[Senate Hearing 110-12]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-12
SENATORS' PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL WARMING
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 30, 2007
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-987 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)
512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202)512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 30, 2007
OPENING STATEMENTS
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee.. 32
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 23
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 56
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 19
Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, U.S. Senator from the State of New
York........................................................... 42
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho....... 39
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia..... 18
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 47
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey 35
Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I., U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 28
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 52
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 62
WITNESSES
Akaka, Hon. Daniel, U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii........ 104
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico... 69
Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois. 114
Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from the State of California 72
Kerry, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.................................................. 75
Levin, Hon. Carl, U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan........ 92
Lincoln, Hon. Blanche, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas... 107
McCain, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona........ 80
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska...... 98
Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida........ 111
Obama, Hon. Barack, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois...... 87
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Charts:
American Businesses Call for Action on Global Warming, U.S.
Climate Action Partnership................................. 128
An Urgent Call to Action, Scientists and Evangelicals Unite
to Protect Creation........................................ 129
A Sample of Editorial Boards from Across the Country on the
Need to Address Global Warming............................131-133
Eleven National Academies of Sciences Urge ``Prompt Action''
to Address Global Warming.................................. 127
Interior Secretary Kempthorne Announces Proposal to List
Polar Bears as Threatened Under Endangered Species Act..... 137
Oil Companies on the Need for Action on Global Warming....... 134
President Bush State of the Union Address.................... 136
Prime Minister Tony Blair's Recent Comments on Global Warming 138
State and Local Action to Address Global Warming............. 130
U.S. Defense Department Sponsored Report, Climate Change and
Its Implications for National Security..................... 135
Past Climate Speeches by:
Senator Craig and Colleagues................................139-996
Senator Inhofe.............................................997-1053
Report, Agricultural & Forestlands: U.S. Carbon Policy
Strategies, Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate
Change, September 2006, by Kenneth R. Richards, School of
Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University; R. Neil
Sampson, The Sampson Group, Inc.; Sandra Brown, Winrock
International, Ecosystem Services Unit......................1054-1134
Resolution, S. Res. 30........................................... 1135
Statements:
Biden, Jr., Hon. Joseph, U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware................................................... 124
Enzi, Hon. Michael B., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 119
Feingold, Hon. Russ, U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin 118
Gregg, Hon. Judd, U.S. Senator from the State of New
Hampshire.................................................. 66
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii 123
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts........................................... 120
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from the State of
Indiana.................................................... 121
Snowe, Hon. Olympia J., U.S. Senator from the State of Maine. 8
Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of
Ohio....................................................... 10
SENATORS' PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL WARMING
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:06 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Alexander, Baucus, Bond, Cardin,
Carper, Clinton, Craig, Inhofe, Isakson, Klobuchar, Lautenberg,
Lieberman, Sanders, Thomas, Vitter, Voinovich, Warner,
Whitehouse.
Also present: Senators Bingaman, Feinstein, Kerry, McCain,
Obama, Levin, Murkowski, Akaka, Lincoln, Nelson of Florida,
Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. The hearing will come to order. For the
information of committee members, we will be following the
early bird rule, which is our standard practice, for committee
member statements. Because we are also adopting our budget, we
may have to just take a break in the hearing when we have the
quorum present, so we can do that and get on our way with the
committee agenda.
A couple of little items I wanted to mention. One is not
little, but a very important one, is that last night Chairman
David Obey introduced the funding resolution for the remainder
of fiscal year 2007, a continuing resolution. I know that
Senator Bond has been working very, very hard with Senator
Murray and others. I have been working with Senator Baucus and
Senator Inhofe.
The good news is that the Federal Aid Highway Program is
fully funded at the $39.1 billion level authorized in SAFETEA-
LU. We are very happy about this because I know all Senators
here wanted to make sure we did not see cutbacks. Achieving
full funding was the result of considerable effort. A
bipartisan letter was circulated. The Banking Committee also
worked with us.
So 72 Senators worked to request the full funding, and I am
very pleased because it is directly related to our economic
prosperity, and continued construction and maintenance of our
roads. So that is a victory, I think, for this committee. We
weighed in pretty heavily on that point, so I am very proud of
that.
The other business item I wanted to mention, just for
Senators, is that I wanted to give you an idea of a few of the
hearings that are coming up that have been signed off by the
Republicans. We are having a hearing on February 6 on EPA
oversight, where we are going to look at the closing down of
the libraries, clean air for chlorate, and other top issues.
Some of us felt those were rolled back, and we'll just look at
those.
The next day, on the 7th, Senator Lieberman is going to
look at global warming and its impact on wildlife. The
following week we will have a budget hearing, on the 15th, and
I wanted to mention for all Senators, we are working on a
hearing on WRDA and Army Corps issues on March 15, with a
markup on March 29.
So we are moving ahead with the committee, and other
colleagues are going to be calling hearings of their
subcommittees.
Today, we are going to have an extraordinary Senate hearing
on global warming, and we will hear from many Senators on this
crucial issue. We are going to hear from members in order of
arrival, alternating by party, as I said. Later this morning,
into early afternoon, we are going to hear from Senators who
don't serve on this committee, but Senators who care very
deeply about this subject matter, many of whom have introduced
legislation. I would just, for the interests of all Senators,
because I know it's very hard to stay here that number of
hours, but if you could remain, we still expect to hear from
Senators Bingaman, Feinstein, Kerry, Biden, McCain, Obama,
Levin, Murkowski, Akaka, Lincoln, Durbin and Nelson of Florida,
so we have a good number coming forward.
What I am hoping is that at the end of this day, we will
have a reading on where most Senators are, how they feel about
pursuing legislation to deal with the matter of global warming.
In a show of extreme bipartisanship and friendship, I have
agreed, because Senator Inhofe has a very urgent meeting of the
Armed Services Committee, I have allowed him to open up the
hearing today. So Senator, I have given you 12 minutes, and the
rest of us will have 10 minutes. I will have 12 minutes. So
please go right ahead and take your 12 minutes.
I just want to thank you for working with me to get us
moving. I know we have many disagreements, but we truly are
friends, and I think it is reflected in the progress we're
making. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
My colleagues, I believe we must act now to address global warming.
I believe it is our responsibility. I believe it is our duty. And I
believe it is our challenge. I believe that just as consensus has been
built among scientists, it is rapidly building among the American
people. A recent Time Magazine/ABC News Poll found that 88 percent say
that global warming threatens future generations. We are at a historic
moment--the tide is turning. A real consensus is coming together around
this issue in a way that has never happened before. Scientists, the
public, and even the Bush Administration agree: global warming is real,
and humans are making a serious contribution. Let us look at what a
growing chorus of voices is saying across the country about global
warming: Chart attached:
National Academy of Sciences
U.S. Climate Action Partnership
Evangelicals and Scientists
State and Local Governments
Editorials
Oil Companies
Pentagon Funded Report
Bush Administration:
State of the Union
Department of Interior/Polar Bear Proposed Listing
Recent Statement by Tony Blair
We know what is happening--the science is clear: The planet is
getting warmer because humans are releasing too much carbon pollution
into the atmosphere.
If we fail to take action on global warming now, we can expect
future catastrophic impacts like rising sea levels, more extreme
weather events of all kinds, damage to coral reefs and fisheries, and
negative impacts on food production and water supplies. We need to act
soon, before we reach a tipping point when irreversible changes to the
world we know may occur.
We know what sectors in our economy emit these greenhouse gases:
Transportation = 30 percent of emissions;
Power Plants = 40 percent of emissions
Industry, Commercial and Other sources = 30 percent of
emissions.
We know what we have to do. In order to avoid the worst effects of
climate change, it is important to stabilize emissions and hold
temperature rise to less than 2 degrees Fahrenheit from where we are
now. In short, we need to cap and eventually, significantly reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions.
I am very proud of my home State of California, which enacted AB
32, an economy wide global warming bill. This law sets a mandatory cap
on carbon pollution, including a 25 percent reduction from projected
levels by 2020. The Governor also signed an Executive Order
establishing a goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by
2050 from 1990 levels. A consensus is developing that we must take
action at the Federal level now.
On June 22, 2005, a majority of the Republican controlled Senate
(53-44) supported action on climate change through the Bingaman
Resolution. The resolution was a Sense of the Senate resolution that
supported mandatory emissions limits.
There is much to gain in our efforts to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. For example, increasing our energy efficiency will save us
money, make us more energy independent, help cleanup our air, and
reduce carbon pollution.
In an effort to make the Federal Government a model, I will be
introducing legislation to accelerate the effort to make the thousands
of Federal Government buildings managed by the General Services
Administration models of energy efficiency, starting with lighting
systems. The GSA owns or leases over 340 million square feet of space
in nearly 9,000 buildings located in every State. GSA calls itself the
largest property manager in the United States. I am already working
directly with the Administration on this effort to see if we can find
common ground and achieve the goal of making these buildings a model
together. Similarly, energy efficiency standards for appliances can
save us lots of energy and will save money for consumers.
Using renewable fuels fights global warming and also will reduce
our dependence on oil, and will help cleanup our air. I have introduced
legislation that would support the development of cellulosic ethanol,
which can be made from agricultural waste, grass, and many other
plants.
Planting trees and other plants, which absorb carbon, can create
carbon ``sinks.'' This type of ``carbon sequestration'' also must be
considered.
There are many benefits to fighting global warming. As we meet this
challenge, new technologies will be invented and exported. Jobs will be
created and these new technologies will be needed by the world. The
great genius of American entrepreneurship will rise to the challenge.
When we succeed in the battle against global warming the oceans
also will be healthier. Right now, the oceans are showing the strains
from absorbing so much CO2. Our oceans have acted like a
``sink'' for the carbon, and scientists are warning us about trouble
with coral reef die offs and potential long-term impacts on fisheries.
There are many approaches to the issue of global warming. Several
of our colleagues have tackled this issue in a very positive way. Some
take an economy-wide approach--others, an industry specific approach. I
am sure we will hear their ideas today. I know it is no secret that I
call the Sanders/Boxer bill originally written by our dear friend Jim
Jeffords, the ``gold standard'' bill because it is comprehensive and
takes bold action that I believe is warranted by the facts. My goal is
of course to get us as close as we can to that ``gold standard'' which
is reflected in the California program.
I am a realist, and I know only by working together can we move
forward with legislation. I pledge today that all ideas and all
Senators will have a seat at the table as we move toward action.
Ladies and gentlemen: I am an optimist. I believe in our ability to
act and I am counting on the Environment Committee, which has a
distinguished history, to move us forward:
After the Cuyahoga River caught fire in Ohio in 1969, and
many of our lakes and rivers were open sewers, our Committee responded
with a comprehensive remedy, enacting the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Today we can look with pride on the improvements in water quality
across this country. While our work is not done, and we must ensure we
do not take steps backward, the positive results speak for themselves.
When the air was so dirty you could see it and there were
few tools to address it, our Committee responded with the Clean Air Act
in 1970. Our work is not done, but the air is much cleaner and safer.
When contaminated tap water was causing widespread
waterborne disease and exposing people to cancer-causing chemicals, our
Committee enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974.
Now we must face the challenge of global warming. It is one of the
great challenges of this generation. It's once again our turn again to
stand up and lead this greatest country on earth to a bright future
that will energize our people here at home and the whole world. This is
a challenge we can and will meet.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. I think it is, too, and I do appreciate
your accommodating my schedule. As Senator Lieberman knows, we
have Admiral Fallon before the Armed Services Committee, and it
will be necessary to be there. He is taking over a very
responsible job as the Commander of the Central Command.
Let me first of all say, you know, my staff called me up,
Madam Chairman, when you decided to have this type of a format,
and said: ``This is unprecedented; we have never done this type
of thing before. We have a protocol we go by on these that has
worked very well over the years, whereby we select witnesses.
The Minority has witnesses. This breaks the protocol.'' So they
said, ``I assume that you want to object to it.'' I said: ``For
Barbara Boxer, no, I don't want to object to it. I want to go
ahead and have this. This is her first hearing, and I would
personally like to have any type of format that she wants.''
It would seem to me, though, that a better way of doing
this would be, because then you get a double shot at it, to let
these members go to the floor, as if on morning business. I
have actually given over a dozen speeches, each one over 1
hour, on the floor of the Senate. That is one thing about it.
You and I having served on the House side realize that we have
a lot more time over here to do such a thing. So we have done
that, and I feel that's the best format to use.
I have not been satisfied with the way this has started. I
have to say this, that back 4 years ago when I became chairman
of this committee, I was a believer that manmade anthropogenic
gases actually affected climate change. I had been told that.
All the media said that. The science seemed to say that. This
is 4 years ago. Then they came along with the Wharton School
had the Wharton Econometric Survey and others evaluate it. What
would it cost America if we were to sign onto the Kyoto
Protocol, at that time, that is what they were trying to do,
and comply with its emission requirements? I could talk for a
long time as to what would happen, but it would be just very
destructive to our country in terms of doubling the cost of
energy and the cost of fuel. The average family of four, they
said, it would cost them $2,750 a year.
So what I did was say, let's look and be sure that the
science is right, and is decided. About that time, it seemed
like some hysteria was setting in, because one by one,
different scientists were coming out and saying, ``no, it is
not anthropogenic gases that are causing climate change,'' as
we once thought might be the case. We had the Oregon Petition
that came long. That was 17,800 scientists who made the
statement,``There is no convincing scientific evidence that
human release of greenhouse gas is causing or will in the
foreseeable future cause catastrophic global warming.''
You had the 60 Canadian scientists who had recommended to
the Prime Minister back in the 1990's that they sign onto the
Protocol, and they did. And then after they started studying
over the next period of years, just recently came out and they
said, ``If back in the mid-1990's we knew what we know today
about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist because
we would have concluded it was not necessary.''
So you are having scientists come, and I have many others.
I think one of the best ones, who was a real advocate of
climate change being a result of manmade gases, was a very
liberal Claude Allegre. He is a French geophysicist, a member
of both the French and the American Academy of Sciences. Keep
in mind, he was one of those who was marching down the aisles
in favor of Kyoto, in favor of the notion that manmade gases
are causing climate change. But after studying this, and
spending time, and no one questions his qualifications, the
cause of warming is unknown. The proponents of manmade
catastrophic global warming are being motivated by money.
Well, let's stop and look at that for a minute. Just last
week we had Heidi Cullen, who is with the Weather Channel. We
all know that the Weather Channel would like to have people
afraid all the time. That causes them to watch the Weather
Channel. It caused the ratings to go up. She went overboard
last week when she came out and she said, and I am paraphrasing
now, but this doesn't miss it far. She said, you know, any of
the scientists or meteorologists who don't agree with us should
be discredited by the American Meteorological Society.
Now, that is something that is way over the top. Well, I
have sent an op/ed piece out after that. It was picked up by
Drudge and several others, and boy the blogs started coming in.
It was so overwhelming that we had in 1 hour 70,000 responses.
That let's you know what people are thinking out there. It
caused them to shut down the Senate website.
So these things are happening. I figure that what we need
to do responsively is to follow some of the ideas we had
before. Put the chart up, the Hagel chart, the first one. It
seemed to be agreed to by 100 percent of the U.S. Senate, the
vote was 95 to nothing, that we would not sign onto a Kyoto
agreement unless two things were present: No. 1, it would not
hurt us economically; and No. 2, it would affect the developing
nations the same as the developed nations.
Now, if you stop and think about it, China is having a
heyday right now. We have not put on line a new gas-generating
electric operation in the United States in 17 years. They are
cranking one out every 3 days in China. They say they never
have any intentions of complying with any kind of restrictions.
In the year 2009, they will pass us up and they will be the No.
1 emitter of CO2, and they have no interest in
stopping it.
Well, if you look at all the bills that are out there right
now, or that have been out there, there are five of them, in
terms of Byrd-Hagel and Bingaman, not one of these complies
with those two mandates that we have, that it couldn't hurt the
economy and the developing nations had to be a part of it.
I will put the new chart I had not seen until this morning.
Of all of the countries, and this is another thing that has to
be looked at, who have signed onto this thing, these countries,
Canada and the rest of them, have not complied with the
emission requirements. There are 15 countries in Western Europe
that had signed onto it. There should be a line or point there
for 1997, would be about there. Yes. At that point in 1997, if
these countries who signed onto the Protocol had done it, and
we are talking about 15 European countries, then the red line
would be where emissions would be today and in the near future.
However, of the 15 European countries, only Great Britain
and Sweden have complied with it, and Great Britain did because
of the big dip they had prior to the time they started keeping
score. So they actually, with their trade policy, could come
out ahead.
The other thing that I think is worth saying in this period
of time that I have, Madam Chairman, is the IPCC and the fact
that it is flawed. Lord Nigel Lawson, who is the former
Chancellor of the Exchequer over in Great Britain, a member of
the House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC. Keep in
mind, the United Nations started all this stuff, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He said, ``I believe
the IPCC process is so flawed and the institution, it has to be
said, so closed to reason that it would be far better to thank
it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all
future international collaboration on the issue of climate
change.''
Now, if you will look at the third chart that I have. It
tells you that even people who signed onto it and say it is a
wonderful thing, are not complying with it. This is the
critical one. Back when Al Gore was Vice President of the
United States, and Al Gore still thinks that he can use climate
change and global warming. That is his ticket to the White
House. So he is convinced that is going to get him there.
But he had Tom Wiggly [phonetically], who at that time was
at the National Center for Science Research, he had him as his
scientist, say, all right now, Mr. Wiggly, what I want you to
do is say if all developed countries complied with and became a
part of the Protocol of Kyoto and complied with the emission
requirements, what would that do over a 50-year-period in terms
of reducing the temperature?
He made his study and it came out with this chart. If all
these countries did, and I am talking about all developed
nations, and not like Europe, because none of them are meeting
the requirements, if they did meet the requirement it would
change, it would lower the temperature by 0.06 of 1
+C, which isn't even measurable.
So I have often said, even if we are wrong, let's look and
see what doing all of this financial punishment to our Country
would result in, in terms of reducing the temperature. So I
would only say, Madam Chairman, you are going to have a
wonderful day today. I regret that I will not be able to spend
the day with you. I would enjoy that, and maybe there is
something new I haven't heard yet, but I have studied this
thing for a long, long period of time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
Madam Chairman, before I begin my remarks on climate change I do
want to point out that I disagree with the format of today's hearing.
Just to hold a hearing for members to provide testimony is duplicative
of the Senate floor. We should be doing this in morning business on the
floor. When you insisted on holding this in the Committee, we suggested
a forum or a roundtable instead of a hearing. This event today breaks
every hearing protocol of this Committee, from no agreed to witness
list to testimony not being submitted under our rules. If it were not
your first hearing Madam Chairman, I would have objected to this
hearing. I do want to state for the record that by agreeing to today's
format, we are not setting a new precedent for this Committee and I
will object in the future to any similar hearings.
On the issue of climate change in the last four years, I have
spoken on the Senate floor more than a dozen times, held four hearings,
two stakeholder meetings and many briefings within the Committee. I
have looked at the science, the economics, and expected benefits of
differing initiatives and proposals. And I have examined how well the
world's only large-scale carbon rationing program that has been
implemented so far--the Kyoto Protocol--has fared in achieving its
objectives. I have required my staff to research the underlying science
and read hundreds of studies, as well as major assessments of the
science. I think it is fair to say that no other federal legislator has
devoted more time and energy to this issue.
There is no environmental issue that has become more politicized.
Scientists have had their grant funding stripped, others have had their
certifications threatened, and exaggerations have become commonplace.
In fact, when a recent example of this was put on my web blog, there
was so much concern that the 70,000 hits per hour crashed the Senate
server.
Unfortunately, this politicizing of the science has become so
commonplace so that even the UN body created to provide the scientific
justification of climate action has fallen prey to it. Just over a year
ago, I addressed the Senate on how the UN Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change had embraced highly questionable practices in its
periodic assessments.
In fact, the problems identified were so substantial, it led Lord
Nigel Lawson--former Chancellor of the Exchequer and a Member of the
House of Lords Committee that reviewed the IPCC--to state:
``I believe the IPCC process is so flawed, and the institution, it
has to be said, so closed to reason, that it would be far better to
thank it for the work it has done, close it down, and transfer all
future international collaboration on the issue of climate change. .
.''
This is an astonishing statement, but when you look at the way the
IPCC has conducted business in its past assessments, it is also
perfectly reasonable. In an attempt to help the IPCC avoid some of the
mistakes of the past, I have outlined dozens of constructive
recommendations of the minimum changes needed for the IPCC to restore
its credibility, and I hope everyone will take the time to read them.
Perhaps this politicizing of the science is why Claude Allegre--the
former French Socialist Party Leader and member both the French and
U.S. academies of science who once warned of catastrophic global
warming--has now reversed himself and urges caution, stating, ``The
cause of this climate change is unknown. Is it man? Is it nature?''
Of course, it is not only the science that has become politicized.
A recent report by Sir Nicholas Stern that gained worldwide attention,
known as the Stern Report, touted how it was much less costly to take
draconian action now in order to avoid global warming impacts later. It
was hailed as final proof that we must put the world on an energy diet,
leading British Prime Minister Tony Blair to declare that this report
represents ``the final word'' on why the world must act now.
The only problem: within days, a growing chorus of economists--
regardless of their views on climate change--began pointing out its
serious fundamental flaws. In fact, Richard Tol of Hamburg University
last week said that:
``If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a Masters
thesis . . . likely I would I would give him an ``F'' for fail. There
is a whole range of very basic economics mistakes that somebody who
claims to be a Professor of Economics simply should not make.''
The fact is that the Kyoto Protocol and proposals on the drawing
board will be extremely expensive. The Kyoto Protocol would cost the
average household $2,700 per year. And it would accomplish virtually
nothing. Even if the alarmists were right, the Kyoto Protocol would
only reduce temperatures by 0.07 Celsius by the year 2050. Bills
introduced in the Senate are no different. The Bingaman proposal would
only reduce temperatures by 0.008 Celsius.
Of course, while the U.S. was on an energy diet, the rest of the
world would be free to continually increase their emissions. Here are
some simple facts:
China does not plan to accept carbon caps, and will become the
world's largest CO2 emitter by 2009--two years from now. It
is building more than one new coal plant every three days. India and
Brazil are not far behind. If they are not part of any effort, then
efforts to curb emissions are doomed to failure.
The Kyoto Protocol--which is the only program that has so
far tested the cap and trade scheme--is broken. Japan will not meet its
targets. Canada will not meet its targets. Of the EU-15, only Britain
and Sweden will meet their targets. And even Britain is no success
story--virtually all its emission reductions off of the 1990 baseline
occurred before it signed the accord in 1997. Since 1998, its emissions
have been rising.
The United States, even though it does not have a federal
carbon cap, has been more successful than most of the nations on the
globe in reducing its emissions relative to GDP. But that isn't enough
for some, because our economy is growing. This has led one recent study
to advocate that the best way for Americans to combat global warming is
to reduce their living wage. In short, poorer is better.
Not one piece of legislation introduced this year meets
the test laid out in the Byrd Hagel and Bingaman resolutions that U.S.
efforts to reduce greenhouse gases should: (1) not harm of the economy;
and (2) include developing countries. Even the Bingaman bill introduced
this year fails the test.
In regards to the 10 companies which announced their Climate Action
Partnership last week, I would like to introduce into the record a
commentary from the Wall Street Journal. This outlines the fact that
each of the companies from Duke to GE, will individually profit from
their plan. It is not an example of companies thinking of the quote
``common good'' as some of my colleagues have suggested, but more a
case of climate profiteers.
While I look forward to a vigorous debate this Congress I also look
forward to vigorously pointing out the lack of scientific consensus,
the real economic impact, and the effects of unilateral disarmament of
our economy if we enact mandatory carbon reductions in the United
States, while the rest of the world is failing to meet their goals.
At this time I would like to make Senator Voinovich's statement
part of the record.
I would also like to insert all of my past climate speeches that
I've given on the Senate floor in the record.
[The referenced document follows on page 997.]
Senator Inhofe. I also want to submit for the record the
statement of Senator Olympia Snowe and also a statement by
Senator Voinovich for the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The referenced documents follow:]
Statement of Hon. Olympia J. Snowe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maine
Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee.
Holding this hearing on ``Senator's Perspectives on Global Warming''
today is admirable on your part, Madam Chairman, as you and others of
us in the U.S. Senate care deeply about the issue of global warming and
want to take action. I am testifying today because the issue of global
warming is no longer seriously open to skepticism. The evidence is
irrefutable and the cost of inaction incalculable. It is no longer a
question of science--it is now a question of political will.
Surely, in the numerous provisions of the various introduced
climate bills we can find the keys to consensus and hopefully this
hearing will help guide us in that direction. We should be able to find
the most realistic and attainable path that averts negative impacts on
our economy and strengthens our national security by decreasing our
thirst for imported fossil fuels from the most volatile areas of the
globe. I believe we can find the right course at the right cost.
The U.S. comprises only four percent of the world's population yet
emits 20 percent of the world's carbon dioxide, it's time our response
to this crisis become proportional to our nation's contribution to the
problem. Because of the lack of any movement on the part of the United
States, two years ago, I accepted the co-chairmanship of the
International Climate Change Taskforce, or ICCT, which consists of a
group of respected scientists, business leaders, and elected officials
from eight industrialized and developing nations.
Our Taskforce report, ``Meeting the Climate Challenge'', published
in January of 2005, was the culmination of close to a year's work
across oceans and partisan lines--each of you has been given a copy. As
you can see, the Report recommends ways to involve the world's largest
economies in the effort, including the U.S. and major developing
nations, to ensure that dangerous climate change can be avoided. In
truth, the U.S. has given the major developing nations like China and
India a ``get out of jail free'' card. The U.S. position has been to
say that these emerging nations need to decrease their greenhouse gas
emissions or we won't either.
It is ludicrous to think we can expect large emerging nations to
move toward reducing their emissions without any national action on our
part. Only after the U.S. puts in place a mandatory carbon cap and
trade system can we expect to sit at the international table and ask
the poorer developing countries to take actions also. China is putting
up one coal-fired power plant a week. China will surpass the U.S. as
the largest emitter of CO2 in the world around 2010. Yet, to
its credit, China has more stringent CAFE standards in place than the
U.S.
The message today is that we in the Senate can take the ICCT
recommendations and incorporate those applicable into our domestic
global warming legislation, in particular, the Taskforce's first
recommendation that defines a goal. If you don't know where you want to
end up, there is no reason to start the journey. So, to begin our
journey, to set our goal, the first ICCT recommendation reads, ``A
long-term objective be established to prevent global average
temperature from rising more than 2 degrees Centigrade (or 3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level to limit the extent and
magnitude of climate-change impacts.'' This is the foundation of the
bill Senator Kerry and I introduced last year and will reintroduce this
week. A goal such as this one is also an integral part of the
Lieberman-McCain Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, for
which I am also a cosponsor.
The reasoning behind this goal is solid; the Taskforce came up with
the 3.6 degree Fahrenheit goal as, beyond this increase, scientific
evidence suggests that there is a threshold of temperature increase
above which the extent and magnitude of the impacts of climate change
increases significantly--a tipping point that threatens human societies
and ecosystems. For example, there will be substantial agricultural
loses, billions more people will be at risk of water shortages, and
there will be widespread adverse health impacts, floods, and droughts.
Also, beyond that threshold, scientists predict the likely loss of 95
percent of coral reefs and irreversible damage to forest areas,
including the Amazon Rain Forest. Above the threshold, irreversible,
abrupt climate change may increase, such as the loss of the Antarctic
and Greenland ice sheets, the potential shutdown of the the North
Atlantic conveyor belt, and transforming the natural world from a net
carbon sink--one that takes up CO2--to a net carbon source--
one that releases CO2.
We need to take medium-term action and set goals up to 2050 for
reductions of CO2 emissions in order to bring concentrations
back down to levels that are consistent with a high probability of
limiting warming to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.
Such an approach would enable long-term options to be reassessed as new
knowledge becomes available.
In order to meet the 3.6 degree goal, the Taskforce recommended a
global framework that brings all countries into action on climate
change at the international level over the coming decades for steps
leading to limiting their greenhouse gases through post-2012 emissions
reductions commitments. This international framework would build on the
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)--which the U.S.
Senate ratified in 1992--and the Kyoto Protocol, as honored by most of
the developed world.
Madam Chair, we need to seize on a bold new program like President
Kennedy did in sending a man to the moon, when, on September 12, 1962,
he stated, ``We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the
other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,
because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our
energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing
to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to
win.'' On July 21, 1969--less than seven years later--Astronaut Neil
Armstrong walked on the moon. This is how we should be addressing
global warming.
This Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
composed of 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries, will release
a stunning six year report on the current science of climate change.
The IPCC will tell us that a rise in temperatures of 3.6 to 8.1 degrees
Fahrenheit by the end of this century is likely. The IPCC will say it
is at least 90 percent sure than human activities, led by the burning
of fossil fuels, are to blame for global warming over the past 50
years. IPCC Chair, R.K. Pachauri--who was also a science advisor to our
Taskforce--stated, ``I hope this report will shock people, governments
into taking more serious action as you really can't get a more
authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work. `` He went on
to say, ``There are a lot of signs and evidence in this report which
clearly establish not only the fact that climate change is taking
place, but also that it really is human activity that is influencing
that change.''
Arctic glaciers and polar ice caps millions of years old are
melting. Sea levels are rising globally. Our own federal agency, NOAA,
reporting that 2006 was the warmest year since regular temperature
records began in 1895 and the past nine years have been among the 25
warmest years on record for the contiguous U.S. CO2 releases
today will remain in the atmosphere for at least 100 years--and
concentrations will rise in the coming decades. Just think--
CO2 emissions from Henry Ford's very first car are still in
the atmosphere. Clearly, we can't afford to wait any longer.
This past Sunday, the Boston Globe ran a very disturbing article on
how the climate is altering the regional character and economy of New
England. While admittedly only a snapshot, many scientists say that for
a growing number of reasons, they are confident that New England's
century-long heat rise is significantly related to global warming. They
have noted that temperatures began accelerating around 1970, the same
time overall global temperatures rose as well, and that the temperature
rise is lasting longer than during previous warm stretches in the last
century that we attributed to natural variability.
Madam Chair, weather is an integral part of the economy in my State
of Maine and others as well. It is time to curb the warming. We cannot
wait any longer--we need to act now. There are other important
provisions I believe should be included in a climate bill, such as
research on abrupt climate change and ocean acidification, but those
are under the jurisdiction of other committees. Today I hope I have
left you with a compelling reason to establish a goal based in science
in the hopes you will include such a goal in any climate legislation
you consider in your committee. Thank you.
__________
Statement of Hon. George V. Voinovich, U.S. Senator from the
State of Ohio
Chairwoman Boxer, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. As
the former Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Climate Change,
and Nuclear Safety, I have had a keen interest in this issue and look
forward to the debate I know the Committee and Senate will have on this
very important matter.
Simply mentioning this issue can spark a heated discussion about
the future of our planet and actions that should or should not be
taken. The wide disparity of views is showcased on the Environment and
Public Works Committee where members call climate change both the
``greatest hoax'' and our ``greatest problem.''
While some may push for no action, several of my colleagues have
put forth proposals to impose significant restrictions on the emissions
of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, these proposals would be
devastating to our country because they ignore our economic and energy
needs. These proposals would have a significantly negative impact on
our nation's economy, cause extensive job loss, and raise electricity
and natural gas prices.
Higher costs of natural gas would be overwhelming to our country.
Over the past six years, natural gas prices have increased over 300
percent. We have the highest natural gas prices in the world, impacting
families who depend on it to heat their homes and businesses that use
it to make their products. Due in large part to these increased prices,
the U.S. has lost more than 3.1 million manufacturing jobs since 2000
and my State of Ohio has lost nearly 200,000.
Jack Gerard with the American Chemistry Council testified before my
Subcommittee on February 9, 2006:
``In a few short years, the U.S. chemical industry has lost
more than $50 billion in business to overseas operations and
more than 100,000 good-paying jobs in our industry have
disappeared. Put another way, the chemical industry went from
posting the highest trade surplus in the nation's history in
the late 1990s to becoming a net importer by 2002.''
