Hill Heat

From E&E News:

Political appointee at center of polar bear decision to testify (05/19/2008) Allison Winter, E&E Daily reporter

House lawmakers will get the chance this week to grill a key Interior Department official on whether there was any political manipulation in the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species.

Lyle Laverty, a political appointee who serves as Interior’s assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, is scheduled to appear before the House Natural Resources Committee.

The hearing is a follow up on an investigation committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) started after Julie MacDonald, a deputy assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, resigned in the wake of a scandal that linked her to meddling in and editing scientific decisions on endangered species issues.

Lawmakers will take a broad look at political influence on endangered species decisions, Rahall said in an interview last week. But given that it is following on the heels of the polar bear listing decision, questions about the bear would likely be a focus.

“Decisions in regard to ESA should always be based on sound science and not politics,” Rahall said. “I am sure it will be an item for discussion.”

Laverty has been a key figure in the polar bear decision. In court filings submitted in response to the lawsuit over the listing, Laverty described months of back-and-forth discussions over the listing among Interior lawyers and representatives in his office.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced last week he would list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The listing is based on threats to the bear from the effects of climate change on its polar habitat, but Kempthorne specified that it should not allow the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions linked to warming temperatures.

The agency included a special rule to allow continued development of natural resources in the Arctic and power plants in the lower 48 states. That rule ignited the outrage of some Democrats on Capitol hill, including Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who sits on the Natural Resources Committee.

“This is a fraud,” said Inslee. “The administration effectively decided to make a listing, but said it wouldn’t make a difference in government action. That’s not a listing, it’s a cop out.”

The announcement came after multiple delays and lawsuits to force protection of the bear. Environmentalists and several Democratic lawmakers – including Inslee – have suspected the administration was stalling to try to avoid protecting the bear, or to allow oil leasing in its habitat in Alaska’s Chukchi Sea to go forward. Administration officials have maintained they were just trying to complete a thorough review of a very complicated listing.

Questions for lawyers?

The listing decision was originally mandated by law for early January, but Interior officials postponed it until a lawsuit forced them to complete the decision last week. Kempthorne said last week that the January postponement was necessary because the agency needed time to complete its analysis of the scientific data.

In court filings about the polar bear listing, Laverty described a back-and-forth process among agency lawyers in D.C. while the listing stalled.

The Alaska field office sent its draft final listing recommendation to Washington on Dec. 14. On the basis of that recommendation, Fish and Wildlife Service officials developed a draft listing determination, which they completed in early February. That decision “raised various factual and legal issues” with the Office of the Solicitor, according to Laverty’s legal filing.

Interior then developed a working group with staff from both FWS and the solicitor’s office. That group concluded its work in mid-February, and FWS Director Dale Hall approved their recommendation. The decision then went to Laverty, who sent it back to the solicitor’s office for further review.

“I am informed that public comments and internal departmental review of this listing determination raised significant and complex factual and legal issues,” Laverty wrote in his court testimony.

Among the questionable items, Laverty said, were the reliability of data used for the listing and the degree of uncertainty around the climate modeling tools. Before the final listing was released, Laverty’s office and the solicitor’s office continued to review it.

“These are not questions for lawyers, these are factual questions for scientists in the field office,” said Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the groups that sued the administration to force the listing.

GAO investigation

The panel will also hear from the director of natural resources at the Government Accountability Office, the general counsel at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and wildlife experts from nonprofits and universities.

GAO is also expected to release this week new findings in its review of Interior’s self-review of its endangered species listing program. FWS is revising several rulings MacDonald was involved in and developed a new policy intended to keep scientific decisions from reaching political levels.

1:50 Waxman We have seen White House interference with federal agencies in the run-up to the Iraq War, torture, and US Attorneys. The record is overwhelming that EPA’s experts all supported grating the waiver petition.

EPA’s expert advisory committee unanimously recommended a new standard for protecting the environment. Johnson supported the new seasonal standard. He said there was ‘no evidence’ for a different standard.

Our investigation has not been able to find any evidence President Bush based his decision on the science or the law. I support the broad powers the Constitution vests with the President, but he does not have unlimited powers and he is not above the law.

