| Letter To Governor Jindal Concerning the EPA’s Endangerment Finding |
|
|
|
Louisiana Environmental Action Network
Louisiana Audubon Council Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Delta Chapter of Sierra Club/Sierra Club Gulf Restoration Network Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper Alliance for Affordable Energy February 2, 2010 Governor Bobby Jindal P.O. Box 94004 Baton Rouge, La 70804 Dear Governor Jindal, We are writing in response to recent correspondence from the state of Louisiana to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the EPA’s “Endangerment Finding” for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act (CAA).1 You wrote to the EPA along with the Louisiana Departments of Economic Development (LED), Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Natural Resources (DNR) to strongly oppose the finding.2 A number of common assertions run through all the state’s letters. They claim that EPA’s actions – the Endangerment Finding, the CAA Title V “Tailoring Rule”, and potential regulations which would stem from them – “will have devastating consequences on Louisiana’s energy industry and our economy” (DNR) and call on EPA to immediately withdraw the finding. Missing from the state’s letters is any acknowledgment that global warming is a problem for Louisiana that will also impose economic, environmental, and social costs. There is a sizable body of scientific work showing that Louisiana is in fact highly vulnerable to the effects of a warming climate, and is experiencing a number of them already.3 These effects are highlighted in EPA’s Finding: not only increased temperatures, but greater extremes in weather events, wider ranges for vector-borne diseases and water-borne pathogens, and increases in ambient ozone levels, which will increase adverse health effects.4 The EPA Finding states that the “clearest and strongest support for an endangerment finding” comes from the evidence concerning adverse impacts in the areas of water resources, sea-level rise and coastal areas: The most serious potential adverse effects are the increased risk of storm surge and flooding in coastal areas from sea level rise and more intense storms… [T]he potential for hurricanes to become more intense… reinforces the judgment that coastal communities are now endangered by human-induced climate change, and may face substantially greater risk in the future. With no mention of Louisiana’s coastal situation, the state letters focus instead on only one problem - that of anticipated costs to the petrochemical industry. The Endangerment Finding’s application to emissions from new motor engines and vehicles, by contrast, occurs at a time of fundamental reorganization of the national auto industry towards more efficient vehicles, and has been supported by major American car companies.6 The greenhouse gas “tailoring rule” is designed to focus on the largest facilities (emitting over 25,000 tons of such gases per year), while exempting small businesses.7 The largest facilities have long experience with both air pollution control and improving their operations. There are numerous examples of American industries reducing their greenhouse gas emissions proactively, and saving costs in the process.8 Your letters suggest that this cannot happen in Louisiana, and that Louisiana’s industries and workers have no capacity for innovation. While the DEQ letter cites the adoption of Louisiana Ambient Air Standards twenty years ago, it is worth remembering that these standards were strongly opposed by some industrial interests, but also provided economic benefits for the state from investments in cleaner technology, in addition to improving the environment. EPA’s actions have been expected since the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that determined that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act. They have utilized standard public comment periods that have garnered a large number of responses.9 The letters from DEQ and LED imply that EPA’s actions are unconstitutional, despite the Court’s ruling and the process laid out in the CAA. If there are legal grounds for this implication, they should be presented openly. The letter from DNR proposes a national policy promoting expanded use of natural gas as a substitute for the endangerment finding. It has long been recognized that natural gas is a cleaner burning fuel, its use is clearly expanding, and this will obviously contribute significantly to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But DNR makes no attempt to show that such a policy is by itself enough to reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions adequately. Instead, DNR proposes a national policy tailored to suit their interpretation of Louisiana’s interests. If other states, in particular those with a large dependence on coal, take this position then paralysis on the climate issue is a likely result. South Carolina and Texas have in fact sent letters to EPA similar to Louisiana’s – they, however, are not asking the nation for $60-100 billion to save their coasts. The state’s letters contend that addressing the greenhouse gas issue through Congress is a more appropriate process, and the Obama administration has stated that it prefers this option as well. But you and your agency secretaries also know that the state’s Congressional delegation opposes climate change legislation, and that the passage of such legislation is not certain. Taken together, your position and that of the delegation represent a “no action” position on climate change for Louisiana. It is worth considering the implications of this position. While a growing number of states have undertaken climate change policies on their own, even before the development of comprehensive national policy, Louisiana has not. Louisiana has in fact missed a number of opportunities to move forward on this issue. Legislative resolutions calling for a state commission on climate change policy were passed in 2002, 2003, and 2009, but not enacted. The recommendations outlined in a report on climate change policy prepared for the state legislature in 1999 were never considered.10 Now a serious national effort is underway to develop a comprehensive climate policy. The time when Louisiana could have developed state climate policy in isolation, based on the comfort level of its officials and powerful political interests, is past. It is undeniable that Louisiana plays a critical role in the nation’s energy system. If, however, Louisiana continues to act in an obstructionist manner on climate change, serving the interests of only one economic sector, then its citizens will be the ultimate losers, inheriting a lost coast and a diminished future. Sincerely, Marylee Orr Executive Director Louisiana Environmental Action Network Richard Bryan Vice Chair Louisiana Audubon Council John Lopez Director, Coastal Sustainability Program Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation Haywood Martin Chapter Chair Delta Chapter, Sierra Club Cynthia Sarthou Executive Director Gulf Restoration Network Dean Wilson Atchafalaya Basinkeeper Paul Orr Lower Mississippi Riverkeeper Jesse George Director, Legal & Regulatory Affairs Alliance for Affordable Energy Jordan Macha Louisiana Conservation Organizer Sierra Club
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Recent Additions
- Comments on Hydraulic Fracturing to the Louisiana Senate Environmental Quality Committee
- Additional Comments on Henry Gas Storage, LLC LPDES Water Discharge Permit Application
- Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Air Pollution Case
- Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival
- LEAN Named Finalist for the MillerCoors River Network Grant Competition!