A Q&A with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson
The majority of Americans would choose more fuel-efficient vehicles if they were widely available — and the same holds true for cleaner fuels. Those are the conclusions of major public opinion surveys published by the Pew Research Center and UPI/Zogby International.
More than 30 years ago, Congress succeeded in pulling our country out of one of the most serious and debilitating energy crises in its history. After the 1973 Arab oil embargo triggered nationwide fuel shortages, gas station lines often stretched on for hours. Many businesses were forced to curtail operations or entirely shut down. And oil prices, along with inflation and unemployment, soared.
Americans rightly cherish the Endangered Species Act. They know that, without this landmark law, wolves, grizzly bears, manatees, the bald eagle and other invaluable species might now be extinct. The proposals I describe below are directed at Congress and also at the executive branch of our government. In short, I believe that what the federal government should do with the Endangered Species Act is fund it, preserve it, respect it and use the law’s existing provisions to address the mounting threats to wildlife posed by global warming.
The Endangered Species Act needs to be improved and modernized, but the road to doing so has been long and difficult.
The American people are being misled in a dangerous effort to satisfy the nuclear industry by turning Nevada into the nation’s nuclear dumping ground. The nuclear industry, with the support of the federal government, is attempting to create a crisis where none exists, and the proposed “solution” is one that could put millions of Americans at risk.
Economic prosperity in the United States is predicated on the availability of reliable and affordable sources of energy. This idea often is referred to as “energy security.” Unfortunately, the U.S. faces today, and will face for the foreseeable future, significant threats to our energy security. When it comes to liquid fuels — the fuels that propel planes, trains and automobiles — we rely upon
a single source of energy, petroleum, which largely is supplied by
foreign countries. These sources of petroleum have become increasingly unstable with regard to both supply and price.
Over the course of its history, the U.S. has tackled many environmental issues, from land and biodiversity conservation to air pollution, water pollution and land contamination. Now, we face what is likely our most significant environmental challenge: global climate change. The effects of this problem could be devastating, especially for those who cannot afford to adapt to a changed climate. Growing scientific evidence is showing that our emissions are causing change to the climate. And we are headed down a dangerous path toward irreversible change of the Earth’s climate.
It is time to take back from Europe an idea we Americans invented — a cap-and-trade system, this time on carbon dioxide. We need to adopt an American system, improving the cap-and-trade program that Europeans have been using for two years, to curb greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the threat of global warming.
In recent weeks, hardworking Americans have again started to feel the pinch of high gasoline prices. The causes are manifold, including historic instability in oil-producing regions, a world market that continues to gobble up greater and greater quantities of oil, and harsh weather conditions that can interfere with production and cause greater competition for fuel here at home.
Spring is here and as the temperatures rise, so do the gas prices. As Americans begin to realize an increased dent in their wallets when filling up at the pumps, there are growing concerns about our nation’s energy future. It’s obvious that the United States’ dependence on foreign oil is one of the nation’s top priorities.