1:55 Issa We’re all entitled to our opinions, not our facts. The appropriate role of the President was established by the Constitution. President Clinton offered a prime example of an executive involved in regulatory actions. We know that on March 12, Susan Dudley sent a memo to the EPA indicating President Bush’s decision on the ozone standard. It does not reflect any unusual or improper action. The Clinton executive order makes it clear that the President will decide disputes between OIRA and the EPA. The President agreed with OIRA’s conclusions.

Claiming that science dictates a certain outcome is contrary to science and law.

2:05 Waxman It’s the policy to swear in the witnesses. Your prepared statements have been submitted. Please keep your oral opening statements within five minutes.

Johnson I’m pleased to discuss EPA’s decision to significantly increase ozone standards. Since 1980, ozone levels have been cut by 20 percent. I concluded the 1997 no longer protected public health with an adequate level of safety. I chose 0.075 ppm as the 8-hour standard. I proposed a three-month standard to address plants’ cumulative exposure to ozone. As required by Executive Order 12866, I coordinated with other agencies. I believe it is time to modernize the Clean Air Act. Congress has adopted these principles in the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Clean Air Act is not a relic, but a living document.

2:10 Dudley Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, OIRA coordinates interagency review. Both OMB and EPA have been forthright on the ozone standards. No changes were made to the level or form of the health-based standard. Discussions of the secondary standard were exclusively on the form.

2:15 Henderson I’m testifying as the current chair of EPA’s CASAC. Dudley’s first memo was clearly disputed by Marcus Peacock. So the next memo she wrote said Bush made the decision. CASAC has been accused from wandering from scientific issues into policy. In this case policymakers have wandered into science. If the Administrator sets a standard outside the range outside the CASAC’s recommendations, one should ask whose advice he based his decision on. I would like to quote from Dr. Paul Gilman, “Setting the standards by fiat, behind closed doors, is not in our best interest.”

2:23 Waxman You’re the chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee. Are the standards EPA Administrator Johnson set consistent with the science?

Henderson It is not consistent with the CASAC recommendations, which are based on the science.

Henderson We always recommend a range.

Waxman Did he select a number within the range?

Henderson No.

Johnson I would respectfully disagree with the characterization. I did agree with CASAC that the current standard was insufficient.

Waxman You think that you set the standard within the science. Your professional views may be scientific and legally correct. You recommended the secondary standard be set on cumulative exposure?

Johnson More correctly there were two options. Other agencies preferred a different option. The President provided input. Ultimately I made the decision.

Waxman As the head of the EPA you recommended a proposal. OMB didn’t like that proposal. You ultimately agreed with their proposal.

Johnson More accurately, I agreed with CASAC that a cumulative standard is most biologically accurate.

Waxman I want a direct answer.

Johnson I don’t believe it’s a yes or no question. There was one preferred by EPA, and one preferred by OMB. I think it’s good government.

Waxman Your staff said it was pure politics. And this isn’t the only time you were reversed by the White House. Jason Burnett said you recommended that you grant the California waiver. After talking to the White House, you changed your mind.

Johnson If you look through the 1000s of pages, it shows a very deliberative process where I considered all options.

Waxman Burnett told us under oath that you recommended a partial grant. Your staff also told us you recommended emissions standards.

Johnson It’s true there was a draft endangerment finding before the Energy Independence and Security Act was passed.

Waxman We interviewed 7 senior career EPA officials and they told us the same thing. The recommendation was submitted in the first week of December, and then all work stopped. You’ve become a figurehead. Three times you recommended to deal with climate change and protect the environment, three times you back down. Congress passes the law, the Executive Branch is supposed to faithfully execute them. The President seems to think he can do what he pleases. Let’s go to this ozone decision.

Johnson There were many uncertainties. That’s why I chose the primary form. It’s a very transparent process. I think that’s good government.

2:36 Issa You’re a career professional.

Johnson I came to EPA in 1980.

Issa You’re not a political appointee.

Johnson I’m a career professional and a political appointee.

Issa Today we’re talking about a reduction and trying to go through what good deed goes unpunished. Is Mr. Waxman’s district in compliance with the ozone standard? Has it ever been?

