[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REBALANCING THE CARBON CYCLE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND RESOURCES
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-264
__________
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
45-346 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, 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
Benjamin Chance, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia DIANE E. WATSON, California
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina TOM LANTOS, California
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
Dave Solan, Ph.D., Professional Staff Member
Lori Gavaghan, Clerk
Shaun Garrison, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 27, 2006............................... 1
Statement of:
Marland, Gregg, Ecosystems Science Group, Environmental
Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Steven C.
Wofsy, Abbott Lawrence Rotch Professor of Atmospheric and
Environmental Chemistry, Harvard University; and Daniel A.
Lashof, science director, Climate Center, Natural Resources
Defense Council............................................ 76
Lashof, Daniel A......................................... 110
Marland, Gregg........................................... 76
Wofsy, Steven C.......................................... 97
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Roger C.
Dahlman, co-chair, Interagency Carbon Cycle Working Group,
Climate Change Science Program; and Stephen D. Eule,
director, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program........... 17
Dahlman, Dr. Roger C..................................... 39
Eule, Stephen D.......................................... 53
Stephenson, John B....................................... 17
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Dahlman, Dr. Roger C., co-chair, Interagency Carbon Cycle
Working Group, Climate Change Science Program, prepared
statement of............................................... 42
Eule, Stephen D., director, U.S. Climate Change Technology
Program, prepared statement of............................. 55
Issa, Hon. Darrell E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 3
Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Ohio, prepared statement of................... 138
Lashof, Daniel A., science director, Climate Center, Natural
Resources Defense Council, prepared statement of........... 112
Marland, Gregg, Ecosystems Science Group, Environmental
Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, prepared
statement of............................................... 78
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and
Environment, Government Accountability Office, prepared
statement of............................................... 19
Watson, Hon. Diane E., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 14
Wofsy, Steven C., Abbott Lawrence Rotch Professor of
Atmospheric and Environmental Chemistry, Harvard
University, prepared statement of.......................... 99
REBALANCING THE CARBON CYCLE
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 2006
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Resources,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Darrell Issa
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Issa, and Watson.
Staff present: Larry Brady, staff director; Lori Gavaghan,
legislative clerk; Tom Alexander, counsel; Dave Solan, Ph.D.,
and Ray Robbins, professional staff members; Joe Thompson, GAO
detailee; Alexandra Teitz, minority counsel; Shaun Garrison,
minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority
assistant clerk.
Mr. Issa. Good afternoon. The ranking member will be here
shortly and will give her opening statement when she arrives,
and at that point we will also have a quorum. However,
according to our rules, we can begin. She is on her way.
We can begin now, which means we can get past my painful
opening statement and on to yours.
The administration's release of the U.S. Climate Change
Technology Program's strategic plan on September 21st of this
year and the Government Reform Committee hearing on technology
research titled ``Do We Need a `Manhattan Project' for the
Environment?'' are just two very recent examples of how climate
change is being addressed by the Federal Government and this
Congress. Notwithstanding thousands of studies and the
politicization of this issue on both sides of the aisle, the
central problem is a simple one: humans, and our advanced
societies emit more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than can
be processed by natural systems. The question that we must
answer, then, is how to best address/solve this imbalance in
the flow of carbon between the Earth, atmosphere, and oceans.
From my point of view, this is an engineering problem with
two basic solutions: we can emit less carbon dioxide by burning
less fossil fuels; and we can, during this interim, capture and
store excess carbon that results from burning carbon fuels. I
have become a strong believer that on the first part of the
equation we have an absolute mandate to restore and increase
our nuclear power industry as a major part of the solution to
the imbalance of the carbon cycle, and this is why I held a
hearing last week about the progress by the Department of
Energy on Next Generation nuclear plants.
Current plans to construct new nuclear plants are not
enough, first of all, because they are Generation III or
Generation III+. It is important that Next Generation nuclear
plants be designed, studied, prototyped, and completed because
of the tremendous potential for zero emission electricity and,
most of all, the production of hydrogen for transportation and
use by the industrial sector. Together, electricity and
transportation alone account for about 69 percent of U.S.
carbon dioxide emissions.
This hearing will explore Federal funding, scientific
research, and technology development related to the carbon
cycle and discuss what we do and do not know about the carbon
cycle and the strengths and weaknesses of different
technologies to reduce carbon emissions.
Today, on our first panel, the Government Accountability
Office will detail Federal funding for climate change science,
technology, and emission reduction programs. Officials from the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program and U.S. Climate Change
Technology Program will discuss Federal science and technology
programs related to the carbon cycle.
Our second panel includes carbon cycle experts from Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, Harvard University, and the Natural
Resources Defense Council, who will discuss what we do or do
not know about the carbon cycle, the potential significance of
changes in the carbon cycle, and the strengths and weaknesses
of different technologies--and I repeat, the strengths and
weaknesses of these different technologies--to reduce carbon
emissions.
Today we welcome on our first panel of witnesses Mr. John
B. Stephenson, Government Accountability Office; Dr. Roger C.
Dahlman, Climate Change Science Program; and Mr. Stephen D.
Eule, Climate Change Technology Program.
I would also like to introduce at this time and swear in,
since we are all here, the second panel: Dr. Gregg Marland, of
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory; Dr. Steven C. Wofsy of
Harvard University; and Dr. Daniel Lashof of the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
I look forward to your testimony, and I ask unanimous
consent, since we do have a reporting quorum here now, that the
briefing memo prepared by the subcommittee staff be inserted
into the record, as well as all relevant materials.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Darrell E. Issa follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.010
Mr. Issa. And then I am going to deviate from the order
just for a moment to give the gentlelady an opportunity to
settle in. I ask that all those who will testify or who will
provide assistance to those testifying on questions and answers
please rise and take the oath, as required by the committee
rules.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Issa. The record will show that all answered in the
affirmative.
And with that, I take great pleasure in yielding to the
gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson, for her opening
remarks.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening today's
hearing, and I especially want to commend you on your
timeliness on addressing an issue that can have a long lasting
impact on our Nation. This hearing addresses the issues that
the public needs to know regarding the science of the carbon
cycle. With the threat of global warming on the rise, Congress
needs to pay attention, deep attention, to this issue.
Carbon serves as one of the most essential elements on
Earth and is the principal building block for organic
compounds. The flow of carbon throughout the atmosphere is one
of the most complex and important global cycles. Unfortunately,
this vital element and its cycles are out of balance. As a
result, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are higher than
they have been for 650,000 years, and are still on the rise.
Human activities are releasing carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere at a rapid pace, causing the atmosphere to trap heat
and thereby rapidly warming our planet. This ongoing
environmental problem must be addressed.
I understand that witnesses today will discuss the
administration's response to global warming and discuss the
research and technologies that could help reduce greenhouse
emission gases and new international initiatives for research
and technology. These projects are very important because
greenhouse gas emissions are on the rise every day. In fact, it
is estimated that actual emissions will rise by an additional
14 percent, which is almost the projected rate of business-as-
usual emissions increase.
There is overwhelming evidence of the urgency of the threat
of global warming. The administration needs to take immediate
action to protect our Nation. In the year 2001, the President
stated that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant while questioning
the reality of global warming. The President also withdrew the
United States from the Kyoto Protocol, which is an
international agreement to limit the emissions of global
warming pollution. These actions would seem to indicate that
the President does not consider this to be a serious issue.
Mr. Chairman, the time is now for us to put global warming
at the forefront of our agenda. Complacency now will only
necessitate more drastic and, hence, more expensive reductions
in the future. So I look forward to the testimony from our
witnesses today, and I hope that we will be able to take this
threat of global warming very seriously, because inadequate
preparation can have a drastic impact on the environmental
safety of the American people.
So I yield back and I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Diane E. Watson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.013
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentlelady.
As you can see, there is no shortage of a belief that
dealing with the excess carbon emitted into the atmosphere is
important on this committee. On a bipartisan basis we will
continue to address it in this and the next Congress,
regardless of conflicts among some about the impact of global
warming.
And, with that, I would like to recognize Mr. Stephenson
for his opening remarks.
STATEMENTS OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; DR. ROGER C.
DAHLMAN, CO-CHAIR, INTERAGENCY CARBON CYCLE WORKING GROUP,
CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE PROGRAM; AND STEPHEN D. EULE, DIRECTOR,
U.S. CLIMATE CHANGE TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here today
to discuss two GAO reports relevant to today's hearing. One
report deals with the billions of dollars the Federal
Government annually spends on research and other activities,
and the other report deals with two voluntary programs that are
key components of the administration's efforts to reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases.
First, our report on climate spending showed that 14
Federal agencies have provided billions of dollars for climate
change activities. OMB, at the direction of Congress, annually
reports on expenditures for these activities in four broad
categories: one, science, which includes research to better
understand climate change; two, technology, which includes the
development and deployment of technologies to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions or increase energy efficiencies; three,
international assistance, which helps developing countries to
address climate change; and, four, tax expenditures, which are
Federal income tax provisions that grant preferential tax
treatment to encourage emission reduction, such as credits for
purchasing clean fuel burning vehicles.
