[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLIMATE CHANGE: UNDERSTANDING THE DEGREE OF THE PROBLEM
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 20, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-179
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
29-932 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on July 20, 2006.................................... 1
Statement of:
Connaughton, Jim, chairman, Council on Environmental Quality;
and Thomas Karl, director, National Climatic Data Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration............ 21
Connaughton, Jim......................................... 21
Karl, Thomas............................................. 87
Curry, Judith, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology; John R. Christy,
professor and director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC,
University of Alabama in Huntsville; Roger A. Pielke, Jr.,
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research,
University of Colorado at Boulder; Jay Gulledge, senior
research fellow for science & impacts, Pew Center on Global
Climate Change............................................. 129
Christy, John R.......................................... 145
Curry, Judith............................................ 129
Gulledge, Jay............................................ 171
Pielke, Roger A., Jr..................................... 153
Roosevelt, Theodore, IV, chairman, Strategies for the Global
Environment/Pew Center on Global Climate Change; Andrew
Ruben, vice president, Corporate Strategy and
Sustainability, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; and Marshall
Herskovitz, producer/director/writer, television and films. 198
Herskovitz, Marshall..................................... 219
Roosevelt, Theodore, IV.................................. 198
Ruben, Andrew............................................ 206
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Christy, John R., professor and director, Earth System
Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama in Huntsville,
prepared statement of...................................... 148
Connaughton, Jim, chairman, Council on Environmental Quality,
prepared statement of...................................... 25
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 238
Curry, Judith, Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, prepared
statement of............................................... 132
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 4
Gulledge, Jay, senior research fellow for science & impacts,
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, prepared statement of. 174
Herskovitz, Marshall, producer/director/writer, television
and films, prepared statement of........................... 222
Karl, Thomas, director, National Climatic Data Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 90
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 240
Pielke, Roger A., Jr., Center for Science and Technology
Policy Research, University of Colorado at Boulder,
prepared statement of...................................... 156
Roosevelt, Theodore, IV, chairman, Strategies for the Global
Environment/Pew Center on Global Climate Change, prepared
statement of............................................... 200
Ruben, Andrew, vice president, Corporate Strategy and
Sustainability, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., prepared statement
of......................................................... 208
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 12
CLIMATE CHANGE: UNDERSTANDING THE DEGREE OF THE PROBLEM
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2006,
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:29 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Davis, Shays, Duncan, Marchant,
Schmidt, Waxman, Owens, Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois,
Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Higgins.
Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran,
deputy staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Jennifer
Safavian, chief counsel for oversight and investigations;
Brooke Bennett, counsel; Rob White, communications director;
Andrea LeBlanc, deputy director of communications; Teresa
Austin, chief clerk; Michael Galindo, deputy clerk; Michael
Sazonov, research assistant; Mindi Walker, professional staff
member; Alexandra Teitz, minority counsel; Earley Green,
minority chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come to order.
Welcome to today's hearing on climate change.
I want to thank my friend and colleague and ranking member,
Henry Waxman, for working with us to make this discussion of
climate change a priority for the committee. We are committed
to addressing this issue in a non-partisan way, and that is how
it ought to be.
For too long the political dialog on climate change has
been dominated by black and white grandstanding, finger
wagging, or head-in-the-sand denial and denunciation. There has
really been very little reasonable discourse, and that needs to
change.
Over the past several years, and especially over the past 6
months in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the release of Al
Gore's film, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' climate change has
understandably jumped to the forefront of America's discourse.
We have seen the Time cover story suggesting we ``be worried,
be very worried,'' and yesterday's London Independent Newspaper
reported ``Temperature set to hit 100 degrees, and global
warming is to blame,'' and the deluge of attention to ``An
Inconvenient Truth,'' and its depictions of potential disasters
of global warming.
We are here today to acknowledge that too many elected
officials have for too long been missing in action on this
issue. We hope to begin to change that, but first we need to
step back and ask some basic but critical questions. Exactly
what is climate change? And where are we with the science?
There are not very many people left these days who would
argue global warming isn't happening, per se. There is
widespread agreement that the global mean temperature has gone
up approximately 1 degree fahrenheit over the past century,
that atmospheric carbon dioxide has also increased over the
past century, and that carbon dioxide, as a minor greenhouse
substance--as opposed to major substances such as water, vapor,
and clouds--likely contributes to warming.
But beyond this consensus--scientific, political,
technological, and moral--remains somewhat elusive. That is why
we have to step in. It is our job to ask whether we are
responding appropriately, whether a scientific consensus
exists, and whether we are facilitating the research and
ensuring an unbiased review when there is not.
Knowledge is refined through continuous inquiry and, yes,
through skepticism. As Mr. Waxman said in an Energy and
Commerce Committee hearing yesterday--Henry, I don't always
quote you--``science is hearing both sides, looking at the
evidence, reaching conclusions based on evidence.''
Living and breathing through the power of evidence, science
evolves. Policy needs to evolve along with it. To that end, we
are fortunate to be hearing from leading researchers on climate
change about climate change science and about some of their new
research. But this hearing has not been spared the
disappointment and politicization that has accompanied the
issue for too long.
We were looking forward to hearing from Dr. Jim Hansen,
NASA's preeminent climate change scientist, but we learned just
days ago he was no longer available to testify. Let the record
show he was not muzzled, at least not by this committee. Nor
will we be hearing from Vice President Gore, who has spoken
often of Congress and the administration's ``blinding lack of
awareness'' about this ``planetary emergency,'' and whose
spokesman told the L.A. Times the Vice President would ``go
anywhere and talk to any audience that wants to learn about
climate change and how to solve it.''
This committee asked the Vice President to pick any date in
June or July, but apparently ours was not one of the audiences
he had in mind. While Mr. Waxman and I are disappointed, we
understand movie screenings and book signings are time
consuming, and we hope his book signing in northern Virginia
went well yesterday.
Regardless, the panels of witnesses we have with us this
morning will help us greatly in learning more about the truth,
inconvenient or otherwise, surrounding climate change. We will
hear from the administration about the President's climate
change initiatives and the Federal Government's extensive
research. We will hear from respected scientists with differing
views on the science of climate change, and we will hear from
companies and organizations that are responding to climate
change challenges in their own important ways.
Today is about education. It is about whether we have the
courage to ask the difficult questions without regard for what
the answers may be. It is about beginning to get those answers
so that strategies to combat climate change can become clearer,
so that we can begin to understand the complex combination of
technologies, incentives, restrictions, and sacrifices that may
be needed to truly tackle this problem, whatever its degree.
Policymakers need to understand this issue before we can
pretend to effectively address potential solutions and debate
the personal, economic, and societal impacts that will
inevitably evolve. Opportunity has knocked, and today this
committee at least is answering the door.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.005
Chairman Tom Davis. I would now recognize the distinguished
ranking member who has long been involved in expressing
environmental concerns and been on the lead end of many
environmental policies, Mr. Waxman, for his opening statement.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am really pleased
that I am here, because if I had not been here you wouldn't
have quoted me and you would have criticized me. So, Al Gore,
pay attention. [Laughter.]
I want to commend Chairman Davis for holding this hearing
on global warming today. Global warming is the greatest
environmental challenge of our time, and we have a short window
in which to act to prevent profound changes to the climate
system. Unless we seize the opportunity to act now, our legacy
to our children and grandchildren will be an unstable and
dangerous planet.
I have been working to address this threat of global
warming for many years. In 1992, over a decade ago, I
introduced the Global Climate Protection Act of that year which
would have frozen U.S. emissions of greenhouses gases at 1990
levels in 2000. This was the first bill dealing with the global
climate problem. Had we acted then, the task before us today
would be much easier.
Although we have long known the basic scientific facts of
global warming, more recent findings have brought us an even
greater urgency to the problem. Last year the national science
academies of 11 nations, including the United States, Great
Britain, Russia, China, India, issued a joint statement on the
international scientific consensus on global warming. The
academies unanimously confirmed that climate change is real and
they stated the scientific understanding of climate change is
now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps they
can take now to contribute to substantial and long-term
reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions.
For decades the tobacco industry mounted a disinformation
campaign to create doubt about the dangers of smoking. Major
energy industries are now trying the same approach about the
consequences of global warming. But no one should be deceived:
global warming is real and it is an enormous threat to our
Nation.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration and Congress have
squandered opportunity after opportunity to address the problem
of climate change. It is much easier to rack up enormous debts
than to be fiscally responsible, and it is much easier to
pretend global warming doesn't exist than to face the reality
of dangerously overheating climate, but doing is morally
irresponsible. We are literally mortgaging our children's
future so that we can continue to consume unlimited amounts of
fossil fuels.
It is impossible to catalog this administration's record of
failures on global warming in a 5-minute statement. President
Bush set a so-called target for greenhouse gas emissions that
contemplates a 14 percent increase in emissions by 2012. The
administration has persistently tried to derail any effective
international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases,
and the administration denies that greenhouse gases are
pollutants. And it is even in court claiming that EPA has no
authority to regulate global warming pollution.
Well, we need to stop letting the coal companies, the oil
companies, and the other special interests dictate our approach
to global warming. Instead, we need to start listening to the
scientists. That is what I tried to do earlier this year when I
introduced the Safe Climate Act.
There are different approaches that can be taken to climate
legislation. Some bills seek a symbolic recognition of the
problem, others are premised on what may be politically
achievable in the near term. The Safe Climate Act is drafted on
a different premise. It reflects what the science tells us we
need to do to protect our children and future generations from
irreversible and catastrophic global warming.
The bill has aggressive requirements to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases, calling for an 80 percent reduction in
emissions by 2050, but these are the reductions we need to
preserve a safe climate for future generations.
As Dr. James Hansen, among other scientists, has been
telling us, we have about 10 years to act to avoid being locked
into irreversible global warming on a scale that will transform
the planet.
Daunting though it may seem, these reductions are
achievable with innovation and commitment. In fact, they will
make our economy stronger and our Nation safer.
I hope today's hearing will help this committee and this
Congress move forward to tackle the urgent problem of global
warming. The scientists have been proven right on this issue
time and time again, and if we continue to disregard their
warnings our children and their children will pay the price.
I want to point out how remarkable it is that this
committee is holding this hearing. Yesterday I was at the
Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee hearing. The
Energy and Commerce Committee has legislative jurisdiction over
this issue, but in 12 years yesterday's hearing showed what
their thinking was at the leadership level. They held a hearing
on global warming simply to try to rebut a study done in 1998
to 1999 to argue that statistically it was in error, even
though all the subsequent studies continue to reaffirm the
conclusions of scientists all over the world.
That was not a real, legitimate hearing. I hope that our
committee will serve the purposes for the Congress in giving a
balanced approach to reviewing this issue so that we can
impress upon people the problem it is now, the problem it will
be tomorrow, and what we must do today to prevent the disasters
of tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for the hearing.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to mention one item before we
turn to the witnesses for testimony and the other Members for
their statement. Mr. Connaughton, who is the chairman of the
White House Council on Environmental Quality, is here today to
talk about the administration's views on climate change. As we
are probably all aware, serious questions have been raised
about whether the White House and CEQ, in particular, has
deliberately suppressed and manipulated the findings of
Government scientists to minimize the problem of global
warming.
The chairman and I have discussed how we should handle
these questions. We have both agreed that an inquiry into these
matters would benefit from additional information and
investigation; thus, rather than exploring these issues today,
the committee will be sending a letter to CEQ requesting
communications and documents about CEQ's role in reviewing and
editing Government reports on climate science.
We have also agreed that, after we have received and
reviewed these documents, this committee will call Mr.
Connaughton back to answer any questions raised by the
documents. I think this approach makes a lot of sense, Mr.
Chairman, and I appreciate your willingness to pursue it.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.009
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I want to say I think it is interesting that this
hearing has begun without a thank you, a sincere thank you from
me and I think the entire environmental community for the
President's action to protect the largest area in our Federal
Government in what was done in the Hawaiian Islands and that
area. Mr. Connaughton, I want to say congratulations. I know it
was a 5-year fight. You deserve tremendous credit. Generations
will look back at that action as extraordinarily important.
I do want to say, in addition, that I believe we are not
going to have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful
ways. I believe that with all my heart and soul. I believe that
future generations will look on all of us in this generation
like we looked at past generations. We look at past generations
and say, how could they have done that? What were they thinking
to have had slaves or to have practiced segregation? And we
have tremendous arrogance almost because, of course, we
wouldn't be so stupid. But I think future generations will say
the exact same thing, and it will apply to our stewardship of
the environment. They will say, how could we have allowed this
to happen? What were we thinking?
Now, I do know that it is not just a Republican problem. I
would like this administration to have been more active in
multilateral negotiations. They have been very active in
bilateral negotiations and have achieved some tremendous
results. But it is almost like the administration doesn't want
to get credit for doing something well in the environment. At
least that is the way I feel.
Kyoto was negotiated by President Clinton. He never
submitted it to the Senate. He never submitted it to the Senate
because it only had about five votes. But if you were to listen
to the Senators today you would think that everyone would have
voted for him.
There was a reason why he didn't submit it: because it had
so few votes. It had so few votes because China wasn't
basically included, India wasn't basically included, and,
frankly, there were some even in the environmental community
that said, well, if we have to abide by it and do it like they
do in Great Britain and like they do in France and like they do
throughout Europe and like they are doing in Japan, we are
going to have nuclear power, and, of course, that is something
we don't want to have.
So I wish with all my heart and soul that the President had
submitted it to the Senate, and then we would have a more
logical debate about the problem. Do we waste energy? Do we
waste fuel? We sure do. Minivans, SUVs, and trucks are not
under the same mileage standards as cars. Not under the same
mileage standards? Why not?
Well, why not is because the senior Democrat in Congress,
the senior Democrat, the senior Member of Congress stands up
and opposes any fuel efficiencies, minivans, SUVs, or trucks,
getting cars to have better standards, with Republicans. It is
a bipartisan problem, and the environmental community can say
all it wants, but until we recognize it is a bipartisan problem
we are never going to solve this problem.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. This is
an extraordinarily important hearing. This committee is doing
things no other committee is doing.
I thank you, Mr. Waxman, for your efforts over decades on
the environment. You deserve tremendous credit.
I will conclude by saying that we will solve the problem,
but it won't be a Republican solution, it won't be a northeast
solution, it won't be a southwest solution, it will be a
solution when Democrats and Republicans stop being so gosh darn
partisan and start dealing with this issue.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
thanking you for holding this very important hearing. I also
want to thank my colleague, the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for
his leadership on this issue. I am very pleased to join him as
an original cosponsor of the Safe Climate Act, which I do
believe sets forth the best in scientific consensus in this
country as to what we need to do to address the problem of
global climate change on an urgent basis.
I think before we can move as a Nation, before this
Congress will take action, we have to get consensus on the
basic facts, and the scientific community is very clear in the
consensus that this is a real problem, that human activity is a
primary contributor to this problem, and we need to address it.
I am not going to delve into this issue too much today, but
I do think at the outset it is important to underscore the
issue that Mr. Waxman raised with the efforts that have gone on
in this administration, well documented, to essentially have
political people veto the findings of scientists, whether they
are scientists at EPA, our own Government agencies or
elsewhere, and essentially trying to rewrite their findings. We
had an individual who was a representative of the oil and gas
industry in the White House who was essentially editing the
findings of scientists for political purposes.
We have to get beyond that. The President in the State of
the Union Address said he was committed to addressing the issue
of energy efficiency and renewable energy, and then we found
out shortly after the State of the Union speech that he had
actually cut positions in his budget in one of the renewable
energy labs in Colorado. They were going to do a big photo op
out there and they had to scramble to make the rhetoric that he
gave to the American people meet the reality of the budget.
Until we stop that kind of nonsense, until we really align our
resources with our rhetoric, we are not going to move forward
in this country.
This is a very, very serious problem, and if we don't
address it now and in an urgent manner it will be too late.
Hopefully it is not already too late. As Mr. Waxman said, there
are things we should have done years and years ago that would
have made our task now easier. The longer you wait, the more
urgent your action has to be. Of course, the greater cuts you
have to make over a shorter period of time than if you begin
earlier, in terms of emissions of greenhouse gases.
So I really hope that we get beyond this debate as to
whether or not this is a real problem, because until we get
beyond that we can't take the actions we need, and there are
people who are spending an awful lot of money and time in this
city committed to trying to obfuscate this issue, to confuse
the issue. We need to get beyond that. I am glad we are having
this hearing on this issue, but beyond acknowledging the
problem we have to get to the solutions and we have to start
acting.
It is not just the United States. As we know, we have
growing economies in China and India that are going to be major
contributors to the greenhouse gases problem. But if we don't
lead, if we don't lead here in the United States, we can't go
around telling people in the rest of the world that they have
to address this issue. Frankly, as we all know, we are the
largest producers of greenhouse gases. Per capita we are way
off the charts. Yet, we have been negligent in terms of our
response.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, that this hearing will be part of a
wakeup call, not to the American people, I think they are
beginning to get it, but to political Washington to get moving
on this issue.
Thank you for having the hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Ruppersberger.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and Mr. Waxman
for addressing this extremely important issue.
We are not here to rewrite the science; we are here to act
on it. Unfortunately, the debate on climate change has gotten
away from science and has, instead, been driven by political
opinions on whether or not global warming is happening. I hope
today we can take a second look at this issue and work together
to solve this challenge, because the stakes are high and the
warning signs could not be clearer.
The 1990's were the hottest decade recorded over the past
century, and perhaps the millennium. Water sources that were
once the lifeline of communities across the globe are
evaporating. In May, MIT and Purdue University separately
reported new evidence that global warming is causing stronger
hurricanes, and the melting of our ice caps is now visible to
the naked eye, causing sea levels to rise. In fact, the Heinz
Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment estimates
that at least a quarter of the houses within 500 feet of the
U.S. coast may be under water by the year 2060 due to rising
sea levels.
Right here in the Maryland/Washington/Virginia region, a
number of islands in the Chesapeake Bay have disappeared in the
last few decades, including Poplar Island, a historic spot used
by President Roosevelt. Now Poplar Island has to be maintained
by a massive dredging project to keep the Baltimore Harbor
functional.
The threat here is real and can no longer be ignored; yet,
the administration has questioned whether carbon dioxide, the
principal greenhouse gas responsible for global warming, was
even a pollutant.
The administration created doubt about the reality of
global warming and withdrew the United States from the Kyoto
protocol. Now the administration says we should reduce the
intensity of greenhouse emissions when we really need to focus
on lowering greenhouse pollution.
In the meantime, businesses, homeowners, towns, cities, and
foreign countries have moved ahead to promote greener, more
energy efficient technology; 266 cities and towns across
America have promised to reduce global warming pollution to
levels required under the Kyoto protocol.
Businesses are using green technology to cut costs,
including a new Bank of America tower in Manhattan that will
convert scraps from the cafeteria into fuel for its generator,
producing more than half the building's electricity. Wal-Mart
has set a goal of reducing their carbon footprint by 20 percent
in 7 years. And every day Americans are using solar energy to
power their homes, replacing their lamps with energy efficient
light bulbs to conserve electricity, and buying hybrid and flex
fuel cars to reduce their gas costs.
With all these advancements happening in spite of a lack of
leadership from the White House and some GOP Members of
Congress, imagine what we could do if we work together in a
bipartisan manner to address the serious problem of global
climate change.
I challenge the administration and some of my Republican
colleagues here in Congress to take a second look at the facts
we have on climate change. Too much is at stake to make this
another partisan issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for calling this hearing,
and to all of our witnesses for presenting your testimony. I
look forward to the hearing and your comments.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
again echo the comments of my colleagues and I want to
associate myself with all the comments on both sides of the
aisle. I think they have been very appropriate.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, for
holding this vitally important hearing today. You know, Mr.
