 SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
| |
Mr. Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing on State and local perspectives on climate change. I would like to thank all of our witnesses for making the trip to Washington to testify today. Mr. Curry, please give our regards to Governor Richardson, who served with great distinction on our Committee. Over the last few years, many State and local Governments have spent considerable time and effort looking at the issue of climate change and developing programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The pace of their activity is increasing. Today we will hear from some of the leaders in this area. This hearing is important for two reasons: First, in our system of governance, State and local governments often serve as laboratories for developing and testing novel approaches to emerging problems. This hearing gives us an opportunity to benefit from the work done and lessons learned by State and local governments. For example, the State of California has taken a new approach to reducing carbon emissions from fuel for motor vehicles. Rather than adopting a bio-fuels mandate, California has announced a low carbon fuel standard designed to reduce fuel’s life-cycle carbon emissions. I think it would be useful to understand better both the benefits and the drawbacks of this program. Second, when the States act independently of the Federal Government, these actions can create a regulatory patchwork that unnecessarily creates inefficiencies or hinders economic growth. Other Federal environmental statutes have been driven, at least in part, by concerns raised by multiple State regulations all addressing the same problem. In these cases, we took action to address the problem nationally as a way of leveling the playing field across the country, and of reducing inefficiencies and burdens on interstate commerce. For example, California, New Jersey, and New Mexico are all part of regional greenhouse gas initiatives that are intended to cap emissions in participating States. I am interested in hearing whether there are concerns that such regional approaches could put their businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared to businesses in other States or concerns that multiple State programs will make life unnecessarily complicated for companies that operate in multiple States. I am pleased that Mayor McCrory is here today. The involvement of mayors on climate change is quite interesting given the global, rather than local, nature of the problem. More than 400 mayors, representing over 60 million citizens from across the country, have signed a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, demonstrating widespread concern among our citizens regarding climate change. I look forward to hearing what local governments are doing to address climate change. As we have heard over the course of climate change hearings, there is no single silver bullet that will do the job. It is clear that climate change must be addressed through a broad array of actions at all levels of government. I look forward to hearing more about the actions State and local governments are taking or contemplating. I would like to close with a word directed to my colleagues. I know that some of you wish we were not addressing climate change or that we were moving far more slowly. There are a number of reasons why we need to address climate change at a federal level. Today’s hearing focuses on just one of those reasons. The States are making it quite clear that they will act to address climate change, and, therefore, we must as well. - 30 - (Contact: Jodi Seth or Alec Gerlach, 202-225-5735)
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