Johnson No. The law prohibits me from considering costs. I believe there’s an opportunity to improve the Clean Air Act. I think it’s unconscionable to have communities not in compliance with the standard for twenty years.

Issa For CO2, it’s time for Congress to act.

Johnson I wholeheartedly agree. Dealing with a global air pollutant, my experience is that a legislative fix is correct. I believe global climate change, greenhouse emissions need to be addressed. I’m issuing an advanced notice of a rulemaking process this spring.

Issa Today we appear to be having a hearing about whether a 11% reduction is worse than a 16% reduction.

Johnson That’s certainly a view. I wholeheartedly agreed with CASAC that it needs to be reduced.

Issa Basically, if 2,3,4 years from now we’ve achieved a portion of this reduction, there’s nothing to stop this from happening at any time.

Johnson We’re required every five years to review each and every one of these standards. The Agency has never met the five-year requirement. We’re required to make these evaluations.

2:44 Bilbray I don’t come from a business background. I come from a regulatory background. Sheer population has been ignored from the environmental impact. Doctor, you serve on one of the most critical bodies. Back in the 90s, when California petitioned for a waiver for MTBE, were you involved?

Henderson My chairmanship began in 2004.

Bilbray What was the Clinton justification for requiring us to put MTBE and ethanol in our fuel?

Johnson It was before my time.

Bilbray Mr. Chairman, I was outraged at the time that the Clinton administration was bowing to political pressure. For us to point fingers at one administration when we waited for a decade is wrong.

2:45 Tierney What did you mean by “willful ignorance”?

Henderson I don’t believe OMB actually read our documents. It bothers me that when all the hard work went in for a secondary standard, someone can just say, “Nope, can’t do that.”

Tierney You want to respond?

Johnson The record clearly indicates it was a difficult decision.

Tierney An EPA lawyer wrote, “We could be exposed to a contempt proceeding.” Mr. Johnson, I think what’s happening is pretty unacceptable. By your own words, it was “necessary” and “compelling” to set this secondary standards. Nearly 1000 scientists said they experienced at least one instance of political interference.

Johnson I’d like to quote to you, if I may, Dr. Paul Gilman, “EPA has become too politicized in its actions.” That was the Clinton administration.

Tierney Are you proud of what’s going on now?

Johnson I’m proud. My role as Administrator is to evaluate the science.

Bilbray UCS Survey?

Johnson I am aware the survey was received by political appointees and non-scientists.

Bilbray For this to be used as some kind of scientific document. No pollster would accept this. Doctor, in your analysis, was their a consideration of economic impact?

Henderson We are not allowed to consider costs. We did consider what was biologically relevant. I have a concern for the affect of ozone on vegetation as well as people. We are neglecting the rural areas.

Bilbray How long have you been chairman?

Henderson Four years.

Bilbray You didn’t talk about economic value of crops that could have been destroyed.

3:00 Johnson I’m not allowed to consider costs or whether it can be implemented or not. With all science there are uncertainties. Judgment needs to be exercised.

Henderson Welfare includes but is not limited to … economic well-being.

3:02 Higgins I’d like to focus on the primary standard and health impacts. Did you find the primary standard to be sufficient?

Henderson No.

Johnson I disagree.

Higgins EPA estimated 350 more deaths, 10,000 asthma attacks, 750 emergency hospital visits, at your standard.

Johnson The Clean Air Act does not require zero risk. It is the most health-protective standard of our nation’s history. I’m very proud of that.

Higgins I have a letter from the American Lung Association strongly critiquing this decision. Your decision seems to be inconsistent with mainstream thinking. It’s just not credible to argue your decision is based on science.

Johnson I disagree. It is the most health-protective standard of our nation’s history. Ultimately, I need to make the tough decision.

3:08 Platts I yield to Issa.

Issa Could we put the map up on the board. My understanding that everywhere that’s dark – which unfortunately includes most of California – there’s no effective difference between primary and secondary standard.

3:18 Hodes With all due respect I’m asking the questions. Do you recall or not recall discussing costs with the White House?

Johnson Even if I recall, I don’t want to answer the question.

Hodes Are you asserting privilege?

Johnson I’m not asserting privilege.

Hodes Do you or don’t you recall?

Johnson Even if I recall, I don’t believe if it is appropriate to answer the question.