Chairman, when children go to Disney World and they go to the
Animal Kingdom there is a major sign that they have to look at
because it is so big as you enter. It says, ``We do not inherit
our environment from our parents,'' it says, ``We borrow it
from our children.''
I can tell you that in urban communities, like the one I
represent in Baltimore, the impact of global warming has been
great. A study conducted by researchers at Harvard University
and the American Public Health Association found that America's
cities are blanketed with smog and climate changing carbon
dioxide, leading to an epidemic of asthma and other illnesses.
Hardest hit by the epidemic are preschool-age children, like
the ones that visit Disney World, whose rate of asthma rose by
160 percent between 1980 and 1994, the report says. These
children are so young they are still learning to spell their
names, yet they cannot breathe because of the pollutants we
have put in the air.
Tragically, they are not the youngest victims. In a
comparison of 86 cities in the United States, infants who lived
in a highly polluted city during their first 2 months of life
had a higher mortality rate than infants living in the city
with the cleanest air.
We can talk about impact in other terms, too, because
global warming impacts some communities more than others. In
2002, 71 percent of African Americans lived in counties that
violated Federal air pollution standards, compared with 58
percent of Whites. What to know what the impact of that
disparity has been? Asthma attacks in 2002 sent African
Americans to the emergency room at a three times greater rate
than White, and the asthma-related death rate for African
Americans was nearly twice that of Whites.
As a matter of fact, just on Monday, Mr. Chairman, my
colleague from your side of the aisle went with me on a tour of
my District in Baltimore, and when we went to the Johns Hopkins
clinic that deals with the conditions of the poor, he realized
and was told that the rate of asthma in that community 40 miles
from here was simply off the charts.
But that is not all. A recent study of the 15 largest U.S.
cities found that global warming would increase heat-related
deaths by at least 90 percent. Most African Americans live in
inner cities, which tend to be about 10 degrees warmer than the
surrounding areas.
We have heard time and time again the accusation that
people who are sounding the alarm on global warming are a bunch
of reactionaries making baseless claims. That is a dangerous
line of reasoning. All one has to do is look at the most recent
Al Gore movie. The threat of global warming is here and it is
real. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, U.S.
National Academy of Sciences, the National Research Council,
and the National Academies of Sciences of 11 countries all
agree when it comes to the impact of global warming has made on
this planet it has been phenomenal.
But I need no further evidence than what I see happening in
my own back yard in Baltimore. Adolescents can't breathe
normally. Babies are dying prematurely. And African Americans
are getting sick in communities where they live.
The time is past due for Congress to lead the charge in the
fight against global warming. As my colleagues have said, it is
time for us to act. And I pray that we are not sitting here 5
years from now having the same discussions, looking at reports
that have been pulled off the shelf and warmed over, for the
fact is that people are literally dying. So perhaps some of
those children that might have had an opportunity to go to
Disney World won't have that chance if we adults don't do what
we are supposed to do.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Tom Davis. Members will have 7 days to submit
opening statements.
We are going to now move to our first panel. We have Jim
Connaughton, who is the chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality, and Dr. Thomas Karl, the Director of the
National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. Thank you for your patience as we moved through
our markup and our opening statements.
It is our policy that all witnesses be sworn before you
testify, so if you would rise, please, and raise your right
hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. We have a light in front of you. Your
entire statements are part of the record. Our Members and staff
have read that, and questions will be based on that. We have a
green light in front of you. It will turn orange after 4
minutes, red after 5. If there is an important issue, if you
feel that you need to go over, you know, we understand, but we
want to keep things going because we have three panels to get
through.
Mr. Connaughton, we will start with you. Thank you for
being here.
STATEMENTS OF JIM CONNAUGHTON, CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY; AND THOMAS KARL, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF JIM CONNAUGHTON
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member Waxman, and members of the committee. It is actually a
delight to be here and a delight, in particular, that you have
chosen to at least dedicate a portion of this session to the
actions related to addressing this serious issue.
Congressman Shays, thank you for your kind words about the
monument. It really was a great event. It is great for America
and for the world. It was a lot of fun.
I want to begin, first and foremost, we talk a lot about
the polarized debate and rhetoric on climate change. At the
ground level of policy work, even of scientific work, and the
ground level internationally, I think the fair characterization
is actually a raging amount of consensus. I hope you will get a
feel for that in my testimony.
I want to begin with the President on the science. As early
as June 2001 in a major policy address and many times since,
most recently in the EU last year and again earlier this year,
the President has made clear that climate is a serious issue,
serious problem. Humans are a big part of the problem and we
need to just get on with it, and that is really where our
discussion needs to focus. It is what are the serious and
sensible measures that we can take to make meaningful progress
toward addressing this issue.
The President is committed to doing that and he has been
achieving it through a portfolio of policies that are focused
on encouraging the transformational breakthroughs in technology
and to take advantage of the power of markets to bring those
technologies into widespread use. There is raging consensus on
that point, too.
The administration's growth-oriented strategy encourages
global participation--I will talk about that in a second--and
focuses on actions that ensure continued economic growth and
prosperity in the United States and throughout the world. This
is important because economic growth is necessary to provide
the resources for investment in the technologies and practices
that are required to reduce greenhouse gases. You don't get
those investments in sagging economies.
By the end of this year the administration will have
devoted nearly $29 billion in taxpayer resources, more than any
other Nation, to climate science technology, international
assistance, and incentive programs. We are now implementing
more than 60 Federal programs that are directed at cleaner,
more efficient energy technologies, conservation, and
sequestration. My 40 plus pages of testimony gives just a
thumbnail of some of the more interesting ones.
For fiscal year 2007, the President has asked for an
additional $6.5 billion for climate-related activities. To put
that in perspective, the entire budget for the National Science
Foundation is about $6 billion, the entire budget for the
Department of Commerce or the entire judicial branch is about
$6 billion. We are talking about a massive, bipartisan-
supported commitment to this important issue.
Now, domestically the President has set an ambitious
national goal to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of our
economy by 18 percent in 2012. What that means is we are
working hard to slow the growth in emissions, and there is no
question that under this metric emissions will grow. We are
trying to have that occur at a decreasing rate. So our
objective is to first significantly slow the growth of
emissions and, as the science continues to inform us, stop the
growth of emissions and then reverse it.
To achieve this goal, the administration is pursuing a
range of activities, partnerships, incentives, mandatory
programs, and helping to enable smarter consumer choice to
reduce greenhouse gases.
Let me start with partnerships, just a few examples out of
many. We have major new efforts, such as the Department of
Energy's climate vision program, which gets specific
commitments from 15 of the major emitting sectors, plus the
business round table, EPA's climate leaders, which has nearly
100 leading companies such as the one the Congressman
described. We have nearly 100 who are leading the way in their
sectors with very aggressive greenhouse gas reduction programs,
and a very interesting program called smart way transportation,
which is trying to turn off diesel trucks at night and plug
them in rather than emit all night long. Each of these is based
on specific commitments to cut emissions and improve greenhouse
gas intensity.
Now, Federal agencies and private innovators are also
partnering to pursue energy supply technologies with low, and
in some cases zero, carbon dioxide and air pollution emission
profiles. These include solar, wind, geothermal, bioenergy,
combined heat and power, and a new generation of clean, near-
zero fossil fuel coal plants, as well as the next generation of
nuclear.
In the State of the Union this year I think the President
rocked the Nation and the world with his commitment to
advancing the domestic and international dialog for renewable
fuels, both ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and the new generation
of clean and really friendly to rural communities biodiesel.
On the incentive side, it is overlooked but the major tax
reforms on expensing of dividends that enjoyed strong bi-
partisan support in the Congress are demonstrably working to
unleash substantial new capital investments, including the
purchases of cleaner, more efficient facilities and buildings,
so instead of maintaining the old, inefficient stuff, our
economy is roaring toward the purchase of new, cleaner, more
efficient equipment.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorizes about $5 billion
in tax credits and incentives over 5 years for clean energy
systems and highly efficient vehicles, and our farmers and
ranchers can now obtain substantial financial incentives from
the nearly $40 billion in farm bill conservation programs to
biologically sequester carbon on their working lands, while
also enhancing their local ecology.
On the mandatory side--again, all of this is new since
2001--we have a 15 percent mandatory improvement in fuel
economy for new light trucks now, including large SUVs and
Hummers for the first time. We are calling on Congress to give
us the authority to do the same for passenger vehicles, and we
hope the Congress will act on that.
We have a 7.5 billion gallon renewable ethanol requirement,
which enjoys strong bipartisan support, and 15 mandatory
efficiency standards for new appliances. If you look at the
other provisions of the Energy Policy Act, it can point to
every one of them as being a new improvement in reducing
greenhouses gases, whether it is clean coal, nuclear, some of
the other technology programs related to hydrogen, etc. We are
overlooking the fact that we have a comprehensive strategy and
we have had a lot of climate-related legislation, even in the
last 2 years.
These and many other efforts are working. They need to be
coupled with smarter choices by consumers, and we are on track
to meet the President's goal.
A June 2006, preliminary estimate by the Energy Information
Administration of energy-related CO2 emissions for 2005 show a
reduction in the emission intensity of 3.3 percent. If I was
sitting here in 2001, the EIA and most people would say we
couldn't have done that. Well, we have. We have done it for
reasons that are both good, as a matter of policy, and for
reasons that are a bit of concern, which I can talk about in
the Q and A. But I would note we are making accelerated
progress.
This rate of progress domestically in the United States, it
is also important to note, is on par with what our counterparts
are achieving internationally in the developed world, whether
it is the U.K., Australia, Japan, France. The major nations are
making about the same rate of progress, and that is a good
thing. It is a good rate of progress.
Very briefly, on the international side the President is
sustaining U.S. leadership begun by his father and carried out
through the Clinton/Gore administration when it comes to
practical actions to address this important issue. Since 2001,
not only have we established 15 bilateral climate partnerships
with countries that account for about 80 percent of greenhouse
gas emissions, but, very importantly, the G8 last year launched
a major effort, in partnership and really led by Prime Minister
Blair working with the President, to create an integrated
agenda for action that addresses energy security, air pollution
control, and greenhouse gases as a bundle, which is very
important.
Successful projects have been initiated in the area of
climate research and science, climate observation systems, many
of the technologies I just highlighted, including, very
importantly, carbon capture and storage, as well as other joint
policy approaches. But, most importantly, the United States has
found a way to engage China and India in a meaningful way with
the introduction of the Asia Pacific partnership.
Along with those two countries, Australia, Japan, South
Korea, and the United States, which account for about half of
the world's economy, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions,
are working together to open up and accelerate market
opportunities for the best of today's technologies and create a
platform for the faster introduction of the promising
technologies of tomorrow. Importantly, this is working with the
private sector to accomplish this goal in key areas such as
power generation, cement, aluminum, mining, and buildings.
I just want to underline the importance of this initiative.
Countries like China and India, these major emerging economies,
not only is their air pollution now at levels beyond what we
saw in America and have now taken real action to address, but
their greenhouse gases, as early as 2010 to 2015, their
greenhouse gases will exceed those of the developed world. We
need to do this together. We have found a pathway by which we
can do this together.
The Asia Pacific partnership, along with partnerships such
as methane to markets and programs internationally focused on
zero emission coal, renewable energy, energy efficiency,
hydrogen, next generation nuclear, and even fusion are centered
on the key ideas that the greatest progress will occur in the
context of the broader development agenda, so if we can marry
lifting people out of policy through cleaner energy systems
with also their desire for clean water and improved energy
security, we can make very real progress. Second, technology is
the glue that binds these objectives together. Third, it only
works with the private sector, which will spend more than $15
trillion in the coming decades on our entire energy
infrastructure.
Our goal is we need to point that investment toward the
cleanest opportunities.
I wish I had more time to get into any specific program. I
hope that this hearing, as well as subsequent hearings, can
begin to distill out this immense bipartisan program of work
supported not just in the executive branch but supported very
aggressively by the legislative branch.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connaughton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.071
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Dr. Karl.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS KARL
Dr. Karl. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you
for giving me this opportunity to speak to you about climate
change today.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I am the director of NOAA's
National Climatic Data Center. The National Climatic Data
Center is the world's largest archive of weather and climate
data. We also serve as the Nation's scorekeeper regarding
trends and anomalies of weather and climate.
I would like to emphasize today that the natural greenhouse
effect is real and it is an essential component of the planet's
climate process driven by greenhouse gases such as carbon
dioxide, water vapor, methane, and other greenhouse gases.
In the absence of these greenhouse gases, the temperature
on Earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. Some
greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere because of
human activities, and they are altering the planet's way of
emitting heat it receives from the sun back to space.
Direct atmospheric measurements made during the past 50
years have documented the steady growth of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere. I have a slide that I hope will come up that
can demonstrate this. Is that going to show?
Chairman Tom Davis. We will find out.
Dr. Karl. There we go.
As you note from that side, you can see the black line
represents the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, the
blue and red bars represent global temperature anomalies. As
you can see from that slide, the growth in carbon dioxide is
occurring over the last several hundred years. This growth is
predominately caused by the increase----
Chairman Tom Davis. Where does it start? What year does it
start?
Dr. Karl. That is in 1880.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK, that starts in 1880, so it is about
120 years?
Dr. Karl. That graph goes from 1880 through 2005.
The growth in carbon dioxide is caused by the increase in
combustion of fossil fuels. Once these greenhouse gases enter
into the atmosphere, it stays for a long time, from decades to
centuries. While slide one shows a strong positive correlation
between increases in carbon dioxide, the black line, and the
global temperature anomalies, the specific cause and effect
relationship cannot be assumed. Climate scientists must use
other tools to link climate change to human influences. This is
where climate models enter into the picture.
So what exactly is a climate model? Why is it useful? The
next slide shows schematically the kinds of processes that can
be included in climate models. Among these are many Earth
system components, such as atmospheric chemistry, ocean
circulation, land surface hydrology, and many others.
Many of the scientific laws governing climate change and
the processes involved can be quantified and linked by
mathematic equations. Linking these equations creates
mathematical models of the climate that may be run on computers
or super computers.
Given the magnitude of the data and understanding of all
these physical and chemical processes, it is impossible to
create a single model because it would be too complex to run on
any existing computer system.
The key challenge in modeling is to isolate and identify
cause and effect, which requires knowledge about changes and
variations of the external forces controlling climate, such as
greenhouse gases, and a comprehensive understanding of climate
feedbacks, such as a change in Earth's reflectivity because of
a change in sea ice or cloud amount.
Climate models are used to simulate many years of weather.
These simulations can be used to look either into the future or
to compare them to some time in the past. This comparison
enables scientists to study the output of climate model
simulations to understand the effect of various modifications
of those aspects of the climate system that might cause the
climate to change.
An example of how climate models are used to detect the
human influence on the climate system is shown on the next
slide. When considering only natural changes in the Earth
climate systems, the models cannot replicate the observed
global temperature. You notice that on the far left. The red is
the global temperature. The black lines represent model
simulations, with only consideration of natural variability.
By including both natural or anthrogenic or human-induced
changes in the Earth climate system, the models do, indeed,
replicate the observed global temperature variations in
changes. That is on the far right panel, to include both the
anthropogenic changes in the models, as well as natural
variations.
The scientific community has been actively working on
detection attribution of climate changes related to human
activities since the 1980's. Research has shown there are many
other aspects of the climate system beside global surface
temperature that have been influenced by human activity, such
as changes in temperature, regional changes in temperature,
changes in ocean heat content, extreme weather, and climate
events. There is considerable confidence that the observed
warming, especially since the 1970's, is mostly attributable to
changes in atmospheric composition due to human influences.
In conclusion, the state of the science continues to
indicate that modern climate changes is affected by human
influences, primarily human induced changes in atmospheric
composition. While there is considerable uncertainty about the
rates of change that can be expected, it is clear these changes
will be increasingly manifested in important and tangible ways.
Recent evidence suggests there will be changes in extremes of
temperature and precipitation, decreases in seasonal and
perennial snow and ice extent, sea level rise, and increases in
hurricane intensity and related heavy and extreme
precipitation.
Furthermore, while there has been progress in monitoring
and understanding the causes of climate change, there remain
many scientific, technical, and institutional challenges to
precisely plan for, adapt to, and mitigate the effects of
climate change.
The U.S. climate change science program is addressing the
scientific dimensions of these challenges through research,
observations, decision support, and communication. This Federal
Government program, which encompasses the efforts of 13 Federal
agencies, helps prioritize and integrate Federal research on
global climate change. The program's vision, as guided by the
2003 climate change science strategic plan, is to improve the
Nation's ability to manage the risks and opportunities of
climate change and related environmental systems.
For the next 2 years the program will produce a series of
synthesis and assessment reports that describe the state of the
science on a range of key issues. The first report released
this past May addressed the debate about the differences in
detected temperature increases by satellites and surface
observations. The issue has led some to cast doubt about the
magnitude of global warming. Subsequent reports will further
provide important contributions to the Nation's discussions on
climate change.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
testify about this important topic.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Karl follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.094
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Just to try to sort through it all, let me just ask each of
you--Mr. Connaughton, I will start with you--global warming is
a fact; would you agree with that at this point?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. And it is likely to continue over the
next 50 years?
Mr. Connaughton. That is what the scientists tell us.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Karl, would you agree?
Dr. Karl. Yes. We are already committed to, even if we
stopped emitting all greenhouse gases, we are already committed
to approximately another half to 1 degree rise in temperature
because of the heat that has already been absorbed into the
oceans and the resident time of existing atmospheric greenhouse
gases.
Chairman Tom Davis. How much of this is naturally occurring
in the cycle of Earth and how much of this is really man
created?
Dr. Karl. We think most of it is due to man. There are
natural effects such as volcanoes and El Ninos that do have
contributions on global temperatures, but mostly the rise in
temperature is attributed to human influences of the past 30
years.
Chairman Tom Davis. And as you look ahead 30, 50 years,
without an aggressive policy what does this mean for the
planet?
Dr. Karl. Well, in terms of some of the climate activities,
we look toward increasing heavy and extreme precipitation
events, more in the way of heat waves, reduce snow cover and
sea ice, less in the way of cold waves, temperatures in the
winter would warm up, rising sea levels expecting to continue,
and probably at this point in time, when dry weather does occur
on a global basis, the tendency will be for greater evaporation
and potentially greater intensity of droughts, as well.
Chairman Tom Davis. Just in the natural occurring of the
planet in our millions of years of existence, or whatever, we
have had warmings and we have had it cooled and everything
else, and that has changed dramatically the landscape, where
water is, the kind of plants and animals that can survive. What
is the degree of change that we are looking for at this point?
Dr. Karl. I think it is important to keep this in mind
because if you look at the climate about 18,000 years ago, when
we were in the middle of the last full glaciation, global
temperatures were approximately--we don't have precise
measurements--approximately 8 to 10 degrees colder than they
are at the present time. Some of the scenarios for changes in
atmospheric greenhouse composition run well into the end of
this century and into the next century. Some of the scenarios
approach changes of that magnitude, but within a short period
of time, a period of 100, 150 years as opposed to a much longer
time that it has taken for us to recover from the last full
glaciation.
Chairman Tom Davis. So that is a very significant change?
Dr. Karl. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. And, Mr. Connaughton, you have talked
about some of the things that the administration is doing on
this and so on. I think it is important to note that there is a
recognition on the part of the administration that not only is
there global warming, that we are contributors to that, but
that we need to be very proactive. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Connaughton. It goes well beyond recognition. The scale
and scope of what the United States is undertaking in terms of
greenhouse gas mitigation is far beyond anything it has done
before, and the scale of what we are doing as a Nation far
exceeds what any other nation is accomplishing. But we also
have the biggest burden and the biggest obligation. We are the
largest emitter.
But we have promised, as well--I will give you an example.
