Mr. President, my subject is different but it is similar in that it talks about loss of lives and possible threats, the apparent and real threats to the people in this country from a different angle but a much more serious one and one that…
Mr. President, my subject is different but it is similar in
that it talks about loss of lives and possible threats, the apparent and real threats to the people in this country from a different angle but a much more serious one and one that is going to result in many more deaths. I wish to speak on the subject of the threat to lives in the United States of a different and more insidious nature, and in the long run much more costly in human lives as well as health conditions-- air pollution and the administration's failure to recognize this threat through adequate pollution controls.
I rise today to draw Senators' attention to the administration's flawed plans on air pollution and global warming. I am pleased to see that the administration has finally revived an interest in dangerous public health and environmental threats like acid rain and smog. They have even acknowledged that climate change could have severe and damaging consequences.
Unfortunately, the administration's solution seems to be little more than a public relations distraction from what is really going on: corporate regulatory relief.
What Americans really need now is relief from air pollution, and swift and serious action to avert global warming. They have a right to breathe air that isn't contaminated by greed. They have a right to full and vigorous implementation of the Clean Air Act. Sadly, the administration has lost sight of these rights.
The devastation caused by dirty air is staggering. As many as 60,000 premature deaths each year are linked to air pollution, according to an American Cancer Society study and researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health.
A study by the respected Abt Associates says that 30,000 of these deaths are due to power plant pollution alone. That is an enormous loss of human potential, and a huge cost to society. There is no good reason to allow such a tragedy to continue unfolding.
This chart illustrates the magnitude of this terrible situation. More people are dying from power plant pollution every year than die from homicides or drunk driving accidents.
With real reductions in air pollution, such as those in S. 366, the Clean Power Act of 2003, which I introduced almost 3 weeks ago with Senators Collins, Lieberman and 17 others, we can save two-thirds of those lives.
This benefit is reflected on the right side of the chart.
The Abt Associates report also says that power plants are responsible for the following statistics each year: 20,000 hospitalizations; 600,000 asthma attacks; 19,000 cases of chronic bronchitis; and 5 million lost work days due to illness.
Fine particulate matter is a serious form of air pollution that poses an especially severe health threat. Fine particles result from the interaction of water vapor with sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions.
Most of these pollutants come from power plants. These tiny particles reach easily into the deepest depths of the human lungs.
A host of scientific studies have linked particulate matter with a barrage of health problems.
I ask unanimous consent that a representative list of such studies be printed in the Record.
Mr. President, when these tiny particles get deep into the lungs, they can lead to premature death, as well as health problems like: heart and lung disease; aggravated asthma; acute respiratory symptoms; chronic bronchitis; decreased lung function; and even lung cancer.
There is even evidence that this pollution causes an increased incidence of low birth rate and infant mortality. Sensitive populations like children, asthmatics, and the elderly are at particular risk of health damage.
Power plant emissions of nitrogen oxides and emissions from mobile sources contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone as well. This is another serious threat that scientists increasingly believe to be a chronic health problem, not just one that poses acute risks.
Recently, respected scientists from the University of Southern California School of Medicine, and elsewhere published an important asthma study.
They found that children in communities with high average ozone levels who compete in three or more team sports have a three-to-four- times higher risk of developing asthma than non-athletic kids. They have three times the normal expectations of illness than nonathletic kids. This is because athletes get a higher dose of pollutants to the lung, and because they breathe rapidly and deeply.
We should listen to these and other scientific findings, and take to heart the suffering that many Americans experience due to air pollution. Power plants are a major culprit. It is our duty as lawmakers to do something now to curb these dangerous emissions and protect public health.
While the Clean Air Act has been successful in removing millions of tons of particulate-forming emissions from our air, it has not gone far enough, and these health problems remain. Plus, there are major signs that this administration is slowing down implementation and enforcement of the act. This delays its benefits and increases human health damage.
Air pollution causes significant harm to our natural environment as well. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides--emitted mainly from fossil fuel combustion--eventually fall to earth as acid.
Acid rain washes vital minerals out of the soil, weakens the health of trees, lowers the pH of water bodies, and leaches aluminum into lakes where fish slowly suffocate from the lack of oxygen. A stunning 41 percent of lakes in the Adirondacks are acidified.
A 1996 EPA report admitted that the Acid Rain Program of the present Clean Air Act could only slow the rate of ecosystem damage that, despite this program, more lakes would die. Acid rain scientist Dr. Gene Likens has said:
We still have a very major problem with acid rain. That is
scientific fact. In that regard, the 1990 Clean Air Act
Amendments have not worked very well.