Concerns about natural gas prices led the Senate to take two major
actions last year to address this problem. First, we made available an
additional $1 billion for the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance
Program--or LIHEAP. Since 1999, funding for this program to provide
assistance to low-income households to help with their heating or
cooling costs has increased by about 70 percent.
Second, Congress passed the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security bill to
open more than 8.3 million acres on the Outer Continental Shelf for oil
and gas leasing. Passage of this bill has the potential to develop an
estimated 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas--enough to heat and
cool all five million Ohio homes for over 15 years.
If these climate change proposals were passed, we would eliminate
any progress associated with these two actions. EIA predicts that coal
use would decline sharply and more natural gas would be used to
generate electricity. This would further increase the demand for
natural gas and use up any additional resources that we expect to
extract from the Gulf of Mexico. As EIA predicts, the bill would drive
up the price of natural gas even further. The impact would be
astronomical costs to the poor, the elderly, and the middle class in
this country--and of course, there would be an even greater need for
increased LIHEAP funding.
This is the problem with our nation's tail wagging the dog
environmental policy. For far too long, we have failed to consider the
impact our environmental policies have on our energy and economic
needs. Part of the reason is that we have many groups that have only
one concern--the environment. As the father of the Ohio EPA with a
strong record on clean air and a lifelong proponent of Great Lakes
restoration, I am an environmentalist that must balance many different
needs.
The United States is in the midst of an energy crisis. It is time
for a `Second Declaration of Independence'--independence from foreign
sources of energy--and for our nation to take real action toward
stemming our exorbitantly high oil and natural gas prices. Instead of
considering them separately, we must harmonize our energy, environment,
and economic needs. This is an absolute must as we consider any
additional actions to address climate change.
Advocates of climate change proposals attack the U.S. for not doing
anything--but this is simply not true. I am going to address two very
important questions today: (1) what are we doing; and (2) how are we
doing?
In 2002, President Bush established a national goal to reduce
greenhouse gas intensity (emissions per unit of GDP) of the U.S.
economy by 18 percent by 2012. To meet this goal, the United States is
spending more than any other nation and has created many different
programs. The federal government has devoted nearly $29 billion since
2001 to climate science, technology, international assistance, and
incentive programs, and the President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget calls
for $6.5 billion for climate-related activities. The Administration has
also implemented more than 60 federal programs, and I will summarize
several of them:
Climate Leaders is an EPA partnership encouraging
individual companies to develop long-term, comprehensive climate change
strategies. Over 100 corporations are participating in the program.
Climate VISION is a Department of Energy public-
partnership program involving fourteen major industrial sectors and the
membership of the Business Roundtable, who have committed to work with
four cabinet agencies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the next
decade.
The Climate Change Technology Program is a multi-agency
program that increases the development and use of key technologies
aimed at reducing GHG emissions. The FY2007 budget included almost $3
billion for the program.
The Climate Change Science Program is a multi-agency
program led by the Department of Commerce, and the FY2007 budget
included $1.715 billion.
The SmartWay Transportation Partnership is a voluntary
partnership between various freight industry sectors and EPA designed
to increase energy efficiency and reduce greenhouse gases and air
pollution.
For the first time, the Department of Agriculture is
providing targeted incentives through its conservation programs to
increase carbon sequestration in soils and trees and to reduce methane
and nitrous oxide emissions from crop and animal agricultural systems.
While these are examples of domestic programs, there are numerous
international actions as well. In fact, the United States has
established 15 climate partnerships since 2001 with countries and
regional organizations that together account for almost 80 percent of
global greenhouse gas emissions.
The Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and
Climate involves six nations--Australia, China, India, Japan, South
Korea, and the United States. It is designed to promote the development
and deployment of cleaner energy technologies to meet pollution
reduction, energy security, and climate change concerns. This
Partnership is unprecedented given that these developed and developing
nations collectively represent about half of the world's manmade carbon
dioxide emissions.
The Methane to Markets Partnership focuses on advancing
cost-effective, near-term methane recovery and use as a clean energy
source from coal beds, natural gas facilities, landfills, and
agricultural waste management systems. This Partnership, which involves
18 countries, is very significant because methane is a greenhouse gas
that is more than 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
The United States worked with the United Kingdom and other
G-8 partners to launch the 2005 Gleneagles Plan of Action, which
contains over fifty actions to address climate change, development,
energy security, energy access, and air pollution. Additionally,
President Bush and European Union leaders will enter into a High Level
Dialogue on Climate Change, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development
this fall.
The United States launched the International Partnership
for the Hydrogen Economy as a vehicle to organize, co-ordinate, and
leverage multinational hydrogen research programs that advance the
transition to a global hydrogen economy.
In addition to all of these domestic and international actions,
Congress also acted comprehensively to address climate change with
enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
The energy bill provides for about $5 billion in tax
credits and incentives over 5 years that will help to unleash
substantial new capital investment in cleaner, more efficient
technologies.
Research and development funding is provided for long-term
zero or low emitting greenhouse gas technologies, including fuel cells,
hydrogen fuels, and coal gasification.
It includes extensive provisions to increase energy
efficiency and conservation.
I also worked to include three bills that Environment and Public
Works Committee Chairman Jim Inhofe and I authored to provide for the
safe and secure growth of nuclear power. These initiatives combined
with the loan guarantee and production tax credit provisions in the
energy bill have provided a foundation for the industry to pursue new
nuclear power plants. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently
expects to receive license applications for more than 30 new nuclear
reactors in the next two to three years. Due to the energy bill, our
country is experiencing a nuclear renaissance--which means we will
hopefully be utilizing more on this emissions-free power, and relying
less on foreign source of energy.
Even though these provisions all address climate change, I joined
Senators Chuck Hagel and Mark Pryor to successfully include an
amendment by a vote of 66 to 29 to promote greenhouse gas reducing
technologies domestically and abroad. This amendment authorized the
very important Asia-Pacific Partnership that I mentioned earlier. Last
year, we led a letter that a total of 21 senators signed in support of
the President's request of $52 million for this important initiative.
Clearly, we are doing a lot--but how are we doing? Are all of these
programs and funds having an impact? The answer is a resounding yes,
which I will show through two main points.
First, the United States has engaged developing countries such as
China and India. In 2005, I visited China where it became clear that
they must be involved in any effort due to the large number of coal
plants that they are building.
According to a June 11, 2006 New York Times article entitled
``Pollution from Chinese Coal Casts a Global Shadow'':
``The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use
will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries
combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the
reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks . . .
Already, China uses more coal than the United States, the
European Union, and Japan combined . . . Every week to 10 days,
another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is
big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego .
. . To make matters worse, India is right behind China in
stepping up its construction of coal-fired power plants--and
has a population expected to outstrip China's by 2030.''
According to EIA's International Energy Outlook 2006, Organization
of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries accounted for
53 percent of world carbon dioxide emissions in 2003 with non-OECD
countries, which include China and India, making up the remaining 47
percent. By 2030, non-OECD countries will account for 60 percent of
world carbon dioxide emissions. These countries will also account for
77 percent of the projected increase in global emissions from 2002 to
2030.
My staff attended the 11th Conference of the Parties to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in Montreal at the end
of 2005. The primary focus of the two week meeting was post-2012, since
the Kyoto Protocol's commitment period ends at that time. My staff met
with the representatives from the Group of 77, which is made up of the
developing nations. They strongly stated that all countries including
the U.S. should commit to the Kyoto Protocol and then another round of
reductions before they would even begin any discussions about mandatory
reductions for themselves.
Through the Asia-Pacific Partnership, the United States has been
able to finally bring China and India to the table on this important
issue. Without their involvement, any efforts by countries to reduce
greenhouse gases will be completely offset by emissions increases in
developing countries.
Now to my second point, the United States is meeting its intensity
goal and is doing as well or better than other nations.
To meet our greenhouse gas intensity reduction target of 18 percent
by 2012, there needs to be an average annual rate of improvement of
about 1.96 percent. EIA preliminarily estimates that carbon dioxide
emissions intensity improved in the U.S. by 3.3 percent in 2005. This
means that we are on target to meet our goal and may even exceed it.
The overall progress of the United States compares favorably with
other countries--even those that have signed the Kyoto Protocol. Based
on data reported to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, from
2000 to 2004, the major developed economies of the world are at about
the same place as the U.S. in terms of actual greenhouse gas emissions.
Emissions are increasing in some countries and decreasing in others--
but no country is decreasing its emissions massively. In fact, the U.S.
has seen its actual emissions increase at a rate of 1.3 percent
compared to 2.1 percent for the European Union.
In summary, I think the United States is unfairly criticized on
this issue of climate change. In reality, we are doing more than any
other country in terms of our overall effort. Since 2001, our nation
has taken action to address climate change by spending almost $30
billion, implementing more than 60 federal programs, establishing 15
international partnerships, and enacting an Energy bill.
The great news is that this effort is working. We have brought
developing countries to the table and are doing as well or better than
other nations that have committed to very costly mandatory programs.
Chairwoman Boxer, I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and
I look forward to working with you and other members of this Committee
to find the right balance.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you very much for your
statement. Since today is the day we are taking the temperature
of members of the Senate, I will put you down as skeptical on
global warming.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Undecided. How is that?
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Leaning no.
Well, Senator, thank you. I know you will miss us
throughout the day, but any time that you can come back, please
do. If we don't get a quorum here this morning because of
people coming and going, we will do something off the floor
together to pass the budget, if that is all right with you.
Thank you, Senator.
Needless to say, we do have strong disagreements. I
disagree with some of the charts up there, but the point is,
today is not the day for give and take. Today is a day for us
to affirmatively say how we feel about the topic. I think that
Senator Inhofe did do that. Now, I am going to take a chance
and lay out what I think is the case.
My colleagues, I believe we must act now to address global
warming. I believe it is our responsibility. I believe it is
our duty. I think an issue like this comes along very
infrequently, an issue as important. I believe it is our
challenge. We did not choose to be here now, but we are. Fate
has thrown us together on this committee now. I am very hopeful
we will step up and meet this challenge.
I do believe that a consensus has been built among
scientists, and I also think a consensus is being built among
the American people. A recent Time Magazine/ABC News poll found
that 88 percent of our people say that global warming threatens
future generations. We are at an historic moment, and I believe
the tide is turning. A real consensus is coming. It is coming
together around this issue in a way that has never happened
before.
Scientists, the public, even the Bush administration agree,
global warming is real and humans are making a serious
contribution. I want us to take a look at what a growing chorus
of voices is saying across the Country about global warming.
For that, I am going to use a series of charts, if we could do
that.
[The referenced document follows on page 127.]
The National Academies of Sciences from the United States,
Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Canada,
China, India and Brazil all agree, ``There is now strong
evidence that significant global warming is occurring. It is
likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be
attributed to human activities. We urge all nations to take
prompt action to reduce the causes of climate change,''
sciences, 11 academies, 2005.
Next chart? U.S. Climate Action Partnership is the one I
have, American business. American businesses call for action on
global warming, and they endorse goals that match the toughest
proposal. I would say to my committee, this was an historic
moment early last week when ALCOA, British Petroleum,
Caterpillar, Duke, and DuPont got together with Environmental
Defense, Florida Power and Light, General Electric, National
Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation, PNM Resources, and World
Resources Institute.
They say, we, the members of the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership, have joined together to recommend the prompt
enactment of national legislation in the United States to slow,
stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions over
the shortest period of time reasonably achievable. I think that
is a breakthrough in and of itself.
The next chart, an urgent call to action by scientists and
evangelicals, who have united. The evangelicals, we agree that
our home, the Earth, which comes to us at the inexpressibly
beautiful and mysterious gift that sustains our very lives, is
seriously imperiled by human behavior. The harm is seen
throughout the natural world, including a cascading set of
problems such as climate change. This is another breakthrough.
The next chart? The reason I am saying this is, I am trying
to show the consensus here. I want us to be part of that State
and local actions to address global warming. Thirteen States
and 376 mayors from all 50 States recognize the threat of
global warming and have taken steps to address the threat. I
have copies of all these charts that I will give to colleagues.
I will go to the next chart; a sample of editorial boards
from across the Nation. We have several of these. I am not
going to read them all. I am just going to tell colleagues that
we have them. These are from, yes, California, New Orleans,
Idaho, the Columbus Dispatch, the Tennessean, the Atlanta
Journal-Constitution. They say while the political debate in
the United States over global warming spins in mindless
circles, scientific evidence that manmade gases are dangerously
leaving the planet keep piling up.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman?
Senator Boxer. Yes?
Senator Lautenberg. Was one of those an Ohio newspaper?
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. And then Newport News Daily Press, Anniston
Star, Alabama. Idaho, did we see that already? OK, thank you.
There is never enough time to do everything I want to do,
but that gives you a sense of what we have done.
Oil companies, on the need for action on global warming,
yesterday the head of Shell called me and discussed this with
me. Here he is quoted, ``For Shell, the debate on climate
change is over. It is time to work on solutions. A national
approach to greenhouse gas management is important to the
future. Such an approach requires a regulatory framework that
enables markets to work for both supply and demand side needs.
It would be very challenging to have different State by State
regulatory requirements.''
So this gives you the reason why we need to move forward,
because States and localities are doing this.
U.S. Defense Department sponsored a report. In cutting to
the chase, they say disruption and conflict will be endemic
features of life if we don't reverse this.
President Bush in his State of the Union, technological
breakthroughs will help us be better stewards of the
environment. They will help us to confront the serious
challenge of global climate change. That was the State of the
Union we all heard.
Interior Secretary Kempthorne, when asked about a proposal
to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act, and he says, ``We are concerned. The polar bears' habitat
may literally be melting. The Administration treats climate
change very seriously and recognizes the role of greenhouse
gases in climate change.''
There is more. Tony Blair, ``We know it is happening. We
know the consequences for the planet. We now know urgent action
will prevent catastrophe, and investment in preventing it will
pay us back many times over. We will not be able to explain
ourselves to future generations if we fail.'' Tony Blair.
I think that covers it, but again, I have all these for
Members if you wish.
We know what is happening. The science is clear. The planet
is getting warmer because humans are releasing too much carbon
pollution into the atmosphere. If we fail to take action on
global warming, we can expect future catastrophic impacts like
rising sea levels, more extreme weather events of all kinds,
damage to coral reefs and fisheries, and negative impacts on
food production and water supplies.
We need to act soon before we reach a tipping point, when
irreversible changes to the world we know may occur.
Now, we know what sectors in our economy emit these
greenhouse gases. That is not a secret. Thirty percent of the
emissions come from the mobile sources, transportation. Forty
percent of the emissions come from powerplants. Industry,
commercial and other sources are the remaining 30 percent.
We know what we have to do in order to avoid the worst
effects of climate change. It is important to stabilize
emissions and hold temperature rise to less than 2
+F from where we are now. In short, we need to cap
and eventually significantly reduce our greenhouse gas
emissions.
Now, I am very proud of my home State of California, which
enacted AB 32, an economy-wide global warming bill. This
bipartisan law, signed into law by a Republican and worked on
with a Democratic legislature, sets a mandatory cap on carbon
pollution, including a 25 percent reduction from projected
levels by 2020. The Governor also signed an executive order, a
goal of an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050
from 1990 levels. A consensus again is developing that we must
take action at the Federal level now.
On June 22, 2005, a majority of the Republican-controlled
Senate, in a 53-44 vote, supported action on climate change
through the Bingaman Resolution. The resolution was a sense of
the Senate resolution that supported mandatory emission limits.
There is much to gain in our efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. For example, increasing our energy efficiency
will help us save money, make us more energy independent, help
cleanup our air, and reduce carbon pollution. I know some of
you do have concerns about that. In an effort to make the
Federal Government a model, I will be introducing legislation
to accelerate the effort to make thousands of Federal
Government buildings managed by the GSA models of energy
efficiency, starting with lighting systems.
The GSA owns or leases over 340 million square feet of
space in nearly 9,000 buildings located in every State. GSA
calls itself the largest property manager in the United States.
I am working directly with the Bush administration on this
effort to see if we can find common ground and achieve the goal
of making these businesses a model of efficiency. Similarly,
energy efficiency standards for appliances can save lots of
energy and save money for consumers.
So the point I am making here, my colleagues, is when we do
these things, it is good for the American pocketbook. Using
renewable fuels fights global warming, and also will reduce our
dependence on oil, help cleanup the air. I have introduced
legislation that would support the development of cellulosic
ethanol, which can be made from agricultural waste, grass, and
many other plants.
Planting trees and other plants which absorb carbon can
create carbon sinks. The ocean is known as a carbon sink. Trees
and greenery are known as carbon sinks. This type of carbon
sequestration should be considered.
There are many benefits to fighting global warming. As we
meet this challenge, new technologies will be invented and
exported. Jobs will be created, and these new technologies will
be needed by the world.
I remember when I first got involved in air pollution
control, it was when I was a county supervisor and I belonged
to the Air Pollution Control District in the Bay Area of San
Francisco. The biggest argument against doing anything is that
it would cost jobs. At the end of the day, it created jobs. I
think the great genius of American entrepreneurship will rise
to this challenge. It is already starting.
When we succeed in the battle against global warming, the
oceans also will be healthier. Right now, the oceans are
showing strains from absorbing too much CO2. Again,
our oceans have acted like a sink for carbon, and scientists
are warning us about trouble with coral reef die-offs and
potential long-term impact on fisheries.
There are many approaches to the issue of global warming.
Several of our colleagues have tackled the issues in very
positive ways. Some of them are here today, Senator Carper,
Senator Alexander, Senator Lieberman, who will be back, and
others. Some take an economy-wide approach, and I mean to say
Senator Sanders as well, others an industry-specific approach.
So whether it is economy-wide or industry-specific, all of
these bills are making a great contribution.
I know it is no secret that I called the Sanders-Boxer
bill, originally written by our dear friend and colleague Jim
Jeffords, the ``gold standard'' bill, because it is
comprehensive and it takes bold action which I personally
believe is warranted by the facts. My goal is, of course, to
get us as close as we can to that gold standard, which is
reflected in the California program. But I am a realist, and I
know only by working together can we move forward with
legislation.
I pledge to you today, my colleagues on all sides of the
aisle, that all Senators will have a seat at the table as we
move toward action.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am an optimist. I believe in our
ability to act and I am counting on this committee, which has a
distinguished history, to move us forward. After the Cuyahoga
River caught fire in Ohio in 1969, and many of our lakes and
rivers were open sewers, this committee responded with a
comprehensive remedy, enacting the Clean Water Act in 1972.
Today, we look with pride on the improvements in water quality.
When the air was so dirty you could see it, and there were
few tools to address it, our committee responded with the Clean
Air Act in 1970. Our work is not done, but the air is much
cleaner and safer now.
When contaminated tap water was causing widespread
waterborne disease and exposing people to cancer-causing
chemicals, our committee stepped up and enacted the Safe
Drinking Water Act in 1974.
Now, we must face the challenge of global warming. I
believe it is one of the greatest challenges of our generation.
It is once again our turn to stand up and lead this great
Country to a bright future that will energize our people here
at home and across the world. This is a challenge. I believe we
can and I believe we will meet, because I believe so much in
the quality of the people on this committee.
Now, it is my pleasure to call on Senator Isakson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF GEORGIA
Senator Isakson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I will not take
all 10 minutes, but I appreciate the opportunity to address the
subject. I appreciate your giving us a chance to express
ourselves.
I come from the belief that there are two great motivators
in life. One is fear and the other is reward. I don't think
there is any question that there are things going on that we
can respond to, and I don't think there is any question that in
the end it is us and it is American industry, business and
enterprise that can be the solution, not necessarily just the
whipping boy.
First of all, the Chairman took away one of my examples,
the Cuyahoga River, but there are many other examples we can
point to where Congress pointed out areas where we could
improve, and we improved. But in each and every one of those
areas, it was the innovation, many times in the private sector,
that brought about that improvement.
For example, recycling. The biggest problem we had in solid
waste disposal 20 years ago was tires, newsprint, polyethylene,
all these things that went in and never went away. They never
naturally dissolved. So we created a use in the Country. Now we
grind up tires and pave roads and sports fields with them. In
fact, if you watch any professional football game played today
on an artificial tuft, ground tires are the little black things
that you see bouncing up in the air when they slide, to help
cushion those particular athletes.
Cigarette smoking. When the facts became clear and we in
the Congress started making people aware of the dangers of
cigarette smoking, not only did it create the beginning of a
reduction in terms of people changing their habits, but more
importantly it created opportunity in industry. Look at what
the pharmaceutical industry has done in terms of smoking
cessation. They have created product after product and
innovation after innovation that help people do it. Why, in the
end? I think it is the fact that facts were brought forward and
people made conscious decisions.
There are three things I want to focus on first of all, in
terms of my interests. The first is conservation. Conservation
is an important thing to do, but if you conserve every way you
can on hydrocarbons, you can make about a 6 percent difference.
But should we be doing that? Absolutely. It is a contribution.
The second is innovation. Innovation is particularly
important, and it is something this Congress ought to be
incentivizing. Southern Company in Georgia, by way of example,
is doing a coal gasification demonstration in Orlando, FL right
now. That is one of the things we ought to be motivating,
bragging about, and elevating, as somebody in the industry that
is actually looking for a way to innovate, use something, coal,
that burned as we do, we don't do anymore, but turn it into a
gas that is cleaner, more efficient and it is better for the
atmosphere.
And motivation. Tax policy is good policy when it drives
good decisions. It has been proven over and over again. I am a
perfect example of that. Last year, I bought a hybrid car. I
bought it for two reasons. One, I thought it was a good thing
to do and I like 36 miles to the gallon. The other is, I am
doing my taxes right now, and I just realized a Ford Escape
hybrid has a $2,100 tax credit for a purchase of that vehicle.
I commend Ford for doing it. I commend this Congress for
creating the motivation through the tax, and we are now
changing habits.
If you look at 2008, what is happening in terms of the
automobile industry both in the foreign industry and the
domestic industry, things are changing in terms of what they
are producing, not because we beat up on them, but because we
made facts available, because we motivated people, and because
people changed their attitudes and industry responded to it
because of the motivation of why people are in business to
start with.
I think by disseminating facts, motivating the private
sector, and not running off on political tangents to beat up on
one side to dissatisfy another, we can make a huge dent in what
is going on. But if we each decide to retrench and to lob barbs
back and forth, without conscientious effort to cause good
changes in people's practices, good innovation in business,
then we will really not do what I believe the Chairman and the
rest of the members of this committee want to do.
Motivation, conservation, and innovation. I believe reward
is the great motivator in human nature. Fear never accomplished
anything. We should do everything we can to disseminate all of
the facts around global warming, not just the ones that might
tailor and be fitted to our argument. We must look at an
overall landscape that motivates people to change where change
is good for them and good for the environment. Remember always
that in the end in our system and in our Country, what has made
us great is the free enterprise system, innovation and
competition. Don't stifle it through a punishing atmosphere
that is all political, without the practical effect of making a
change.
Madam Chairman, I thank you very much for the opportunity
to give my statement.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I found your statement to be very
important. Technology, innovation, incentives, and conservation
are all part of what we will be doing. I really will be working
with you on those areas. Thank you so much.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have a statement I would like to submit for the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. I think I would choose instead of giving
that prepared statement, just to talk with my colleagues from
my heart. I want to commend you for inviting us all to be here
today. We sort of jokingly call this session ``open mic
night,'' or actually ``open mic day.'' All 100 Senators have
the opportunity to come in and talk about what I think is one
of the gravest threats, but really great opportunities that we
face as a Nation.
There is an old Chinese saying that in crisis lies
opportunity. I believe we do face a crisis, but I believe that
crisis also includes with it significant opportunity.
The President is on the road today. He is in Illinois. He
is visiting a big company there called Caterpillar, to tout the
strength of our economy. Last Wednesday, he was in my State, in
Delaware. He visited the DuPont Company. He came to Delaware to
the DuPont Company to our experimental station in order to put
a spotlight on the great work that is being done by several
thousand of the world's smartest scientists, to help reduce our
reliance on foreign oil, on petroleum products like cellulosic
ethanol and corn stalks, biobutanol, which DuPont is preparing
to make out of sugar beets, a better alternative than ethanol,
as it turns out. He wanted to spotlight the great work we are
doing there on fuel cells and other technologies.
The President doesn't know this, but as it turns out, the
CEO of the company he is visiting today and the CEO of the
DuPont Company that he visited last Wednesday, along with a
number of their colleagues, banded together last Monday and
they released a call for action. This is not a lot of
harebrained, crazy treehuggers like some of us. These are some
of our top business leaders in the Country, who promulgated
this call for action. I am not going to read it all, but there
is part of it I want to share with us.
The call for action starts off like this, ``We know enough
to act on climate change,'' that is their basic premise. ``The
challenge is significant, that the United States cannot grow
and prosper in a greenhouse gas-constrained world.'' They go on
to say, ``In our view, the climate change challenge will create
more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.''
Finally, they say, ``We need a mandatory, but flexible climate
program.''
They don't just stop there either. They go on and they lay
out a bunch of design principles. I won't go through all those.
They share with us their recommendations. The back of the
publication, the copy which I am sharing with all of my
colleagues on this committee, maybe all my colleagues in the
Senate, on the back of the publication, it lists the companies
that are involved in this. I just want to mention them: ALCOA,
BP, Caterpillar, Duke Energy, DuPont, GE, Florida Power and
Light, PG&E, and an outfit called PNM, which is a Power New
Mexico, New Mexico Power.
There are a couple of environmental groups, Environmental
Defense, NRDC, World Resources Institute, an outfit called the
Pew Center, and they banded together, not just to preach a
sermon, but really to show us a sermon. You know the old
saying, I would rather see a sermon than hear one. These folks
are prepared to show us the sermon. By their own actions,
reducing their own greenhouse emissions, and calling on the
rest of us not to just watch this parade that is being formed,
and there is a parade being formed, a parade of consensus
around greenhouse gases and what to do about it. My friends, I
will just tell you this. We can watch the parade, we can sort
of join the parade, or we can lead the parade.
I said to the President last Wednesday when we were riding
back on Air Force One to Andrews Air Force Base from my State.
I said, ``Mr. President, we have an opportunity to lead here.
You need to lead.'' Frankly, we need to join him.
Senator Alexander and I and others on this committee and in
the Senate have been working for a number of years on an
approach to greenhouse gas that is not economy-wide, but
something that focuses just on utilities. Our Chairman has just
said that utilities are responsible for about 40 percent of the
CO2 emissions that we are seeing produced in this
Country. Our view is, let's get started on that. Let's get
started somewhere.
I respect those who have a view of sort of a climate-wide
approach, and economy-wide approach on CO2. That is
fine. I have joined Senators Lieberman and McCain in their
proposal in past years. I will do it again this year. I regard
their proposal and other comprehensive economy-wide proposals
as the Interstate, the freeway. Senator Alexander and I have
talked about this time and again. There needs to be an on-ramp
onto the freeway. We need to get started. I believe the
legislation that we will be introducing next week is that on-
ramp and helps us to get started.
The question that is before us is, is it possible to come
up with a plan not just CO2 emissions, but sulfur
dioxide emissions, nitrous oxide emissions, mercury emissions
from utility plants, in a way that doesn't cost consumers an
arm and a leg, and in a way that doesn't put our economy at
disadvantage with the rest of the world, that doesn't cause our
economy to founder? Is it possible to do this in a way that
doesn't encourage the movement of electricity production from
coal to more natural gas, and further spikes in natural gas
prices?
Is it possible to do this in a way that incentivizes clean
coal technology, that incentivizes wind powers and other
renewable forms of energy, that incentivizes for some of us a
new look at nuclear generation, electricity generation by
nuclear plants?
We think that it does. We believe we have a proposal that
meets that test.
I like to use the analogy with respect to CO2
emissions when I talk about Kyoto. The Jeffords proposal was
very well intended, and I respect Jim Jeffords. I know we all
do. In the proposal, some of us around this table, I know, were
cosponsors of the legislation he offered and will cosponsor the
successor. I will not, but I certainly respect him and the
views he holds. But Kyoto, in the approach he laid out, he
called for getting CO2 emissions by 2010 in this
Country, back to where they were in 1990.
Now, I am an optimist, but I am not that optimistic. I
think the proposal we need to follow basically looks more like
this. I use the car analogy. Some of you have heard me give
this before. Let me give it again. Imagine you are in a car
going down the highway at 55 miles an hour. You put the car in
reverse. That is really the sum and substance of what was being
proposed in the proposal I just mentioned.
I think there is a smarter approach. The smarter approach
is this, slow down the car, slow down the growth of
CO2 emissions; stop the car; stop the growth of
CO2 emissions; put the car in reverse; reduce
CO2 emissions. That makes a whole lot more sense to
me, and I suspect makes a whole lot more sense to you. It sure
makes a lot more sense to the folks who banded together and
presented us last week with what I think is a roadmap to walk
away from what could be a tipping point. This is a tipping
point in itself. This is a tipping point. This is a tipping
point in the debate on how we can deal with this challenge, and
do so in a way that helps our economy, strengthens our economy,
and by the same token does something good for our planet.
I will close with this. Just about everybody here on this
committee has children. Some of us have grandchildren. We talk
with our kids from time to time about the challenges that we
face, the work that we do. I just talked with my son. My
younger son, Ben, is a junior in high school, and I was telling
him, Madam Chairman, about open mic night, open mic day, and he
was kind of amused by that. But I told him what we were doing.
I didn't say this to him, but I thought it. I just share this
with all of you, with all of us.
For those of us who have children and grandchildren, they
know what we do. Sometimes they think what we do is important.
Sometimes they are not so sure. This is important. If all the
science we have been hearing for not just a couple of weeks or
a couple of months or a couple of years, but a couple of
decades, if all the science is actually true, we face a grave
threat on this planet of ours. We have the opportunity to do
something about it that doesn't jeopardize our economy, doesn't
cost consumers an arm and a leg, doesn't ignore our enormous
coal resources we have in this Country, but actually builds on
those.
I don't want to some day look at my kids in the eye, they
are 16 and 18. I don't want to look them some day in the eye,
10, 20 or 30 years from now, when we actually do reach a
tipping point, when this phenomenon actually might be
irreversible, and have them say to me, well, what did you do
about it? What did you do about it when you had an opportunity?
Weren't you in the Senate? Did you do anything to stop this?
I want to be able to look them in the eye and say, I did
everything I could. I tried to move heaven and earth to make
sure we took a better course, a smarter course, a wiser course,
for them and for our planet and for our Country. We can do
that.
I would ask each and every one of you to do two things.
One, take a look at what this partnership has proposed. It is a
tipping point and it is a good roadmap. Second, I would ask you
to take a look at the work that Senator Alexander and I have
done, along with a bunch of our colleagues. Take a look and see
if it meets muster in your view. I strongly urge you to join us
in this battle.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator Carper, I want to thank you for your
eloquence and your hard work with Senator Alexander in the
Power Plant Sector bill. We are really looking forward to
seeing the details of the bill.
I also want to thank you for, in such a strong way, calling
attention to this new coalition that has developed between the
business sector and the environmentalists. I think if you look
at evangelicals, the business sector, we have these groups that
we never had before saying to us, ``please act.'' I want to
thank you for that.
Just for members to know when they will be called on, I am
going to go to Senator Bond next, then Senator Lieberman, then
Senator Alexander, and then Senator Lautenberg. We will
continue to go back and forth.
Senator Bond, before I call on you, I again want to thank
you for your hard work on the highway number in the CR. I think
it was terrific that we all worked together on that. So please,
you have 10 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you, Madam Chair. Patty Murray, the
Chair of the Transportation Appropriations Committee and I
worked, along with you and Senator Baucus, and we were very
pleased it came out. I thank you for holding the hearing today,
and I particularly thank my colleague from Delaware for
pointing out how we get there is important.
I think it is very important that we make sure that we do
not fight climate change on the backs of the poor, on the backs
of certain sectors of this Country, and do not take short-term
steps that will jeopardize our ability to come to long-term
solutions.
The weak, the infirm, the vulnerable are all in the
crosshairs of some of the proposals that have been put forward
to address climate change. If you are worried about the
economic divide between rich and poor, immediately imposing
carbon caps could have a drastic impact. Carbon caps will
increase the cost of basic necessities that families cannot do
without, heating in the winter, air-conditioning in the summer,
and lost blue collar jobs that support middle-income families,
particularly in the heartland of the Nation where I live.