In analyzing overall Federal climate change funding, we
found that OMB reported that climate change funding more than
doubled, from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $5.1 billion in 2004,
with almost all of this increase in real or inflation-adjusted
dollars occurring in technology. However, it was difficult for
us to determine if this was a real or a definitional increase
because of numerous changes in reporting format from year to
year without adequate explanation. We found that in some cases
new accounts were added and the definitions of existing
accounts expanded to include more activities.
For example, a $152 million NASA research program to reduce
emissions in aircraft was included for the first time in 2003.
In addition, we found that over 50 percent of the increase in
technology funding was the result of the Department of Eenergy
expanding the definition of two accounts to include over $500
million in nuclear research programs, programs that this
administration considers part of climate change but that the
previous administration did not.
We made several recommendations to improve the clarity and
usefulness of these climate change spending reports that OMB
agreed with and plans to incorporate in future reports.
Nevertheless, these reports are based on individual agency
spending priorities merely rolled up into a single report by
OMB.
While we have not formally reviewed either the Climate
Change Science Program or the just released Climate Change
Technology Program, we think that if these programs are to be
successful, it will be important to clearly articulate the
relationship between the Government's $5 billion investment
portfolio and the goals of both programs. Moreover, we think a
funding mechanism will need to be established to ensure that
individual agency investment decisions reflect these goals and
priorities.
For our other report we examined two voluntary programs
announced by the President in February 2002 aimed at securing
private sector agreements to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas
emissions: EPA's Climate Leaders Program and DOE's Climate
VISION Program. At the time of our report, 74 companies and 15
trade groups were participating in one program or the other. In
general, participants are expected to set emission reduction
goals, measure and track emissions, and annually report
progress against goals.
At the time of our study, about half of the participants
had established goals, but few had begun to measure and track
emissions or annually report progress. In addition, it will be
difficult for EPA and DOE to determine the success of these
programs in terms of emission reductions because of overlap
with other programs and the difficulty in accounting for
reductions that would have occurred anyway because of rising
energy prices or other factors.
We concluded that EPA and DOE needed to do more to
encourage progress under both programs by, among other things,
developing a system for tracking participants' progress in
completing key steps associated with the program and
establishing a formal policy for actions to be taken if
participants are not progressing as expected.
Both DOE and EPA agreed with our recommendations, but we
have not yet done any followup work to determine the extent to
which they have been implemented.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes a summary of my prepared
statement. I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.033
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Stephenson.
And I now ask unanimous consent that all statements be
placed in the record, along with any other submissions from any
of the panelists.
Without objection, so ordered.
Dr. Dahlman.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER C. DAHLMAN
Dr. Dahlman. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you
today and to report on the Federal Carbon Cycle Research
Program. This research is an element of the Climate Change
Science Program and it is coordinated by one of its working
groups, the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group. I am co-
chair of that working group. Mr. Ed Sheffner, who is seated in
the second row behind me, is the other co-chair. He is from the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and I am from the
Department of Energy.
As I breeze through my statement today, I will cite
references to relevant pages of the written testimony so that
everyone can perhaps follow along with more detail.
My testimony focuses on the interagency program that
implements the carbon cycle research element of the Climate
Change Science Program strategic plan. There is a reference to
the strategic plan in the testimony. This strategic plan guides
the research of the interagency carbon cycle program and we
follow it very closely.
The science panel of this hearing will point out that not
all CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere and there
is a large net exchange of CO2 between the
atmosphere and oceans and land. The net exchange of carbon from
the atmosphere into the ocean and land on a global scale
involves a large number of processes and properties, and,
accordingly, the U.S. Government supports an aggressive multi-
and inter-agency research program to better understand the
quantities and uncertainties of the fluxes, properties,
processes, and numerous components of the carbon cycle.
The research results are providing new knowledge about
contemporary changes in carbon sinks and the results are
important for projecting future atmospheric CO2
change and the influence on climate. The program is also
developing tools for measuring and modeling changes in carbon
sinks, and it provides a scientific foundation to support
greenhouse gas management strategies.
The Carbon Cycle Research Program is described in the
strategic plan and there are six questions that guide the
research. These six questions are on page 3 of the testimony.
Briefly, the first question focuses on North American carbon
sources, sinks, and processes. The North American Carbon
Program, and Dr. Wofsy's testimony provide snapshots of some of
the scientific results from this program. The second question
focuses on ocean carbon sources and sinks.
Currently, these are two high priority activities of the
integrated Carbon Cycle Research Program. The next two
questions address the management of carbon sources and sinks at
different scales. The fifth question addresses the science
needed for future projections of atmospheric CO2,
and the last question deals with scientific research needed for
managing components of the carbon cycle.
I want to emphasize that these questions have been
carefully defined, extensively reviewed, and vetted with the
carbon cycle science community. They have been discussed with
stakeholders and are the key guideposts for implementing the
integrated research program.
Briefly, the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group [CCIWG]
is a cooperative venture and it coordinates and integrates the
research across agencies. It has responsibility for
coordinating solicitations and reviews of research proposals
for implementing targeted research and for providing an
interface with the scientific community and for updating
assessments of research needs and priorities. It also
identifies new interagency research activities.
On page 5 of the testimony there is a list of 10 Federal
agencies and departments that participate in this Interagency
Working Group.
I want to briefly mention a number of activities that are
carried out by this Interagency Program. These are not all-
inclusive, but are representative of the kind of work that this
cross-agency program supports.
The first item, of course, is the coordination of the
carbon cycle research on page 5 of the testimony. The CCIWG
coordinates research among its participating agencies,
leverages efforts and avoids duplication, and enhances the
overall scientific findings and products. The coordination
builds on unique agency capabilities and resources. For
example, I want to cite a combination of AmeriFlux observations
from a program supported by DOE, NASA's GLOBALVIEW observations
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, including platform
observation and instrumentation; and NASA's observation
capability from space. The integration of all of those
activities led to a better understanding and quantification of
the terrestrial carbon parameters.
I mentioned the North American Carbon Program, which is
explained in a little bit more detail on page 6 of the
testimony. This is a priority research program whose goals are
to quantify the magnitudes and distributions of carbon sources
and sinks for North America and adjacent oceans, to understand
the processes controlling the sources and sink dynamics, to
introduce consistent analyses of North American carbon budget,
and explain regional and sectoral values of year-to-year
variability.
Another priority program noted on page 7 of the testimony
is the Ocean Carbon and Climate Change [OCCC] Program. This
effort is addressing how much atmospheric carbon dioxide is
taken up by oceans at the present time and how climate change
may affect the future behavior of the ocean carbon sink. The
NACP and the OCCC Programs are synergistic and converge to
address the dynamics of coastal oceans adjacent to North
America and its land-sea margins.
Another activity involves the Climate Change Science
Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.2. It is noted on
page 7 of the testimony. The Carbon Cycle Interagency Working
Group sponsors this assessment on the State of the Carbon Cycle
Report. It is under review now and is scheduled for release in
March 2007.
Mr. Issa. Excellent, Doctor. The remainder will be placed
in the record, if that is all right with you.
Dr. Dahlman. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dahlman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.044
Mr. Issa. Mr. Eule.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN D. EULE
Mr. Eule. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
The administration believes the most effective way to meet
the challenge of climate change is through an agenda that
promotes economic growth, provides energy security, reduces
pollution, and mitigates greenhouse gas emissions. To meet
these goals, the administration has established a comprehensive
approach, major elements of which include policies and measures
to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions, advancing
climate change science--and you heard quite a bit about that
from Dr. Dahlman--accelerating technology development, and
promoting international collaboration.
Since fiscal year 2001, the Federal Government has devoted
nearly $29 billion to climate change programs. In 2002,
President Bush set an ambitious but achievable goal to reduce
the Nation's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by 2012. To
this end, the administration has implemented about 60 Federal
programs, including voluntary programs, incentives, and
mandates. Examples include Climate VISION, a program that works
in partnership with 15 energy-intensive industry sectors
represented by trade groups to reduce the greenhouse gas
intensity of their operation. EPA's Climate Leaders and
SmartWay Transport Partnership programs work with individual
companies to achieve emissions reductions. USDA is using its
conservation programs to provide incentives to increase
terrestrial carbon sequestration, and the Department of
Transportation has implemented a new fuel economy standard for
light trucks and SUVs.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also includes tax incentives
and credits, $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2007 alone, for a
range of clean energy technologies, and it mandates 15 new
appliance efficiency standards and a 7.5 billion gallon
renewable fuel requirement by 2012.
Recent data suggests that we are well on our way toward
meeting the President's intensity goal. While acting to slow
the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, the
United States is laying a strong technological foundation.
