Copyright 2001 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
August 1, 2001, Wednesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1151 words
COMMITTEE:
SENATE ENVIRONMENT & PUBLIC WORKS
HEADLINE: VEHICLE EMISSIONS
TESTIMONY-BY: JAMES M. JEFFORDS, SENATOR
BODY: August 1, 2001
Statement of Senator
James M. Jeffords
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Hearing to assess the impact of air emissions from the transportation
sector on public health and the environment.
Last week this Committee
learned about the impact of power plant emissions on public health and the
environment. Today, we'll take a similar look at the transportation sector. And
after the recess we'll take a look at our industrial sources.
America
and its political leaders are committed to clean air. Improved air quality
results in healthier, longer lives for our citizens, cleaner ecosystems, more
abundant crops and a stronger economy. Transportation is one of the main drivers
of that economy. Transportation touches every aspect of our lives. Our
transportation system is one of the most advanced in the world, and is truly the
foundation of our strong economy. But even the most advanced system can be
improved.
With American ingenuity and technology, and with little
additional cost, we can create new engines that are equally as powerful but far
less polluting. Our goal today is to ensure that our federal government is doing
all it can to create a cleaner, more efficient and less polluting transportation
system for the nation.
Earlier this week, the National Academy of
Sciences released a report on corporate average fuel economy or
CAFE
standards. The report is helpful, but it tells us what we already know
- improving fuel efficiency can save consumers money, cut greenhouse gas
emissions, and reduce our dependence on oil. That's no surprise.
The
report also said that market forces alone aren't going to make these things
happen. That's why I believe that Federal leadership must pull technology in an
environmentally sound direction. As many of you know, I am not too pleased with
the Administration's policy on climate change. An entirely voluntary and
unilateral approach is not the best route. It won't get us far enough, fast
enough. The report also suggests that our current approach with CAFE hasn't been
effective. The average fuel efficiency of all vehicles has remained more or less
flat for 15 years. In the same period, greenhouse gas emissions from the sector
have continued rising, up to 12 percent over 1990 levels.
We may need a
new approach to fuel economy if we can't quickly fix CAFE and increase those
standards substantially. There are just too many negative environmental
consequences from wasting energy, particularly on the global climate.
The Clean Air Act allows carbon dioxide from vehicles to be regulated as
a pollutant. Clearly, the potential impacts of carbon on the environment and
public health are enormous. Perhaps this Committee should consider a national
cap and trade program for carbon emissions from the transportation sector. That
might be a more effective way to stimulate innovation in less carbon- intensive
fuels and efficiency.
I have tried for many years to encourage cleaner
fuels and vehicles. During the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 1992, I
offered a successful amendment to require certain levels of alternative fuel
production. That amendment came back from conference saying that the Department
of Energy "may" require alternative fuels production instead of the "shall" that
was in my amendment. Had that amendment survived, we might be worrying a lot
less about greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution today.
According
to EPA's Green Vehicle Guide, "while good fuel efficiency does not necessarily
mean clean emissions, a car that burns less fuel, generally, pollutes less."
That would make sense. It could also cost the manufacturers less in the amount
of precious metals necessary in catalysts.
But, we shouldn't just focus
on cars. Passenger cars have been getting cleaner. And they will get even
cleaner as a result of recent rules on emissions and low sulfur fuel. But,
trucks and non-road sources have a long way to go.
EPA has moved slowly
to set standards for these non-road sources like airplanes, locomotives, marine
diesel and recreational engines. These sources are a growing part of many areas'
pollution problem. Approximately 120 million people are still living in areas
that don't meet the national standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. These
pollutants and fine particulates are closely associated with emissions from the
transportation sector. They are also associated with asthma and other illnesses.
A study published earlier this year in the Journal of the American
Medical Association by a group of doctors found something interesting and
distressing about the link between pollution and asthma.
The Olympic
Committee in Atlanta made great efforts to reduce traffic congestion during the
1996 Games. Increased use of transit and tele-commuting cut traffic and
emissions significantly.
The doctors found a corresponding reduction in
the rate of childhood asthma events. The morals of that story are that cars have
to get still cleaner and a better transit system can help prevent pollution.
I want to touch on one last issue before I turn it over to the next
speaker. That subject is toxic air pollutants from mobile sources.
The
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed EPA to issue a rule to control toxic
air pollutants that pose the greatest risk to human health or about which
significant uncertainties remain. That rule was to be done in 1996. Last year,
EPA finally issued its rule. It simply said that these air toxics must not
increase beyond the average of 1998 through 2000 levels, with future regulation
in 2004. In 1998, the entire transportation sector was responsible for emitting
2.3 million tons or 4.6 billion pounds of toxic air pollutants, including
benzene and 20 other hazardous chemicals. Some of these are known or probable
carcinogens.
I hope you can see why I think the EPA's rule is not
adequate to protect public health. Instead, EPA should have heeded the words of
George Perkins Marsh, a great Vermonter and environmentalist. He said, "We are
never justified in assuming a force to be insignificant because its measure is
unknown, or even because no physical effect can now be traced to it as its
origin."
Marsh believed that we have a responsibility and the ability to
help solve the problems we create. We all have to think ahead and shape our
society to protect our children and the environment from potential harm. Even
when there isn't perfect proof.
It's a pretty good bet that the planet
will continue warming and human health will continue to suffer if we don't do a
better job of using our energy resources in the transportation sector.
We must strengthen
CAFE standards, reduce vehicle
contributions of carbon to the atmosphere, and cut emissions that undermine
human health.
I am hopeful that this morning's witnesses will give us
some ideas on how to meet these challenges.
LOAD-DATE: August 6, 2001