Missouri Lawmakers’ Resolutions Against Federal Climate Action Would Harm Their Constituents
CHICAGO (February 16, 2010) –The Missouri House of Representatives and Senate held hearings today on nonbinding resolutions urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Missouri’s federal congressional delegation to take a number of steps that would lock Missouri into decades of dirty energy use, stymie the state’s burgeoning clean energy industry, and undermine science in government decisions that affect public health, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
The House resolution, sponsored by Rep. Doug Funderburk (R-12), urges the EPA to ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence that climate change is already occurring and to rescind the agency’s determination that global warming pollution endangers public health. The House resolution also urges the state’s federal lawmakers to oppose climate and energy legislation. Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Stouffer (R-21) is sponsoring a very similar resolution that calls on Missouri’s congressional delegation to oppose federal policies that would limit global warming pollution and increase clean energy projects.
In 2007, the Supreme Court ruled that global warming emissions qualify as an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA must regulate them if the agency concludes they endanger public health. After evaluating the latest climate science, the EPA issued such an “endangerment finding” last December. Virtually all major scientific organizations around the world support the scientific basis for the EPA decision.
The House and Senate resolutions both call on the state’s federal lawmakers to oppose climate and energy legislation in Congress. Last summer, the U.S. House of Representatives passed comprehensive climate and energy legislation that would protect public health by curbing global warming pollution. The Senate is now considering whether to take up similar legislation.
“Instead of endorsing the EPA’s decision to protect public health and urging the U.S. Congress to follow suit, these resolutions are asking our federal lawmakers to step aside and maintain the status quo.” said LuCinda Hohmann, UCS’s Midwest outreach coordinator. “A do-nothing attitude will only create more problems for Missouri down the road.”
The resolutions indicate wildly exaggerated cost increases to try to persuade federal lawmakers to oppose climate and energy legislation. In fact, proposed federal legislation would cost relatively little. Last summer, the bill that passed the U.S. House would cap global warming emissions and ramp up energy efficiency and renewable energy use. Two federal agencies found that the bill’s average annual cost per household would range from $80 to $111 between 2012 and 2030, a mere 22 to 30 cents per day.
Last year was the fifth warmest on record, and the years between 2000 and 2009 are the warmest decade ever recorded. Taking no action to address global warming, as the resolutions advocate, would mean Missouri residents could expect more flooding, more intense storms, and more heat waves that damage crops and send people to the hospital.
If the supporters of the resolutions get their way, Hohmann said, the state would remain dependent almost entirely on fossil fuels, mainly coal, for electricity, which could trigger energy price spikes and hurt the state’s economy. “Missouri sends nearly a billion dollars out of the state each year to import coal,” said Hohmann. “A bill that required more renewable energy use would create a market for more local energy projects that could provide additional income to farmers and generate new jobs.”
“These resolutions are anti-public health, and anti-local jobs for Missouri,” she added. “State lawmakers should vote these shortsighted resolutions down.”