The Climate Change Technology Program, or CCTP, is designed
to coordinate and prioritize the Federal Government's
investment in climate related technology, which was nearly $3
billion in fiscal year 2006. CCTP's principal aim is to
accelerate the development and lower the cost of advanced
technologies that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases.
Last week, CCTP released its strategic plan, which revolves
around six goals: reducing emissions from energy use and
infrastructure, reducing emissions from energy supply,
capturing and sequestering carbon dioxide, reducing emissions
of non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, measuring and
monitoring emissions, and bolstering contributions of basic
science.
Transportation and power generation are two obvious areas
of research under this framework. The President has proposed
about $1.7 billion over 5 years for his Hydrogen Fuel
Initiative and FreedomCAR Program to develop hydrogen
technologies. A transition to hydrogen over the next few
decades could transform the Nation's energy system and increase
our energy security by making better use of diverse domestic
energy resources for hydrogen production.
In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President Bush
outlined plans for an Advanced Energy Initiative. AEI is
designed to take advantage of technologies that, with a small
push, could play a big role in reducing the use of foreign
energy sources and lowering pollutant and CO2
emissions. AEI includes significantly greater investments in
solar and wind power, better battery and fuel cell technologies
for pollution-free cars, cellulosic biorefining, near zero
emission coal, and nuclear technologies.
Our research into carbon capture and sequestration
recognizes that for the foreseeable future fossil fuels will
continue to be a low-cost form of energy. DOE's Sequestration
Program is finding ways to capture and store CO2
produced when these fuels, especially coal, are used. DOE
supports a nationwide network of seven carbon sequestration
regional partnerships that are working on determining the best
approach for sequestration in their regions, as well as
regulatory and infrastructure needs. Future Gen is a 10 year,
$1 billion government industry collaboration, which now
includes the governments of India and South Korea, to build the
world's first near zero emissions coal-fired power plant. This
project will integrate the latest technologies in carbon
sequestration, oxygen and hydrogen separation membranes,
turbines, fuel cells, and coal-to-hydrogen gasification.
Looking further into the future, Next Generation nuclear
energy and fusion energy systems offer tremendous potential as
zero emission energy supply choices. The administration
believes that well designed multilateral collaborations can
leverage resources and quicken technology development. The
International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy, Carbon
Sequestration Leadership Forum, Generation IV International
Forum, Methane to Markets, all U.S. initiatives, and the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor [ITER] Fusion
Project provide vehicles for international collaboration to
advance these technologies.
The new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership seeks to develop
a worldwide consensus on approaches to expanding safe use of
zero emission nuclear power. Through the Asia-Pacific
Partnership, the United States is working with Australia,
China, India, Japan, and South Korea to accelerate the uptake
of clean technologies in this rapidly growing region of the
world.
These and other technologies we are developing today could
1 day revolutionize energy systems and put us on the path to
ensuring access to clean, affordable energy, while dramatically
reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eule follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.056
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Thank you all for your testimony. We will alternate between
myself, the ranking member, and other Members as they arrive.
I would like to just summarize what you all had to say, and
I do this with my colleague here at my side, in the friendliest
possible way.
For an administration that denied the existence of global
warming, that saw no problem whatsoever, according to the
opening statements, you certainly have been busy, and I
appreciate that. I will now go to the questions, because we are
not here to give you credit for all that you have done,
although you have done it. We are here to figure out, from an
oversight perspective, what more could be done and what part
Congress should play in it.
Personally, looking at the United States consuming 25
percent of the world's energy, producing 30 percent or so of
the world's GDP, and putting out 22 percent of CO2
emissions, one would say that, in the abstract, we are doing
better than the world as a whole in each of those categories. I
am concerned, though, that there is some level of
CO2 in the atmosphere that has to be achieved by the
world and we have to be the leader of the world in that.
I have been told that studies show that if we had raised
our nuclear electricity production to the same level as France,
about 80 percent, that it would have made us Kyoto compliant.
This probably would have changed the dynamics that existed in
the Senate in which 95+ Senators said they wouldn't vote for
Kyoto, thus dooming it.
Mr. Stephenson, what accounts for the greatest increase in
climate change funding since 1993?
Mr. Stephenson. If you adjust for inflation, technology is
almost all of it.
Mr. Issa. Has that been a good investment?
Mr. Stephenson. We haven't analyzed it formally. We think
that a two-pronged attack of emission reductions and technology
for clean fuel, etc., is the right approach.
Mr. Issa. In a perfect world, if sequestration cost no
energy and we simply captured and stored CO2, with
no downside other than storing a lot of crystals or other forms
that would be stable, would you have concerns if we could
achieve that?
Mr. Stephenson. I am not a scientist, Mr. Chairman, but
right now sequestration is not keeping up with emissions, so,
in a perfect world, I guess that would be wonderful.
Mr. Issa. So I will summarize and say we don't live in this
perfect world, and we are going to have to do more than we are
doing presently in the way of pumping CO2 into empty
oil wells.
Mr. Stephenson. Exactly.
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that.
Mr. Eule, you mentioned the work on fusion. Now, I have an
incredibly good staffer here, Joe, and I asked him when he was
born, and he told me 1978, which just happens to be when a
friend of mine, as a captain, joined my engineer unit. Prior to
that he had been a detailee at Lawrence Livermore for 2 years,
as a scientist working on a highly funded fusion project.
From a practical standpoint, when we look at the dollars we
put into fusion versus the dollars we are putting into Next
Generation or high temperature nuclear reactors, wouldn't it be
fair to say that we could have many reactors up and running for
a fraction of the cost of what we put into fusion that, as of
yet, has not yielded any benefits?
Mr. Eule. That is a very difficult question to answer.
Mr. Issa. That is why we ask them that way.
Mr. Eule. Yes, I know.
Mr. Issa. The leading question is one of our strong points.
Mr. Eule. Right. I will say that fusion has potentially
many benefits. It is a very high risk program, as you know. We
are looking, I think, at a commercialization target of around
2050, so it is really something, from the climate change
perspective, that probably won't have an impact until the
second half of the century.
Having said that, it has attractive environmental safety
features. There are no greenhouse gases, you don't have the
waste problem, and fuel is readily available, so the potential
is so great that I think it behooves us to invest in fusion.
Now, having said that, I think the administration has
committed large resources to nuclear power, and I don't have
the figures in front of me, but I do know that our funding for
nuclear power has increased tremendously over the past few
years. So funding for nuclear power is increasing. I hate to
think of this as a sort of robbing Peter to pay Paul type of
situation because I think they are both valuable technologies
and both have a role to play.
Mr. Issa. Well, I will accept what you have to say because
I am not here to cut long-term funding for fusion. I am
concerned--and I think this committee, through many hearings
during this Congress is concerned--that, in fact, getting to a
hydrogen economy is virtually impossible if we cannot use a
zero emission source.
In previous hearings--and I think our next panel will deal
with it a little bit--we were shown maps of what the world
would look like if we tried to get a terawatt of power from
wind. As much as I am a proponent of wind, I recognize that we
would need wind turbines off every shore, in the middle of Lake
Erie, Lake Michigan, Lake Superior, and absolutely all along
the Pacific Coast in order to meet just our electric needs,
separate from hydrogen. We are not going to get there by wind
alone.
Mr. Eule. I think you raise an excellent point. When you
think about climate change, there are really two areas you have
to think about: transportation and base load power. Nuclear, as
a clean and emission-free energy option, is certainly one
option we have to consider.
Coal is one of the other emphases of the technology
program. The United States, at current reserves and current
recovery rates, has over 400 years of coal. From an energy
security perspective, that is very valuable. The question is
how do we use it in an environmentally friendly manner. One of
the objectives of the Future Gen program is to be able to use
that resource, use it where it doesn't have an impact on the
climate. It would also be virtually pollution free.
I think we have to look at not just nuclear, because coal
has to play a role here as well. The trick, of course, is
figuring out how to reduce the environmental impact of coal.
Mr. Issa. You know, I could ask many more questions, but
the ranking lady has been very patient, so we will go back and
forth.
Ms. Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you so much.
I will address this question to Mr. Eule. Why do you
recommend that the Climate Change Technology Program be
replaced with Climate Change Technology Initiative for the
following years dealing with global warming? Give us the
difference between the two. If one is better than the other,
why do you deem CCTI more effective?
Mr. Eule. I think you are referring to the NCCTI
initiative, the National Climate Change Technology Initiative
that was the Presidential----
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Mr. Eule. Yes. NCCTI is a subset of priority programs that
were identified through the Climate Change Technology Program.
The Climate Change Technology Program provides the overarching
framework. Within that framework we have set some priorities,
and those priorities are the NCCTI priorities that you are
referring to. There are about a dozen of those and they are
listed in Appendix B of the report.
Through our interagency working groups, we have identified
a subset of specific activities that we think should get
priority treatment, and that is the explanation.
Ms. Watson. Can you just give us a few of those?
Mr. Eule. Oh, sure. I would be happy to.
Ms. Watson. The ones that you feel are most important.