An important new study by researchers at the University of Vermont confirms that the acid rain problem is far worse than previously thought. Tightening sulfur emissions further--combined with strict, new controls in nitrogen emissions--would help restore our forests, lakes, and streams.
The Hubbard Brook Research Foundation knows what is required to ensure biological recovery from acid rain by mid-century in the northeastern U.S. They say we must reduce utility sulfur dioxide emissions by 80 percent beyond what is currently required in the year 2010. It is clearly time to act.
Current air pollution levels are also hindering visibility at our majestic National Parks. Chronic air pollution continues to envelop the Great Smoky Mountains, Acadia National Park, Shenandoah, and other sites in a blanket of haze.
This not only costs regions vital tourism dollars, but endangers the health of park visitors, plants, and wildlife.
Air emissions of mercury cause severe health effects as well. Mercury is a potent nervous system toxic. After being emitted into the air, it falls into lakes and streams. Mercury then bioaccumulates in fish and animal tissue, taking on a highly toxic form.
Eating contaminated fish can cause serious nervous system impairment, especially to a pregnant mother's developing fetus, or to a young child.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1 in 12 women of childbearing age in the U.S. have mercury levels above those considered protective of newborns by the EPA. That means as many as 390,000 children are born each year at risk of developmental problems.
We have such a widespread mercury contamination problem in our country that 41 States currently post fish consumption warnings.
Power plants, especially coal-fired utilities, emit the bulk of uncontrolled mercury emissions in the U.S. Yet the technology exists today to save lives. As James Willis, Director of the UN Environment Programme 2003 Global Mercury Assessment, states:
There are technologies available already which will reduce
mercury emissions from power stations by about 80% . . . what
we can do now is often cheap--and it can cut other pollutants
as well.
I have highlighted some of the ways in which air emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury--especially from power plants-- threaten the health and safety of millions of Americans and the natural environment. But I am afraid to say that Americans may face an even greater long-term threat from greenhouse gas pollution.
Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas emitted as a result of human activities. The National Academy of Sciences faults fossil fuel combustion with causing most of the global warming problem. In fact, fossil fuel-burning power plants are responsible for 37 percent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions.
The U.S. made a commitment under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to adopt voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. But despite this goal, emissions from the power sector have grown steadily and are now 20 percent above those levels.
Our world has already seen about one degree of warming in the last century. The NAS and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change generally agree that the Earth will warm another 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. This could cause significant, abrupt climate changes, as well as threaten our public health, the economic infrastructure, and many ecosystems.
The President's own Climate Action Report says, ``the best scientific information indicates that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase, changes are likely to occur.''
Global warming is expected to have wide-reaching and mostly negative impacts on human health. We are likely to see direct impacts like death and illness due to heat stress and extreme weather. We are also likely to see indirect impacts from worsened air pollution and allergens, and increases in the occurrence and transmission of diseases like malaria and, perhaps, West Nile Virus.
We have already seen a dramatic number of heat-related deaths since the 1980s. A 1980 heat wave in the U.S. resulted in 1,700 deaths, while those in 1983 and 1988 killed around 500 people each. Also, we all remember the deadly heat wave of 1995 that killed 765 people in Chicago alone. That is what we are looking towards if we continue to allow the carbon to accumulate.
These numbers are much too high, and they are only going to get higher if the climate models are right. Experts predict that in cities such as New York, Philadelphia, Cleveland, and Los Angeles, heat- related deaths could increase 100 percent.
According to EPA and others, sea-level rise from global warming will bring on another set of consequences. Sea level is predicted to rise by one foot in the next 20 to 50 years. In the next 100 years, a two-foot rise is most likely, and a four-foot rise is possible.
To put this in perspective, the EPA says that simply raising existing bulkheads and sea walls along the Manhattan shoreline alone to help protect it from a one to three-foot rise would cost up to $140 million.
According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a 20-inch sea level rise could have significant cumulative impacts on coastal property in the U.S.
These impacts could range from about $20 billion to about $150 billion by the year 2100.
The environmental impacts of sea level rise would be devastating as well. Nationwide, a two-foot rise in sea level could inundate 17 to 43 percent of U.S. wetlands, and could eliminate a total of 10,000 square miles of wet and dry land in our country. I do not want to see that happen.
Because of global warming, our forests will see dramatic changes as well. A 3.6 degree Fahrenheit warming could shift many North American forest species 200 miles north.
Given the likely time frame for this warming, these tree species would have to migrate about two miles every year to stay viable.
This poses a grave threat to my State's maple syrup industry, since about half of the hardwood species like maple will disappear. I do not want to see this happen either.
