CleanTechies Blog - CleanTechies.com » Lisa Jackson

State and Local Officials Comment on President’s Commitment to Clean Air and a Strong Economy

The White House Blog — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:00:48 +0000

Over the last two and half years the Obama Administration, under the leadership of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, has taken some of the strongest actions since the enactment of the Clean Air Act four decades ago to protect our environment and the health of our families from air pollution.

On Friday, President Obama asked Administrator Jackson to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time, as work is already underway to update a 2006 review of the science that will result in the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013.

Several state and local officials spoke out about the President’s announcement and commitment to working with state and local governments.

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder:

“The President made the right decision to stop this move by the EPA. The present ozone standard was last reviewed a mere three years ago. Michigan companies have worked hard to meet the standard, because we all support a healthy environment. It is important to balance environmental goals with the need for economic development, particularly as Michigan and the rest of the nation work to recover from the recession”

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa:

“In our current economic climate, we must do everything we can to stimulate the economy short of taking a step back in the unprecedented environmental gains this administration has already made. This is the sort of balanced approach we need to create jobs and also improve the quality of air, health and life for countless Americans.”

East Moline, Illinois Mayor John Thodos:

“We in the Quad Cities are very happy with the President’s announcement. We take clean air very seriously, but it’s difficult enough to create jobs without these new standards. I fully support the President’s decision.”

Texas State Representative Garnet Coleman:

“I want to thank President Obama and his administration for listening and working with state and local governments. Withdrawing the new standard allows an update of the science and the reconsideration of the ozone standard in 2013 while granting our state and local governments and businesses more regulatory certainty and flexibility. President Obama and his administration are strong partners with those of us on the state and local level of government in the fight for clean air and public health.”

Bettendorf, Iowa Mayor Mike Freemire:

“The standards are quite rigorous as they are, and the threat of new standards from a manufacturing standpoint aren’t helpful for the economy or growing jobs. It’s a prudent move. Everything is a balancing act. I applaud the President for his decision.”

Scott County, Iowa Board of Supervisors Chair Tom Sunderbruch:

“I certainly support the President's move to withdraw the draft Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards at this time…I think delaying the standard change is the right thing to do. I also believe making sure you have the right science to know what to do next is important. I believe those responsible for setting the regulations should continue to research the issue.”

Article by Cecilia Muñoz, Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Intergovernmental Affairs

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by The White House Blog. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

So What Does the Clean Air Act Do?

The White House Blog — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:30:33 +0000

Earlier this week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. In her testimony the Administrator highlighted the agency's ongoing efforts to develop sensible standards that update the Clean Air Act, while ensuring that the landmark law continues to provide Americans the protections from dangerous pollution that they deserve. These reasonable steps will ensure that the air our children breathe and the water they drink is safe, while also providing certainty to American businesses.

Despite these pragmatic steps to implement long overdue updates, big polluters are trying to gut the Clean Air Act by asking Congress to carve out special loopholes from air pollution standards.

The Clean Air Act gives the Environmental Protection Agency the necessary tools to protect our families from mercury, arsenic, smog, particulates and carbon dioxide that can cause asthma and lung disease – especially in children. Weakening these standards would allow more pollution in the air we breathe and threaten our children’s health. We thought it might be helpful to refresh everyone on how this landmark law affects our country and protects our health.

160,000 Lives Saved Last Year
In the year 2010 alone, clean air regulations are estimated to have saved over 160,000 lives.

More than 100,000 Hospital Visits Avoided Last Year
In 2010, clean air standards prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems, including bronchitis and asthma. It enhanced productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays, and kept kids healthy and in school, avoiding millions of lost school days due to respiratory illness and other diseases caused or exacerbated by air pollution.

60% Less Pollution in Our Air, Strong Economic Growth and Lower Electricity Prices
Since 1970, the Clean Air Act has reduced key air pollutants that cause smog and particulate pollution by more than 60%. At the same time the economy more than tripled. And Since the Clean Air Act Amendments in 1990, electricity production is up and prices are down. In 2009, electric utilities delivered 33 percent more electricity to U.S. households and businesses than in 1990, while nationwide electricity prices were 10 percent lower.