One of the most potent greenhouse gases, which is methane, is
20 times more potent than CO2, but it also has a shorter
atmospheric lifetime, so taking action on methane gives us an
earlier benefit in terms of its forcing.
The United States has found a way profitably to get an
absolute reduction in methane emissions, so that is something
we have been able to go after aggressively through the 1990's,
and we are carrying that forward, and what we are trying to do
is take that approach international. So there are real
opportunities with respect to some greenhouse gases to
dramatically reverse them.
I will give you another one: PFCs, perfluorocarbons, which
also contribute to ozone depletion. We are in the process, the
United States, of effectively removing them from our economic
system. The aluminum sector has done a really great job of
really cutting their use of PFCs.
So we have some actions where we can really make some
dramatic reductions and then there are others, such as CO2 from
fossil energy generation, that are going to require longer time
horizons, so we need to work on both these really aggressive,
dramatic cuts, and then these more gradual, phased-in cuts.
Chairman Tom Davis. But I think you have been critical of
some of the treaty-based efforts for emissions reductions. Can
you explain why this is true? I mean, many of the other people
we are going to hear from today think the only way that the
climate change can be effectively addressed is through
international cooperation, particularly with the part of the
world stepping on now and industrializing.
Mr. Connaughton. The two main components from an
environmental perspective that have an economic dimension are
the problems with the Kyoto protocol. The Kyoto protocol set
reasonably achievable targets for some countries and set
impossible to achieve targets for other countries. The United
States falls into the category of the impossible to achieve. So
we can't ratify a treaty if we don't have confidence that we
can actually achieve its objectives. We can do a lot toward
achieving those goals, but it was just a wrong deal.
The other problem is----
Chairman Tom Davis. Should we go back and at least try to
get another deal, I mean, if that is not reasonable?
Mr. Connaughton. It is not should we, we already are
embarked on that exercise on a massive scale. Hold that for 1
second, because the other problem is the global participation
issue. If we were to even make halfway progress toward
achieving Kyoto, one of the big outcomes of meeting that goal
would have been a shift of our energy intensive manufacturing
base to countries that don't have targets.
That is bad enough from a jobs and an economic perspective,
but let's just worry about climate change. What we have
effectively done is move our emissions produced in relatively
efficient manufacturing to another country that does it much
less efficiently, so you would likely get a net rise in
greenhouse gases elsewhere. It is like squeezing the end of a
balloon. It just fills out the other end.
So we have to be very careful about a well-intentioned
aspiration creating an unintentional outcome that everybody can
agree on. Simply moving our emissions to another country
doesn't solve the problem. That is why we need to pull back
into this realm of reasonably ambitious, and everybody is
moving at about the same rate. That is what we are doing to the
Asia Pacific partnership. We have six huge countries: the
United States, Japan, South Korea, China, and India.
And then you have the G8 group that Tony Blair pulled
together, which is the G8 countries along with India, China,
Brazil, South Africa, and a few others. That is a pretty
powerful group of countries that have realized that, regardless
of these aspirational targets, how do we break it down into the
several hundred pieces of action that have to occur either
individually or jointly to make the greatest rate of progress.
Again, it is exciting what is going on, because we are
finally talking about real programs of work, not rhetorical
flourishes, not challenges to each other to accomplish things.
We are actually breaking it down into how do we make biodiesel
available worldwide with the same standard. How do we bring
cellulosic ethanol to market in 2010 rather than 2020? These
are the very tangible aspects of progress, and that is
happening. That is what is exciting.
We have a renewable energy and energy efficiency
partnership. Methane to markets has several dozen countries
involved in it trying to do what we do well in the United
States. We capture methane from landfills. In most of the rest
of the world they don't. Imagine. That is profitable.
We capture methane from agricultural waste. In other parts
of the world there is a huge capacity to capture that methane
and make it a clean-burning, profitable energy source. And in
the United States we don't leak natural gas in the environment
from our oil and gas systems and we don't leak methane out of
our coal mines any more. We capture it and convert it to
energy.
All of those are profitable investments with existing
technology that can dramatically cut greenhouse gases. You just
have to roll up your sleeves and work with these other
countries and help them understand this investment opportunity.
Chairman Tom Davis. My time is up.
Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Connaughton, you heard what Dr. Karl had to say on the
state of the science on global warming. Is there anything he
said that you disagree with?
Mr. Connaughton. No.
Mr. Waxman. I am sure you are familiar with the joint
statement on global warming issued last year by the National
Science Academies of 11 countries, including the United States,
Britain, Russia, China, and India. The academies asserted that
climate change is real, there is now strong evidence that
significant global warming is occurring, and it is likely that
most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to
human activities. They also had a call to action saying the
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify nations taking prompt action.
Does the administration disagree with the joint statement
of the national academies, and do you agree that United States
should be taking prompt action?
Mr. Connaughton. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences in
2001 was commissioned by President Bush to give a U.S.
perspective on the climate science, and they released their
report in June 2001, a report that the President issued in his
June 2001 policy statement. The statement that was released by
the joint academy last year is largely a nearly complete
reflection of the report the President, himself, commissioned
and relied on in 2001.
Mr. Waxman. So you agree? The administration's policy is to
agree with this position?
Mr. Connaughton. And let me take it a step further. The
joint----
Mr. Waxman. Well, the problem with taking it a step further
is that I don't get a step further on my questions, so it would
be easier if you could just answer yes or no.
Mr. Connaughton. Let me make clear, not only the President
but the G8 leaders in the Gleaneagle's Plan of Action on
Climate and Clean Development last year jointly received that
report and agreed on the need for urgent action.
Mr. Waxman. OK. Now, in your testimony you tried very hard
to make the case that the administration is doing something
meaningful, and here is why I don't buy it: all of those
programs, initiatives, partnerships, spending aims, all the
things that you enthusiastically reported to us aim to get you
to the President's global warming goal, but that goal actually
allows U.S. emissions of global warming pollution to rise by 14
percent by 2012.
Talking about so-called intensity targets lets you obscure
this basic fact, your plan is to let emissions go up by a lot.
Are you trying to tell us that allowing U.S. emissions to rise
by 14 percent in a decade is prompt action?
Mr. Connaughton. It is significantly better than the
alternative path we were on, which is an even greater rise, Mr.
Waxman. The challenge we face--we faced it with water
pollution, we faced it with air pollution, and I could give you
half a dozen other examples--is step one in any of these
efforts to control a major environmental substance, step one is
to slow the growth through reasonable investment. Step two, and
air pollution is a good example, the efforts in the 1960's and
the early 1970's put us on a path to slow the growth of harmful
air pollutants. It was not until the 1980's----
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Connaughton.
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. It was really not until the
1980's that we were able to stop the growth, and then now, as
we sit here today----
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Connaughton, excuse me.
Mr. Connaughton. Mr. Waxman, let me get the point.
Mr. Waxman. No, no. You excuse me because it is my time to
question you, not for you to give a monologue.
Mr. Connaughton. I am sorry. I thought you were looking for
a complete answer, sir.
Mr. Waxman. Well, complete answers can take volumes, but I
only have 5 minutes, because what you are saying is you are
slowing the growth of emissions as to what they would otherwise
be, but that is only by 3 percent. Your goal barely even slows
the growth of emissions because emissions intensity improved at
about the same rate from 1990 to 2000. These types of shell
games just reinforce the point that the Bush administration has
very little credibility on this issue.
I want to review the administration's actual record, not
rhetoric, on global warming. When President Bush came into
office, one of the first things he did was to backtrack on a
campaign pledge he made to regulate global warming pollution
from power plants. He declared that carbon dioxide is the
greatest contributor to global warming, and then he said it
isn't even a pollutant. He also renounced the Kyoto protocol.
You have already responded to that.
The administration followed this with a tax package that
promoted purchase of gas-guzzling Hummers and other highly
inefficient vehicles and killed efforts to develop super
efficient vehicles in the near term to the partnership for a
new generation of vehicles. Then the administration went to a
world summit on sustainable development and joined forces with
Saudi Arabia in opposing targets and timeframes for increasing
renewable energy worldwide.
And then the administration denied a petition to regulate
greenhouse gases and is still in court defending that decision.
The administration refused to raise efficiency standards for
cars and opposed Senator McCain's modest legislation setting
mandatory caps on global warming, pollution. The Cheney Energy
Task Force, if anything, increased not decreased global warming
pollution. And now the administration is trying to overturn
efforts in California and 10 other States requiring motor
vehicles to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases.
If this is a firm commitment to sensible action, we might
be better off with no action from this administration.
Chairman Tom Davis. You can answer that if you would like,
Mr. Connaughton.
Mr. Connaughton. Some of what you say is factually correct,
contextually out of place, and some of it is a gross
distortion. I will leave it at that, given the fact that Mr.
Waxman doesn't want a long answer from me.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, his time is up, but if you want
to answer it you are welcome to. If not----
Mr. Connaughton. I have a long list. It is hard in my 5
minutes to respond to each of those allegations. I look forward
to further conversations about it.
Mr. Waxman. I would certainly give him an opportunity to
elaborate further because I have made some serious accusations.
Chairman Tom Davis. If you want to take a second, you are
welcome to, and address a couple of the issues.
Mr. Connaughton. Sure. Let's start with CAFE, fuel economy
standards. It was the national energy plan led by Vice
President Cheney that made very clear, based on recommendations
by the National Academy of Sciences, another report that we
commissioned, the Bush administration commissioned, on the need
to get on with improving fuel economy standards, but do it in a
way that doesn't kill people.
CAFE is a 30 year old statute, well intentioned, proved to
have a bad design. The car companies down-weighted cars and we
had more traffic fatalities and thousands of new injuries. The
Academy gave us good advice on how to improve fuel economy
safely. The President called on Congress to lift the rider that
had blocked us from doing fuel economy standards. Secretary
Mineta, a strong Democrat, is the one that pushed for that, the
Secretary of Transportation, and Congress lifted the rider.
We moved forward with the fastest schedule ever to set new
fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs, including
Hummers, for the first time, and we accomplished that goal, and
we did it twice. We set it for 2005 to 2007 and we set a new
set of standards for 2008 to 2011, and that had not been done
in the generation prior.
At the same time, 5 years ago the President called on
Congress to give us the authority to go after passenger cars.
Congress still, 5 years later, has not given us that authority.
We want it. We can make safe improvements in fuel economy in
the passenger sector, too, just like we have done it for light
trucks.
But we didn't stop there. The President called for nearly
$1 billion in tax credits for the most fuel efficient vehicles.
That was also in the national energy plan in 2001. We finally
got that 4 years later in EPAC last year, supported in a
bipartisan basis, which is fabulous.
But we didn't stop there. You said that we have opposed the
new advances in vehicle technologies. That is flatly wrong. In
the State of Union in 2003 the President put hydrogen powered
vehicles on the world stage and has unleashed a massive new
Federal investment, nearly $1.7 billion, the largest, I think,
one of the largest single technology investments the Nation has
committed to. And he has found a way to partner with dozens of
countries internationally, not just to make this a U.S.
initiative, which is what the partnership for a next generation
vehicle was about, but with hydrogen we have made it a global
initiative to create a global opportunity for this zero
emission energy source.
But it didn't stop there. The President also pushed for tax
credits to put more money back in consumers' pockets. The
Republicans in Congress strongly endorsed that package, and if
you look at the vehicle sales that followed those tax rebates
for the purchase of newer, more efficient, higher performing
cars, it was a great outcome from a piece of good economic
policy.
So I will just give you that as one example. I could hit
five of your others with the same set.
There is a popular mythology out there, sir, that we need
to reconcile with this kind of a conversation, and there are
lots of great things we can be doing in a sensible way, so
let's just get on with it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays. We have three votes on, but I am going to go to
another round, get some questions out of the way. We will come
back afterwards.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. I am happy to have my opportunity to
ask questions.
I feel like there was a Faustian agreement between the
manufacturers and labor, manufacturers particularly
representing, tending to be more Republican, laborers tending
to be more Democratic, to not move forward with what just
strikes me as obvious. We exempted minivans, SUVs, and trucks
from the standard, but cars were under it.
There is no logic that they should be exempted, not under,
and I would say to you, Mr. Connaughton, I get the sense that
the administration has been passive on this issue, and
therefore, given the record of the administration, it is going
to be viewed as against it. So clarify the position for me, if
you would.
Mr. Connaughton. Well, on fuel economy, again, we have to
cut against what I call popular mythology and what actually
occurred. The national energy plan of 2001 specifically had as
a component the need to remove the barriers to setting new fuel
economy standards, No. 1, and we called on Congress to do that.
Secretary Mineta sent two letters, and we have statements of
administration position related to various legislative efforts
focused on implementing the National Academy of Science
recommendations. That goes all the way back to 2001. I
personally worked on that. I worked with Norm Mineta on that.
Mr. Shays. Let me just ask you if you could sort of shorten
your answers a bit.
Mr. Connaughton. OK. And then following that we got the
rider lifted on light trucks. On our own initiative we added
large SUVs and Hummers, which were excluded. You are absolutely
right. And we now have fuel economy standards governing those
vehicles for the first time.
Mr. Shays. What are those standards?
Mr. Connaughton. I don't have the precise numbers. It is
about a 15 percent improvement in the near term.
Mr. Shays. Let me just say to you that is where I have my
problem. After September 11th I would have loved this
administration to have said to the environmental community, the
energy community, we are going to be energy independent,
Manhattan project, whatever you want to call it, a race to the
moon, and so I think you would agree, while you have done those
things, it is not the kind of thing where he went out every day
like he did on Social Security and say, you know, this is what
I want.
Therefore, given that in the beginning of this
administration it almost wanted the environmental community to
dislike it so it could be favorable with some--and,
unfortunately, you are faced on the environmental side, but,
you know, you were put in a position. If the administration was
viewed as being pro-environment, some Republicans thought that
was bad. Now we are in the mess we are in. I think that is why
the administration is in the mess it is in. A lot of the good
steps it has taken it will not get credit for because of that.
I want to ask you, there were resolutions on Kyoto, and I
am wondering if you could speak to any of them. There was one
resolution I believe on July 25, 1997 to which the vote was 95
to zero. Are you familiar with that vote?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, I am.
Mr. Shays. Would you explain what that vote was all about?
Mr. Connaughton. That was before the administration went
off to cut the final deal on Kyoto, and the Senate, in a
bipartisan basis, said, don't come back with a deal that has
two problems. One, it is going to really impede economic
growth, so don't come back with a deal that is going to cost us
a lot of jobs. And don't come back with a deal that doesn't
include the major emitters in the developing world.
The administration came back with that deal, a deal that
was bad economically, shifting jobs overseas as I discussed,
and a deal that didn't seriously engage the large developing
country emitters.
The administration, to its credit, spent 4 years trying to
fix it. They did not succeed even when they are in the lame
duck----
Mr. Shays. You are talking about the previous
administration?
Mr. Connaughton. The Clinton administration. Even when they
were in the lame duck period when they could have saddled the
Bush administration with a bad deal, they didn't. So, to their
credit, they knew that they needed to fix those problems, the
economic piece and the developing country piece, and it never
happened.
Mr. Shays. OK. Let me just ask you, Dr. Karl, you are
pretty emphatic. You leave no doubt global warming exists and
mankind is the biggest contributor. That is your statement. I
happen to believe it. Is the debate ended within the
administration about this? Can we put that behind us, no longer
have a debate coming from the administration? Or is this debate
with some Senators, Republicans in the Senate? Is there a
continued debate or is global warming for real and, in fact,
primarily caused by humans?
Dr. Karl. I think there isn't much of a debate. I can speak
probably more reliably in the scientific community about
whether global warming is real and whether humans are having an
impact on it. Where the debate in the science community
currently is focused today is will the changes be at the higher
end of sensitivity to atmospheric changes and greenhouse gases
or at the lower end. That makes a big difference in what I
indicated earlier.
Mr. Shays. Let me just say a concluding sentence. I think
it is dramatic that this is definitively being said to this
committee. If nothing else, just having you two make that
statement is worth a lot, and I thank you both.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Van Hollen, do you want to try to get your 5 minutes
in?
Mr. Van Hollen. Whatever you want to do.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Van Hollen, let me see how many
minutes are left.
I think with your indulgence--we have three votes, we will
get at the end of one. We will be back in about 20 minutes.
Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, I won't be able to come
back. Can I provide questions to both Dr. Karl and Mr.
Connaughton and have them respond to those questions?
Chairman Tom Davis. That would be fine. No problem at all.
They have expressed a willingness to entertain and try to be as
forthcoming as they can on these issues. Mr. Waxman and I are
sending a number of questions up that we didn't have time to
get today. They have agreed to answer.
Thank you very much. We will recess for about 20 minutes.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come back to order.
While I am waiting for Mr. Van Hollen, I just had a
followup.
Dr. Karl, your models are not exact, right? You just take
the variables and plug it in to the best of your ability,
right?
Dr. Karl. Did you say models are not exact?
Chairman Tom Davis. Correct.
Dr. Karl. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. They are models.
Dr. Karl. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. I mean, you have variables, you plug
them in, nobody understands what all the variables were
together. To what percent do you think they are reliable? We
look at this as the best data we can put together, and if you
were given a reliability factor and you are looking ahead 10
years and what happened and how you projected it?
Dr. Karl. For the climate models looking ahead into the
future----
Chairman Tom Davis. I know what our budget models are like
here in Congress, so, I mean, I hope you are doing better than
that.
Dr. Karl. Well, there are two things that cause them to be
in error. One is whether or not the changes that we think might
occur, whether they actually do in terms of changes, for
example, in atmospheric composition, events that are
unforeseen, volcanic emissions, so there are scenarios that are
put in the models that are----
Chairman Tom Davis. May or may not occur?
Dr. Karl. May or may not occur. So that is one source of
uncertainty. The other areas which would cause models to be
less reliable have to do with what we discussed earlier as
their ability to take a complex system, run it in a computer,
and if you had all our understanding in one model you would not
have a computer fast enough to run that model, so you have to
make some assumptions and parameterizations, as the word is
called.
Chairman Tom Davis. But the time line? I think you and Mr.
Connaughton would agree the trend line is essentially correct?
Mr. Connaughton, would you say that the trend line in their
models is one that you would agree with?
Mr. Connaughton. The trend line is at an order of scale in
which you could have relatively high confidence, as the
scientists will tell you about, and we recently published a
report on temperature change that was the first assessment
product that the science panel put out.
But then as we get into these second order issues, that is
when the very important interface between the scientific
community, in terms of what they see physically, but also there
is interface in the policy community and economic community in
terms of what you see in human development, human effects.
There is a lot of interface between projections about that, and
we are constantly building our levels of data into that and our
levels of confidence.
When we talk about the nearly 2 billion to climate science,
a big chunk of it is dedicated to reducing our uncertainties.
Chairman Tom Davis. And how confident are you and Dr. Karl?
You agree with the basic trend, but he hasn't given me a
percentage, and if you don't feel comfortable that is fine.
Mr. Connaughton. I am not qualified actually to express
personal confidence, so I just take----
Chairman Tom Davis. Or unconfidence?
Mr. Connaughton. What we get from the scientific community
as a policymaker is we get some--I call it we get a band width.
They say here is one end of the scale, and here is at the other
end of the scale, and here is our range of confidence. That is
helpful for policymaking, just like a budget projection. We do
that with weather. We do it with air pollution. We have
different levels of capacity to have confidence in those
projections, and climate is probably the most complex puzzle we
are dealing with right now. So you need to accept it in that
mode.
We know enough to commit this incredible program of work
going forward and commit the level of taxpayer resources that
we are putting in this. We know that much. And then we are
constantly learning on how to adjust that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you both for your testimony. Mr. Connaughton, let me also echo
the statements of Mr. Shays with respect to congratulations on
preserving many thousands of acres in the Pacific Ocean around
the Hawaiian islands. I think that was an achievement.