3:20 Sarbanes Explain your memo.

Dudley The air quality based on the secondary standard is the same. What we care about is air quality. The two standards would have the same effect.

Sarbanes I’m incredulous. The administrator said he found “compelling” evidence that a cumulative index is the best way to measure effects on vegetation. I could see you asserting inadequate evidence, but that there was no evidence doesn’t seem to jive with all the other testimony and documentation.

Dudley There are two different issues here. The form of the standard won’t affect the air quality of those counties.

Sarbanes What you’re saying strikes me as doubletalk. Did the President or the White House indicate to you that there would be times when the science would be overriden by political purposes?

Johnson My charge and oath of office was to carry out the laws. The President said he wanted me to accelerate the environmental protection. I carried this out to the best of my ability, based on sound science. Science isn’t pure.

Sarbanes I can’t think of a clearer example of where your charge came into conflict with the Presidential edict.

3:26 Welch Jason Burnett is a senior member of the EPA. He’s been deposed. He testified you favored granting this waiver in full in August and September.

Johnson Over time…

Welch Let’s keep it simple. Is he correct in his recollection?

Johnson I don’t recall the August and September timeline. I was considering all options.

Welch Mr. Burnett said that in August and September you were favoring granting a waiver in full.

Johnson As I said, I considered all the options.

Welch It’s obvious you did. Is he right that you considered a partial grant?

Johnson Yes.

Welch Did you have a meeting with the President about this?

Johnson I have routine meetings with the President and the executive branch.

Welch Did you have a meeting with the President about this?

Johnson When and where…

Welch Does “transparent” mean we can’t know whether you met with the President?

Johnson I believe as Administrator I need to have private meetings with the President.

Welch Did I ask the content of the meeting? Did your staff present you a slide stating that the most legally defensible option was granting the waiver?

Johnson I don’t recall that particular slide.

Welch Did the EPA staff make it clear the statutory

Johnson There were a wide range of options.

Welch It’s a little frustrating.

Johnson It shouldn’t be frustrating.

Waxman You admitted you have a conversation with the President on the California waiver.

Johnson I have routine conversations.

Waxman You are being awfully evasive.

Johnson I have routine conversations.

Waxman Did you have any conversation with the President on any of these three rules?

Issa Regular order! I want a copy of the rules!

Waxman I will have the gentleman physically removed if he does not desist.

Waxman Did you have any conversation with the President on any of these three rules?

Johnson I have routine conversations, I don’t believe it is appropriate for me to discuss the content of these conversations.

Waxman Are you asserting privilege?

Johnson Not at this time.

3:36 Watson Was the Vice President’s office involved the California waiver?

Johnson Not to my knowledge.

Watson According to press accounts, the CEO of Ford and GM met with the Vice President’s office.

Johnson It’s not a problem unique to California.

Watson Was there any input from the White House that influenced your final decision?

Johnson My decision was based on the science and the law.

Watson Was there any input from the White House that influenced your final decision?

Johnson I have routine conversations…

Watson Yes or no.

Johnson The answer is, no, they did not make the decision.

Watson That was not my question. Maybe my English was not clear. In your routine conversations, was there any input from the Vice President?

Johnson I don’t recall any.

3:43 Issa Our deliberations are protected from discovery by the executive branch. It’s no surprise that you might wish the same privilege. You serve at the pleasure of the president, but he does not have authority over your actions. Is that correct?

Johnson Yes.

Issa Chairman Dingell declared regulation of CO2 a “glorious mess.”

Johnson I believe there are many intricacies with the Clean Air Act. My personal opinion is that given the years and years of litigation is to prefer a legislative approach.

3:46 Cummings This stuff is personal for me, because I have asthma. In my district in Baltimore my constituents have a high rate of asthma. We’re curious as to how our administrator, our man in the EPA makes his decisions. You’ve said “it’s not a popularity contest.” Do you remember saying that?

Johnson I do, and I agree with it.

Cummings All too frequently the courts have decided your decisions do not conform to the law. Did you know your decisions before the DC Circuit Court have been overturned over two thirds of the time?

Johnson Yes.

3:59 Waxman You were required to produce documents by April 19. Has the President asserted executive privilege with regards to these documents?

