tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN November 8, 2013 6:30am-8:31am EST
you about today. the atlantic council focuses on iran's relations with afghanistan and other countries in south asia. that's your and c-span2 at 9:30 a.m. eastern. later on c-span president obama will be in new orleans for speech on jobs and the economy and a little after 1 p.m. eastern. at 3 p.m. the simpson center hosts a panel of senior u.s. officials and other experts on efforts to keep weapons of mass destruction away from terrorist. after becoming first lady, mamie eisenhower rand a type ship at the white house conducting white glove inspections and proving all the menus for a record number of state business. watch out program saturday at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. live monday night our series continues. >> mrs. kennedy is known as a style icon, admiration of her fashion sense. she put an awful lot of thought into her wardrobe when she was
representing the country both at the white house and while traveling abroad. you think about what colors would mean something to the country i'm about to visit. so for her, this is the candidate she chose this red suit as a gesture of respect for the red of the canadian maple leaf. >> i really admire the thought mrs. kennedy put into her wardrobe. she also knew how to choose a style or color that would make her stand out in a crowd. >> first lady jacqueline kennedy monday night at nine eastern on c-span. >> the environmental protection agency is hosting a series of public meetings before issuing rules on right leg in carbon emissions from power plants. rules are part of president obama's blame to reduce greenhouse gases. today's meeting included criticism of the plan from senate minority leader mitch
mcconnell. this portion is little more than an hour and a half. >> thank you all very much for coming to participate in today's session. which is part of what is now an ongoing national conversation, intended to help the environmental protection agency and the states determine promising approaches for reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. power plants are the nation's single largest source of carbon emission from a source we must address as we work to combat climate change. one of the most significant public health risks of our time.
science tells us that climate change is real, that human activities are fueling that change and that we must take action now to avoid the most devastating consequence. in june, president obama called on agencies across the federal government, including epa, to take action to cut carbon pollution to protect our country from the impact of climate change and to lead the world in this effort. the president's call included a directive for epa quote to work expeditiously to complete carbon pollution standards for both new and existing power plants, closed quote. currently there are no federal standards in place to reduce carbon pollution from the country's largest source of that pollution. epa has responded, continue our
work it began under the president's leadership a few years ago when we established a stark fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles that will save consumers thousands of dollars at the pump and will cut carbon pollution from our cars in half by 2025. in september, we announced our proposal to set standards for carbon pollution emitted by power plants that will be built in the future. these proposed standards are practical, flexible and achievable, and ensure that our companies investing in new also fuels power plants will use modern technology that limit emissions of harmful carbon pollution. these standards ensure a clear path forward for a continued
diverse energy. now we're beginning our work to develop proposed carbon pollution guidelines for existing power plants. guidelines that would be used by the state as required by the clean air act to develop and implement programs for reducing carbon pollution in the power plants operating in each state. epa's job is to deliver clean air, clean water and save and help you land to american families. we've done this job for more than four decades and we done about relying on the best available science, by being transparent in our decision-making, and by working with anyone to develop commonsense approaches to protecting and improving the environment across the country. the 40 year history has proved we can reduce pollution while creating jobs and strengthening the economy at the same time.
it is this history that brings us here today. to hear from you as we consider the best, most flexible approach is to reducing carbon pollution from the existing power fleet. at today's meeting, and that 10 others like this around the country this fall, epa is reaching out to the public at large to get your input. we want to hear from everyone, including community, industry leaders, environmental and public health groups, faith leaders and labor organizations. we want to hear about how epa should develop and implement carbon pollution guidelines for existing power plants under the clean air act. in addition to listening sessions like this one, epa regional and headquarters staff and leadership, including
administrator mccarthy, has been meeting with industry leaders and ceos from the coal, oil and natural gas areas. we've been working with edward including governors, mayors, members of congress, state and local government officials, environmental advocacy groups, health organizations, safe groups, and many other stakeholders. we are doing this because we want to be open to any and all information about what is important to each state and each stakeholder. that's what this process is all about. we are also reaching out to leaders in all the states and tribes to hear their ideas as we develop our proposed guidelines. the clean air act calls on the states to play a key role in reducing carbon pollution from existing plants. we know that we can learn a lot from ongoing efforts in the states, and in cities and communities as well. all of which have been
incubators for innovation your many already are leading the way the cleaner, more affordable, more sustainable energy. for example, 10 states have already completed or are implementing their own market-based program to reduce carbon pollution. more than 35 states have renewable energy targets. more than 25 states have energy efficiency targets to cut energy waste. and more than 1000 mayors across the country have signed agreements to cut carbon pollution. we want to learn more from their experience and ideas, and yours, as we begin this important effort. today's listing session will focus on the best approaches to reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants. and how those may help us develop guidelines under the clean air act.
if you would like to comment on our proposal standards for new, that is, future power plants, and i hope you will, there is information in the back of the room to get you started to submit those comments. the clean air act it's -- gives a separate frameworks for addressing new sources and addressing existing sources. before i turn things over to my colleague, john, to give you more details about existing source framework, let me remind you why it is so important that you were here today. climate change is a real threat to america, not just a threat for the future. it's happening now. just think about 2012. the extreme weather events we saw first hand on the very types of events that climate change can make more likely to occur. no one can forget superstorm
sandy, combined with the rising sea level, extreme storms like that can cause more devastating storm surges in the future. 2012 is the same your that was the hottest on record in the lower 48 states. with climate change, we can expect to see longer, more frequent heat waves in the future, along with increased heat related deaths. wildfires in 2012 scorched more than 9 million acres across eight states. wildfires can put entire community at risk, damaging property, costing lives and producing dangerous levels of air pollution. and wildfires are projected to burn even larger areas in the future. at the same time, flooding caused by more frequent extreme weather events in the u.s.
