August 2, 2013
Calls climate issue economic as well as environmental.
By Alvin Powell
Editor’s Note: In our July 20 EarthDesk post about the appointment of Gina McCarthy to EPA Administrator, we said there would be “high expectations that she will be an effective advocate for President Obama’s recently announced climate plan.” In her first speech as Administrator, hosted by Harvard Law School’s Environmental Law Program, she certainly talked the talk, but there is still a long walk ahead.
Administrator McCarthy called President Obama’s June 26 Georgetown University speech, “Clearly the most compelling and most important speech on climate change that any American president has ever delivered.” She rightfully sees EPA as “front and center” in the president’s climate strategy and added, “frankly that’s exactly where we want to be.” But as we said in our June 26 post about the Georgetown speech, the “plan is heavy on executive actions and agency rule making. It is unlikely the House majority will sit quietly for this Obama end run . . . Expect House hearings when new rules and regulations are promulgated.” It will be a hard road for the new Administrator — but only if the president follows through on his climate pledge.
More in the video of the speech, below, and in the post that follows. Alvin Powell is the senior science writer for the Harvard Gazette at Harvard University. We repost his report courtesy of the Harvard Gazette. — John Cronin
Newly confirmed Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy on Tuesday pledged action on climate change during the Obama administration’s remaining years, saying the concern is as much economic as it is environmental.
“Climate change will not be resolved overnight, but it will be engaged over the next three years; that I can promise you,” McCarthy said during her speech at Harvard Law School (HLS).
McCarthy, confirmed to head the federal agency on July 19 after a bruising Senate review process, decried what she called a “false choice” between environmental health and economic health presented by those who oppose regulation. She pointed to the U.S. economy’s growth over the decades since landmark environmental regulations were passed in the early 1970s, and held up clean air and brownfield cleanup programs, both administered by the EPA, as examples.
Between 1970 and 2011, air pollution emissions fell 68 percent in this country, even as the gross domestic product rose 212 percent and the population increased 52 percent. In addition, Clean Air Act programs prevented 205,000 premature deaths and 18 million childhood respiratory illnesses between 1970 and 1990, she said. Total private-sector jobs increased 88 percent. Overall, she said, every dollar invested under the Clean Air Act has borne $30 in benefits.
“We need to embrace cutting carbon pollution as a way to spark business innovation.”
“Can we stop talking about environmental regulations killing jobs, please?” McCarthy said. “For too long, we’ve been focused on this false choice. It’s not a choice between the health of our children and the health of the economy.”
McCarthy also held up the cleanup of brownfields — polluted urban lots that are often former factory or industrial sites — as another way that government anti-pollution action has benefited the economy. Since 1995, government-sponsored brownfield cleanups have returned 41,500 acres to development, generating 93,000 jobs and leveraging $20.8 billion in economic development, she said. Each dollar spent on the EPA’s brownfield cleanup program, McCarthy said, leads to between $17 and $18 in public and private funds for cleanup and development.
“This is how you use federal dollars to advance the public interest. That is what EPA is all about,” McCarthy said. “The EPA is having substantive positive impact on the lives of everyday people all across the United States, and we’re doing so in a way that not only doesn’t slow the economy, but in many ways that spark economic growth.” Comment