In Philadelphia, federal EPA chief says health equals jobs

When Lisa P. Jackson took the stage at a national brownfields conference in Philadelphia on Monday, she said she wished all her detractors could be there to hear how restoring polluted industrial sites makes good business sense.

An hour later, when she participated in a panel at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia about new rules limiting emissions of mercury and other poisons from U.S. power plants, she spoke of how it would not only prevent thousands of premature deaths and illnesses a year, but would also support thousands of jobs in the construction and utility industries.

"These are very good jobs," she said. "They're labor-intensive jobs. And you know what you can't do with them? You can't ship them overseas, because our power plants are here."

Health and jobs. Health and jobs. It's almost a mantra for Jackson, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's administrator.

Now two years into the job, Jackson is a beleaguered cabinet member who draws detractors - and supporters - wherever she goes.

In Congress, she has been grilled, challenged, countered, and debated as new Republican legislators contend that she and the agency are overreaching their purview.

"You will hear people use words like cutting and defunding, and making bold claims about so-called EPA power grabs," she said. Indeed, "you may have heard that earlier this year, someone in Congress offered me my very own parking space, because I've come in to testify so often."

Perhaps the most volatile issue is whether the EPA should regulate greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases that most scientists say are causing climate change.

U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) is a co-sponsor of an energy bill that would prevent the EPA from imposing an energy tax on greenhouse gases. He says the bill would help lower energy prices.

"We cannot allow the EPA to hold Pennsylvania's economy hostage," he said in a statement.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Bill Kovacs said it was "clear that the Clean Air Act was never intended to [give the agency authority to] regulate greenhouse gases."

"It's a decision for Congress to make," said Kovacs, senior vice president of environment, technology, and regulatory affairs for the chamber. "Not a bureaucratic regulatory agency."