Statement by 

Robert J.M. Hudson 

Associate Professor, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences 

University of lllinios at Urbana-Champaign 

Champaign, IL 

As a father, a resident of Illinois, a U.S. citizen, and an Associate Professor of Natural 

Resources and Environmental Sciences at the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign, I am 

grateful for this opportunity to express my strong support for EPA's proposed rule limiting 

carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. I have made understanding the contribution of 

human activities to 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, I felt reassured by 

the overwhelming evidence showing that humans are the sole cause of the current trend in 

atmospheric C02 levels. Why was I reassured? I was confident that 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 got out 

of hand and our children's future was endangered. 

Unfortunately, I no longer feel that way at all; in fact I am worried sick. Yes, scientists have 

conducted the essential research and developed the needed models. And many of the world's 

main emitters of C02 are acting to reduce their emissions. But here in the U.S., we find it difficult 

to take even modest steps, such as implementing this new rule, when the science tells us that 

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

Why do we resist? I am not a social scientist, but from what opponents of regulating C02 

emissions, like Sen. lnhofe [3], say it appears that some people find it difficult to accept higher 

costs now in order to avoid seemingly uncertain future damages. Perhaps they are 

overconfident having learned that we can clean up polluted lakes and rivers, at least to some 

extent, after we see clearly the consequences of polluting natural systems. Alter all, why waste 

money on preventative measures when natural processes sometimes clean up much of our 

mess anyway. But climate change will not be as easy to reverse as polluted lakes and rivers or 

any other environmental problem we are familiar with. Carbon dioxide pollution has and will 

recycle through the atmosphere and surface ocean for a long time. In fact, if we don't 

dramatically change 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 over the last two centuries-- might have for the 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 lands when rising sea level drives millions from their homes in 

Bangladesh and elsewhere? And closer to home, recent science indicates that we can no 

longer afford to be sanquine about our own prospects in the changing climate. Do we really 

want to make the drought in Texas last year the new normal? Farmers there suffered billions of 

dollars in crop losses last year. Forecasts of persistent drought in the American southwest and 

many other downsides to changing climate also suggest a high potential toll. 
Ultimately, I do think the American people will respond, but will we do so in time? We owe a 

tremendous thank you to administrator Jackson 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 pollutant that EPA should regulate. After all, each of us emits C02 with every 

breath, don't we? Admittedly politicians cannot all be expected to understand the difference 

between C02 emissions from 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 over this 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 a good thing and when that occurs, it is perfectly appropriate to call it 

pollution. 

While the preceding comments express my personal perspective, I should 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 modest step, one that requires new power plants to 

be as efficient as those burning natural gas. It makes Illinois coal less economically viable, but 

the value of preserving our climate is well worth the price of reducing the development of this 

resource. 

With that in mind, I wish to summarize for the 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 support for 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 driver of 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 of spring. 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 now to reduce heat-trapping 

emissions and develop adaptation strategies. We ask the EPA to move quickly to i) finalize and 

implement limits on carbon emissions from new power plants and ii) issue standards to reduce 

carbon emissions from existing power plants and other major sources. 

We are ready to help meet the climate challenge, reduce global warming emissions, and 

transition to a clean 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 University 
Indianapolis, Indiana 

Richard Brazee 

Associate Professor, Department of 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 of the terrestrial biosphere and the "missing" C02 sink. Global 

Biogeochemical Cycles 8: 307-333. 

[2] Kwon, H-Y. and Hudson, R.J.M. (2010) Quantifying management-driven changes in organic 

matter turnover in an agricultural soil: An inverse modeling approach using historical data and a 

surrogate CENTURY -type model. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 42: 2241-2253. 

[3]1nhofe, J. (2012) The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your 

Future WND Books. Also, as stated in interview on 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 Need To Put Catalytic Converters On Our Noses?"' 

http ://thin kp rog ress. org/ cl i ma te/20 12/05/22/4885 72/sen sen b renner -co2-is-a-n a tu ral-g as-doesthis-mean-that -all-of-us-need-to-put -catal yti c-conve rte rs-on-ou r -noses/