance with ANY laws, that it itself actually wrote and created.
So Anthony; does this not smell to you, vey much akin to the abomination of having “Reviewer A” reviewing a paper that is critical of “Reviewer A’s” very own work.
In our Government, as it is duly constituted by the US Constitution, we actually have a Congress that is the “Legislative” branch that is authorized, and charged with writing our laws; and providing funds for their implementation.
Then we have an “Administrative Branch” that is NOT authorized to write any laws; but is empowered to “Administrate” as in implement those laws, which are properly written by “The Congress”.
And of course we have a “Judicial Branch” which is supposed to ensure that the other two branches obey the rules laid down for them in that Constitution.
So instead we have a system run amok, with the administrative branch writing laws concocted by an unconstitutional unelected bunch of beaurocrats; who are responsible to nobody.
Yes I think we need to have “Reviewer A” take a powder, and butt out of ANY involvement in writing laws, for which they have no Constitutional duty to be involved.
Defunding the EPA is a good place to start re-instating Constitutional Government in the USA.
Lisa Jackson says: “…to address carbon pollution…”
Texas already gave Jackson its answer.
I agree, knock the EPA’s budget back to 1980 equivalent dollars, mandate that they review and sunset any regulations that they cannot “prove” are still necessary.
Cut their staffing in half. Return them to an organization that deals with pressing issues that cause real harm.
One of the major problems with regulatory agencies is how they grow without limits over time. Set limits with automatic sunset provisions on all regulations. Make them prove that the limits set are relevant AND necessary under current conditions.
As technology changes we gain the ability to detect “pollutants” at ever lower levels or concentration. That improvement in detection frequently results in the regulatory agency tightening their allowable limits to the new detection threshold without the need to prove that the tighter limits are necessary and appropriate.
This “mission creep” in regulation limits gradually increases the scope, cost and intrusiveness in the regulatory oversight (bigger government) with no proven benefit of any kind.
Current efforts to knock $1.6 billion dollars off of the EPA budget in my view does not go far enough. They should have a mandatory reduction in head count as well as funding levels.
Get back to your real job, dealing with true hazards like chlorine leaks, and unsafe drinking water and quit doing — busy work regulations of edge of limits of detection, might potentially be a risk, to some sensitive population, if we take the worst case scenario, model projections of thinks we think could be bad stuff.
/sarc
Larry
Lisa Jackson … “Denier” !!
JD –
You say: “And if the EPA didn’t follow the language of the CAA which they are charged with administering, they would be enjoined in court.”
The *statutory* threshold in the Clean Air Act for subjecting an emitter to regulation is 100 tons per year (TPY).
EPA itself admits that applying this threhold to CO2 would be administratively impossible and absurd because more than 6 million new sources would be subject to regulation, including many small businesses.
So, what to do?
EPA decided to change the threshold for CO2 to 100,000 tpy, for now, so that the regulation will be administratively feasible. They did this in the so-called “Tailoring Rule”
Since the 100 tpy threshold is in the statute, EPA does not have authority on its own to change it through a regulation. But it did. Whether that was legal is in court now.
Some folks think that since it’s impossible to apply the Clean Air Act as it is actually written to CO2 then the most reasonable conclusion is that Congress didn’t intend to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act.
I trust this puts it in a different light for you.
Since atmospheric carbon dioxide readings are already above Hansen’s “safe” 350ppm value and CO2 is now in an “expert determined danger zone” that threatens life on the planet, an immediate change must be initiated :
1. Ban the import or manufacture of any product or produce that adds CO2 to the atmosphere in any phase of its production or distribution.
There, that will put an end to it…