threatens fish and wildlife habitats, along with threatening our clean, reliable sources of drinking water. ultimately and most importantly, i'm a change is about health. in addition to the extremes i just mentioned, harbin pollution and hotter weather can lead to longer allergy seasons, contribute to the spread of insect borne diseases like west nile virus and worsen smog puts children, the elderly, and people with heart and lung diseases at risk. the good news is that we can do something about this. we know that climate change can't be solved overnight. it's going to take a broad, conservative effort from all levels of government, and the international community. but make no mistake about it, we cannot afford to delay. we can successfully save the
challenge of climate change if we work together, and if we act now. the action will discuss -- the action we will discuss today is an important step in that process. again, i'd like to thank you very much for being here today, and my colleagues and i look forward to hearing your comments. i'm going to wrap up by doing something i shouldn't at the beginning and i apologize for delaying. i know you're thinking you're listening to a nameless bureaucrat but, in fact, my name is joseph goffman and i'm senior counsel to the assistant administrator for air and radiation. and am going to turn the mic over to my colleague, john. >> thank you. good morning, everybody. thanks again to all of you for joining us today. before turning over to you, the audience, i want to take a few minutes to walk through the part
of the clean air act the dpu would be using to reduce from existing power plants. these are the nation's single largest source of carbon pollution but as we listened your ideas today, we will be thinking about how those may sit under this section of the law. president obama has directed epa to issue a proposal by june 2014 and take final action on june 2015. greenhouse gases including carbon pollution our air pollutants that are subject to regulation under the clean air act. epa has the authority to address carbon pollution from power plants under section 111 of that law. section 111 set up separate approaches for addressing new and existing sources of pollution. for new sources which are covered under section 111-b., standards of performance often called new source performance,
this is the proposal that was signed on september 20 and is available on epa's website for review. this type of standard must reflect the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of what is known as the best system of emission reduction. new source performance standards can address the six common pollutants known as criteria pollutants that they cannot address air toxin. for existing sources covered under section 111-d., epa does not set explicit emission standards. instead we develop and a missions guideline which states then used to design programs that take their particular mix of sources while getting the necessary illusion reductions.
section 111-d is for other pollutants, not covered and regulations for criteria pollutants or air toxin. greenhouse gases including pollution are covered under section 111-d of the clean air act. most section 111 regulation of been issued under 111-b for new, modified or reconstructed source. few regulations have been issued under section 111-d for existing sources. although regulations under 111-d are called guidelines they did go through notice and comment like all epa's other roles. the guidelines established binding obligations on states to address in this case carbon pollution from the power plants operating. last month epa posted on our website a document setting out a number of key questions to guide public discussion that we will be having as we get ready to craft a proposal. there are two questions that will be fundamental to that proposal in good to keep in mind for today.
they are, first, what should epa consider in setting standards and goals for states reduce carbon pollution associate with fossil fuels by a powerpoint? second, because the guidelines could will include a framework within which states can decide power plants to show how they would meet the goal, what should have framework do? we know many states are have programs that reduce carbon pollution's from the electric power sector. their leadership shows opportunities for reductions may range of actions taken at the power plants themselves like switching fuel and increasing efficiency to other programs like energy efficiency in homes and businesses in renewable energy required is to these other programs can directly affect electricity generation which in turn can affect their conditions. we want to learn more about how these programs might be able to fit into epa's guidelines. we know there are a lot of ideas about how to get reductions from power plants so today into the
coming weeks let us to what's important to you. what do you think epa should include in carbon pollution guidelines for existing power plants, and why? if you have suggestions or ideas about what might work to best reduce greenhousgreenhous e gas emissions from power plants, do you think those approaches could fit into epa's guidelines? also want to hear from you about what programs to reduce carbon pollution epa should explore as part of its strategy to address existing power plants. we are interested in what is done director of the plant and what can be done in other places throughout the power system. that could potentially reduce pollution. how do we incorporate these different approaches, what would make sense? if you have expense with energy efficiency and renewable energy programs, that might help reduce greenhouse gas illusion from power plants, please share with us what you've learned and tell us what we should keep in mind. we look get -- we look for during for me today. you may share your thoughts in
writing as well and information to do that is at the registration tables out front. but before we get started let me fill you in on some ground rules and housekeeping. i'll be the one to call the speakers to the microphone this morning. when it's your turn to speak, please stage name and your affiliation before you begin your remarks. so that we have time to hear from everyone, please limit your mark to three minutes each ever made at the microphone and tell all speakers have finished. after you finish your remarks, epa staff may ask clarifying questions. if you'd like to submit your input in writing please be sure to give a copy of the documents to the staff at the registration table out front. you may also e-mail your ideas and thoughts about reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants to carbon pollution input at epa.gov. we have a time keeping system
here with lights to let you know when you're approaching a time limit. the yellow light will come on at the two-minute mark and when you see the red light i'll ask you to please complete your remarks. today's listing session is scheduled from 9 a.m. and will continue until 8 p.m. this evening. we will take a break from noon to one an as needed throughout the day. if you would like to make remarks that have not yet registered to do so, please go to the registration table. we ask your patience as we proceed to the list of speakers. we may need to make some adjustments as the session progresses but we'll do our best to get you in as near to the target time as possible. finally, if you need any help digging around this building or around the locale, you see any of the helpful folks out front at the registration table, jan, mary, andrea, alan, any of them will all be there to be able to
assist you in direct you. so once again, thanks on behalf of myself and everyone here. and why don't we get started. i'll call the next two games. first we would like to from dale bush. and michael hurd. please come up to the table. >> dale, why did you begin? >> my name is gail bush and i'm here as a volunteer and to represent of the american lung association and so does work in health care industry for over 20 years. first a lot like to thank you
for the new guidelines you are trying to implement for carbon standards for the new power plants but i'm here to hopefully encourage you to implement the same standards with existing power plants. working in health care industry i personally see that our inpatient falling increases whenever the air pollution is high and whenever the air quality standards are low. i see the impact the poor air quality has on our patience and our emissions. with a new guidelines for reimbursement for health care industries we are impacted by having to implement changes within the hospitals because of our inpatient admissions. we can now be penalized for patients that have chronic lung diseases, chronic cardiac diseases because of their readmissions into our facilities and that is impacted by these poor air quality standards. we can only do so much in the hospital for helping to more about how to take care of their disease and how to manage their disease but we can't as hospital employees do anything to manage
what they are exposed to outside in the environment. so i'm just here to encourage you to continue her work you're doing and to try to implement the same standards with existing power plants to try to help reduce the impact of carbon pollution from these power plants. >> thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is michael hurd. i'm a businessman from colombia to represent nearly 700 active and retired boilermakers and state that there'll and the district of columbia as well as our own position international has over 60,000 members that our work is involved in fossil fuel plants. first of all i would like to thanthank you for holding this e in today so we can get a lot of stuff off our chest, especially me as a business manager. i've been a business mentor for close to six years now. work was probably. we have a lot of work. the boilermakers international work with epa to try to get the