Mr. Eule. Well, there are only 12 of them, and they are:
hydrogen storage, low wind speed technology, solid state
lighting, cellulosic biomass, transportation fuel cell systems,
the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, the Advanced Fuel Cycle,
Advanced Burner Reactor Program, Carbon Sequestration is a big
one, IGCC, and in EPA we have the Methane Partnerships
Initiative and the Climate Leaders Program. EPA has a lot of
expertise in non-carbon dioxide greenhouses gases, so we have a
couple of programs that deal with those as well.
That is an overview of the NCCTI programs.
Ms. Watson. If I may just ask another one, too. Is it true
that under the former administration CCTI was less costly than
the similar program CCTP under the Bush administration? Why was
that one less costly?
Mr. Eule. I am not familiar. If there really is an analog
between the CCTP and anything that the Clinton administration
had, I am not aware of any.
Ms. Watson. Well, do you see the CCTI as more effective,
considering the lesser amount of money used?
Mr. Eule. We see the NCCTI initiatives as discreet
priorities that if they received a little bit more funding
could have a big impact on developing certain technologies that
could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, avoid
those emissions, or sequester those emissions. So, again, it is
a subset of priorities that we identified within the program we
think deserve special recognition, primarily--especially--
during the budget process.
Ms. Watson. Considering the weaknesses already in the CCTP
draft strategic plan that are more than likely to appear in the
final draft, why should billions of dollars be invested in a
program that already seems to have some failing aspects to it?
Mr. Eule. Well, I would disagree with that
characterization. I think we have made an effort. There were
shortcomings in the report when the first draft was released
for public comment in September. I think we have done a very
good job of addressing those concerns. We received about 280
comments on the report, and through the interagency working
groups we have done, I think, a pretty good job of examining
those comments and changing the report where we thought it was
wise to do so.
I think the report that has come out is a much tighter
report. In particular, we have laid out some goals of potential
emission reductions for certain technologies at certain times
when those technologies would have to be ready. So I think we
have made an effort to improve the final document, and we think
it is one that will aid the administration and we hope future
administrations, as they struggle with these issues.
I would note that with any first-of-a-kind document, it is
not going to satisfy everyone, but the United States is the
only country that I am aware of that has thought these issues
through and come up with a strategic plan to deal with them.
Ms. Watson. Well, just one more question, Mr. Chairman. The
interagency working groups are composed of who?
Mr. Eule. We have six of them. They are organized according
to each strategic goal in the plan, and include fairly senior
level people within the agencies that participate in CCTP.
There are 10 agencies, and the Department of Energy leads the
working groups on energy supply, energy use, and basic
research. EPA leads the working group on non-CO2
greenhouse gases.
Ms. Watson. Do you go outside of the agency to bring in----
Mr. Eule. Oh, yes.
Ms. Watson [continuing]. Technicians, people who have
experience, like working with universities and so on?
Mr. Eule. Yes, that is a good question. We do bring in
outside experts to review the portfolio. Last year, for
example, we held six workshops where we brought in experts from
the outside to examine the portfolio, again, according to the
strategic goals that we set in the plan. They issued a report,
and I think it is available on the Oak Ridge National Lab Web
page, and we would be happy to get that for you.
Ms. Watson. So there would be some opportunity for, not
necessarily the general public, but people with expertise to
review and maybe to add to your report?
Mr. Eule. We consider this report a living document. We
hope it is not going to change too much in the near future, but
we see the report as largely the beginning of a dialog not only
with the other agencies and governments, but with experts from
the outside and the general public, so, yes.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. Very good round. And I will be brief in my second
round.
Dr. Dahlman, as an old business man, the first question we
always ask is what is our break even point. Do we have, today,
the level of research to know where the break even point is? My
understanding--the reason for the question--is that even our
estimates of how much carbon we are emitting are inexact in
many, many areas. Do we have it? If we don't have it, what
tools are needed and what dollars are needed for those tools?
Dr. Dahlman. I haven't really thought about the carbon
cycle in terms of a break even point. Maybe I can attempt to
answer your question in terms of the major components of the
carbon cycle. The emissions component of the carbon cycle is
quite well characterized, and I think Mr. Gregg Marland will be
able to give you some statistics on that. The atmospheric
CO2 concentration is measured quite accurately, so
we know that quantity.
There are estimates of the amount of carbon that moves from
the atmosphere into the ocean, and those estimates are pretty
consistent, and they may be subject to some uncertainty. Where
the largest uncertainty seems to be is the direct measurement
of the carbon taken up by the terrestrial systems. That is
where some of our priorities are and where investments are
being focused, to understand those processes and quantities
better.
Now, once we have improved results from that research, then
I think we are in a better position to state quantitatively how
well the global carbon cycle is balanced.
Is that getting at your question, sir?
Mr. Issa. It is. Perhaps the way to put it, again, as a
businessman, is if we assume that we stop putting more
greenhouse gases--at least CO2--into the atmosphere
if we do X, Y, and Z, and we look at the cost of each of the
Xs, Ys, and Zs, whether it is continuing to use fossil fuels
but reducing what gets released, or it is alternatives such as
producing 80 percent of the world's electricity with nuclear
instead of fossil fuels, what will we achieve? One of the
frustrations is I don't see a model that says, OK, if we are
willing to spend X, we can get, with current technology, to
either a lower sink rate or break even at this price. Then you
can start evaluating over the next 20 years how much of that
you do with existing technology and how much you invest into
technologies to drive down the cost.
It appears as though everyone is looking at improvement,
but no one is looking at break even. I, for one, have a hard
time looking at a goal that is about doing better rather than
doing enough, because I think the gentlelady would share this
with me and I know my Governor in California would share this--
the goal is to quit warming up the Earth, if in fact we are
causing it. We are not going to quit warming it up until we get
to that zero point, and it doesn't appear, today, from
everything that I read in the material in preparation, that we
have really figured out the break-even point and then started
quantifying the cost.
So that is what I was hoping to get to. Trust me, Steve,
you are next. [Laughter.]
I asked you because I was hoping that, when you look at the
carbon cycle, that at some point we think of cost/benefit and
break even so that we can start quantifying it. Everything
helps, but what helps the most for the least dollars?
Dr. Dahlman. I think there are integrated assessment
modeling approaches that consider the carbon cycle dynamics in
relation to different energy emissions sources, and especially
including the zero emission sources like nuclear power. Those
analyses indicate that with a certain energy supply component
that has a mix of different fossil technologies and non-fossil
technologies, that the atmospheric CO2 increase will
reach certain levels within certain timeframes. Of course,
these are scenario analyses, and you can----
Mr. Issa. Right. These models tell us when we get to
doomsday. What I want is how do we not get to doomsday.
Dr. Dahlman. Well, as long as we continue with the present
investment in fossil technology and those emissions,
atmospheric CO2 is going to increase. It will take a
considerable tradeoff of non-fossil technologies to reach some
stabilization point that is not damaging. What is the language
that is used with the framework convention? Dangerous levels of
CO2. Well, there is a lot of research trying to
determine what that level is, sir, and much depends on what the
mix of energy technologies will be for driving the country's
and the world's economies in the future.
Mr. Issa. OK, I will take that as as good an answer as
exists, but you are a young man, I am sure we will have you
back.
Steve, I have to tell you I know you have been chomping at
the bit, so please answer that question. I would like to then
followup on the big question for you, and I am going to put
this one in in advance, because even though I am the chairman,
I have a clock too. The United States is responsible for 20
percent of the world's annual carbon dioxide emissions. I was
not a proponent of Kyoto for the following reason: China and
India and other quickly developing nations were not part of it,
so Kyoto would get to a zero net for developed nations while
the world was not getting to a zero net.
I want you to talk specifically about efforts that the
United States can or is taking to help get the world to that
not-yet-defined zero net. Where are the investments in China
and India and other developing nations, so that we are not
simply energy and pollution laundering having our products
delivered with less efficient energy-wise and pollution-wise
technologies.
So those are the two questions, and I am done. All you have
to do is talk until the gentlelady says your time is up.
Mr. Eule. You may regret saying that, Chairman.
With your permission, I am going to ask my colleague to
bring up a couple of copies of the strategic plan because it
gets to your question on cost.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Eule. I would direct your attention to the chart on
page 42.
Mr. Issa. I assume this is available on a multi DVD set.
Mr. Eule. This is. But this is one of the most interesting
figures in the report. I regret not having more copies
available; they are being printed. On page 42 you see cost
reductions associated with advanced technology scenarios
compared to a baseline case without advanced technologies.
Our whole reason for being in CCTP is to reduce the cost
and expand the options available to policymakers to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions, and we have some very bright people
in the Pacific Northwest National Lab that run some scenario
analyses for us. We don't need to get into great detail on
this, but you see that there is a very high constraint and it
goes all the way over to a low constraint.
I am sorry, can we--yes, Chapter 10, page 209 is a much
clearer chart. I am sorry to do this.