Unfortunately, carbon caps will hit hardest those with the
least ability to pay. Do we really want to do that, make life
harder and more expensive for the weakest parts of our society?
The problem is that energy for heat, air-conditioning and jobs
produces carbon missions. If you limit carbon, you limit
energy. When you make something scarce, you make it more
expensive. But carbon cap proposals don't stop there. They also
decide who gets less of the limited amounts of energy. Many
proposals do this through auctions that drive prices up even
higher because we will pay twice, first for the energy and the
second at an auction just to buy it. The poor and elderly can't
even afford to pay their heating bills now. How much will they
suffer if they have to pay again for auctioned energy?
Will people be forced to forgo, when they must instead pay
higher energy costs? Will a low-income family in the rural
parts of my State forego food in their pantry? Will we force
them to choose between heat or eat? Will a fixed-income senior
in the cities choose between buying prescription drugs needed
to survive, or running the air-conditioner in sweltering
summers of St. Louis?
We as Senators need to know how these carbon cap proposals
or limitations will impact our States, our less fortunate, our
struggling. Unfortunately, we don't have those answers yet.
Witnesses testifying before the Energy Committee this week on
the Bingaman plan said it would have very little macroeconomic
effect. I am not from the State of macroeconomics. I am from
the State of Missouri. I need to know how these proposals will
hurt Missourians.
Many efforts give us national averages, $1,000 per family.
I know lots of people who have drowned in water over their
heads in lakes that average 3 feet deep. Some families may
escape relatively unharmed and pay little. Others, depending on
how they heat or how they support their family, may pay
thousands more, or even lose tens of thousands of dollars if
the workers lose their jobs.
But cap proponents have not done their homework. The
Senator from Hawaii, a State with some of the highest costs for
electricity and gasoline in the Nation, asked how the Bingaman
cap plan would affect his State. He was told that nobody knew.
Well, that is not going to be good enough for responsible
members who want to know how these proposals will hurt their
constituents.
Now, I think that States in the Northeast and the West
Coast will be spared some of that hardship because the energy
needs they have are supplied by natural gas, to which they have
easy access. I would go back to a statement I heard Nobel
Laureate Glenn Seaborg make over a quarter century ago. He
said, ``To use natural gas and electricity and a combustion
boiler to generate electricity is like heating your home by
throwing your most valuable antique furniture in the
fireplace.'' I will describe why in just a moment.
States currently dependent on coal, however, to meet their
energy needs, like my State and States throughout the Midwest,
the Great Plains and the South, are going to face extra
hardships. Unfortunately, carbon cap proponents have not done
the homework that tell us how those plans will hurt these
families. States with white-collar service workers may be fine,
but caps will hit hard States with manufacturing, States with
energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminum and other
metals.
Carbon cap proponents have not said how we will take care
of these workers. Workers who make products dependent on
natural gas will suffer, and they already are. Their feedstock
will be in demand to generate more power, making raw materials
more expensive. Many of these natural gas-dependent industries,
plastics, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, have moved to other
countries, to China for example. Farmers who depend upon
natural gas for the nitrogen in their triple number fertilizer
are being squeezed, and they can't leave. They are being hit by
cost increases on their input.
Many Missouri families have all these traits, low-income,
fixed-income seniors, manufacturing, or coal-dependent. We have
far too many families suffering through winters who have
already lost their jobs to China. Some have said we need not
face these choices, that we can solve our carbon emissions
problems through a combination of efficiency, savings, and
renewables. Well, I am all for efficiency savings and
renewables, couldn't be a stronger supporter.
Greenpeace recently put out a new report, however, called
Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for Solving Global Warming. It
says that their energy revolution would install wind generating
capacity by 2050 or 464 gigawatts. That is 464,000 megawatts of
electric power from wind power, a 100-fold increase from the
current wind generating capacity.
Well, where we could do wind generating, I am very proud of
it. Missouri's own Kansas City Power and Light recently
completed construction of the Spearville Wind Facility with 67
wind turbines, at capital cost of $166 million, generating 100
megawatts of emissions. However, using this experience to see
what Greenpeace expects, we would need 309,000 wind turbines at
a cost of $767 billion. These turbines stretch side by side,
400 feet tall, visible 15 miles away, and would stretch over
12,000 miles, completely encircling the coast of the United
States. Turbines would line up our shores from Maine to
Florida, around to Texas, stretch all the way to California to
Washington, and almost completely encircle Alaska.
Has anybody seen what happened when we tried to put some
wind turbines off of Massachusetts? Well, the ``not in my
backyard,'' the NIMBY syndrome hit. Hey, listen, we want energy
conservation; we want to use renewable energy, hey, but don't
put it off of my shore.
Well, I happen to live one-half mile from a biodiesel
plant, and about 20 miles from a nuclear power facility, and I
am delighted. If we had natural gas in Missouri, I would be
happy to drill for natural gas. Unfortunately, people off the
coast do not want to drill for natural gas. I would offer them
a trade. They could have our lead. If they want to mind the
lead that we mine in Missouri, and let us drill for natural
gas, we would be happy to have natural gas in my backyard. But
these costs of over $1 trillion for wind generated electricity
just don't make sense.
Now, I am not satisfied with the status quo. Biofuels,
ethanol and biodiesel can cut carbon emissions. Missouri
utilities are increasing their renewable power generation.
Missouri farmers are supplying biofuels. But we also need to
make coal clean. We have 250 years of energy in coal. Coal is
dirty when you burn it. You have to have scrubbers or fluidized
bed combustions. But we can do more. We can push the technology
to get it ready so we don't bring pain to those least able to
bear it.
Carbon caps, which would heavily impact fiscally coal
companies and utilities, would penalize the very companies that
we are expecting to put $1 billion or more into each coal or
liquefaction or gasification plant. We cannot take short-term
steps that will compromise our ability ultimately to use our
most abundant energy source, and that is coal, by gasifying it,
or liquefying it, separating out all of the pollutants,
including carbon, and sequestering the carbon. It is a big
challenge. It is going to cost a lot of money, but we ought to
get serious about doing it.
We need to know in the meantime what regions of our
Country, of the States, what cities will be affected by these
proposals, just as the Senator from Delaware said. What sectors
of the economy, what types of jobs, who holds them, who will
lose them, what types of workers, blue collar, union, are most
at risk? What types of people, families, young, old,
struggling, will face burdens too high?
Only then will we be able to produce a responsible future
that not only meets our environmental needs, but assures we
meet our social justice needs and continue to have a growing
economy that can afford the investment we must make in
continued productivity and an environmentally friendly way.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator from the
State of Missouri
Madame Chairman, thank you for seeking our views on climate change
strategies. I hope you will take them to heart. Simply put, we must not
fight climate change on the backs of the poor.
The weak, the infirm, the vulnerable, are all in the crosshairs of
proposals that you Madame Chairman, Senators Lieberman and McCain, and
others have put forward to address climate change. If you truly are
worried about the economic divide between rich and poor, carbon caps
will only widen that gap.
The reason is that carbon caps will increase the cost of basic
necessities that no family can do without--I am talking about heating
our homes in the winter, air-conditioning our homes in the summer, and
lost blue collar jobs that support middle-income families.
Unfortunately, carbon caps will hit hardest those with the least
ability to pay. Is this what we really want to do? Make life harder and
more expensive for the weakest parts of our society?
The problem is that energy for heat, air-conditioning and jobs
produces carbon emissions. If you limit carbon, you limit energy. And
when you make something scarce, you make it more expensive.
But carbon cap proposals don't stop there. They must also decide
who gets less of the limited amounts of energy. Many proposals do this
through auctions that will drive prices up even higher because we will
pay twice--the first time to make the energy and the second time at an
auction just to buy it. Many poor and elderly can't even afford to pay
their heating bills now. How much will they suffer if they have to pay
again for auctioned energy?
What will people be forced to forgo when they must instead pay
higher energy costs? Will a low-income family in rural Missouri heating
their mobile home with electric space heaters forgo food for their
pantry? Will we force them to choose between ``heat or eat''? Will a
fixed-income senior have to choose between buying the prescription
drugs they need to survive or running their air-conditioner in the
sweltering summers of St. Louis?
We as Senators need to know how these carbon cap proposals will
impact each of our States, our less fortunate, our struggling.
Unfortunately, the answers have not yet arrived.
Witnesses testified before the Energy Committee last week that the
Bingaman plan would have very little macroeconomic effect. Well I'm not
from the State of Macroeconomy. I represent the State of Missouri. I
need to know how these proposals will hurt Missourians.
Many efforts give us national averages, such as $1,000 per family,
but these plans will not hit all States, families, or workers equally.
Some families may escape relatively unharmed and pay little. Others,
depending on how they heat their homes, or how they support their
families, may pay thousands more, or even lose tens of thousands of
dollars if they are the workers who lose their jobs.
But cap proponents have not done this homework. The Senator from
Hawaii, a State with some of the highest costs for electricity and
gasoline in the Nation, asked how the Bingaman cap plan would affect
his State. He was told that such a state-by-state analysis had not been
done. Well that's not going to be good enough for the responsible
members who want to know how these proposals will hurt their
constituents.
I have to think that States in the Northeast and West Coast will be
spared hardship because their energy needs are supplied by natural gas,
to which they have easy access.
States currently dependent on coal to meet their energy needs, such
as Missouri, but including States all throughout the Midwest, Great
Plains and South will face extra hardship. Unfortunately, carbon cap
proponents have not done this homework to tell us how their plan will
hurt families in these specific States.
States with many white-collar or service workers may be fine, but
caps will hit hard States with manufacturing. States with energy
intensive industry such as steel, aluminum or other metals will have
suffering workers. But carbon cap proponents have not done this
homework to tell us how their plan will hurt these specific workers.
Workers who make products dependent on natural gas will suffer.
Their feedstock will be in demand to generate more power, making their
raw material more expensive. Plastics, fertilizer, automotive,
chemicals, pharmaceuticals workers will all suffer. Many energy and
natural gas dependent blue-collar workers have already lost their jobs
to low-cost China. Again, carbon cap proponents offer no details of how
their plans will hurt these workers.
Missouri has families and workers with all of these traits: low-
income, fixed-income senior, manufacturing or coal dependent. We have
far too many families suffering through winters, or who have already
lost their blue-collar family supporting jobs to China. I cannot
blindly go into what may bring them even more pain and hardship.
Some have said we need not face these choices. That we can solve
our carbon emissions problems through a combination of efficiency
savings and renewables. Some quick and easy calculations reveals that
this is pie in the sky.
For example, Greenpeace recently put out a new report called
``Energy Revolution: A Blueprint for Solving Global Warming.'' It
claims to show how wind and solar energy combined with efficiency
advances could replace coal to reduce carbon emissions.
Unfortunately, their proposals are also drastically impossible and
impractical. Their Energy Revolution requires installed wind generating
capacity in 2050 of 464 gigawatts. That is 464,000 megawatts of
electricity from wind power--a staggering number in itself and a 100-
fold increase from current wind generating capacity.
Now I support increased power generation from renewables including
wind power. I am very proud that Missouri's own Kansas City Power and
Light recently completed construction of their Spearville wind
facility. Its 67 wind turbines, at a capital cost of $166 million, will
generate 100 megawatts of emissions free electricity.
However, using this experience to see what Greenpeace expects, we
would need 309,000 wind turbines at a cost of $767 billion. These
turbines side-by-side, 400 feet tall and visible 15 miles away, would
stretch 12,229 miles. That would almost be enough to encircle
completely the entire coast of the United States. Turbines would line
our shores from Maine to Florida, around to Texas, stretch all the way
up California to Washington, and almost completely encircle Alaska.
To pay the $767 billion bill we would need every man, woman and
child in America to pay $2,550, or family of four to pay $10,200. But
these numbers assume Greenpeace's massive energy efficiency savings. If
energy demand hits full predictions, we would need nearly 400,000
turbines at a cost of nearly $1 trillion.
Do the sponsors of the Boxer-Sanders carbon cap bill really expect
us to spend $1 trillion on wind turbines? No, of course not. And yet,
we continue to see these schemes pedaled as real solutions.
Now I am not satisfied with the status quo. We can and must do
better, including more with renewables. I am a big supporter of
biofuels such as biodiesel that can cut carbon emissions by 30%.
Missouri utilities are increasing their renewable power generation and
Missouri farmers are helping supply biofuels. We also have nuclear
power in Missouri. We can and must do more of all of these things.
Serious people must also support making coal clean. We are working
on technologies to gasify coal, burn it cleanly and capture the carbon
emissions. We must do much more to figure out how and where we can
affordably sequester carbon emissions.
But what we cannot do is push past where technology is not yet
ready and thereby intentionally bring pain and hardship to our weak and
vulnerable families and workers.
General legislation that leaves the details and dirty work to
others, like those recently passed at the State level, is unacceptable.
We cannot abdicate these questions or our responsibility to our
constituents.
To avoid this, we need to know what regions of the country, what
States, what cities will be affected by proposals? What sectors of the
economy, what types of jobs, their locations, who holds them and who
will lose them? What types of workers, blue collar, union, are most at
risk? What types of people, families, young, old, struggling, will face
burdens too high?
Only then will we be able to produce a responsible future that
meets our environmental and social justice needs.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you so much.
Before I call on Senator Lieberman, just two quick things.
I want to respond just a little bit to what you said, because I
think it is a very positive contribution. I also want to take a
moment, now that we have a quorum, and I believe we have a
quorum, to suspend the hearing for just a moment.
[Whereupon, the committee proceeded to other business.]
Senator Boxer. Senator Bond, I thank you for bringing up
the issue that you did in a very eloquent way. We don't want to
do anything on the back of the poor. I think environmental
justice, as you call it, social justice is key. I think it is
why we all come together around the LIHEAP Program and others
things that we do.
I do want to make one point about energy efficiency,
because energy efficiency helps our families. I also want to
say as far as coal is concerned, you are right. We cannot turn
our back. We have 250 years of coal in America. We have to make
sure that technology steps up and helps us resolve and solve
this problem.
I am kind of taking everybody's temperature on where you
are coming from, and I really do appreciate the contribution
you have made. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Lieberman, we are very delighted you are here.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman. I hope that
when I am done you will put my temperature down as ``hot.''
Senator Boxer. I will do it right now.
Senator Lieberman. Hot to get something done.
I thank you very much for your leadership. Let me express
to you how grateful I am that you are moving global warming to
the top of this committee's agenda. You have been a longtime
leader in this area of environmental concern. At times, as we
both know, there weren't many people out there. I think now you
and I hear the sound of the cavalry coming to meet this
enormous challenge to our future and the future of those who
will follow us here on Earth.
The great thing is that it is a very diverse cavalry. Like
you, Madam Chairwoman, I have been listening to our colleagues
in the Senate. I have been reading what they have to say. I
have been listening to leaders in the public, private and
academic sectors, and reading what they have to say. It is hard
not to conclude that the politics of global warming has
changed, and a new consensus for action is emerging. It is a
bipartisan consensus.
I believe that in this Congress, we can adopt legislation
that will begin to stop the advance of the warming of our
planet. If we can achieve a consensus agreement here on this
committee, and I believe a bipartisan consensus, we can take it
to the Senate floor, join it up with legislation our colleagues
in the House will pass, and I think ultimately enact strong,
comprehensive global warming legislation.
Now, people will then say, well, what about the President?
Well, part of the change here occurred in the State of the
Union a week ago. The President uttered less than a dozen
words, but they were heard around the world. It is quite
remarkable. I am looking for a bad meteorological metaphor, but
it is as if the President created a seismic change at the
bottom of the ocean that set off a positive tsunami of
hopefulness around the world that the United States was ready
to assume its leadership place in the global battle to stop
global warming.
So I think we have to build on that and start it right
here. The time is right. Solutions are at hand, and coalitions
of goodwill are forming across political and ideological lines.
The often-varied orbits of Democrats, Republicans, and of
course I have to add Independents, along with the business
community, academic, and the environmental and scientific
communities, seem to be moving into an alignment, creating what
I think is the real probability that we can adopt strong
legislation.
Why is this happening? I think some of the questions that
people have been asking about global warming are being
answered. The first fundamental question that was being asked
in the early stages of the battle to get something done here,
was, is it real? Is it really happening? If it is happening,
that the planet is warming, is it happening because of things
we humans are doing?
At the outset, those who were concerned were deriving their
worst concerns from computer models. You couldn't really see
it. Today, unfortunately, you can see that it is real. You can
see it in the melting of ice masses on the Earth. You can see
it in tides rising in different places on the Earth. You can
see it in the movement of species, wildlife species, the
endangerment of certain species. You can even see it in the
beginning of movements of diseases.
It is real, and the evidence, to me, and increasing
consensus of people around the world, is that what we are doing
is causing that real problem.
A second question, I suppose, is can we afford it? I will
talk about that a little more in my statement, but I think
people are beginning to come to the point where they are
feeling that doing something about global warming now will cost
us a lot less than waiting to pay the costs of dealing with the
effects of global warming, some of which may be catastrophic.
The third question that has been raised is, what does it
matter if we do it, and the Chinese and the Indians, the great
rising economies of the world, don't do anything about global
warming? That is a good question. It doesn't relieve us of our
responsibility. It is actually a moral responsibility, but it
is a responsibility to act to protect the people of the United
States from a problem that we are the greatest cause of,
because we emit more greenhouse gases than any other nation on
Earth.
But I hope that the President goes from that one sentence
that he uttered in the State of the Union, to assuming a
leadership role in bringing China and India, particularly, into
a leadership group of developed and developing nations of the
world to work on what might be called the post-Kyoto system for
dealing with the reality of global warming. Chancellor Merkel,
a great ally, Prime Minister Blair, a great ally, have
suggested as much, and I hope President Bush will join them in
that.
Now, let me come back to where we are. I want to mention
one final reason why I think this new consensus is emerging. In
a classic example of the American Federal system at work, when
the people see a problem and they want their government to
protect them from it, but the Federal Government does not act,
where do they go? They go the States and localities. The States
and localities are acting, most notably the Northeastern States
have come together in a tough anti-global warming compact. Of
course California, our largest State, is now playing a
leadership role.
What does that do? It says to people in the business
community that this is coming. So do we want to deal with what
we are going to be asked to do in responding to a maze of State
and local regulations and laws? Or are we going to have one
national law that will give us predictability? That is part, in
addition to their good citizenship and recognition of the
reality of the problem, why business leaders are saying now,
yes, it is worth the cost. In fact, it is going to save jobs
and create wealth.
I think most important is for us to go ahead in this
committee, to seize this moment by listening to each other and
trying to find a bipartisan common ground. I congratulate our
colleagues, Senator Carper and Senator Alexander, who have done
that with their proposal, which will reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions from the electricity-generating sector of our
economy. I hope that in our subcommittee, and I look forward to
working with Senator Warner as Ranking Member, that we will be
able to build on that bipartisan consensus.
Madam Chairwoman, as you know, I have introduced
legislation that I have sponsored in the last two Congresses,
with Senator John McCain, the Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act. I am very grateful that this bill has the
support of a broad bipartisan group, Senators Lincoln, Snowe,
Obama, Collins, and Durbin, and our colleagues on this
committee, Senators Clinton and Carper.
Let me just talk briefly about the bill in the 2 minutes I
have left. This bill does have a cap, because if you don't have
a cap, you are not going to have results. But it uses the power
of the marketplace and a cap and trade system, the kind that
has worked with regard to the reduction of acid rain that was
mandated in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Our bill
would cap the greenhouse gas emissions of the electric power,
industrial, transportation and commercial sectors of our
economy at year 2004 levels by 2012. It would then lower that
cap gradually so that it reaches one-third of the year 2004
levels by 2050.
The bill controls compliance costs by allowing companies to
trade, save and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them
to generate credits when they induce noncovered businesses,
farms and others to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or
capture and store greenhouse gases. The bill then would invest
set-aside emission credits and money raised by the auction of
those allowances for advancing several positive ends, such as
deploying advanced technologies, protecting low- and middle-
income Americans from higher energy costs, keeping good jobs in
the United States, and mitigating the negative impacts of any
unavoidable global warming on low- and middle-income Americans,
low-income populations abroad, and wildlife.
This bill is sound. It is tested. I want to say to my
colleagues on the committee, as good as I think it is, it is
not perfect. I welcome the collaboration, the input from
members of this committee to make the bill even better. I want
to do the same with members of the Senate outside the
committee, particularly Senator Bingaman, who has wrestled with
these facts and offered solutions that demand careful
consideration.
Madam Chairwoman, in closing let me again thank you for
your leadership and reiterate how eager I am to assist you as
you lead this committee to the bipartisan solutions to the
challenge of global warming that now lie within our grasp, both
technologically and politically. It is time for us, in facing
one of the truly great challenges of our time, to seize the
moment and prove to the American people that here in Congress
we can work across party lines to solve the problems they sent
us here to solve.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lieberman follows:]
Statement of Hon. Joseph Lieberman, U.S. Senator from the
State of Connecticut
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. Let me start by saying how delighted
I am by your accession to the chair of this committee, and how much I
look forward to working under your leadership.
Second, let me tell you how deeply grateful I am to you for moving
global warming to the top of this committee's agenda. You have been a
long-time leader on the need to confront the challenge of global
warming. And you and I both know that was a lonely outpost for
sometime.
But now I think I hear the sound of cavalry coming and a new
willingness to charge into this challenge head on.
For months, I have been reading and listening both to my colleagues
in the Senate and to leaders in the public, private and academic
sectors. And I believe the politics of global warming have changed and
that a new consensus is emerging. I believe that in this new Congress--
and under your leadership of this Committee--we can create bipartisan
support here and then on the Senator floor for a strong, comprehensive
bill to curb global warming.
The time is ripe. Solutions are at hand. And coalitions of good
will are already forming across political and ideological lines. The
often varied orbits of Democrats, Republicans--and Independents--along
with the business community, academia and the environmental and
scientific community have moved into an alignment, creating a
galvanizing, gravitational tug toward action.
I believe it is crucial to our ultimate success that we proceed in
a bipartisan manner from the very beginning of this process. For
instance, one of my Republican friends on this committee, Senator
Alexander, has already cosponsored my Democratic friend Senator
Carper's bill to reduce greenhouse gases from the electrical generating
sector of the U.S. economy.
I want to help build and nurture this bipartisan momentum through
the subcommittee I am privileged to lead with my good friend and
colleague Sen. Warner. This week, in fact, I hope to notice a February
7 subcommittee hearing that will examine the impacts of global warming
on the wildlife and ecosystems that are central to our American values,
way of life, and . . . our very livelihoods across this nation.
Left unchecked, there is no region of the country that will not
suffer from the effects of global warming and I invite all my
colleagues on this committee to attend this hearing. The devastation
wrought by rising sea levels, droughts, waves of insect borne diseases
will sweep from coast to coast, leaving no one untouched.
Madam Chairwoman, you and my colleagues here know that I have
reintroduced legislation I sponsored with Sen. McCain in the last two
Congresses to reduce global warming--the Climate Stewardship and
Innovation Act.
This bill has the bipartisan support of Senators Lincoln, Snowe,
Obama, Collins, and Durbin, and my committee colleagues, Senators
Clinton and Carper, having signed on as cosponsors as well.
Several of my colleagues on this committee and in the Senate have
expressed a concern that, in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, we
might inadvertently force more American jobs overseas and increase the
energy costs borne by low- and middle-income Americans.
These are perfectly understandable, reasonable concerns. Indeed,
Sen. McCain and I shared them when we sat down to write our bill. And
we are both convinced that we can fight the quickening slide into
catastrophic climate change in a way that actually creates new high-
paying jobs in the United States, improves this country's position in
relation to its trading partners, and lowers Americans' energy costs
over the long term.
Our bill uses the power of the free market to promote the rapid and
widespread deployment of advanced technologies and practices for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, as I mentioned, it is
designed to promote the economic well-being of low- and middle-income
Americans, and to keep good jobs in the United States.
The Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act would cap the
greenhouse-gas emissions of the electric power, industrial,
transportation, and commercial sectors of the economy at year 2004
levels by 2012. It then would lower that cap gradually, such that it
reaches one-third of year 2004 levels by 2050.
The bill controls compliance costs by allowing companies to trade,
save, and borrow emissions credits, and by allowing them to generate
credits when they induce non-covered businesses, farms, and others to
reduce their greenhouse gas emissions or capture and store greenhouse
gases.
The bill then invests set-aside emissions credits and money raised
by the auction of those allowances in advancing several positive ends,
such as deploying advanced technologies and practices for reducing
emissions; protecting low- and middle-income Americans from higher
energy costs; keeping good jobs in the United States; and mitigating
the negative impacts of any unavoidable global warming on low- and
middle-income Americans, low-income populations abroad, and wildlife.
I believe our bill is sound. And with the help of Republicans and
Democrats on this committee, we can make it even better. I for one will
be very receptive to suggestions presented by my colleagues on this
committee as to ways we can further protect American competitiveness
and jobs.
I will also work with those Senators not on this committee, who
have devoted a great deal of thought and effort to the issue of cost
control and the mechanics of an economy-wide, market-based emission
reduction system.
Here Senator Bingaman, the distinguished chair of the Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, deserves special mention. He has wrestled
with the facts and details of climate legislation as much as any other
Senator, and his ideas merit careful consideration.
Madame Chairwoman, let me close by again thanking you for your
leadership and by reiterating how eager I am to assist you as you lead
this committee to the bipartisan solutions that we know lie within our
grasp.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you for your long term
leadership. I think that your partnership with Senator McCain,
whom we will hear from this afternoon, has been a role model
for us on this matter. I agree with you that we can do it in
this committee.
I also want to underscore something you said about the
economic costs of not doing anything, because most people say
it is going to cost up front. Nicholas Stern, who is the chief
economist for the World Bank, said that $1 spent now will save
$5 later because of the economic disruption that could come if
we don't mitigate the problem. So I think this is something we
need to keep discussing.
So thank you very much. I understand members are coming and
going. I have lots of other things to do, so please feel free
when you need to leave.
It is my pleasure to recognize Senator Alexander, then
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The National Academy of Sciences of the United States, as
well as the National Academies of Japan, Germany, China, and
other nations, have agreed that human activity is having a
significant influence on global temperature increases. I
believe that amounts to a scientific consensus and that it is
now time for Congress to take reasonable steps to reduce U.S.
emissions of greenhouse gases.
In my judgment, the right first step would be the one that
Senator Carper described, a market based system of greenhouse
gas permits that would limit carbon dioxide produced by
electric utility generating plants in the United States. This
would affect about 40 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in
our Country.
Senator Carper and I introduced legislation in the last
Congress to do this. We expect to do it again within the next
several weeks. Our legislation is a little different in that it
affects the utility generators, about 40 percent of the carbon,
and it also is what we call an ``integrated'' approach. It puts
stricter controls on the other major pollutants which come from
fossil fuel plants, sulfur, nitrogen and mercury, which have
created a serious clean air problem in many parts of the
Country, especially in eastern Tennessee, where I live.
I don't believe that it is wise at this point to enact one
of the various legislative proposals that would impose carbon
controls on the entire economy.
We have looked pretty carefully, Madam Chairman, to try to
make sure that our bill can be accomplished at a minimal cost.
We believe that it can, through the modeling that was done
working with the Environmental Protection Agency in the last
session of Congress. We try to clean up air pollution from
existing plants through a combination of emission caps, market
based trading, offsets, and technology incentives. We believe
that both reduces pollutants in the years ahead and does it at
the most minimal cost.
And importantly, since coal is such an important part of
our electricity production in the United States and will
continue to be, we believe our bill will make it possible to
use coal abundantly, while keeping the air clean and healthy in
a cost-effective way.
I would like to spend just a few minutes talking about that
bill and why I care about it. Most of us are affected by where
we come from. I come from the mountains of east Tennessee. I
grew up in a county that includes a big part of the Great Smoky
Mountain National Park. I might add, this is a very Republican
county, very Republican area. We haven't elected a Democrat to
Congress since Lincoln was President, and there is no
indication we ever will.
So the views that I am expressing are not partisan views,
but they do express the views I believe of most of the people
where I live. For example, the next county over is Sevier
County, which is Dolly Parton's home. It also contains a lot of
the Smokies, and is also a very Republican county. When I
walked into the Chamber of Commerce in Sevier County and asked
them what their No. 1 priority was a couple of years ago, they
told me ``clean air.'' Clean air is the No. 1 priority because
10 million people visit the Smoky Mountains Park each year.
They bring a lot of tourism dollars with them. They come to see
the purple haze that has been there since the days of the
Cherokees, not the smog that is currently there. Current
visibility on the haziest days in the Smokies is 15 miles.
Natural visibility on the haziest days ought to be 77 miles.
Visibility is an issue, and that affects our jobs.
We are also concerned about the health impacts of all that
smog on those of us who live there. East Tennessee fails to
meet minimum Federal healthy air standards for fine particles
and ozone, both of which cause serious health damage. Knoxville
was the 14th most polluted city for ozone, for example. Ozone
irritates the lung tissues. It increases your risk of dying
prematurely. It increases the swelling of lung tissue. It
increases the risk of being hospitalized with worsened lung
diseases, and triggering asthma attacks. At risk in Knox County
alone are 176,000 children, 112,000 seniors, 15,000 children
with asthma, and 50,000 adults with asthma.
So an integrated bill such as the Clean Air bill that
Senator Carper and I propose would control all of those
pollutants. Ozone is not emitted directly from tailpipes and
smokestacks. The raw ingredients come from coal-fired
powerplants and cars. They cook in the air when it is sunny and
warm. Sulfur is in many ways our biggest problem. It is the
primary contributor to the haze. It causes difficulty in
breathing. It causes damages to the lung tissue and respiratory
disease, and even premature death.
Mercury is also a problem. Monitoring by the EPA, the
National Park Service and others show that these areas have
high levels of mercury deposits from air pollution. Our areas
have more than most other parts of the Country. Recent studies
have shown that much of that mercury comes from not very far
away. It is polluting waterways, with mercury contaminating the
fish we eat, posing a serious threat to public health.
So we are concerned about mercury. We are concerned about
nitrogen. We are concerned about sulfur especially, and as time
goes on, we have become concerned about climate change. The
leaves changed earlier when I was a boy. We used to look at
October 15 as the day for that. There was more snowfall then
than there is today, but that is not exactly a scientific
analysis. But now we have the National Academy of Sciences of
our Country and many other countries saying that our human
activity is playing a significant role in the rising average
temperature.
So that is why I joined with Senator Carper 3 or 4 years
ago to introduce our legislation, to move along, not just to
clean up sulfur, nitrogen and mercury, but also to take what we
believe is a reasonable first step to deal with carbon, the
principal contributor to climate change. The bill will cut
sulfur dioxide emissions by 82 percent; nitrogen oxides by 68
percent; mercury by 90 percent, without trading. It would cap
carbon dioxide emissions at 2001 levels, all these reductions
to be achieved by 2015.
It permits utilities to undertake projects that reduce or
capture CO2, such as planting trees. These are known
as offsets. Why focus on powerplants? Well, first, as has been
said two or three times here, they produce about 40 percent of
the CO2. Of greater concern is that emissions from
powerplants are growing at nearly twice the rate of the economy
as a whole. This trend will only accelerate if electricity
companies build the more than 150 new coal-fired powerplants
they are currently proposing.
Fossil fuel powerplants provide more than 50 percent of our
electricity nationwide. They emit more harmful air pollution
than nearly any other source in the Country, including two-
thirds of the sulfur dioxide, one-quarter of the nitrogen
oxide, and 40 percent of the mercury.
Madam Chairman, I think we are at a point in our Country's
history when we are ready with technological advances to deal
with these clean air challenges, and to do it in a way that
permits us still to have a very strong economy. Obviously,
conservation and efficiency is the first and easiest thing to
do. We can be aggressive about that, reducing electricity
demand, lowering consumer utility bills, speeding the
deployment of energy-saving appliances, lighting, and
encouraging efficient building practices.
Second is renewable energy. Senator Bond pointed out, I
thought pretty graphically, that as important and as attractive
as renewable energy might be today, it is only 2 to 3 percent
of our electric production outside of hydropower. To take that
to a very high number in this generation is not very practical.