stands out so we could put quality pollution controls on the fossil plants, coal burning plants, oil, whatever it may be. but there's a lot of technology out there that can reduce drastically the amount of emissions into the atmosphere, and we were going in that direction. the utilities were implemented that work into their existing power plants. my concern is in the past two years since 2011 that the work has dropped off dramatically from my members. you know, you're talking about -- everybody is talking about creating american jobs. we are losing american jobs right here at home by not putting these retrofit controls on these existing plants so that americans can continue to work in this country doing american work. as far as that's concerned,
you're looking at already 50,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation in this country. that's a lot of power plants being include already in with the new polls been reset for june it's going to even more closures which will cost even more american jobs. good, high-paying jobs with health benefits. my concern is it seems a little drastic, the standard they put on cutting down, keeping a coal-fired plant is the same as mercury, the gas power plants which they admit in the atmosphere is just the difficulty with the right controls on these plants that you can get pretty close to that. also with the restrictions being put on our country with all these closures of these plants i think something needs to be looked at locally -- lewitt as
for china, india and all the other countries. they are polluting into the atmosphere with no quality control, pollutant control equipment on their power plants whatsoever and it seems the workers -- the other countries just wantonly shooed pollutants up into the atmosphere. i think something needs to be done. also, there was a study that said that although coal-fired generation plants only contribute to 4% of the toxins going in the atmosphere. if you shut although stand, what are you going to replace it with? there's a lot of coal in this country. there's a lot of jobs and when you close down a power plant people think they close down the power play, 50 guys lost their job. that's not true. you are looking at existing businesses around these power plants that are affected, the mom and pop shops that have diners that cater to these people, people go out to lunch. there's a lot of jobs and there's a trickle-down effect when you closed down a power
plant. i believe that something needs to be done, and as far as the standards, the limits that they're putting on coal, i think that the technology today and all the scrubbers and stuff, and you can also look at carbon capture which was back probably six, seven years their starting to talk about carbon capture which is a great technology to keep it from going up in at mr. when you put them in the ground. with that, i believe i'm rambling but it gets the deep, i'm looking at a lot of members a year and something needs to be done so we can bring fossil fuel back, keeping working in our place. >> thank you very much for both of your perspectives. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> our next two speakers, first
we'll hear from david scott, and next greg. >> and we're going to work with our time limit this time. >> has my time started? >> yes. >> okay. my name is david scott. i'm president of the national sierra club. morning. i appreciate the opportunities they do today about why the sierra club strongly support the epa's effort to tackle carbon pollution from existing power plants. make no mistake, these standards are an important and historic first step towards addressing one of the most important and daunting challenges of our time, global climate disruption. climate disruption poses an urgent and growing threat to
communities and the natural ecosystem as they depend on. we are already expensing its effect through extreme weather events including heat waves, floods, wildfires and droughts. sea levels are rising. oceans are becoming more acidic. glaciers antarctic sea ice are melting before our eyes. climate change, which science tells us is happening because of ever-increasing amounts of carbon pollution and other greenhouse gases, is affecting americans here and now and poses literally catastrophic risks to human health, agriculture, water supplies, necessities of normal daily life. carbon pollution from power plants is the largest stationary source of u.s. carbon emissions and immediate action to slash and oman in that carbon pollution is the only way to assure that future generations inherit a habitable planet. additionally, science -- scientists and doctors weren't as the earth warms, unhealthy
levels of ozone pollution or small will increase and become more widespread. higher smog levels me more cases as respiratory illness such as childhood asthma and lung disease. according to the american lung association, 154 million americans, half of our nation's population, already suffer from unsafe levels of air pollution. holding operators of dirty power plants accountable for the carbon pollution they emit will mean less disease, reduced health care costs and to better quality of life for tens of millions of americans. the fastest possible transition for more energy efficient economy and to clean energy sources such as wind and solar, will not only cut the risk of catastrophic climate disruption, but also great incentives for innovation that will create good new jobs in a clean energy economy. protecting workers livelihoods must be an urgent priority, but we flatly reject the notion that protecting human health and environment are incompatible with a healthy economy.
poll after poll demonstrates the public supports implementation of the clean air act protections, and once epa to do its job protect public health and confront the glowing threat of -- growing threat of climate protection to young voters recognize the threat. a recent poll showed 80% of young voters support the president taking action to address the threat of climate change. in closing with strong support the epa's effort to clean up dangers of carbon pollution and applaud this important first step in the transition. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is greg. on behalf of the national association of manufacturers, i'm pleased to offer the following remarks to environmental protection agency's greenhouse gas regulation for generating units. manufacturers are committed to protecting the environment
through greater sustainability, increase energy efficiency and conservation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. make no mistake, the regulation we're discussing today is about energy. how we generate it, whether we can rely on steady and secure supply of it, and how much it will cost households and businesses to consume it. energy is the lifeblood of manufacturing. manufacturers consume one-third of the nation's imaging. the cost, availability and reliability of energy directly impact manufacturers ability to compete in the global economy. today because of technological advancements, the ingenuity of manufacturers energy producers, diverse mix of energy resources, energy is a bright spot for manufacturing in the united states. and you vouchers are making big investments in the united states and energy is a major reason why. if done the wrong way this regulation will threaten energy reliability, increase costs for manufacturers and in turn, or turn a competitive advantage
into a disadvantage. as the epa develops this regulation come manufacturers encourage it to consider two important limits. first, there's a limit to what the law permits under the controlling statute the clean air. intend to expand beyond what the law allows will lead to delays and costly litigation to perpetuate and regulatory uncertainty that will stifle growth. manufacturers have been and will continue to be the driver of new and cleaner technologies but we need to know the rules of the game. we urge the epa to carefully consider what is legally permissible under the clean air act to avoid years of regulatory uncertainty associated with this policy. continue to believe the clean air act is the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gas emissions, believe that is supported by a little read of the statute. second, there are limits to what is achievable. powerplant technologies are remarkable. today's plants can generate more electricity from fewer resources than ever before and do so in
environmentally friendly way. like all technologies there are limits. crafting a regulation that requires more than what technology allows using existing plants leaves only one choice, shutting down. let's not take any energy options off the table that would cut the manufacturing jobs in the process. with the right policies and access to affordable and reliable energy, manufactures and the united states will continue to develop sustainable solutions that will fuel job creation and drive economic growth. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. >> thank you. our next two speakers are monica and james nelson.
