EPA chief claims 0.01 degree of averted warming is ‘enormously beneficial’

EPA chief claims 0.01 degree of averted warming is ‘enormously beneficial’
EPA Chief Gina McCarthy

In a recent congressional hearing, a Republican lawmaker slammed Environmental Protection Agency Chief Administrator Gina McCarthy for claiming the agency’s pending rule to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants was “enormously beneficial” when it would only avert one one-hundredth of a degree of global warming.

Republicans on the House Committee on Science called a hearing earlier this month to discuss EPA regulations and their impact on the Americans. One hotly debated topic was the agency’s so-called “Clean Power Plan,” which aims to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power plants.

The EPA’s own regulatory analysis of the rule, however, shows that while U.S. emissions will decrease, the initiative will have little impact on projected global warming. The EPA estimates its plan would only reduce projected global temperature 0.016 degrees Celsius by 2050 — for reference, the United Nations predicts 1.8 to 3.6 degrees Celsius by that time.

In the hearing, McCarthy said the Clean Power Plan would yield huge benefits for the climate because it would galvanize a global deal to lower emissions. Republicans disagreed and pointed to the minuscule impact the rule would have on temperature rise.

Here’s a transcript of the heated exchange between Texas Rep. Lamar Smith and McCarthy:

REP. SMITH: On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. At the same time it’s going to increase the cost of electricity. That’s going to hurt the lowest income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that’s really not going to do much good and isn’t this all pain and no gain.

EPA’s MCCARTHY: No sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the [regulatory impact analysis] we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis you would see it’s enormously beneficial.

SMITH: Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?

MCCARTHY: The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect… [interrupted].

SMITH: Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?

MCCARTHY: I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started and we’ll never… [interrupted].

SMITH: But if you are looking at the results, the results can’t justify the cost and the burden that you’re imposing on the American people in my judgment.

(h/t Climate Depot)

This report, by Michael Bastasch, was cross-posted by arrangement with the Daily Caller News Foundation.

LU Staff

LU Staff

Promoting and defending liberty, as defined by the nation’s founders, requires both facts and philosophical thought, transcending all elements of our culture, from partisan politics to social issues, the workings of government, and entertainment and off-duty interests. Liberty Unyielding is committed to bringing together voices that will fuel the flame of liberty, with a dialogue that is lively and informative.


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.