As you know, we get a very short amount of time to ask
these questions, so I am going to ask you, if you could, to
keep your answers brief.
We heard the testimony this morning that you agreed with
the scientific statement that Dr. Karl made. Would you agree it
is important for our political leaders, given the urgency of
this issue, to speak out clearly and let the American people
know that this is a challenge and that the scientific debate on
the issues we discussed this morning is behind us?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, and it is also important to educate
the public on where the science is going in terms of what we
are trying to learn about the effects of climate change.
Mr. Van Hollen. I want to just read a statement that
President Bush gave on July 6th to People Magazine in response
to a question about global climate change. He said, ``I think
we have a problem on global warming. I think there is a debate
about whether it is caused by mankind or whether it is caused
naturally, but it is a worthy debate.''
My understanding is that your testimony this morning is
that that debate is, in fact, over; that, in fact, global
climate change is real; and I understood you to accept the
conclusions of Dr. Karl that in recent times the majority of it
is caused by human activity; is that right?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, and I want to make sure you
understand the context for where we are in our understanding of
science from a policy perspective. There is a lot of agreement
top line on warming, lot of agreement on human contribution to
the problem. We begin to get into issues about the extent to
which humans are a problem. We begin to get into issues of
natural forces and human forces and the effects they cause. So
there is still debate as we get into these lower level issues.
At the top, a lot of agreement.
Mr. Van Hollen. Let me just----
Mr. Connaughton. By the way, that is where the President
is, too.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK.
Mr. Connaughton. He has got a lot of agreement up top and
he is taking the science as we get it.
Mr. Van Hollen. The statement you both made this morning is
the majority of the problem in recent times has been human
contribution. The President's statement does not reflect that.
This is an important issue for the American people, and if the
top political leadership doesn't let the public know that we
are in agreement on this issue I think it is a disservice to
the people of the country. He said he has a debate about
whether--a debate not how much, a debate about whether it is
caused by mankind or whether it is caused naturally.
I don't have time to go into this any more, but that is the
President's statement.
Mr. Connaughton. I need to clarify. The President has said
much more than that, and, in fact, he said very strongly what I
have said to you, so I do not want to leave this hearing with
an impression that the President is somehow in a different
position than what you are hearing from me today because that
would not be correct.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. What I am worried about is the
President's position as the last person who talked to him on
this issue. I am sorry, but that is my statement, not yours,
and I understand what you are saying. But this kind of
statement in the most recent issue, one of the most recent, in
People Magazine, which is read by millions of people, would
give you the impression that hey, we really haven't reached a
scientific consensus on what I understand we have reached a
consensus on, based on the testimony you both gave this
morning.
Mr. Connaughton. And I would disagree with that
characterization.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Thank you. I said it was mine.
In the 2002 energy bill--so now we have a consensus we have
a problem. Now we have to figure out what we are going to do
about it.
Now, in the 2002 energy bill Senator Brownback put a
provision in that would have required large companies to
disclose their greenhouse emissions. The administration, the
Bush administration's statement or position on that bill
opposed that provision, simply requiring them to report their
emission levels. Can you explain why we would not want to know
what they were?
Mr. Connaughton. We went back and forth on the appropriate
mechanism for work with the industry. We didn't think a
mandatory reporting system, per se, made a lot of sense, given
the fact we already had a functioning program that had been
working since 1992.
What the President wanted to do was improve and fix that
program, which we have now done. Just this year we have
completed all the protocols for actually state-of-the-art,
industry-wide reporting on greenhouse gases. We then create a
climate vision that got the major emitting sectors making
specific greenhouse gas reduction commitments. They are not
just saying what they are doing, but making commitments to
reduce, and all of that infrastructure is now underway, so I
think we are there.
Mr. Van Hollen. Is it your testimony we now know the amount
of greenhouse gases being emitted by American industry on a
per-company basis?
Mr. Connaughton. Yes. We know it on a macro basis and we
have good data sector by sector, and we are getting better data
company by company, and that is what our new 1605(b) guidelines
are going to incentivize.
Mr. Van Hollen. Let me ask you, California, as you know,
has set a law that set greenhouse gas emission standards for
automobiles. Ten other States said that they are prepared to
follow suit. The Governor of California I believe is a strong
proponent of this bill. Can you tell me what the
administration's position is on that?
Mr. Connaughton. To the extent the program is the
equivalent of setting a fuel economy standard, the courts have
made clear that is preempted by the CAFE law, which was enacted
by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Jimmy Carter
back in the 1970's, saying if we are going to have a fuel
economy standard it needs to occur on a nationwide basis
because of the huge market disruptions that would occur by
doing in a State by State basis.
Mr. Van Hollen. Let me ask you, would you adopt the
California legal provisions as a national policy, you, the
administration? What would your position be on doing that?
Mr. Connaughton. We do not support that as national policy;
we support the CAFE program under the reform system that we
have now implemented and that is enjoying broad support. And,
by the way, we support fuel economy in the automobile fleet in
all 50 States, not just in a handful of States.
Mr. Van Hollen. If I could, Mr. Chairman, that is why I
asked you. You said you objected to the California provision on
some legal technicality, and the CAFE standard, so my question
was: are you prepared to amend the national CAFE standard law
and essentially put in place at the national level the
California law? You would agree that would get better--that
would improve our ability to reduce carbon dioxide emissions,
would you not?
Mr. Connaughton. We don't need to adopt the California law
as national law because we have a national law for setting fuel
economy standards, and that is the corporate average fuel
economy statute.
Mr. Van Hollen. I understand that. Mr. Chairman, if I could
just, I mean, obviously the people of California have decided
that is not adequate to achieve the reductions they want, and
they want to move ahead as a State. You say you are opposed to
that because it is superseded by CAFE, but you are unwilling to
increase CAFE to get the same kind of emission reductions that
the California law would provide for; is that right?
Mr. Connaughton. You are comparing apples and oranges. What
we have done is set standards for the period through 2011. The
California program goes well beyond that. We have made no
decision as to what happens after 2011 because the CAFE statute
requires an administrative process led by technical experts on
product design and on economics to figure out the rate that
makes the most sense, given those factors that Congress--again,
on a bipartisan basis, including some Members who were around
back then for part of the creation of that statute. We have a
process for doing that.
California seeks to leap ahead and do it arbitrarily. We
think it is much better to do it through a process that is
based on the facts and the economic evidence and the technical
evidence.
Mr. Waxman. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Van Hollen. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Waxman. As a Californian and as someone who was here to
pass that law and the Clean Air Act, the whole premise of the
Clean air Act was modeled on the fact that California had taken
the lead on trying to reduce emissions that cause smog and
other pollutants that cause health problems. Here California
wants to take the lead on responding to this global warming
climate change issue, and yet the Republican administration
that at least rhetorically talks about local decisionmaking
wants to keep the local State of California from going ahead of
the Federal Government. I do believe that Mr. Van Hollen was
correct when he characterized it as using a loophole that the
industry has suggested is a basis for challenging it, rather
than let the States do actions on its own.
Are you against any experimentation at the State level or
do you think Washington knows best for everybody?
Mr. Connaughton. We actually strongly support work at the
State level to the extent it is not preempted by Federal law.
In this specific example there is probably a clear case of
preemption, but also I would be concerned, Congressman, about--
--
Mr. Waxman. It is not a clear case of preemption. It is the
preemption argument that the administration is making along
with the industry to throw it out.
Mr. Connaughton. Actually, we already had the one round on
the preemption argument with respect to the California zero
emission vehicle mandate and the court threw that out. But I
would also be cautious about using California as an example
because California often has rhetoric that exceeds its results.
California did lead early on in cutting air pollution, but as
we sit here today California's air quality is the worst in the
Nation and they have no prayer of meeting the current air
quality standards. So I want to be careful when separating,
again, well intentioned, you know, although, maybe unsupported
objective with real programs designed to achieve reasonably
ambitious outcomes that we have some confidence in attaining.
Chairman Tom Davis. This panel has got to leave. I promised
12:30. Let me give Mr. Kucinich a couple of questions. He is
coming in. Can you bear with that, Mr. Connaughton, and then we
will move to the next panel.
Mr. Kucinich. I thank the chairman. I thank the Chair for
holding this hearing.
Mr. Connaughton, many European leaders are taking their
cues from science which is unambiguous on one point: to
stabilize the climate requires humanity worldwide cut emissions
by 70 to 80 percent. As a result, Holland is now cutting
emissions by 80 percent in 40 years. Mr. Blair has committed
the U.K. to cutting by 60 percent in 50 years. Germany has
obligated itself to cuts of 50 percent in 50 years.
Several months ago French President Chirac called on the
entire industrial world to cut emissions 75 percent by 2050.
How long would it take for the United States to reach a goal of
emissions reductions of 75 percent below current levels with
the administration's current policies?
Mr. Connaughton. You weren't here earlier, Congressman. I
want to sort of differentiate between very good, solid
aspirations for what we might achieve 50 years from now from
sort of the hard-nosed what can we achieve in reasonable
timeframes and have some confidence and success.
Mr. Kucinich. Well, we breathe through hard noses.
Mr. Connaughton. Yes, we do. I do, as well. So when you
ask, we are on track to significantly slowing the growth of
emissions in the near term. I personally have high confidence
that we will stop the growth of emissions, especially if we
make real progress on getting nuclear power back into our
energy mix and if we can find a way to commercialize the zero
emission coal plants. Those are two big breakthroughs for which
there are huge policy obstacles right now.
Mr. Kucinich. It is kind of interesting you would say that,
because the very notion of greenhouse gas intensity gives the
administration cover to claim credit for reduction of
greenhouse gases, and that simply isn't true. So-called
greenhouse intensity or gas intensity would have gone down
simply because of efficiency gains, alone. So I am going to ask
you again: what levels of greenhouse gases do we need to
achieve for our own well-being, and how quickly must we achieve
them? I am asking you a second time.
Mr. Connaughton. Well, to take the first part of your
question, it is clear that massive new investments in
efficiency are actually helping us to dramatically slow the
growth of greenhouse gas emissions, and it is resulting from
billions and billions of dollars of private sector investment,
aided by good Government policies--bipartisan Government
policies, I would add.
In terms of what will it take until we stop and what will
it take to get to the levels that you described, I can't give
you an answer right now. There is not a basis for giving an
answer.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you. But I think it is important to
give that answer. I mean, we have other nations that are giving
answers, and I think it is important if we are going to see the
good faith of the administration on this issue of greenhouse
gas reduction. Other nations are declaring targets, shouldn't
we?
One section of the GAO report boasts of funnelling millions
of dollars in subsidies for nuclear power, but using nuclear
power to effect any meaningful reduction in greenhouse gases
would cost trillions of dollars. Renewable technologies, on the
other hand, are much more cost effective to implement. Could
you tell me and this committee why does the administration
favor nuclear power over renewables, despite the poor economics
of nuclear power?
Mr. Connaughton. We don't favor one or the other. We need a
lot more of both. The cost profile on the renewable, many
renewable sources right now are more expensive than their
fossil counterparts, but they can be installed rapidly, so that
is why you have seen States like Texas, huge investment in wind
power, and that is fabulous. At the same time, nuclear power
plants are really expensive to build but really cheap to
operate, but they take longer to install. So you just have two
very different economic platforms, which is why the policies
directed at nuclear are different than the incentives directed
at renewables.
But I would note, Congressman----
Mr. Kucinich. Let me ask you----
Mr. Connaughton [continuing]. This Congress on a bipartisan
basis----
Mr. Kucinich. I want to note something. You are talking a
cost/benefit analysis here.
Mr. Connaughton. No, I am not, sir.
Mr. Kucinich. Well, I hope you are, because are you taking
into account in your underlying assumptions the cost of nuclear
waste, which is stored and never disposed of? Do you take that
into account in terms of the cost of nuclear power, or do you
write that off the books?
Mr. Connaughton. No. In terms of the total life cycle of
cost we do take that into account.
Mr. Kucinich. Storage?
Mr. Connaughton. Storage. But what we have moving forward
right now, plank one occurred in the Energy Policy Act, but we
are trying to get to a new regime on the waste management and
storage issue that would dramatically cut the cost of both
management and storage. That has not been factored in, but if
we can make success there then the cost profile of nuclear
becomes even better. And by the way, it is safer and more
proliferation resistant, and that is really good.
Mr. Kucinich. Do you take into account the nuclear
proliferation aspects of national security when you are talking
about promoting nuclear technologies as opposed to safe,
renewable technology? Do you factor that cost?
Mr. Connaughton. The answer is yes. You can do it in a
qualified way. As a matter of policy, Secretary Bodman, shortly
after the State of the Union this year, launched the new global
nuclear energy partnership which is directed specifically at
the important issue of proliferation. I think the objectives of
that program would be very consistent with some of the current
concerns I have heard you voice in the past, Congressman, about
nuclear power.
One other observation as to the other countries. While they
all have--some of them have these long-term aspirational goals.
You missed my earlier testimony. When you look at what they are
actually doing, the rate of progress that they are making
today, it is the case that the rate of progress in those key
countries in Europe, here, and Asia we are all making about the
same near-term rate of progress.
By the way, that is a good thing because it is an improved
rate of progress, but you still have to differentiate a 50 year
articulated goal, you know, for which the current political
actors will not be around to see achieved, from what they are
actually doing as a matter of policies to produce specific
results. The results are good, but we are all pulling in the
same direction at about the same rate.
Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. And, Mr. Connaughton, thank
you very much for your testimony and elaborating on the
administration's plan.
Mr. Connaughton. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Karl, thank you. Did you want to
add one thing?
Dr. Karl. Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a little
more direct answer to the question on reliability of climate
models. I think they are reliable enough to be a very useful
guide into the future, and we have improved them considerably
in the last couple of decades.
Chairman Tom Davis. I do not think there is any
disagreement from Mr. Connaughton either. I just tried to get a
percent. It is tough, given all the variables. That is all I
was trying to get. I wasn't trying to discredit you. We
appreciate all the work that you are doing.
I will dismiss this panel and we will now recognize our
second panel.
We will have Dr. Judith Curry, the Chair of the School of
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology; Dr. John R. Christy, professor and director, Earth
System Science Center at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville; Dr. Roger Pielke, the Center for Science and
Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at
Boulder; and Dr. Jay Gulledge, senior research fellow for
science and impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Curry, we will start with you and
we will move right on down. Your entire testimony is in the
record, so what you say, you can supplement or highlight for
the audience, the cameras, and the Members, but we are going to
ask questions based on the total testimony.
You have a light in front of you. It turns green when you
start, orange after 4 minutes, and red after 5. To the extent
we can keep with that, we would appreciate it. Thank you.
Welcome to the committee, and thank you.
STATEMENTS OF JUDITH CURRY, CHAIR, SCHOOL OF EARTH AND
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY; JOHN R.
CHRISTY, PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR, EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER,
NSSTC, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE; ROGER A. PIELKE,
JR., CENTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY RESEARCH,
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT BOULDER; JAY GULLEDGE, SENIOR
RESEARCH FELLOW FOR SCIENCE & IMPACTS, PEW CENTER ON GLOBAL
CLIMATE CHANGE
STATEMENT OF JUDITH CURRY
Dr. Curry. Thank you.
I would like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and
the committee for the opportunity to present testimony today.
My name is Judith Curry, and I am the Chair of the School
of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of
Technology, and I have been conducting climate research for the
past 20 years. Most recently, I have been conducting research
on the subject of hurricanes and global warming.
The prospect of increased hurricane activity on a warmer
climate is an issue of substantial societal concern. In my
written statement I have outlined in some detail the evidence
for the impact of global warming on increased hurricane
activity. In my testimony today I will focus on presenting the
data, the documents that interpret the increase in hurricane
activity. All of the data that I am presenting is publicly
available from NOAA, and most of this information is already
published in peer reviewed scientific journals.
[Slide presentation.]
Dr. Curry. Let's begin by examining the historical data
record of north Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1851. This
figure shows the numbers of named storms in blue, hurricanes in
red, and category four and five hurricanes in green.
To highlight the decadal and longer-term variability, the
data has been smoothed to eliminate the year to year
variabilities such as that from El Nino.
Some cycles are apparent in data, but the most striking
aspect is the particularly high level of activity since 1995.
If you compare the statistics for the most recent decade with
the previous decade of peak activity centered around 1950, it
would seem that the current period has 50 percent more name
storms, 50 percent more hurricanes, and 50 percent more
category four and five storms than the previous peak period.
This figure shows the total named storms in blue overlain
by the average tropical sea surface temperature in red. The
period 1910 to 1920, with low storm activity, was associated
with anomalously cool sea surface temperatures in the north
Atlantic. The most recent period of elevated activity is
associated with anomalously high sea surface temperatures. On
average, an increase in temperature a half a degree centigrade,
which is 1 degree fahrenheit, implies an additional five
tropical storms per season.
Let's take a closer look at the cycles. A 70 year cycle
referred to as the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation, is
evident from peaks around 1880 and 1950 and valleys around 1915
and 1985. Also evident is a smaller 20 year cycle.
Examination of the cyclic variations indicates that the
next peak in the cycle is expected around 2020; hence, it
appears that these cyclical variations cannot explain the high
level of north Atlantic activity we have seen in the past
decade, 50 percent higher than the previous peak in 1950.
What does this increase mean for the United States in terms
of land-falling hurricanes? In this plot of the number of land-
falling storms, the 70 and 20 year cycles are clearly seen.
Recall the peak in the current 70 year cycle is expected around
2020. While we are presently 15 years from the peak in this
current natural cycle, the number of land-falling storms in the
past decade has already surpassed the previous peak period in
the 1930's to 1950's.
If we cannot explain the recent elevated hurricane activity
by natural cyclic variability, can we therefore assume the
increase is caused by greenhouse warming? Prior to the 2005
hurricane season, Dr. Kevin Trenberth published commentary in
Science raising the issue as to whether the recent increase in
north Atlantic hurricane activity could be attributed to global
warming.
I was skeptical of this idea at the time, since it did not
seem reasonable to infer anything about the impact of global
warming merely by examining data in the north Atlantic.
Trenberth's paper motivated our group at Georgia Tech to
examine the global hurricane data that was available from the
satellite data base since 1970.
A paper published in Science last September showed that,
while there has been no increase globally in the number of
hurricanes since 1970, the proportion of category four and five
hurricanes has doubled. These are the most intense hurricanes.
This implies that the distribution of hurricane intensity has
shifted toward more intense hurricanes.
The two dominant factors that determine hurricane intensity
are the tropical sea surface temperature and vertical wind
shear. The figure on the left shows the change in tropical sea
surface temperatures for each of the regions where hurricanes
formed. Since 1970, there has been an increase of 1 degree
fahrenheit in each of these regions. By contrast, the figure on
the right shows that there has been no trend in wind shear. Our
research has shown that the global increase in category four
and five hurricanes since 1970's is directly linked to the
trend in tropical sea surface temperature.
What is causing the increase in global tropical sea surface
temperatures? This tropical warming is consistent with a
similar increase in global surface temperatures, which is shown
by the black curve in the figure. The cause and attribution of
surface temperature trends over the last century has been
extensively studied, as summarized in numerous assessment
reports using the results of climate model simulations, as
described previously by Tom Karl.
The results from one such climate model from the National
Center for Atmospheric Research are shown in this figure. The
blue curve shows the response of the global surface temperature
only from the natural forcing, solar, plus volcanoes. The red
curve shows the response to natural forcing plus that caused by
humans, including greenhouse gases. It has seen that since
1970's the global surface temperature trend in black cannot be
reproduced in climate models without inclusion of greenhouse
warming.
So what can we conclude at this point about hurricanes and
global warming? This research that we publish is new. Numerous
uncertainties remain in our understanding of how global warming
is influencing hurricane activity; however, particularly in the
north Atlantic, where warmer sea surface temperatures cause
more intense hurricanes, as well as more numerous storms,
global warming is expected to continue to elevate the risk from
hurricanes.