>> good morning and thank you for the opportunity. my name is on a candidate speak on behalf of the over 188,000 members of mom's clean air force. a committee dedicated to clean air and children's health. as a member of the moms clean air force team, monitoring our social media channels an e-mail account, i have the privilege of interacting with many of our members on a daily basis. hearing their stories and providing them with resources and courage and and feedback. i said you today on behalf of all of our members, but as the stores if i hear of those played with asthma, especially children that it struck me the most. whether it's north carolina, preteen sisters, raven and destiny, both said their
asthmatics who expensed their worst during high ozone days or young six-year-old from massachusetts whose pediatrician prescribes a five day course of steroids whenever she express a major flareup of her symptoms. she calls these crying medicine because they cause of have nightmares, angry outbursts and episodes of uncontrollable tears. raven, destiny armed men with the tip of the iceberg. over seven when children suffer from asthma in the united states. this number is growing. june 2010 studies from the center for disease control showed an increase in asthma for all ages from 2001-2009. how do we reverse these numbers? how to reduce the suffering of future generations when it comes to this chronic disease? reducing carbon pollution is a critical first step. power plants are our nation's largest source of carbon pollution with 40% of our nation's carbon dioxide emitted
from power plants. carbon pollution is causing global warming and hotter weather means more ozone. more ozone in turn causes more lung damage. for children's lungs in particular. more locally in d.c., the air received an f. rating for ozone according to american lung association 2013 state of the air report. putting the health of thousands of children at risk. we know we can't and should be. the obvious place to start is with the largest individual source of carbon pollution, power plants. let's that meaningful by setting standards for all power plants that exist in our country today. significant reducing the deadly carbon pollution that is emitted a check and reading by tiny, vulnerable longer to support is evident over the past few much more than 13,000 members have commented in support of the proposed new source carbon pollution standards, a sign that our members are in favor of strong climate regulations and
would likely show additional enthusiasm for standards that give more immediate results. on half of the over 180,000 moms clean air force members including raven, destiny and mia, i urge you to set strong and meaningful carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. let's take the united states an easier place for future generations to breathe. generations are counting on to run this country some day. the future generations and their lungs will thank you. thanks. >> thank you. >> i am the director of the presbytery and church can use a public witness here in washington, d.c. i am pleased to be here today
representing our denomination but also representing the work that we're doing. environmentalists, activists and others who are in the same place of looking at reducing carbon pollution. the united states will produce more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world. yesterday the world meteorological organization announced that the amount of greenhouse gases in at this or reached a new record in 2012. according to environmental protection agency, your agency, 40% of the united states carbon pollution, and 67% of the direct emissions reported greenhouse gases program. a report approved by the general assembly of presbyterian church u.s.a. entitled the power to change u.s. energy policy and global warming states
emphatically that we both have a spiritual and moral responsibility to address the issues related to global warming in. in order to do this we believe that repentance is required. repentance is our biblical understanding, calls people kind and nations to stop the actions that are contrary to god's desires for sustainability of human life. while turning to a new wave that promotes life more abundantly. god can give us the power to change. we believe that. at the core of this listing is the belief, song 21, the earth is the lord, the fullness thereof and those who live within it. therefore, we call upon this administration, as well as the united states congress to look at the possibility of encouraging decentralized and distributed power generation are essential as residential and removal energy systems and distributed generation community
wind farms can relieve pressure on the power grid, create new jobs and empower local communities. would ask you moratorium on all new coal-fired and nuclear power plants take place until related environmental concerns are addressed. and thirdly, we ask that the limit exploration and exploitation of new fossil fuels applies to parts of the nation where this can be done without adverse damage to people and the environment. today we believe that this environmental protection agency carbon will is a great first step. we did all nations should share the restoring the burdens of blessings the creator has given us in this world that we live in. thank you. >> thank you. >> and the next two commenters.
>> good morning. my name is bill poppers. i'm here on half of the coalition for innovative i'm a solutions. the coalition for innovative climate solution is a group of forward thinking electric generating companies and providers located across the country. our members reflect a diverse geography in widely varying energy resources, state and rugged for frameworks and, indeed, there are a companies represent all aspects of the electric industry from the integrated electric utilities, public power, electric cooperatives and merchant power companies doing business in 15 states. as epa develops its relations to establish greenhouse gas standards for the power sector, our goal is to provide epa and
the states with constructive input on how best to set such standards as to achieve meaningful reductions through a process that is legally defensible. economically rational and workable across the very geographic and revelatory landscapes. our members have experience in implementing these local and regional measures that achieve significant reductions. our guiding principles for you in developing these defensible regulations for existing sources under section 111-d is epa must recognize the primacy of passionate and and limiting their programs. second, you must encourage these states to be flexible to promote innovation. you have to allow the states to utilize a wide range of measures to achieve the greenhouse gas emission reductions. many of our members have achieved dramatic reductions in the past 15 years through measures and policies in cooperation with their states. you have to recognize the broad regional diversity and opportunities that are available
to the states and collected generating companies. amongst our coalition with operations from oregon to kentucky, louisiana to north dakota, minnesota and new jersey. one size cannot fit all. and forth from have to allow the states to benefi benefit from ms and programs have already undertaken to address climate change. we support an approach in the hard work and innovation that leverages existing state programs by allowing the states develop more fully measures that are more appropriate a just a big existing source greenhouse gas will can achieve the deepest reductions while minimizing economic dislocations. with an electric industry some of the most cost-effective reductions will occur in non-emitting generation sources in downstream activities. epa's authority under section 111 of the clean air act is limited to epa cannot require the states to adopt programs such as renewable standards under 111.
energy efficiency programs or intrastate cap-and-trade programs. epa can recognize that such measures and programs may be more effective and states can implement these programs. we think these flexible programs will result in the greatest reductions at the lowest cost and can be achieved through a federal program. thank you. >> thank you. just a reminder to speakers, loose talk into the mic as close as you can. thanks. >> my name is frank. my name is frank with the international brotherhood of boilermakers lodge 45 in virginia. were reticent about 1000 workers
in the state of virginia and also west virginia. a lot of our guys make their living by repairing, building and maintaining power plants, also constructing these epa require devices that take out pollutants. and we recognize the need to keep the air clean, and we just feel like these requirements are going to be too strenuous on the owners had put billions of dollars into these plants to clean them up as much as they can to this point. technology is starting to catch up with the part of coal that we haven't been able to figure out yet, this carbon capture and sequestration. we do know that it can be done, but right now we, we know that, that coal is our greatest natural resource and we can't just shove it off to the sit sit this point. we are the saudi arabia of coal. again, there are a lot of things that we can do, but we're going
to need -- these owners are going to need more time to bring their plants into compliance, but they're also going to need to have a bit of help from you guys in allowin atlanta to comeh these plans that brings sequestration into play and solve this issue with carbon. if we shut down all of our coal-fired power plants we're not going -- or don't allow anymore, it's not going to be able to keep up with the 50,000 megawatts loss that era, i mean the wind and solar projects are slow to bring us up to that stature. but nontheless, we do feel like this is a job killing proposition for a lot of people from our craft all the way down to the coal industry. and i really do feel like there's a lot more jobs affected by this than what you guys realize. that's all. >> thank you.