A recent article in the journal Nature shows there is strong new evidence of global warming impacts on animal and plant worlds. Researchers say that as many as 677 species are already reacting to global warming by adjusting their range northward in search of cooler temperatures, or breeding earlier in the spring in response to warmer temperatures.
A recent study by the American Bird Conservancy and the National Wildlife Federation reports that some birds like the Baltimore Oriole may completely disappear from their home States. The Nation's 63 million birdwatchers will likely be frustrated by the coming changes in bird habitat.
Also, the EPA has predicted that even a modest warming would eliminate nearly 90 percent of Idaho habitat for the majestic grizzly bear, which will likely have impacts on Yellowstone tourism income.
Even the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race is running into problems because of global warming. Unseasonably warm temperatures have meant that the race will have to take detours for the first time in its history. Much of the snow has melted. The Alaskan route is now marred by bare ground and open rivers.
Alaska's global warming problems made the news last year as well. As you can see in this poster, a New York Times news story from June illustrated that in Alaska, climate change is a stark reality, not an abstraction. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
Cities in Alaska are having to cope with mosquitoes where they once did not exist. Hunters are being trapped on break-away ice. Houses are sinking due to slouching and buckling permafrost.
Mean temperatures in Alaska have risen by five degrees since the 1970s. That is an extremely rapid rate of change, and I am afraid Alaska is somewhat of a testing ground for what is yet to come around the globe.
These are just some of the environmental and economic consequences of global warming that may affect our country and our people. My colleagues can imagine the potential harm that less developed economies will face.
I have spoken now in some detail about the ways in which our serious air pollution and global warming problems threaten public and environmental health, as well as economic prosperity.
I have shown how millions of people suffer the ill effects of particulate pollution and mercury contamination. I have explained how acid rain continues to strip our beautiful forests of vegetation, leach nutrients out of our once-rich soils, and suffocates many of our lakes and streams.
It is time now to take a look at what our administration is doing to relieve Americans from these costly burdens.
Over the last few months, I have joined my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to speak out in defense of a vital Clean Air Act program called New Source Review, or NSR. NSR plays a crucial role in ridding our air of some of industry's most harmful air emissions, and it results in hundreds of millions of dollars in health-related benefits.
However, the administration has chosen to ignore public health concerns and side with industry. These new NSR rules will make it much easier for polluters to send even more poison into our air.
The administration tells us not to worry about these so-called NSR ``reforms''--that any holes left in clean air protections will be patched up by another proposal that was reintroduced in Congress last week, called Clear Skies. I am afraid Clear Skies will not provide such a safety net.
In fact, a look at the fine print shows that Clear Skies actually provides less protection--less protection--than existing law. More importantly, it will not do enough to address this country's already significant air pollution problem.
Unlike the new NSR changes, which affect all major sources of air pollution, Clear Skies only addresses some of the air pollution coming from one source--powerplants. So purging broad NSR protections while promoting a narrower proposal doesn't make any sense.
Plus, Clear Skies will eliminate important Clean Air Act programs that protect local air quality, not supplement them. For utilities, Clear Skies will strip the Clean Air Act of the Mercury Air Toxics Rule and the Regional Haze Rule.
And, while the administration's new NSR rule could allow 50 percent of all sources to avoid environmental review, Clear Skies will give powerplants even greater exemptions.
Clear Skies will also degrade the ability of States to pursue interstate air pollution problems, and will prevent evolution of tougher New Source Performance Standards.
As you can see from this chart beside me, the true result of Clear Skies will be less protection and more pollution than business as usual.
In the chart, blue, gray, and red bars represent the so-called Clear Skies reduction plan for sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions, respectively. But take a look at the yellow bars. These yellow bars represent where we would already be headed with full and faithful implementation of the present, existing Clean Air Act. We are not even doing that under this administration.
In other words, the administration's plan allows more pollution. It is a serious weakening of current programs. In fact, Clear Skies will result in hundreds of thousands of tons more emissions than full implementation of these and other Clean Air Act programs.
According to EPA's own estimates, by the year 2010--Clear Skies would allow 125 percent more sulfur dioxide, 60 percent more nitrogen oxides, and 420 percent--420 percent--more mercury pollution than enforcement of current law. Total carbon dioxide emissions would continue to grow by leaps and bounds, despite the administration's goal of reduced emission intensity.
I ask my colleagues to be wary of the administration's proclamations about the benefits of Clear Skies. While they tout reductions of 70 percent for sulfur, nitrogen, and mercury emissions, they are actually using outdated information to arrive at these numbers. Real reductions in 2010 from the year 2000 would be only 60 percent for SOX and NOX, and 46 percent for mercury.
