Consumer Protection Provisions in Climate Legislation

Testimony of John Hill

Director Economic and Environmental Justice

The United Methodist Church — General Board of Church and Society

(Representing the National Council of Churches Eco-Justice Work Group)

to
U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Subcommittee Hearing
on
“Consumer Protection Provisions in Climate Legislation”

March 12, 2009

Washington, D.C.

Good morning Chairman Markey, Congressman Upton and members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to testify today. My name is John Hill and I serve as the director for economic and environmental justice at the General Board of Church and Society, the social justice agency of The United Methodist Church. I am here representing the National Council of Churches, an organization that represents 35 Christian denominations, 100,000 congregations and approximately 45 million people in the United States.

Let me begin by stating unequivocally that The United Methodist Church and the National Council of Churches take seriously our call to be faithful stewards of God’s earth and believe global climate change is a real and growing threat to Creation with profound and potentially devastating environmental, economic and social consequences. For more than 15 years we have worked to educate and equip our members and congregations to take action to reduce our own contributions to climate change and have petitioned our government to provide strong leadership in developing domestic and international frameworks to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent years the faith community has developed a set of principles on global warming: principles that represent key tenets of our faith traditions and provide the lens through which we consider potential policy solutions. These four principles are justice, stewardship, sustainability and sufficiency.

Justice is our first principle and for a very specific reason: God calls us to serve those living on the margins of society and to protect those individuals and communities living in poverty in the United States and around the world. Quite frankly, for too long climate change advocates have minimized the potential impact of climate legislation on the poor and opponents have used such impacts as a justification for inaction. Neither course brings us closer to a just climate policy and neither serves the interests of those we are called to be in ministry with. I applaud the leadership of this committee for holding today’s hearing where we can explore another way: a course that provides strong emissions reductions and protects low-income individuals and vulnerable communities.

We believe a just climate policy must first and foremost contain effective and mandatory emissions reduction targets in order to prevent catastrophic impacts for the people and planet we are called to serve. While this morning’s hearing focuses on the critical issue of how climate legislation will impact consumers, let us not forget the devastating impact of inaction. Rising sea levels, more intense storms, floods, droughts, and spreading disease vectors affect those living in poverty, communities of color and other vulnerable communities first and hardest. The Gulf Coast hurricanes of 2004 demonstrated all too painfully the devastating consequences that occur when storms of nature interact with the storms of poverty and racism that batter communities in the United States and around the world. Our churches were on the front lines and continue to provide aid and assistance to those struggling to rebuild, as we will be in every disaster that may come.

As someone who serves a global church, I am keenly aware of the cost of inaction on my brothers and sisters in Africa. Rosemary Mayiga works with farmers in Uganda and told me last year how her growing seasons are shifting because of climate change. For most of us, if the rains fall a few weeks late there is little impact on our lives. For Rosemary, that shift means crop failure and famine.

Last year the African Bishops of The United Methodist Church issued a call for action on poverty and recognized that we cannot separate the plight of the poor from the plight of the planet and must act now to protect both. Inaction is not an option for us as people of faith.

But likewise, action must be centered on a vision of justice for all God’s people. In developing policies we must ensure that the solutions protect the needs of the poor, that we don’t push families deeper into poverty due to higher energy-related costs. The good news is that there are proposals, such as that outlined by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, that we believe can efficiently, effectively and justly provide benefits to offset these cost increases for low-income individuals and families.

We support utilizing established and proven methods to deliver benefit for low-income consumers that provide funds sufficient to offset all energy-related price increases. Mechanisms such as an electronic benefits transfer card and an expanded earned income tax credit would allow individuals and families flexibility in adapting to increased prices for a variety of goods and services. In contrast, proposals such as that put forward by USCAP, that would use local distribution companies or other utilities to deliver a consumer rebate would ignore more than one-half of the estimated costs to low-income families and require the establishment of new delivery systems and outreach programs to encourage participation. We believe established methods offer a more effective and efficient approach to reach the greatest percentage of low-income consumers.

Finally, in addition to direct climate rebates, we encourage the committee to include efficiency measures aimed at low-income households. Weatherizing homes and encouraging replacement of older appliances with more energy efficient alternatives will reduce emissions and lower costs for consumers.

In closing, the faith community supports strong and quick action to address the dangers of climate change while ensuring that solutions mitigate rather than compound economic injustices. Those least responsible for creating this problem are most vulnerable to its effects. Let us not perpetuate further this injustice by forcing those same individuals to shoulder additional and disproportionate costs of proposed solutions.

We believe financial assistance for those living in poverty in the United States and international adaptation assistance for vulnerable communities abroad must be a part of any climate policy.

We look forward to working with the committee as you develop legislation that protects God’s good creation and all of God’s children. Thank you.