[End of slide presentation.]
Dr. Curry. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Curry follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.107
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Dr. Curry.
Dr. Christy, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY
Dr. Christy. Thank you, Chairman Davis and Ranking Member
Waxman and committee members, who evidently are not here. I am
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of
the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. I am also an Alabama State climatologist.
I recently served as the lead author of the Climate Change
Science Program's Reporter [CCSP], on temperature trends, and
was a panelist on the National Academy of Science's Report on
Temperature Reconstructions for the Past 2,000 years.
I will be reporting today on research I have completed over
the past 2 years that has just appeared or will be appearing
shortly in publications. In one paper my research shows that in
central California the changes in temperature indicate a
pattern more closely related to land use changes rather than
the effects anticipated by the greenhouse theory. Two other
papers deal with atmospheric temperatures and indicate that the
atmosphere is apparently warming at a more modest rate than
projected by a greenhouse theory.
Earlier this year I and three co-authors published a paper
on temperature trends in central California since 1910. This
was actually a followup to work I did as a teenager growing up
in San Joaquin Valley some 40 years ago when all I had was a
pencil, graph paper, a slide rule, and a fascination for
climate. This new work, though, was sponsored by the National
Science Foundation.
What drew my attention to central California now was the
apparent rapid rise in night time temperatures in the valley
being warmer than any I remembered as a teenager. In my written
testimony I described in more detail how that work was
accomplished, but let me say here that there was a lot of
manual digitization of paper records. We utilized literally 10
times the amount of data of any previous study in this region.
We discovered that, indeed, since 1910 the night time
temperatures in the valley had warmed remarkably, about 6
degrees in summer and fall, while the daytime temperatures in
the valley actually fell 3 degrees in those seasons. This night
time warming is consistent with the effects of urbanization and
massive growth in irrigation around the 18 stations we used.
The cooling daytime temperatures are also consistent with
irrigation.
But the real surprise was the temperature record of the 23
stations in the Sierra foothills and mountains. We found no
change in temperature since 1910. Now, irrigation and
urbanization have not affected the foothills and mountains to
any large extent, but evidently nothing else had, either.
Those temperature observations did not match the output
given by models which included greenhouse effects specifically
down-scaled for California. These models show that the Sierras
should have warmed more rapidly than the valley.
While these results are provocative, we will, of course,
await more analysis. That is the way science works. However, we
performed four ways to check potential errors of these trends
and found that the night time warming in the valley was
significant in all cases, but the changes in the Sierras were
not. These results don't agree with the current greenhouse
warming theory when applied to this region.
While the bottom line here is that models have shortcomings
in reproducing the type of regional changes that apparently
have occurred, this also implies that they would be ineffective
at projecting future changes with confidence, especially as a
test of the effectiveness of certain policies.
Now, there was considerable media attention given to the
CCSP report about temperature trends at the surface and those
in the lower atmosphere up to about 35,000 feet. Much of it, in
my view, was misrepresented, they misrepresented the report,
and in my written testimony I deal with some of those issues.
The basic question that CCSP addressed was whether actual
temperature trends in the atmosphere were warming faster than
the surface, because that is a feature of climate model
projections. The number of observational data sets, or a number
of observational data sets, indicate a slower rate of
atmospheric warming than models project. My new research
sponsored by the Department of Energy, Department of
Transportation, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration seeks to answer questions left open by the CCSP.
In these studies, I included new observational data sets
and more formally assessed errors and uncertainties. In both
papers we show that atmospheric trends indeed appear to be less
positive than greenhouse theory projects, especially in the
tropics, which represent fully one-third of the Earth.
Now what does this mean? That greenhouse gases are
increasing in concentration is clearly true, and therefore they
will have an impact on the radiation budget of the atmosphere.
In our observational work we have not been able to show clear
support for the way this effect is being depicted in the
present set of climate models.
To policymakers my point is the following: we cannot
reliably project the trajectory of the climate for large
regions--United States, for example--it would be far more
difficult to reliably predict the effects of a policy that
altered by a tiny amount any greenhouse emissions. The evidence
I presented here is consistent with that view.
Now, I feel I have some expertise not common to the average
scientist that I believe is important to the whole discussion
of climate change. In the 1970's I taught science and math in
Africa as a missionary teacher, and I observed the energy
system there. The energy source was wood chopped from the
forest. The energy transmission system was the backs of women
and girls. The energy use system was burning the wood in an
open fire indoors for heat and light. The consequence of that
energy system was deforestation and habitat loss, while for
people it was poor respiratory and eye health.
The U.N. estimates 1.6 million women and children die each
year from the effects of this indoor smoke. That is 1.6 million
die each year now due to this primitive energy system. So the
energy system will grow, as it should, to allow these people to
experience the advances in health and prosperity that we in
this country enjoy. They are far more vulnerable to impacts of
poverty and political strife than whatever the climate system
might do.
I simply close with a plea: please remember the needs and
aspirations of the poorest among us when policy is made.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Christy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.112
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Dr. Pielke.
STATEMENT OF ROGER A. PIELKE, JR.
Dr. Pielke. Thank you, Chairman Davis, for the opportunity
to offer testimony today. My name is Roger Pielke, Jr. I am a
professor of environmental studies at the University of
Colorado, where I studied the intersection of science and
policy.
I would like to start by reading a quote by former
Representative James Scheuer, 1992, who was speaking at a
hearing not unlike this one. He was speaking to representatives
of the Federal research community. He said, ``How much longer
do you think it will take before the Nation's climate
researchers are able to hone down their conclusions to some
very simple recommendations on tangible, specific action
programs that are rational and sensible and cost effective for
us to take, justified by what we already know?''
The main message of my testimony is that the questions
about what actions on climate change make sense in the short
term raised by Congressman Scheuer remain largely unanswered 16
years later. Until we better organize the climate science and
technology enterprise to focus on policy options for the short
term, the climate debate is likely to remain in its present
gridlock.
I am going to quickly go through eight take-home points in
my testimony that are spelled out in far more detail than I can
present here.
No. 1, human-caused climate change is real and requires
attention by policymakers to both mitigation and adaptation,
but there is no quick fix. The issue will be with us for
decades and longer. The IPCC has concluded that greenhouse gas
emissions resulting from human activity are an important driver
of changes in climate, and on this basis alone I am personally
convinced that it makes sense to take action to limit
greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the answer to what action
is not at all straightforward. It involves questions of on what
time scales, at what cost, with what consequences, with what
foregone opportunities, and what mix of adaptation and
mitigation.
Two is a very important point: any conceivable emissions
reductions policies, even if successful, cannot have a
perceptible impact on the climate for many decades. The long
lead time until mitigation could have a perceptible effect on
the climate system seem to be well appreciated by many
scientists and policy analysts, but seems less well appreciated
in the public and political debate over climate change.
It is quite easy to postulate various alternative scenarios
for future emissions, but at the same time it is similarly
quite easy to discuss various scenarios for global poverty,
democracy in Iraq, or the future state of the deficit. What
matters for real world outcomes are not future scenarios but
concrete, rational policy actions.
No. 3, the cost of action, whatever they may be, are born
in the near term and the benefits are achieved in the distant
future. Due to the properties of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and their effects on the climate system, even if
society takes immediate and drastic action on emissions there
could be no scientifically valid argument that such actions
will lead to a perceptibly better climate in coming decades.
The point of this analysis is not to throw up our hands and
do nothing about mitigation, but the asymmetry in costs and
benefits suggests that if meaningful action is to occur on
mitigation we must think about different strategies, and in
particular policy options that have more symmetry between the
timing of costs and benefits.
I fully intend that this perspective be viewed as an
alternative to the two-sided debate that has been caricatured
as climate skeptics versus climate alarmists. Perhaps those
holding this third position might be characterized as climate
realists.
No. 4, many policies that result in a reduction in
emissions also provide benefits in the short term that are
unrelated to climate change. Examples of such short-term issues
related to mitigation include addressing the cost of energy,
the benefits of reducing reliance on fossil fuels from the
middle east, the innovation and job-creating possibilities of
alternative energy technologies, reducing particulate air
pollution, increasing transportation efficiencies, and so on.
In coming decades, the only policies that can effectively
be used to manage the immediate effects of climate variability
and change will be adaptive. For example, even accepting a
large role for human-caused influences on hurricane
intensities, greenhouse gas mitigation offers little prospect
for significantly reducing future hurricane damages.
No. 6, climate policy, particularly international climate
policy under the Framework Convention on Climate Change has
been structured so as to keep policy related to the long-term
climate change distinct from policies related to shorter-term
issues of energy policy and adaptation.
No. 7, following this political organization of
international climate change policy, research agendas have
emphasized the long term, meaning that relatively very little
attention is paid to developing specific policy options or
near-term technologies that might be put into place with both
short-term and long-term benefits. The U.S. global change
research program and its successors, the climate change science
program, have never placed the needs of decisionmakers at the
center of their mission, focusing instead on advancing
scientific understandings or reducing uncertainties.
Part of the explanation for the situation lies in the fact
that the scientific community has benefited immensely from the
current approach, and an emphasis on short-term policy and
technological options would necessarily imply a different
approach to climate science and technology policy priorities.
Another part of the explanation is that it is quite easy
for policymakers to put the burden of solving the problem onto
the scientific community, which also has the effect of using
research policies as a substitute for other types of action.
With political advocates on either side of the issue also
looking to science as a leading element of their public
relations and political lobbying campaigns, it should be no
surprise that scientific and technological research on climate
has focused on long-term issues over the generation of
practical options for short-term considerations.
Eight, finally, the climate debate may have begun to slowly
reflect these realities, but the research and development
community has not yet focused much attention on developing
policy and technological options that might be politically
viable, cost effective, and practically feasible. I am
convinced that as people begin to see the limited performance
of existing approaches to emissions reductions and as the toll
of climate-related disasters grow due to ever-increasing
vulnerabilities, there will be a shift to a more short-term
focused approach to climate mitigation and adaptation. However,
given the institutional and political momentum which currently
characterize the climate issue, there is a substantial risk
that the issue will continue to display sound and fury, with
most action being symbolic or simply ineffectual.
The question is whether we can organize our intellectual
infrastructure to invent and bring forward policy and
technological options that will satisfy both the short-term and
long-term facets of this incredibly complex issue.
Through oversight of the climate change science program and
the climate change technology program, Congress might motivate
the evolution of these programs to focus more explicitly on the
needs of decisionmakers.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Pielke follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.127
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Dr. Gulledge.
STATEMENT OF JAY GULLEDGE
Dr. Gulledge. Mr. Chairman and ranking member and members
of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity.
I just want to clarify that while I am replacing Dr. Hansen
on the panel, I am not representing him, and my testimony is my
own.
Chairman Tom Davis. We appreciate your coming on short
notice.
Dr. Gulledge. Thank you. I appreciate that.
[Slide presentation.]
Dr. Gulledge. I am senior research fellow for science and
impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, as well as
an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Louisville,
which houses my academic research program on carbon cycling.
Dr. Karl sat up here earlier and gave you some very
affirmative questions and exhibited a lot of certainty about
some things for the science, and I want to give you a sense for
why the science in recent years has really become quite solid
and scientists have become quite certain about the causes of
climate change.
I would summarize the progress as under two broad
categories: reductions of uncertainties and observed changes in
the climate itself.
Dr. Karl showed you that the global surface temperature
has, in fact, risen over the 20th century, and it has increased
by about 1.4 degrees fahrenheit over this time.
We see the same pattern of warming in the Arctic, and we
see that it is amplified there. The warming there has been on
the order of 2 degrees or more. Currently, even though we had
quite a warm period during the 20th century in the Arctic, we
see that we have exceeded that significantly at this point.
We see the same kind of pattern for sea surface
temperatures. This is just an example from the tropical
Atlantic. Again, the current temperatures there have exceeded
the warm period during the middle of the 20th century.
Not only are we the warmest time in this past century, a
number of efforts have been made to document the temperature
trends over the last thousand years. None of these attempts
have been able to show that there has been a time that it was
as warm in the past thousand years as we currently see.
Now, these next two slides are very fundamental to what I
am trying to communicate here about reduced uncertainties.
First, I show a picture here of Antarctica, but globally there
has been an intensification of the water cycle of glaciers,
both in mountains as well as polar ice in the north and in the
south. Back in the 1980's it was predicted that you should see
an intensification of the water cycle, which means more
snowfall in the high elevations of glaciers and more melting at
the low elevations of glaciers. This has not been confirmed
globally. We see it in Greenland, we see it in Antarctica, and
we see it in mountain glaciers around the world, including the
tropics.
This was predicted more than two decades ago based on
specifically how the greenhouse effect should drive changes in
glaciers around the world. More recently, this year it has also
been documented that the atmosphere above Antarctica has warmed
dramatically relative to the rest of the world, and we weren't
sure about that before and now we actually have that
confirmation.
This slide is also very important. Also recently, data on
the heat content of the ocean over the last 50 years has been
compiled, and we now see that the ocean has been gaining heat
over the last 50 years, at least--that is where we start the
record--and this is an immense amount of energy. You cannot get
it from anywhere else in the climate system. It has to come
from outside the climate system and it is consistent with what
we call an external forcing. There are not many external
forcings that we can think of. During this time, for instance,
there has been no apparent increase in the intensity of the
sun, but this is when the most increases occurred in greenhouse
gases.
Now, when you have greenhouse forcing, most of the energy
getting trapped goes first into the ocean, more than 80 percent
of it, and it is here. This warming you see here is what we
call the warming in the pipeline. This energy will equilibrate
with the atmosphere later. There is about another 1 degree of
warming trapped in here already. And we already see that the 1
degree of warming we have had in the past 50 years has already
caused the immense continent of Antarctica to respond.
Now, the consequences are numerous. I am focusing on global
changes here. Mountain glaciers around the world have reacted
to these changes in climate, and here we have a reconstruction
of glacier lengths related through a physical model, a
mathematical physical model to surface temperature. These are
glaciers from around the world. We see that in the 20th century
it starts here in the little Ice Age and remains stable until
1850, and then glaciers begin to retreat. This accelerates
dramatically in the 20th century, and glaciers respond to the
small changes that we see, global changes that we see during
the 20th century. So this tells us that, in fact, the climate
is quite sensitive, even to the relatively small climate change
that is already in the bag.
Next we see that the arctic ice, sea ice, has reached its
lowest recorded extent in the year 2005.
Greenland, according to the latest measurements, which have
some uncertainty, is apparently having a net loss of ice. First
observations of Antarctica suggest the same. This was published
just this year. The point of all of this is that we are seeing
all these impacts globally.
Finally, the next slide shows that we have finally--one of
the uncertainties was whether or not sea level rise was
accelerating. You definitely should expect that. Over the last
decade, the rate of sea level rise has been 70 percent faster,
based on satellite measurements, than the average over the 20th
century, which does suggest that there has been an
acceleration. Time will tell whether that is a persistent
effect. Right now the rate of sea level rise would give us 1
foot of additional sea level rise by 2100 without further
acceleration.
To sum up, we have had reduced uncertainties. We now know
that the warming is truly global, even over Antarctica, which
was a big question. Warming has reached historic proportions.
Glacier water cycle intensification is occurring globally. The
ocean is known to be gaining heat, and sea level rise appears
to be accelerating.
Finally, the observed changes in the climate tell us that,
in fact, the climate system globally is quite sensitive to
these levels of changes, and so far the changes are small
compared to what is projected for the future as a result of
greenhouse gas forcing. We see global glacier loss
accelerating. The Arctic Ocean may be heading for an ice free
condition, according to recent research. The changes generally
have been faster than expected, which tells us we have probably
also underestimated the sensitivity of the climate system in
the past. That is based on the warming we have had so far, and
we know we have a similar amount of warming already in the
pipeline.
[End of slide presentation.]
Dr. Gulledge. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Gulledge follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.136
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Dr. Christy, Dr. Gulledge points to reduced uncertainties.
Is that consistent with your new studies?
Dr. Christy. Reduced sensitivities about what?
Chairman Tom Davis. Just generally the issues on climate
change and the variables, accuracy of data.
Dr. Christy. In our work we start looking at climate on the
ground and in the air. We see continued uncertainties, that
there are significant differences between model projections in
these places I have shown. There are some other examples in
there, too, in the regional scale aspects of climate.
The global average temperature, that is a different story,
but remember that all climate modelers knew what the answer was
ahead of time when they began reproducing the last 100 years or
so.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Curry, we are policymakers. We are
not scientists. Mr. Waxman and I are lawyers. We do the best we
can. But in the 1980's you called yourself a skeptic about
global warming, but your research has now directed you away
from that, but NOAA disagrees with some of your findings on
hurricanes. Is there any way to reach a consensus on this to
get everybody around and reach a consensus?
Dr. Curry. The issue of hurricanes and global warming has
received intense scrutiny for only about the past year, and
that is sort of relatively new. Now, these things have to go
back and forth. We have to survive challenges by skeptics, etc.
I think the subject is rife for an assessment by a body such as
the National Academy of Sciences to get an independent body of
scientists who can assess the evidence, the data, the quality
of the data, the published research that has been done, to make
some sort of an assessment and recommendation for clarifying
the uncertainties.
You know, too much of this debate is going on in the media
and it has been polarized beyond anything that makes sense in
terms of the actual science. I think we do need an assessment.
The National Academy of Science Climate Research Committee and
Board on Atmospheric and Science Research has proposed such an
assessment. They have not yet identified funding. I encourage
this committee to encourage such an assessment so we can at
least sort out the evidence that we have so far and try to make
sense of it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Pielke, in your testimony you
stated that available research and experience shows quite
clearly that progress is far more likely when actions align a
short-term focus with the longer-term concerns. I wonder if you
could kind of elaborate on that?
Dr. Pielke. Yes. In my testimony I refer to some research
that was done looking at some of the State and local
initiatives related to climate change mitigation. The question
was: what makes these successful? When do they work? When do
they go beyond the statement of aspirations into actual
progress on the ground? What those researchers found was that
when those local government entities were able to line up--and
this holds true for companies, as well--their short-term
motivations, whether it is reducing the cost of energy,
improving transportation efficiencies, reducing air pollution,
it is much easier for them to sell and put into place these
policies that may be justified as long-term climate change
policies.
Certainly for State and local communities, such as the one
I live in in Boulder, any action that they take on energy
policy is not going to materially affect the climate, so it
could be a very hard sell to the citizens in those communities.
Similarly, if you look at the history of ozone depletion,
ozone depletion gained traction as a political issue when
substitutes were invented. Substitutes allowed companies like
DuPont to realize economic benefits in the short term as they
were dealing with a decade-old, very long-term problem.
But I think if you look at any issue beyond scientific
issues, such as people saving for retirement, the Government
gives tax breaks for people who put that money aside to try to
reconcile short-term benefits with long-term benefits. It is
just a common sense approach to public policy.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Dr. Christy, what precisely do you
conclude scientifically from your finding that the location of
warming is not what is predicted by the models? Does that mean
that the increased greenhouse gas emissions are not going to
alter the climate or that they are not going to alter it as
much, or that the ways in which they would alter are very, very
uncertain and unpredictable?
Dr. Christy. From your description there, the latter two
results are that the radiated forcing must increase because of
this extra CO2. There is really no way around that. There will
be extra joules of energy stored in the climate system.
Chairman Tom Davis. There is agreement I think with
everybody on that. That is not a fact in dispute. The question
is then how is that going to be expressed?
Dr. Christy. Right. The uncertainty is there, and I think
the earlier panelists had mentioned them. In our data system--
and we are doing boots-on-the-ground kind of climate work
here--don't match up very clearly with the scenarios we see in
the global climate models.
