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.
JD says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:38 am
I’m calling shenanigans on you, JD. Anthony is not being misleading at all. Technically you are right about one thing – the EPA is mandated by Congress under the CAA to act upon an actual endangerment. The reason this whole debate is happening is because many members of the current Congress realize that this particular “endangerment finding” is not based in reality (no, models that only output the doom and gloom they were programmed to are not reality). Therefore the regulations must be stopped. The Clean Air Act does not simply give the EPA the authority to cook up a gigantic load of tripe and force every American to swallow it. But, as you’ve stated, the Congress gets to make the laws and since many of them are seeing serious flaws in the exercises of the EPA under the CAA, they have the authority to change or vacate the law or any part they see fit. They also have the authority to defund or refuse funding for any program for whatever reason they see fit.
Of course, if anyone has real-world empirical evidence that their endagerment finding on GHGs is true, please present it along with the methodology, raw data, and all other pertinent information so it can be carefully reviewed and replicated. Otherwise, let’s put a stop to all the speculative “science” and draconian measures to fight the phantom menace (sorry Star Wars fans :-))…
Quinn the Eskimo @ur momisugly February 10, 2011 at 9:48 am
The Congress specifically intended NOT to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act. However, EPA no longer finds that congressional intention convenient.
Since the age of 6, I have suffered from asthma.Really cold weather brings it on for most asthmatics,so we like it warmer not colder.CO2 only starts to affect people when it’s concentration reaches about 2%.Controlling CO2 production is impossible – but when will that stop power mad regulators.
I can only think it is deliberate that Ms. Jackson et.al. confuse the carbon/CO2 issue. Ms. Boxer made a similar statement yesterday, as well. They also characterize the house legislation as “gutting” the Clean Air Act when all it does is limit its power over GHGs, the rest is fear mongering.
I saw part of the hearing yesterday and saw Rep. Inslee illustrate the “vanishing” Arctic ice cap with a picture. I quickly went to the Sea Ice Page (thanks, Anthony!) and was able to verify his diminished sea ice picture had to be from the summer melt, it was in no way like the current ice extent. More dodging and misinformation from the AGW crowd.
*ahem* As a practicing environmental scientist for the past 30 years, I’ve seen the vast improvements made in the environment, thanks to initiatives from the EPA as well as their partners at the state and local level. (EPA sets the regs, and states implement & enforce them).
You like your clean water & air? It wasn’t like this in the early 1960’s, when Lake Michigan and other Great Lakes were essentially dead, the US auto fleet ran on leaded gas, and life expectancy was more than 10 years less than it is today. You have much to thank President Nixon for!
Upgrading sewage treatment and drinking water plants to modern standards is why you can drink tap water anyplace in the USA, but cannot anyplace in China or Mexico.
I’m glad that we had the EPA to put pressure on US industry, ’cause they ALWAYS cry “poor.” Auto industry did it with seat belts, catalytic converters, air bags etc.
By taking such a broad swipe at the EPA through legislation such as Sen. Barrasso’s “Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act,” the EPA will be unable to regulate chemicals identified as greenhouse chemicals, even if they are highly toxic. Nitric oxides (primarily produced from production of nitric acid) and CFCs are two in particular.
Be careful what you wish for.
Cut the EPA’s budget along with the 16000 new IRS agents required by Obamacare and we could start to make a dent in the deficit as well as the job killing activities in which these people are engaged. Let’s see, for just the new IRS agents, 16000 x $200,000 including benefits, travel, phones, computers, offices, etc.=$3,200,000,000 without any downsizing of EPA or IRS! Let me at that budget! The $1.5 trillion planned deficit for the coming year could easily be eliminated, create private sector jobs and reduce government created private sector expenses substantially.
If you haven’t read the Supreme Court decision that rendered CO2 a pollutant subject to regulation by the EPA via the Clean Air Act, I would recommend you do so.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf
I must admit that I have a special place in my heart for the footnote in Scalia’s dissenting opinion on page 63 of the document, which points out the lunacy of the majority’s logic in determining that CO2 is a pollutant, concluding with the following observation:
‘It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an “air pollutant.” This reading of the statute defies common sense.’
Lisa Jackson can look forward to dancing to the tune of the GOP chop. Budget Axe.
Under her leadership, the EPA stands astride job recovery.
Now, we do need an EPA, we simply can do without her, or like-minded agendists, on a mission that hold promise only of crushing America.
Pink slip or Budget Axe, choose wisely.
This isn’t true.
The Supreme Court concluded that the EPA Administrator was allowed to include anything she wanted into the definition of air pollutant – at her discretion.
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Congress telling her.
ok, YOU have the discretion to define air pollution – fine.
WE have the discretion to define how much money you get.
Ms Jackson included the following:-
“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.”
Surely those businesses, large and small, that have enacted new practices to reduce their carbon (dioxide?) footprint should be laughing. If they are right about C, or CO2 or whatever it is, and continue to believe the AGW proponents, they should reap the reward of their foresight. If they are wrong, then they can continue to be comforted
in the thought that they are going to be rewarded for their foresight – since as things are playing out, it will be a long time yet before before the scam is admitted by its supporters.
Charlie
PS. I have for a while now had the feeling that ‘Western’ civilisations are in the early stages of their own destruction. History is littered with such examples – the Egyptians, the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Moors etc. – some of which took their eye off the ball, or others which were simply by-passed by technology and/or accidents of geography e.g. the silk route. No doubt you have your own favourite exmaples.