But, really, what this shows is the baseline cost of
reducing emissions under a very high constraint case exceeds
$250 trillion--that is cumulative--to 2100. If we are able to
develop the advanced technologies we have in the portfolio, we
think that we can reduce the cost by about 56 percent to 68
percent with a very high constraint case over the coming
century. As you can see, that rate stays pretty much the same.
It actually grows a little bit as we move from the very high to
the low constraint.
The take away message from this chart is that with these
advanced technologies, we can significantly reduce the cost of
achieving the goals of the Framework Convention and our own
goals. This is really what our program is all about, reducing
the cost.
When you consider carbon sequestration, for example, right
now the cost to sequester a ton of carbon is about $100 a ton,
roughly. The goal for the program is to reduce that to about
$10 a ton. When you reduce sequestration to $10 a ton, it opens
up a panoply of policy options that aren't available now. Even
with a cap and trade system, if you consider that the highest
cost for carbon in the European cap and trade system was the
equivalent of about $40, that is not going to get you carbon
sequestration at $100 a ton. At $10 a ton there is a whole host
of policies that will do so.
So I would recommend the chart on page 209 to your
attention.
To your other question, you raise an excellent point about
the Kyoto protocol. Quite frankly, in the U.N. Framework
Convention meetings that I have attended, the developing world
has shown absolutely no interest in a specific constraint or
target for greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Information
Administration is projecting that by 2010 non-OECD country
emissions will surpass those from OECD country emissions.
The United States believes that to get these countries
engaged, you just can't talk about climate change. You have to
talk about energy security and pollution reduction. We have
launched the Asia-Pacific Partnership. It was formally launched
in January of this year. It includes Australia, China, India,
South Korea, and Japan and the United States, and we are
working with those countries to help them achieve their own
goals as far as improved energy efficiency, reducing pollution,
and mitigating greenhouse gases. It is a small group of
countries, but it represents about half the world's GDP, half
the world's population, half the world's energy consumption,
amd half the world's greenhouse gas emissions, so it is a huge
group as far as those metrics go. It is small, very manageable,
but we are working closely with them. We have eight task forces
that have developed action plans in various areas such as power
generation, steel, and aluminum, to name but a few. We are
working closely with them, and we think that is going to have a
huge impact because it tackles problems that those countries
are interested in. They are more interested in energy security
than they are in climate change, to be frank. So we are
attacking all of those at the same time.
Ms. Watson. I just need a little clarification. You mention
the cost of those technologies relative to emissions. Can you
give me a scenario that would help me to understand the cost
factor? I know you gave a humongous amount in the trillions,
but are we saying that the cost factor will determine what
technologies are used? Expand on that, please.
Mr. Eule. The point was that without advanced technologies
the cost is tremendous. But if we are successful in developing
the technologies that we have in the plan----
Ms. Watson. That you have listed there, OK.
Mr. Eule [continuing]. The cost goes down tremendously.
Carbon sequestration is a good example, from $100 to $10 a ton
to sequester carbon. It is a huge cost differential and it can
really drive the technology and make it more acceptable in the
marketplace. This applies not only to carbon sequestration, but
to a whole host of energy technologies. The goal is to lower
the cost. If we lower the cost for the technologies, you lower
the cost for mitigation and you expand the range of policy
options available to decisionmakers.
Ms. Watson. We all are concerned about the emissions that
we are letting off into our environment, and as we watch the
aftermath of Katrina and listen to the scientists and the
forecasters talk about the warming of the water and so on, my
concern goes to what is the length of time it would take to be
able to come out with some draft report as to what technologies
you feel will lower the cost so that we could start addressing
the rising emissions into our atmosphere? Just, you know, kind
of a ballpark figure as to how long these various departments
and groups are going to be working before they can suggest.
Mr. Eule. You have raised a good point and it is a good
question. In the plan we have timeframes where we think the
technologies may be ready, and different technologies will have
different timeframes. But let me give you a few examples.
In the hydrogen program, for example, we are looking at
developing the technologies to the point where business can
make a go, no-go decision by 2015, and maybe start deploying
these technologies in 2020. When you look at the Generation IV
program, they are looking at Next Generation nuclear power in
the 2020 to 2035 timeframe. I mentioned fusion, 2050 timeframe;
sequestration maybe 2020. So we have a continuum of advanced
technologies that could become available over the course of the
century. I would say that as a companion to the strategic plan
we have our Technology Options Report, which lists many of the
technologies that are available today or that could be
available through these R&D programs. That is available on our
Web page, and we would be happy to share that with you.
Mr. Watson. Well, I just want to mention a scenario in
California. We are both from the State of California, and we
have worked for 20 years plus to improve the quality of our air
and our environment. I think we have done an awesome job,
because we have cleaned up our air somewhat. However, I
represented a district central to Los Angeles at that time, and
they came in and they told the shops that cooked barbeque that
you are going to have to reduce your emissions. Of course, they
all came to me and said but you have to have the smoke, if you
are going to have smoke, you know, and all that. And so they
said you have to do something to retrofit your systems so it
would stop emitting so much of the carbon and so on.
So I heard the small shop owners complain about the cost
and I heard our Cal-EPA say we have to set a time line and a
cap if we are going to clean up the air. I could understand all
that. So what I did was to initiate a bill that would allow the
shop owners to be loaned money to borrow to be able to
retrofit.
You had 12 different study groups, I think you mentioned,
and you mentioned the cost, and I am sure some will be more
costly than others. We might want to then create a way of
helping manufacturers and businesses, because the economy is a
consideration. So I am hoping that as the study groups develop
their reports, they will take into consideration not only the
cost, but how we can meet that cost if we are going to have a
real serious impact on our air quality and the emissions
greenhouse gases.
Mr. Eule. You raise a very good point. After you develop
technologies, how do you deploy them?
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Mr. Eule. This is a key question, and I think a great
example is in Title VI of the Energy Bill. I think that will do
more to spur nuclear power in this country than a whole host of
incentives, because it goes to a specific risk that owners and
operators face, and that is regulatory risk that really can't
be addressed in any other way.
So I think you are right, we have to be creative in how we
develop incentives to deploy these technologies, and that is
something----
Ms. Watson. We need a Marshall Plan for this particular
battle.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Issa. Thank you for giving so much credit to the full
committee chairman for that title.
I would like to thank you for all of your testimony. I
would like to ask if you would mind taking some additional
questions in writing to respond for the record.
I would like to place on the record that the barbeque place
that I go to uses only wood fire; therefore, it is 100 percent
renewable energy. And I retain the right to continue having
barbeque that is wood-fired.
With that, we are going to recess for about 10 minutes and
then take up the second panel. Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Issa. OK, if we can all start making our way back to
the seats.
Thank you for all being patient as we went to other
committees and back.
We now have our second panel. You already have been sworn
in, and I will do you all one favor and point out the map that
I am so proud of. This is from a Berkeley professor we had
earlier, who was kind enough to give us a comprehensive map of
what it would take to get to one terawatt of wind power with
today's technology. The good news is that the map gets us to
one terawatt, so we are self sufficient. The bad news is that
only the black areas are what we would consider today to be
really first-class locations. But to get to our base electric
load, this is what it would take. When I asked him one followup
question, which was, is this based on the fact that the wind
doesn't blow all the time? He said, oh, no, no, this is the
total power. This doesn't guarantee you get it when you want
it.
With that, we announce our second panel. Dr. Marland, if
you would go ahead. You have all been very good in the first
panel on basically summarizing in 5 minutes. And, again, your
entire statements will be placed in the record.
Please go ahead, Doctor.
STATEMENTS OF GREGG MARLAND, ECOSYSTEMS SCIENCE GROUP,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES DIVISION, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY;
STEVEN C. WOFSY, ABBOTT LAWRENCE ROTCH PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; AND DANIEL A.
LASHOF, SCIENCE DIRECTOR, CLIMATE CENTER, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF GREGG MARLAND
Mr. Marland. I want to take 5 minutes to quickly consider
three questions, and the three questions are: ``Which carbon?''
``How much carbon?'' And ``Whose carbon?''
On the ``Which carbon?'' Let me just say I am going to talk
mostly about emissions from fossil fuels. This is the principal
human impact that is perturbing the global carbon cycle. While
we focus mostly on the magnitude of the emissions, I just
wanted to point out that there are other characteristics of the
emissions that are important in a variety of ways. We know how
the emissions change with time. They change annually or through
the course of a year. They change through the course of a day.
We know how it is distributed in space. We know, for example,
that 95 percent of emissions occur in the Northern Hemisphere.
We know that emissions that come from fossil fuels are not the
same as the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere.
Wally Broker used to talk about red carbon and blue carbon,
but the CO2 that comes out of fossil fuels is
recognizable by its carbon isotope signature, so it is clearly
distinguishable from what mixes out of the ocean and what comes
from volcanos, for example. We also know that when we are
burning fossil fuels, as we put carbon dioxide into the air, we
are taking oxygen out. All of these characteristics are
important because they help us understand the details of the
carbon cycle and they also help us to understand absolutely,
without question, that the increase we are observing in the
atmosphere is indeed due to fossil fuel burning.