We don't need a national wind turbine policy. We need a
national energy policy. Renewable energy is a part of it, but
it is a small part.
That takes us to nuclear power. Nuclear power produces 20
percent of all of our electricity today, but 70 percent of our
carbon-free electricity. That number must go up.
And then to clean coal. We would be very unwise if we did
not make sure that any legislation we passed did not make
plenty of allowance for a future that is based on coal, an
abundant source of electricity. There are now technological
ways to use coal in clean ways that get rid of all four of the
pollutants that our legislation seeks to control. Carbon
sequestration technology has advanced to a great degree.
So that is why I am here today. I care about clean air, and
to deal with clean air I believe we have to deal with sulfur,
nitrogen, mercury and carbon. I hope, Madam Chairman, that the
legislation that Senator Carper has worked so hard on the last
several years, and several of us on both sides of the aisle
have cosponsored, will form a framework for responsible action
this year in this committee.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I want to thank you from the bottom
of my heart for the contribution you are making to this issue.
I think you and Senator Carper, as Senator Lieberman and
Senator McCain have proven, that we can work across party
lines. I know that we have been working with both your staffs.
I think the bill has moved in the best of directions. I am
optimistic that whatever happens here, your work will have been
a huge part of what we eventually do. So I just want to thank
you very, very much.
Now, just so we know, we are going to hear from Senator
Lautenberg, if Senator Warner is not back, Senator Craig, if
Senator Clinton is not back, and Senator Klobuchar. Is that
right, Bernie? Was she here before you?
Senator Sanders. She says so.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. All right.
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I want to
commend you for presenting an openness here that portends good
things for the future. So my compliments for doing that.
As I have listened to various presentations, I have to be a
little defensive in terms of whether or not the question is
livelihood or life. I don't think that ought to be the way to
do the equation. The suggestion that we can't adapt our systems
so that we are producing less carbon dioxide, less greenhouse
gases, for me is a wondrous question.
There are sources of revenue that are diverted to other
things than important research like stem cell research of
course, but in energy independence as well. If we had some of
those funds available for these studies, maybe we could improve
the situation that we face. It is shocking to me when finally
with a lot of hard work, and there are no accusations intended
here, but we see a report in today's New York Times. Madam
Chairman, it was brilliant planning to have this report in the
New York Times today from the world scientists, the U.N.
Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change, they are going
to release their report on February 2 before this week is out.
They say several things in there that kind of challenge
what I am going to call the relative complacency that we have
seen about this problem, and continually debate whether or not
the costs for doing so are going to remove job opportunities,
increase costs of living. The costs of dying are the ones that
I don't want to pay.
I don't want my grandchildren to be the substitute for the
proverbial canary in the coal mine. I don't want anybody else's
grandchildren to be the testing mechanism for seeing whether
global warming is having a negative affect on our being. These
scientists say things like this, their findings that the Arctic
Ocean could largely be devoid of sea ice during summer later in
this century. European Mediterranean shores could become barely
habitable in summers, while the Alps could shift from snowy
winter destinations to summer havens from the heat. Growing
seasons in temperate regions will expand, while droughts are
likely to ravage further the semi-arid regions of Africa and
Southern Asia. Concerns about climate change and public
awareness on the subject are at an all-time high. We know that.
The chairman of the panel told delegates on Monday, and
some time ago a report was developed for the use of the
Pentagon, and I submit that we ought to see if we can get it
distributed.
Madam Chairman, this report was done in October 2003, and
is a grim conclusion about what could happen as we continue to
see sea levels rising. They are fairly close projections in
time. We heard a commentary that Al Gore's pitch for the
presidency is a primary reason, the production of the film that
he helped produce, and displays very directly what the
consequences are of the current trends toward global warming.
I think that Al Gore did us all a major service. I am
particularly disturbed that the evidence we see in front of us
has not been taken seriously. My State of New Jersey had the
unique leadership in the change in temperature among all 50
States in the Country. We are at the top of the ladder in terms
of the degree of change, not very comforting.
I also want to talk, and start today by talking about the
Doomsday Clock. The Doomsday Clock is maintained by the
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a group of international
experts who are committed to our, ``security, science and
survival.'' The hands on the clock convey how close the human
race is to destroying itself, the metaphoric ``midnight'' or
the end of life as we know it.
In the past, the clock moved closer to midnight because of
nuclear weapons testing or war, but this year the Doomsday
Clock was pushed 2 minutes closer to midnight because of global
warming. Stephen Hawking, scholar, author of ``A Brief History
of Time,'' said, ``Terror only kills hundreds of thousands of
people. Global warming could kill millions. We should have a
war on global warming.''
The United States needs to actively engage in the war on
global warming, and it starts with this committee, Madam
Chairman. I am pleased to see the action that you have kicked
off today.
The average global temperature in 2006 was 2.2 degrees
warmer than the average temperature throughout the 20th
century, and that is according to NOAA. This is not an anomaly.
It is a recurring fact. The last seven 5-year periods were the
warmest 5-year periods on record. As the temperature rises, our
world suffers. Polar Bears, long a symbol of the wilderness,
may soon have a new home, and that is on the threatened species
list. Their habitat has already melted so much that bears have
drowned swimming and searching for food.
The ocean level is being altered. We know that the ocean
level is rising, and it threatens coastlines across the globe.
I have already pointed out the effects of what we are seeing
could be gigantic in their outcome.
The United States, the glaciers in Glacier National Park
are shrinking. The park's largest glaciers are one-third of
their 1850's grandeur. We also know that the Pentagon sees
security risks coming from global warming, and I indicated that
there is a report that was developed for the Pentagon.
So here is Congress's choice: deny these real and rising
impacts of global warming, or confront them. I think that what
we have seen here today is a serious attempt to get the ball
rolling. The answer is obvious. We have to act and here is what
we need to do. We need to cap and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. We need to increase CAFE standards. We need to
create incentives for cities and companies to go green and
build green. The one thing that we have to end is censorship or
suppression of government scientists' reports who do critical
research on global warming. That has been going on.
All of this has to be done right now. The public is taking
better care of our environment. They want to do more. People
are buying cars based on fuel efficiency by way of example.
This year, Senator Sanders has a Global Warming Pollution
Reduction Act, which calls for an 80 percent reduction in
global warming pollutants by 2050, and I am pleased to be a
cosponsor of that.
So we end up now by saying, enough of this cynicism that we
have seen in the past, enough of the suggestions that global
warming was a hoax perpetrated on the American people. It is
time for action and the time to start is now.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Thank you Madam Chairman for holding today's forum on the biggest
environmental threat of our time.
I want to start today by talking about the Doomsday Clock.
The Doomsday Clock is maintained by the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, a group of international experts who are committed to our
``security, science and survival.''
The hands on the clock convey how close the human race is to
destroying itself--the metaphoric ``midnight,'' or the end of life as
we know it.
In the past, the clock moved closer to midnight because of nuclear
weapons or war. But this year, the Doomsday Clock was pushed two
minutes closer to midnight because of global warming.
Stephen Hawking, the scholar and scientist said, ``Terror only
kills hundreds or thousands of people. Global warming could kill
millions. We should have a war on global warming. . . .''
The U.S. needs to actively engage in the war on global warming. And
it starts with this committee.
The average temperature in the United States in 2006 was two-point-
two degrees warmer than the average temperature throughout the
twentieth century, according to NOAA.
And this is no anomaly--it is a recurring fact: the last seven
five-year periods were the warmest 5-year periods on record.
And as temperatures rise, our world suffers: The Polar Bear, long a
symbol of the wilderness, may soon have a new home: the ``Threatened
Species List.''
Their habitat has already melted away so much that some bears have
drowned swimming and looking for food.
The ocean is being altered. We know the ocean level is rising,
threatening coastlines across the globe.
In Germany, the Alps could lose nearly three-quarters of its
glacial mass this century, according to the World Glacier Monitoring
Service.
Back in the United States, the glaciers in Glacier National Park
are shrinking. The park's largest glaciers are one-third of their
1850's grandeur. If what the scientists say is accurate, Glacier
National Park will have to drop the word ``Glacier'' from its name.
We also know the Pentagon sees security risks from global warming.
A 2003 Department of Defense report begins by saying ``There is
substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will
occur during the 21st century.''
That same report says that Bangladesh could become nearly
uninhabitable because of a rising sea; mega-droughts could affect the
world's major breadbaskets, such as America's Midwest--and future wars
could be fought over the issue of survival in this new, hotter climate.
So here is Congress's choice: Deny these real and rising impacts of
global warming?
Or do what our citizens sent us here to do--confront them?
The answer is as obvious as the problem. We simply have to act.
And here is what we need to do:
We need to cap and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from power
plants and other facilities that pollute.
We need to increase CAFE standards to get car and truck emissions
down, and dependence on foreign oil down, too.
We need to create incentives for cities and companies to go green
and build green.
We must end the censorship and suppression of government scientists
who do critical research on global warming.
And we must do all of this right now.
The public is taking better care of our environment--and they want
to do more. People are buying cars based on fuel efficiency, for
example.
Some in the private sector are taking better care of our
environment. Last week, we had CEO's from some of America's largest
companies, such as General Electric and DuPont, call for strong,
national legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
It's time for the federal government to wake up and do its part.
This year, I am proud to co-sponsor Senator Sanders' ``Global
Warming Pollution Reduction Act'', which calls for an eighty percent
reduction in global warming pollutants by 2050.
And I will be introducing the `High Performance Green Buildings
Act' with Senators Snowe and Boxer. I also want to thank former Senator
Jim Jeffords for his work on this issue.
Buildings--from small apartments to skyscrapers--account for nearly
forty percent of our greenhouse gases. And the federal government can
have a major impact, because it is the biggest landlord in the country.
So our bill promotes energy efficiency in the design and
maintenance of federal buildings. And with greater efficiency, we get
fewer greenhouse gases.
On Friday in Paris, the International Panel on Climate Change will
release its long-awaited report on global warming; the work of twenty-
five hundred scientists. It will paint a vivid portrait of how global
warming is affecting our planet.
With this report as a catalyst, my hope is that we can answer the
Doomsday Clock's call--and take real action to protect future
generations from the threat of global warming.
Our children and grandchildren cannot afford us waiting any more.
Thank you Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg. I know you
very well, and I know that everything you do is with the next
generation in mind, and I thank you for giving us that
perspective.
I am very pleased to call on Senator Craig, a new member of
the committee, but certainly one who has very firm ideas, and
we look forward to hearing from you, Senator. You have 10
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for the
forum as we move forward on this issue. There are some givens
here and there are some realities. I thought that what I ought
to do at first is to suggest that most of us already have an
opinion that we have shaped over a good period of time on this
issue. Some of us have modified our opinion a bit.
So I asked CRS to find out how much had been spoken by U.S.
Senators on climate change. Well, here are my speeches, Madam
Chairman. I will ask you to file them for the record; 59 of
them on the floor of the Senate since the 102d Congress. Now,
here is CRS's search of the rest of you. These are not the
actual speeches. This is imply referencing the 50,000 pages
spoken on the floor of the U.S. Senate approximately since the
102d Congress on this issue.
[The referenced document follows on page 139.]
As we all know, we have voted numerous times on a variety
of proposals, and each time they have failed. They have failed
out of skepticism and concern on the part of a good number of
us that we hadn't quite got the science right, and we were
going to plunge, as some of us have suggested, our economy into
a recession or depression that would dramatically impact our
citizens.
I find it ironic that in the recession of this Bush
administration, when we lost 3 million jobs in our Country, we
hit 1990 emission gas levels that are the Kyoto principles.
Actually, Kyoto is 1990 minus 5.2 percent. So with the loss of
3 million jobs under current technology, 5 years ago we met the
standard.
So some of us who have argued at that time that we should
not move until we knew what to do, I must say we were
reasonably accurate in our projection. Like many of you, I have
traveled the world to climate change conferences. I found it
fascinating when I listened to some countries talk about what
they could do and what they were going to do.
Now, all of those that ratified Kyoto, by 2012 there will
only be two countries remaining that are in or near compliant:
Sweden because they are dominantly hydro and nuclear; and Great
Britain because they rush to gas. The rest of them will be
substantially out of compliance, and the reason is really quite
simple: to grow an economy in today's world you have to have
energy, and our forms of technology that produce that energy
are less than clean.
So Japan will be well out. Italy will be well out. By 2012,
most of them will have stepped back and walked away from Kyoto.
But Kyoto was a beginning of a discussion that I think is
tremendously important for us. I think the environmental
community, at least the extremists, were frustrated because
they lost and they were not used to losing these kinds of
debates. But when you promise the developing world that the
only way to save their future is with a candle and living in a
cave, you should accept the rejection that Kyoto got.
I find it interesting, the former Vice President was in my
State recently, a large gathering, talking about The
Inconvenient Truth, which is the new packaging of an old book,
but I guess he is going to get Hollywood to recognize him for
that. But I find it very principled that the World Food
Organization, World Health Organization and the United Nations
itself don't support his approach. Why? For the very reason all
of us have talked about the importance of doing it right. And
that is that we do not want to subject the rest of the world to
the status quo. We should obviously enhance the world toward a
better life, and that is where technology comes in.
I was telling Senator Carper a few moments ago, don't
apologize to your kids. Don't say you haven't done anything to
date. That is simply not true. We passed the National Energy
Policy Act in 2005 and in the last three quarters, it has
produced the largest investment in the history of this Country
in clean technology. When we passed it in July 2005, there was
one nuclear reactor on the drawing board. Today, there are 30
nuclear reactors on the drawing boards, and probably half of
them will be built.
We are investing heavily now in coal gasification. We are
standing up an ethanol distillery about one a week, to the
point where we are now consuming 20 percent of the corn supply
of our Country. We have reduced cattle feeder prices by 20
percent because of the lack of feed grains. Now, we will get
that all in balance, but it is being driven, Madam Chairman, by
what we collectively and in a bipartisan way have done.
My sense is a rush to climate change at this moment, all
due apologies to Senator Clinton, is something about a 2008
election. Every so often everybody gets very, very anxious
about this issue. I am one who said in 2001, our world is
warming. I am going to be more sensitive to that, and I am
going to be an advocate of all forms of technology in all forms
of energy. I really believe that is where we ought to go.
Madam Chairman, let me thank you for S. 167, cellulosic
distribution. I am the guy who helped get the loan guarantee
that we finally got stuck in the CR this last week that will
stand up the first cellulosic commercial plant somewhere in the
United States. We ought to be about all of that.
I am one of those who convinced this President to openly
and publicly denounce Kyoto, and he did. I said, ``Mr.
President, once you do that, though, you must do something
more. You must then lead the world in clean and new
technologies, because in the absence of that, we will not get
where we need to get in the world.''
The Asian Pacific Initiative is a direction that he has
taken. It is a good one. It brings China and India into the
fold, to begin to talk more about nuclear and less about coal.
I am not at all frightened about our future, and I am not
going to wring my hands and play politics with this issue. I
will vote for the right kind of technologies. I will not vote
to penalize the consumer. Senator Bingaman, in a very sincere
way, last week rolled out an idea that has been studied now.
Environmentalists said it is less than half of what we need,
but it impacts every consuming household by $800 a year, and it
is minimal in the cap and trade concept of today's technology.
As a result of that, that is a penalty or a price to pay.
If in solving the cap and trade approach and bringing on the
kind of revenues that it will generate, we turn to the American
consumer and say you are going to have to pay $1,200 or $1,400
a year. We pick winners and losers. That is where we find the
money to do all the new technology works, I am not sure that is
quite the direction we ought to head in.
I assume that consumers are going to pay more for energy. I
say quite often that the bad news about the summer was gas was
$3 a gallon. The good news is gas was $3 a gallon. It created
one of the greatest levels of conservation for a period of time
in our Nation's history. Why? Because consumers made a choice:
price is a moderator. There is no question about that.
At the same time, it also stimulated the greatest
investment in new and clean technologies ever in our Country's
history, backed up against EPAC, the Environmental Energy
Policy Act of 2005. That is not to suggest that we ought to
rest on our laurels, but doggone it, to suggest we have done
nothing is simply a false statement, playing to the politics of
today's emotion.
This Congress moved in a substantial way, in a most
significant bipartisan way in 2005. Now we ought to go steps
further. I chastised the Administration last week for not
funding appropriately, and this Congress failing to react to
the necessary funding in the Energy Policy Act. I took on our
new leader, Harry Reid, for not coming forth and finalizing
appropriations bills. That is where all the research money is.
That is where all the development money is.
We are losing a year in time on all of these new
technologies because we are not doing our homework, and not
getting it done now. We ought to be held accountable for that.
Madam Chairman, I am very excited about working with you on
some of these tremendously important issues. There is no
question they are of great import. But to sit here for
political reasons and say we have done nothing, when we invest
$3.5 billion a year in clean technology and environmental
technology on a factor of five to one to the rest of the world.
We are leading the world toward cleaner technologies, and we
are the only Country who has the capability of doing that. For
that, I am very proud.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Let me just say, I did not hear anyone say we have done
nothing. Honestly, I haven't, but that is how you interpret it.
But I have to say, we are not here to vote our fears. We are
really here to vote for solutions. I used a phrase in my
opening remarks that I am an optimist about it. I think you are
sitting next to a Senator who is an optimist. You and I have
worked on cellulosics, and will continue. I think we will find
that common ground.
But I just have to say, we have done some things. I am glad
you reminded us of what they are. But if you look at the
studies that have been done internationally, the last one I saw
out of the 56 largest emitters of carbon, they ranked them, we
were No. 1. We know eventually, in 2009 we are expecting China
to surpass us. They have done nothing, or next to nothing. But
the argument is, since when do we wait for China to lead the
world? That is wrong. We should lead the world.
The point is, in this study we ranked 53 out of 56, just a
few countries, I forget, they were Saudi Arabia, China and
Malaysia had done less overall.
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman?
Senator Boxer. I will yield to you, because I want you to
have a chance.
Senator Craig. That is absolutely right, and it is
consistent. We are 25 percent of the world economy today, and
under today's technologies if you are 25 percent of the world's
economy, you are going to be the largest emitter. We have
lifestyles to prove it, and all of us live that lifestyle and
none of us want to deny it to our citizens.
I am not at all apologetic for that. I would suggest, and
think I said it in my statement. We have the resources now to
move the technology ahead to make the world a cleaner place,
when few other nations of the world have it.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I would just say that no one is
suggesting destroying the American way of life. As a matter of
fact, in my experience ever since I have been a county
supervisor, as we have cleaned up our air, as we have cleaned
up the drinking water, our quality of life has gotten better
and better and better, and we have created jobs.
I know we have some strong disagreements here, but today I
am going to seize on the agreement we have on cellulosics and
some other things. I also agree that many Senators have been
heard over the years, and you point that out very clearly. But
this is a different Senate. I mean, I would point out that
there was an election, some retired, and some lost. It is
important for me as the Chair, who does want to move
affirmatively, and I hope in some ways you can help in some
areas, to really see where people are today.
I think this also is an area where there is more and more
information coming out. Now, some of us embrace the information
and say it is clear, and others attack the information. But
this is not something that is a stagnant issue. But I do
appreciate your eloquence on your side of things. I do hope
that we can find those areas of common ground, and I believe we
will. We have done it on Agriculture jobs, and we have done it
on other things. I think we can do it here.
I thank you very much.
Senator Clinton, we are delighted to have you here and look
forward to your remarks.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Senator Clinton. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Obviously, we are going to have a lot of spirited
discussions, but under your leadership I am not only hopeful,
but confident that we will be able to reach a consensus about
legislation that will set our Country on the course of
leadership with respect to climate change that we should be
exhibiting.
I am sorry that Senator Craig is leaving, because I wanted
to certainly express my very strong support for maintaining
America's lifestyle. As I recall on my many visits to
California, which has kept electricity use for 30 years, the
lifestyle is pretty good. I think we can make progress, as has
been put forth in this call to action by a number of
organizations whose leaders, so far as I know, are not running
for political office, who see this as an issue whose time has
come.
I, too, have supported cellulosic ethanol; signed onto the
letter that Senator Craig circulated last year, and I am
pleased that I hope we are going to get those loan guarantees.
This is a big opportunity, certainly in my State, and in other
places around the Country.
But if we look at where we are, and even after the Energy
Act, we are not making progress. In fact, emissions are still
going up. That is another of those inconvenient facts that I
think need to be addressed. So I am hoping that we can get
beyond the usual rhetoric and try to find some common ground. I
am confident that is exactly what our Chairwoman is attempting
to achieve.
From my perspective, if you look at the call to action, if
it hasn't been done already, Madam Chairman, I would like to
move to have the call to action that was issued by these
distinguished American businesses made a part of the record.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
Senator Clinton. If you look at this, it makes several very
important points. First, it unequivocally accepts the science.
Now, this Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, the so-called IPCC, will release its fourth assessment
report. I hope that we can agree with our leaders of business
and industry, and scientists around the world, that this is a
problem whose time has come.
Second, the call to action makes the point that standards
drive technology. It is a chicken and an egg. There have been
some positive developments because of the Energy Act, with much
more investments in new technology and certainly looking for
ways to incentivize the venture capital community, to be part
of looking for solutions. But the Government must set the
standards and lead the way.
I have been struck, and I know you are having a hearing
where we will have international representatives, next week, I
think, or the week after. I have been struck by what happened
in Great Britain, an economy and a culture similar to ours that
decided to go into Kyoto. They not only have reduced emissions,
increased conservation and efficiency, cleaned up their utility
plant emissions, particularly, but they have created jobs.
So I am one of those who believes that this is a win-win.
It is good for our security. It is good for our environment,
and it is good for our economy. Innovation is what will drive
the responses we are looking for. It will also lead to
increased American competitiveness. This is one of the areas
that I am particularly interested in.
I have been struck, despite some of the references to all
the speeches that have been made, I have been struck in the
debates we have had, principally around the Lieberman-McCain
approach, which was the bipartisan approach on the floor of the
Senate in the past several Congresses, at the level of
pessimism that seemed to be expressed by some of my colleagues,
as though we could not take on this issue because of dire and
inevitable disastrous economic consequences.
I reject that. We are the most innovative Nation in the
history of the world. We have put our best minds to work. We
can actually begin to make progress and lead the world again.
My objection to the President taking us out of Kyoto is not
that he decided to go out of an existing process, but that he
didn't start any other process. The legitimate concerns about
China and India were not addressed. I think those were
legitimate to be raised. I hope that there can be, at the same
time we are proceeding here on a national agenda, a reopening
of a process that will include India, China and other fast
developing nations who do have to be part of an international
consensus about what we must do to deal with climate change.
Unfortunately, we do not see much evidence of that from the
President, although I was heartened that he did finally
acknowledge the issue in the State of the Union, and he has
continued to speak about technology and voluntary solutions,
which are not adequate unless there is a framework of
standards.
So I do not underestimate the task that we face, but I am
optimistic, as my Chairman is. What can we do? Well, there are
a lot of things. We should be addressing the very clear
challenge of how we create a market. I want to commend the
eloquence of my colleague, Senator Carper, who has been working
on this ever since he and I arrived in the Senate together. We
can look to create a market through a cap and trade system.
I thought for a moment Senator Craig was advocating a gas
tax. I don't think that is what he meant, but certainly his
argument led to that conclusion, not a bad idea, but hardly
politically palatable at this moment. But if he wishes to
introduce it, I will be very intrigued to follow that debate.
We have obviously a lot of work ahead of us. What you are
working is to bring us together to try to make progress. I am
very grateful to you and look forward to working with you.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Clinton follows:]
Statement of Hon. Hillary Rodham Clinton, U.S. Senator from the
State of New York
I thank you for holding this important hearing and for doing it in
such an open way. I think it speaks volumes about your leadership that
you have made climate change your top priority for the Environment
Committee and that you are starting by inviting all members of the
Senate to come here to express their views.
This is a complex issue, but to me, the bottom line is very simple:
it's time to act to reduce the growing threat of global warming.
While some scientific uncertainties remain, the picture grows
clearer with each passing year. On Friday, the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, or IPCC, will release part of its ``Fourth
Assessment Report,'' which will summarize the current state of climate
science. The document is being finalized this week, but here are some
of the conclusions in the draft, according to press reports:
It is virtually certain the warming observed over the last
50 years cannot be attributed to natural causes. In fact, the report
will note that the warming occurred during a time when the most
significant natural climate forcing factors, such as volcanic activity,
would have been expected to produce cooling rather than warming.
Temperatures are likely to rise by between 2 and 4.5
degrees Celsius over the coming century.
It is likely that in the coming century that heat waves
will be more intense, longer-lasting and more frequent, and tropical
storms and hurricanes are likely to be stronger.
That's just a sampling from the draft, which will come out in final
form on Friday.
To me, the new report reinforces what I have believed for a number
of years now: we know enough to know that it is time to act. We need to
start on a path to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse gas
emissions. It will require moving to new energy technology solutions.
This is a daunting task. But I believe that inaction is the riskier
course to both our environment and our economy. The longer we wait, the
harder the transformation required by this challenge will become.
Many U.S. business leaders now agree. Last Monday, a group of
business and environmental leaders known as the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership called on Congress and the President to act to address
climate change, and released a set of principles and recommendations
for how to go about it. The report they released, ``A Call for
Action,'' is one of the most significant climate change policy document
in recent years, both for what is says and for who is saying it. I urge
all of my colleagues to spend the five minutes to read it, and I ask
unanimous consent that it be entered into this hearing record.
I was particularly struck by one paragraph in the report that I
want to share with this committee:
``In our view, the climate change challenge, like other challenges
our country has confronted in the past, will create more economic
opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy. Indeed, addressing
climate change will require innovation and products that drive
increased energy efficiency, creating new markets. This innovation will
lead directly to increased U.S. competitiveness, as well as reduced
reliance on energy from foreign sources. Our country will thus benefit
through increased energy security and an improved balance of trade. We
believe that a national mandatory policy on climate change will provide
the basis for the United States to assert world leadership in
environmental and energy technology innovation, a national
characteristic for which the United States has no rival. Such
leadership will assure U.S. competitiveness in this century and
beyond.''
Madame Chair, that is a statement endorsed by Alcoa, BP,
Caterpillar, Duke Energy, Dupont, Florida Power and Light, GE, Lehman
Brothers and PNM Resources. It's a diverse set of companies, many of
whom have major investments in status-quo energy technology. Yet they
acknowledge the imperative to act believe that it represents an
opportunity to increase U.S. competitiveness.
Madame Chair, I strongly agree. In October of 2003, we debated the
question of limiting greenhouse gas emissions for the first time in the
Senate, and I was struck by the pessimism that many of my colleagues
expressed about dealing with the issue. Even some who conceded the need
to act seemed resigned to failure or disastrous economic consequences
of taking the issue on. As I said at the time, I reject the idea the
America--the most innovative, creative nation the world has ever seen--
cannot cope with this problem. I strongly believe that if we put the
right incentives in place, then we will drive American enterprise to
tackle this problem.
That is why I have been working to address climate change since I
arrived in the Senate in 2001. I worked with you and others on
legislation to limit carbon dioxide emissions, mercury and other
pollutants from power plants. I traveled with Senate colleagues to the
Arctic and to Alaska to see first-hand the dramatic impacts of climate
change that are already occurring and to try to draw attention to the
issue. I have proudly supported the bills put forward by Senators
Lieberman and McCain in 2003 and 2005, and have joined as a cosponsor
of the updated bill that they introduced in this new Congress.
I expect they will describe it in some detail, so I won't go into
details, but I think some of the key features of this legislation are
that it sets strong targets, uses flexible, market-based mechanisms to
get there, provides for investments in new energy technologies, and
offsets impacts on low-income Americans.
Senator Sanders and the chair of this committee have a proposal of
their own. And we will hear from many others today about their ideas.
As a Member of this Committee, I will work to pass a strong, effective,
flexible bill from this committee.
But Congress cannot succeed without support from the President. For
six years now, he has refused to acknowledge the problem, and we have
wasted valuable time as a result. Had the President made good on his
2000 campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide from power plants, we
would be much further along today. Last week, the President did finally
acknowledge the issue in his State of the Union, but he did not offer a
serious solution. Instead, the President continued to talk about
technology and voluntary solutions. I agree with the President that
technology is the key to solving this problem. But technology doesn't
come out of a vacuum. We need to set the conditions that will drive
innovation.
I don't underestimate the task. Action by the United States alone
cannot solve this problem, but American leadership is critical to
bringing developing countries into the solution. Here at home, we will
need to pursue a range of technologies and strategies. But we know what
many of them are and it's time to get serious.
Energy efficiency is an enormous and underutilized energy resource.
It's the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest solution, and we ought to be
doing more. California has done a particularly good job on efficiency,
holding total electricity use flat for the last 30 years and the
economy has boomed.
We need to get serious about the next generation of clean coal
technologies, particularly carbon sequestration. Our bill has strong
incentives to promote more rapid deployment of this technology.
There are many other examples. Another important priority is to
change our tax system so that we quit subsidizing oil and gas and do a
better job at promoting renewable energy and efficiency. I have
proposed a Strategic Energy Fund that would do just that.
Madame Chair, there are so many things we can and should be doing.
And I am increasingly optimistic that this Congress will do them. One
of the big reasons for that is that more and more people understand the
issue. For that I think for that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Vice
President Gore for his tireless and creative advocacy.
In conclusion, I want to restate my belief that we must act and
that we can do it in a way that makes economic sense. But global
warming is much more than just an issue of competitiveness, of weighing
the costs and benefits.
This is a profound moral question that confronts us. With the
knowledge we now possess, do we face our responsibility to act or do we
continue to look the other way? Do we act or do we accept the risk of
handing a degraded, and perhaps broken, planet to our children, our
grandchildren, and their grandchildren? Do we act or do we pass on a
world that many of us would not even recognize, with disappearing
islands and shorelines, increased floods and droughts, and the
extinction of plants and animals that cannot adapt to changes in
climate?
I think the answer is clear: it is time for us to act.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. I am glad you
raised the Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain issue, because
a few of us went up to meet with the Prime Minister. He had
invited Republicans and Democrats who head these various
committees. He told us two things, Senator Clinton. One was
that the Brits expected to surpass their Kyoto goals, and that
jobs were being created at a rapid rate.
One more thing I think would really interest you, and I
think it would be a great proposal coming from you and others,
and I would join you in that, is that he suggested a meeting, a
smaller meeting of countries. In other words, not every country
in the world, but the countries that really have to face this
head-on, like China, India and America, among others, and the
Europeans. So it is a smaller, more workable groups of nations
where the United States could convene this kind of meeting.
Because you are right. We have to deal with China. We have
to deal with India, but we can't if we don't talk to them about
this. So it is an idea that the Prime Minister had I thought
maybe you would find interesting.
I thank you for your contribution, the tone that you have
set. I do hope that we will make progress. I feel after hearing
what I have heard so far, that we will make progress, and that
if this President will join with us, there is nothing that
could stop us. If he doesn't, there will be a lot more of the
work to do later, but I hope that he will join us. I thank you
for your contribution today.
I am happy to call on a new member of the committee. We are
very pleased that she is on the committee, Senator Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am honored to
be here today to talk with you about such an important topic. I
am especially glad to be here at a time where this discussion
has advanced beyond whether or not global warming exists, to
what the solutions are to solve it.
I respect the leadership of so many of my colleagues on
this issue, and the work that is being done on a bipartisan
basis, especially my friend, the new Senator Sanders, who
showed his usual chivalry by allowing me to go first today.
Thank you.
As a member of this committee, as well as the Agriculture
and Commerce Committees, I look forward to being very engaged
in positive bipartisan solutions to global warming. These
solutions should build on our efforts to develop homegrown
energy sources, so we can move away from our dependency on
foreign oil.
Every day, Congress makes decisions that have a great
impact on the American people and the people throughout the
world. But our decisions on global warming may well be the ones
that have the most profound impact on our future generations,
and on the very fate of our Earth.
Madam Chair, in Minnesota we love the outdoors and we take
pride in the richness and beauty of our natural resources. We
protect our forests and our prairies, our lakes and our rivers,
and our diverse wildlife and abundant farmland. It is January
now in Minnesota, and this past weekend the temperatures in my
State were below zero. We have the Winter Carnival going on.