It seems to me that here in the UK, our leaders are busy signing away the seeds of our own survival, at least in the material living standards that we have come to expect. Our own legislators are fixated about GHGs and are also keen to appease anybody who says ‘Boo’ in whatever field. The European Union is travel(l)ing the same path and it appears from Lisa P Jackson’s post (and lots of others on this site) that the US is trying hard to do the same. We will wake up when it’s too late – and what will Ms Goddard’s quoted children then have to thank us for?
Sorry to go on so!
Charlie
I hope somebody files a FOIA request for Jackson’s emails. Of course, she could have followed Browner’s actions and made sure to leave no electronic trail…
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.
BUT – Medical Author: William C. Shiel, Jr., MD, FACP, FACR
Scientists and physicians have noticed that the rates of asthma have been increasing in recent decades. This has been especially true in developed countries such as the United States. In fact, the American Lung Association has reported that asthma prevalence has risen from 34 cases/1000 people in the general population in 1982 to 56 cases/1000 in 1994.
Seems like asthma rates have exploded on EPA’s Clean Air Act.
And from the Washington Examiner- http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/524737
A paper by the American Enterprise Institute-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, “Do Federal Regulations Reduce Mortality?” looked at the effect of 24 health, safety and environmental regulations passed in the 1990s.
The authors concluded that the EPA was responsible for six of the eight worst regulations. All six of these EPA regulations were intended to reduce exposure to carcinogens, yet the authors concluded they all actually raised mortality risks. On net, the EPA regulations examined may have actually cost 97 lives.
So EPA is in fact killing us.
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.
I don’t think the cost for further reduction warrants the extra cost on my power bill.
This service is provided to you at no charge by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Ms. Jackson, what exactly is your agency’s annual budget? Would you consider that number to constitute “at no charge”?
I’m sure Obama will give wavers to all his favorite companies. Crony capitalism at its best.
Rather than playing games with the EPA’s funding, which the bureaucrat’s will easily find methods to circumvent to continue to press their agenda, what is required is to change the language of the agency’s authorizing statute so that it is restricted to monitoring and restraining actual pollution. This is the only way to undercut the Supreme Court ruling which allows and indeed appears to demand that they act to control CO2.
CodeTech says:
February 10, 2011 at 8:16 am
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.
================================
Beautifully put! Whenever I see ‘the chiiiildrun’ mentioned, I now invoke ‘Hansen’s Law’ and dismiss it out of hand………………..
Anyone bother to ask Ms. Jackson to provide a list of persons actually affected by mercury from power plants? CDC doesn’t seem to have anything related to that. Short of historic ingestion of organomecurials in Japan and the mid east and acute contact with mercury there isn’t much of a record of problems with mercury.
I’m glad to know Ms. Jackson is out protecting us from the non-existant threats of mercury and CO2.
There’s absolutely no hope for America and Europe so long as these lies continue.
Is that the intention?
I’d like to point out that the claimed dangers of CO2 merely come from a projected change in temperatures. There are two possible reasons for this. Either:
1) The current temperature at some site is safe, but the projected future temperature is unsafe and represents a threat to health.
2) The change in temperature from current to future represents the threat, even though a stable warmer temperature is in itself safe.
The first line of argument backs the EPA into the corner of saying that someplace like Death Valley is environmentally safe (otherwise they’d have to ban its existence), but a slightly warmer Death Valley is unsafe. But that means that everywhere that isn’t projected to get any hotter than Death Valley (the entire US) would also be safe in the future, and since nobody lives in Death Valley, nobody is endangered by higher future temperatures. Basically, if higher temps are dangerous to all of us shouldn’t we make Alabama, Arizona, and Mississippi illegal?
So the EPA would have to fall back to the second argument, that changing temperatures are unsafe. That would put them in the position of banning the morning sunrise, or banning solar cycles, or banning El Nino.
The EPA is babbling that they’re regulating an “air pollutant” that effects temperatures, which means they’re really setting temperature standards for the great outdoors.
I can’t wait for office workers to start suing their employers for the damage to their health caused by the excessive amounts of the nasty pollutant CO2 in their office environment.
What a bonanza!
I am still trying to determne what the negatives are with GHG – man made or not that the EPA wants to protect us from? I found a reference in her letter as to it being harmful:
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.
But, no where does she document what those specific quantifiable threats are.
I think I’ve found a place for the Republicans in the House to cut some serious money from the federal budget.
“”””” CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
February 10, 2011 at 10:20 am
*ahem* As a practicing environmental scientist for the past 30 years, I’ve seen the vast improvements made in the environment, thanks to initiatives from the EPA as well as their partners at the state and local level. (EPA sets the regs, and states implement & enforce them). “””””
Well I have no disagreement with your conclusion that the Clean Air Act may have resulted in cleaning up many different problems. I have no problem with the EPA continuing to implement the environmental laws.
I just don’t want them ususrping the Congressional powers, and actually making up their own environmental laws. How simple is that.
Americans vote for the members of the Congress, Congress makes the laws. If Americans don’t like the laws; they replace the members of the Congress with people that can write better laws.
If the EPA wasn’t wasting so much time and resources, in making up their own laws; they would be able to administer the laws made by Congress, on a far smaller budget, than they now waste.
EPA is not only useless, it’s harmful. Get rid of it. It’s a danger for USA.
In my opinion.