Clear Skies will also push compliance deadlines out further into the future
than present law, by as much as 10 years. Compared to the Clean Air Act, emission reductions would occur 8 years later for nitrogen, 6 years later for sulfur, and 10 years later for mercury.
This delay would result in thousands of additional asthma attacks, hospitalizations, and deaths.
To be more specific, EPA's own data shows that full implementation of the Clean Air Act will result in approximately 200,000 avoided deaths from air pollution. The Administration's Clear Skies rollback, on the other hand, will allow 100,000 of those lives to end prematurely-- 100,000 lives prematurely.
Approaches such as the Jeffords-Collins-Lieberman Clean Power Act are what we need to save these lives.
Our bill would surpass the Clean Air Act in saving as many as 250,000 lives--150,000 more lives saved than the Bush Clear Skies plan.
Our bill will also result in benefits of $100 billion more per year in health and visibility improvements than the Clear Skies plan.
I ask unanimous consent that a table illustrating the differences between these three approaches be printed in the Record.
Madam President, the choice seems easy to me. While the Clean Power Act would safeguard and surpass Clean Air Act emissions reductions, Clear Skies would be a ticket to pollute.
If Clear Skies legislation becomes law, we will all pay the price in hazy parks, smoggy cities, increased acid rain, and more trips to the emergency room. These are costs we cannot afford.
I hope this message reaches the American public. The public should be very concerned about this administration's efforts to free polluters from environmental regulation. Clear Skies may sound like a good thing, but it is a smokescreen.
In addition, Clear Skies does nothing to address global warming-- nothing. As you can see from this chart, Clear Skies ignores our commitment under the U.N. Framework Convention to return to 1990 levels of carbon dioxide.
At a time when we should be adopting real measures to reduce CO2 levels to around two billion tons, the administration is promoting a ``business as usual'' approach. This approach will result in around 3.5 billion tons of CO2. That is no way to protect the American economy or the world from climate change.
The administration says we shouldn't worry, we should trust that their voluntary greenhouse gas reduction plan will help prevent climate change. I am not convinced.
I am deeply concerned because I know that voluntary plans to date have not done enough to keep U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from rising. The administration's newly announced proposal--the inappropriately named ``Climate Vision'' plan--is part of the President's goal to reduce emissions intensity by 18 percent during the next decade.
Emissions intensity is a term to describe emissions per dollar of GDP. It may sound like a respectable goal to reduce intensity by 18 percent, however, the truth is, that this approach will not reduce actual emissions of greenhouse gases. Even if emissions decline per dollar, overall emissions will grow--grow--by 16 percent.
We must not base our national strategy to prevent global warming and its harmful and costly impacts on a 16-percent increase in greenhouse gas emissions. Again, I find it very unfortunate that the administration appears to be promoting policies based on fuzzy math.
I am confident the American public would rather see legislation such as the Clean Power Act passed. Our bipartisan bill would require reductions of CO2 by 21 percent, a return to our 1990 levels.
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy supports our approach. The organization's president, Michael Marvin, says:
These ideas will encourage the deployment of clean,
efficient, economical and secure energy resources for our
nation.
Our clean power approach will reduce the risks of climate change. The Administration's voluntary plan will not.
In fact, Jim Connaughton, Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, has admitted to this failure. In a July 2002 Commerce Committee hearing, he confessed:
Greenhouse gas emissions will rise under our approach, no
question about that.
Does this sound like an administration concerned about improving our air quality and protecting our global climate from irreparable harm? No.
Or could this be an administration that puts the interests of polluters first?
I urge my colleagues to look at the fine print in the President's proposal and ask questions. If you're very lucky, you might just get a helpful and honest response.
Frankly, I doubt you will get a response. As Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the last Congress, I asked this administration, namely the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Department of Energy, to respond to straight-forward questions about their legislative proposals, their rulemaking proposals, and their testimony before our committee. These are hardly unusual inquiries.
In some instances, I have yet to receive a reply. When I have received a reply, it has been either incomplete or inadequate, and without fail, quite late.
Simply stated, the American public, through laws such as the Freedom of Information Act, and also through its elected officials, is entitled to know the basis of government decision-making. The Congress has a responsibility to oversee and understand the activities of the executive branch, particularly when it implements the laws we write.
It is apparent through my experience and that of other Members I have consulted, that the American public is being kept in the dark by this administration on important changes to vital environmental and public health policies. The Clear Skies proposal dims even further their hopes and right to expect a cleaner and brighter future.
I thank the Senate for allowing me this time. I want to point out we should not lose sight of the fact there are things that are costing thousands of lives in this country we could prevent that are not being looked at well enough to give us the security we need.
I yield the floor.