Chairman Tom Davis. But the excess CO2, that is not a good
thing over time? Could you say that?
Dr. Christy. If you ask a corn plant it might think more
CO2 is great.
Chairman Tom Davis. If you live in North Dakota, maybe it
is good?
Dr. Christy. That, too.
Dr. Gulledge. Mr. Chairman, if I might add some
perspective.
Chairman Tom Davis. Please.
Dr. Gulledge. The testimony that I gave is based almost
entirely on research published in the last 2 years and it is
purely observational. There is no modeling results there. It is
all on-the-ground research. It is what is happening on the
ground in Antarctica. The glacier cycle, water cycle is
intensifying. The atmosphere above it is warming. These are
things that the modelers did not know ahead of time.
Chairman Tom Davis. What does that mean? So the ocean rises
2 feet over 100 years. What does that do to me?
Dr. Gulledge. Well, it means, from my perspective as
someone who is asking questions about the basic physics of the
climate, it means that there is more energy being trapped in
the climate system that is causing it to rise. Now, that is the
nature of the testimony I am giving, is that it confirms our
understanding that the climate is responding in a sensitive
fashion to the energy that is being trapped into the system.
Chairman Tom Davis. Natural changes have gone on, though,
for hundreds of thousands, for millions of years.
Dr. Gulledge. That is correct, and we are examining a
variety of possible forcings. As I said, the heat absorption of
the ocean tells us that this heat is coming from outside the
Earth's system. This isn't a transfer of heat from one place to
another within a climate. You have to look for an external
forcing, and one that can be responsible for everything from
the sea level rise to the intensification of the glacier water
cycle on Antarctica.
Chairman Tom Davis. What is happening in Antarctica is
really manmade, is what you are saying?
Dr. Gulledge. It clearly----
Chairman Tom Davis. Indirectly.
Dr. Gulledge [continuing]. Was predicted as the kind of
response you would expect to see from greenhouse forcing, and
it cannot be explained by something like changes in the sun.
And it can be explained by the amount of greenhouse gases that
we have added to the atmosphere.
Chairman Tom Davis. And the changes. What will occur is
there will be new species developed and you will have species
go extinct and water lines will change, but what does it mean
100 or 200 years from now.
Dr. Gulledge. You are asking about impacts?
Chairman Tom Davis. Yes.
Dr. Gulledge. It means the coastlines will be inundated.
The coastal cities will have more of a storm surge. Right now
we have coastal cities that care whether storm surge is plus or
minus a foot.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me ask Dr. Curry, do you agree with
that, too, that we are seeing more storm surge today?
Dr. Curry. Absolutely. There are some island nations that
are on the verge of just being subsumed. A big chunk of
Bangladesh sits about 2 feet above sea level. A big chunk of
south Florida sits at 2 or 3 feet above sea level. We have seen
from Katrina what happens when a big storm surge hits a city
that is below sea level--not good things.
Chairman Tom Davis. And is there a consensus that the
weather cycles of the last maybe decade, to some extent the
warming of the water in the Caribbean having an effect?
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. The previous panel seemed to indicate
that.
Dr. Curry. Yes. Observations clearly show the sea level
rise.
Chairman Tom Davis. That is uncontroverted, in your
opinion?
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Chairman Tom Davis. How about you, Dr. Christy?
Dr. Christy. Yes. The sea level has been rising for 18,000
years and should continue to rise because there is more ice to
melt in the system. About 130,000 years ago it was 18 feet
higher as a result of that natural period. Someone mentioned
about a foot per century. That is entirely reasonable and you
don't even have to invoke greenhouse warming, but greenhouse
warming might accelerate that a bit.
As a State climatologist I advise people on the coast, and
I say, look, it is not the 1 inch per decade that is going to
get you, it is the 20 feet that comes in 5 hours because of the
storm surge. That is so much----
Chairman Tom Davis. You think the storm surges are worse
today than they have probably been over the last----
Dr. Christy. Not particularly. They are absolutely worse
because we have more expensive things in the way that are just
saying, come and hit me. You are going to see in the next
century devastating hurricanes hit the Gulf Coast and the
Atlantic Coast.
Chairman Tom Davis. How about the West Coast? Does Mr.
Waxman get free?
Dr. Christy. I think he is safe.
Chairman Tom Davis. He has got earthquakes to worry about.
Dr. Christy. Watch out for earthquakes.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Pielke.
Mr. Waxman. Just to say that statement that there be
increases in hurricanes, and my question to you is why.
Dr. Christy. I am sorry?
Mr. Waxman. Why?
Dr. Christy. No, I didn't say an increase in hurricanes, I
just said there will be an increase in hurricane damage because
there is more stuff to damage.
Chairman Tom Davis. More stuff is built up.
Dr. Christy. It is going to be devastating, and this fellow
knows a lot about that.
Chairman Tom Davis. Dr. Pielke.
Dr. Pielke. Yes. Earlier this spring in Germany I helped
co-organize a workshop with Munich Reinsurance. The question we
asked was: given this global trend of increasing disaster
costs, which is going off the charts, can we attribute any part
of that to human-caused climate change?
It turns out that the only consensus we could reach on that
was that we could not at this time attribute that. Some people
believed that it could be attributed, others not. What everyone
agreed on, that at least 80 to 90 percent of the trend in the
increasing damage could be attributed to more wealth, more
population, more people along the coast.
The largest signal in the effects that we see like
Katrina's and others from extreme events are the decisions that
we make every day: where to build, how to build, at what value.
That is driving the impacts much, much more than any of the
changes in climate that might have been documented so far.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Mr. Waxman.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank each
of our witnesses for their presentations.
As the chairman said, we are not scientists, we are
policymakers, and it turns out that both of us are lawyers. You
are a lawyer are not you, Dr. Pielke?
Dr. Pielke. No, I am trained as a political scientist.
Mr. Waxman. Political scientist, but you are not a
climatologist?
Dr. Pielke. No.
Mr. Waxman. OK. So what we have in the four of you is
different views, and we try to figure out what those different
views represent, but it is appropriate to hear different points
of view. But there seems to be among scientists overall a
pretty strong consensus. The chairman asked about it. Dr. Karl
stated that the current debate in the science is no longer
about whether humans are causing climate change but how
sensitive the climate will be to a given amount of CO2 in the
future.
Dr. Gulledge, can you provide any more background in the
state of that important scientific question?
Dr. Gulledge. Yes, about how sensitive the climate is to
changes in forcing or amount of CO2 or, for that matter, any
kind of forcing that might change over time. This really is the
$50 million question in climate science, and that is where the
true scientific debate is going on in the science research at
this time. And by debate, of course, I mean people do their
research and then they compare their results and argue about
them.
For a long time there was very little progress in
understanding the sensitivity. The range kind of stayed the
same for a long time. The bottom end is 1.4 degrees celsius,
which is about 2\1/2\ degrees, up to about 6 degrees, with a
mid range 2 to 4. Most of the modeling work comes out in that 2
to 4 range, meaning that for a doubling of CO2 you would expect
2 to 4 degrees increase in surface temperature.
Recently there has been more progress----
Mr. Waxman. What does this debate mean to us as
policymakers?
Dr. Gulledge. Well, the sensitivity of the climate is going
to determine what the level of impacts is going to be.
Mr. Waxman. And does Dr. Christy have a different view,
that he thinks the impact is going to be less?
Dr. Gulledge. I can't characterize his view on that.
Mr. Waxman. Is that accurate, Dr. Christy? Do you think it
is going to be less of an impact?
Dr. Christy. It will be on the low end.
Mr. Waxman. The low end?
Dr. Christy. Yes.
Mr. Waxman. So, therefore, if we view it on the low end,
there is less for us to do; if we view it as a higher-end
problem, there is more for us to do? Is that an accurate
statement for policymakers?
Dr. Christy. Maybe if I would just characterize it simply
this way: if the world uses 10 terawatts of energy right now
and you wanted to have a 10 percent impact on that, you would
need 1,000 nuclear power plants, 1 gigawatt. So if you want to
add 10 percent impact on the emissions it would take 1,000
nuclear power plants.
Mr. Waxman. That is one way. The question is how much of a
problem we have, therefore how much of a solution. Your views
seem to be the problem is not as great.
Dr. Curry, Dr. Christy discussed a number of studies of his
that downplay the risk of climate change and dismiss the
capabilities of climate models, and he seems to suggest that
these studies undermine the arguments for taking prompt action
to address global warming. Do you want to comment on that?
Dr. Curry. Yes. Looking at one very small location or
region to try to infer, climate models are not capable of
resolving at the level of one city or one small region at this
point, so the issue of one small region in California
disagreeing with some inference about what--climate models talk
about things on larger scales, continental, southeast United
States, that kind of a scale it can talk about. It can't talk
about at the county level or the sub-State level.
I mean, that is not what we are able to do, so I don't
think that we can disprove climate model simulations by looking
at temperature records in one location. That is basically what
I would say. So I don't think that those kinds of studies
refute climate model predictions in any way.
Mr. Waxman. Dr. Curry, in your written testimony you note
that high-level NOAA officials and selected scientists from the
National Weather Service have repeatedly categorically denied a
connection between global warming and increased hurricane
intensity, yet several peer-reviewed studies published in top
science journals, including your own study, have found evidence
of such a connection.
Have those studies been proven wrong in any way so as to
provide a basis for the NOAA denials? And, if not, could you
please discuss the implications of a Government science agency
such as NOAA issuing such categorical denials while completely
disregarding the most recent credible scientific evidence.
Dr. Curry. The two papers that were published during last
year's hurricane by Kerry Emanuel, and the one led by Peter
Webster talking about the increase in hurricane intensity,
these were two papers that were very provocative, landmark
studies done by very reputable scientific groups. They
generated an enormous amount of attention, and they have
basically been categorically ignored by NOAA and their
testimony. They have specifically said that it does not have to
do with global warming.
It puzzles me because this seems to be driven by a few
scientists in NOAA. I don't believe that if NOAA administrators
had talked to scientists at the National Climatic Data Center
or to scientists at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory,
that they would have gotten that kind of assessment. So I don't
know what was driving those kind of statements. Not to even
mention that there was a debate underway to me seems
irresponsible because the statements by NOAA are, by default,
you know, the official Government position on this subject, and
it is not consistent with the current published research and
the scientific debate that is underway.
Mr. Waxman. Well, it would be good for us to hear from them
and see what they say, challenge them on that point, see their
reaction.
I see the red light is on.
Chairman Tom Davis. You can do a couple more questions.
Mr. Waxman. I can do a couple more questions? I guess the
thing that is always perplexing to us when we hear about a
scientific dispute is to figure out what that means in terms of
how much time we have to do something.
Dr. Pielke, I remember the debate on the deterioration of
the ozone layer. It came up in 1977. Believe it or not, I was
here in 1977. I worked on the Clean Air Act revisions. I
remember people coming in and saying the argument that
chlorofluorocarbons is causing deterioration of the upper ozone
layer, that is just not established, that is a theory but we
shouldn't do anything about it.
By 1990 the Congress was looking at the Clean Air Act
revisions again and we put in a very strong provision, stronger
than the Montreal Protocol, because we felt that we ought to do
something about the problem, even though it was a global one
and Montreal Protocol hadn't been worked out, I don't believe.
I guess we were still working on it, and the fact we were
working on it pushed them to resolve it internationally.
If there is an issue and we decide we had better do
something about it, do you think we ought to be stopped in the
United States from doing something until everybody is doing it?
Or do you think that we ought to show some leadership and then
others will go along with us, particularly in the area of
developing resources to combat pollution or emissions where we
can be out front if we take the lead in it?
Dr. Pielke. Let me say I am very familiar through my own
research with your early efforts on climate change following
ozone, and they are to be commended because there was some very
forward thinking there. It seems to me that this debate that we
just saw between scientists and talking about the science, it
becomes irrelevant if we can come up with policies that make
sense in the short term without having to have some specificity
about the long-term costs and benefits of some global policy.
So the United States should be in the lead. It should be
participating internationally. Most importantly, it should be
continually bringing new options to discuss.
Europe is having tremendous difficulty meeting their own
targets. They need new options. The United States shouldn't
stick its head in the sand. I agree with some of the critiques
of the administration's position. They are simply using the
wrong metric of success, and asking what are the effects of
your policies on outcomes is the right question. But you can't
beat something with nothing, and right now what I see is there
is a lot of debate about let's take action, but not a lot of
specificity about, all right, who is going to take what actions
on what time scale at what cost.
Mr. Waxman. Do you think it would be helpful for the State
of California, which is almost like an independent nation--10
percent of the automobiles, or at least 10 percent, are bought
and sold in California--to have tighter emissions standards? It
is not going to solve the problem for the planet, but it
certainly does drive action by the Federal Government and
internationally if they put out standards and the technology to
accomplish those standards is developed, and hopefully that is
going to be, I think, an economic boon to those who work on it
in California.
Dr. Pielke. Yes. I think the States are laboratories for
experiments, and that the States should be allowed to see what
they can do using a variety of different approaches the Federal
Government can evaluate, and we need to evaluate at the same
time what is working, what is not working. If it works and they
work as advertised, scale them up to the Federal level. If they
don't, say, well, that is too bad. We will try something else.
But that is part of introducing new options is allowing States
and communities to experiment.
Mr. Waxman. Well, that is one of my debates with Mr.
Connaughton, because it seems that the administration is
telling the States, don't you go ahead of us, and then making
sure that the Federal Government moves as slowly as possible,
even though we already have some technology, and tell us
basically to wait until way, way later until we get a silver
bullet like hydrogen.
I appreciate your comments, all of you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I had
another meeting to go to, so I didn't have the benefit of all
the oral testimony. I have had a chance to look at some of the
written testimony.
If I could just start with you, Dr. Curry, I agree it sends
confused signals when the head of the Weather Service, for
example, doesn't even acknowledge this is a debate that is
ongoing. There is no debate, is there, to the fact that surface
water temperatures, for example, in the Gulf increased last
summer, is there?
Dr. Curry. In the scientific literature, no, but you will
find certain scientists telling the media that it is not
increasing.
Mr. Van Hollen. That surface water was not higher during
the last hurricane season?
Dr. Curry. Yes. I participated in a debate where the person
I was debating actually said that, scientific debate, so what
gets published in the scientific literature versus what gets
out there publicly is diverging. That is what I am trying to
say.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right.
Dr. Curry. So the published scientific research agrees that
sea surface temperature has increased since 1970.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. Is there agreement, even though
skeptics, those that are trying to say something different than
what the scientific consensus is, do they agree that if surface
water temperatures are increasing that it would have the effect
of increasing the intensity?
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. Everyone is agreed on that, but they are
disputing that the underlying fact is so?
Dr. Curry. Yes. People, the skeptics, may say, well, wind
shear may counteract all that. Wind shear is really more
important. Some people have said that, but, again, theory,
models, and the data support the link with sea surface
temperature increase.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. Is there a dispute on this panel
as to the increase in sea surface temperature? No? OK.
I would like to ask you if I could, Dr. Christy, because,
as I understand your testimony, you have raised certain
uncertainties about the science, and obviously in every area
there is a range of predictions, but, as I understand it, you
were on the panel that drafted the American Geophysical Union's
official statement on climate change in 2003; is that correct?
Dr. Christy. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Van Hollen. And did you agree with the findings of that
panel?
Dr. Christy. Yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. You did? All right. Because, as I
understand it, the statement acknowledges that the global
climate is changing and human activities are contributing to
that change. So you agree with that statement; is that right?
Dr. Christy. Yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. And I understand that, according
to the AGU, it is virtually certain that increasing greenhouse
gas concentrations will cause global surface climate to be
warmer. Do you have any reason to dispute that?
Dr. Christy. No, and the reason that is stated exactly that
way is there is no magnitude associated with that statement,
and my famous quote that was all over the papers and NPR and so
on was, here we are after changing deserts into farmland and
forests into cities and throwing dust and soot and aerosols in
the atmosphere and adding greenhouse gases, the climate just
has to respond some way. It should change because of human
activities.
Mr. Van Hollen. So you have been on a number of panels,
including the National Research Council, as well. Are there any
findings or statements that have come out of those panels that
you served on that you disagree with?
Dr. Christy. That is a big question, and I had problems
with some, yes.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Did you have a dissenting opinion in
any of those?
Dr. Christy. In one case I said, please put a footnote in
there that says John Christy takes this view on this particular
issue, but the pressure was just so hard and placed upon me as
sort of the only person on there, that there had to be a
consensus, and so we went ahead with graying up one of the
words.
Mr. Van Hollen. You grayed one of the words. If I could
just ask, on the surface temperature issue, because I just want
to make sure, if you agree that there is an increase in the
surface temperature, and I understood no one to sort of
disagree with that scientific conclusion, would you agree that
certainly one reason surface temperatures may be rising is a
result of global climate change produced by human activity?
Dr. Christy. The surface temperature has risen, and part of
the cause of that is due to the enhanced greenhouses that
humans have put into the atmosphere.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. And you also agree that increased
surface water temperature leads to more intense hurricanes?
Dr. Christy. I am not an expert on hurricanes.
Mr. Van Hollen. All right. Fair enough.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question on the
issue of short-term reductions that you mentioned. Have you put
forward a set of sort of policy recommendations as to what
short-term steps we can take?
Dr. Pielke. I have some listed. They have gone by different
names as no regrets options, or co-benefits, or ancillary
benefits. It seems that we have the cart and the horse mixed
up. We are trying to look to reduce greenhouse gases and say,
well, look at all these short-term benefits that come along
with it. It seems to me turning it around and saying, well,
let's do those things on technological innovation, energy
efficiency, foreign policy, and hey, look, we get the
greenhouse gas thing for free on the side. It seems that we
have taken the most politically intractable part of this
problem and put it at the center.
If anyone had the answer we wouldn't be sitting here today,
so that is why I think that the wonderful resources of our
technologists, our scientists, ought to be put to the test, not
of the scientific questions about hurricanes and temperature,
but give us some options, give us some things that you folks
can turn into legislation, we can experiment with, and maybe
has a real effect in the short term.
Mr. Van Hollen. I certainly agree that we should be
pursuing immediate options. I think one of the obstacles,
frankly, to getting people to move forward on some more
immediate options is the fact that some people continue to
cloud the issue about whether there is any reason for us to be
moving forward.
For example, let me ask you, the administration's budget
this year actually cut the amount of funding for energy
efficiency programs. There is some increase in some of the
renewable energy programs, but wouldn't you agree that one of
the areas we could get some very short-term gains in reducing
greenhouse emissions is through greater efficiency standards,
and that it is short-sighted to cut the budget for work in that
area?
Dr. Pielke. I would agree with that.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr Marchant [presiding]. Thank you.
Dr. Pielke, as a former Hill staffer, you know how things
work around here.
Dr. Pielke. Well, I was an intern, so I got coffee and
stuff, but yes.
Mr. Marchant. You at least know how people like their
coffee. [Laughter.]
What unique message do you have for the Members and
staffers to help them as they navigate the politics to arrive
at appropriate responses to climate change?
Dr. Pielke. I think one of the most instructive things for
me is to take a look at hearings over time on this issue, and
if you don't look at the date they look about the same over a
decade, 15 years. The discussion is always on the science and
trying to get some consensus on the science.
In my testimony I cite a poll done by the National Journal
of Members of Congress, and it asked Members of Congress, some
select group, what are your views on global climate change, and
I don't have the exact numbers in front of me but something
like 98 percent of Democrats thought it is a real serious issue
and 23 percent of Republicans, a big partisan divide there.
But they asked a second set of questions: what sort of
policies do you think make sense? They had to do with energy
efficiency, CAFE standards sort of things. There was much
greater agreement.