>> okay, the next two on the panel will be and samantha -- seth and samantha. >> good morning. my name is seth stated close to the mic, please. >> good morning. my name is seth. i live in virginia. i retired one month ago after a 35 year career in the department of justice. did not work on environmental issues, and i never really thought of myself as an environmentalist until a few years ago. i became more informed and aware about global warming, climate
change. and i'm here today on my own initiative. know anything me. i don't represent anyone other than myself as a concerned citizen, a parent and perhaps someday a grandparent. i'm also, after i retired, enrolled in a program at johns hopkins university. i'm studying for a master's degree in energy policy in climate. i'm in my first semester, and i have homework. i was doing it the other day. i'm reading a book by distinguished climate scientist david archer who wrote an introductory textbook on global warming. he's an osha knowledge is from the university of chicago, and i knew i was getting ready for coming here today and i came across a sentence that just thought, i thought i had to bring up today. the future of the earth's climate depends mostly on what happens to coal. you might as well have said the future of human civilization, depends on what happens to coal.
we all know that science tells us that coal burning, the carbon dioxide emissions are causing enormous problems for the country and for the world and going to cause even more. when i hear manufacturers, the electric power industry, the coal industry argued against taking any significant action, we hear a lot about jobs, we hear a lot about the economy, but they frequently fail to address the problems that are already happening and are going to happen even more seriously in the future from global warming caused in large part by carbon dioxide emissions. just in august, the ceo of a group called the american coalition for clean coal electricity complained about epa standards. he said they're going to kill jobs. he talked about all the pollutants that have been cleaned up so far by the coal
industry, but he didn't mention carbon dioxide. you can't just ignore the problem of carbon dioxide and you cannot wish away the problem of global warming. these are serious issues that science tells us what needs to be done. the coal industry and electric power industry have had lots of time to get ready for this. they have really not taken this season and i urge the epa to take strong action to reduce carbon dioxide pollution. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm a pediatrician in alexandria, virginia. and a fellow of the american academy of pediatrics. i'm here today on behalf of of the aap to express our support for existing -- the aap thanks to epa for giving us the opportunity to speak out today
for children on the critical issue of carbon pollution and resulting climate disruption. children are one of those local groups to the adverse effects of climate change. according to the world health organization more than 80% of the current health burden due to climate change occurs in children less than five years old. these health impacts include the broad effects of weather disasters come increases in ranges and climate sensitive infection can increase in allergic and asthmatic diseases, food and water security, increased heat related deaths. there's a reason for the unique vulnerability of children to climate change the first their physiology is different in adults. they breathe water, drink more water than it does. they expect greater exposure to environmental and infectious toxins. the behaviors of children are also given to a spend more time outside often during the peak hours of the day your, as well as insects and disease but children are also depend on their caregivers both for the
safety and as their proxies in decisions such as this will have great impact on their future. leslie childers are to develop in an adverse impacts cannot physiologically affects that will live -- last their lifelong. i like to discuss briefly some children's lives have been effected by conditions that are increasing due to climate change. in 2005 hurricane katrina devastated new orleans, cause the largest displacement in our nation session but 163,000 children. children as young as four expect weeks of separation from caregivers, suffered suspected abuse by strangers at homeless shelters, subsequent years of homelessness in school instability. approximate 40% of new orleans children's develop significant mental health problems as result and this has taken a long time to resolve.
as weather disasters hit communities with greater frequency due to climate change more families into will bear the burden of expenses such as this. climate change is also influencing infectious disease patterns. west nile disease is endemic in the united states and lyme disease getting takes surviving candidate. valley fever is caused by a fungus that is highly sensitive to heat and humidity. case numbers have increased synthetically by 13% per year in california and 16% per year in arizona. a young girl in california contracted valley fever when she was six. she required treatment for over one year but remains at risk of relapse as most patients do. but in summary rising at mr. carvin a subsequent -- is a threat to go south in the united states and across the world. the aap applauds the epa for taking this crucial step to protect the future of children by reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants. and you. >> thank you.
>> the next two. we have todd keller and earl mitchell. >> good morning. thank you very much for allowing us to do this but i know you guys are in for a long day today. my name is todd keller. i'm with the advanced energy economy as their vice president of federal affairs. and a double is for use in private protections agency -- in developing these standards we urge the day to provide the state with maximum flexibility to incorporate advanced energy technologies and service interstate and limitation plants. is the national association of business leaders, whose covers
are making global energy systems more secure, clean and affordable, we believe the stepping standards in this manner will move the united states towards a higher performing energy system for the 21st century. thanks to technology and innovation, we now have more options for meeting energy needs than ever before in history. we call those new options advanced energy. as documented in the aee report economic impacts, it is more than $13 industry worldwide. and use advanced energy revenue grew in the 19% 2011-20 took him $157 billion. advanced energy represents an opportunity great valley and prosperity across the economy as we modernize our methods of producing and managing and using energy. at the same time advanced energy provides a wide range of technologies, processes that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions but as we define become advanced energy includes energy
efficiency, demand response, solar wind, natural gas, electric generation, haiku, nuclear, electric vehicles, smart grid and more. these technologies and service can provide the states with an array of cost effective options as they develop and limitation plants to meet epa's standards the government and has gas emissions. in closing, aee belief that designing to standards to allow the states the flexibility to incorporate these technologies and services into their implementation plans is simply good policy to such flexibility is the best approach for achieving the cost effective greenhouse gas emission from power sector across the country. thank you very much. >> good morning. my name is earl mitchell and i live in springfield, virginia. let's start with what webster says about pollution.
a harmful chemical or waste material discharged into the water or atmosphere, to make unclean, enter, corrupt, contaminant, dirty. so what we're really discussing here today is how dirty do we want to make our planet. the burning of coal, the dirtiest carbon fuel, actually arms both air and water. my remarks will consume water. case in point, the solid residue from burning coal is known as coal ash and distort in man-made ponds. in december 2008, pda, a federal utility, the containment pond broke and spilled more than 1 million, 1 billion gallons of toxic wastes including lead, arsenic, selenium which polluted over 300 acres of private farmland and to respect the cleanup work is still ongoing, many millions of dollars later, and no one can state whether that will ever be fit for human use. i'm going to tell you the history of something that i've
witnessed for more than 50 years. is is no case study or computer model or hypothetical study. these are my observations and experiences starting in the 1950s, and what i lived with. i'm talking about how i swam in the pond as i was growing up. the pond was man-made as result of the company building a dam for the mill. it was constructed in 1800 the company wanted a steady water supply for power, and for water to be used in bleaching in the dying process. the water was pure upstream but when is dumped into the stream after the mill finished with it, it was contaminant with chemicals and dyes. you could look downstream to determine what color cloth they were producing that day. after about three quarters of a mile, the stream don't into a cove. the code, a tributary of the bay is an ideal anchorage for small
boats are well protected on three sides within the entrance, and not much time for action. this period of time coincided with the day having an abundance of warthog. hardshell claims to most of you folks. whenever you get, whenever you order clam chowder, however, it's mostly made -- not soft shelled clams. ..
>> the cove is still polluted. it closed around 1960 after approximately 100 years of operation dutching harmful -- dumping harmful chemicals. >> okay. it's time to wrap up. >> the pollution remains. that is the end result in weak environmental laws. let's all work to make this ruling the strongest we can, otherwise we will have many greenwich coves all over the nation. it is in your power to make it happen. just remember that clean air and water are necessary to sustain life. and, yes, i was a -- [inaudible] and during the break i'll be happy to explain the trade to you. thank you. >> thank you very much, both of you. we'll call the next two, please. patricia brookbauer and ashley
goff. [background sounds] remember to speak into the mic close or than you'd like -- closer than you'd like. >> i am here on behalf of creation justice ministries representing 37 christian denominations and their policies relating to creation care. our members exist on a wide spectrum from methodists to baptists and evangelicals to orthodox traditions. and we do not agree on many things. what we do agree on, however, is the necessity to care for god's creation and for god's people. this morning right outside of those walls the faith community hosted a blessing to bring thoughts and prayers to this important process.
standing in overcast 28 people who care deeply about our planet and the health of all people gathered together, it was a time to reflect on the great gifts god has given us as well as the responsibilities that come with them. as stewards of the land, we are called to care for creation. and to insure we leave our planet better for future generations. the faith community has sought to address climate change for more than two decades as we believe this is the greatest moral issue of our time. sustainable and renewable practices must be implemented because meeting our own present needs should not prevent our children and our children's children from meeting their needs. we are looking for cooperation between the epa, states and utilities to recollect god's planet -- to protect god's planet and god's people in a way
that makes sense and meets various needs. we need strict emissions reduction standards to reduce pollution, but these standards also need to recognize the diversity of state culture ands their economies. the epa should do all that it can to guarantee that rate payers' prices do not be skyrocket, and we urge the epa, states and utilities to prioritize plans that will protect low income consumers from disproportionate and large increases in utility bills. we have a responsibility to care for our neighbors and be sure they do not carry heavy burdens from necessary changes. this carbon rule needs to reduce emissions from 35-40%. we urge you to require existing power plants to reduce their emissions by at least the necessary 35-40%. we owe this change to our brothers and sisters around the world who are already suffering
at the hands of climate change as well as to those that come after us, because for heaven sakes, the time for climate justice is now. >> thank you. >> my name is reverend ashley goff, and i'm a pastor at church the pilgrims, a congregation in the presbyterian church, usa, in dupont circle, washington d.c. 50,000 honeybees call the back of the church home. three honey hives are part of our sacred garden. they pollinate the vegetables and fruits of our garden along with the forest oasis next to us. the eggplants, green peppers, base sill, beans, squash and
carrots that we grow goes to create meals for open table, our lunch every sunday afternoon for 40 hungry neighbors. on sundays our garden is poignantly alive. honeybees buzzing around pollen and hungry neighbors norring on cat roles of -- casseroles. in that moment our backyard is host and home to living beings our society thinks are disposable, honeybees and homeless, hungry folks. honeybees are threatened by an ecological crisis created by humans, bugs and climate change. hungry people are the most socially vulnerable of humanity, starving from the lack of access to healthy and affordable food. we designed our backyard because of our trust in the holy one, and our garden symbolizes how we are to live as people of god's way. psalm 104 states that we are to
renew the face of the planet, and right now the planet is poor from climate pollution impacting humans and an insect like the honeybee. oikos is the greek word for house or house old is and also root for the words ecology and economics. for christians of the ancient church, it's not limited to the private home, but was referring to the planet itself as the whole house, god's home. oikos sets church of the pilgrims' intention on how to be a sacred neighbor, that we are a shared household where all who are born belong and all who live cohabitate, where humans and all of life live into each other's life and die into each other's death. there's no way out or around our interconnectedness. st the way of god and life -- it's the way of god and life. the role of epa is to regulate the commons, and at church of the pilgrims we are doing just that: tending to our ecorotation
to reflect our place in society and god's home. having no national carbon limits for power plants suffocates god's design. by regulatorring and reducing carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants, may it be so. >> thank you. and the next two are james shulman and martin hayden. thank you. >> good morning, epa leaders and
staff. my name is james shulman, and i am the treasurer and member of the board of directors of the building materials use association. the bmra is a proud new member of the american sustainable business council. the afbc currently represents over 175,000 large, small -- large and small triple bottom line businesses in america. the afbc was ebbs treatmently pleased to be able to host epa administrator gina mccarthy as a keynote speaker at its second annual business summit on building a sustainable economy just two weeks ago. the afbc is generally supportive of the efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants we have also urged the state department to disapprove the construction of the keystone xl pipeline to pump tar sands oils from canada. up until mid 2012, i was also
the ceo of community forklift, a used building materials store in maryland just a mile outside of the district of columbia. community forklift is a net negative carbon emitter as has been documented in the research of bradley guy who teaches at the graduate sustainable design program at catholic university of america. in 2011 community forklift inhibited the release of 513 more mega tons of carbon equivalents in its annual operations than it emitted due to the fact that raw, virgin raw materials were not extracted, nor energy used to manufacture new building materials. i believe that building material reuse is a significant element of our energy future. in general, the bmra and asbc are supportive of proposal at hand, but one element concerns me greatly, and i speak now not representing any organization, but as a citizen.
i am against the inclusion of enhanced oil recovery in the types of carbon capture and storage the proposed standard promotes. i do not dispute that the science of carbon capture and storage -- i do not dispute the science, though i am dubious of many of its proponents' claims with respect to the permanence and efficacy of such storage. i object strongly, however, to its use as a mechanism to extract more fossil fuels from the earth that will, for the most part, be burned for energy and themselves contribute greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. end -- employing -- is a form of fuel switching that works against efforts to reduce carbon musician, fight climate change and protect the environment. i will quote from page 280 of the proposed standard. the epa acknowledges there can be downstream losses of co2 after capture. though a well selected and
operated site is expected to contain co2 for the long term, there is the potential for unanticipated leakage. the epa expects these losses to be modest with incentives due to the market use of co2 as a purchase product. there remains an issue of whether the standard itself should be adjusted to reflect these downstream losses. the epa is not proposing to do so. moreover, the epa wishes to encourage rather than discourage eor using captured co2 since the practice makes carbon storage itself more economic and thus promotes the use of technology on which the proposed standard is based. i dispute this -- >> could you wrap up, please? >> yeah. market forces are a thin reed on which to rest our clean energy and environmental policy. in conclusion, i just would like to add that as a resident of capitol hill, i urge the standard to serve federally-run facilities like the capitol hill power plant not far from us
today. i thank you for this opportunity to share my views. >> thank you. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> my name is martin hayden, i am the vice president for policy and legislation at earth justice. i want to thank epa for moving forward on developing standards to control power pollution from -- carbon pollution from power plants and for holding today's listening session. we have an obligation to protect our children and future generations from the effects of climate change, and speaking as a parent, i see this as a paramount responsibility. in order to meet this obligation, it is critical that we reduce carbon pollution from the very units responsible for 40% of u.s. greenhouse gas emissions, existing power plants. to meet the president's goal of
a 17% economy-wide reduction in climate pollution by 2020, any rule of existing power plants must insure a 35-40% reduction from 2005 levels which is a 25-30% reduction from 2012. to underscore the importance of achieving reductions in the electric power sector, i would point to california. according to the california air resources board, the state experienced a 29% decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from the electric power sector between 2001 and 2011 compared to an economy-wide reduction of 6%. i would also add that california's energy production increased during this same period. the epa's rule must set a very clear floor for the states with transparent guidance about what it will take for states to get their plans approved. it is important for both insuring that the plans effectuate the president's climate action plan and to get
legally-sound state implementation plans as quickly as possible. the majority of our, of the dirtiest coal plants in our nation are operating beyond their intended use for life. the clean air act contemplates that epa and the states consider remaining useful life in setting performance standards for existing facilities. here that factor weighs in favor of setting protective standards that will help promote the shift to clean energy that is already upside way. the clean air act is a successful law that has helped to reduce the levels of many conventional air pollutants and has saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of americans. much of this progress has been the direct result of successful enforcement of the law by both the agency and citizens. making progress on reducing carbon pollution from existing power plants will be dependent on both the vigor and enforce about of the rule and the state or principal implementation plans -- federal implementation
plans that will implement it. therefore, it is vital that the implementation -- therefore, it is vital that the emissions adopted in the rule be measurable, verifiable and enforceable in the subsequent implementation plans. thank you. >> thank you. our next two will be jane -- [inaudible] and joelle -- [inaudible] >> i'm here representing myself. thank you for hosting this session on standards for carbon emissions. your generosity is not lost on me. we like to add things up and
evaluate the consequences, and by my reckoning you're going to be sitting through one or two thousand of these three-minute testimonials, so i hope you have a deep bench. and thank you for accepting mine. i'm a middle-aged mother of two with a busy job as a clinical research scientist. i work on tuberculosis and the search for a biomarker that will help us better diagnose and treat this disease which kills 1.4 million people a year, most of them outside the u.s. but still poses a grave threat to our population given the advances of drug resistance. i am booked up to my eyebrows with family and work and my community. yet every day i get up and wonder what else i should be doing to enhance my visibility as a climate activist. i've hosted, for the last two years i've joined protests and media campaigns, i've hosted meetings and provided beds and meals for young activists in town to protest the keystone pipeline.
i've walked, i've divested, i've engaged in civil disobedience actions including the one at erm that got me arrested. to be here today takes me so far outside my comfort zone that you wouldn't believe it. but i'm here because we all need to do more, because without a course correction on carbon emissions and climate disruption, curing tuberculosis won't matter, nothing will matter. i'm scared. one day two years ago i arrived at this decision to engage as a climate activist. i'm courageous and practical in every other aspect of my life, so why, i asked myself, was a shrinking from that which i most feared? without a good answer, i faced it, and i joined up, and it's been better since. there are a lot of people like me who have engaged and many more who want to but have not out of fear and uncertainty about what to do next.
our capacity is huge but largely untapped by governance organizations like yours that could lead on this issue. so, please, lead. i support the carbon emissions standards proposed, and i support policies that drive toward conservation and alternatives to fossil fuels. we need to leave the carbon in the ground. i'm here to ask you to lead the like of me and all of these people here, and you can feel it. to engage, to think, to press, to agitate, to sacrifice and to demand results. thank you. >> thank you. >> i think you want to be closer to the mic. >> through interfaith power and life, hundreds of local
congregations of all religious traditions work together on energy and climate issues. this morning, as you have already seen, i'm only one of over a dozen religious voices you will hear speaking out in support of strong safeguards on carbon pollution from existing power plants. and we are joined by religious voices around the country who are participating in the epa's other listening sessions. the teaching from my own tradition that informs my thoughts on carbon pollution come from rabbi isaac -- [inaudible] a 14th century scholar of jewish law. he wrote: one is forbidden from gaining a livelihood at the expense of another's health. one is forbidden from gaining a livelihood at the expense of another's health. simple, ethical wiz p.com. be -- wisdom. not bad for the middle ages. for too long here, now, those who operate our power plants have been permitted to gain their livelihoods at the expense of people's health. there have been limits on other
kinds of pollutants, but there have been no limits at all on carbon pollution. here in d.c. we have one of the nation's highest asthma rates particularly among children, nearly 14,000 children in our nation's capital city sometimes struggle to breathe because of our dirty air. someone is making their living at the expense of these kids' health. we'll be hearing a lot from polluters today saying that any limits on carbon pollution will interfere with their jobs. they have every right to make an honorable living, but it should be forbidden many this country for anyone to make their livelihood at the expense of people's health. in the religious communities with which i work, people are heart sick about the role of fossil fuels in producing the heat-trapping gases that are causing climate change. they are working to reduce their electricity use in their sanctuaries and at home. they are climbing up on ladders to change to more efficient be lightbulbs. they are working together to support clean energy through their energy bills. they've fought hard to bring
offshore wind power to maryland's coast, and they are willing to spend many hours in committee meetings figuring out how to finance solar panels more their roofs. so often we are told that the change we are trying to make is unrealistic because clean energy so expensive while dirty energy is cheap. but who pays for dirty energy? who bears the cost of bad air quality, the cost of kids with asthma, seniors having heart attacks, pregnant mothers with mercury in their bodies? who bears the cost of stronger storms, extreme drought, devastating floods and other scary weather caused by climate change? any energy we pay for through the permanent destruction of our climate, any energy people pay for with their health isn't cheap energy. it is intolerably expensive. of on this historic morning, the epa stands poised to set national limits on our nation's single largest source of carbon pollution. please proceed to issue and
approve strong carbon standards for existing power plants. >> thank you both. next up we have dustin weitz and robin blakeman. yes, please. thank you, sir. [background sounds] >> good morning. my name is robin blakeman, and i'm here wearing three hats. one is that that of a presbyterian faith community leader, another is that of the west virginia-based ohio valley environmental coalition, and the
third is that of an eighth generation southern west virginia resident. why did i feel the need to travel all the way from southwestern west virginia to attend this listening session? because i want you to hear that there are people many west virginia who support -- in west virginia who support the epa's action to establish stricter coal-fired power plant regulations. we desperately need this. as a member of a presbyterian faith community, i believe i am called to be a steward of god's good creation and to care for the most vulnerable populations in all communities. as a member of an organization which actoffly seeks to preserve -- actively seeks to preserve clean air, water and equal justice for all citizens in west virginia, i am here to urge the epa to set strict standards for overall emission reductions while also working with states and utilities to
prioritize shifting energy sources to truly renewable sources like wind, solar, geothermal and microhydropower. instead of shifting to seemingly low or cost fossil fuels such as shale gas which, in fact, has huge hidden costs. west virginia, by the way, is the only state in the country that has both gas fracking and mountaintop removal coal mining going on. we are being ravaged by both, and headwater streams of the eastern coast is at stake. i urge epa, states and utilities to prioritize plans that will protect low income consumers from disproportion fate and large increases in utility bills. i urge the epa to move quickly with the proposed and final rules so that the u.s. can begin to address the increasingly urgent problem of climate change which threatens mass extinctions
of many species and the health and well being of existing human generations on earth as well as group, yet-to-be-born ones. the west virginia department of health and human resources have recently put out a report titled a strategic plan for addressing as that in west virginia 2010-2014. and i just want to mention a few highlights from that. the rate of asthma hospitalizations has more than doubled among seniors in west virginia since 1996. currently, we have over 31,000 children and over 123,000 adults in west virginia who have asthma. west virginia adult females are nearly twice as likely to have asthma. the dhhr study concludes that west virginia yangs of low socioeconomic status, adults without a high school diploma and with an annual household income of less than $25,000 are
significantly more likely to have asthma. in short, it seems clear to me that asthma-related health effects of living near coal-fired power plants -- which we do all through our state, we have no other alternative -- often costs people who can least afford it; children, seniors and women. please, establish strict rules. >> thank you. >> good morning. i am dustin white also with the ohio valley environmental coalition which is also a member group of the alliance for appalachia. i want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and i am here to represent the communities that i feel are often not mentioned when talking about reducing emissions from coal-fired power plants. i am speaking about the communities where they mine the coal for these power plants.
i am from the communities of the navajo nation to the powder river basin and to my home in central appalachia who live in the wake of the extraction process can attest that coal, from cradle to grave, is harmful to public health. i am from southern west virginia, and i have been around coal my entire life. and we need to talk realistically about the human health impact of carbon pollution, not just its contribution to climate change. as a west virginia yang, i support epa's efforts and believe me that there are many more in appalachia who do as well. i feel that you cannot realistically talk about emissions without discussing the extraction, because they are indeed linked. by regulating the amount of coal power pollution that is produced by plants, you are also helping the communities where the coal industry on a daily basis rip coal from the ground and blow up entire mountains. let's call it what it is, coal pollution. whether you're living with a coal-fired power plant in your backyard or a mountaintop
removal mine site over your community, you and your neighbors are getting sick because of its impacts to air quality among others. the extraction process as well as pollution from power plants is poisoning our air, water and land. i am not a scientist, i'm just a boy from boone county, west virginia. i can't sit here and quote statistics. i do not deal with numbers and statistics. i deal with reality, and the reality people are getting sick and dying from this pollution. we know this. there are numerous scientific studies that tate this. and i know that the epa has these studies, so i don't have to quote them. i am, however, living witness to the illness and death every day back home. i could spend hours telling the stories of those who suffer like the 19-year-old girl from my home county who was diagnosed with multiple types of cancer and has been given two months to live. i am outliving people i've played with as a child at 30 years old.
all because they live around coal. i am sure there are residents living near coal-fired power plants who can tell similar horror stories. there are those in the coal industry in congress who constantly rebuke and cast doubt on the science while men, women and children die of this pollution. they simply do not care about my people. they only care about their profits and campaign donations. politicians, especially the west virginia delegation, will contend that jobs are at risk by the regular rations the epa -- regular rations the epa sets forth. this is not true. and even if it were true, to be clear, no one has a job that's more important than someone else's life. contrary to what the politicians in industry say, we know there are safer and cleaner ways to produce be electricity. >> time to wrap up. >> we must come together and end coal's cycle of death. this starts with meaningful regulation. no one should have to live with respiratory