Jim Connaughton hosts Ask the White House (Text Only)

Good afternoon everyone. I'm pleased to be back for Ask the White House. It has been a whirlwind summer for the environment and conservation portfolio of issues that I handle - implementing clean technology initiatives, making strong progress in forest restoration (during a fire season that thankfully was a bit of a break from the last several years), launching a strong wave of conservation efforts on working lands using the newly expanded Farm Bill conservation programs, and at last receiving the report and recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy that the President appointed three years ago. Let's get started.

Catherine, from Denver, CO writes:
How can I get in contact with the Administration about these important problems? Will my comments and concerns be taken seriously? It seems like the environment is very very low on governmental concern. How can I really challenge this administration to face the environment and think of it as an extremely important issue? How can I force immediate action?

Jim Connaughton
As CEQ Chairman, I come to work every day singularly focused on environmental progress. And I know first hand that the President is personally engaged on these issues, because I work directly with him on them.

We take the view of local citizens very seriously. The President often notes that not all solutions come from Washington, and locally designed solutions are often the most lasting.

That is why I encourage you to stay online and poke your way around the various agencies' websites -- Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of Agriculture, and others. You can find your way there from the White House website. There are ample opportunities to engage in a very active way at all levels -- commenting on rules, coming to regional and local public meetings, and joining the thousands of voluntary public-private partnerships that are now emerging to make real progress at the local level. You can find some of these opportunities at the USA Freedom Corps website, which has a specific link and search function for local conservation partnership.

In addition, local, state, and federal government are always interested in highly motivated people as employees or to serve on public bodies like commissions. You can also visit www.regulations.gov.

Robert, from School writes:
At what rate has the "Quality" of the enviroment increased over the last four years?

Jim Connaughton
Thanks for the question and talking about results is a great place to start. Here are three examples.

Under the President's watch, air pollution has been cut about 8 percent. To compare, through the collective policies of past Republican and Democrat Administrations, we managed to cut air pollution by nearly percent over the prior 30 thirty years. Our 8 percent measures up well to this historical trend. Massive further reductions are on the way with new, tougher, health-based air quality standards, and the President's new mandatory 90+ percent cuts in pollution from diesel vehicles and 70 percent cut in pollution from power plants.

This past Earth Day, the President was please to report that the nation has finally halted the net loss of wetlands on our agricultural lands and it is likely we are very close on other lands. Thirty years ago, the net loss of wetlands was in the hundreds of thousands of acres. As recently as 1997, the net loss was in the tens of thousands of acres. The President also obtained the authority and is committing the resources that will enable us to now increase the overall number and quality of wetlands by restoring, improving, and protecting at least 3 million acres over the next five years.

When it comes to restoring forests to healthier conditions and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire that threatens lives, communities, water systems, air quality and wildlife habitat, I was please to announce in Oregon a couple of weeks ago that in the last year alone, we were able to restore 4 million acres of forest. That is 4 times more than the one million acres restored in 2001. With the new Healthy Forest Restoration Act that passed with overwhelming bi-partisan support, the Bush Administration will move forward rapidly to restore 20 million acres.

Pete, from Birmingham, Alabama writes:
what steps is the united states government taking to reduce and control air polution and quality?

Jim Connaughton
Thanks for the question. Focusing on air issues is important and very timely. As I noted in my prior answer, the Bush Administration is implementing new air quality standards and two massive new programs to cut diesel pollution by more than 90 percent and power plant pollution by 70 percent. Let me explain further what this means.

The new standards set a health-based limit on smog-forming ozone and fine particles (know as "particulate matter") that can make life very difficult for people suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses. The Environmental Protection Agency is currently completing the process of informing several hundred counties that they do not meet the new standard and will have to develop plans over the next three years to meet the standard. This is an extremely difficult process for the states to do. That is why the President moved forward with the new federal diesel and power plants regulations. Together, these two programs will enable most of the counties that do not yet meet the new standards, to do so on time without having to go through the contentious process at the local level. For those that remain, their local obligation will be significantly reduced as a result of the federal programs. These massive reductions are in the same category as taking lead out of gasoline and putting catalytic converters on cars.

Max, from Chicago, IL writes:
You studied law, as did Senator Kerry. Lawsuits always slow things down, and especially when it comes to corporations polluting the environment. Are there any standards in place for speeding up trials against big name companies who need to clean up their act? Meaning if pollution is happening, and it needs to be cleaned up as soon as possible, what can we do to speed up litigation in order to get it fixed as quickly? Thanks.

Jim Connaughton
I appreciate the direction of your question. One important principle in the modern practice of law is to try to find ways to achieve results or settle problems without having to resort to lawsuits and the courts. The more successful we are at this, the more successful we are as a society. So let me answer your question in the context, once again, of air pollution control.

The Bush Administration and a number of states have been trying to sue our way to obtaining significant pollution reductions from old power plants that originally were not required to install controls under the Clean Air Act. These suits were investigated mid-way through the prior Administration and were filed and have been working their way through the courts since then. I believe at least one is currently in trial. In the last several years, we have won some and lost some, with years of litigation and appeals to go. The lawsuits involve several dozen power plants and armies of lawyers trying to mandate a few billion dollars in technology retrofits on coal plants to reduce pollution by a couple million tons.

By sharp contrast, our new Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clear Skies Legislation would cut and permanently cap the pollution from about 1000 power plants by mandating a $50 billion investment in pollution control and cut pollution by about 9 million tons. It expands on the most successful Clean Air Act approach that we took to cutting in half the pollution responsible for acid rain. The approach is so simple that enforcement is straightforward -- noncompliance is immediately known, liability is certain, and punishment severe. As result, you do not need to resort to lawyers or endless delay. You get results.

