Chellie Pingree: “I am sorry to say that I have to oppose the amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma and appreciate his thoughts, but…”

“I am sorry to say that I have to oppose the amendment from the gentleman from Oklahoma and appreciate his thoughts, but he is completely wrong. The amendment is a harmful rider that would prohibit the EPA from considering the social cost of carbon as part of rulemakings. The ``social cost of carbon'' may sound a little confusing to people, but, frankly, it is an estimate of the economic damages associated with the small increase in carbon dioxide emissions in a given year. It represents, currently, our best scientific information available for incorporating the impacts from carbon pollution into regulatory analysis. Weakening or eliminating the use of the social cost of carbon as a tool for Federal agencies would ignore the sobering cost of health, environmental and economic impacts of extreme weather, rising temperatures, intensifying smog, and other impacts. We just cannot afford to abandon science at this critical moment in time. Our country needs to face the challenges ahead of us with climate change and have the best scientific tools available, and this is one. Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.”