Ice Box Day is in International Falls. We always welcome you to
visit.
But many people here might wonder why Minnesotans would be
concerned if it warmed up a few degrees. Well, we are
concerned. We are deeply concerned. We are concerned for
ourselves and the rest of the world. We are concerned for the
impact of global warming and the effect it is already having.
Global warming is on the rise, with enormous consequences for
our world and our economy. The year 2006 was the hottest year
ever in this Country, capping a 9-year streak, unprecedented in
the historical record.
December in Minnesota felt more like October. Our ice
fishing seasons are shorter and our skiers and snowmobilers
haven't seen much snow. Worldwide, glaciers are rapidly
melting. Just last week, it was reported that glaciers in the
European Alps will be all but gone by the year 2050. Experts
worry that within 25 years, there won't be a single glacier in
Glacier National Park.
We have seen record storms all across the world. Globally,
sea levels have risen 4 to 10 inches over the past century. The
frequency of extremely heavy rainfalls has increased throughout
much of the United States. The impact is especially dire in
Greenland and the Arctic regions. The temperature changes there
have been the greatest, resulting in widespread melting of
glaciers, thinning of the polar ice cap, and rising permafrost
temperatures.
In Minnesota, stewardship for the environment is a part of
our heritage, and it has been an especially important part of
preserving our economy. So global warming is an issue that
strikes us close to home.
That is why I want to mention several notable Minnesotans
who are trying to draw attention to global warming and its
impact on our planet. They are adventurer-explorers who have
gone literally to the ends of the Earth, not just to pursue
adventure, but also to pursue greater knowledge and an
understanding of our place in the world for the benefit of us
all.
Will Steger is one of those Minnesotans, and he is a good
friend of mine. He has led the first dogsled expedition to the
North Pole and the first dogsled crossing of Antarctica. Next
month, he embarks on a new expedition, a 4-month, 1,200-mile
trip by dogsled through the Canadian Arctic. Later this year,
he plans to kayak around masses of melting sea ice in
Antarctica. I figure if he can do this, we can get a bipartisan
bill.
At age 62, why is Will Steger doing these things? It is to
promote greater public awareness of global warming and the
urgent need for action. He says his many journeys over the past
four decades have shown him firsthand the effects of global
warming. During the past year, he has been in practically every
church basement and every community center meeting room in
Minnesota to talk about this subject.
A friend says that Will's new determination is rooted in
sorrow. He is watching the places he loves melt away,
literally. But Will's message is ultimately one of hope. He
knows it is within our power to do something about it. Some
people don't believe this is happening, he says, but the even
bigger danger is that some think we can't do anything about it.
Another notable Minnesota adventurer-explorer who feels the
same way is Ann Bancroft. She was a member of Will Steger's
North Pole expedition in 1986. She was also the first woman to
cross both polar ice caps to reach the poles, and she was the
first woman to ski across Greenland.
In 2001, Ann and Norwegian adventurer Liv Arneson
captivated millions of people worldwide as they fulfilled their
childhood dream and became the first women to ski across
Antarctica. Next month, she, too, is embarking on a new
adventure. Ann and Liv are now preparing for an arduous 530-
mile journey by foot across the frozen Arctic Ocean to the
North Pole.
Schoolchildren around the world will be able to follow them
online with a website charting their daily progress, with
videos, photos and audio postings. Ann Bancroft's mission, like
Will Steger's, is to inspire action on global warming. She
acknowledges that climate change is a major challenge that
cannot be solved easily or overnight, but her goal is to prove
that small steps add up.
Finally, there is one more Minnesota adventurer, an
outdoorsman I want to mention. He is not quite in the same
league as Will Steger and Ann Bancroft, but he is in a class by
itself. His name is Jim Klobuchar and he is my dad. For 30
years he was a sportswriter and columnist for the Minneapolis
Star Tribune. He is also an avid mountain climber and hiker.
Now in his 70's, my dad continues to operate an adventure
travel club, that among other things takes people to what he
calls the high places of the world, including the Himalayas,
the Alps, and Mount Kilimanjaro. My dad has been to the summit
of Mount Kilimanjaro five times, and he has told me that each
time he goes, he sees clear and dramatic signs of global
warming there. The snow crown is visibly shrinking. Where he
once trekked through snow, it is now dry land, and it keeps
getting worse.
Three decades ago, he went to the village of Gletsch in the
Swiss Alps. He stayed at a hotel right at the very edge of the
famous Rhone Glacier. But this glacier has already retreated
hundreds of feet since the time he saw it, and now tourists
come to watch it melt in front of their eyes.
The stakes here are as high as they get. The American
people are hoping that this new Congress will at last confront
the challenge of global warming. This is going to call for a
bipartisan, ambitious, comprehensive effort on the part of this
Congress and also for an enlightened response from the business
community, which we are already starting to see with the call
to action that the other Senators have mentioned.
There is much work to be done, and many stakeholders to
consider. My colleagues here in the Senate that have begun this
work have advanced a number of thoughtful proposals. There are
several key elements that I hope to see in the final result:
first, strong limits on economy-wide emissions of greenhouse
gases; some version of a cap and trade system; strong renewable
fuel content standards for cars and trucks; incentives for both
the manufacture and purchase of hybrid and flex-fuel vehicles;
strong renewable energy standards for electricity generation so
we can make greater use of wind, solar and other renewable
energy sources; aggressive Federal support for research and
development to build a new Manhattan Project for new energy
sources.
Finally, we need to stop the giveaways and special favors
for the big oil companies. One of the best things that we can
do to respond to global warming and to achieve energy
independence is develop our home-grown renewable energy. We
should be investing in the farmers and the workers of the
Midwest, instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast.
Like most Americans, and you Madam Chair, I am an optimist.
I believe in the power and promise of science and technology
and innovation when we need to solve a problem. I believe in
the intelligence and the ingenuity of the American people when
we are confronted with a challenge. I believe in the capacity
of our democratic system of government to make the right
decisions for the good of our Country.
I think of the tremendous courage and determination of
explorers like Will Steger and Ann Bancroft. With a single-
minded focus, they overcame the most difficult hardships and
obstacles imaginable to reach their destinations. That is the
American spirit.
I believe we, too, can reach our destination. We can turn
the corner on the devastating effects of global warming. We can
take giant strides toward energy independence.
As you know, former Vice President and former Senator Al
Gore has been a strong voice on the need to address the urgent
challenges of global warming. He has stressed the importance of
farsighted, forward-looking leadership to tackle this issue. He
recalls the words of General Omar Bradley at the end of World
War II, when America was confronted by the challenge of
building a new post-war world. The General said, ``It is time
we steered by the stars, not by the lights of each passing
ship.''
We, too, must now steer by the stars. Like explorers Will
Steger and Ann Bancroft, we must do so with the determination
to surmount the obstacles in our way to reach our goal.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Klobuchar follows:]
Statement of Hon. Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from the
State of Minnesota
Madam Chair, I'm honored to be here with you to talk about this
important subject. I'm especially glad to be here at a time where this
discussion has advanced beyond whether or not global warming exists but
to what the solutions are to solve it.
I respect the leadership of so many of my colleagues on this issue,
the work that's being done on a bipartisan basis. Especially my friend,
the new Senator Sanders who showed his usual chivalry by allowing me to
go first today. Thank you.
As a member of this committee, as well as the Agriculture and
Commerce committees, I look forward to being very engaged in seeking
positive bipartisan solutions to global warming. These solutions should
build on our efforts to develop homegrown energy sources, so we can
move away from our dependency on foreign oil.
Every day, Congress makes decisions that have a great impact on the
American people and people throughout the world. But our decisions on
global warming may well be the ones that have the most profound impact
on our future generations and on the very fate of the earth.
Madam Chair, in Minnesota, we love the outdoors and we take pride
in the richness and beauty of our natural resources. We protect our
forests and our prairies, our lakes and rivers, our diverse wildlife
and abundant farmland.
It's January now in Minnesota--and this past weekend the
temperatures in my state were below zero. We've had the Winter Carnival
going on, Ice Box Days in International Falls--we always welcome you to
visit. But many people here might wonder why Minnesotans would be
concerned if it warmed up a few degrees.
Well, we are concerned--we're deeply concerned. We are concerned
for ourselves and for the rest of the world. We are concerned for the
impact of global warming and the effect it's already having.
Global warming is on the rise, with enormous consequences for our
world and our economy.
2006 was the hottest year ever in this country, capping a nine-year
streak unprecedented in the historical record. December in Minnesota
felt more like October. Our ice fishing seasons are shorter and our
skiers and snowmobilers haven't seen much snow.
Worldwide, glaciers are rapidly melting. Just last week, it was
reported that glaciers in the European Alps will be all but gone by the
year 2050. Experts worry that within 25 years, there won't be a single
glacier in Glacier National Park.
We've seen record storms all across the world. Globally, sea levels
have risen 4 to 10 inches over the past century. The frequency of
extremely heavy rainfalls has increased throughout much of the United
States.
The impact is especially dire in Greenland and the Arctic region.
The temperature changes there have been the greatest, resulting in
widespread melting of glaciers, thinning of the polar ice cap and
rising permafrost temperatures.
In Minnesota, stewardship for the environment is a part of our
heritage and it has been an especially important part of preserving our
economy. So global warming is an issue that strikes us close to home.
That's why I want to mention several notable Minnesotans who are
trying to draw attention to global warming and its impact on our
planet.
They are adventurer-explorers who have gone--literally--to the ends
of the earth. Not just to pursue adventure, but also to pursue greater
knowledge and an understanding of our place in the world--for the
benefit of all of us.
Will Steger is one of these Minnesotans, and he is a good friend of
mine.
He has led the first dogsled expedition to the North Pole and the
first dogsled crossing of Antarctica.
Next month, he embarks on a new expedition--a four-month, 1,200-
mile trip by dogsled through the Canadian Arctic. And later this year,
he plans to kayak around masses of melting sea ice in Antarctica. I
figure if he can do this, we can get a bipartisan bill.
At age 62, why is Will Steger doing these things? It's to promote
greater public awareness of global warming and the urgent need for
action. He says his many journeys over the past four decades have shown
him firsthand the effects of global warming.
During the past year, he has been in practically every church
basement and every community center meeting room in Minnesota to talk
about this subject.
A friend says that Will's new determination is rooted in sorrow.
``He's watching the places he loves melt away''--literally. But Will's
message is ultimately one of hope: He knows it is within our power to
do something about it.
``Some people still don't believe this is happening,'' he says.
``But the even bigger danger is that some think we can't do anything
about it.''
Another notable Minnesota adventurer-explorer who feels the same
way is Ann Bancroft.
She was a member of Will Steger's North Pole expedition in 1986.
She was also the first woman to cross both polar ice caps to reach the
poles, and she was the first woman to ski across Greenland. In 2001,
Ann and Norwegian adventurer Liv Arnesen, captivated millions of people
worldwide as they fulfilled their childhood dream and became the first
women to ski across Antarctica.
And next month, she, too, is embarking on a new adventure: Ann and
Liv are now preparing for an arduous 530-mile journey by foot across
the frozen Arctic Ocean to the North Pole.
Schoolchildren around the world will be able to follow them online,
with a Web site charting their daily progress with videos, photos and
audio postings.
Ann Bancroft's mission, like Will Steger's, is to inspire action on
global warming. She acknowledges that climate change is a major
challenge that can't be solved easily or overnight, but her goal is to
prove that small steps add up.
Finally, there is one more Minnesota adventurer and outdoorsman I
want to mention. He's not quite in the same league as Will Steger and
Ann Bancroft. But he's in a class by himself. His name is Jim
Klobuchar--and he's my dad.
For 30 years he was sportswriter and columnist for the Minneapolis
Star Tribune. He's also an avid mountain climber and hiker. Now in his
70s, he continues to operate an adventure travel club that, among other
things, takes people to what he calls ``the high places of the
world''--including the Himalayas, the Alps and Mount Kilimanjaro.
My dad has been to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro five times. And
he has told me that, each time he goes, he sees clear and dramatic
signs of global warming there. The snow crown is visibly shrinking.
Where he once trekked through snow, it is now dry land. And it keeps
getting worse.
Three decades ago, he went to the village of Gletsch in the Swiss
Alps. He stayed at a hotel right on the very edge of the famous Rhone
Glacier. But this glacier has already retreated hundreds of feet since
the time he saw it. And now tourists come to watch it melt in front of
their eyes.
The stakes are high as they get.
The American people are hoping this new Congress will, at last,
confront the challenge of global warming. This is going to call for
bipartisan, ambitious, comprehensive effort on the part of this
Congress and also for an enlightened response from the business
community who are already starting to see what the call to action that
the other senators have mentioned.
There is much work to be done and many stakeholders to consider. My
colleagues here in the Senate that have begun this work have advanced a
number of thoughtful proposals.
There are several key elements that I hope to see in the final
result:
First, strong limits on economy-wide emissions of
greenhouse gases,
Some version of a cap and trade system,
Strong renewable fuel content standards for cars and
trucks,
Incentives for both the manufacture and purchase of hybrid
and flex-fuel vehicles.
Strong renewable energy standards for electricity
generation, so we can make greater use of wind, solar and other
renewable energy sources.
Aggressive federal support for research and development to
build a new Manhattan Project for new energy sources.
Finally, we need to stop to the giveaways and special
favors for the big oil companies.
One of the best things we can do both to respond to global warming
and to achieve energy independence is to develop our homegrown
renewable energy. We should be investing in the farmers and the workers
of the Midwest instead of the oil cartels of the Mideast.
Like most Americans and you Madam Chair, I'm an optimist. I believe
in the power and promise of science, technology and innovation when we
need to solve a problem. I believe in the intelligence and ingenuity of
the American people when we are confronted with a challenge. And I
believe in the capacity of our democratic system of government to make
the right decisions for the good of our country.
I think of the tremendous courage and determination of explorers
like Will Steger and Ann Bancroft. With a single-minded focus, they
overcame the most difficult hardships and obstacles imaginable to reach
their destinations. That's the American spirit.
I believe we, too, can reach our destination: We can turn the
corner on the devastating effects of global warming, and we can take
giant strides toward energy independence.
As you know, former Vice President--and former Senator--Al Gore has
been a strong voice on the need to address the urgent challenges of
global warming. He has stressed the importance of far-sighted, forward-
looking leadership to tackle this issue.
He recalls the words of General Omar Bradley at the end of World
War II, when America was confronted by the challenge of building a new
post-war world. The general said: ``It is time we steered by the stars,
not by the lights of every passing ship.''
We, too, must now steer by the stars. And like explorers Will
Steger and Ann Bancroft, we must do so with the determination to
surmount the obstacles in our way to reach our goal.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I just want to thank you. As one of
the new members, you have added tremendously to this debate. I
think what you are telling us is when we talk about our way of
life, this is just the problem you are pointing out. Our way of
life is threatened by global warming and you pointed that out.
I thank you very much.
Senator Sanders, followed by Senator Cardin. Welcome,
Senator.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Senator Boxer, thank you very much for
holding this extraordinarily important hearing and for raising
consciousness on one of the most severe problems faced by our
planet in its history.
As you know, I have introduced S. 309, the Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act. This legislation, I believe, is the
boldest effort in Congress aimed at halting global warming.
Some would say that this bill goes too far. I disagree. The
reason for that is that if we are not strong, if we are not
bold, if we are not aggressive, the planet that we are going to
leave to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
will be a very different planet than we enjoy, and their
quality of life will be greatly, greatly diminished.
Madam Chair, I can go on about all of the different things
that the best scientists in the world have told us about global
warming. I could detail the scientific community's effort to
get policymakers to pay attention. In that regard, I notice
that some have said, ``Well, isn't it great; the President of
the United States actually uttered the words `global climate
change.' ''
Frankly, I have to tell you that it is not so great. It is
a bit of an embarrassment, when you have the entire world
scientific community talking about the enormous problems, and
finally we have the President beginning to acknowledge. My hope
is that he will now be serious in trying to address it.
Madam Chair, I want to suggest, as others have, that I see
our ability, this Nation's ability to move forward against
global warming as laden with huge opportunities. Like you, I do
not accept the argument that if we are aggressive in combating
global warming, it is going to hurt the economy. Quite the
contrary, I believe that we have the potential to create
millions of good paying jobs as we finally move this Country to
strong energy efficiency, as we lead the world into sustainable
energy.
The bill that I have introduced, S. 309, is a bipartisan
bill. It has 10 Democrats and 1 Independent. That was a joke.
[Laughter.]
Senator Sanders. We hope to make it a tripartisan bill. I
do want to thank you, Senator Boxer, for being a co-sponsor, as
well as Senator Kennedy, Senator Menendez, Senator Lautenberg,
Senator Leahy, Senator Reed, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye,
Senator Feingold, and Senator Whitehouse for their support.
This bill is economy-wide. It is science-based, and it has
two main goals: one, to stabilize the atmospheric concentration
of carbon at 450 parts per million; and two, to keep
temperature increases below 3.6 F. To meet these goals, the
legislation requires that emissions be reduced to a level that
is 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, the same reductions as
required by the State of California.
S. 309 describe standards for both powerplants and
vehicles. It also includes a requirement that 20 percent of the
Nation's electricity come from renewable resources such as
wind, solar, biomass and geothermal by 2020. Of course, there
are other provisions, including one on cellulosic ethanol, but
we don't have time to get into all of those details.
The opportunities provided by S. 309 are quite literally
revolutionary, but the concept is simple. Transforming our
energy habits away from polluting fossil fuels to renewables
will reshape our economy and make the United States a leader in
clean and efficient energy technologies.
Some people have said this morning, well, we don't want to
change the American lifestyle. Well, you know what? I do. I
think we have to end the disgrace that the vehicles that we are
driving today get worse mileage per gallon than was the case 20
years ago. If our lifestyle is about driving cars to get 10 or
12 miles per gallon, as we destroy our planet, I say yes, I
think the American people are, in fact ready to change that
aspect of our lifestyle.
A national requirement for 20 percent of our electricity to
come from renewables by 2020 would increase our renewable power
by nearly 11 times, compared to current levels. In the process
of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions under this 20 percent
requirement, more than 355,000 new jobs in manufacturing,
construction, maintenance and other industries would be
created.
Now, I want to take this opportunity to thank not only my
colleagues here in the Senate who have cosponsored this bill,
but equally important, many, many environmental groups who also
understand that we have to be very bold in addressing this
crisis, among others, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the
League of Conservation Voters, National Audubon Society,
National Environmental Trust, National Wildlife Federation,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social
Responsibility, Public Citizens, Sierra Club, Union of
Concerned Scientists, USPIRG. I want to thank them, and the
many others that I didn't support, for their support of this
legislation.
What would increased renewable energy mean for the average
consumer? What would that mean? A 20 percent renewable
requirement would, over the long run, reduce the bills our
constituents receive every month. It is incredible to me. We in
the State of Vermont--actually I think are doing better than
any State in this Country--is moving to energy efficiency. Yet
I just spoke yesterday with some of the experts in our State
and they say that only, at most, 20 percent of the eligible
sockets are using compact fluorescent bulbs, in the State that
is leading the Nation. The potential to move just in that
direction is extraordinary.
Chairperson Boxer, let me also highlight another area where
there is tremendous opportunity. That is the movement toward
sustainable energy. We are making breakthroughs, but we have a
huge way to go. I know that you appropriately want to see the
Federal Government lead our society as we move forward.
The potential for solar once we start producing solar
panels to the degree that we should is extraordinary; the
potential for wind; the potential for biomass; the potential
for geothermal, it is all sitting there waiting to explode.
In fact, what has happened for many years is that
technology has gone forward, but the government has lagged
behind the technology, behind the people. In my view, the
people of this Country want to break our dependence on fossil
fuels. They want to become more energy efficient, and they
understand that we in fact can make huge breakthroughs and
create a very significant number of jobs if we do that.
Some have suggested earlier about the economic dislocation
in beginning to combat global warming. I think the answer is,
A, it is not true. If we are smart about it, we can create
millions of jobs more than we lose in that transformation. But
the second point is, what will it mean to the economy if we do
not address this crisis? ``The answer is, according to Sir
Nicholas Stern, former Chief Economist for the World Bank, what
he said is if no action is taken in addressing global warming,
we will be faced with the time of downturn that has not been
seen since the Great Depression and the two World Wars.''
So Madam Chair, I think we have the American people behind
us. I think they want action. I think S. 309 is a very good
start and we look forward to working with you, with the Senate,
and with the American people to see that legislation passed.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sanders follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bernard Sanders, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Good morning Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe.
As you know, I have introduced S. 309, the Global Warming Pollution
Reduction Act. This legislation is the boldest effort aimed at halting
global warming. Some would say that the bill goes too far; I say it
doesn't go far enough. This is because we aren't talking about your run
of the mill problem--we are, in the most literal sense, talking about
the future of the planet.
Madam Chairman, I could go on and on about all of the different
things the best scientists in the world have told us about global
warming--I could detail the scientific community's efforts to get
policy-makers to pay attention; I could talk about U.S. Government
scientists being silenced because their research wasn't in line with
the Administration's denial of global warming; I could talk about the
melting of Arctic sea ice decades earlier than previously expected; and
of course I could talk about the changes in agriculture and water
systems, sea level rise, new threats to public health such as increased
incidence of infectious diseases like West Nile virus and malaria, and
the extreme weather patterns, including more intense hurricanes, that
we are told will accompany global warming, but there just isn't enough
time for me to give each of these topics the attention they deserve.
So instead, I want to focus on the tremendous opportunity that is
currently in front of us as we set about to tackle the largest
environmental challenge of our time. To do so I will use some of the
provisions of the legislation I introduced and that is being
cosponsored by the Chairman of this Committee, Senator Boxer, and by
Senator Kennedy, Senator Menendez, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Leahy,
Senator Reed, Senator Akaka, Senator Inouye, Senator Feingold, and
Senator Whitehouse.
My bill is economy-wide, science-based, and has two main goals:
(1) To stabilize the atmospheric concentration of carbon at 450
parts per million, and
(2) To keep temperature increases below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.
To meet these goals, the legislation requires that emissions be
reduced to a level that is 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050--the
same reductions as required by the state of California. S. 309
describes standards for both power plants and vehicles. It also
includes a requirement that 20 percent of the nation's electricity come
from renewable resources such as wind, solar, biomass, and geothermal,
by 2020. Of course, there are other provisions, including one on
cellulosic ethanol, but I won't get into any of those details.
The opportunities provided by S. 309 are quite-literally
revolutionary, but the concept is simple: transforming our energy
habits away from polluting fossil fuels to renewables will reshape our
economy and make the United States a leader in clean and efficient
energy technologies--creating millions of good paying jobs in the
process. Let me go into some detail here.
A national requirement for 20 percent of our electricity to come
from renewables by 2020 would increase our renewable power by nearly 11
times compared to current levels. In the process of reducing our
greenhouse gas emissions under this 20 percent requirement, more than
355,000 new jobs in manufacturing, construction, maintenance, and other
industries would be created. In fact--and this is one of my favorites--
truly putting our minds to developing renewables could create almost
twice as many jobs as producing the same amount of electricity from
fossil fuels! The addition of these jobs, a net increase of roughly
157,000, is expected to generate an additional $8.2 billion in income
and $10.2 billion in gross domestic product.
We create more jobs, support the American economy, AND reduce air
pollution that threatens our health and the future of the planet--why
would anyone be against that?
But what would increased renewable energy mean for the average
consumer, since we know that the growing income inequality in our
country has put more and more pressure on our working families as they
try to get by? A 20 percent renewable requirement would, over the long
run, reduce the bills our constituents receive every month. More
specifically, by 2020, total consumer savings from lower energy prices
would be $49.1 billion, with people seeing an average annual reduction
of 1.8 percent. Every dollar that doesn't have to be spent on energy
can be put toward something else.
Chairman Boxer, let me highlight another area where there is
tremendous opportunity--energy efficiency. Using what we have in a
smarter way seems so obvious, and yet, the commitment to efficiency,
whether it be in our transportation or in our homes, isn't nearly what
it should be.
We all know that efficiency in our transportation sector is an
utter embarrassment. China, Japan, the European Union, and Australia
all leave us in the dust. My bill implements the vehicle emissions
standards already in place in California and adopted by many other
states, including Vermont. While the auto companies could meet this
requirement through increased CAFE standards, that is not the only way.
Of course, instead of focusing on making cars more efficient, most of
the automakers are focusing their efforts on beating the California law
in court. What a waste of their time.
When it comes to our homes, efficiency measures are two-thirds less
expensive than generating and delivering electricity. Just a quick
example: Energy Star compact fluorescent lights use \2/3\ less energy
than standard incandescent bulbs but provide the same amount of light,
last up to 10 times longer, and can save a person $30 or more in energy
costs over the lifetime of each bulb! In fact, if we could change 50
percent of all lighting in the country to compact fluorescent bulbs,
consumers could save $9 billion. And, I haven't even mentioned how
efficient lighting reduces greenhouse gas emissions: simply by putting
one compact fluorescent light bulb in every home across the country, we
would prevent the equivalent amount of emissions as would be produced
by 800,000 cars.
It is clear that responsibly addressing global warming will not
cause us economic ruin, as some like to suggest, but that it will
provide for new jobs, enhance efforts geared toward greater energy
efficiency, and will reduce our energy costs if we get serious about
using renewables instead of fossil fuels.
In fact, it is a lack of bold vision that will financially cost us.
In October of 2006, Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist of the
World Bank, turned the old economic arguments against taking action on
climate change on their head. In a report to the British government, he
writes that bold action to combat the threat of global warming will in
fact save industrial nations money and that inaction could cost between
5 to 20 percent of global gross domestic product. Let me repeat that:
FAILURE to act to boldly curb global warming is what will cost us--and
it won't be cheap. Speaking to the issue in no uncertain terms, the
report states, ``If no action is taken we will be faced with the kind
of downturn that has not been seen since the great depression and the
two world wars.''
Madam Chairman and all of my colleagues, grassroots support for
action on global warming is clear. Not only do we know it from our
interactions with our constituents, we also know it because over 300
mayors have committed their cities to meeting the standards described
in the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, with over 54 million citizens
represented, the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement provides
irrefutable evidence that everyday citizens are demanding bold action.
Additionally, a group of northeast states have already implemented a
regional effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions--the Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative. And, we all know that the state of
California has recognized the need to act on global warming and is
moving forward with a tremendous program.
Everybody is moving forward--isn't it time that the federal
government be involved?
To be quite frank, while I appreciate today's forum, I must say
that the time for talk is over--it is time for bold federal action. The
American public expects nothing less.
Senator Carper. [assuming chair.] My colleague, Senator
Boxer had to slip out of the room for a moment.
Senator Cardin, while I am tempted to call up the
legislation that Senator Alexander and I introduced, I will
forego that temptation.
Senator Cardin. You probably don't have the support yet.
You might want to wait for a few more members.
Senator Carper. That might be smart.
Senator Sanders, thank you very, very much not just for
your words, but for your voice and emotion and conviction that
you bring to this debate. Thank you. Welcome.
Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I thank
our leadership on this committee for holding these hearings on
global warming. I think it is extremely important. I am going
to ask that my entire statement be made part of the record, and
some of the provisions that are in there.
Senator Carper. Without objection.
Senator Cardin. For the sake of our Nation, for our
security needs, for our economic needs, for our environmental
needs, we need an energy policy in America. We need an energy
policy that recognizes that we need to produce enough energy in
our own Country to meet our needs. We need an energy policy in
America that weans us off of fossil fuels. We certainly need an
energy policy in this Country that recognizes the environmental
risks that we all sustain.
So on security, you all know 65 percent of our oil is
imported. We use petrodollars, the consumers of America are
financing a lot of countries with policies that are very
unfriendly to America. For our economy, when OPEC decides to
change the amount of oil production or price, it has a direct
impact on our own economy. On our environment, we know the
risks of global warming. They are real. We need to do something
about this.
In the 109th Congress, when I was in the other body, I
introduced legislation that addressed an energy policy for
America. It established a goal to be 90 percent independent of
foreign energy sources within 10 years, to be 90 percent
independent of fossil fuels within 20 years. I also believe it
is reasonable for us to set goals by the year 2030 to reduce
our greenhouse gases by 26 percent.
Madam Chairman, I am going to ask that I make available and
put in the record two programs that were on Discovery Channel.
Discovery Channel happens to be headquartered in the State of
Maryland. They had a program, Addiction to Oil, which Thomas
Friedman presented. I think it is very compelling about our
need to become energy independent and to rid ourselves of
imported oil. Tom Friedman points out that to be green is to be
red, white, and blue. I think that is an important message for
our Country.
The second Discovery program I am going to be asked to made
part of our record deals with global warming, by Tom Brokaw,
and again points out the real risks to our Country and to the
world that global warming presents.
Senator Boxer. [resuming chair.] Senator, we will put them
in the record.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The referenced documents are retained in the committee's
file.]
Senator Cardin. Global warming, as you know, deals with the
loss of ice in the Arctic. It deals with the sea level rise,
water temperature increases, and extreme weather. I am going to
talk a little bit about my State of Maryland, the people that I
represent in the U.S. Senate.
Maryland is particularly vulnerable. Twelve percent of our
land has been designated in the national flood insurance
program as special flood hazard areas. That represents 68,000
homes and buildings in the State of Maryland, over $8 billion
in assessed value. Maryland is the third most vulnerable State
in our Nation to flooding.
Sea level rises in Maryland has grown twice the world
average. We are vulnerable. I have a few slides that I am going
to share with the committee. The first that is being shown
shows the impact of what would happen if we have a 1-meter
increase in sea level. Just to make that clear, that is not
that unusual. The next slide will show that within a relatively
brief period of time, we actually have increased the sea level
by that amount. That was done in a period of 100 years, but we
know that it is increasing at a much greater rate today.
So we are at risk in Maryland. All of our areas around the
sea, around the water are being literally uninhabitable if we
do not deal with global warming.
I have a few slides that show some history in our State. We
used to have an island called Sharp's Island. Sharp's Island
was a rather large entity, and consisted of over 700 acres.
Today, it is down to less than 100 acres of land. This land is
in the bay and will be gone in the not too distant future.
James Island, in the mid-19th century, you see the outline
of James Island. Today, it is less than one-third of its size
150 years ago. When we look at what has happened to our
wetlands in Maryland, this slide will show you that in a little
over 50 years, how much of the wetlands we have lost in the
Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, which is critically important to
many species of life, including 20 different species of duck,
which my colleagues like to come to the Eastern Shore and hunt.
Well, if we are going to be able to have the diverse wildlife
population, we need wetlands and we are losing our wetlands as
a result of sea level increases.
We have one inhabitable island that remains in Maryland,
Smith Island. Thirty percent of that land has been lost since
the mid-19th century. It is reported that Lloyds of London is
the only insurance available for the residents of Smith Island
because of the uncertainty of their fate, and the residents of
Smith Island cannot afford Lloyds of London prices.
This is an issue that is affecting the people of Maryland.
It is affecting their lives today. What do we need to do about
it? We need a comprehensive commitment. You can't do it by one
issue. You need a comprehensive solution. It starts with
conservation, and conservation starts with transportation. Yes,
we need to at least double the CAFE standards.
It is interesting that when the Model T came on, it got 25
miles per gallon. Our CAFE standards today are 27.5 miles for
passenger cars. We need to do a lot better. Replacement tires,
yes, we have done good with low resistance for tires for new
cars. We need to make that replacement for the older cars that
are out there. We need to deal with public transportation and
smart growth, including pedestrian and bike paths. We need to
deal within our homes with energy conservation, the Energy Star
program, and weatherization programs. We need to deal with our
commercial buildings, tax incentives for green building designs
and government must be a leader in the way that it operates its
business, including the way it purchases vehicles. Employers
need to be encouraged to use more telecommuting.
All that can conserve energy and that must be our start.
But we also must deal with renewable energies and developing
much more aggressively renewable energies. We need requirements
on our utilities to produce a larger part of their electricity
from renewable sources. We need to use the biograins more
effectively.
Madam Chairman, this is biodiesel. It is produced in
Maryland by a person who on his own without any government help
decided to do something about our energy and environmental
needs in the lower Eastern Shore, James and Virginia Warren.