Johnson I’m not making an assertion of executive privilege, instead I’m making my staff available to you.

Dudley Our lawyers are discussing the documents. I have a letter from OMB General Counsel.

Waxman We’ve made reasonable accomodations to Executive Branch interests. You’re trying to shield the White House from oversight. Unless there’s a valid claim of executive privilege, you have to turn over the documents. There’s been no assertion of executive privilege. This is a serious issue, and your defiance of the subpoena is a serious matter.

4:02 Waxman The record shows this committee spared no effort in oversight of the Clinton administration.

Issa We have a long tradition of looking into it and recognizing the President has a role to play.

Johnson The challenge we have as a nation is to move forward. 50% of our electricity comes from coal. France is much less.

Issa You have a responsibility as a federal officer to all Americans. My understanding is protecting our commerce against arbitrary standards.

Johnson Again, I have three criteria. Acceleration of temperatures, other parts of the country make it worse. In my judgment, it did not meet the “compelling and extraordinary” standard.

4:09 Bilbray The standard that we’re complaining with the ozone standard. The science panel recommended a max of .07.

Henderson It was a range from .06 to .07.

Cannon

4:15 Johnson I have to say for the record those are not the criteria.

4:16 Waxman You’re willing to make a mockery of the rulemaking process. The record tells us what happened. Your testimony pretends none of this happened. I can’t adequate how deeply this saddens me and how poorly it reflects on the EPA.

On December 19, 2007, the date President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson announced that his agency would deny California’s waiver request. This request, made in 2005, set off a series of legal battles that culminated in the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA that ordered the EPA to take action on greenhouse gases. Since then, the EPA has failed to obey the Supreme Court mandate, despite the efforts of career staff.

Waxman’s memo concludes:

It would be a serious breach if the President or other White House officials directed Administrator Johnson to ignore the record before the agency and deny California’s petition for political or other inappropriate reasons. Further investigation will be required to assess the legality of the White House role in the rejection of the California motor vehicle standards.

Johnson is expected to testify before Waxman’s committee tomorrow at 1 PM.

Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch writes:

This is an incredibly sordid story. Steve Johnson should come out and finally tell the truth about this situation. And he should resign for agreeing not only to be a White House pawn but for trying to deceive the public about what happened.

Despite his protestations, Kempthorne’s decision clearly calls into question the legality of the sale of oil and gas drilling rights in polar bear habitat on February 6, while the polar bear decision was being illegally delayed.

Kempthorne complained that the Endangered Species Act is “one of the most inflexible” pieces of legislation because it didn’t allow him to consider economic impacts when protecting species like the polar bear from extinction.

From the Department of Interior press release on the 368-page rule:

To make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions:

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing a 4(d) rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the ESA with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way.
• Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action.
• The Department will issue a Solicitor’s Opinion further clarifying these points.
• The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.

Andy Revkin at Dot Earth concludes, “So this leaves everything as it was, in a way, with the bears facing a transforming ecosystem and environmentalists successful in their litigation, but not necessarily empowered by the listing.” At Climate Progress Joe Romm calls the decision “bye-polar disorder.”

Sierra Club spokesman Josh Dorner tells the Wonk Room, “This is the regulatory equivalent of a signing statement—only this one gets to be challenged in court.”

Thank you all very much. I appreciate the hospitality of Vestas Wind Technology. Today is a kind of test run for the company. They’ve got wind technicians here, wind studies, and all these wind turbines, but there’s no wind. So now I know why they asked me to come give a speech.

Every day, when there are no reporters and cameras around to draw attention to it, this company and others like it are doing important work. And what we see here is just a glimpse of much bigger things to come. Wind power is one of many alternative energy sources that are changing our economy for the better. And one day they will change our economy forever.

Wind is a clean and predictable source of energy, and about as renewable as anything on earth. Along with solar power, fuel-cell technology, cleaner burning fuels and other new energy sources, wind power will bring America closer to energy independence. Our economy depends upon clean and affordable alternatives to fossil fuels, and so, in many ways, does our security. A large share of the world’s oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.

