Testimony of Michael V. Nixon 

The Center for Biological Diversity's Comments on U.S. EPA Proposed Rule 

Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility 

Generating Units, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

July 31, 2014 — Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 

This testimony is being presented today on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity which has 

offices nationwide and works collaboratively with a global perspective. 

President Obama's proposed limits on carbon pollution are an important step forward to mitigate 

climate disruption but are not nearly adequate to the scale of the problem. Science demonstrates that 

the rule is not stringent enough to avoid the worst impacts of global climate disruption. This is a draft 

rule and the President and the EPA need to strengthen it significantly. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES & SIGNIFICANT DEFECTS IN THE DRAFT RULE 

The rule builds in way too much delay — until 2030 — before reductions might be achieved. The rule is 

right to propose measures beyond the fence of power plants, but wrong on how it goes about 

accomplishing that. The current draft encourages even more natural gas use and exacerbates the 

unfolding fracking disaster. 

And the rule is wrong on the math: it undercounts the danger and leakage rate of methane, and 

seriously underestimates the costs of climate change damage. 

Another defect in this draft rule allows states to bypass renewables and energy conservation. 

Reduction targets are woefully insufficient and should be increased because, among other reasons: 

o The targets are too lenient. 

o State targets add up to a national goal that will not avert the worst impacts of climate 

change. 

o Scientists warn developed countries must reduce their economy-wide emissions 50% 

below 1990 levels by 2020 to have a medium chance of keeping warming to two degrees 

Celsius. Overall progress in reducing GHGs should be based on emissions in 1990, the 

Kyoto Protocol baseline, not emissions in 2005. 

o International community has used 1990 as a baseline since the Kyoto Protocol. 
o Emissions were at their height in 2005 (7200 MMT) and have declined since (6500 MMT 

in 2012). 

o Having 2005 as a baseline takes credit for reductions that have already occurred. Overall 

progress in reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) should be based on emissions in 1990, 

the Kyoto Protocol baseline, not emissions in 2005. 

Substantial reductions should be required sooner — by 2020, not a decade later in 2030 — with even 

much greater reductions required later in the future. 

GHGs remain in the atmosphere from decades to centuries after they are released so they have a 

strong and persistent cumulative effect. And, because emissions must peak within the next few years 

and decline sharply thereafter in order for us to be successful in this endeavor, waiting 15 years for 

meaningful reductions is an unacceptable, indefensible, and irresponsible delay. 

The rule encourages even more natural gas power generation. EPA claims this would result in up to 

40% emissions reductions, but that is incorrect. Like the earlier rule for new power plants, this draft 

rule doesn't require any increase in efficiency at existing natural gas plants, and thus fails to implement 

the "technology-forcing" requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

THE "JOBS vs. THE ENVIRONMENT" HOKUM 

Now, I will take just a moment to address the latest re-looping of the ol' "Jobs vs. The Environment" 

hokum and scare 'em tactic which has been trod out yet again, this time by the fossil fuel corporations 

who are trying to manipulate their workers and consumers and prevent the people of this country from 

doing something real and substantial in bringing positive change to the deadly climate situation 

currently threatening the United States and the world. 

There are 10 times fewer coal miners in this region now than there were in the previous generation. 

Fewer miners, but more and more coal is mined by the tonnes. And the fact that "coal mine jobs are 

disappearing" is not because of the Clean Air Act — it is primarily because the coal industry has been 

replacing coal miners with giant machines. All the while, on a massive scale, destroying our 

environment, our land, our aquifers, our drinking water, our rivers and streams and their headwaters, 

our rural and agricultural community life, and the very air that we all breathe. 

There's actually a greater future for employment for people in greener technologies and alternative 

energy industries than working for the desperate fossil fuel corporations trying to hold their reign over 

from the previous century. A greater future is one of the ultimate goals and attributes of the 
"technology-forcing" provisions and functions of the Clean Air Act. The stricter regulation of carbon 

emissions will require more and more people doing the new, additional, and critical work necessary to 

mitigate the damage wrought by our fossil fuel past and present, and bring humanity back from this 

brink of climate catastrophe. 

THE MENACE OF METHANE 

Climate degradation is cascading from the climate forcing of continued greenhouse gas emissions -

particularly including methane. The escalating, compounding, and synergistic rates of GHG emissions 

of coal mining, oil & gas extractions, fossil fuel processing and transport, and the thawing of the subartic permafrost from the rampant effects of the consequential human-caused warming and 

acidification of the oceans is a deadly menace to present-day life on earth. 

Dr. James Hansen and Dr. Makiko Sato, two of the leading climate scientists in the world today have 

stated: 

Future climate depends on how climate forcings change — human-made greenhouse gases, 

especially carbon dioxide, and forcings that are not yet well measured, especially aerosols. The 

speed and degree of climate change also will depend upon how fast amplifying feedbacks, such 

as Arctic sea ice, the large ice sheets, and methane hydrates come into play.' 

The EPA has acknowledged "coal mine methane (CMM), [is] a greenhouse gas more than 20 times as 

potent as carbon dioxide."2Yet, the EPA dangerously underestimates the magnitude of the hazard 

presented by methane emissions because the impacts of the current global gas rushes and fracking 

frenzy multiply the problems. 

Furthermore, "voluntary programs" such as EPA's Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) are 

obviously inadequate mechanisms for significant and timely change, especially in response to such an 

emergent recognized threat posed by methane emissions. Instituting and relying on voluntary 

programs also undermines the technology-forcing mechanisms and time-sensitive goals of the Clean Air 

Act and its implementing regulations. 

Dr. Naomi Oreskes, professor of The History of Science at Harvard University and co-author of the 

recent book, Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from 

1 Sato, Makiko, and Hansen, James, Updating the Climate Science - What Path is the Real World 

Following? Columbia University Earth Institute, New York, New York (2014) 

http://www.columbia.edu/—mhs119/. 

2See, U.S. EPA Coalbed Methane Outreach Program (CMOP) http://www.epa.gov/cmop/. 

1 
Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming hItp://www.merchantsofdoubt.orgexplains the grave danger 

presented by methane emissions in particular: 

INaJtural gas is methane (CH4), which is a greenhouse gas far more potent than CO2 [, and] gas leaks 

are a cause for enormous concern, because any methane that reaches the atmosphere unburned 

contributes to global warming more than the same amount of CO2. How much more? This is a question 

that has caused considerable angst in the climate science community, because it depends on how you 

calculate it. Scientists have developed the concept of "Global Warming Potential" (GWP) to try to 

answer this question. 

The argument is complicated because while CH4 warms the planet far more than CO2, it stays in the 

atmosphere for much less time. A typical molecule of CO2 remains in the atmosphere about 10 times 

longer than a molecule of CH4. In their Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change estimated that the GWP for methane is 34 times that of CO2 over the span of 100 

years. However, when the time frame is changed to 20 years, the GWP increases to 868 

CONCLUSION 

The EPA, the President, and Congress must be more diligent and more forthright in fulfilling their 

responsibilities as our government representatives, and as our official stewards and trustees of the 

environment and the well-being of all concerned — that is, not just us human beings, but the life-giving 

and life-sustaining plants and animals, great and small, that we share the Earth with and are 

responsible for safeguarding. 

These draft rules must be significantly improved and promptly re-drafted with a new public notice and 

opportunity for public comment before adopting a final version. Human-caused damage to the climate, 

and the exacerbation of climate change, is the greatest matter of life and death, and You — We — All of 

us, must choose smartly and act urgently. Because life is good. And because extended-play piecemealing and avoiding of the prompt full regulation of all of the carbon emissions generated from the 

extraction, processing, and burning of fossil fuels is bad. We look forward to seeing your improved 

next draft very soon. The Center will be submitting final written comments before the deadline. 

Thank you for coming to Pittsburgh, and for heeding these comments. 

3Oreskes, Naomi, "Wishful Thinking About Natural Gas: Why Fossil Fuels Can't Solve the 

Problems Created by Fossil Fuels," TomDispatch.com(July 27, 2014) 

http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175873/. See also, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (2013). http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ 

4