Scientists are going to be arguing about hurricanes and
climate change 10 years from now. I think that is a safe
prediction. I think the debate has to start moving on to a
focus on options, and let's set aside the science. The science
is plenty good enough and it has been for a long time for
action to take place. Let's move the discussion. When we ask
questions about hurricanes and climate change I would like to
see a followup question: what can we do about it? What effect
will energy policies have on hurricane behavior? How about
adaptation? What can we do to make building codes stronger,
land use policies?
Let's move from, do we know how many hurricanes are going
to occur to, well, there are going to be a lot. There might be
an awful lot or a terribly awful lot, but the policies that we
are going to be dealing with are probably going to be the same
in either case. So my recommendation is, as interesting as the
science is, let's move beyond and focus everybody. Policymakers
a lot of times set the agendas for the bully pulpit. Ask the
policy questions, not the science questions.
Mr. Marchant. Dr. Christy, Dr. Curry said that you can't
make an assessment based on a localized region, like in your
studies. Would you like to comment on that?
Dr. Christy. That is a correct statement, that one small
region like that isn't something you would want to test your
climate models on. What I did was I used lots of climate models
on one region, went to another region, did the same thing that
I mentioned in here but not in my oral testimony. The entire
southeast is cooling over the past 120 years, and not one
single climate model in every run we have ever checked has been
able to reproduce that, not once out of 50 some odd.
But then I think the bigger one is that when you look at
something the size of the tropics, that is one-third of the
globe. That is not a trivial part. And so the carbon dioxide,
the enhancement of its concentration will have an effect on the
climate, and there are lots of reasons to not want to burn
carbon for energy. It is quaint, if you think.
A hundred years from now they will look back and say how
quaint it was that they burned carbon for energy back then. And
so I am not sitting here saying let's not do anything about
climate change, but as a climate scientist looking at so many
data sets that we build ourselves we don't see the catastrophic
direction of the climate system.
Mr. Marchant. Your experience in Africa led to your
concerns about unintended consequences of our policy choices
regarding mitigating climate change. How should policymakers
look at those unintended consequences versus the pressure for
action?
Dr. Christy. Well, let me come to the State of Alabama. We
have many poor people in my State. If the regulatory climate is
to say let's increase taxes and drive energy prices high so
that is a way to reduce CO2, that will have a very bad effect
on the poorest in my State, and I would be much against
something like that. It will have no effect on the climate. We
would never be able to measure the effect, in any case.
I really like a lot of the things Roger here has said about
what kind of policy decisions that should be made are those
that have some effects that have many benefits, and I gave a
little example about the thousand nuclear plants can make a 10
percent dent in the thing, but who wants to do that. I don't
know.
So just remember there are poor people out there. Energy
makes their lives healthier, it makes their lives longer, and
to make energy less accessible to them is, in my view, not the
right thing to do.
Mr. Marchant. So you are saying that the thousand nuclear
plants could make a difference, if you just did them for
ecological reasons, but what if they are done for economic
reasons as well, that energy coming out of them is cheaper, as
well?
Dr. Christy. You know, I am not an energy expert, but I
would say you are dealing then with other issues like energy
security. If you had your own energy source, you wouldn't have
to deal with all the things we see in the newspapers today. So
there are a lot of reasons to develop other kinds of energy
than what we use now, as long as we keep it affordable and
accessible, because that is important for people's lives, and
especially people I deal with in Alabama.
Mr. Marchant. And affordability and accessibility almost
assures continued use and continued escalating use.
Dr. Christy. Yes. I don't think anyone here would disagree
with the statement that energy demand will rise.
Mr. Marchant. With cheaper.
Dr. Christy. No matter what, regardless of price. It brings
so many good benefits immediately to human life, health, and
longevity that it, especially around the world in the Third
World, energy use will rise.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman.
I am so, so sorry I was not able to be here. I do know I
don't do this often, but I know there is written testimony that
I can review, and this will be testimony I will review.
My sense is that we basically, Dr. Curry, can listen to
your skepticism at first and your conviction now that we do
have a global warming problem, and that it is impacting the
media, which sometimes likes to dramatize, that storms are
being impacted because of global warming. Your nodding of the
head is a yes, correct? It needs to be recorded.
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. Shays. And my sense to you, Dr. Christy, is that when
you look at sea level temperatures and so on it is just an
added confirmation that global warming is a factor, as well,
correct?
Dr. Christy. Yes, that human effects are causing a change
in the radiation balance that leads to higher temperatures,
yes.
Mr. Shays. When we put the two of you together, my sense
with you, Dr. Pielke, is that you are looking at it from a
policy standpoint and, you know, there are things that can be
done in the short run, and so on; is that correct? Yes. And
you, Dr. Gulledge, you look at the overall policy of how we
deal with this issue?
Dr. Gulledge. I am sorry, I am not a policy analyst. I am a
scientist.
Mr. Shays. Then your point, your primary point that you
want me to hear? I am sorry that it is redundant.
Dr. Gulledge. My primary point is that I agree very much
with Roger's statements that this is the wrong panel sitting
here. There are not enough questions left about the science
that we should actually be taking up your time, in my view.
Mr. Shays. In other words, case closed, answered?
Dr. Gulledge. Any differences you may have perceived about
the science on this panel are actually quite minor and stem
more from differences in perspective than understanding the
science.
Mr. Shays. Right. And you speak from what background?
Dr. Gulledge. I am a scientist. I am an ecosystem
ecologist. I study the carbon cycle.
Mr. Shays. Well, for you it may not be significant; for me,
it is about time that we had people sit at a table and say what
is the obvious. I get the sense from you, Dr. Pielke, that even
if we did policies that were not addressing the problem that
existed, it would still be a benefit to our world?
Dr. Pielke. If we organize our approach to climate change
in that manner. The way that the international approach is set
up under the Framework Convention is it separates out the long-
term climate policies from the sustainable development, energy
efficiency, and so it separates those out, and so we don't talk
about them at the same time.
Mr. Shays. So with this in mind, our first panel said
global warming is real and it is being caused in significant
measure by humanity, you all just adding voice to that as
scientists, I would like you to tell me your biggest regret
and, if you could get the President to do one thing, just one
thing, what it would be.
But what is your biggest regret? I mean, for me a big
regret would have been not having minivans, SUVs, trucks, and
cars all getting the same mileage when we did it so people
couldn't go off in that direction, or another one, that fuel
was so cheap we didn't care about the wasting of energy. That
would be a big regret, because I think, had we dealt with it
differently, it would have had a huge impact today. We would be
in a different place.
I would like each of you to tell me what your biggest
regret is and what you would like to see happen. I will ask the
chairman to give me a little latitude, since there are only two
of us, just to pursue this. I will start with you.
Dr. Gulledge. Thank you. That is a very large question,
and----
Mr. Shays. I am going to start with biggest regret, and
then I am going to ask you to say the most significant thing we
could and should do now.
Dr. Gulledge. OK. I am going to step back from my
profession as a scientist and speak as a well-informed American
citizen who has followed this issue for a long time. My biggest
regret as an American is that the United States didn't take
leadership in multi-lateral, international negotiations to deal
with climate change two decades ago, and released its
leadership role to other countries so that in the end we ended
up with something that our Congress didn't like and our country
wasn't engaged in developing, and now we are just being left
behind and we do not have a leadership role on one of the
biggest issues in the world. I feel terrible about that.
Mr. Shays. I am so happy I asked that question, because
that one comment alone was worth coming here.
Dr. Gulledge. Now that is just my view as a citizen.
Dr. Pielke. My view is fairly wonky. In 1990 when Congress
was debating creating legislation to create the U.S. global
change research program there was a parallel effort proposed at
the time called MARS--Mitigation and Adaptation Response
Strategies. It was envisioned at the time to be as large as the
scientific research program, to focus on policy options.
Through the mechanics of the congressional process it got axed,
so we focused----
Mr. Shays. What was that called?
Dr. Pielke. MARS, Mitigation and Adaptation Research
strategies. I can send you some information.
Mr. Shays. And what year was that?
Dr. Pielke. It was 1990. And so, instead of focusing on
response strategies, the focus became on reducing
uncertainties. Given that we missed that opportunity to focus
on response strategies, it should come as no surprise that we
are still talking about science over policy.
Mr. Shays. Thank you. These are really helpful.
Dr. Christy. I suppose my biggest regret was that the
investment in the observing system overall from space, as well
as the surface, has lagged in terms of its ability to be
precise and determine long-term changes with much less
uncertainty.
Mr. Shays. From your standpoint, if we had better
technology in space looking at the Earth----
Dr. Christy. And around the Earth, as well.
Mr. Shays. Right.
Dr. Christy. Yes, on the surface. And I suppose my one
remark about the future would be----
Mr. Shays. No, not yet.
Dr. Christy. OK. I am sorry.
Mr. Shays. I am asking the chairman to indulge me. I know
we got another--I didn't see Mr. Waxman come back, so maybe he
won't indulge me, but would you at least answer this question?
Dr. Curry. OK. I would echo Jay Gulledge's comments. The
fact that we don't have a plan at this point and that we are
not in a leadership role is extremely unfortunate. As a
scientist, I have avoided making any kind of specific policy
recommendations for several reasons, so as to appear that I
don't have an agenda, and that I am not personally qualified to
evaluate all the technologies, the politics, and the economics,
but----
Mr. Shays. I will yield back. I am sorry.
Dr. Curry [continuing]. But the fact that we do not have a
plan is very disturbing.
Mr. Shays. Do you mind if I just ask then this question?
Mr. Waxman. Fine with me.
Mr. Shays. Then just tell me the one thing each of you
would like to see--I realize there is lots, but maybe it is the
first thing or whatever, the one big thing that you would like
to see happen. Yes, sir?
Dr. Pielke. I would like to see increased congressional
oversight of the climate change science program and climate
change technology program going back to Public Law 101-606 that
calls for those programs to provide policy options.
Mr. Shays. By oversight, you want to see more money put
into it?
Dr. Pielke. No. I want to see you bringing the leaders of
those programs and the executive branch here and saying, what
are the options that are resulting from this multi billion
dollar investment?
Mr. Shays. OK.
Dr. Pielke. You get a lot of good science. It is great
science. But you are not getting many options.
Mr. Shays. OK. Thank you.
Dr. Christy. I would just go along with the Hippocratic
Oath: first, do no harm. Think of the poor people out there. If
energy costs rise, that does specifically and directly affect
them.
Mr. Shays. OK. The chairman is gaveling me, so the two of
you will be on record. I thank the chairman.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you. We have some witnesses that need
to catch some flights, so we are going to go to the third
panel.
Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
Mr. Waxman. Mr. Chairman, as this group leaves I just want
to comment that energy prices have doubled over the last 5
years and it wasn't because of our efforts to deal with global
warming. Maybe the prices would have not risen so high if we
had done something about energy efficiency, because that would
have helped us in the area of climate change, as well.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Mr. Marchant. We will now recognize the third panel as they
are coming up here. We will reconvene in about 3 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Marchant. We are still missing one witness. Our first
witness is Mr. Theodore Roosevelt, IV, chairman of strategies
for the global environment, the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change. Another of our witnesses present is Mr. Marshall
Herskovitz, and he is a producer, director, and writer of
television and film. And the other witness that we expect
shortly is Mr. Andrew Ruben. He is vice president of corporate
strategy and sustainability of the Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Welcome, gentlemen. It is customary for you to have a 5-
minute opening statement and then we will have questions.
Welcome, Mr. Roosevelt.
It is our custom to swear the witnesses in, so if you will
stand and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Marchant. Thank you.
Mr. Roosevelt.
STATEMENTS OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT IV, CHAIRMAN, STRATEGIES FOR
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT/PEW CENTER ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE;
ANDREW RUBEN, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE STRATEGY AND
SUSTAINABILITY, WAL-MART STORES, INC.; AND MARSHALL HERSKOVITZ,
PRODUCER/DIRECTOR/WRITER, TELEVISION AND FILMS
STATEMENT OF THEODORE ROOSEVELT IV
Mr. Roosevelt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Waxman and members of the committee. It is a pleasure to
be here, to see old friends. I want to salute you and your
committee for undertaking this hearing. I think it is extremely
important.
As the chairman mentioned, I am the chair of global
strategies, which is the umbrella organization for the Pew
Center on Climate Change. I am also co-chair of the Alliance
for Climate Protection and am on the board of the World
Resource Institute.
Earlier you just heard, I think, some very good testimony
from the panel on science, and also in the first panel. I am
not going to dwell on this other than to say I believe that the
science on this is compelling and shows clearly that human
activities contribute to global climate change. Sometimes one
hears the phrase, the science is not conclusive. I daresay all
of us believe in Einstein's general theory of relativity, but I
challenge certainly myself and probably most of you could you
prove that theory conclusively. I couldn't even prove
conclusively Newton's law of gravity, but when I take this
bottle and bring it over to the edge and push it over I know
that bottle would drop.
Prudence dictates that we take climate change seriously. A
farmer who has got his crops and livestock in a barn knows the
possibility of lightning hitting that barn is probably remote,
but he will take out a policy of insurance because he knows if
lightning does hit that barn he will be wiped out. We know the
possibility of damage from global climate change is not remote,
and the longer we delay addressing this issue the harder it
will be for us to find solutions.
At the Pew Center a variety of companies sit on our
Business Environmental Leadership Council. We call that the
BELC. The oil and gas industry is represented by BP and Shell;
transportation by Boeing and Toyota; utilities by PG&E, Duke
Energy, and Entergy; high tech by IBM, Intel, HP; diversified
manufacturing by General Electric and United Technologies.
These are all companies that recognize climate change is real.
They want to prepare themselves for a carbon-constrained future
and they need time to make the necessary changes. They know
that the risks of inaction outweigh the costs of action.
For example, Marsh, Inc., which just joined the BELC, said
in a white paper, ``Climate change is a significant global
risk. Businesses, if they haven't already, must begin to
account for it in their strategic and operational planning.''
Another leader in the insurance industry addressing climate
change is Swiss Re, which is not a member of the BELC, but
calculates that Katrina resulted in $45 billion of losses and
$10 billion each from Rita and Wilma. Obviously, no one can
blame damage from one hurricane on climate change, but the
evidence is pretty clear that, while the overall number of
hurricanes may not increase, the number of category four and
five hurricanes will, and with increased violence in hurricanes
will come increased losses.
Some companies see attractive investment opportunities in
meeting the need for renewable energy and increased energy
efficiency. BP has created an alternative energy division, and
they plan to invest up to about $8 billion over the next 10
years. General Electric, in its well-thought-out ecomagination
initiative, plans to see revenues go to $10 billion over the
next several years, which represents a doubling of where they
currently are. Venture capitalists invested $1.4 billion in
clean technology in 2005, up 43 percent from 2004. The carbon
disclosure project started with 35 companies in 2003 accounting
for about $4.5 trillion of assets. Today there are 155
institutions with combined assets of $21 trillion that have
signed onto the carbon disclosure project.
Business, however, cannot do it alone. We need mandatory
compliance structured in such a way as to take advantage of the
tremendous power of markets and unleash the creativity of
American companies and businesses to meet the challenges when
required to do so. A relevant or perhaps great example of this
is the extraordinary success of the 1990 amendment to the Clean
Air Act. A key element in the success of that amendment was the
cap in trading regime for sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide.
That cap in trading regime, which was put in in 1990, resulted
by about 2003, 2004 in a reduction of about a third of these
emissions, and they did so without, I believe, any legal suits
as a result.
The elements for success in dealing with climate change
will include greater conservation and efficiency in the use of
energy and the use of new and better technologies.
Significantly improving our energy efficiency will improve the
competitive position of the United States, and in many
instances will result in lower operating cost. Development of
new technologies will open new markets for us overseas.
In conclusion, I would like to leave you with two thoughts.
Global climate change is a serious issue and we cannot afford
further delay in addressing it. Second, I have immense
confidence in the power of this country to create effective
policies to deal with climate change while maintaining economic
growth as long as we can muster the political leadership to do
so.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Roosevelt follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.142
Mr. Marchant. Thank you.
Mr. Ruben.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW RUBEN
Mr. Ruben. Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Waxman and
distinguished members of the committee, my name is Andrew
Ruben. I am vice president of corporate strategy and
sustainability for Wal-Mart Stores. On behalf of Wal-Mart
Stores, we appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on
this important issue.
As our CEO, Lee Scott has said, business and the
environment are not mutually exclusive. We are passionate about
making Wal-Mart a more environmentally friendly company and
believe that greenhouse gases can be cost-effectively reduced
throughout the economy.
I have submitted in writing my testimony. I would like to
summarize the testimony for you here.
Today I am prepared to share the various initiatives that
Wal-Mart has undertaken and to highlight how our learnings with
environmental sustainability make us a better business. As the
largest retailer in the world, the largest private consumer of
electricity in the United States, and the owner of one of the
largest private truck fleets in the country, we recognize the
effect we have on the environment.
We similarly recognize the opportunity we have for
leadership. Last year, Lee Scott announced Wal-Mart would make
sustainability a key part of the company's strategy and
outlined three aspirational goals. Lee Scott talked about being
supplied 100 percent by renewable energy, creating zero waste,
and selling products to sustain our resources and the
environment.
We also have more near-term goals. For example, we will
reduce the solid waste in the back of our stores, clubs, and
distribution centers 25 percent by 2008; our existing
facilities will use 20 percent less energy within 6 years; and
new facilities that are being built will use 25 to 35 percent
less energy in the next 2 years.
We are already making progress toward these goals. For
example, we have recently retrofitted our entire fleet with
auxiliary power units. They are essentially more efficient
diesel engines that allow, while the truck is idling, will
allow auxiliary power for heating and cooling of the cab. That
change, alone, saves 10 million gallons of diesel per year,
avoids 100,000 metric tons of CO2, and, by the way, saves our
business $25.5 million in the avoidance of that fuel. It is a
clear example about how these efforts make us a better
business.
Another example where we can help our customers is compact
fluorescent light bulbs. If the customers that go through our
store in a given week simply buy one high-efficiency compact
fluorescent light bulb, as opposed to today's traditional
incandescent bulb, that will put $3 billion back into their
pockets on electrical savings. It will equate to 100 million
metric tons of CO2, roughly five times Wal-Mart's global
footprint, and, by the way, save a billion incandescent bulbs
from the landfill.
Today less than 10 percent of the light sockets in the
United States currently use these high-efficiency compact
fluorescent bulbs. You can start to see the immense potential
we have in front of us.
We realized that we have similar opportunity to work with
our suppliers. For example, we recently visited a factory, Dana
Undies. If you are wondering, yes, Dana Undies does make
underwear. We shared with them some of the learnings that we
had from our stores. We talked to the CEO of the company and
the plant manager. After making changes from that conversation
to their lighting and their HVAC or heating and air
conditioning systems, Dana Undies now sees a 60 percent
reduction in their energy costs. It is better for us, it is
better for our customers, it is better for the environment, and
yes, it is also better for Dana Undies.
Some of the opportunities to create change are less
obvious. For example, we recently removed 2 grams of weight
from our private label of water that is on our shelves. That
small change saved 5 million pounds of PET, virgin PET, from
ever going into production every year. Our produce buyers are
looking at more ways to buy locally grown produce, such as
expanding a sourcing program for peaches from two locations in
the United States to more than a dozen. That not only saves
transportation; it also saves refrigeration, it saves
packaging, while increasing the freshness of that product while
it reaches the stores.
Finally, packaging on something as simple as laundry
detergent, working with Unilever we introduced a product
called, All Small and Mighty. It is essentially a concentrated
laundry detergent. It is one-third the size of a traditional
bottle. It saves packaging, transportation, and water. In fact,
if all detergent that was made made similar changes, we would
avoid thousands of deliveries to our stores and to stores
across the United States.
While this is a business strategy, we are sharing
everything we are doing. Simply stated, sharing these
innovations and sharing these learnings allows greater scale
and allows change to occur at a more rapid pace.
Two years ago I could not have imagined that we would have
over 100 environmental NGO's, activists, and academics at our
headquarters in Bentonville, AR. Two years ago I would have
never believed that they would be coming to join 150 executives
from some of our largest suppliers. Yet, last week, all
together with our senior leadership, we brought these groups
together and spent a day addressing business's potential role
in climate change.
The members of this committee play an important role in
what you are doing today in bringing this topic to bear and
having this conversation. We appreciate the forum that you
offer us and look forward to any ways that we can help provide
insight into what has been going on at one business.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruben follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.144
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.153
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Herskovitz.
STATEMENT OF MARSHALL HERSKOVITZ
Mr. Herskovitz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Waxman, members of the committee for this chance to appear as
you investigate the issue of global warming. My name is
Marshall Herskovitz. I am a producer, writer, and director in
Los Angeles. I have made such films as Legends of the Fall,
Traffic, Last Samurai, and in television Thirty Something. I
currently serve as president of the Producers Guild of America.
I have had a long involvement with environmental issues,
but I believe the pressing urgency of global warming transcends
any other, and I have been concerned for several years now, as
a communicator, that no clear vision regarding this crisis is
being communicated to the American people.
Now, in spite of our science panel today, I feel that a
consensus is forming in the scientific community around the
world, around the number of 80 percent. That is 80 percent of
carbon emissions need to be cut. There is some disagreement as
to whether that should be done in 50 years, 40 years, or 10
years, but some very, very, very intelligent scientists,
including someone who was supposed to be here today, Dr.
Hansen, and also the head of the Intergovernment Panel on
Climate Change, have all said the real number is 10 years--80
percent carbon emission cuts in 10 years.
That is not even on the agenda of any legislative body
anywhere in the world, and there is a reason for that, and that
is because it seems like it is fundamentally impossible to
achieve such a cut. It is not how business works. It is not how
government works. Such precipitous action would seem to
decimate any economy and dismantle the American way of life.
I, however, think these assumptions are totally incorrect,
as I will try to show, as is another assumption that is rarely
said out loud but is insidious, nonetheless, and that is the
belief that we Americans have grown so spoiled and are so
unwilling to face hardship that we will sacrifice our
children's future for the sake of our own present comfort,
which is why I am grateful to appear before this committee,
because I am in the process of starting an organization whose
purpose will be to overturn these assumptions and communicate
what we believe is a greater truth about our national
character.
We have actually been given a great opportunity at this
moment in America, a challenge that is not only far from
impossible but, in fact, has a blueprint for success that was
laid down by our own parents and grandparents 65 years ago.
In December 1941 this Nation entered a total and
unconditional struggle against the axis powers. Those words
total and unconditional are very important. From that moment
until August 1945, as we well know, every single man, woman,
and child in the United States devoted themselves to the one
goal of defeating our enemies. Every aspect of people's lives
was affected: how they work, how they drove, how they ate,
where they lived, not to mention the millions who were killed
and injured in battle.
Let us also remember that within the first 3 months after
Pearl Harbor every single automobile plant in the United States
had been shut down and retooled for making tanks. Not one
automobile was manufactured in the United States between 1942
and 1946, and I have never read of anyone objecting. No price
was too great if it meant protecting our freedom. But let's
look exactly at what that price was. Again, I speak here of the
economic cost, not the human cost, which obviously we still
honor today.
When all those automobile plants were being retooled, Ford,
Chrysler, and General Motors continued to be profitable.
Ordinary citizens put up with 3 years of food and gas rationing
and other privations, and the Federal Government ran up
unprecedented deficits. The result was that America emerged
from the war stronger and richer than it had ever been.
Similarly, the effort necessary to fight global warming
does not in any way spell depression or deprivation for our
country; rather--and this is the key point--it is our current
lack of action, or what I fear will be our half action, that
will inevitably lead to disaster.
A national commitment, a war against global warming would
cause all sorts of discomforts and discomfitures, but would
also stimulate new industries and new parts of the economy.
Most of the technology needed to cut those emissions already
exist. What we need is the national will and the willingness of
our Federal Government to take the lead, which is why we are
starting this organization, because, as we have discussed here
today, that national will does not exist, and the American
people are not generally aware of any plan that would make the
kinds of cuts our scientists are calling for. And if they are
not aware of it, how can they debate it?
The ideas are out there. We have heard some of them today:
shifting industrial subsidies, trapping CO2 before it leaves
coal-fired smokestacks, plug in hybrids, cellulosic ethanol.
There are hundreds of ideas, brilliant ideas, all of them
useless unless the Federal Government either pays for them or
indemnifies businesses against the extreme financial risks
involved.
For the Federal Government to do that, it needs an
unmistakable mandate from the people, which will be the agenda
of this organization: to use the tools of modern marketing to
put those ideas before the American people. We will create TV
commercials, print ads, Web sites, editorials, events, daily
sound bites for the news media, whatever is necessary to make
people aware of the remarkable opportunity that lies ahead of
us.
As you have heard, millions of Americans are already acting
to solve this problem in their homes, in their businesses, in
their local governments. The effort being expended without the
Federal Government's real leadership is truly remarkable, but
this crisis cannot be solved from the bottom up.
Since I am a storyteller I will postulate a slight
adjustment of history. What if the Germans had been planning to
invade the United States in 1942? Do you think we could have
defeated them with ordinary citizens pulling pistols from under
their beds, through local grocery stores barring their doors
and windows? No.
The only way to defeat the Nazis was through the awesome
power of the American industrial machine, through the tens of
thousands of tanks and planes and guns, the liberty ships
coming out of dry docks at the rate of one a week, the millions
of people working together for a common purpose, led by a
Government that was willing to endure deficits of 23 percent of
its GDP in order to make it happen.
We defeated the axis powers in less than 4 years. We put a
man on the moon in 7. We can unleash that awesome power again
and solve this problem in 10 years the same way we did it
before: by a total, unconditional partnership between
Government, business, and private citizens.
This is a moment of potential greatness for our Nation. We
can reframe the device of discourse that has plagued us for
years. Global warming is not the province of the right or the
left; it is a bipartisan issue, a national security issue, a
survival issue. I believe we must make these changes now, not
in 30 years, if we want to stop the catastrophe from happening.
I thank you for your consideration, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Herskovitz follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.163
Mr. Marchant. Thank you, Mr. Herskovitz.
Do you believe that Americans are ready to make sacrifices
that you are calling for?
Mr. Herskovitz. I think Americans are ready to put an
enormous amount of effort into what I am calling for. I think
when we use the term sacrifice, we are already misconstruing
what will take place if we commit ourselves to this war. I
think that what needs to be done is mostly at an industrial
level, mostly at a business level.
But right now we are asking corporations and industries to
take on a responsibility that their shareholders will not allow
them to do. The Federal Government has to be the instigator of
these situations. If you tell the car companies, oh, you have
to make a car that gets 50 to 60 or 70 miles to the gallon,
which, by the way, technologically they can do, they are going
to say to you, how do we know we can sell it?
The answer is the Federal Government has to mandate it. It
has to mandate whatever business situation will allow that
corporation to succeed under those circumstances. That is what
took place in World War II, and I believe that is what needs to
take place now.
Mr. Marchant. You talk about the Federal Government. Do you
think it is necessary for the Federal Government to make the
laws? What responsibilities would you place on local
government, States, cities, counties?
Mr. Herskovitz. Well, a remarkable number of cities and
States are already doing that, but I think, as with so many
things in our country, the resources locally are finally
limited. It is finally only the Federal Government that can
create the huge programs that are necessary in order to make
this work.
What we are seeing now and what I have seen in the last few
months as I have learned about this is just a remarkable
upswelling of energy at the local level, but this problem
cannot be solved at the local level. What we will find is if
the Federal Government enables this, sets up these programs,
you will see, just as in World War II, this incredible energy
move in to fill up all of the opportunities that the Federal
Government is going to create.
The energy is there. Look at these businesses. Look at Wal-
Mart. They don't have to be doing this. There is a way in which
many, many people in this country are ahead of where the
Government is.
Mr. Marchant. Mr. Ruben, is Wal-Mart taking this new
environmentally friendly policy to all of its operations,
international as well?
Mr. Ruben. Yes.
Mr. Marchant. And what kind of success are you having
outside of the United States?
Mr. Ruben. Well, the key to even the progress so far is
that it lives inside the business. So what I mean by that is
this is not a select group of people who sit on the side of the
business talking about what we can do for the environment; it
is about the way decisionmakers operate in the business, to
have a broader view of unintended consequences and what takes
place. So in every market--let me speak first from a market
perspective and then from a centralized company perspective.
In every market people are identifying new opportunities to
save energy, to save resources, to supply better products. On a
centralized perspective, some of our learnings are coming in a
global way. For example, solar technology, we are learning
quite a bit from Central America, given the number of days of
sunlight and the cost of energy. So both from a market
perspective as well as a company perspective we are seeing
opportunities being a global company.
Mr. Marchant. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis [presiding]. Mr. Roosevelt, I apologize
for not being here, but you mentioned the difficulties
companies face in implementing voluntary environmentally
friendly policies, while at the same time running the risk of
falling behind in their industry. Given this conundrum, do you
see any opportunities for the Federal Government to further
spur voluntary action in the corporate world?
Mr. Roosevelt. I think voluntary action has worked. We have
seen leadership. Well-run companies are doing the right thing.
But you need mandatory compliance; otherwise, you are going to
have a problem with the free rider. There will be too many
companies who will say, let's earn short-term profits and we
will not take the long-term decisions that we need to make
ourselves both stronger as a nation and both stronger in our
industry.
Perhaps the best example of that--and I don't want to pick
on Detroit. We don't want to see an industrialized ghetto in
Detroit, but 5 years and 10 years ago, if you were deciding you
wanted to buy stock in an automotive company would you have
bought Ford or General Motors or Toyota? It was pretty clear
one company had a better idea of the changes that were
occurring in the environment, the business environment, and
were taking appropriate steps to become more competitive. We
overprotected our companies.
Chairman Tom Davis. Well, we did, in fact. I know that Mr.
Waxman and myself and Mr. Shays, we favored higher CAFE
standards. Had they complied with that, they would have been
ahead of the curve.
Mr. Roosevelt. Absolutely right.
Chairman Tom Davis. And they resisted it, they didn't, and
now they are paying a price for it. That is one time where the
Government knew better than the marketplace. One of the few
times, but it did.
Mr. Roosevelt. One of the rules, I think, of business--and
in my daytime job I am an investment banker--good industries
generally reinvent themselves at frequent intervals. Not-so-
good industries tend to think that the old way of doing it will
survive forever. If you go back and look at the catalytic
converter, which is a good example, Detroit resisted that. They
said, it is going to cost us $1,000, and the only cars we will
be able to produce in the United States will be subcompacts.
I don't see many subcompacts out on the highways today. And
you know what a catalytic converter costs; $100. They were off
by a factor of 10.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman?
Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Herskovitz, thank you for being here. You are one of my
constituents and obviously a leading producer involved with
films. I looked at your list of successful films for television
and movies. You do know how to communicate, and I am pleased
that you are going to be involved in organizing a group that
will put pressure on the U.S. Government to show the kind of
leadership for our country and for the world in dealing with
this very serious, the most serious environmental problem we
have.
Mr. Herskovitz. Thank you.
Mr. Waxman. I feel that a lot of our policies need to be
communicated two different ways. You are going to communicate
more from a grassroots activist organization to get us to try
to lead on this issue, but then the Government has to lead, as
well, and business has to lead, and a lot of that is going to
involve trying to communicate to people why they should buy a
more fuel efficient product, why they should buy a more fuel
efficient motor vehicle, why we are all in this together to try
to accomplish the goal of protecting ourselves and the planet
from the dire consequences of global warming.
Do you think that as you organize this group that you might
be available to give some suggestions to policymakers and the
leaders of this country on how best to communicate to people
around the Nation that we need to do things that we can do? For
example, I offered an amendment to the energy bill, and I said
the bill was primarily to produce more energy, drill here,
drill there, here is some money, billions here, billions there
to the oil, coal, nuclear industries.
But I suggested the President could simply call on the
American people in a lot of ways to be more efficient in their
use of fuel by not taking wasteful trips, to try to be mindful
of things they could do now. I hope you will keep that in mind
as you develop your policies to help us so we can call on you
as established communicators to get people to understand what
is going on.
Mr. Herskovitz. Certainly. Always willing to help in any
way. I think there has been a big mistake, by the way, in
judgment. It is odd, really. Most people I talk to about this
problem make some basic assumption that the American people are
stupid. They always say to me, well, you are going to need
something like Pearl Harbor. You are going to need some great
event to show people that there is a problem.
You know, I think we are capable in this country of
understanding that there is a problem. The problem has been the
communication of what this issue is. It has been completely
muddled. It has been completely mired in controversy and people
have not known what to think. As soon as our leaders start
saying the same thing, I think people are perfectly capable of
understanding that there is an emergency, even though it is
only manifested by a glacier that is melting 2,000 miles away.
Mr. Waxman. The President of the United States is always
credited with having an enormous bully pulpit, but when the
President of the United States is represented by Mr.
Connaughton who was here earlier talking enthusiastically about
all that they are doing, which I think is far short of what
needs to be done, the President's quotes that Congressman Van
Hollen held up, where there is a debate going on about the
science, that was not a clarion call for anything or anybody to
do anything.
Mr. Ruben, Wal-Mart is taking a leadership role in all of
this. Do you think that what you are doing voluntarily ought to
be mandated on people, either through a market system that
would be brought into being by caps on emissions or some kind
of fuel efficiency standards that would be mandated for new
products?
Mr. Ruben. There are some things that we see that we think
policy action does make sense, and there are a vast number that
we think the competitive forces actually accelerate to go
beyond there. As an example of that, the compact fluorescent
light bulb that I talked about, and I mentioned it was less
than 10 percent of the sockets that could be using this bulb,
and you had mentioned sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to get
someone to buy a bulb that saves them every month. As a company
that sells items to people, it is not a sacrifice for us to
sell these bulbs that allow people more spending money in the
economy.
There are a host of things that can be done right now to
increase that number of 10 percent. At a certain point that
bulb right now costs about $2 compared to $0.20 for the
incandescent bulb. There is a certain percentage of the
population that will be able to make that choice. It is a very
good return on your money. Within 2 months you will get that
money back.
Mr. Waxman. That is very well put and I thank you very
much, but I see the yellow light is on. I will ask Mr.
Roosevelt a question.
I assume from your testimony you think mandatory controls
with a cap in trade would give the market incentives so that
you wouldn't find a business out there realizing their
competitors may not be doing what they need to do, and
therefore they don't want to spend the money to reduce
emissions, either. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Roosevelt. Yes. You have captured very succinctly what
I believe. The beauty about cap in trade is it gives businesses
the alternative of when they want to make a capital
expenditure. Let's say for whatever reasons the business says,
I want to make this capital expenditure, but I want to do it 5
years from now. They have the opportunity to go off and buy and
meet their emissions requirements, but then 5 years from now
they can make the capital expenditure, and maybe they will do
so well that they will become a net seller of carbon credits.
So cap in trade is a very flexible way of working.
It is a little ironic that this is an idea that was
invented by the United States. The Europeans didn't like it.
Somehow they thought this was a trojan horse that wasn't going
to work. Guess who is now leading in cap and trade. It is the
Europeans.
You did mention, if I can just take another second--and I
see the red light is on--you mentioned the bully pulpit, and
that sort of runs in the family maybe a little bit. One of the
things that I think----
Mr. Waxman. The bully or the pulpit?
Mr. Roosevelt. Perhaps both. One of the things that I think
will accrue to the United States if we take a constructive role
in global leadership on climate change is that we will start to
regain some of the moral ground that we have lost. If nations
around the world see that we are doing the right thing in
global climate change, whether it be a Bangladesh, whether it
be some of the Pacific isles, whether it be some of the poor
countries that are being affected adversely and will be
affected sooner by global climate change, we will regain moral
ground and we need that to carry out other political
initiatives.
Mr. Waxman. Thank you. I want to thank all three of our
panelists. I think you have been superb.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know time is running
out, but I am happy to take a chance on missing votes so I will
be happy to chair it if you need to leave.
Chairman Tom Davis. After about 2 minutes I am going to
turn the gavel over to you.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. You can finish up.
Mr. Shays. Just very quickly I want to say to you, Mr.
Ruben, your company is controversial at times because it is so
large. I wish it had better relations with some of the lowest
of your paid employees, and I want to say that, but I also
think you enable Americans throughout the world, throughout
this United States, to buy things at a lower price, and it is
in some ways a transfer of resources to those who don't have
resources.
But I want to say thank you for doing what you are doing.
Let me ask you, given you are so big, are you letting others
know how you are doing this or are you trying to beat your
competitors by letting them continue to do what they are doing?
Are you sharing this information with others and trying to help
others?
Mr. Ruben. We are absolutely sharing. In fact, one of two
experimental stores that we have open on the ground is in
McKinney, TX. I was there this past week. The store manager
there has become a part time tour guide. He has had just about
every retail competitor that we have through that store. Every
time a competitor comes through that store and sees something
they might be able to adopt in their own practices, allows more
people to participate in the technology, allows the scale of
that technology to go up, the price of that technology to come
down, creates jobs through innovation, and is simply a good
thing.
Mr. Shays [presiding]. I am going to ask the other two
witnesses to just describe this. What do they think is going to
happen in the next 3 to 4 years in public policy. I mean, I am
starting to feel that Americans are getting it, that whether it
is hurricanes or whatever, you know, they have finally bought
in and are not influenced by politicians who said global
warming is not real. I am sure that some people who said global
warming is not real will deny they ever said it.
But what do you think is going to happen in the next 2 or 3
years? Do you think the public is going to have significant
perception? And do you think people like Al Gore, who said this
in the late 1980's, are going to gain ascendancy as someone to
listen to again on this issue?
Mr. Herskovitz. I think there is going to be increasing and
frightening evidence that will convince more and more people
that we have to act very quickly. I think the trajectory of
urgency is going to go up very soon, and so I think public
policy is going to have to keep trying to catch up with what
will really be public opinion that this is a truly urgent
problem.
Mr. Shays. And I just want to say I have always believed,
and you said it, you reached me in this comment. I think you
tell the American people the truth and they will have you do
the right thing. But when you have debates about whether
someone earned three Purple Hearts or whether someone fulfilled
their national service, and that was the major debate in the
Presidential race, you don't educate people very much.
What do you think is going to happen, Mr. Roosevelt?
Mr. Roosevelt. I believe firmly that the American people
are now understanding it. They are looking for leadership. They
want to see well-thought-out leadership.
If I may go back to Mr. Herskovitz' analogy around World
War II, arguably the greatest mistake we made in World War II
was not recognizing what was looming on the horizon and didn't
get ourselves prepared for it. We see this now on the horizon
and we see some very bright people, whether it be in the
scientific community--I clearly salute Al Gore for an
incredible movie. If anybody in this room hasn't seen it,
please go see it.
But we all need to take personal responsibility for this
and try to change our personal carbon footprint. The American
people, the theme that has run through all three of us this
morning is we believe that this country is ready. People will
make the kind of sacrifices that are necessary. Just help us
unleash the creativity that exists in this country.
Mr. Shays. Well, I think we will end with that note. I had
thought it would happen 5 or 6 years sooner, but I believe it
is going to happen and I think you all have contributed to that
and I thank you very much.
I don't have a gavel to hit. Would you just hit the gavel?
A. Brooke Bennett. We are adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statements of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings and
Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich and additional information submitted
for the hearing record follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.175
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.176
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.169
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.170
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.171
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.172
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.173
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.174
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.177
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.178
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.179
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.180
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.181
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.182
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.183
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.184
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.185
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.186
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.187
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.188
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.189
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.190
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.191
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.192
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9932.193