Benefits Far Out Weigh Costs
Over its forty-year span, the benefits of the Clean Air Act – in the form of longer lives, healthier kids, greater workforce productivity, and ecosystem protections – outweigh the costs by more than 30 to 1.

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Leaders Grandstanding on New Greenhouse-Gas Regulations

2GreenEnergy — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 21:30:39 +0000

Gosh, it irks me to have our leaders take advantage on our ignorance – but I guess that what they do for a living.

Lisa Jackson, the administrator of the EPA, said recently that the agency will “issue guidance soon that states and polluters may use to implement the agency’s new greenhouse-gas regulations,” and that complying with the rules “is practical and is manageable.” Of course, it’s not at all clear what that means in terms of pragmatic consequences. But that didn’t deter our elected leaders from seizing opportunity to grandstand on either side of the aisle. Knowing that most people have no clue of the basic economics of new energy, and simply love a partisan fight, they were on camera more or less instantly.

Lawmakers led by Senator Jay Rockefeller want to postpone EPA action, saying the rules will hurt businesses and consumers grappling with a sluggish economy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wants to schedule a vote on Rockefeller’s bill “before we leave here.” Rockefeller is “aggressively pursuing” a two-year delay of the greenhouse-gas regulations for industrial sources such as power plants because “the unelected EPA” shouldn’t get ahead of Congress.

Is anyone asking about creating a level playing field for clean energy? About the real effect in job creation? Maybe, but they’re incredibly hard to find.

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by 2GreenEnergy. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)

Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

U.S. Congress Tells EPA to Study Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water

ProPublica — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 17:31:44 +0000

Five years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assured the nation that the technology credited with opening vast new natural gas supplies was safe. Now Congress has ordered the agency to take another look.

As part of the $32 billion Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill recently signed by President Obama, lawmakers asked the EPA to re-visit hydraulic fracturing, the process where copious amounts of water and sand mixed with toxic chemical additives are furiously pumped underground to break up gas-bearing rock thousands of feet below.

The bill urges the EPA to use a portion of the money to fund a scientifically robust and peer-reviewed study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, “using a credible approach that relies on the best available science.”

The EPA gave hydraulic fracturing its stamp of approval in a 2004 report, but that study has been widely criticized as politically-motivated and scientifically unsound. After the report was released, veteran EPA scientist Weston Wilson wrote a letter to Colorado representatives saying that “based on available science and literature, EPA’s conclusions are unsupportable.” He also wrote that five out seven members of a panel that reviewed the findings had conflicts of interest and “may benefit from EPA’s decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions.”

In 2008 ProPublica reported that EPA staff involved in the study negotiated directly with Halliburton, one of the leaders in the hydraulic fracturing business, and other stakeholders to soften inspection pressure from the agency. In exchange, the companies agreed to voluntarily stop using diesel fuel for some of their fracturing processes. That report was part of an investigation showing that water sources have been contaminated across the country from drilling.

The 2004 study was used to help justify the passage of an amendment in the 2005 Energy Policy Act which exempted hydraulic fracturing from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Ever since, environmentalists and some Democratic members of Congress have been pushing for a reversal.

The new request for a study of fracturing is just one paragraph, deep in the 393-page bill that funds everything from drinking water infrastructure to Great Lakes conservation, and it does not specify an amount of money to be spent on the study.

The office of EPA administrator Lisa Jackson did not respond to requests for comment for this article. But the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), says he expects the EPA to follow through. “I think don’t think that there is any question that they are going to move forward on it,” said Hinchey, adding that Jackson has indicated this to him directly.

Jackson previously said she recognized that the current regulations restrict the EPA’s ability to protect groundwater and said the issue “was well worth looking into.” But she hadn’t indicated how the EPA would approach the problem or whether the 2004 study would be revised.

The request for a new study comes six months after a matching pair of bills called the FRAC Act was introduced in the House and Senate. The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness Chemicals Act –sponsored by Hinchey, among others – would repeal the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

It’s not unusual for a study to be introduced as a way of delaying legislation. But Hinchey says this study serves a real purpose because there is a dearth of scientifically-neutral information about hydraulic fracturing.

“We are very sincere and deeply dedicated to getting this done,” he said.

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten and Sabrina Shankman appearing courtesy of ProPublica

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

EPA Aims to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Elsa Wenzel — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:15:09 +0000

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360.