To move to the question, ``How much carbon?'' I think many
people have in their minds that emissions from fossil fuel use
are in the order of 6 billion to 6.5 billion metric tons per
year. The truth is, our most recent estimates suggest that 2006
is probably going to pass 8 billion metric tons. So the rate of
increase is huge. The baseline for the Kyoto Protocol was 1990.
It is likely that 2006 will be 28 percent above the 1990 value.
Sorry, the 2005 value was 28 percent above the 1990 value. And
the United States, in 2002, as has already been said, is
roughly 22 percent, 23 percent of that.
The other thing that I think is interesting--and I am going
to blame Joe for this--we have this vision that we have been
burning fossil fuels and the atmosphere has been accumulating
CO2 for a long time. But half of the total emissions
of CO2 have occurred in Joe's lifetime. He was born
in 1978, you said, and the midpoint for the total that has been
emitting now is in 1981, roughly. In the late 1970's we were
worried about running out of energy, but we burned more fossil
fuel since the late 1970's than we did before.
Let me skip through some of the things that are clear in
the written statement and say that the emissions from the U.S.
amount to 5.4 tons of carbon per person per year in the United
States. And if you compare that globally, we are running about
five times the global average. This raises my third question,
which is, ``Whose carbon?''
There are movements in Europe, for example, that we should
restrict carbon so that everybody is entitled to the same per
capita emissions. But if you look in my testimony, there is a
map of the United States which shows per capita emissions by
State, and we have an order of magnitude difference between
States in the United States. It is roughly 3 in California and
35 in Wyoming, and it makes you realize there is something
going on there other than us just being evil. It has to do
ultimately with climate, population density, the structure of
the economy, and access to resources. You start to ask whose
carbon. When we do per capita emissions for the United States,
what are we counting in a global economy? How is that related
to what is happening in the United States, the profit that we
are getting?
I mentioned that there is this huge increase that has taken
place from 1990 to 2005. In fact, if you go back and inventory
that by country, almost half of it is in China. But some recent
studies show that the best estimate is between 7 percent and 14
percent of emissions from China are to produce goods that will
be exported to the United States. If you look at the national
inventory for Canada, 6.6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions
from Canada are to produce, process, and transport oil and
natural gas that will be used in the United States.
So this whole idea of doing inventories, whether it is by
State or community or even by country, is very complex. We are
subdividing a global system into, again, my carbon and your
carbon, and it becomes increasingly difficult to know really
who should take credit for which.
In that same context, let me add one final point. If we are
talking about managing the carbon cycle, which we are, then
this my carbon and your carbon becomes a very critical issue.
And the last diagram in my written statement is just a quick
diagram of what happens when you try to sequester carbon by
going to no till agriculture, and the answer is you don't just
sequester carbon. You can't understand what you have done by
measuring the amount of carbon in the soil. It changes the fuel
use, it changes fertilizer use, it changes, perhaps, crop
productivity. And I think it is very important that, as we
progress, we make sure that we look at the full systems and not
just my carbon and your carbon.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marland follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.075
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Dr. Wofsy.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. WOFSY
Mr. Wofsy. I would like to thank you very much for inviting
me here, and I have actually got some visual aids which are
intended to establish my position as the class geek among the
six that have testified here.
I am going to address one question only. There are several
things addressed in my testimony that I will not deal with. For
example, some of the scientific issues about measuring, such as
how do we measure the total amount of carbon coming from North
America and from the United States? I think this is a very
important question, but I won't bear on that in my oral
testimony.
I am going to address the question of the land sink for
CO2. As we will see from this chart, which is also
Table 1A in my written testimony, if you just look down that
middle column, in North America we released 1,640 megatons, or
1.6 gigatons of carbon annually, on average, during the
previous decade. About 35 percent of that is actually taken up
by the land biosphere here in the United States and Canada.
Very little, actually, in Mexico. So why is that and what role
might that play in managing the carbon?
Why is it happening? It is happening because during the
18th and 19th centuries, the first part of the 20th century, we
released a lot of carbon to the atmosphere by cutting down the
forests and plowing the prairies and doing all that good stuff
that we did. However, due to the intensification of agriculture
and a number of other factors, including forestry and a bunch
of other things like that, a lot of forests are regrowing where
they had been before, and those forests are taking out a lot of
carbon from the atmosphere, so what used to be a source is now
a sink for carbon.
If you think about what is happening out there and you look
at detail--we have a lot of scientific research, a lot of it
supported by the DOE, actually, which examines what the forests
are actually doing and why they are doing it, sort of on an
ecological basis--what you find out is that one could manage
the forests and other lands, range lands and crop lands, to
increase carbon storage. You could do that in a very
interesting way. You could do it in such a way that the costs
involved were either not costs, you made money doing it, or you
could do it in a marginal cost basis, for example, by
incentivizing people to lengthen the rotation of timber
harvests. A company has a forest growing and they wish to
harvest it. If they wait, they pay an opportunity cost for the
money, but they get a bigger crop. So that is one way that you
can actually work on marginal costs. It is actually a very
interesting option.
There is a risk, of course, that if you sequester carbon in
ecosystems, that carbon can come back to you later through
climate change, killing off the forest, or through people
deciding that it was time to build a subdivision there or
whatever----
Mr. Issa. Or a California forest fire.
Mr. Wofsy. Well, the forest fires are actually a very
interesting part of this. We could talk about that later. That
is not unrelated to climate issues and also to other things
like previous fire suppression in areas where fire is a normal
part of the ecology. If you get more fuel, some bad things can
happen, that is exactly right.
I am going to pass over the next several slides, and I
would like to end, actually, with the one which is now way to
the end of the thing, past where it says the end and go to
where it says Figure 3. This is a result of research actually
that we did at the Harvard Forest in central Massachusetts over
the last 15 years as part of the Department of Energy AmeriFlux
network. This is a complicated graph, so we are going to look
at the top panel of the graph. What you see there is a line
that shows how much carbon is taken out of the atmosphere for
each hectare of land in the Harvard Forest. A negative means
taking it out of the atmosphere. You may notice that the line
is drifting more negative. In fact, in the last 5 years,
Harvard Forest has taken out twice as much carbon per year from
the atmosphere as it did in the first 5 years of the study, in
the early 1990's. This is a very, very big surprise, and it
looks like other sites in the AmeriFlux network are showing the
same thing. One of the things we are going to want to do is to
understand that.
It certainly is telling us--if I may wrap up--that the
possibility of using sequestration in ecosystems could and
should be part of the solution to this problem. There isn't, as
you pointed out in your briefing document, there is not one
solution to this problem. One of the nice things about this is
that, unlike nuclear energy, this is working today on an
enhanced basis. It is bigger now than it was 10 years ago. That
is not true for the nuclear industry. So we have something that
is actually responding quickly. Maybe it won't last as long. It
is not clear how long this will go on, and it is not clear
even, really, why it is happening. We need more scientific
research to learn about that.
That is where I will end and take any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wofsy follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.086
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Dr. Lashof.
STATEMENT OF DR. DANIEL A. LASHOF
Mr. Lashof. Thank you.
It is a pleasure to be before this committee led by two
Californians, where I did my dissertation research on the
carbon cycle a few years ago at the University of California. I
would like to make five points today with the help of a few
slides as well. I will cover the five points quickly and then
go back and explain them.
First, the carbon cycle has never been as far out of
balance as it is today, so the title you have given this
hearing is very apt. We need to act to rebalance it. Second,
because of that, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
is higher than it has been in at least 650,000 years, and the
amount is continuing to rise rapidly. Third, the imbalance in
the carbon cycle has thrown the Earth's energy balance out of
wack and that is causing dangerous global warming which
threatens our environment, health, and economy. Fourth, we can
rebalance the carbon cycle in time to prevent the most
dangerous effects of global warming, but we are running out of
time to do that, and we are running out of time very quickly.
Fifth, only an enforceable limit on global warming and
pollution, in my view, can drive the market for clean
technologies fast enough to get the job done in time.
So let me explain those points in the few minutes that I
have.
In the next slide I show a very simplified picture of the
carbon cycle. This may be a little bit out of date. Gregg just
told us that current emissions are maybe closer to 8 billion
tons. But the basic picture here is that when we burn fossil
fuels--coal, oil, natural gas--we are putting 7 billion to 8
billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere. About 3 billion
tons of that is being removed by forests, other biological
systems, and the oceans. That means there is 4 billion tons
left, and that translates into a two part per million increase
in CO2 in the atmosphere.
If you look at the next slide, that is what we are seeing.
This is the actual record of CO2 in the atmosphere
since 1958. And what we know from this and other data is that
we now have over 380 parts per million in the atmosphere. That
is more, as I said, than we have seen in over 650,000 years,
and the growth rate has accelerated in the last few years.
