Today I submitted a question to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson about climate debt at the National Press Club that was read by the moderator:
I thought this was rather important, climate debt has gotten a fair amount of play, especially in the alternative media and globally, but I'm not sure how often administration officials have been questioned about it -- witness Jackson's admittedly "non-specific" reply. (BTW, my question was somewhat modified: I don't think I wrote "overseas" -- probably wrote "around the world" and am quite sure I wrote that the rich countries have caused global warming -- this is a question of decades if not centuries; similarly, I didn't write European Union, I just wrote European). The moderator, a reporter for Bloomberg, introduced and generally questioned Jackson from what I think can be fairly called an anti-environmentalist direction -- Jackson actually commented on the "provocative" intro at the beginning of her remarks. I submitted several questions that were not asked (about cap and trade vs a carbon tax or cap and dividend, a pending discrimination/whistleblowing lawsuit, Cantwell-Collins approach of limiting carbon offsets is an improvement over the Kerry-Boxer and the dubious nature of Mideast/foreign oil dependency rhetoric).
Another interesting question that was asked was on mountaintop removal. It was either a severely modified version of the question I submitted (which mentioned NASA scientist James Hansen getting arrested at mountaintop removal protests) or something someone else submitted:
See full video; climate debt question is just after 37:30, the mountain top removal question is just after 51:30.
ALAN BJERGA: How do you respond to what some audiences overseas will say about a climate debt, that the rich countries, such as the U.S. and the European Union cause global warming, and should have to foot most of the bill?
LISA JACKSON: Well certainly, there are arguments about how, on an international stage, to really attack a problem like climate change. And, I think those discussions will continue. I don’t have a specific answer on the concerns that climate debt raises. But, you can understand the underlying concern, which is, when you're talking about developed countries, and then you're talking about nations that are trying to develop, you can understand the equities and the needs of those nations to try to develop in a way that gives, first and foremost, their citizens access to energy, something we probably take for granted in this country every day.
The ideal, of course, is that, as those countries develop, they develop in a way that jumps over dirty energy and moves to cleaner forms of energy. So that, as they're growing-- and I think technical assistance is a wonderful way to help to ensure that. EPA has been doing a lot of that work. So have other parts of the government. As they develop, we can try to avoid some of the problems and some of the issues that we’re now having to deal with, in retrospect.
LISA JACKSON: Well certainly, there are arguments about how, on an international stage, to really attack a problem like climate change. And, I think those discussions will continue. I don’t have a specific answer on the concerns that climate debt raises. But, you can understand the underlying concern, which is, when you're talking about developed countries, and then you're talking about nations that are trying to develop, you can understand the equities and the needs of those nations to try to develop in a way that gives, first and foremost, their citizens access to energy, something we probably take for granted in this country every day.
The ideal, of course, is that, as those countries develop, they develop in a way that jumps over dirty energy and moves to cleaner forms of energy. So that, as they're growing-- and I think technical assistance is a wonderful way to help to ensure that. EPA has been doing a lot of that work. So have other parts of the government. As they develop, we can try to avoid some of the problems and some of the issues that we’re now having to deal with, in retrospect.
Another interesting question that was asked was on mountaintop removal. It was either a severely modified version of the question I submitted (which mentioned NASA scientist James Hansen getting arrested at mountaintop removal protests) or something someone else submitted:
ALAN BJERGA: What are the EPA’s plans for addressing mountaintop removal mining and its environmental impacts during 2010? How likely is it that the EPA will succeed in toughening mining regulations?
LISA JACKSON: The EPA is currently in the process of reviewing those mountaintop mining permits that have been held through years and years, almost decades would be a fairer way to say it, of litigation. This is a practice that is, you know, quite emotional for many people in America. You know, it’s the-- there are thin seams of coal above mountaintops, I guess, in Appalachia, exclusively in Appalachia. And, the practice that’s most cost-efficient to simply blow off the top, level it, remove that thin seam. And then, all that rubble from the top of the mountain gets put into valleys and, almost inevitably, fills, streams.
What we’re finding at EPA is that the process of filling the streams has a detrimental impact on water quality. And, as you might expect, the more you fill, the more likely you're going to see problems with water quality. I’m really proud of the fact that EPA has stepped forward and said, “We’re going to review each and every one of these outstanding permits to try to minimize, if not end, any environmental degradation to the water.”
Because, after all, for EPA, EPA doesn’t regulate mining. We fight for clean water under the Clean Water Act. So, our role is limited to ensuring that these projects, if they are approved, do not have a detrimental impact on clean water. We’ll continue to do that. And, I have promised Senator Byrd that we would get clarity of guidance out for those companies who have permits that are in the process. That will be happening in very short order.
LISA JACKSON: The EPA is currently in the process of reviewing those mountaintop mining permits that have been held through years and years, almost decades would be a fairer way to say it, of litigation. This is a practice that is, you know, quite emotional for many people in America. You know, it’s the-- there are thin seams of coal above mountaintops, I guess, in Appalachia, exclusively in Appalachia. And, the practice that’s most cost-efficient to simply blow off the top, level it, remove that thin seam. And then, all that rubble from the top of the mountain gets put into valleys and, almost inevitably, fills, streams.
What we’re finding at EPA is that the process of filling the streams has a detrimental impact on water quality. And, as you might expect, the more you fill, the more likely you're going to see problems with water quality. I’m really proud of the fact that EPA has stepped forward and said, “We’re going to review each and every one of these outstanding permits to try to minimize, if not end, any environmental degradation to the water.”
Because, after all, for EPA, EPA doesn’t regulate mining. We fight for clean water under the Clean Water Act. So, our role is limited to ensuring that these projects, if they are approved, do not have a detrimental impact on clean water. We’ll continue to do that. And, I have promised Senator Byrd that we would get clarity of guidance out for those companies who have permits that are in the process. That will be happening in very short order.
See full video; climate debt question is just after 37:30, the mountain top removal question is just after 51:30.