The Obama administration has announced it will use its regulatory powers to limit CO2 emissions from 14,000 major sources, a move that puts pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill and signals to other nations the U.S.’s willingness to slow global warming.

Lisa Jackson, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (at left), said her agency would begin regulating CO2 as a pollutant at coal-burning power plants, refineries, and big industrial complexes, which account for 70 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The EPA will initially use its authority to force these emitters to employ “best available technology” to implement energy-efficiency measures and reduce emissions, but eventually the agency could place emissions caps on these facilities.

“We are not going to continue with business as usual,” Jackson said. “We have the tools and the technology to move forward today, and we are using them.”

Her announcement came on the day that two key U.S. Senators unveiled a carbon cap-and-trade bill, a version of which has already passed the House of Representatives. Some emitters said they would challenge the EPA, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that the agency had the right to regulate CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act.

[photo credit: Elsa Wenzel]

Copyright © 2008-2010 CleanTechies, Inc. and Partners
This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only.
Written by Elsa Wenzel. To the comments
(Digital Fingerprint: b008bf120fbd682ffd7ee5812c495c9a)

Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)

Climate Change Bill: Lisa Jackson Expects Jobs, Senate Debates Costs

Nick Nigro — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:49:48 +0000

President Obama is the only person capable of speaking directly to the American people in a way that will correct the course of climate change legislation in Congress before it is too late. Congress has never been closer to enacting a price on pollution related to global warming than it is today but proposed legislation is in serious jeopardy of being torpedoed by misinformation and most importantly, a lack of leadership. Congress risks the viability of climate change law further by the method in which it passes related legislation; climate change is a long-term fight and the public must perceive it to be like other continuing programs like Medicare and Social Security.

Propaganda about the effects of cap-and-trade on the economy is one of the primary factors that could bring it down in the Senate. The opposition framed cap-and-trade as a threat to economic growth and a national energy tax; in response supporters of legislation have described it as a jobs bill. Neither are entirely true but the opposition’s argument is easier to believe, despite evidence to the contrary. Last week, the head of the EPA told the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee that cap-and-trade would not raise your taxes in hopes of quelling fears of the program’s impact on the economy. By leading her argument for cap-and-trade with job benefits and low cost instead of only on protecting the environment, Lisa Jackson stokes memories of the previous agency head, Stephen Johnson. He stated that potential harm to the economy prevents the EPA from acting on greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act. The fact is the cost to consumers could be around what the Congressional Budget Office estimates, a paltry $0.50 per day for the average American in 2020, or it could be even lower than predicted like the last time the U.S. undertook a massive cap-and-trade system, the acid rain program in the 1990s. Cap-and-trade could also considerably increase energy costs at some detriment to economic growth in many sectors. Framing the argument around jobs or economic benefit is challenging and not likely to lead to overwhelming success, which this legislation needs.

Climate change has become too divisive an issue for Senator Boxer or Congressman Waxman to drive. Instead, President Obama must step up to the plate similarly to his efforts on healthcare. The two pillars of his first term should be healthcare and energy, not the recession and traditional Washington politics. A national speech laying out the importance of climate change could create the political will to deal with the issue effectively without resorting to backroom deals. After all, political feasibility is another name for poor leadership. The speech should focus on the risks to humanity of inaction, the need for the U.S. to lead on this issue, the national security concerns related to traditional sources of energy, and the imperative for action to come now. Such an address should occur before the climate conference in Copenhagen to avoid detractors defining the effort as another attempt by the President to pander to the rest of the world. President Obama still has time to explain why Americans should pay more for energy – he has a gift for convincing people to follow him and he should use it in this case because the road ahead for energy policy will not be easy to navigate. Gaining massive public acceptance now is necessary to prevent future administrations from rescinding the program.

Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)

CleanTechies Blog - CleanTechies.com » Lisa Jackson

State and Local Officials Comment on President’s Commitment to Clean Air and a Strong Economy

Related posts:

So What Does the Clean Air Act Do?

Related posts:

Leaders Grandstanding on New Greenhouse-Gas Regulations

Related posts:

U.S. Congress Tells EPA to Study Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water

Related posts:

EPA Aims to Limit Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Related posts:

Climate Change Bill: Lisa Jackson Expects Jobs, Senate Debates Costs

Related posts: