Statement by Robert J.M. Hudson Associate Professor, Departmentof Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences Universityof lllinios at Urbana-Champaign Champaign, IL

As afather, a resident of Illinois, a U.S. citizen, and an Associate Professor of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences at the Universityof Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, Iam grateful for this opportunityto express my strong supportfor EPA's proposed rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. I have made understanding the contribution of human activitiesto the rapidly increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere a personal and professional priority since the early 1990s[1,2]. When I began my study, Ifelt reassured by the overwhelming evidence showing that humansare the sole cause of the currenttrend in atmospheric C02levels. Why was I reassured? Iwas confidentthat since our responsibility was
so clear, surely humankind

-- lead by the United States-- would collect the data and develop the sophisticated models needed to guide the world to a soft landing, before climate change gotout of hand and our children's future was endangered.

Unfortunately, I no longerfeel that way at all; in fact Iam worried sick. Yes, scientists have conducted the essential research and developed the needed models. And many of the world's main emittersof C02 are acting to reduce their emissions. But here in the U.S., we find it difficult to take even modeststeps, such as implementing this new rule, when the science tells usthat

we need to move in leaps and boundstowards a low-carbon economy.

Whydowe resist? Iam not asocial scientist, but from what opponents of regulating C02 emissions, like Sen. lnhofe [3], say it appearsthat some peoplefind it difficultto accept higher costs now in orderto avoid seemingly uncertain future damages. Perhapsthey are overconfident having learned that we can clean up polluted lakes and rivers, at leastto some extent, afterwe see clearly the consequences of polluting natural systems. Alter all, why waste moneyon preventative measureswhen natural processes sometimes clean up much of our
mess anyway. But climate change will not be as easyto reverse as polluted lakes and rivers or any other environmental problem we are familiarwith. Carbon dioxide pollution has and will recycle through the atmosphere and surface ocean for a long time. In fact, if we don't dramaticallychange course from our current business as usual emissions trajectory, we may, at least on the timescale of human generations, permanently change the global climate.

Perhaps another reason that we hesitate to act is that we are used to thinking of our nation as exceptional, the right side of history, and divinely blessed. How could we be doing any harm when we are acting within our rights and have God on our side? Most of us can't even conceive of asking questions such as what responsibility we-- the nation that has emitted the most C02 of any nation overthe lasttwo centuries-- might have forthe plight of people in the parts of the world most affected by climate change? We need to ask ourselves what will become of our moral authority as the only global superpower if the most notable exceptional aspect of our country becomes our refusal to help stabilize our common global climate system? Will we open the borders to our spacious open landswhen rising sea level drives millions from their homes in Bangladesh and elsewhere? And closerto home, recent science indicates that we can no longerafford to be sanquine about our own prospects in the changing climate. Do we really want to make the drought in Texas lastyear the new normal? Farmersthere suffered billions of dollars in crop losses last year. Forecasts of persistent drought in the American southwest and manyother downsides to changing climate also suggest a high potential toll.Ultimately, Ido think the American people will respond, but will we do so in time? We owe a tremendous thank you to administratorJackson and the EPA for starting us in the right direction

now.

Some that oppose this rule, like Congressman Sensenbrenner (4], argue that C02 is natural and therefore not a pollutantthat EPA should regulate. After all, each of us emits C02 with every breath, don'twe? Admittedly politicians cannot all be expected to understand the difference between C02 emissionsfrom breathing, which closes the rapid atmosphere-food-atmosphere loop in the carbon cycle, and from burning fossil fuels, which returns ancient geologicallysequestered carbon into the circulation. But, I hope the debate in Congress overthis new rule will at least get politicians and the citizens of this land to listen to scientists, such as those at EPA, long enough to get their facts straight. People need to understand that it is possible to have too much of agood thing and when that occurs, it is perfectly appropriateto call it pollution.

While the preceding comments express my personal perspective, Ishould add that to the best of my knowledge, the new rule is consistent with the actions needed to reduce the growth in atmospheric C02 levels advocated by scientists in virtually every academic discipline involved in study of the environment and climate. It is a modeststep, one that requires new power plantsto be as efficient as those burning natural gas. It makes Illinois coal less economicallyviable, but the value of preserving our climate is well worth the price of reducing the developmentof this

resource.

With that in mind, Iwish to summarize forthe record the following statement, authored by my colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists and also signed two of my colleagues working in the environmental sciences:

As scholars and citizens, we express our supportfor the proposed standards to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. In addition to the terrible health impacts of pollution from dirty energy like coal, burning fossil fuels is the major driverof global warming. We are already seeing the effects of global warming-from extreme heat in our cities to rising sea-levels to the early arrival ofspring. Rising temperatures will likely lead to more frequent and severe heat waves, heavier rainstorms and flooding in some places combined with drought elsewhere, and increased air pollution. All of these changes could pose serious, and costly, risks to public health and agricultural production. We need to take steps nowto reduce heat-trapping emissions and develop adaptation strategies. We ask the EPAto move quicklyto i) finalize and implement limits on carbon emissionsfrom new power plants and ii) issue standards to reduce carbon emissions from existing power plants and other major sources.

We are ready to help meetthe climate challenge, reduce global warming emissions, and transition to aclean energy economy.
Signed: Robert J.M. Hudson Associate Professor, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagin Urbana, Illinois

Gabriel Fillipelli Professor and Chair, Department of Geology Indiana UniversityIndianapolis, Indiana

Richard Brazee Associate Professor, Departmentof Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana-Champagin Urbana, Illinois

REFERENCES [1] Hudson, R.J.M., Gherini, S.A. and Goldstein, R.A. 1994. Modeling the global carbon cycle: Nitrogen fertilization ofthe terrestrial biosphere and the "missing" C02 sink. Global Biogeochemical Cycles8: 307-333. [2] Kwon, H-Y. and Hudson, R.J.M. (2010) Quantifying management-driven changes in organic matterturnover in an agricultural soil: An inverse modeling approach using historical data and a surrogate CENTURY-type model. SoilBiologyandBiochemistry42: 2241-2253. [3]1nhofe, J. (2012) The Greatest Hoax: Howthe Global Warming ConspiracyThreatens Your FutureWND Books. Also, as stated in interviewon Rachel Maddow Show March 16, 2012 (MSNBC). [4] Lacey, S. (May 22, 2012) "Sensenbrenner: 'C02 Is A Natural Gas. Does This Mean That All Of Us NeedTo Put Catalytic Converters On Our Noses?"' http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/05/22/488572/sensenbrenner-co2-is-a-natural-gas-doesthis-mean-that-all-of-us-need-to-put-catalytic-converters-on-our-noses/