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.
Page 02 (Opinion): Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning of §202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.
Page 04, 05 (Syllabus): #3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of “air pollutant,” EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition— which includes “any air pollution agent . . . , including any physical,chemical, . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air . . . ,” §7602(g) (emphasis added)—embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe.
…”EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA’s power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants.
Page 05 (Syllabus): #4. On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30–32.
Page 20, 21 (Opinion): Causation
EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between man-made greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At a minimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries.
EPA nevertheless maintains that its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that the agency cannot be haled into federal court to answer for them. For the same reason, EPA does not believe that any realistic possibility exists that the relief petitioners seek would mitigate global climate change and remedy their injuries. That is especially so because predicted increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing nations, particularly China and India, are likely to offset any marginal domestic decrease.
Page 23 (Opinion): In sum—at least according to petitioners’ uncontested affidavits—the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts. The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real. That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to challenge the EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition.
Page 24 (Opinion): The scope of our review of the merits of the statutory issues is narrow. As we have repeated time and again, an agency has broad discretion to choose how best to marshal its limited resources and personnel to carry out its delegated responsibilities.
Page 26 (Opinion): The statutory text forecloses EPA’s reading. The Clean Air Act’s sweeping definition of “air pollutant” includes “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air . . . .” §7602(g) (emphasis added).
On its face, the definition embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe, and underscores that intent through the repeated use of the word “any.”[25] Carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are without a doubt “physical [and] chemical . . . substance[s] which [are] emitted into . . . the ambient air.” The statute is unambiguous.
Page 32 (Opinion): In short, EPA has offered no reasoned explanation for its refusal to decide whether greenhouse gases cause or contribute to climate change.
VIII: The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
SCALIA, J. (Dissenting, Page 06): with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE THOMAS, and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
Page 6 of dissent: If,” the Court says, “the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment as to whether greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, EPA must say so.” Ante, at 31. But EPA has said precisely that—and at great length, based on information contained in a 2001 report by the National Research Council (NRC) entitled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.
Page 8 of dissent, referring to the NRC report:
“I simply cannot conceive of what else the Court would like EPA to say.”
SCALIA, J. (Dissenting, page 08): “Air pollutant” is defined by the Act as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” 42 U. S. C. §7602(g). The Court is correct that “[c]arbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons,” ante, at 26, fit within the second half of that definition: They are “physical, chemical, . . . substance[s] or matter which [are] emitted into or otherwise ente[r] the ambient air.” But the Court mistakenly believes this to be the end of the analysis. In order to be an “air pollutant” under the Act’s definition, the “substance or matter [being] emitted into . . . the ambient air” must also meet the first half of the definition—namely, it must be an “air pollution agent or combination of such agents.” The Court simply pretends this half of the definition does not exist.
The Court’s analysis faithfully follows the argument advanced by petitioners, which focuses on the word “including” in the statutory definition of “air pollutant.” See Brief for Petitioners 13–14. As that argument goes, anything that follows the word “including” must necessarily be a subset of whatever precedes it. Thus, if greenhouse gases qualify under the phrase following the word “including,” they must qualify under the phrase preceding it. Since greenhouse gases come within the capacious phrase “any physical, chemical, . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air,” they must also be “air pollution agent[s] or combination[s] of such agents,” and therefore meet the definition of “air pollutant[s].”
SCALIA, J. (Dissenting, Page 10 footnote 2): Not only is EPA’s interpretation reasonable, it is far more plausible than the Court’s alternative. As the Court correctly points out, “all airborne compounds of whatever stripe,” ante, at 26, would qualify as “physical, chemical, . . . substance[s] or matter which [are] emitted into or otherwise ente[r] the ambient air,” 42 U. S. C. §7602(g). It follows that everything airborne, from Frisbees to flatulence, qualifies as an “air pollutant.” This reading of the statute defies common sense.
Government by Diktat
EPA is broken. It has become a tool of tyranny, unfit for service in a representative republic. Prune it.
A sloppily-written Clean Air Act is the root cause. Congress can and should fix it.
http://greenhellblog.com/2011/02/09/defund-the-epa/
CA is a bit farther along in implementing a cap and trade program for C02 then the federal government. A meeting was held http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/notices/2011-01-19_Workshop_Notice.pdf last month (19 Jan) at the California Energy Commission (CEC) to obtain input on how the state of the economy will impact the the 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR). The agenda for the meeting noted “The California Energy Commission’s Electricity Supply Analysis Division and Fuels and Transportation Division will jointly conduct a workshop to solicit comments on the changing California economy and future economic outlook as part of the 2011 Integrated Energy Policy Report (2011 IEPR)”.
The Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA) had some interesting comments on the CA economy and how it will be impacted by CA’s version of CAP and Trade (AB 32 and the low carbon fuel standard)- http://www.energy.ca.gov/2011_energypolicy/documents/2011-01-19_workshop/comments/Western_States_Petroleum_Association_Comments_TN-59597.pdf
Of particular interest to me was this comment- “All sources agree that AB32, even when fully implemented, will have virtually no effect on global climate change. ” Page 4.
@CRS, Dr.P.H.:
So, what are you going to do?
You know the EPA is wrong in regulating “carbon emissions.” You should know they’ve been engaging in mission creep, tightening up regulations beyond the concept of “acceptable risk” and well into actively pursuing the Precautionary Principle as their guidepost, which is wrong. They’re reminding me of ads for multi-vitamin/mineral supplements, ‘Emerging science says this might help, so we’re tossing it in just in case (even though we don’t know yet for certain).’
We don’t want to go back to the pre-EPA days of polluted air, water, and soil, so we won’t. Period.
You know the EPA needs to be throttled back. If the proposed legislation isn’t the way, what is? Do you know of a method that will work, that this administration will allow to work?
You can keep going on about the EPA’s glory days and all the good it did back then, even how it still works. But it’s sounding like praising an old car you still drive, how you had your first whatever in it, drove your pregnant wife to the hospital during a blinding snowstorm with it, etc. Or your parents’ old house that you now live in, with its wood fireplaces, lack of central heating and insulation, and quaint outhouse.
It is not being proposed that you give up driving, or live outdoors. But it is time to admit the relative inefficiency, need of repair, high maintenance costs. Time to realize the need for renovation or replacement, for something more modern, more efficient, more capable, and more responsive. ‘Cause what we have right now, just ain’t working good enough anymore.
CRS, Dr.P.H.
Here, let me teach YOU.
The great lakes are about 5500 cubic MILES of water, with a surface area of about 94,000 square miles. Your little “dead zones” that seem to cause you great consternation were minuscule portions of this vast volume.
Also, you make the typical amateur mistake of confusing a small area in the US with the gigantic overall area that includes Canada.
Your claim was an exaggeration, but now you’re stretching it [snip ~ Evan]
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
February 11, 2011 at 5:17 pm
@CRS, Dr.P.H.:
You know the EPA needs to be throttled back. If the proposed legislation isn’t the way, what is? Do you know of a method that will work, that this administration will allow to work?
REPLY
Yup. Patents pending. I’ll give you a hint….carbon dioxide is a valuable material.
“Pollutants are misplaced resources.” By Jack Sheaffer, Ph.D. , an old friend of mine.
Last year alone, EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act saved more than 160,000 American lives ….. In 2008, that industry generated nearly 300 billion dollars in revenues and 44 billion dollars in exports.
Is that not double counting. Granting the ameliorative effects on lives (doubtful as I am of Govt;s auto-titillating number), all this cost us 300 billion, the lost opportunity of this amount never gets factored in. In fact it is presented as a wonderment to behold. In that case let’s increase regulations 10 perhaps hindered fold. We will save more lives and reduce joblessness at the same time.
Kate says:
February 11, 2011 at 6:07 am
To CRS, Dr.P.H.,
In the hundreds of hours of reading I have invested in this issue, I have yet to hear an environmentalist decry the incredible WASTE of billions of dollars that were meant to clean up air and water directed to the sole purpose of eliminating carbon dioxide from our vast and chaotic atmosphere.
—-
REPLY Um….do you live in the USA, or Belgium?
The USA hasn’t spent much money at all on carbon dioxide remediation. The amount of scientific funding to universities, NASA etc. for research into GHG mitigation is probably in the low billions, but the USA lags behind Europe and Japan, since we didn’t sign onto Kyoto.
My clients (major industries including electrical generating utilities) simply want a road-map so they can budget for the future, and they haven’t been fighting the proposed Title V PSD as much as oil & gas have. In fact, some like John Rowe, CEO of Exelon, are strong proponents of carbon mitigation. Here’s some of his speeches:
http://www.exeloncorp.com/newsroom/speeches/Pages/speeches.aspx#section_1
It will be interesting to see how this works out! Most of this will be dragged out in the courts, and utilities are now bracing for endless “noisesome pollution” lawsuits from green groups, native tribes etc. Believe me, they would rather this be settled by the USEPA, since EPA has presented a very long-range plan that they can live with.
CRS, Dr.P.H. wrote, “research into GHG mitigation is probably in the low billions”
Yes, billions per year.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/112xx/doc11224/03-26-ClimateChange.pdf
And many multinationals and oil and natural gas companies have bought in, for one reason or another; that is correct.
What. An. Incredible. Waste.
As Mark Miller put it, ““All sources agree that AB32, even when fully implemented, will have virtually no effect on global climate change. ”