Whitman: ‘Public knows something is going on’ with climate

So it is safe to say that Whitman has some thoughts on where the GOP should be headed on the environment.

She thinks it would behoove the Republican Party to address climate change in a way that is mindful of the economy and doesn’t spark outrage about federal overreach. Although the chances of that happening are slight, she thinks it’s worth having the conversation.

Whitman says not much has changed since she was EPA administrator from 2001-03. For example, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is still chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that oversees the agency she once headed. She points out that the GOP wasn’t that open to the idea of climate change back then, but now the issue has become contentious.

The best she can hope for is the GOP agreeing on keeping the air and water clean, instead of getting bogged down in a debate over whether climate change is real. Whitman says the science is pretty strong on the issue, but says there is still room to debate how fast the Earth’s climate is changing.

Many scientists blame greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels for causing the Earth’s climate to warm, leading to more severe weather, drought and coastal flooding.

Whitman says most ordinary people see changes in the weather, know something is changing and are looking to Washington for leadership. The Washington Examiner asked her about her thoughts on climate change, the difference in the environmental movement from when the EPA began until now and where the EPA fits into the discussion about the environment.

Washington Examiner: Where do you see the Republican Party now, compared to when you were EPA administrator, in coming around to climate change?

Whitman: You have to remember that Jim Inhofe was chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee when I was there at EPA. So, let’s just say it still wasn’t terribly open, welcoming of the climate change issue back then. And I’m afraid we’re on the wrong side of this issue. The public knows something is going on, and every poll that you look at tells you that they do and they want something to be done about it.

Now you can argue over how much human activity has to do with it. That’s a legitimate argument, and that’s one that a lot of people have, but they understand that something is going on and they do want to see a kind of change to at least address it.

The problem is it’s such a huge issue it’s easy to demonize. And that makes it easy to say to people it’s going to kill our economy because people don’t know that much about it. It’s hard to get your mind around. It’s a big issue. And you have scientists that … will disagree because that’s the nature of science. But the overwhelming number of scientists say, “Look, this is occurring and man has a role to play here.”

I look at it now from the perspective of let’s just talk about clean air. Let’s just talk about having a healthy lifestyle for our family. Let’s understand that we have a real problem with asthma, we have a real problem with dirty air. You talk to people, they are willing to spend money to ensure that they have clean air, they have a a clean and green environment.

Examiner: Is there any difference between how the EPA started under the Republican administration of President Richard Nixon in addressing pollution issues back in the 1970s and how it addresses climate change now?

Whitman: The pollution issues then were so great that you had rivers spontaneously combusting, and land that looked like a garbage dump, and people were being told every day in the summer — older people and young people — to stay inside on bad air quality days.

It wasn’t because Congress suddenly decided they ought to address this issue. The public finally said “enough already.” And don’t forget, that was a highly contentious time in our history. You had 1970, ’69 and ’70, you had college campuses in riot, you had cities burning, you had the women’s movement going, you had the assassination of two leaders in the country.

There were a lot of things that Congress could address, and one of the things they took on, which was contentious at the time, because there were Democrats who said “you can’t regulate enough,” and Republicans that thought any regulation was bad. But they found common ground because the public was demanding it. And the public has yet to get to that place because there is so much else going on right now.

The thing about it is, our history proves that it isn’t a zero sum game. From 1980-2012, in those 32 years, the population grew by 38 percent, energy consumption increased by some 27 percent, our GDP more than doubled and yet we were able to reduce the six criteria pollutants by 67 percent. So, you had more people using more energy, reducing the pollutants in the atmosphere dramatically, and still seeing it as a healthy, driving economy. And that’s the message we have to get out to people: that it’s not an either-or.

Examiner: How has the success of the last three decades stood up in terms of Republican willingness to take credit for environmental safeguards, EPA regulations, besides the climate point that has become so contentious? Was it ever an issued embraced by the Republican Party as an area where they must assert leadership?

Whitman: I don’t think it ever was. I certainly don’t think that Republicans in any way welcome the idea that they were responsible for this. They wouldn’t be quick to embrace the idea that it’s because of them we have environmental regulations. Just because they now have become such a touchstone for what you don’t want to be, for what you don’t want to do.

You don’t have the same willingness to talk about it. Although I do believe we’re starting to see some signs on the Republican side of the aisle recognizing that the public wants something done about it. But the distressing thing is we have presidential candidates who pledge themselves to getting rid of the Environmental Protection Agency.

I think they are going to run into a buzzsaw when they do that because you’re going to have the people who don’t want to just abandon environmental regulation, they want it controlled, they want to make sure it’s done in the right way.

They want to make sure it’s not something that does go out of its way, just because you have a bunch of tree-huggers who want to kill the economy, and doesn’t go out of its way to overregulate. If they were comfortable with those things, if they thought that would be how we move forward, they would be more than happy to do it.

Examiner: How do you see the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of the president’s climate agenda, evolving over the next year? Will it endure, given the legal challenges and prospect of a new president? Or, might there be something else to take its place?

Whitman: I have no way to figure that one out. That is entirely up to the courts. They have determined that in fact carbon is a pollutant. That’s been through the courts. That has been determined. And when you look at the enabling legislation for the EPA, it’s pretty clear about what the agency has to take up and when, and how they take it up. And whether they can, should or must use cost-benefit analysis. It’s very prescriptive.

So, [Clean Air Act section] 111(d) might not have been the right vehicle on which to hang this because it’s being used in a way that it has never been used before. But it doesn’t mean that overall it won’t survive.

Examiner: But is there some other alternative like a carbon tax, or another market-based system, that Congress would have to approve, as a better alternative?

Whitman: What you see now is private companies moving forward to take action on climate change. I mean it’s happening with no regulation, not nothing. They are saying, “OK, we have to do something about this.”

First of all, it saves them money when they take some of these steps to reduce their emissions. It helps to give them an advantage when they talk about what it is they’re doing. It gives them a competitive advantage, and it’s the right thing to do. And they are beginning to do it.

What you’ve got too is international companies that would desperately like to have harmonization with regulations. They have to compete all around the world in countries that take this issue very seriously, and they are having to adhere or meet a host of regulations that are extraordinarily difficult to do. They stood up and said, “Give us some certainty here. What we need is certainty.”

“So, we’ll take some regulation, if we just know what to plan for.” And that may be what ultimately gets things moving. A combination of the public saying, “We aren’t deaf, dumb and blind,” and clearly something is going on out here.

We see, we know it, we feel it, we see these storms, we recognize that no credible scientist will ever say this is because of climate change — any particular storm — but it’s something that is recognized by the public and I do believe we as the Republican Party are going to have to take some action.