They have produced biodiesel. If you smell this, it smells like
I was in the movie theater and with my grandchildren over the
weekend. It smells very pleasant, very clean. It can help the
solution on dealing with global warming and energy issues.
The problem is, it is hard to find a diesel pump that has
biodiesel, if you want to use biodiesel fuels. There are so
many diesel vehicles the government owns, and why we are not
using biodiesel is beyond me.
So there is a lot more that we can do just in the simple
area of dealing with biodiesel. We need to look at wind. We
need to look at solar. We need to increase the Federal research
dollars that go into energy independence. We know that there is
promise with hydrogen powered cars and nuclear fusion
technology. But it is not here today, and we know that unless
we invest the money for the future, it won't be here for
decades to come.
Last, Madam Chairman, I suggest we have blue ribbon
commission, that we enact changes in law and that we have a
commission that monitors it to see that we make the adjustments
necessary so that we do accomplish our goal of being energy
independent, fossil fuel independent, and more gentle to our
environment.
For the sake of our security, for the sake of our economy,
for the sake of our environment, we need to move forward now on
these issues. We cannot wait any longer. I applaud you for
holding these hearings.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Maryland
For the sake of our security, economy and environment, America
needs an energy policy that is independent from foreign energy sources
and weans America off of fossil fuels.
America's current energy policy is simply unsustainable.
We all know the security issues: The U.S. imports over 65 percent
of our oil from foreign countries--many of them openly hostile to our
country. American consumers are literally financing extreme anti-
American groups that we fund through our oil dollars. Our petroleum
habit creates national security risks and causes long-term energy price
instability for American consumers--a price or supply change by OPEC
can directly affect our economy. We are currently spending billions of
dollars a year to subsidize oil companies, while their profits have
increased dramatically--Exxon Mobil is on track to break its own
record-breaking $36 billion dollar profits from 2005.
America's energy policy has also had a serious impact on our
economy: Five years ago, the average American family spent $3,300 on
gasoline, home heating, and electricity. Average U.S. households paid
nearly $5,000 to power their homes and vehicles in 2006--32 percent
greater than just 2 years ago. Households with incomes under $15,000--
about one-fifth of all households--spent about one-tenth of their
income in 2006 on gasoline. Leading economists noted after the release
of monthly economic reports in September, 2006, that energy prices are
rising much faster than wages and becoming ``increasingly difficult for
consumers to absorb.''
While each of these is important, this hearing is about global
warming, and about how our energy policy can deliver reductions in
global warming.
I introduced legislation in the 109th Congress with many rigorous
goals to get us on the right path, but there are many ways to
accomplish these goals. At its heart, America's energy policy needs to
address energy independence, fossil fuel reduction, and global warming.
It is reasonable to establish the goal of meeting 90 percent of our
energy needs from domestic sources by 2017. America imports 30 percent
of its overall energy needs, but imports over 13 million barrels of oil
each day--more than 65 percent of U.S. oil needs. The majority of our
imported energy is oil, and the largest consumption of oil in the U.S.
is for transportation. 84 percent of U.S. imported energy in 2005 was
petroleum, representing 28.9 quadrillion Btu. U.S. transportation
consumption accounted for 28.1 quadrillion Btu, mostly in petroleum.
It is reasonable to establish a goal to meet 90 percent of our
energy needs from non-fossil fuel sources by 2027. Fossil fuels--coal,
oil, and natural gas are America's primary source of energy, making up
over 70 percent of our electricity generation. Fossil fuel-fired
electricity generation is the single greatest source of air pollution
in the United States, and power plants are the leading U.S. source of
carbon dioxide emissions--a primary contributor to global warming. U.S.
conventional oil production peaked in 1970, and only produces enough
oil to meet 35 percent of its oil needs. We have an abundance of coal,
but we lack the technological ability to use coal in an environmentally
secure manner.
It is reasonable to establish the goal of reducing our emissions of
global warming-causing greenhouse gasses by 26 percent by 2030. With
only 5 percent of the world's population and 6 percent of the world's
land area, the U.S. is the No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide in both tons
and in per capita emissions, in the world. Greenhouse gasses are
emitted primarily by the burning of fossil fuels and the clearing of
forests. Carbon dioxide, along with other heat-trapping gasses, remain
in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries, and have been melting
ice, making Earth's water warmer, and increasing extreme weather
events, such as higher-intensity tropical storms. By 2012, cuts in
greenhouse-gas emissions required under the Kyoto Protocol will be
swamped by emissions from new coal-fired plants built in China, India,
and the United States. These 3 countries are expected to emit an extra
2.7 billion tons of carbon dioxide. The Discovery Channel has produced
a couple of stellar programs outlining our global warming problems:
Addiction to Oil--with Tom Friedman, and Global Warming--with Tom
Brokaw. I'd like to introduce these programs into the record at this
point.
Global warming poses an especially serious threat to my own State
of Maryland, with a large part of our State consisting of low-lying
coastal areas that would be inundated if global temperatures keep
rising. Global warming pollution in Maryland is up by 55 percent from
1960.
More than 12 percent of land in Maryland is designated under the
National Flood Insurance Program as a Special Flood Hazard Area.
An estimated 68,000 homes and buildings are located within the
floodplain in Maryland. These structures represent nearly $8 billion in
assessed value.
According to 2005 report of the Maryland Emergency Management
Agency Maryland is the 3d most vulnerable State to flooding and has the
5th longest evacuation times during a tropical storm event.
Tide gauge records for the last century show that the rate of sea
level rise in Maryland is nearly twice the global average. Studies
indicate that this rate is accelerating and may increase to two or
three feet along Maryland's shores by the year 2100.
The effects are already evident: about a third of the marshes at
Blackwater Wildlife Refuge on Maryland's eastern shore have been lost
to sea level rise over the past 70 years. Smith Island, the only
inhabited island community in Maryland and the subject of a recent
documentary on global warming, has lost 30 percent of its land mass to
sea level rise since 1850. Lloyds of London is reportedly the only
company that will insure homes on Smith Island and the premiums and
high deductibles are unaffordable to most residents. Allstate Insurance
Corp., one of our largest insurers, recently announced that it will
stop writing new homeowners' policies in coastal areas of the State,
citing concerns that a warmer Atlantic Ocean will lead to more and
stronger hurricanes hitting the Northeast. Hurricane Isabel in 2003,
which was a modest hurricane, underscored how vulnerable Bay
communities are to coastal flooding from storm surge. Maryland's
premier beach resort--Ocean City--representing more than $4 billion in
public and private investment--remains especially vulnerable to sea
level rise unless our beach renourishment projects are continued and
expanded. The combination of sea-level rise and warmer temperatures as
well as increased salinity levels could have tremendous ecological
impacts on the Chesapeake Bay.
Clearly sea level rise will have devastating effects not only on
the hundreds of thousands of Marylanders who live in low lying areas
but on our economy, our environment and our quality of life.
Our first goal must be to conserve energy. This conservation effort
needs to start w/transportation. The U.S. must increase Corporate
Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) standards significantly over the next 10
years. The Ford Model T got 25 mpg, yet our current CAFE standard calls
for 27.5 mpg for passenger cars, and 21.6 mpg for light trucks. ``In
1981, the last time gas prices breached $3, adjusted for inflation, the
average car got 21 miles to the gallon. Jump ahead 24 years, a period
when there have been huge advances in automotive fuel efficiency, and
the average passenger vehicle on the road gets . . . 21 miles to the
gallon.''--CNN 9/14/05
Under Federal fuel-economy standards, automakers equip new vehicles
with tires that have a lower rolling resistance, which leads to higher
fuel efficiency. By requiring replacement tires to be as efficient as
new car tires, we could rapidly begin gasoline savings, and save more
than 7 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. These changes
would particularly aid lower-income drivers, who are more likely to
drive used cars with replacement tires.
There is no one solution to our energy problems, other conservation
examples include increasing Energy Star funding, and adding solar water
heaters to the list of products that wear the Energy Star label. The
Energy Star program brings consumers energy efficient choices in
appliances, light bulbs, and other goods. This vital program helped
Americans save enough energy in 2005 to prevent greenhouse gas
emissions equivalent to 23 million cars--while saving $12 billion on
utility bills.
According to the DOE, commercial buildings account for 35 percent
of America's electricity consumption. An upfront investment of 2
percent in green building design, on average, results in life cycle
savings of ten times that upfront investment. I would increase the
Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings deduction--to encourage business
owners to look forward and plan ahead by using buildings that will save
money and electricity over the long run.
Transportation costs accounted for 58 percent of Federal energy
consumption in fiscal year 2002. The Federal Government would decrease
energy costs by both requiring that the Federal fleet exceed CAFE
standards and requiring that at least 10 percent of the motor vehicles
purchased by an Executive agency in any fiscal year will be high-
efficiency vehicles or hybrid electric vehicles.
America's energy policy must encourage energy efficient communities
and behavior. Congress should encourage smart growth through funding
transit-oriented development corridors with upgrades in transit
facilities, bicycle transportation facilities, and pedestrian walkways.
America should promote energy efficiency in all communities by
increasing funding for weatherization assistance. In the 27 years since
its founding, DOE's Weatherization Assistance Program has served over
5.3 million low-income families. Low-income families spend an average
of 14 percent of their annual income on energy costs, while other
households spend only 3.5 percent. Weatherization reduces greenhouse
gas emissions by one ton per weatherized home, and decreases U.S.
energy consumption by the equivalent of 15 million barrels of oil every
year.
Congress should create Federal tax incentives for employers who
provide telecommuting to their employees. Telecommuting has
successfully reduced both transportation and energy use, and the EPA
reports that if just 10 percent of the nation's workforce telecommuted
just 1 day a week, Americans would conserve more than 1.2 million
gallons of fuel per week.
The U.S. needs to enact mandatory, tradable emissions caps. Not
only is this a policy that enjoys the broad support of businesses,
environmental groups, scientists, and Members of Congress, it is the
right thing to do for our Country's future, and for the well-being of
our children and grandchildren.
America must make renewable energy commercially viable, and make
the up-front investment in renewable energy infrastructure that will
bring renewable energy to the marketplace.
The U.S. needs a Federal renewable portfolio standard to ensure
consumer access to renewable energy, by requiring electric utilities to
get a larger portion of the energy they provide to Americans from
renewable sources.
America needs to find new ways to move renewable energy--by
creating electricity transmission lines designed to carry electricity
from renewable sources.
Congress must make the renewable energy production credit
permanent, to provide long-term incentives to increase private
infrastructural investment in the production of renewable energy.
America has lagged behind Europe in using biodiesel as one way to
reduce our use of oil. Maryland Biodiesel, owned by James and Virginia
Warren, is the only plant of its kind in the State, and will use plant
and animal oil byproducts that are currently thrown away. More than
600,000 cars capable of running on alternative fuels have been produced
each year since 2000. The U.S. must dramatically increase the Federal
commitment to alternative fuels and vehicle technology programs, and
increase the use of alternative fuels in Federal and State fleets, by
developing biofuel plants in every region of the country, and speeding
development of standards that are needed to promote alternative fuels
use.
We need to increase the renewable energy use and energy efficiency
of the Federal Government--the Federal Government should lead the
country in energy efficiency. All new Federal buildings should be
required to live up to green building LEED (Leadership and Energy in
Environmental Design) standards, set by the United States Green
Building Council. Energy used in buildings in fiscal year 2002
accounted for 38 percent of the total Federal energy bill. Total
Federal buildings and facilities energy expenditures in fiscal year
2002 were $3.73 billion. This Federal investment in green building will
save the treasury millions while reducing overall electricity
consumption.
The Federal Government should ensure that at least 20 percent of
the electricity consumed by non-defense activities of the government
will be generated from renewable sources or zero-emission fossil fuel
energy sources by 2017.
America should establish a program of grants, low-interest loans,
and loan guarantees for the commercialization of new renewable energy
and energy efficiency technologies.
The U.S. must dramatically increase Federal energy research and
development commitments.
Increasing America's energy research dollars will help bring
technologies that hold great promise but are not feasible today--such
as hydrogen powered automobiles, cellulosic ethanol, and nuclear fusion
energy--to the marketplace faster.
Congress should implement the changes suggested by the National
Academy of Sciences' Report, Rising Above a Gathering Storm--to ensure
U.S. competitiveness in research and scientific development, including
marked increases in The Department of Energy's R&D funding.
Finally, we should create a Blue Ribbon Energy Commission, which
would meet every 2 years starting in 2008, to evaluate our progress in
efforts to become energy independent and the impact of provisions of
new policy, and to recommend additional changes to be made in reports
to Congress--so that our energy policy remains focused on our 3 goals
of energy independence, fossil fuel independence, and the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.
For the sake of our security, economy and environment, America
needs a comprehensive energy policy that is independent of foreign
sources and weans America off of fossil fuels.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I just want to thank you very much
for your encouragement and your ideas. They make a lot of
sense. I was just recently reading an article where insurance
companies are very reticent now to come into the coastal areas.
This is the private sector telling us very clearly they are
worried. So, so many things are coming together, as Senator
Carper pointed out, that just reiterate to us that maybe we are
just the last ones to get on board here. But I think we are
going to do it.
Senator Whitehouse, I know you have been all morning at
Judiciary. I am so glad you made it back, just for the sake of
those in the audience and those who are still here with me,
those that deserve a prize. Senator Carper, you deserve a
prize. After you speak, Senator Whitehouse, I believe that is
the last member of the committee who planned to speak. It would
bring us to I believe 14 or 15 Senators. I could go back and
check.
We have a panel that is supposed to start at 11:45, with
Senators Bingaman, Feinstein, Kerry and Biden. If any of those
arrive earlier, I will just sit here, and as soon as they come,
we will take their testimony. We are getting some testimony to
place in the record that also is very important testimony,
bipartisan testimony which I will read just little parts of.
I don't know how many people are aware that Senator
Whitehouse has been a tremendous leader in the environment of
his State, particularly in protecting the health of children.
So we are most honored that you are on the committee and we
welcome you, Senator. You have 10 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am thrilled
to be here. I applaud you for holding this hearing. I am a very
proud cosponsor of your farsighted legislation. I hope and
expect, truly, that today's hearing marks a turning point in
the energy and direction of our effort to address this critical
problem.
I thought I would speak very locally. If left unchecked,
climate change will clearly affect communities around the
globe, but I would like to draw particular attention to the way
it will affect Rhode Island. There is no place more local than
the street where you live. So I thought I would lead with this
photograph, which is taken of a cherry tree on Adelphi Avenue
outside of my house in Providence. It was taken on January 7.
You will notice that the tree is starting to bud and in a
couple of places has gone into full bloom. Now, that may seem
like an anecdotal aberration, and clearly it is the first time
in the 20 years we have lived in the house where that tree has
bloomed in January. But it refers to a trend that the orchard
owners in Rhode Island have described and noted, that spring
blooms come earlier every year, earlier and earlier.
So an aberration, yes, but we know these sorts of
temperature aberrations are themselves indications of global
warming.
The heart of Rhode Island, of course, is Narragansett Bay.
It is our greatest natural resource. It is our environmental
prize. Here, we see what has been happening to water
temperatures in Narragansett Bay since 1955. They have been
climbing steadily. The mean annual surface water temperatures,
as you see, has increased 2.5 degrees in that period, and
actually that understates the effect because in the winter the
temperature has increased 4 degrees in the last 20 years. As
the scientists at the University of Rhode Island who track this
stuff have recognized, 4 degrees in that environment is a full
ecosystem shift, so it makes an enormous, enormous difference.
One of the differences that it makes is illustrated in this
photograph. This is a photograph of Greenwich Bay, which is a
sub-basin of Narragansett Bay, in the summer of 2003. The warm
water in the bay led to stratification, which trapped the
decaying organic manner at the bottom of the bay so that
oxygenation did not occur and these fish asphyxiated. They
suffocated swimming in their native waters as a result in large
measure of the warming that we are seeing.
It's not getting better. In fact, it is predicted to get a
good deal worse. From 2010 to 2039, depending on the emissions,
the scenario could lead to another 3-degree increase, another
7-degree increase by 2069, and by 2099, a 12-degree increase at
the higher emissions levels. At lower emissions level, it is
still a problem, but it is a substantially lesser one.
Now, at the higher emissions levels, Rhode Island will
become a State that has the present weather patterns of the
Carolinas. It is interesting, to a fellow who lives in Newport,
because Newport was first inhabited as a summer resort by
merchants from the Carolinas, who came north to enjoy the cool
waters of Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island, and the cool
summer air. Now here it is, 100 and some years later, it looks
like the Carolina weather will be following them there, and we
will no longer be a refuge from such temperatures.
Obviously, ecosystem changes of that nature have not only a
dramatic effect on the environment, but also the economy. In
northern New England you would see an end to the ski industry,
and throughout New England you could very well lose our famous
foliage.
One of the effects of all this, Madam Chair, is the
increase in water level. We are seeing it on a small scale
already in Rhode Island. This is the Newport Harbor tide chart.
It shows the increase here in the main sea level to this point,
and then it extrapolates forward the sort of increase that we
could see. It is happening slowly right now, but it is
projected to increase. I would note that the projections do not
incorporate the nightmare scenario that Vice President Gore
laid out in his Inconvenient Truth. If that were to take place,
if the Greenland ice cap were to melt and the sea water levels
were to rise consistent with the presentation Vice President
Gore makes, you would start to see some very significant
changes in our Ocean State.
This is downtown Providence as it exists now. Here is our
central business district. Here is Brown University. Here is
what becomes of it with a 20-foot increase. The downtown
business district is gone. There is our new mall, where my
daughter loves to shop. Gone. Here is the AMTRAK rail and the
train station. Gone. Our capitol building is on famous Smith
Hill, on a high promontory, so the capitol at least will
survive, but the business district where I worked, here is the
Federal court where I practiced as United States Attorney.
Gone.
If you turn to other Rhode Island landmarks, this is the
famous Newport Harbor. The historic waterfront through here,
the ballfield where the Newport Gulls play down here, historic
Trinity Church right here, an astonishing resource for our
State and a great piece of history throughout this photograph,
old buildings, a concentration of history that is really
remarkable, and there is what happens. Completely inundated,
completely submerged and completely lost.
Finally, even bedroom communities can be hit pretty hard.
This is a lovely bedroom community in Rhode Island called
Barrington. As you can see, there is a school here and many
houses through the dappled neighborhood lanes. In the event of
the sort of rise in water level the Vice President has talked
about, it is all gone, Madam Chair. It is all submerged.
So the stakes that we are talking about are very, very
high. The economic effect, the environmental effect, and the
long term welfare of our Country, particularly my State, are
very, very much implicated in these hearings.
The last point I will make is that, as anxious as we may be
about these potential consequences, there is real hope by
changes in public policy. Just in Rhode Island, the
environmental community gathered together and they charted
different outcomes based on public policy decisions that were
made in Rhode Island, and how they would affect the tons of
carbon released by Rhode Island, which of course connects
directly the global warming and climate change and to the rise
in the oceans. What you see is that at the top line, if we did
nothing there is a very, very substantial gap over the existing
policies that are already in effect in Rhode Island and are
already driving our carbon emissions to level, and indeed
decline a little bit.
Indeed, policies that are presently under consideration
could drop it further, to this line. Ultimately, here is the
green line of where we could end up. This is a significant gap
and it is the kind of gap that we very, very much need to
close. So I think the important message for today is, the
problem is real. The problem is here. The consequences are
potentially extraordinarily severe, but it is within our
control and within our hands to get the situation right and
prevent these outcomes.
Once again, Madam Chair, I salute the turning point that I
think this hearing represents, and appreciate your leadership.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I want to thank you. I think
everyone was just riveted to your presentation. I would urge
you to just keep that passion going because from now on, we are
going to have to really work hard so that none of that ever
happens that you showed us.
I want to also say before you leave, just to give everyone
here an idea of where we are going. My understanding is we have
now heard from 14 Senators, including myself. That is the
number that wanted to speak, from the committee. We are going
to be moving to other Senators shortly within the next 5
minutes.
Before, Senator Whitehouse, you leave, and I really want to
thank Senator Carper who is just a stalwart with me on this
issue, I wanted to quote from two statements that I am going to
now place in the record. The point of this, Senator Whitehouse,
is to say you are part of the New England delegation that on a
bipartisan basis is very concerned, I will prove that in a
moment, and also to say to Senator Carper, your interest and
bipartisanship is borne out by these two statements.
The first one I will put in the record is a statement by
Senator Judd Gregg. He has asked that we put this in the record
today. I will just quote briefly from it, ``Climate change is
one of the most serious environmental problems facing our
planet. It touches nearly everything we do.'' Now, Senator
Gregg is not known for overstatement.
``Our climate is inextricably linked to our economy and
heritage of our Nation.'' He goes on in a very eloquent way. He
says, ``States alone cannot solve the problem. I believe
Congress must take action to limit the emissions of greenhouse
gases from a variety of sources.'' He talks proudly of working
with Senator Carper for the last 4 years on legislation that
would reduce carbon dioxide and other emissions from
powerplants. He says he is looking forward to reintroducing
that bill with Senator Carper.
He says, ``Power plants are just part of the problem. That
is why I have supported economy-wide, market-based approaches
such as the Climate Stewardship Act's cap and trade system. I
believe that is the McCain-Lieberman. He says, ``I appreciate
the committee's attention to this issue and I look forward to
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to draft
climate change legislation which protects our environment and
stimulates our economy.'' So we will put that in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Gregg follows:]
Statement of Hon. Judd Gregg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Hampshire
Climate change is one of the most serious environmental problems
facing our planet. It touches nearly everything we do. Our climate is
inextricably linked to our economy and heritage of our nation. Climate
change affects where we live, where our food is grown, the severity and
frequency of storms and disease, and many of our industries, including
tourism, forestry, and agriculture. In New Hampshire, folks are already
concerned with its impact on skiing, forestry, maple production,
tourism, and outdoor recreation. In fact, the state was the first in
the nation to pass a law in 2002 requiring carbon dioxide emissions
reductions from power plants. Today, approximately 50 towns in New
Hampshire are poised to vote in March on a resolution seeking the
establishment of a national greenhouse gas reduction program and
additional research into sustainable energy technologies.
States alone can not solve this problem. I believe Congress must
take action to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases from a variety
of sources. The overwhelming scientific data and other evidence about
climate change cannot be ignored. It is for this reason that I have
been a strong advocate for mandatory limits on greenhouse gases, and I
will continue working with my Senate colleagues on legislation.
For the last four years, I have worked with Senators Carper and
Alexander and others, on legislation which would reduce carbon dioxide
and other emissions from power plants. The Clean Air Planning Act,
which I have cosponsored, would address our nation's critical air
pollution problems in a way that curbs greenhouse gas emissions,
enhances air quality, protects human health, and facilitates a growing
economy. This legislation reduces the four primary emissions from power
plants: sulfur dioxide (a contributing factor in lung and heart
disease) by 80 percent; nitrogen oxide (associated with acid rain and
regional haze) by 69 percent; mercury emissions (associated with fish
contamination and birth defects) by 80 percent; and carbon dioxide
emissions (linked to climate change) by establishing mandatory caps.
This bill would protect the quality of air we breathe and the climate
we live in, while simultaneously stimulating the economy and protecting
human health. I hope to reintroduce this bill with my colleagues in the
coming weeks.
However, power plants are just part of the solution. That is why I
have supported economy-wide, market-based approaches, such as the
Climate Stewardship Act's ``cap and trade'' system, as reasonable ways
to rein in carbon dioxide without undue harm to the U.S. economy. I
also believe we need to re-examine the issue of vehicle emissions, a
substantial contributor to the global carbon budget, and consider
increasing the corporate average fuel economy standards for motor
vehicles.
I appreciate the Committee's attention to this issue and I look
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
draft climate change legislation which protects our environment and
stimulates our economy.
Senator Whitehouse. Following that is a statement by
Senator Olympia Snowe that is a very comprehensive statement. I
will just quote a few paragraphs. Senator Snowe: ``For me, it
is ludicrous to think we can expect large emerging nations to
move toward reducing their emissions without any national
action on our part. Only after the United States puts in place
a mandatory carbon cap and trade system can we expect to sit at
the international table and ask the poorer developing countries
to take such action.''
Madam Chair, we need to seize on a bold new program like
President Kennedy did in sending a man to the moon. When on
September 12, 1962, he stated, ``We choose to go to the moon in
this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy,
but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to
organize and measure the best of our energies and our skills,
because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we
are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win.''
She says, ``On July 21, 1969, less than 7 years later,
Astronaut Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. This is how we
should be addressing global warming.'' In closing, she says,
``Madam Chair, weather is an integral part of the economy in my
State of Maine and others as well. It is time to curb the
warming. We cannot wait any longer. We need to act now.''
[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator from the
State of Rhode Island
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for convening this hearing, and for your
leadership on the issue of global warming. I'm honored to serve on an
Environment and Public Works Committee whose leadership acknowledges
that this issue is real, that time is of the essence, and that action
is called for.
Left unchecked, climate change will affect every community in every
nation on earth, altering the world in ways we are only just beginning
to understand. I want to take this opportunity to speak briefly about
some of the scientific evidence now available about the projected
effects of global warming on my home state of Rhode Island.
Alterations in the growing seasons brought on by warmer
temperatures around the globe are already evident in Rhode Island. Many
species of flowers and trees are blooming earlier in the spring than
the historical average. The cherry tree on my street in Providence is
in bloom in January for the first time in the 20 years we've owned the
house. It could be an aberration, but our Rhode Island orchard growers
have not seen January blooms of fruit trees in living memory. Although
this bloom did not mark the actual spring bloom, the earlier and
earlier arrival of the spring bloom is now a documented phenomenon,
indicating a trend of warmer temperatures throughout the region.
Shifts in the timing of the seasons also have the potential to
disturb biological phenomena, such as migratory cycles of birds. For
example, if a bird's seasonal migration is caused by the length of the
days, it could arrive at its destination out of synch with the tree
species that provides necessary food but has bloomed early in response
to warmer temperatures.
The land based ecosystems are not the only systems at risk; warmer
temperatures will also have profound effects on oceans and estuaries.
This is even more troubling because the water and land based ecosystems
are so intricately linked.
The environmental heart of Rhode Island is the Narragansett Bay
estuary. Narragansett Bay is Rhode Island's most distinctive ecological
feature, running nearly the entire length of the state and affecting
every part of our lives. It is our greatest natural resource. As we
speak, the Bay is undergoing a significant ecosystem shift as the
water's temperature gradually warms.
The Bay's annual mean winter temperature has increased by about 4
degrees Fahrenheit over the past 20 years. This has had a significant
impact on fish and shellfish in the Bay. Cold water species, such as
winter flounder, that were once abundant in the bay and had a high
commercial value have been replaced by warmer water species, such as
scup, that have a lower value. It amounts to a real ecosystem change
with associated economic impacts.
Warmer temperatures in the summer can also have profound effects.
During the summer of 2003 in Greenwich Bay, a sub-basin of Narragansett
Bay, warmer temperatures caused stratification in the water column.
This reduction of water column mixing led to eutrophication and
consequently lower dissolved oxygen levels on the bottom, causing the
fish in the bay to suffocate in the water.
This cycle is predicted to get worse--much worse--if nothing is
done. At higher emissions levels, New England's climate will become
more like South Carolina's. (Ironically, the first summer visitors to
Newport were 19th century merchants from the Carolinas seeking to
escape that heat.) The result will be a dramatic shift in the economy,
as well as the ecosystem. For example, there won't be any ski resorts
or winter tourism in Northern New England. We may very well lose our
famous foliage.
If Greenland's ice cap melts and causes sea levels to rise by as
much as 20 feet worldwide--the nightmare scenario of Al Gore's ``An
Inconvenient Truth''--here's what happens in the Ocean State. Downtown
Providence is inundated. Newport's famous harbor overwhelms Newport's
historic waterfront. And coastal residential communities like
Barrington are submerged.
While these are sobering projections, Madam Chairman, there is
still plenty of hope. We can be effective against these threats if we
act firmly and swiftly.
Working with partners from the nonprofit and academic community,
the State of Rhode Island is already taking steps to address the
potential effects of global warming, with encouraging results. In Rhode
Island, environmental groups have quantified the effect of actions
already underway, of actions that are pending, and of possible further
actions that we could take. These carbon dioxide emissions curves show
how profoundly effective the action we take today can be. This kind of
success requires not only direct government action, but commensurate
action by private industry and individuals. We must determine not only
what we will do, but how our choices will influence and stimulate
others in their decision-making.
Let me be clear: I believe we cannot solve this problem without
immediate and unrelenting federal support. I am proud to be an original
cosponsor of the Sanders-Boxer global warming bill, a measure that I
believe will help us take a critical first step in addressing the
challenge of global warming. There is much more to be done, and little
time to waste.
Thank you, again, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to speak
today.
I'd also like to acknowledge the members of Rhode Island's
environmental community for helping us assemble this data, including
Save the Bay, Environment Rhode Island, the University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography, Brown University, the Rhode Island
Coastal Institute, Rhode Island Clean Water Action, the Rhode Island
Chapter of the Sierra Club, and the Rhode Island Conservation Law
Foundation. Most importantly, I want to recognize Dr. Sandra Thornton
Whitehouse for her help, her insight, and her expertise.
Senator Boxer. So, you know, for me, this hearing has been,
I don't even know how to find the right word. To say that it is
important is an understatement. It has been critical. It has
been inspiring to hear my colleagues, to hear my colleagues on
this committee on both sides. Yes, to hear the concerns of some
who might not agree, but yet in their comments still hear the
nugget of some agreement where we can move forward, and some of
the colleagues who are not on this committee.
So what we are going to do now is stand in recess. I am
going to stay right here.
Senator Whitehouse. Madam Chair? As a personal courtesy,
may I quickly recognize a leader of the environmental community
in Iran who is with us today, Dr. Sandra Thornton Whitehouse.
Senator Boxer. Oh, any relation?
Senator Whitehouse. She was a considerable help in
preparing this, and who is, as I said, one of Rhode Island's
environmental leaders, and I would like, through her, to thank
the environmental community for their support in putting this
presentation together.
Senator Boxer. Well, it was a fantastic presentation. I
think that actually it is going to, I was going to say it is
going to move mountains, but I think the glaciers are already
moving. That is the problem, so it might freeze glaciers, but
we thank you so much.
I am so pleased and delighted, Senator Bingaman, that you
are here. You came a little bit early, and I appreciate that.
Your timing is impeccable. Here is where we are. We have heard
from 14 members of this committee. We just heard our last
presentation. I have put two statements in the record from
Senator Snowe and Senator Gregg, both very strong for a
comprehensive plan.
You are a leader. You and I have teamed up. We have written
letters, op/ed pieces together. We intend to work together. We
are honored to have you here, Senator Bingaman, with your
distinguished record on the environment, on the economy, on
your great State of New Mexico. Of course, you are the Chair of
the Energy Committee. We are just proud to have you. So please,
you have 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. Let
me say that I think it is terrific that you have made this such
a priority for this committee and for the Congress. I look
forward to working with you and seeing if we can't get
legislation enacted in this Congress to deal with this issue in
a meaningful way.
Let me just give a general perspective on it, and then if
you have any questions, I am glad to respond.
First, I don't think it is particularly useful to have a
lot more hearings about whether or not there is a problem. I
think most folks who have spent time looking at it are
persuaded that there is a serious issue here, that manmade
activity is a major contributor to the problem, and that we
need to get one with planning solutions.
As I see it, there are three real challenges we need to
focus on. No. 1, convincing our colleagues that some type of
cap on emissions and some type of trading system for allowances
or permits is the most significant thing we can do to deal with
the problem. I am persuaded of that. I believe you are, and I
hope that as we go through this debate, we can persuade all of
our colleagues that that is the case.
No. 2, we need to figure out if we are going to have a cap
and trade system that is nationwide, which I believe we need to
have, how do we structure that cap and trade program? There are
a lot of design issues. There are a lot of questions on how you
allocate allowances, what you permit as offsets. Your State of
California is struggling through those problems now, as you are
trying to design a system for California, in compliance with
your Governor's mandate or the legislation that was passed
earlier, last fall in California.
The No. 3, major challenge that I see is getting a
political consensus on how quickly we can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions without significantly or adversely affecting the
economy. I am persuaded that we can reduce greenhouse gas
emissions in a significant way. There is a lot of debate going
on as to how aggressive those targets need to be. That is the
proper debate to be having.