In the coming weeks I intend to address many of the great challenges that America’s energy policies must meet. When we debate energy bills in Washington, it should be more than a competition among industries for special favors, subsidies, and tax breaks. In the Congress, we need to send the special interests on their way – without their favors and subsidies. We need to draw on the best ideas of both parties, and on all the resources a free market can provide. We need to keep our eyes on big goals in energy policy, the serious dangers, and the common interests of the American people.

Today I’d like to focus on just one of those challenges, and among environmental dangers it is surely the most serious of all. Whether we call it “climate change” or “global warming,” in the end we’re all left with the same set of facts. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Good stewardship, prudence, and simple commonsense demand that we to act meet the challenge, and act quickly.

Some of the most compelling evidence of global warming comes to us from NASA. No longer do we need to rely on guesswork and computer modeling, because satellite images reveal a dramatic disappearance of glaciers, Antarctic ice shelves and polar ice sheets. And I’ve seen some of this evidence up close. A few years ago I traveled to the area of Svalbard, Norway, a group of islands in the Arctic Ocean. I was shown the southernmost point where a glacier had reached twenty years earlier. From there, we had to venture northward up the fjord to see where that same glacier ends today – because all the rest has melted. On a trip to Alaska, I heard about a national park visitor’s center that was built to offer a picture-perfect view of a large glacier. Problem is, the glacier is gone. A work of nature that took ages to form had melted away in a matter of decades.

Our scientists have also seen and measured reduced snowpack, with earlier runoffs in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. We have seen sustained drought in the Southwest, and across the world average temperatures that seem to reach new records every few years. We have seen a higher incidence of extreme weather events. In the frozen wilds of Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, and elsewhere, wildlife biologists have noted sudden changes in animal migration patterns, a loss of their habitat, a rise in sea levels. And you would think that if the polar bears, walruses, and sea birds have the good sense to respond to new conditions and new dangers, then humanity can respond as well.

We have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring. We stand warned by serious and credible scientists across the world that time is short and the dangers are great. The most relevant question now is whether our own government is equal to the challenge.

There are vital measures we can take in the short term, even as we focus on long-term policies to mitigate the effects of global warming. In the years ahead, we are likely to see reduced water supplies … more forest fires than in previous decades … changes in crop production … more heat waves afflicting our cities and a greater intensity in storms. Each one of these consequences of climate change will require policies to protect our citizens, especially those most vulnerable to violent weather. Each one will require new precautions in the repair and construction our roads, bridges, railways, seawalls and other infrastructure. Some state local governments have already begun their planning and preparation for extreme events and other impacts of climate change. The federal government can help them in many ways, above all by coordinating their efforts, and I am committed to providing that support.

To lead in this effort, however, our government must strike at the source of the problem—with reforms that only Congress can enact and the president can sign. We know that greenhouse gasses are heavily implicated as a cause of climate change. And we know that among all greenhouse gasses, the worst by far is the carbon-dioxide that results from fossil-fuel combustion. Yet for all the good work of entrepreneurs and inventors in finding cleaner and better technologies, the fundamental incentives of the market are still on the side of carbon-based energy. This has to change before we can make the decisive shift away from fossil fuels.

For the market to do more, government must do more by opening new paths of invention and ingenuity. And we must do this in a way that gives American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow. The most direct way to achieve this is through a system that sets clear limits on all greenhouse gases, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. And this is the proposal I will submit to the Congress if I am elected president—a cap-and-trade system to change the dynamic of our energy economy.

As a program under the Clean Air Act, the cap-and-trade system achieved enormous success in ridding the air of acid rain. And the same approach that brought a decline in sulfur dioxide emissions can have an equally dramatic and permanent effect on carbon emissions. Instantly, automakers, coal companies, power plants, and every other enterprise in America would have an incentive to reduce carbon emissions, because when they go under those limits they can sell the balance of permitted emissions for cash. As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy. It is very hard to picture venture capitalists, corporate planners, small businesses and environmentalists all working to the same good purpose. But such cooperation is actually possible in the case of climate change, and this reform will set it in motion.

The people of this country have a genius for adapting, solving problems, and inventing new and better ways to accomplish our goals. But the federal government can’t just summon those talents by command – only the free market can draw them out. A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and bio-fuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards those and other innovations in clean energy. The market will evolve, too, by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also by allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that requirement. Entrepreneurs and firms will know which energy investments they should make. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices. A cap-and-trade reform will also create a profitable opportunity for rural America to receive market-based payments - instead of government subsidies - for the conservation practices that store carbon in the soils of our nation’s farms.

We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012, we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission … by 2020, a return to 1990 levels … and so on until we have achieved at least a reduction of sixty percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt—and that is good economic policy. It is also a matter of simple fairness, because the cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.

The goal in all of this is to assure an energy supply that is safe, secure, diverse, and domestic. And in pursuit of these objectives, we cannot afford to take economic growth and job creation for granted. A strong and growing economy is essential to all of our goals, and especially the goal of finding alternatives to carbon-based technology. We want to turn the American economy toward cleaner and safer energy sources. And you can’t achieve that by imposing costs that the American economy cannot sustain.

As part of my cap-and-trade incentives, I will also propose to include the purchase of offsets from those outside the scope of the trading system. This will broaden the array of rewards for reduced emissions, while also lowering the costs of compliance with our new emissions standards. Through the sale of offsets – and with strict standards to assure that reductions are real – our agricultural sector alone can provide as much as forty percent of the overall reductions we will require in greenhouse gas emissions. And in the short term, farmers and ranchers can do it in some of the most cost-effective ways.

Over time, an increasing fraction of permits for emissions could be supplied by auction, yielding federal revenues that can be put to good use. Under my plan, we will apply these and other federal funds to help build the infrastructure of a post-carbon economy. We will support projects to advance technologies that capture and store carbon emissions. We will assist in transmitting wind- and solar-generated power from states that have them to states that need them. We will add to current federal efforts to develop promising technologies, such as plug-ins, hybrids, flex-fuel vehicles, and hydrogen-powered cars and trucks. We will also establish clear standards in government-funded research, to make sure that funding is effective and focused on the right goals.

And to create greater demand for the best technologies and practices in energy conservation, we will use the purchasing power of the United States government. Our government can hardly expect citizens and private businesses to adopt or invest in low-carbon technologies when it doesn’t always hold itself to the same standard. We need to set a better example in Washington, by consistently applying the best environmental standards to every purchase our government makes.

As we move toward all of these goals, and over time put the age of fossil fuels behind us, we must consider every alternative source of power, and that includes nuclear power. When our cap-and-trade policy is in place, there will be a sudden and sustained pursuit in the market for new investment opportunities in low-emission fuel sources. And here we have a known, proven energy source that requires exactly zero emissions. We have 104 nuclear reactors in our country, generating about twenty percent of our electricity. These reactors alone spare the atmosphere from about 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released every year. That’s the annual equivalent of nearly all emissions from all the cars we drive in America. Europe, for its part, has 197 reactors in operation, and nations including France and Belgium derive more than half their electricity from nuclear power. Those good practices contribute to the more than two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide avoided every year, worldwide, because of nuclear energy. It doesn’t take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause.

In a cap-and-trade energy economy, the cost of building new reactors will be less prohibitive. The incentives to invest in a mature, zero-emissions technology will be stronger. New research and innovation will help the industry to overcome the well known drawbacks to nuclear power, such as the transport and storage of waste. And our government can help in these efforts. We can support research to extend the use of existing plants. Above all, we must make certain that every plant in America is safe from the designs of terrorists. And when all of this is assured, it will be time again to expand our use of one of the cleanest, safest, and most reliable sources of energy on earth.

For all of the last century, the profit motive basically led in one direction—toward machines, methods, and industries that used oil and gas. Enormous good came from that industrial growth, and we are all the beneficiaries of the national prosperity it built. But there were costs we weren’t counting, and often hardly noticed. And these terrible costs have added up now, in the atmosphere, in the oceans, and all across the natural world. They are no longer tenable, sustainable, or defensible. And what better way to correct past errors than to turn the creative energies of the free market in the other direction? Under the cap-and-trade system, this can happen. In all its power, the profit motive will suddenly begin to shift and point the other way – toward cleaner fuels, wiser ways, and a healthier planet.

