From The American Spectator:
Rebuttal on Greenhouse Gas Regulations
By Paul Chesser on 2.16.11 @ 5:24PM
In testimony EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson tried to convince Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee why her agency needs to be funded to carry out its planned greenhouse gas regulations. Today my colleagues at the American Tradition Institute rebutted ten points that she cited to justify GHG regs -- every claim was either wrong, wrong-headed or simply silly.
From the Ameerican Tradition Institute:
ATI Refutes Lisa Jackson's Rationale for GHG Regulations
Posted by Press Release A.T. Institute on February 16, 2011, 02:09 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
202-670-2680
The American Tradition Institute has examined the 10 reasons that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson gave to oppose Republican plans to not fund the implementation of climate change regulations at EPA. Our review documents the sad state of critical thinking at EPA and its failure to distinguish between its core mission and its Malthusian alarmist activism.
Here are the 10 reasons and why each is wrong, wrong-headed or simply silly:
1. Saving lives: Last year, air pollution restrictions authorized by the Act saved 160,000 American lives. But not one of those reflected any greenhouse gas rule, and no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will save a single life.
2. Cutting health care costs: Pollution regulation prevented 100,000 hospital visits last year. But not one of those reflected any greenhouse gas rule, and no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will prevent a single hospital visit.
3. Preventing illness: Regulations also prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma. But not one of those reflected any greenhouse gas rule, and no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will prevent a single respiratory illness.
4. Enhancing productivity: Preventing illness means preventing millions of lost work days and keeping kids healthy and in school. But no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will prevent a loss of a single job, and will instead cost the nation tens of thousands of jobs.
5. Creating a clean-air industry: In 2008, environmental technologies generated $300 billion in revenue and $44 billion in exports. But greenhouse gas rules only transfer money and jobs from the productive part of our economy to the unproductive, and are an unnecessary effort to reduce gases that are pollution in name only and have had no impact on American health or environmental quality.
6. Creating regulator jobs: An analysis released yesterday by the University of Massachusetts and Ceres found updated Clean Air Act standards will create 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. The greenhouse gas rules do nothing but create bigger government while causing greater harm to the American economy and American families. Where in the Clean Air Act does Congress ask EPA to create more government regulators while failing to improve air quality?
7. Protecting human health: In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases count as air pollutants that pose a threat to human health and welfare, thus qualifying them to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court only held that greenhouse gases could be considered pollutants. They did not reach the question as to whether they actually pose any threat to Americans’ health and welfare. This is up to EPA, yet the Agency doesn’t even have the expertise to document the relationship between this so-called pollution and actual harm to human health and the environment, a point now before courts due to challenges to the agency’s endangerment finding.
8. Heeding science: “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." The debate over the science is not simply ongoing, the newest findings continue to demonstrate the errors in previous assessments. Further, EPA is supposed to examine the facts and the science itself, not rely on “authority”. If it did, it could only conclude that previous assessments no longer reflect the current state of the science. EPA refuses to examine the science and thus has no legal basis upon which to impose its rules. When EPA opens the door to an honest debate of the science, it will deliver what Administrator Jackson promised in her nomination hearings – that she would follow the science. All she now does is follow political orders.
9. Promoting a clean-energy sector: “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.” EPA confuses a small group of companies that stand to gain under the greenhouse gas rules with the industry at large. Only the arrogant believe that cost-inefficient wind energy (the “clean energy” offered by Ms. Jackson) could survive without EPA regulations, and only EPA would ignore the fact that using wind energy on electrical grids has increase both traditional air pollution and greenhouse gases. “Clean energy” is neither clean nor cheap.
10. Reducing dependence on foreign oil: “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.” As Ms. Jackson is fully aware, the US demand for oil will grow for many decades to come. The only way to reduce dependence on foreign oil is to develop domestic oil reserves, and EPA has refused to permit oil exploration in U.S. waters, even when every other federal regulatory body has given a green light to these efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has flunked the 10 question test on why it is time to take the budget ax to EPA’s greenhouse gas rules. The only question is as to whether Congress will use her failures to improve their own scores.
Rebuttal on Greenhouse Gas Regulations
By Paul Chesser on 2.16.11 @ 5:24PM
In testimony EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson tried to convince Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee why her agency needs to be funded to carry out its planned greenhouse gas regulations. Today my colleagues at the American Tradition Institute rebutted ten points that she cited to justify GHG regs -- every claim was either wrong, wrong-headed or simply silly.
From the Ameerican Tradition Institute:
ATI Refutes Lisa Jackson's Rationale for GHG Regulations
Posted by Press Release A.T. Institute on February 16, 2011, 02:09 PM
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Contact: Paul Chesser, paul.chesser@atinstitute.org
202-670-2680
The American Tradition Institute has examined the 10 reasons that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson gave to oppose Republican plans to not fund the implementation of climate change regulations at EPA. Our review documents the sad state of critical thinking at EPA and its failure to distinguish between its core mission and its Malthusian alarmist activism.
Here are the 10 reasons and why each is wrong, wrong-headed or simply silly:
1. Saving lives: Last year, air pollution restrictions authorized by the Act saved 160,000 American lives. But not one of those reflected any greenhouse gas rule, and no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will save a single life.
2. Cutting health care costs: Pollution regulation prevented 100,000 hospital visits last year. But not one of those reflected any greenhouse gas rule, and no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will prevent a single hospital visit.
3. Preventing illness: Regulations also prevented millions of cases of respiratory illness, including bronchitis and asthma. But not one of those reflected any greenhouse gas rule, and no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will prevent a single respiratory illness.
4. Enhancing productivity: Preventing illness means preventing millions of lost work days and keeping kids healthy and in school. But no greenhouse gas rule implemented by EPA will prevent a loss of a single job, and will instead cost the nation tens of thousands of jobs.
5. Creating a clean-air industry: In 2008, environmental technologies generated $300 billion in revenue and $44 billion in exports. But greenhouse gas rules only transfer money and jobs from the productive part of our economy to the unproductive, and are an unnecessary effort to reduce gases that are pollution in name only and have had no impact on American health or environmental quality.
6. Creating regulator jobs: An analysis released yesterday by the University of Massachusetts and Ceres found updated Clean Air Act standards will create 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. The greenhouse gas rules do nothing but create bigger government while causing greater harm to the American economy and American families. Where in the Clean Air Act does Congress ask EPA to create more government regulators while failing to improve air quality?
7. Protecting human health: In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that greenhouse gases count as air pollutants that pose a threat to human health and welfare, thus qualifying them to be regulated under the Clean Air Act. The Supreme Court only held that greenhouse gases could be considered pollutants. They did not reach the question as to whether they actually pose any threat to Americans’ health and welfare. This is up to EPA, yet the Agency doesn’t even have the expertise to document the relationship between this so-called pollution and actual harm to human health and the environment, a point now before courts due to challenges to the agency’s endangerment finding.
8. Heeding science: “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." The debate over the science is not simply ongoing, the newest findings continue to demonstrate the errors in previous assessments. Further, EPA is supposed to examine the facts and the science itself, not rely on “authority”. If it did, it could only conclude that previous assessments no longer reflect the current state of the science. EPA refuses to examine the science and thus has no legal basis upon which to impose its rules. When EPA opens the door to an honest debate of the science, it will deliver what Administrator Jackson promised in her nomination hearings – that she would follow the science. All she now does is follow political orders.
9. Promoting a clean-energy sector: “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.” EPA confuses a small group of companies that stand to gain under the greenhouse gas rules with the industry at large. Only the arrogant believe that cost-inefficient wind energy (the “clean energy” offered by Ms. Jackson) could survive without EPA regulations, and only EPA would ignore the fact that using wind energy on electrical grids has increase both traditional air pollution and greenhouse gases. “Clean energy” is neither clean nor cheap.
10. Reducing dependence on foreign oil: “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.” As Ms. Jackson is fully aware, the US demand for oil will grow for many decades to come. The only way to reduce dependence on foreign oil is to develop domestic oil reserves, and EPA has refused to permit oil exploration in U.S. waters, even when every other federal regulatory body has given a green light to these efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has flunked the 10 question test on why it is time to take the budget ax to EPA’s greenhouse gas rules. The only question is as to whether Congress will use her failures to improve their own scores.
No comments:
Post a Comment