America and its political leaders are committed to clean air. Improved air quality results in healthier, longer lives for our citizens, cleaner ecosystems, more abundant crops and a stronger economy. Transportation is one of the main drivers of that economy.
Transportation touches every aspect of our lives. Our transportation system is one of the most advanced in the world, and is truly the foundation of our strong economy. But even the most advanced system can be improved.
With American ingenuity and technology, and with little additional cost, we can create new engines that are equally as powerful but far less polluting. Our goal today is to ensure that our federal government is doing all it can to create a cleaner, more efficient and less polluting transportation system for the nation.
Earlier this week, the National Academy of Sciences released a report on corporate average fuel economy or CAFE standards. The report is helpful, but it tells us what we already know -improving fuel efficiency can save consumers money, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce our dependence on oil. That's no surprise.
The report also said that market forces alone aren't going to make these things happen. That's why I believe that Federal leadership must pull technology in an environmentally sound direction. As many of you know, I am not too pleased with the Administration's policy on climate change. An entirely voluntary and unilateral approach is not the best route. It won't get us far enough, fast enough. The report also suggests that our current approach with CAFE hasn't been effective. The average fuel efficiency of all vehicles has remained more or less flat for 15 years. In the same period, greenhouse gas emissions from the sector have continued rising, up to 12 percent over 1990 levels.
We may need a new approach to fuel economy if we can't quickly fix CAFE and increase those standards substantially. There are just too many negative environmental consequences from wasting energy, particularly on the global climate.
The Clean Air Act allows carbon dioxide from vehicles to be regulated as a pollutant. Clearly, the potential impacts of carbon on the environment and public health are enormous. Perhaps this Committee should consider a national cap and trade program for carbon emissions from the transportation sector. That might be a more effective way to stimulate innovation in less carbon-intensive fuels and efficiency.
I have tried for many years to encourage cleaner fuels and vehicles. During the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 1992, I offered a successful amendment to require certain levels of alternative fuel production. That amendment came back from conference saying that the Department of Energy "may" require alternative fuels production instead of the "shall" that was in my amendment. Had that amendment survived, we might be worrying a lot less about greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution today.
According to EPA's Green Vehicle Guide, "while good fuel efficiency does not necessarily mean clean emissions, a car that burns less fuel, generally, pollutes less." That would make sense. It could also cost the manufacturers less in the amount of precious metals necessary in catalysts.
But, we shouldn't just focus on cars. Passenger cars have been getting cleaner. And they will get even cleaner as a result of recent rules on emissions and low sulfur fuel. But, trucks and non-road sources have a long way to go.
EPA has moved slowly to set standards for these non-road sources like airplanes, locomotives, marine diesel and recreational engines. These sources are a growing part of many areas' pollution problem. Approximately 120 million people are still living in areas that don't meet the national standards for ozone and carbon monoxide. These pollutants and fine particulates are closely associated with emissions from the transportation sector. They are also associated with asthma and other illnesses.
A study published earlier this year in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a group of doctors found something interesting and distressing about the link between pollution and asthma.
The Olympic Committee in Atlanta made great efforts to reduce traffic congestion during the 1996 Games. Increased use of transit and tele-commuting cut traffic and emissions significantly.
The doctors found a corresponding reduction in the rate of childhood asthma events. The morals of that story are that cars have to get still cleaner and a better transit system can help prevent pollution.
I want to touch on one last issue before I turn it over to the next speaker. That subject is toxic air pollutants from mobile sources.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 directed EPA to issue a rule to control toxic air pollutants that pose the greatest risk to human health or about which significant uncertainties remain. That rule was to be done in 1996. Last year, EPA finally issued its rule. It simply said that these air toxics must not increase beyond the average of 1998 through 2000 levels, with future regulation in 2004. In 1998, the entire transportation sector was responsible for emitting 2.3 million tons or 4.6 billion pounds of toxic air pollutants, including benzene and 20 other hazardous chemicals. Some of these are known or probable carcinogens.
I hope you can see why I think the EPA's rule is not adequate to protect public health. Instead, EPA should have heeded the words of George Perkins Marsh, a great Vermonter and environmentalist. He said, "We are never justified in assuming a force to be insignificant because its measure is unknown, or even because no physical effect can now be traced to it as its origin."
Marsh believed that we have a responsibility and the ability to help solve the problems we create. We all have to think ahead and shape our society to protect our children and the environment from potential harm. Even when there isn't perfect proof.
It's a pretty good bet that the planet will continue warming and human health will continue to suffer if we don't do a better job of using our energy resources in the transportation sector.
We must strengthen CAFE standards, reduce vehicle contributions of carbon to the atmosphere, and cut emissions that undermine human health.
I am hopeful that this morning's witnesses will give us some ideas on how to meet these challenges.