David, from Chandler, Arizona writes:
President Bush is committed to reducing mercury emissions by 70 by 2015. Is there any truth to the idea (from a liberal) that the President signed a bill allowing the states to regulate mercury emissions? I can't seem to find any record of this and I'm not sure of the veracity of such a claim. Thanks, David

Jim Connaughton
President Bush and EPA Administrator Leavitt are committed to mandating mercury pollution reduction from coal-fired power plants for the first time. We are on track to issue new regulations that do so in March of next year. We have also called for legislation to do the same. The certainty of legislation has the benefit of preventing lawsuits, from all sides, delaying by years the time for moving forward with this important effort.

There was no regulation or legislation on this issue when President Bush took office. So with respect to your question, we do not yet have federal legislation, but we will be working with Congress to get it. Importantly, where the President has called for capping mercury pollution 70 percent below current levels nationwide, he proposed a regulation and legislation that also specifically allows states to apply further reductions in the event they identify a localized risk of concern. This combination of getting the lionshare of reductions federally, and more tailored responses locally, is a very effective way to sensibly make strong progress.

We take the view of local citizens very seriously. The President often notes that not all solutions come from Washington, and locally designed solutions are often the most lasting.

In addition, local, state, and federal government are always interested in highly motivated people as employees or to serve on public bodies like commissions.

Jim Connaughton
First, let's start with what we are for. The Administration is committed to reducing the United States’ greenhouse gas intensity 18 percent over the next 10 years – preventing more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. President Bush’s 2005 budget proposes $5.8 billion for climate change activities – a 13.9 percent increase – and includes over $200 million technology transfer to developing countries, and nearly $700 million for greenhouse gas reduction through tax incentives for renewable and energy efficient technologies. The President’s hydrogen initiative provides $1.7 billion to develop and fuel a new generation of hydrogen-powered vehicles that with no pollution or greenhouse gases. And through the FutureGen program, the first full-scale coal-fired power plant that is pollution-free and emits no greenhouse gases will be built. These investments achieve both goals of addressing climate change and protecting our economy.

This Administration decided not to participate in the Kyoto Treaty on climate change because its implementation would have meant the loss of nearly $400 billion in U.S. GDP, and up to 4.9 million lost American jobs, many of which would be exported overseas to developing countries with lower environmental standards, hurting our economic competitiveness. It is bad enough that the jobs go to the other countries. But that also means that the greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution also go there, and in many instances go up -- so we would not achieve anything to address the issue of reducing emissions globally. That is why 95 U.S. senators, with no opposing vote, rejected the design of the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, long before President Bush came into office.

We are working hard to make constructive progress in a manner that promotes economic growth, U.S. jobs, and new technology through international partnerships with the developed and developing nations responsible for more than 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Tom, from Surprise, AZ writes:
With gas prices being so unstable due to hurricanes, wars, and political ventures, what are the possibilities of tapping into more of our own natural resources here in the US to overcome higher crude prices?

Jim Connaughton
I strongly believe that we should do more at home to take advantage of the abundance of energy and mineral resources available to us not only because it will decrease our reliance on foreign sources, but also because such work would take place under the worlds most stringent safety and environmental standards, supported by the shared values of natural resource stewardship that Americans possess. From the advancement of low or no polluting hydrogen energy, the development of renewable wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass energy on our public and private lands, to the production and generation of coal-fired power using clean coal technologies, to advancing to the next generation of secure nuclear energy which produces no pollution. All of these opportunities are available to us domestically. The President and his team are working hard to bring them forward.

Alex, from Saxony, Germany writes:
Why does the US do not care about global environment at all?

Jim Connaughton
Thanks for the question from overseas Alex. The U.S. remains extremely active in countless projects to make real progress in improving the global environment. I was a proud member of the delegation that went to the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa in the Summer of 2002. It was there that the nations of the world joined in the Johannesburg Plan of Action focused on five priorities of fundamental human importance to the developing world, as well as developed nations: Access to safe drinking water and modern sanitation, access to affordable and increasingly clean energy of all types, advancement of measures to protect public health, deployment of practices and technologies that deliver greater agricultural productivity and availability of nutritious foods, and conservation of biodiversity. I invite you to review the U.S. State Department website on this subject which describes our partnerships and commitments in great detail. Since Johannesburg, I and my colleague Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky have convened meetings of our interagency teams at least once a month to track our progress and look for new opportunities. These include, for example, initiatives to remove lead from gasoline globally, to replace polluting cookstoves with cleaner burning ones, to establish financing mechanisms for large drinking water and sanitation projects, which are providing very inexpensive "point of use" technologies (such as tablets and filters) to make water safer to drink in remote areas.

In addition, the Administration is working with our Congress to ratify and is implementing international treaties to cut pollution from diesel marine engines worldwide, ban or control certain persistant organic pollutants, and to protect wildlife and plant species, such as polar bears, whales, and tropical forests. The U.S. is also leading the way in developing a Global Earth Observation System of Systems that will link and advance the individual efforts of nations into a network available to all.

On the issue global climate change, though we cannot participate in the Kyoto Protocol for the reasons I described earlier, we are moving forward on substantial common ground both with countries that have obligations under the Protocol and those that do not. The following link provides a summary of these efforts, as do the U.S. State Department, Energy Department, and Environmental Protection Agency Websites. /news/releases/2003/09/20030930-4.html

Jim Connaughton
Well, it's now dinner time in Washington and my wife just called to see when I'll be home. I appreciated the variety and constructive spirit of your questions. They reflect the strong consensus that America enjoys in continuing to make progress in protecting our environment and conserving our treasured resources -- both here in America, and around the globe. We have made great progress, and there is much more we can and must do together.