US EPA Carbon Pollution
Guidelines Public Hearing, Pittsburgh, PA
Testimony by
The Rev. Dr. Leah D. Schade, PhD
Pastor, United in Christ Lutheran
Church, Lewisburg, PA
Member, Task Force on Slickwater
Hydraulic Fracturing, Upper Susquehanna Synod of the
Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America (ELCA)
Representative of Lutheran
Advocacy Ministry of Pennsylvania (LAMPa)
Founder, Interfaith Sacred Earth
Coalition of the Susquehanna Valley
July 31, 2014
First, I
want to thank the EPA and Administrator McCarthy for paying serious attention
to this issue of carbon emissions and their deleterious effect on our planet’s
atmosphere. I commend you for giving
citizens the opportunity to be heard on this important issue. The proposed rule is well-researched, with
solid background in science regarding greenhouse gases, their effect on the
planet, and their negative impact on public health. It offers a wide range of options for states
and power generators to meet the new requirements to reduce greenhouse
gases. As a pastor who has particular
concern for “the least of these,” I was especially pleased to see attention
given to the health of children when weighing the input of stakeholders. I come today on behalf of myself, my husband
and two young children, my congregation, United in Christ Lutheran Church in
Lewisburg, the Upper Susquehanna Synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in
America, Lutheran Advocacy Ministry of Pennsylvania, and the Interfaith Sacred
Earth Coalition of the Susquehanna Valley to express my support for the new EPA
rule to reduce carbon pollution, even while it is under attack from industry
groups that want to weaken this life-saving measure. As a clergyperson, you can be assured of my
backing of this proposal.
However,
as a member of my synod’s task force on slickwater hydraulic fracturing which
spent two years studying the ethical and moral issues surrounding fracking; and
as a member of several environmental groups that study and bear witness to the
harmful effects of the shale gas industry in our state and across the country,
I must raise concerns that are not addressed in the EPA’s proposed rules. Three years ago I gave testimony in support
of the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxins Rule which, at the time, was a strong
measure for reducing poisons from the coal industry. An unexpected and harmful effect of this rule,
however, was that it helped to pave the way for the shale gas industry to
establish itself in our state and commit untold damage to our air, water, state
and private lands, and public health. I
fear that this new rule on carbon emissions would only further enable the shale
gas and oil industry to secure its hold in Pennsylvania and do still more
damage to ecological and human health.
Yes, the
new EPA rules will force Pennsylvania to reduce its air pollution and burn less
coal. But how we adjust to less coal
will make all the difference. If we
build more renewable energy infrastructure and increase energy efficiency, our
air will be cleaner and greenhouse
gases will be reduced. But if we replace coal with fracked gas, we will only be
making our air and atmosphere worse. These
rules, as written, only codify the transition from coal to gas that is already
underway. As well, the rule gives implicit consent to burn more trash, tires,
coal sludge, and other forms of toxic waste for electricity. So while I believe the proposal is a good
first step, it is not only inadequate, it will have the unintended consequence
of replacing one source of dirty fuel with many others.
Methane
is a greenhouse gas even more potent than carbon. The rule does not address total lifecycle
emissions from methane-gas-fired power plants, including leakage during
production, processing, and transmission, emissions flaring at gas wells, and
energy consumed in the production and transport of liquefied natural gas. Researchers found methane leak rates of 100
to 1,000 times greater than EPA estimates at well pads in Pennsylvania. And the
EPA’s Office of the Inspector General just issued a report citing the agency’s
failures to manage methane leaks from pipelines.
Instead
of promoting a strategy that perpetuates fossil fuels and fracking (and make no
mistake – shale gas is a fossil fuel), the proposed rule should include an
aggressive pursuit of renewables, energy efficiency, and conservation. Shale gas and oil are not the solution to carbon
pollution in the United States. They
are, in fact, an even worse enemy. The
rule should set absolute reduction
targets for total greenhouse gas emissions for each state. Otherwise
emissions will continue to grow as more energy is consumed.
I urge for
the rule to be substantially amended with policies that expressly favor
stringent conservation standards, as well as increased sourcing of electricity
from renewable energy, which is emission free.
This would be faster, cleaner and more economical than investing in
natural gas, waste product incineration, and nuclear power. Renewables and
efficiency can produce more reductions of CO2 per megawatt hour than natural
gas.
I am
committed to helping people of faith learn how to do their part to care for God’s
Creation and support eco-justice issues.
I call for the EPA to not only stand its ground with this rule, but to
actually strengthen and expand it in order to put in place the strongest
protections possible to defend public health, the fragile atmosphere of our
planet, and the communities that will bear the costs and suffering from our
addiction to fossil fuels and greenhouse gases.
Thank you.