The process that I have been involved in really got started
because of the report of the National Commission on Energy
Policy. This was a group of business and former government
officials and environmentalists, NGO leaders. They came
together under the auspices of the Hewlett Foundation, and put
together a report nearly 2 years ago now. Part of their report
recommended a cap and trade program along the lines that I have
just described.
I think that was a very useful recommendation. I have
supported the proposal that Senators Lieberman and McCain have
presented to the Senate. We voted on that twice, as you know,
in the Senate. I have supported it both times.
The National Commission on Energy Policy had a somewhat
different set of recommendations, but a variation on what was
earlier proposed. The main point from my perspective was that
they also recommended putting a cost or a price on the cost of
putting carbon into the atmosphere, and a very predictable
price, so that people in industry who are making plans for how
to increase powerplant capacity would know precisely what they
are going to be faced with if they go forward and continue to
pursue options that involve substantial emissions.
I think that is the right way to go. In February of last
year, Senator Domenici and I and the Energy Committee came out
with a white paper on design features for a mandatory market-
based greenhouse gas regulatory program. We asked a series of
questions there. We had a very distinguished group of folks
come into our committee and talk about answers to those
questions, questions such as who should be regulated, how do we
allocate the permits, should a domestic program be linked with
the programs in effect in other countries, how do we engage
developing countries in this effort. All of those are the right
questions, I think.
We have tried to follow up on that. Most recently, I joined
with Senator Specter in circulating a draft proposal to all
members of the Senate. We are hoping to get feedback and have a
series of meetings with people, responding to that draft
proposal. The idea is that we hope to have legislation that
some of us on the committee and off the committee might
cosponsor, that we could introduce in the next 6 or 8 weeks.
That is our hope. It would add to the other bills that already
have been introduced. I hope it would add to the debate.
I think the way this issue has been put on the front burner
by you and your committee is exactly what needs to happen. I
congratulate you on it and appreciate the chance to be here to
make a presentation.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Mexico
Thank you Senator Boxer and Members of the Committee.
The 2005 Sense of the Senate resolution on climate change
emphasized that the risks associated with a changing climate justify
the adoption of mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and that
an important first step towards addressing climate change can be taken
at an acceptable cost. In that spirit, Senator Specter and I circulated
a discussion draft on global warming legislation last week that begins
with a modest emissions-reduction target that strengthens gradually
over time.
The approach is consistent with that of the successful Acid Rain
Program in that it sets a ``forward price'' on emissions to provide
both the flexibility and incentive needed to accelerate technology
development and deployment. The long-term price signal that a forward
price creates is critical for giving industry certainty and for
focusing its decision-making on lower carbon options. In order to
complement that price signal, the discussion draft also includes
provisions to create incentives for new technology and provides
significant new R&D funding for low- and no-carbon technologies.
The decision to circulate a discussion draft, rather than introduce
legislation, reflects our desire to modify and improve the legislation
in the coming months. This draft is already the product of over two
years of work, but there are still many unresolved issues that must be
addressed and challenges that deserve attention.
As I see it, there are three main challenges. First we must
convince our colleagues that the model we have chosen, a cap and trade
program, is the right model. Second, we must figure out how to
structure that cap and trade program--there are many different design
features that must be discussed and analyzed. Finally, we need to see
what kind of political consensus we can get over the targets to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions without harming the economy.
As I mentioned, this process began over two years ago. It started
with the recommendations of the bipartisan National Commission on
Energy Policy, or NCEP. This group of business leaders, former
government officials, environmentalists and NGO leaders published a
report to influence the upcoming debate on energy policy. Within that
report was a recommendation to implement a cap and trade program to
slow the growth of greenhouse gases by mandating targets and allowing
companies to use tradable credits in a market to meet those limits.
I supported this type of proposal when Senators Lieberman and
McCain introduced their Climate Stewardship Act and I still believe
that this is the most appropriate way to reduce emissions. In order to
address some of the concerns with a cap and trade proposal and its
impacts on the economy, the NCEP recommended that growth targets be
implemented to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions before
stopping that growth and reducing emissions. They also recommended a
safety valve feature, which would allow the government to sell extra
permits at a set price. That price would escalate over time, but would
provide certainty to business and would prevent difficult shocks to the
economy as we move into a lower-carbon economy.
After submitting this proposal to the Energy Information
Administration--the nonpartisan analytical arm of the Department of
Energy--I drafted an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and
considered amending the Energy Bill with it. Because of the limited
amount of time available, we decided instead to circulate a Sense of
the Senate Resolution and added that to the Energy Bill.
That Resolution gave us the grounds to continue exploring this
issue over the remainder of last Congress. I worked very closely with
Senator Domenici to have hearings in the Energy Committee and
participate in a series of workshops with the NCEP. The purpose of this
was to examine the structure of a cap and trade proposal.
In February of 2006, Senator Domenici and I authored a White Paper
on Design Features of a Mandatory Market-Based Greenhouse Gas
Regulatory Program. We asked four basic questions: (1) Who should be
regulated? (2) How do we allocate permits throughout the economy? (3)
Should a domestic program be able to link with other countries? (4) How
do we engage developing country participation?
We received over 150 submissions from major companies, individuals
and NGO's responding to these questions and Sen. Domenici and I invited
29 of those respondents to an all-day conference to discuss them here
on Capitol Hill.
After incorporating many of the things we heard at this Conference
into a new draft, I was joined by five of my colleagues in resubmitting
the legislation to the EIA for further analysis. The results of that
analysis have shown that it is possible to begin reducing our emissions
here in the United States without negatively harming the economy.
It is my plan now to take the next two months to use this
discussion draft and bring stakeholders and interested parties to the
table to see if we can get some kind of bipartisan consensus on
legislation that we can enact this year.
A first step toward that goal is to host a series of bipartisan
staff workshops. This Friday at 2 pm in the Energy Committee Hearing
Room, we are hosting the first staff workshop to look at the issues
within the discussion draft. I encourage anyone who is interested in
attending to contact my Committee Office. We are also extending the
invitation to the Administration and House staff.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my views before your
Committee. Global warming is an extremely important and difficult issue
to resolve, but I know that we can work together in a manner that
expedites action rather than delay it any longer.
Senator Boxer. Senator, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
We are not going to ask questions today. Today is our open
forum, and we are just presenting our views.
For the benefit of Senators Kerry and Feinstein, they can
decide who needs to go first. Either way is fine. We are going
to go to Senator Kerry first, or Senator Feinstein? Senator
Feinstein, OK.
We have heard from 14 members of this committee. It has
just been an extraordinary time. And now we are turning to
those of you outside the committee who have shown tremendous
leadership.
I agree with Senator Bingaman that the more legislation
that we have on the table, the better, because we can just see,
in addition to this hearing and others that I know a lot of you
will be involved in, in the Commerce Committee and in other
committees, we could see where our colleagues are, because I
think those of us who spoke today from our heart about how we
feel now are ready to take the next step. I think Senator
Bingaman is right. The debate over whether there is global
warming for the vast majority of us is over. We are now moving
toward solutions to the problem.
So at this time, I am going to call on my dear friend, my
colleague from California, my senior Senator. She and I have
worked very closely on saving the environment in our State. We
are very proud of our State for taking the lead on this. She is
working on a series of bills, the first of which deals with the
utility sector on carbon emissions. She worked so hard with
business and so many different groups to come together. It is a
tremendous contribution to where we are now.
So Senator Feinstein, it is just a privilege for me to
introduce you. You have 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is
actually my privilege. I have great pride in what you are doing
and a great deal of faith that this committee is going to be
able to produce legislation under your leadership. I am just
very grateful for that.
And Senator Carper, I am on your bill, you are on my bill.
So we have kind of dovetailed our efforts, and I appreciate
that very much.
What I would like to do is just informally tell you what I
have learned. No question, global warming is real. The science
has now coalesced. No question, the Earth is warming as a
product of human activity.
The question is, how fast will it warm. In talking with
climatologists at Scripps Institute, they said to me, if we
have erred, we have erred on the conservative side; that the
Earth is apt to warm much quicker than we predict. That really
sounds the clarion call for action, and for the United States
taking a role of leadership in the world, which we have not
done up to this point.
Now, what have I learned? I have learned you can't stop it,
but what we can do is slow it. If we slow it to 1 to 2 degrees,
we can adapt to it. If it goes 4 to 10 degrees, as many people
believe it will by the end of the century, it is catastrophic.
The Earth has tipped and we will not be able to restore the
balance again. So time is of the essence.
What we have tried to do is recognize that there is no
silver bullet; that we have to do a number of different things
so that everybody does their share, the electric industry,
industry in general, people, fuels, automobiles, trains,
everything all across the board.
We have started by saying, all right, coal is dominant in
40 States, and 40 times 2 is 80. We have 80 Senators that might
be a problem on cap and trade. Now, why do we go to cap and
trade? We go to cap and trade because Europe is using the
system, the eight Northeastern States are going to be using the
system; California is going into cap and trade. It looks like
it provides the regimen to provide the auction and the credits
to provide the technology to move everything forward.
We thought, well, all these coal States, what do we do? So
we went to a group of electric utilities called the Clean
Energy Group. They are 15 percent of the electricity in this
Country. They comprise Calpine, Entergy, Exelon, Florida Power
and Light, which is in 42 States, PG&E, and the Public Service
Enterprise Group, which is huge in many States. We sat down
with them, and we said, if we were to negotiate a cap and trade
system, how would we do it so there would be some support in
the industry?
The bill that Senator Carper and I have introduced, Madam
Chairman, represents something that that section of the
industry will support. It essentially reduces six global
warming gases by 25 percent by 2020. It sets up an auction
scheme that begins in 2011 with $1.9 billion to $10 billion,
and goes up to $55 billion by 2036. It involves agriculture, so
that they can get credits for good tillage, for growing energy-
proficient crops, et cetera. It gives you something I think to
pick and choose from. It has a structure.
We believe it is workable. These companies have all vetted
it. They have agreed to support it. In 2020, it caps at various
times the amount, so you reduce it by 25 percent by 2020. Then
in 2020, it says EPA, all right, now you would go 1.5 percent a
year every year. If your independent science shows that you
need to do more than a year, you have the mandate to issue the
directions of the cap, but absent that, it moves at 1.5 percent
a year.
I believe that we have to tailor cap and trade for each
industry. We are working now in the industrial sector, and it
may well be somewhat different than the electricity sector.
Also, we are submitting to you a biofuels bill, CAFE efficiency
10 miles over 10 years. That is 18 percent saving by 2020.
Biofuels, I think, is around 20 percent saving, and then an
energy efficiency bill patterned after California.
If I had to say one thing to you, I would say it is
necessary to do a number of different things and do them well,
do them in a practical way, and do them so that you know that
the goals can be reached by people who want to reach them. It
is most important that it be practical and that it be doable,
and that we be able to set something. If you can go to China,
that is going to shortly overcome us, and say, look, here is a
regimen that we are prepared to do in our Country, in
electricity, in industry, in business, whatever it is. We
believe you can do it, too. And India, the same way, so that we
can provide the kind of leadership that we need to on a
planetary level.
Now, we did not include in our bill a preemption. That
became very controversial. The Governor's people in California
were concerned. I know environmentalists were concerned. But if
you think about it, there should be one system, and the goal
should be to make that one system worldwide so that everybody
can enter into the cap and trade system, and everybody can
produce the auction and the credits to do what they need to do
in their own country to make technology much more improved.
So I think it is a long road. I think it is a very
interesting road. I really am so proud of you and your
committee for holding these hearings and enabling us to come
forward and present some of these things. So thank you very
much.
Senator Boxer. Senator Feinstein, I want to thank you so
much for your ideas on this topic, for your work. Everything
that you do, I can assure you is going to wind its way to our
committee, and we will be, as I have told Senator Kerry,
working the way we used to work around here, in a very open
process, when we make finally the decisions as to how we are
moving.
You have laid out some very interesting points. Do we move
sector by sector? Forty percent of the problem is utilities.
Thirty percent is mobile sources. Thirty percent is smokestack
and others. Maybe we will move that way. Maybe that is the only
way we can go.
Maybe we want to get one system, as you point out, would be
the best thing where you can say that you are meeting the needs
that the problem suggests. If we have a good system with good
goals, then one system is clearly the best. If the States are
out in front, and they are the ones who are responding to the
reality, then we have to take another look at it.
But I understand exactly what you are saying. Certainty,
one system that meets the need is certainly what we ought to do
if we can do it. But right now, it is sad to look at the state
of things, where we have a patchwork.
Senator?
Senator Feinstein. I was just going to say, many of these
companies do business in more than one State, some in dozens of
States. That is the reason I think why we have to grapple with
a national standard so that everybody plays by the same rules
across the board.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely, if we can get that standard
strong enough so that it meets the challenge. Senator
Whitehouse was here. I wish you had seen his presentation on
what would happen in New England, and I think we will hear some
of that passion from Senator Kerry. Senators Snowe and Gregg
handed in testimony that is just a call to action, to do the
strongest possible thing you can do nationally.
I would add one point. You are right. These companies, many
companies do business globally, too. I think one of the
incentives for them to come to the table is the work of our
European friends on this, because they want to work with the
EU. They want to trade with the EU. They have to package for
the EU. All of these things I think are calling us together
with a common purpose.
But I am really looking forward to the rest of your
legislation. I would urge you to do it because once all those
ideas are out on the table, Senator Bingaman's as well, and I
know Senator Kerry is working as well, we will move, and you
will be a very important part of writing the legislation we
bring to the floor.
Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Madam Chair, would you yield for just a
moment?
Senator Boxer. Yes, I will be happy to yield to you.
Senator Carper. I want to welcome Senator Feinstein and
Senator Kerry to this hearing, to our committee. I have had the
pleasure of working with Senator Feinstein on several issues in
the 6 years that I have been here. She is bright. She has great
people around here. She is tenacious. She is able I think to
lay out issues in a way that I can understand, and I think a
lot of people could understand and relate to, which is a great
gift. So thank you for being a partner with us.
I would just say to Senator Kerry, my friend, my old Navy
buddy, that I think, and I have said this to you before, I
think you were ahead of your time in 2004, when you ran for
President with a huge focus on energy independence and a great
roadmap to get us there. There is an old saying that a prophet
is without honor in his own land. You were a prophet and the
rest of us fortunately are just a few years behind you. Thank
you for joining us today and for your leadership.
I have a bunch of people waiting for me in this hearing
room, and have been waiting for some time. I am going to slip
out for awhile, and if I miss your entire remarks, I will look
for you at our caucus lunch and maybe you can give me the
shorthand version. Thanks very much.
Senator Boxer. Senator Kerry, we are honored you are here.
You have 10 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN KERRY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Carper, for your comments. I appreciate
it and look forward to working with you.
Madam Chairman, thank you so much for having this hearing.
It is wonderful to have the Chair of this committee
particularly who is looking at this issue and wanting to move
forward.
I just came back from the World Economic Forum meeting in
Davos. It is interesting that this was really the dominant
issue on the table among businessmen and leaders all over the
world. It was the centerpiece of Prime Minister Blair's
comments to the plenary session there. Everyone in the world is
looking to the United States now. We are 25 percent of the
world's greenhouse gas emissions. We have a responsibility to
act. Like it or not, no matter what happens, yes, we need a
global solution, but if the United States does not act, there
won't be a solution.
I look forward also, and I thank you for the conversations
we have had. We are going to have some hearings in the Small
Business Committee and see how small business can proceed, and
also, in the Commerce Committee on which you serve, and you
will sort of have a double hat to wear in that capacity. But we
are going to use every leverage we have here to move on this.
Back in 1987, on the Commerce Committee under the
leadership of then-Senator Gore, we held the first hearings on
global climate change. And then in 1990, we held an
interparliamentary conference with Senator Wirth, Senator
Chafee and others trying to raise the profile of this issue. In
1992, and I mention this history because I want to emphasize
the urgency of why we are here. In 1992, I was a member of the
delegation that went with those same folks to Rio for the Earth
Summit. We came together with about 170 nations or so to
discuss various ways to tackle this problem back then.
We came up with a voluntary framework, the international
framework on climate change, which President George Herbert
Walker Bush signed. We ratified, but it was voluntary. Nations
were given an opportunity to participate. We set in process a
series of meetings, several of which I attended. I went to
Buenos Aires for the COP meeting. I went to The Hague for the
COP meeting. We began to see the tensions between the less
developed countries and the developed countries, and the near
developed countries, and the struggle to try to get this
passed.
I managed the Kyoto agreement issue on the floor of the
Senate, when the Byrd-Hagel resolution came up. We accepted the
notion that, yes, we want less developed countries in, but we
as a Nation never made an effort during those years to try to
bring less developed countries to the table by working
agreements with them for technology transfer, for recognition
of the steps they were taking for fuel switching and other
things.
So the bottom line is, nothing happened. We are here in
2006, 16 years or so after these meetings, and almost 20 years
after the first hearings, and the United States, some are still
in denial, and we are still not proceeding forward.
The American people are moving ahead of the Congress, which
is astonishing and a sad statement about congressional
irresponsibility. About 376 Mayors from 50 States have signed
onto the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, to advance
the goals of Kyoto. And now we have mounting scientific
evidence, which will be capped in a report that will come
forward from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
written by more than 600 scientists, Madam Chairman, reviewed
by another 600 experts, and edited by officials from 154
governments, to reflect the scientific consensus. Already, it
is being called the smoking gun of global warming by those who
have studied it.
The basic facts are that at every point in between the two
poles of this planet, the Earth's surface is heating up, and at
a catastrophic rate. According to the 2001 IPCC report, we have
already increased an average of 1.4 degrees, about .08 C.
With what is in the atmosphere today, there is an
inevitable increase. We can't do anything about it, up to about
1.4 or 1.5 degrees. Scientists now tell us by consensus, recent
discussions with Jim Hansen, with John Holden at Harvard and
Woods Hole, say that we really only have a latitude of about
.06 degrees. You have to hold your temperature increase to 2 C
or we have catastrophic consequence.
A few years ago, they thought it was 3 degrees. A few years
ago, they thought we should hold it to 550 parts per million,
but now they realize we have to decrease it to 450 parts per
million to hold it down to 2 degrees because of what we have
already seen in terms of the destruction that is taking place.
In 2005, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, were respectively
the 6 warmest years on record, and all but one of the hottest
20 years on record have occurred since 1980, since the time
they started measuring. We know this is the result of human
activity, and we also know that carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere has increased about 30 percent from the pre-
industrial level of 270 parts per million. It is currently at
370 parts per million.
So Madam Chairman, that means we have a latitude of going
from 370 to 450. This is the highest level of concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at any time in the past
150,000 years. If we let it go the way it is now, it could
reach 600 to 700 parts per million and there will be
catastrophe.
Now, here is the bottom line. Those who oppose doing
something serious, as John Holdren says, to be credible, they
have to explain what alternative mechanism could account for
the pattern of changes being observed, and they have to explain
how it could be that the known human-caused buildup in
greenhouse gases is not having an impact. So they have to show
those two things, what is causing it, why is what we have done
not causing it. They have failed to even suggest a legitimate
theory for either of those.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I am going to give you an
additional 5 minutes.
Senator Kerry. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I
appreciate that.
So we are seeing these changes all over the Country. I have
just been finishing writing a book about not just this, but all
the environmental challenges we face today, toxins, water,
oceans, et cetera. As I read about this, after 22 years in the
Senate I have to tell you, it became more and more ominous,
more and more frightening, more and more urgent and compelling
than anything I have read in all the time I have been here,
with the exception of a couple of security reports, but this is
national security.
You have hunters noticing these changes. In Arkansas, the
winter duck population has shrunk from 1 million to a .5
million over the past half century. Last year, drought dropped
that population to 160,000. In South Carolina, they wouldn't
have duck hunting now if it weren't for farm-raised ducks, and
the population of migrant ducks is down to about 3,000. The
number of category four and five hurricanes has nearly doubled
in the last years.
As John Holdren and others will tell you, climate change is
the envelope within which all the other changes take place,
species change, climate, winds, hurricanes, ocean temperature.
There is this ominous notion of the tipping point which we have
to avoid.
So the bottom line is, Madam Chairwoman, the only way to
avoid the catastrophe that they warn us of, the oceans, the ice
in the oceans in the north, in the Arctic, is going to melt.
Jim Hansen sat with me several months ago and said it is no
longer a question of if, when or how. It is just a question of
it is going to happen, probably 30 years from now. What happens
if that ice melts is that more ocean is exposed. As more ocean
is exposed, the heating of the sun has a greater impact on the
warming of the ocean, which has a greater impact ultimately on
the Greenland ice sheet.
Now, we are already seeing melting underneath that ice
sheet on the top of the rock. The potential for slippage of
that rock, and major breakoff like the one we saw on Ellesmere
Island a few months ago, actually a year and a half ago as was
detected, and reported recently, where you had a 66 kilometer
square ice sheet that just broke off and is now floating as its
own island in the ocean.
The ice in the Arctic as it melts doesn't change the
displacement of the oceans, so sea level rise is not as much of
an issue, though it is going to increase. But if the Greenland
ice sheet melts, you have something ranging between a 16-foot
and 23-foot sea level increase, which wipes out all ports,
lowlands, and islands globally.
The impact of this on poor people, the impact of this on
commerce, on species, on disease and all kinds of things is
gigantic.
So Madam Chairwoman, the bottom line is we really, and the
reason I mention all this, I know it is accepted. I know the
science is accepted. Senator Bingaman said it. But the urgency
is not accepted up here. The urgency is just not accepted.
There are business leaders who are showing greater urgency, the
recent 10 corporations that announced what they are going to
do, then the Congress of the United States is, or then our
government is. There is only one way to deal with this issue.
It is carbon dioxide that is the principal greenhouse gas
emission that is causing this. There are other greenhouse
gases, but that is the principal one, and we have to cap the
level of these greenhouse gas emissions. It is the only way to
do it.
Senator Snowe and I introduced legislation last year to
achieve this. We are going to reintroduce it. We establish an
economy-wide cap and trade program to reduce these emissions
and we will set that out further later this week. But I
remember being part of this debate in 1990, with John Sununu,
George Mitchell, Bill Riley and others at the table, into the
wee hours of the morning. I remember the industry sitting there
saying to us, if you do this, it is going to cost $8 billion
and it is going to take 10 years, and you are going to ruin the
industry.
The environment community said, ``no, no, no, no,'' it
won't do that. If you do it, it will take $4 billion and it
will be done in about 4 years, and it won't ruin the industry.
Well, guess what? Both were wrong. It was done at about
half the cost the environmental industry said it would, and in
half the time. Why? Because no one was able to predict what
happens when you start down the road and the technology begins
to make advances, and technology begets technology and begets
advances that we are not capable of predicting, which is why we
need to make this commitment.
The fact is, there are only three big ways of doing this.
No. 1, is energy efficiency. There are enormous gains to be
made in our Country in terms of energy efficiency. DuPont and
General Electric and a host of companies are recognizing this
and grabbing the profits. This is a for-profit effort, and we
need to get people to realize this isn't just sacrifice. This
is an ability to take the lead on health, on the environment,
on jobs, on national security, as well as the ability to live
up to our obligation morally for the next generation. So you
get about five major pluses. There are few public policy
choices where you get that.
The final comment I would make, Madam Chairwoman, is that,
let me pose this to you. There are two sides here. There are
sides of people who are still obstructing, still saying no, and
still fighting this, status quo-ists. They refuse to accept
some of even the science now. Then there are those fighting to
make it happen.
Well, what is the downside of accepting the predictions of
the Stern Report that says we can do this at 1 percent of GDP
and the costs of not doing it are fivefold to twentyfold times
more expensive than the cost of doing it.
So I ask colleagues in the Senate and I ask Americans a
simple question: If the people who think climate change is a
serious problem are wrong, and we take the steps to deal with
it, what is the worst that can happen? The worst that can
happen is we have cleaner air, a healthier Nation, more jobs
created. We lead the world in technology. We have made
ourselves more energy independent, and we have a better
environment.
What is the worst that can happen if the people who say it
is not happening or want to stop it? What is the worst if they
are wrong? Catastrophe, absolute catastrophe. So the question
for the U.S. Senate, for the Congress, for the Country, is
which side of the ledger do we want to fall on. I think the
answer to that is pretty clear.
Senator Boxer. Senator Kerry, I want to thank you for your
excellent contribution to this. You gave us the overview that I
certainly agree with. I mean, it is a very simple thing. If you
do the right thing, the conservative thing, really, the
conservative thing is to say the worst could happen; let's
prepare. You have five or six tremendous benefits, starting
with the health of our families, saving in their pocketbooks
and the rest, profits for industry, jobs we can export, a safer
world because we don't have to rely on folks we don't want to
rely on. You laid it out.
So that is why I hope we can really come together. With
your help, I honestly think that we can do it.
Senator Kerry. Let me just say something.
Senator Boxer. Yes, please go ahead.
Senator Kerry. Two things I just want to add in closing
out.
Senator Boxer. Yes?
Senator Kerry. In addition to the energy efficiency, Madam
Chairwoman, obviously the clean and alternative fuels are
something everybody is talking about. But we have to be a
little bit careful about where the major input is put into
that, because there are huge land use, water issues and energy
issues, consumption issues, in the focus on just ethanol, and
not cellulosic.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Senator Kerry. Second, we have to look carefully at the
clean coal technology issue and sequestration. There are
serious questions about how much sequestration you could
actually achieve, and we have to push forward on it.
Those are the three big ones, and those are the places
where we are going to get the greatest grab in the shortest
time. If we accept the science, and I think we are duty-bound
to do it, than you only have a 10-year window. If there is a
10-year window, then I think we have a moral responsibility to
accept that. Then, you have to grab the biggest pieces, the
fastest you can.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Senator Kerry. As you know.
Senator Boxer. We call it the low hanging fruit. There is a
lot of it around. The terrible news is we have done so little.
The good news is we have done so little it is easy to start. I
mean, that is really kind of where we are. We just have to
start and get out of our paralysis.
Senator, I also thank you for making the distinction
between alternative fuels and renewable fuels because when the
President talks about alternatives, we don't know that they are
clean. We don't know that they will necessarily help us with
the greenhouse gas emissions. So there are lots of things we
have to be wary of.
Obviously, you are a leader on this. You have been a leader
for many years, and I am very pleased we will work together
both on legislation that will come before this committee, as
well as in the Commerce Committee, where we can really work
together on fuel economy and the rest.
So I think it is going to be a good year for us. We are
going to move forward. I thank you for your contributions.
Senator Kerry. My pleasure. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. The committee is going to stand in recess
until 12:45 p.m., when we expect to hear from Senators Obama
and McCain. If there is any change in that, we will let
everyone know. Otherwise, that is the plan.
At 2:30 p.m., we have a host of people coming, Senators
Levin, Murkowski, Akaka, Lincoln, Durbin and Nelson of Florida.
So at this point, we intend to be back here at 12:45 p.m., and
then again at 2:30 p.m. If there is any change, we will let
folks know.
Thank you. We stand in recess.
[Recess.]
Senator Boxer. The committee will come to order.
We will now hear from Senator McCain. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN McCAIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARIZONA
Senator McCain. Madam Chairman, let me thank you for
calling today's hearing to discuss the most important
environmental issue of our time, climate change.
Over the past several years, a number of my colleagues and
I have spent considerable time on the issue of climate change.
We have traveled around the globe to see firsthand the impacts
of climate change and how it is changing the lives of people
even as we speak. I am pleased to have visited Alaska,
Antarctica, Canada, New Zealand, South America, Norway, and
other parts of the Arctic region. Let me say, if anyone remains
in doubt that climate change is real, I invite them to visit
some of these places to see for themselves.
The number of individuals in Washington who reject the
clear evidence of global warming is shrinking as its dramatic
manifestations mount. A large number of prominent scientists,
industry leaders, environmentalists, State and local government
officials, the faith-based community, and others agree that
climate change is real and we must move quickly to address the
problem in a meaningful and sustainable manner.
We are no longer just talking about how climate change will
affect our children's and grandchildren's lives, as we did just
a few years ago, but we now are talking about how it is already
impacting the world with declining snow packs, forest fires,
melting ice caps, species dislocation and habitat loss, and
extreme weather events. All are examples of how climate change
is impacting us. We need to act to mitigate and adapt to these
devastating events.
More and more Americans are acknowledging that climate
change is not only real, but that it is critical. On Monday of
last week, a coalition of major U.S.-based businesses, with a
combined market capitalization of over $750 billion, joined
with environmental organizations to call upon our Federal
Government to quickly enact national legislation to achieve
significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. The members
of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership recognize that setting
rules now about greenhouse gases will unleash American
ingenuity in an all-out effort to meet this complicated
challenge.
In their letter to President Bush, the Coalition said that,
``A properly constructed policy can be economically
sustainable, environmentally responsible, and politically
achievable. Swift legislative action on our proposal would
encourage innovation and provide needed U.S. leadership on this
global challenge.'' They further stated that climate change
will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S.
economy.
While action at the national level is essential, it will
eventually occur because the American people will demand it. I
am pleased to also mention progress that is already being made
at the State and local levels.
Just 6 months ago, the State of California enacted
legislation requiring mandatory reduction of greenhouse gas
emissions, the first of its kind in the Nation. That
legislation would require that California's emissions be
reduced to the year 1990 levels by the year 2020.
The Northeast States of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont agreed in December
2005 to implement a cap and trade program to lower carbon
emissions from powerplants. This effort is continuing to grow
as evidence by the State of Massachusetts joining this regional
effort 2 weeks ago.
Also 2 weeks ago, an alliance of prominent U.S. scientists
and members of the faith community pledged to work together to
push for a reduction in the Nation's greenhouse gas emissions.
In their statement, the group said that Earth is ``seriously
imperiled by human behavior,'' and called on Americans to
``steward the natural world in order to preserve the planet for
ourselves and future generations.''
The U.S. Mayors have also agreed to take action. Over 375
U.S. Mayors, representing over 55 million people, have signed
an agreement calling for emission reductions of 7 percent below
1990 levels by the year 2012.
Madam Chairman, we will continue to learn more about the
science of climate change and the dangerous precedent of not
addressing this environmental problem. The science tells us
that urgent and significant action is needed.
Later this week, we expect to receive the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary of their
Fourth Assessment Report. Some well respected scientists are
already calling it the smoking gun, and the ``iconic
statement'' on the issue of global warming.
We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But
there are costs to delay as well. Failure to implement
significant reductions in net greenhouse gas emissions in the
near term will yield only more climate change, and a much
harder job in the future. Simply stated, inaction is
unsustainable.
As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for
passage of legislation to address climate change in a
meaningful way, and are continuing our efforts to further
improve upon our legislation with the goal of producing the
most innovative, meaningful and economically feasible measure
that can be embraced by the Senate, it has become clear to us
that any responsible climate change measure must contain five
essential components.
First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction
targets and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and have both
environmental and economic integrity. Let us realize that the
climate system reacts not to emission intensity, but to
atmospheric concentration levels. We need policy that will
produce necessary reductions, not merely check political boxes.
The reductions must be feasible and based on sound science, and
this is what we have tried to do in our bill.
We realized that this problem is an environmental problem
with significant economic implications, and not an economic
problem with significant environmental implications.
Second, it must utilize a market-based economy-wide cap and
trade system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow
the trading of emission credits across the economy to drive
enterprise, innovation and efficiency. That is a central
component, in my view, of any legislation. Voluntary efforts
will not change the status quo. Taxes are counterproductive,
and markets are more dependable than regulators.
Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and
work effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of cap
and trade is such a mechanism, but it is clear it must be
bolstered by other assurances that costs will be minimized. I
am as concerned as anyone about the economic impacts associated
with any climate change legislation. I know that many
economists are developing increasingly sophisticated ways to
project future costs of compliance.
Lately, we have seen the increased interest in this area of
research. As we learn more from these models about additional
action items to further reduce costs, we intend to incorporate
them.
Already, based upon earlier economic analysis, we have
added offsets provisions in this bill in an effort to minimize
costs and to provide for the creation of new markets. I assure
my colleagues we will continue to seek new and innovative ways
to further minimize costs.
