I thank Chairman Boucher for holding this important hearing today on the, “Strengths and Weaknesses of Regulating Green House Gas Emissions Using Existing Clean Air Act Authorities.” The way I see it, we’ll mostly be looking at the weaknesses of the “Clean Air Act” as a means to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Some of the Members of this Committee are happy with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Massachusetts v. EPA, however, many of us, are not. But as the Committee of jurisdiction, I think we all know that the EPA and “Clean Air Act” are NOT the most effective means to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.
As I’ve stated many times before – yes, I support reducing greenhouse gas emissions. If there were a way to cut emissions as part of a global agreement – that includes India and China – and without harming our economy or domestic jobs, I’d like to see it. But regardless of the path this Congress takes to deal with the global issue of climate change, we must correct Massachusetts v. EPA.
Our economy is going through a rough patch. Coming from Michigan, I know first hand just how difficult things are for folks back home. Rising energy prices only exacerbate the economic problems we’re facing. By law, the EPA is prevented from taking economic considerations into account. We need to address climate change, but we must take a responsible, pragmatic approach that does not further depress our economy and cost the US jobs. The unfortunate reality is, if we leave this task to the EPA the consequences will be severe – gasoline prices will skyrocket, electricity costs will spike, jobs will rush overseas, and the environment won’t be any better off.
The “Clean Air Act,” was not designed to, and does not properly equip the EPA to deal with a global environmental issue. The air pollution in Southern California that puts them in non-attainment with EPA regulations, does not impact Southwest Michigan. We can fix our air pollution regardless of what they do. The Clean Air Act works fine for cleaning up the air in a specific geographical area. But with CO2, there is no environmental distinction between CO2 emitted in Southwest Michigan and the CO2 emitted in Southwest Asia or anywhere else in the world. This is an issue that must be examined through a global spectrum, in search of global solutions.
The communities in my district are working hard to achieve attainment under the Clean Air Act and we can test the air to see exactly how many parts-per-million we have of criteria pollutants and we can address the sources directly. But with CO2, Michigan’s reductions and US reductions are lost in the global mix. To make a concerted effort to achieve real results, all members of the world community must be actively involved.
A domestic response under inflexible EPA command and control regulation does not and will not help the environment, will not compel or require other countries to act, and will not have even a negligible impact on global levels of greenhouse gases. If the goal is to improve human health and welfare, EPA regulations under the Clean Air Act will not achieve this goal.
There are substantial differences between CO2 and the pollutants the Clean Air Act was intended to regulate. From the standpoint of both sound science and health risks, CO2 does not belong in the same category with Carbon Monoxide (CO), Chloro-fluorocarbons (CFCs), Lead, Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Ozone (O3), Particulate Matter (PM), and Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). They simply are not the same.
It is one thing to pay lip service to an issue, it’s another thing to actually pursue policies that we all know will not work. But we do have a unique opportunity to make a difference in cutting greenhouse gas emissions at the global level.
Cap and Trade or any other Congressional mandated climate change scheme without reversing Massachusetts v. EPA would be a disaster. I look forward to the testimony today.