Three out of the last 4 years have seen an increase of two
parts per million or more. As I said, that extra CO2
in the atmosphere is trapping heat, driving global warming and
causing a whole range of consequences that we are really
beginning to see. To name a few, we are experiencing more
severe hurricanes as ocean temperatures rise, more severe
droughts and wildfires, and, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman,
particularly in the Western United States, as mountain snow
pack declines and the higher temperatures increase evaporation
rates, increased risk of fire, coastal flooding and innundation
as ice sheets and glaciers melt, and more deaths from severe
heat waves, particularly in our urban areas.
To get to the fourth point, we are running out of time to
stop this.
Here is our choice. If we start cutting emissions in the
United States now, and work with other countries using our
leadership to leverage them to take similar action, we can
rebalance the carbon cycle in time to avoid the most dangerous
consequences of global warming, and we can do it at a pace that
is gradual enough that we can afford to do it. In this curve,
we ramp up to about a 3 percent per year reduction in
CO2 emissions. This goes to the question you asked
to the previous panel. This is the kind of reduction that we
need to do to solve the problem, not just to reduce how bad it
is. Eventually, if we keep doing that, we can reduce the
emissions of carbon dioxide to the level where the emissions
are equal to the removals and then we have balanced it out. We
think there is growing evidence that we need to do that at no
higher than about 450 parts per million in the atmosphere. We
are at 380 today. That means we have to get started right away.
A paper that Jim Hansen headed at NASA Goddard Institute of
Space Science, published just yesterday, argues that we have no
more than 10 years to turn the corner on CO2
emissions if we are going to get where we need to go.
So let me get to my last point. The technologies are
available today to get this job done, and here is a portfolio
of technologies. They are described in more detail in the
September issue of ``Scientific American,'' which we have made
available to all the Members of the House. We can get started
with the technologies that we have now.
There is no question that additional technology development
will help us do this more cost effectively, but here is the
irony: the administration is calling for a big government
technology R&D program with no assurance that this technology
will actually be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Supporters of global warming emission limits have united behind
a market-based solution that would put a cap on the total
emissions of carbon dioxide and let market-based trading figure
out the most efficient way of achieving that cap. Without that
kind of cap that would drive the private sector investments in
deploying these technologies to reduce emissions, all the R&D
in the world won't solve this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lashof follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.105
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
And if the gentlelady is not back by the end of my
questioning, we may take a short recess, with your indulgence.
She has been tied up at International Relations. Welcome to the
end of a Congress.
Dr. Wofsy, let me just ask about missing carbon. I find
missing carbon to be an amazing subject, because I have always
asked myself a question: As carbon levels rise, does the Earth
begin to deal with the higher level of carbons in some
affirmative way? As a result, if we find out about missing
carbon, do we, at the same time, change all of our curves about
the growth in temperature and the growth of greater emissions?
Is there a stabilizing point?
Mr. Wofsy. We are learning more about that over the last 10
years. A lot of progress has been made. I wish I could be more
encouraging. The ocean's capacity to take up carbon does appear
to be decreasing gradually with time, which is actually what
would be forecast based on simple chemistry. The fertilization,
if you want to call it, of the land biosphere by CO2
is a phenomenon. If you grow plants in a chamber that has more
CO2 than the current atmosphere, they tend to grow
faster, and some of them do. But the capability of that to
actually stimulate storage of carbon appears to be lower than
one might have hoped. It is not zero, but it does not seem to
be something that is going to save us.
So I believe the answer is that some of this increase in
the uptake of CO2 that we saw at Harvard Forest, for
example, could be due to increasing concentrations of
CO2. We don't think that is most of it, but that is
still an area of active scientific research. I would say that
anybody who wanted to rely on this kind of greening of the
Earth would be ill advised to do so. It is a factor, but it is
not going to save us.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Dr. Marland, could you put the wedge slide back up, if you
would, please? I think you are familiar with it.
This is a slide of the United States. If we reduce
emissions as called for in this slide and the world does
nothing, what will be the effect on global carbon?
Mr. Marland. It is basically an economics question, and I
am not an economist. But there are some analyses, and it starts
to come up in Europe now when you are interested in
electricity. When you start to do that in some small number of
countries, then things start to move around between countries.
I have been intrigued, for example, that wood chips are now
harvested in Canada from forests and they are shipped to Europe
because there are incentives in Europe to bring down
CO2 emissions locally. Now, logically, it makes more
sense to use the wood chips closer to home to replace fossil
fuels in Canada. But the economic situation has been arranged,
and the set of incentives are in place in Europe, so it becomes
economically profitable to ship wood chips to Europe.
Mr. Issa. A trade distorting subsidy, pray tell?
Mr. Marland. Well, we have a global system. I talk about my
carbon and your carbon and our carbon. It is my carbon and your
carbon when we burn the fuel, but in the atmosphere it is our
carbon. Somehow there has to be cooperative arrangements so
that the objective is our carbon. The objective is not my
carbon or your carbon, it is our carbon, and there has to be
some kind of a systematic way of addressing the whole system
rather than subsets thereof.
Mr. Issa. Excellent.
Dr. Lashof, I am going to ask you two questions about this
slide. One is a followup on what I asked Dr. Marland, which is
if I read correctly this slide, if we were to do all of these
things--and, by the way, I am a supporter of doing all of these
things--the reduction would not equal the increase over the
same period of time that we expect from China alone. I would
like you to comment on that, because I want to be a good world
player, but we can't be a world player in a vacuum. We have to
bring the entire biosphere with us.
Second, along with this chart, my biggest question, my
biggest concern is I see no nuclear in it, even though we had
the founder of Greenpeace telling us that nuclear is critical
to the foreseeable future's sustainable atmosphere.
Mr. Lashof. I will try to address both those questions.
The specific quantitative comparison that you asked about I
am not sure how those numbers work out. I mean, the United
States is still the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions
worldwide. People focus on China's growth, which is absolutely
stunning and obviously a big problem. This chart is intended to
be the U.S. contribution to a global effort. There is no
question you have to bring the rest of the world along. There
is some argument about how you do that. I believe the United
States has to show leadership. We have to make commitments.
Governor Schwarzenegger believes that as well, obviously, in
signing the legislation today.
Mr. Issa. Isn't it great to have all Californians here?
Even your education.
Mr. Lashof. I love it. It is a great day, actually, in my
view. The Governor's signature on an Assembly Bill 32, would
clearly put California in a leadership role. He knows that
California, by itself, can't solve the global warming problem,
but California leadership will, I believe, lead to U.S.
leadership. U.S. leadership has to lead to a worldwide
solution. I should say we certainly have a lot of work to do
particularly with China and India, which have a lot of coal and
are growing rapidly, but we certainly wouldn't be alone. The
other countries in Europe, as well as Japan, are making
significant investments in reducing their emissions of global
warming pollution, so it is not like the United States is
stepping out all by itself.
I have just one more point about this figure. It appears on
page 57 of the Scientific American of this month. The previous
page actually shows how it fits in to a global framework, and I
will bring that to you so you can see that.
With respect to your other question about nuclear power, I
did construct this portfolio without including a contribution
from expanded nuclear power in the United States. I did that
for several reasons. One is that I believe there are ongoing
issues in terms of the cost, waste disposal, and proliferation
from nuclear power that may make it difficult or impossible to
greatly expand nuclear power in an acceptable way in the United
States and around the world.
Second, I did it intentionally because I think there has
been a lot of claims that it is impossible to deal with global
warming without nuclear power. I wanted to show that it is
possible. Nuclear is one option, no question about it, because
it produces electricity withoutgenerating CO2. It
could make a contribution, and in the original wedges diagram
that Professor Sokolow developed, nuclear is one of the 15
options that he puts forward, no question. But I wanted to make
the point that if it doesn't pan out, if we can't address those
issues which are challenging, in my view, there is still a way
to get to where we need to go.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
I wouldn't be a Member of Congress if I didn't note that in
my home district, in San Diego, some of the technologies that
have been developed have near zero residue and have the
additional ability to burn--let me rephrase, to consume
plutonium for the purposes of creation of electricity. So I
often bring that up simply because the idea that we would take
the weapons grade leftovers of the cold war and turn them into
electricity to me is too intriguing not to invest at least in
that. Perhaps we could also invest in reprocessing a dramatic
portion of what now is planned to be put in Yucca Mountain,
which I certainly would agree with.
I asked the previous panel this question, I will ask each
of you the same question. There are clearly a lot of
uncertainties, both in the testimony and in the answers to
questions earlier, about the carbon cycle, exactly what it is,
perhaps even my businesslike question about where the break
even is, and so on. One, is there sufficient research, knowing
that perhaps there never is? But at least is the level of
research somewhat the magnitude that it should be? If not,
where would you each say the biggest gaps are in that funding?
If you had the power of the purse, as this body does, where
would you make the biggest additional contributions?
Dr. Marland. You can go in any order.
Mr. Marland. It is a tough question, of course, and that is
why you are asking it.