As a nation, we make our own environmental plans and our own resolutions. But working with other nations to arrest climate change can be an even tougher proposition. China, India, and other developing economic powers in particular are among the greatest contributors to global warming today—increasing carbon emissions at a furious pace – and they are not receptive to international standards. Nor do they think that we in the industrialized world are in any position to preach the good news of carbon-emission control. We made most of our contributions to global warming before anyone knew about global warming.

This set of facts and perceived self-interests proved the undoing of the Kyoto Protocols. As president, I will have to deal with the same set of facts. I will not shirk the mantle of leadership that the United States bears. I will not permit eight long years to pass without serious action on serious challenges. I will not accept the same dead-end of failed diplomacy that claimed Kyoto. The United States will lead and will lead with a different approach—an approach that speaks to the interests and obligations of every nation.

Shared dangers mean shared duties, and global problems require global cooperation. The United States and our friends in Europe cannot alone deal with the threat of global warming. No nation should be exempted from its obligations. And least of all should we make exceptions for the very countries that are accelerating carbon emissions while the rest of us seek to reduce emissions. If we are going to establish meaningful environmental protocols, then they must include the two nations that have the potential to pollute the air faster, and in greater annual volume, than any nation ever in history.

At the same time, we will continue in good faith to negotiate with China and other nations to enact the standards and controls that are in the interest of every nation – whatever their stage of economic development. And America can take the lead in offering these developing nations the low-carbon technologies that we will make and they will need. One good idea or invention to reduce carbon emissions is worth a thousand finely crafted proposals at a conference table. And the governments of these developing economic powers will soon recognize, as America is beginning to do, their urgent need for cleaner-burning fuels and safer sources of energy.

If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.

In my approach to global climate-control efforts, we will apply the principle of equal treatment. We will apply the same environmental standards to industries in China, India, and elsewhere that we apply to our own industries. And if industrializing countries seek an economic advantage by evading those standards, I would work with the European Union and other like-minded governments that plan to address the global warming problem to develop a cost equalization mechanism to apply to those countries that decline to enact a similar cap.

For all of its historical disregard of environmental standards, it cannot have escaped the attention of the Chinese regime that China’s skies are dangerously polluted, its beautiful rivers are dying, its grasslands vanishing, its coastlines receding, and its own glaciers melting. We know many of these signs from our own experience—from environmental lessons learned the hard way. And today, all the world knows that they are the signs of even greater trouble to come. Pressing on blindly with uncontrolled carbon emissions is in no one’s interest, especially China’s. And the rest of the world stands ready to help.

Like other environmental challenges - only more so - global warming presents a test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next. We need to think straight about the dangers ahead, and to meet the problem with all the resources of human ingenuity at our disposal. We Americans like to say that there is no problem we can’t solve, however complicated, and no obstacle we cannot overcome if we meet it together. I believe this about our country. I know this about our country. And now it is time for us to show those qualities once again.

Thank you.

EPA SCANDAL	CURRENT STATUS
The denial of the California waiver petition.	January 8: California and 15 other states sue to overturn denial. April 9: Waxman issues latest subpoena for documents involving White House. April 22: NHTSA issues fuel-economy standards that it claims preempts state global warming standards; states warn of lawsuit.
Failure to obey Supreme Court mandate to make a global warming pollution endangerment finding.	March 27: EPA announces it will ask for a new round of comments. April 2: Officials of 18 states sue to require the EPA to act within 60 days April 2: EPA documents are subpoenaed by House Global Warming Committee; the documents have not been turned over. April 18: Court orders EPA to file its response to the state suit by May 8.
White House interference in ozone standards.	April 16: Waxman subpoenas White House documents. May 8: Date of scheduled Oversight Committee hearing with Administrator Johnson; postponed when Johnson refuses to appear.
Mary Gade firing.	May 1: EPA Region V Administrator Mary Gade resigns, saying “There’s no question this is about Dow.” Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Dingell (D-MI) announce intent to investigate. May 7: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington file two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the EPA regarding Gade’s resignation.
Politicization of the EPA.	April 23: Union of Concerned Scientists issues survey of 1600 staff scientists describing mass politicization and political interference. April 29: Sen. Boxer (D-CA) releases Goverment Accountability Office report detailing politicization of toxic regulation. May 7: Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Subcommittee holds hearing into politicization of EPA.