EPA head: environmental protection is good for business

The head of the Environmental Protection Agency believes Congress should not restrict her agency's efforts to regulate pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks. She says there is no reason to believe that environmental protection is bad for economic growth.

EPA's administrator Lisa Jackson is embroiled in a tug-of-war with key members of Congress who say they'll use any means necessary -- even passing a law if needed -- to challenge the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Senator Lisa Murkowski (R.-Alaska) has introduced legislation designed to bar the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to deal with climate pollution from smokestacks and tailpipes. This places her in direct opposition to President Obama, who has vowed to have the EPA do just that if Congress fails to enact climate legislation.

In a speech to the National Press Club yesterday, Jackson fired back.

Often times the same offices that are blasting out press releases on the overreach of faceless EPA bureaucrats are also asking those same bureaucrats for help. That's a textbook example of irony and it's all too evident in today's politics. When it comes to people's health, everyone wants strong environmental protection. Everyone also wants a strong economy. We all want robust job growth. No one favors higher costs for starting businesses or manufacturing products.

I have two teenage sons - which means I buy a lot of stuff. I am an active American consumer and the last thing I want to see are higher prices for food or utility bills or shoes or clothes. So - we all want a clean environment. And we all want a strong economy. What you may not realize is that we all have seen proof that we can have both.

Administrator Jackson proceeded to use her half-hour long address to answer her biggest critics on Capitol Hill.

Today I want to talk about a misconception that threatens to do more harm to our progress as a nation than the carping over climate science. And that's the misconception that we must make a choice between cleaning up our environment and growing our economy. I've worked in environmental protection for 20 years. I've seen meaningful environmental efforts met time and again with predictions of lost jobs and lost revenue. Lobbyists and business journals have done such a good job of engraining it into our way of thinking that many of us believe, sadly, that we must choose between our environment and our economy. The people in my line of work haven't done the best job of communicating our side in this debate. We've lost the messaging war and have work to do to present the alternative. It helps that history and the facts bear us out. I'm here to show you today that the choice between the environment and the economy is indeed a false choice.

The EPA administrator says that innovation has been the key to making environmental protection work -- and she says history backs her position.

Take for example New Jersey's Engelhard Corporation, which led the commercial production of the catalytic converter. If you drove here today, your car had a catalytic converter in it to burn unleaded gasoline. Today these things are standard. 30 years ago - when EPA used the Clean Air Act to phase in unleaded gas and catalytic converters - they were extremely controversial. Many major automakers opposed them. The Chamber of Commerce claimed, and I quote, "entire industries might collapse." Using the Clean Air Act in this way was said to be a poison pill for our economy - something that sounds all too familiar around Washington today. Yet, the auto industry survived. Dangerous lead pollution in our air is 92 percent lower than it was in 1980. By 1985 the reductions of lead in our environment had estimated health benefits of $17 billion per year. The initial cost of the rule was paid back 10 to 13 times. And in 2006, the Engelhard Corporation was bought for $5 billion. That's just one good example of how it works. A new environmental rule led to new innovations, which led to new jobs.

Jackson had another, more recent example of a decision to protect the environment that did not spell the end of the economy.

Those of you too young to remember the switch to catalytic converters may remember the phase out of ozone-depleting CFCs. CFCs were the chemicals in aerosol cans and other products that led to a growing hole in the ozone layer. I remember a lot of people wondering if they were going to have to give up their hairspray or their deodorant - and not being too happy about it. And they weren't the only ones. The chemical industry predicted severe economic disruption. Refrigeration companies forecasted shutdowns of supermarket coolers and chiller machines used to cool office buildings, hotels and hospitals.

Companies that used CFCs in manufacturing believed the transition would be next to impossible. The doom-and-destruction never came to pass. Refrigerators and air conditioners stayed on. When innovators took up the manufacturing challenge, they found alternatives that worked better than CFCs. Some developed new technology that cut costs while actually improving productivity and quality. And by making their products better and cleaner, the American refrigeration industry actually gained access to markets overseas - giving them new economic opportunities.

Jackson believes U.S. industry needs clear signals from the government on the issue of greenhouse gas emissions, or else opportunities to clean up the environment, and create clean energy jobs will be lost.

------

(Copyright 2010 by FederalNewsRadio.com. All Rights Reserved.)