Mr. Issa. And you all may revise and extend, so you only
have to start here, and then we will let you go on.
Mr. Marland. We had reference here to Rob Sokolow and his
paper in ``Scientific American.'' Some months ago, in another
article on carbon capture and storage, he starts out with the
very nice statement: ``If there were an easy answer, we would
be doing it.'' That represents a faith in humanity, but I agree
with that. If there were an easy answer, we would be doing it.
You know, once we found substitutes for the freons, it was
easier to address the hole in the ozone layer. So you pay a few
bucks and you solve the problem. I don't think that is true in
global change. It is fundamental to our society.
But I think at the core of it there is population. I was
startled the other day to realize that the population on the
Earth is three times what it was when I was born. That is an
astonishing number. No matter what we do, as the population
grows, there are huge numbers of us, and as long as you have
money, you spend it, and whatever you spend it on has energy
implications. If you don't spend money on this, you spend it on
something else. And the worst thing you can do with your money
is burn coal.
But my sense is, if you have money, what you should spend
it on is for things that are not energy intensive and beautify
life. You should buy original art and concert tickets, you
know? But any time, if you don't work and you go out on your
boat on the lake, you are----
Mr. Issa. Please, let it be a sailboat.
Mr. Marland. Yes. Exactly right. It is really very tough.
The research question, I think we really don't understand
the climate system still. I have been intrigued with this idea
of managing the land surface, but the land surface impacts the
climate in multiple ways, it is not just through the carbon
budget. We affect the water budget. We affect the reflected
radiation. If we plant trees, do we change the albedo of the
surface? Are we doing something else besides affecting the
carbon budget?
So I think there is a great deal to be understood yet on
the full climate system and how changes in the land surface,
changes in the distribution of activities, and changes in
urbanization ultimately affect the climate system in ways other
than through the carbon budget.
Mr. Issa. Thank you. If this were McLaughlin, I would say
and your answer is people.
Mr. Wofsy. So if I understood the answer that Mr.
Stephenson gave to you, research in this area, scientific
research has basically been level funded in constant dollars
for 15 years or 13 years, whatever his baseline number was. I
think we are going to need to fix that. The issues that we need
to deal with, I believe, are very much the ones that Gregg
talked about. So if you think about the terrestrial ecosystem,
which is the one I was talking about, currently they are
removing around 30 percent of the CO2 that we emit.
In a future climate, they could turn around and introduce 30
percent. They could go from minus 30 to plus 30. We really
don't have a good understanding of that.
We have done an awful lot of planning for various
scientific programs to examine some of these questions, and I
would really love to see some of these plans given priority and
move forward. So the last thing I would say is if you could
startup a new research program that learned how to de-
politicize this question and turn it into a question that
people just dealt with on its merits, that would really be
worth doing too. I have no idea how to do that, but you are in
the business, maybe you know how to do it.
Mr. Issa. It is a shame the ranking member isn't here so
when I say after I win re-election, return as the chairman of
this subcommittee again, we will be able to do that, so that
she could at least look at me with the broad smile that says
no, no, we are switching chairs. So, clearly, an election being
immediately behind you does give you that opportunity. Whatever
we are doing here on a bipartisan basis I suspect we will do
even more bipartisan in the first stage of a new Congress, no
matter who has this chair.
Did you have a comment also?
Mr. Lashof. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I guess I would make three
points. First, I would say I think we know enough to know that
we have to reduce the emissions of CO2 from fossil
fuels by at least 60 percent if we are going to reach the break
even point that you mentioned. There are important
uncertainties about the carbon cycle, but if emissions from
fossil fuel combustion continue to grow at the pace that they
have been growing, a business-as-usual kind of course, then
those opportunities fundamentally are irrelevant because all of
the natural removal processes get overwhelmed by those
emissions. So those uncertainties remain interesting
scientifically, but they are not going to matter very much from
a policy perspective.
Having said that, I do think it is important to continue to
invest in our research in this area, and I would suggest two
areas that deserve more attention. One, Steve Wofsy just
suggested, which is that there is this very significant risk of
what we call positive feedbacks in the system. As global
warming occurs and causes more forest fires, for example,
CO2 is put back into the atmosphere. As permafrost
melts, CO2 and methane can go into the atmosphere
and then that causes more warming. We know that over a
geological timeframe, those kinds of feedbacks have been
important. We really don't know how significant they could be
over the next decades to a century, and we really need to pay
more attention to that.
The second area I would say is we need to do a better job
and have a more focused effort to reconcile our estimates of
how much carbon the forests of North America are taking up
between two different approaches. We basically look at this
question in two ways. One is we can look at the concentration
of CO2 in the atmosphere and the pattern of that
concentration, and look at some of the details of isotopes and
infer what the sinks are by knowing where the emissions are
coming from and looking at some of these concentration numbers.
The other way is sort of the traditional forest inventory: you
go out on the landscape and you measure the diameter of trees
at breast height and try to calculate it, add it up from the
group up. So there are bottom-up and top-down approaches. They
tend to lead to different results. There has been some
improvement in that reconciliation, but when the carbon cycle
assessment says that the estimate is still uncertain by a
factor of two about how much total carbon is being absorbed in
the forests of North America, it is because we haven't achieved
that reconciliation. So I think that is an important area.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
I guess we have spurned more comments. Yes, in the order in
which the fingers were raised. Gregg.
Mr. Marland. In the first go-around I ignored your question
about the break even business issue, and I would just like to
come back to that very quickly, because there are a variety of
scenarios that have been run with carbon cycle models. You can
ask, if we would like the carbon concentration in the
atmosphere to go no higher than 550 parts per million, what
does the future emissions trajectory have to look like? If we
want to go no higher than 450, what does it have to look like?
The answer really is not unlike this diagram that Dan has
shown, the green area.
If we want a stabilization at maybe 550, we have to take
this kind of a path. But if we emit a pulse of carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere, what the carbon cycle does is redistribute
that, and ultimately a large portion of it is going to end up
in the ocean, but it takes time. It is never going to go, well,
in human time scales it is not going to go away. If we put
extra CO2 into the atmosphere, it redistributes
amongst the ocean, the biosphere. It takes time to do that, but
it is going to relax down. But presumably we can prevent it
from going over some number like 550 by implementing something
that would maintain the fossil fuel use in the shape something
like what Dan shows here in the green. There are numeric
solutions, as best we understand the carbon cycle, to show what
that path looks like.
Mr. Issa. Dr. Wofsy.
Mr. Wofsy. Just a brief comment. I am very glad that Dan
brought up this question about the top-down and bottom-up,
which I deal with at length in my written testimony . I just
wanted to point out that in addition to filling in a place on
the table, that is one of the key tools, if we can develop it
scientifically, to understand how this system will respond to
climate change and how we can expect it to behave going
forward.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
And I would like to thank this panel, in addition to the
first panel, for a very informative hearing. The gentlelady,
the ranking lady, was not able to return, she has been tied up
elsewhere, and I would ask that each of you be willing to
respond to hers and other questions in writing. We will leave
the record open for 2 weeks past your answers to any questions
submitted to you.
I want to close by summarizing, if I may, because I think
it is very important. This is the end of a Congress. This is
the end of a number of hearings that we have held on energy and
climate, and I think, with the work that you have done and some
of the earlier hearings, you have made a couple of clear points
I would like to make for the record.
One is that population is a factor that has to be
considered. I am not just referring to population growth, but
the populations of the Third World that presently consume
dramatically less energy than they are likely to consume as
they reach an equilibrium with the rest of the developed world.
Two, although we have put a lot of money into research, it
is clear here today and throughout the Congress that research
has been insufficient to give us the answers to critical
questions, including where the carbon all comes from, how we
absorb it, and one that was not mentioned, but that is of
critical concern, at least to the Chair. That is, is there a
tipping point and where is it? Have we already reached it? Is
it ahead of us? Is it behind us? Is it 550 parts per million or
is it perhaps 480? We are not looking at that as a point at
which, even if we do everything, the Earth will begin working
against us in order to reach that point.
I think, Steve, you did a good job of talking about what
some of the factors that can trigger a reversal in the
absorption rate.
Last is action. I want to note that although I would
clearly very much insist that nuclear be part of the solution,
because it is an action we can take today in addition to every
one of these others, and it is a definable action that we can
measure with far greater impact than any of these that take out
until 2056. But having said that, for this subcommittee on a
bipartisan basis, at the end of the Congress, all actions must
be taken. That includes very much the next Congress doing more
to ensure a reduction in greenhouse emissions, a reduction in
fossil fuel consumption, at least on a per GDP basis.
I don't think I can begin to summarize the work of 2 years,
but I want to thank all of you for being here in the last
hearing before the election and the last hearing probably on
this subject. I will take a liberty, on behalf of the two
Californians that were here today, and thank you and thank
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for taking the lead in bringing
up the importance of the carbon cycle and the recognition that
as goes California, so goes the Nation; as goes United States,
so goes the world.
And, with that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5346.108