By Christina Simeone, Policy Director
They are at it again. On Thursday, a subcommittee in the House of Representatives voted to approve a bill that would permanently prevent the EPA from regulating global warming pollution — an action that seeks to deny science, harm human health and damage our environment.
Overwhelming scientific evidence proves that pollution from human activities is warming our climate. It is a fact that nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred in the past decade, with 2010 tied for the warmest year of all. In addition, the EPA made a scientific determination that the impacts of global warming pollution harm human health and the environment. So this pollution needs to be reduced, right?
Not according to Congressman Upton of Michigan, whose bill recently passed in the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Energy and Power. The bill would change the Clean Air Act to essentially eliminate the EPA’s ability limit the global warming pollution that causes climate change.
Not only does this bill have Congress overturn the scientific findings of the agency charged with protecting the nation’s health and the environment, but it would also stop the EPA from moving forward with several programs designed to address climate change, including:
- A requirement that polluters publicly report the amount of global warming pollution they emit each year.
- A requirement to limit global warming pollution from the largest emitters, using energy efficiency and other technological solutions.
- A proposal to require fossil fuel-fired power plants and petroleum refineries to clean up their pollution that’s changing our climate. As I wrote earlier this month, this proposal is tentative and still up for public comment. The House bill would stop the EPA in its tracks.
It’s also a proven fact that cleaning up our air will improve public health and help our economy grow. The EPA estimates that in 2020, the benefits of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments will exceed the costs by 30 to 1. Moreover, global warming is expected to have devastating costs for our economy and our way of life. For example, the World Bank projects that climate change could increase the costs of damage from tropical cyclones alone by $28 to $68 billion annually, by 2100. This doesn’t include additional costs from a host of other impacts like heat waves, floods, droughts, intense storms, and loss of biodiversity. If we continue to allow factories and power plants to dirty the air at our expense, we are giving them a pollution subsidy.
The only positive news is that we have a long way to go before this bill becomes law. Now that the bill has passed the subcommittee, it will still need to be passed by the full House committee, which is debating the bill today. Then it will have to be passed by the full House, passed by the Senate and signed by the President before becoming law. You can be sure we will keep you posted on this bill and will be enlisting your support to help fight this assault on science, health and our environment.
Christina, could you please include the name and number of the bill you’re writing about?
For other readers, it’s H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act.
Thanks. I immediately called my representative.
It seems unlikely that this bill could make it to the President, and unlikely that it would be signed. What is more likely is that as this bill progresses it will be used as a political device–a rallying point for claiming that democratic policy is expensive and harmful to the economy.
The truth is that I’m not sure what can be done about these sorts of tactics as long as a great many people hold beliefs about economics, the environment and so forth that are completely based in ignorance.
“Bm” summed it up nicely but I would add that our elected officials have exhibited a severe lack of conviction. They make statements to appease the masses one minute and back pedal from their promise to be good stewards of this earth for fear of becoming unpopular with those who hold the purse strings, the oil industry. Both sides of the isle should be ashamed of themselves for being spineless yes men who are only concerned with lining their pockets with oil AND taxpayer dollars.The climatalogists, oceanographers and biologists should be taking the lead and making policy on this, not career politicians. There are other countries who seem to “get it”, why can’t we?
Thank you for the Bill name and number. I am writing a letter to my Senators, House Representatives and the President too!
Said well by BM and Nooney. We the American people must let our public officials know that we get climate change. Go to that tropical island now, before it is under four feet of water. There will be fewer islands on Earth due to global warming and fewer species as populations are stressed by drought or other environmental pressures. We are making the whole world pay dearly for our excesses.
We may as well just dismantle the EPA altogether and sit back and watch as the country chokes on pollution and starves to death? Hey, at least the big polluters (and their pocket politicians) are getting richer!
I’ve heard the radio ad for H.R.910, and it’s almost laughable, if it wasn’t so scary – like a police department without guns that’s not allowed to arrest criminals.
After observing the actions of the markets and our elected officials in recent years, there is little doubt of the “pull” that the fossil fuel industries have in influencing the capital markets through Wall Street which, in turn, has huge influence on the governmental policies of our country. The truly sad part is that what continues to be pushed into the public consciousness above all else, even the good of our planet, are increasing jobs, cutting government spending, and not putting roadblocks to boosting the interests of businesses especially not now when our economy is only just “getting its footing”. If cutting the power of the EPA is not an obvious “red flag” of putting business interest above the interests of its citizens then I don’t know what is.
As almost every American probably have observed storms increasing in its destructiveness and frequency in recent years and flooding not only in our country but in many other parts of the world that have never encountered it before, the time is NOW for the scientific community have to increase their voice. If money is what talks in our country, also pushing the cost in lives and property from the continuing ill effects of Climate Change has to be pushed into the forefront and it has to be done now.
The science community needs to organize and speak out. The percentage of Americans that think polution from humans is warming our climate (let alone poluting the planet) is dropping. That spells a spiral into obblivion. It will cost money up front for infrastructure builds (i.e. wind, solar, geothermal, hydrogen, etc.) it won’t be cheap, it won’t be easy, and will take decades to “break even”. The inconvenient truth. Americans can’t handle the truth.
As a Michigan resident I am ashamed. We did not elect very many smart people in our last election. Upton’s bill is proof.
To answer the question in your title: Yes, Congress is trying to subsidize pollution. Do you have any other questions?