On the recordMarch 5, 2014
I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the gentlelady from Illinois. I might say, this legislation would never have been necessary if EPA had adopted a standard that had been adequately demonstrated and was not in violation of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I would also say in wanting to add this language to the bill, EPA itself, in discussing its proposed regulation, projected that its rule would result in almost zero CO<INF>2</INF> emission changes or quantified benefits in cost by 2022. So even EPA does not think that their regulation is going to really significantly reduce CO<INF>2</INF> emissions because 96 percent of CO<INF>2</INF> emissions are naturally occurring; less than 4 percent are man-made. I might also point out once again that no one is a denier of climate change, but more and more scientists seem to be disagreeing with the impact of manmade CO<INF>2</INF> versus naturally occurring CO<INF>2</INF>. After the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in the fall of last year, a group of scientists from the non-governmental Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in a 1,200- page report with thousands of references to peer reviewed papers made the argument that natural forces, not man-made forces, are really driving the Earth's climate. So we are particularly concerned that this regulation would prevent America from flexibility.…