Let me again mention, Madam Chairman, what the Coalition of
CEOs of major U.S.-based companies and environmental groups
said just last week, ``In our view, the climate change climate
will create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S.
economy.'' That is what the industrialists are saying.
Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of
advanced technology. Nuclear, solar and other alternative
energy must be part of the equation, and we need a dedicated
national commitment to develop and bring to market the
technologies of the future as a matter of good environmental
and economic policy. There will be a growing global market for
these technologies, and the United States will benefit greatly
from being competitive in capturing its share of these markets.
Unlike the Energy bill, it would be funded using the
proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission credits,
rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations
that will never materialize.
Finally, Madam Chairman, it must facilitate international
efforts to solve the problem. Global warming is an
international problem requiring an international effort. The
United States has an obligation to lead. If we don't lead
proactively, we will find ourselves following. There is no in
between.
However, our leadership cannot replace the need for action
by countries such as India and China. We must spur and
facilitate it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S.
companies to enter into partnerships in developing countries
for the purpose of conducting projects to achieve certified
emission reductions, which may be traded on the international
market.
I believe those five components are integral to any
legislation. Madam Chairman, you have a very big challenge here
in trying to put this all together. I believe it has to be
based on those principles. I believe we can do it so that it is
valuable to the stockholders of major corporations. GE has gone
green. They allege that it is going to help their stockholders.
One reason is because they have to do business in Europe. I was
very happy to see what happened last Monday. That would not
have been possible a short time ago.
I am happy to see what is happening in California, other
coalitions of States. As I said at the beginning of our
conversation, one, I am grateful for your leadership and your
commitment, and two, the time is now.
[The prepared statement of Senator McCain follows:]
Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator from the
State of Arizona
Madame Chairman, let me thank you for calling today's hearing to
discuss the most important environmental issue of our time: climate
change.
Over the past several years, a number of my colleagues and I have
spent considerable time studying the issue of climate change. We have
traveled around the globe to see first hand the impacts of climate
change and how it is changing the lives of people even as we speak. I
am pleased to have visited Alaska, Antarctica, Australia, Canada, New
Zealand, South America, Norway, and other parts of the Arctic region.
Let me say, if anyone remains in doubt that climate change is real, I
invite them to visit some of these places to see for themselves.
The number of individuals in Washington who reject the clear
evidence of global warming appears to be shrinking as its dramatic
manifestations mount. A large number of prominent scientists, industry
leaders, environmentalists, state and local government officials, the
faith-based community, and others agree that climate change is real and
we must move quickly to address the problem in a meaningful and
sustainable manner.
We are no longer just talking about how climate change will effect
our children's and grandchildren's lives, as we did just a few years
ago, but we now are talking about how it is already impacting the
world. Drought, declining snow packs, forest fires, melting ice caps,
species dislocation and habitat loss, and extreme weather events--all
are examples of how climate change is impacting us. We need to act to
mitigate and adapt to these devastating events.
More and more Americans are acknowledging that climate change is
not only real, but that our action is critical. On Monday of last week,
a coalition of major U.S.-based businesses, with a combined market
capitalization of over $750 billion, joined with environmental
organizations to call upon our federal government to quickly enact
strong national legislation to achieve significant reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions. The members of the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership recognize that setting the ground rules now for managing
greenhouse gasses will unleash American ingenuity in an all out effort
to meet this complicated challenge.
In their letter to President Bush, the coalition said that,
(properly constructed policy can be economically sustainable,
environmentally responsible, and politically achievable. Swift
legislative action on our proposal would encourage innovation and
provide needed U.S. leadership on this global challenge.'' They further
stated that ``. . . climate change will create more economic
opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.'' I agree.
While action at the national level is essential--and it will
eventually occur because the American public will demand it--I am
pleased to also mention progress that is already being made at the
state and local levels.
Just six months ago, the state of California enacted
legislation requiring mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions,
the first of its kind in the nation. That legislation would require
that California's emissions be reduced to the year 1990 levels by the
year 2020.
The Northeast states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont agreed in December 2005 to
implement a ``cap-and-trade'' program to lower carbon dioxide emissions
from power plants. This effort is continuing to grow as evidenced by
the state of Massachusetts joining this regional effort two weeks ago.
Also two weeks ago, an alliance of prominent U.S.
scientists and members of the faith community agreed to work together
to push for a reduction in the Nation's greenhouse gas emissions. In
their joint statement, the group said that Earth is ``seriously
imperiled by human behavior'' and called on Americans to ``steward the
natural world in order to preserve [the planet] for ourselves and
future generations''.
And, the U.S. mayors have also agreed to take action. Over
375 U.S. mayors, representing over 55 million people, have signed an
agreement calling for emission reductions of 7 percent below the 1990
levels by the year 2012.
Madam Chairman, we will continue to learn more about the science of
climate change and the dangerous precedence of not addressing this
environmental problem. The science tells us that urgent and significant
action is needed.
Later this week, we expect to receive from the United Nation's
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a summary of their Fourth
Assessment Report. Some well respected scientists are already calling
it the ``smoking gun'' and the ``iconic statement'' on the issue of
global warming.
We recognize that many fear the costs of taking action. But there
are costs to delay as well. Failure to implement significant reductions
in net greenhouse gas emissions in the near term will yield only more
climate change and a much harder job in the future. Simply stated,
inaction is unsustainable.
As Senator Lieberman and I have continued working for passage of
legislation to address climate change in a meaningful way, and are
continuing our efforts to further improve upon our legislation with the
goal of producing the most innovative, meaningful, and economically
feasible measure that can be embraced by the Senate, it has become
clear to us that any responsible climate change measure must contain
five essential components:
First, it must have rational, mandatory emission reduction targets
and timetables. It must be goal oriented, and have both environmental
and economic integrity. Let us realize that the climate system reacts
not to emission intensity but to atmospheric concentration levels. We
need policy that will produce necessary reductions, not merely check
political boxes. The reductions must be feasible and based on sound
science, and this is what we have tried to do in our bill. We realized
that this problem is an environmental problem with significant economic
implications and not an economic problem with significant environmental
implications.
Second, it must utilize a market-based, economy wide ``cap and
trade'' system. It must limit greenhouse gas emissions and allow the
trading of emission credits across the economy to drive enterprise,
innovation and efficiency. This is the central component of our
legislation. Voluntary efforts will not change the status quo, taxes
are counterproductive, and markets are more dependable than regulators
in effecting sustainable change.
Third, it must include mechanisms to minimize costs and work
effectively with other markets. The ``trade'' part of ``cap and trade''
is such a mechanism, but it's clear it must be bolstered by other
assurances that costs will be minimized. I am as concerned as anyone
about the economic impacts associated with any climate change
legislation. I know that many economists are developing increasingly
sophisticated ways to project future costs of compliance. Lately, we
have seen the increased interest in this area of research. As we learn
more from these models about additional action items to further reduce
costs, we intend to incorporate them. Already, based upon earlier
economic analysis, we have added ``offsets'' provisions in this bill in
an effort to minimize costs and to provide for the creation of new
markets. And, I assure my colleagues, we will continue to seek new and
innovative ways to further minimize costs. Let me again mention what
the coalition of CEO's of major US-based companies and environmental
groups said last week, ``In our view, the climate change challenge will
create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy.''
Fourth, it must spur the development and deployment of advanced
technology. Nuclear, solar, and other alternative energy must be part
of the equation and we need a dedicated national commitment to develop
and bring to market the technologies of the future as a matter of good
environmental and economic policy. There will be a growing global
market for these technologies and the U.S. will benefit greatly from
being competitive and capturing its share of these markets. Our
legislation includes a comprehensive technology title that would go a
long way toward meeting this goal. Unlike the Energy bill, it would be
funded using the proceeds from the auctioning of allowable emission
credits, rather than from the use of taxpayers' funds or appropriations
that will never materialize.
And fifth, it must facilitate international efforts to solve the
problem. Global warming is an international problem requiring an
international effort. The United States has an obligation to lead. If
we don't lead proactively, we will find ourselves following. There is
no in between. However, our leadership cannot replace the need for
action by countries such as India and China. We must spur and
facilitate it. We have added provisions that would allow U.S. companies
to enter into partnerships in developing countries for the purpose of
conducting projects to achieve certified emission reductions, which may
be traded on the international market.
These five components represent a serious challenge that will
require a great deal of effort, the concentration of substantial
intellectual power, and the continued efforts of our colleagues and
those in the environmental, industrial, economic, and national security
communities. I look forward to collaborating with the Committee in this
effort as we continue to shape our legislation into its most effective
form.
Madame Chairman, I believe that Senator Lieberman has already
provided the Committee with a thorough description of our bill, S. 280,
the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007. I won't seek to
repeat it. However, I would like to address one issue that I know has
been of concern for some on the Committee, and that is the topic of
nuclear energy.
I know that some here maintain strong objections to nuclear energy,
even though today it supplies nearly 20 percent of the electricity
generated in the U.S. and much higher proportions in places such as
France, Belgium, Sweden and Switzerland--countries that are not exactly
known for their environmental disregard. The fact is, nuclear energy is
CLEAN. It produces ZERO emissions in operations. It has the lowest
carbon footprint, and is, therefore, undeniably a valuable tool for
reigning in greenhouse gas emissions both quickly and economically.
Nuclear energy is growing, and it will continue to grow
substantially in the coming decades given the growing electricity needs
around the world. Not only should we promote U.S. companies in their
efforts to compete for important roles in this growing market
throughout the world, we should be helping them in promoting nuclear in
a safe and efficient manner here in the United States. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), which is under this Committee's
jurisdiction, is already preparing for a substantial number of license
applications for new plants. I am confident that this committee, under
the Chairman's and Ranking Member's leadership, will work to ensure
that safety remains first and foremost among the NRC's
responsibilities, as it must.
Finally, I, too recognize and share the concerns of what to do with
nuclear waste. I am confident that given political will and time for
technology development and deployment, we can solve that problem. It is
important to recognize the responsible waste management that occurs in
the nuclear industry today. Yet, while there is a great concern over
comparatively small quantities of responsibly managed nuclear waste,
there is an even more dangerous event occurring under our noses. And
that is 900 tons of carbon dioxide per second being dumped in the
atmosphere from fossil fuel use. Now that is a an urgent waste problem
that should be concerning us most.
Therefore, I hope we can have a thorough debate about the
importance of nuclear energy and its future as we grapple with how best
to address global warming. We need to better understand what is
necessary to bring new, safe and reliable nuclear power plants on line.
I hope that we can work together, Madame Chairman, to ensure we put all
options on the table so that the Senate can pass the most innovative,
effective, and economically feasible climate change legislation
possible.
The status quo is a strong and stubborn force. People and
institutions are averse to change, even when that change is critical
for their own well-being, and that of their children and grandchildren.
If the scientists are right and temperatures continue to rise, we could
face environmental, economic, and national security consequences far
beyond our ability to imagine. If they are wrong and the Earth finds a
way to compensate for the unprecedented levels of greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere, what will we have accomplished? Cleaner air; greater
energy efficiency, a more diverse and secure energy mix, and U.S.
leadership in the technologies of the future. There is no doubt;
failure to act is the far greater risk.
Senator Boxer. Senator, before you leave, I want to say
thank you for your consistency on this issue for years, and
also your intensity. When we talk about carbon reductions,
there is a whole argument over intensity. But intensity, when
it comes to politics, is a very important thing. The reason I
did these hearings, where we have such a great turnout of
members, and then members outside the committee, is to gauge
the intensity of feeling.
I am proud to tell you, I think it is there, for many, many
reasons, not the least of which is that you and Senator
Lieberman have been pounding away on this. Senator Carper,
Senator Alexander and others have been pounding away on this. I
am just very glad that we gave you this opportunity for you to
come forward once again, because without you, frankly, we can't
put this together. We thank you very much for your
contribution.
Senator McCain. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Lieberman has been a millstone around my neck as we
move forward.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. I was just going to ask you if you
wanted to venture an opinion on your leader co-sponsor, and you
went ahead.
Senator Boxer. He did it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lieberman. Senator McCain has been very--he started
with questions and we spent a lot of time before we introduced
this bill, meeting with environmentalists, business people, and
academics. This bill actually is the result of a process. It
wasn't just, as great as our individual capacities are, and
even more jointly. It built from a lot of work we did, and we
started out trying to do something that we thought would work
and be acceptable. And then, of course, John has been tireless
in traveling around the world to see the actual effects of
global warming, which has intensified his commitment to this.
So he has been a great leader in this. I think we both feel
that we are on the verge of critical mass, the tipping point.
We are pleased to have others join us on this bill, and now
look forward to working together with you, Madam Chairwoman, to
make this happen.
Senator McCain. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to say again,
we don't feel that this proposal of ours is engraved in golden
tablets. We think that it can be improved. We want to work with
you and build a larger consensus under your leadership. We have
no pride in authorship. This is too important. Whatever
direction and additions or subtractions that you and our
colleagues feel is necessary, the object is to get something
done and soon.
Senator Boxer. Right. We are in agreement. I thank you so
much, Senator McCain.
Now, our last speaker of the morning session, actually the
early afternoon session, not the least is of course the Senator
from Illinois, Senator Obama, if we can hear him above the
clicks of the cameras. I always kid him. He is like a brother
to me, so he has to put up with these jokes.
But Senator Obama, I miss you from this committee, but I am
very glad that you took time out to come here today. I want to
fill you in, as I did Senator McCain. We had an extraordinary
day to day. We started at 9 o'clock a.m., and 14 members of the
committee came and spoke. I am trying to put together in my
mind where everybody is so we can craft something.
We had Senators Bingaman, Feinstein and Kerry come and
speak, Senator McCain and now you. After lunch, we will have
Senators Levin, Murkowski, Akaka, Lincoln, Durbin, Nelson and
hopefully Joe Biden, who is stuck in another room in another
hearing.
The point is, this is getting exciting, and we may be
feeling that there is a critical mass here to be very serious
about this at long last.
I also read into the record the most dramatic statements I
have seen on this by Senators Snowe and Judd Gregg.
So we have bipartisanship emerging and I am just really
delighted you are here. You have 10 minutes or whatever you
need to present to us.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Obama. Madam Chairman, thank you so much for your
leadership and for holding this hearing. I want to commend you.
I know that you have made people across the Country who takes
this seriously, you have made them much encouraged because of
the immediate efforts that you are putting into place.
I want to thank Senator Lieberman as well as Senator McCain
for the outstanding leadership that they have shown on this
issue. Sometimes I know it has felt like you are howling to the
wind, but fortunately, I think the American people have come to
understand how important this issue is. I think those who still
diminish the real threat that climate change poses to our
children and our grandchildren, they are going to be lagging
behind where the American people are at this point. So I want
to thank both of you for your great work, as well as Senator
McCain, who just provided testimony.
For decades, we have been warned by legions of scientists
and mounds of evidence that global warming is real, that we
couldn't just keep burning fossil fuels and contributing to the
changing atmosphere without consequence. Yet for decades, far
too many have ignored the warnings, either dismissing the
science as a hoax, or believing that it was solely the concern
of environmentalists looking to save polar bears and rain
forests. We have heard some of those views expressed, Madam
Chairman, on this committee. You and I both recall some of
those statements.
But today's bipartisan hearing is a sign that the long
running debate over the existence of climate change is over. It
represents a sea change in the attitudes of this Country and
this Congress, that we have moved from the question, ``Is it
real?'' to the question, ``What can we do about it?'' We know
that climate change is about more than a few unseasonably mild
winters or hot summers. It is about the chain of natural
catastrophes and devastating weather patterns that global
warming has begun to set off around the world, the frequency
and intensity of which are breaking records thousands of years
old.
It is about the devastating consequences climate change
might have on human health, access to water, and the production
of our food. Still, despite all the ominous harbingers of
things to come, and I am sure it has been noted already at this
committee, the most recent studies that came out indicating
that the polar ice caps would no longer exist in approximately
35 to 40 years, so it is no longer even an issue just for our
children or our grandchildren, but potentially for us.
We don't have to stand helplessly by and accept this
future. In fact, we can't afford to. Climate change may be
unleashing the forces of nature, but we can't forget that while
this has been accelerated by man, it can also be slowed by man.
Since coming to Washington, I believe that the right approach
begins with the proposal put forward by Senator Lieberman and
Senator McCain, a proposal they have been pushing for years,
and I thank them again for their leadership on this issue.
The Lieberman-McCain bill establishes limits for greenhouse
gas emissions well into the 21st century. To remain below these
limits, the bill encourages the market to determine how best to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reward cost-effective
approaches using a system of tradable allowances. The idea here
is simple. If you are a business that cannot yet meet a lower
cap on harmful carbon emissions, you have two choices. You can
either purchase credits from other companies that have achieved
more than their emission goals, or you can temporarily purchase
a permit from the government. The money from the sale of these
permits will go toward investments in clean energy technologies
such as green buildings, high powered batteries for hybrid
cars, safer nuclear plants to generate electricity, large scale
biofuel facilities, and advanced coal powerplants that capture
the carbon dioxide they generate.
This will actually spur American innovation, as Senator
McCain noted, creating business opportunities as new markets
develop in low carbon technologies and services. Fred Krupp,
the president of Environmental Defense has said, ``Once you put
a value on carbon reduction, you make winners out of
innovators.'' And that I think is the classic American way.
In short, the Lieberman-McCain proposal addresses the real
costs and consequences of our current patterns of energy use
and establishes a framework for a market-based solution that
relies on American will, ingenuity and technological expertise.
It is a framework that is not only good for the environment; it
is also good for business.
In the face of Federal inaction, States, localities and
private enterprise have begun to fill the void with a number of
truly innovative proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I just want to give you one example from my hometown, the
Chicago Climate Exchange, a voluntary global marketplace for
reducing and trading greenhouse emissions. Such measures have
been an important step in the right direction, but businesses
that operate around the Country need regulatory certainty and
that is just not possible when they are facing a hodgepodge of
State and local regulations, which is why action on this
committee and hopefully on the floor of the Senate is so
important.
Ultimately, climate change is one of the major tests of our
generation. It is a challenge that asks us, will we stand by
while drought and famine, storms and floods, overtake our
planet? Or will we look back at today and say that this was the
moment when we took a stand, that this was the moment when we
began to turn things around. The climate changes we are
experiencing are already causing us harm, but in the end, it
will not primarily be us who deal with its most devastating
effects. It will be our children and our grandchildren.
This is our generation's chance to protect their futures.
It is a chance that won't last much longer, but if we work
together and seize this moment, we can change the course of
this Nation forever. The Lieberman-McCain bill makes me hopeful
that we can start right away. I am proud to be an original
cosponsor. I am proud of the work that you are doing, Madam
Chairman. I think I would be remiss also if I failed to mention
the outstanding work that former Vice President Al Gore has
done on this issue, because I think that through his film, An
Inconvenient Truth, as well as his book, he has done more to
proselytize on this issue, not just here in the United States,
but around the world.
Ultimately, the most important thing that we have to have
is a sense of urgency on the part of the American people. Once
the American people make a determination that something is
important, politicians follow. He has made an enormous
contribution in helping to make that happen.
One final note I would like to make, Madam Chairman. I was
heartened by Senator McCain's comment that the Lieberman-McCain
bill is not written in stone. Obviously, there are improvements
that can be made. We actually have some lessons that we can
learn from the cap and trade systems that they have set up in
Europe under the Kyoto Protocol. We know that in some cases,
windfalls have gone to companies that really did not do a lot
of work because of the way that the system was calibrated. We
know that there are adjustments that we can make as a
consequence of the work that they did that can make our system
work even better. I am sure that we are going to be examining
those carefully in our hearings.
It may be that as we build consensus, it is possible that
we can go even further than we have gone in this bill. That
would be a wonderful thing, but I think this is a wonderful
framework with which to start.
The final point I would make would be that obviously
setting up a cap and trade system will be difficult politically
and presents a challenge to all of us, but we shouldn't stop
there. There are other things that are going to be important to
do. I have a bill that I am going to be introducing relating to
making sure that our fuel efficiency standards in cars are
higher than they currently are.
There have been recent articles showing how much we could
gain from improving basic efficiencies in buildings, in homes,
the things that are relatively painless, but would have an
enormous effect if we simply were systematic about it and
provided incentives to both consumers and to businesses to
implement some of these steps. We are way behind countries like
Japan when it comes to energy efficiency, and that would make
an enormous difference.
Finally, Madam Chairman, I think that you are aware that
there is an important convergence between the vital
environmental concerns that we face and our national security
interests. If we can move to conserve our energy consumption,
our consumption of fossil fuels, then we get not only an
economic benefit and not only an environmental benefit, but we
also are able to strengthen our position relative to
geopolitics. It gives us additional leverage in the Middle East
and can potentially go a long way in terms of reducing some of
our military obligations around the world.
And so this is a win-win situation, and under your
leadership I am confident that we can make great progress this
year.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. Before you
leave, we are going to go to a conference lunch in a moment. I
just wanted to say that what has been fascinating for me to sit
here through everybody's presentations is how we are coming
together.
We say it in our own way. We come from different parts of
the Country. But I would say a broad consensus of those who
spoke, a couple of exceptions, but not too many, is the time
for action is now. We are not going to take a lot of time
debating this anymore. We are just moving forward. If people
still want to debate, it is free speech. Fine. But we are
moving beyond the argument, and we are going to move forward to
solutions.
I would close by saying, and we will resume at 2:30 p.m.,
you asked the central question, and it is really I think a
challenge to the whole Senate. You said, ``is this the moment
we took a stand?''
Senator Obama. Right.
Senator Boxer. That is the central question. I think after
what I have heard today, I want to report to you, since you
asked the question, I think this is the moment that we will
take a stand. It is with your enthusiasm, and Senator
Lieberman's and Carper's and Alexander's and all of us
together, Senator McCain, and Senators from both sides, that if
we all feel this is our moment, because few have this
opportunity that we have been given, by chance, by fate.
So, I think the answer is yes. This is the moment we are
going to take a stand.
Senator, did you want to respond?
Senator Obama. Look, I am ready and willing to work as hard
as I can on this issue. One point that I am sure has been made
in previous testimony is that the world is going to be watching
us over the next several years to see what kind of leadership
we take on this issue. We did not ratify Kyoto, and I think all
of us would acknowledge that there were problems with Kyoto,
but we did not come back with a solid proposal that we could
participate in.
As a consequence, we abdicated responsibility. The world
moved forward. The industrialized world moved forward. We were
laggards on this issue and that has then given an excuse to
some of the rapidly developing nations, like China and India,
to say if the United States, with all its wealth and its
enormous energy consumption, is unwilling to do this, why would
we, who are still trying to feed our people, want to invest in
dealing with this problem?
It is inexcusable, I think, for a country of our wealth and
ingenuity and power not to be leaders. This gives us an
opportunity to show the world that we are prepared to work with
them in a constructive, positive, but aggressive way to deal
with this threat.
The only other point I would make, for those who are still
skeptical about the issue of climate change, almost everyone in
this room, I presume, has some form of insurance. You hope that
you are not going to get cancer. You hope that you are not
going to get hit by a bus. You hope that things work out in the
end, but you plan for the possibilities of personal
catastrophe. Even those who are skeptical about climate change,
and still dispute the pace with which climate change is taking
place, or are still disputing the causes of climate change,
have to acknowledge that something out there is happening that
is disturbing; that it is potentially an enormous problem; and
that if we can take intelligent steps now to assure that this
problem is dealt with, why wouldn't we do so? Why wouldn't we
take that step?
It is a significant investment, but in an economy of our
size, it is not an insurmountable one. As Senator McCain
indicated, it actually may point the way toward an entire new
set of industries and enormous economic development. So my hope
is that even for those who are still debating the science, they
recognize that there is a serious enough possibility of a
threat that it is worthwhile for us to take the steps now, as
opposed to waiting until it is too late.
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
Senator Lieberman, the last word.
Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Madam Chairwoman.
I wanted to thank our colleague, Senator Obama, for his
eloquent statement and for his decision to sign onto the bill
as an original cosponsor with Senator McCain and me. It matters
a lot to us, but more than that I think it matters a lot to the
cause that you have put the weight of your support behind this
proposal.
I was thinking as you were talking, you know, some
scientists think we are approaching a climatological tipping
point where we may get to a point where it is hard to come
back, and some of the effects of climate change will indeed be
catastrophic. We are in a race, and the question is do we hit
the political tipping point when America comes together to
assume its appropriate leadership role in the fight against
global warming. Does that political tipping point come before
the climate tips against us?
I think what we are seeing here, including your moving to a
leadership position here, is that maybe we will see the light,
if you will, and hear the call to responsibility and show
political leadership.
Second, the President spoke less than a sentence about
global warming in the State of the Union, but as I said earlier
today, it was enough to elicit an eruption of hope around the
world. It shows how much the world is yearning for American
leadership. Of course, we have a moral responsibility to do
that. I hope the President's statement, and I believe it is,
will also encourage some of our Republican colleagues here in
Congress to now become part of a solution, because I believe
the President was clearly stating this is a real problem.
The final point, just to state again, none of us who are
original cosponsors of our proposal believe it is fixed in
stone. The key parts are fixed, which is that there needs to be
a cap. We tried it without a cap during the 1990's after the
Rio agreements, and nobody did anything. So you need to create
a cap, and that trading system underneath, but there is a lot
of room to negotiate a lot within those parameters. I am
hopeful together we will do that.
Thank you very much.
Senator Obama. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator Obama, thank you so much.
Senator Lieberman, thank you again.
We will stand in recess until 2:30 p.m. when we will hear
from a number of our colleagues.
[Recess.]
Senator Boxer. The committee will come to order.
I am very delighted that we expect this afternoon Senators
Levin, Murkowski, and Akaka who are here, Lincoln, Durbin, and
Nelson of Florida. We have also gotten several colleagues to
send in statements. What I wanted to just tell my colleagues
is, we are having an amazing day. We started at 9 a.m. We heard
from 14 members of the committee, and then we had outside
members come in, Senators Bingaman, Feinstein, Kerry, McCain
and Obama.
So we are really moving along, and now with the three of
you, I am just delighted.
Now, is it true, Senator Levin, that you are in a very big
rush?
Senator Levin. Yes, Madam Chairman. [Remarks off
microphone.]
Senator Boxer. We did. Is it possible for us to go Levin,
Murkowski and Akaka? Is that all right? OK.
Senator Levin, I was just saying, we have heard from about
20 of our colleagues in person, and we have about six
statements put in the record. So by the time the end of the day
comes, we will have heard from more than one-third of the
Senate on global warming.
So we welcome you, Senator, and you have 10 minutes. If you
have a statement to put in the record, we will do that. If you
want to summarize it or read it, is your call. Thank you,
Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. CARL LEVIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
MICHIGAN
Senator Levin. Madam Chairman, your meeting here is very,
very important.
Senator Boxer. Is your mic on?
Senator Levin. Thank you. You are performing here a really
great service by having hearings such as this, and opening up
yourself, your other colleagues on this committee and the staff
to hearing various positions on the subject at hand.
Global warming is a fact as far as I am concerned. It has
been for a long time. There is a consensus or near consensus
among scientists that action is required. It is a global
problem. It will get worse unless there is a global agreement
to do something about it.
I believe we need an effective international treaty for
starters that is enforceable. The only way I know to enforce it
and make sure that the countries that are producing more and
more CO2 come on board is if there are ways, if
there are teeth in a treaty. One of the ways that I would
contemplate if there were a reopening of the global warming,
the Kyoto discussion, would be to allow countries that have
trading relations with other countries who are not on board a
global warming or CO2 reduction scheme, to tell
those countries that we are not going to accept products that
come from countries that are not in agreement with a global
warming scheme.
I think you have to have some kind of teeth. It has to be
global. It is global warming. You need an international
agreement, a treaty that binds all nations, including the
countries such as China and India whose increase in
CO2 production will swamp any reductions we are able
to achieve in this Country unless they are on board. So an
effective international treaty is No. 1. It has to be
enforceable.
No. 2, I understand that China is opening up a coal-fired
powerplant every week. We can argue here all day, night and
year about what we should do to reduce our contribution to this
major problem, but unless China, India and other countries are
on board, it is almost irrelevant. I wouldn't say it's
irrelevant, but it is just going to be almost fruitless what we
are hoping to do in this Country by various ways.
Now, where does the United States fit? We have a chart.
This is really to help me understand the picture. This is just
a chart we finished this weekend. The square is the global
CO2 production in 2007. The square inside of that
square is the U.S. contribution, which is 21 percent. The
square inside that square is the transportation contribution to
the U.S. contribution. And then inside that is the U.S.
passenger vehicle and light trucks.
So these numbers we will put in the record. World
CO2 production is 28 million metric tons. The U.S.
contribution is 6 million metric tons.
Senator Boxer. Senator, before you go on, I just want to,
because I am having a difference with you on something you
said, and I want to make sure. The big square is?
Senator Levin. World CO2.
Senator Boxer. World CO2. The next one is our
contribution, 21.8 percent.
Senator Levin. Right.
Senator Boxer. The next square, as I understand it,
according to my experts here, is the 6.8 percent is a
percentage of the world, not the percentage of the United
States.
Senator Levin. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. Because in the United States, it is one-
third of the problem.
Senator Levin. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Levin. It is one-third of the U.S. contribution.
Senator Boxer. That is right. Thank you.
Senator Levin. I misspoke.
Senator Boxer. We are together.
Senator Levin. The transportation contribution to the U.S.
contribution, it is one-third of the U.S. contribution.
Senator Boxer. Correct.
Senator Levin. Then the passenger vehicle contribution is
about less than one-fifth of the U.S. contribution. It is about
1.1 million metric tons of the 6.1 million metric tons.
As we see it, that is the big picture.
Now, a common goal would be to reduce carbon dioxide. I
assume that is why we are here, is to reduce that, and I am
going to focus just on vehicles, although vehicles are not the
major part of the contribution. Nonetheless, obviously that is
the part, coming from Michigan, which I have been focusing on
for many years.
Senator Boxer. Of course.
Senator Levin. We want to reduce carbon dioxide. If we do
it right, Madam Chairman, if we do it right, I believe we can
unleash great technological advances in vehicles. We can make
leaps in hydrogen use, in hybrid use, including plug-in
hybrids, and biofuels, if we focus on the leap-ahead
technologies and give the incentives to manufacturers to move
to those technologies, instead of to meet the incremental
increases which we otherwise would be arguing about relative to
CAFE.
On the CAFE issue itself, I want to make one point, which
it may not even be visible on the chart that is up there
already. That green box, which is the U.S. passenger vehicle
and light truck contribution, if the bill that has been
introduced relative to CAFE is passed, the reduction in the
size of that box in 2012 will be that little tiny triangle in
the upper right hand corner of that box.
Senator Boxer. Which bill are you referring to? Snowe?
Feinstein? Snowe?
Senator Levin. I am not sure, the ones that call for 4
percent per year. That is kind of basically what some of the
bills are doing. Now, that is the way we look at it. I think it
is right. I hope it is right. We have done the best we can.
It is almost unnoticeable. It is hard even to see, not just
because the color was too light. That was not intentional, but
if you can see that little tiny triangle in the green box. If
we pass CAFE reduction or increase in CAFE, reduction in
CO2 of the type which is being talked about, 4
percent per year roughly, that is the reduction 5 years from
now in carbon dioxide, that little tiny piece of that box
represented by that triangle in the upper right hand corner.
Now, Madam Chairman, if we do this right, instead of
spending huge amounts of money trying to reach those numbers,
if we can give incentives, tax incentives, research and
development programs; if we can put together a program which
will work with the automobile industry, we can instead of doing
the incremental things which produce a tiny little bit of
advantage for CO2, we would be able to promote the
leap-ahead technologies which I know you, Madam Chairman, are
interested in, and I think most of us are interested in.
But that is going to be an alternative that we face. We are
going to have a choice, two paths we can follow, one of which
is going to not only follow the current approach on CAFE, but
is going to have less resources available as a result to put
into the plug-in hybrids which we all want, hopefully, and to
the advanced diesels, which many of us want, and to really do
something significant, dramatic with carbon dioxide.
Now, if we do it wrong by focusing on that CAFE number, if
that is our focus, we are going to do one other thing. We are
not going to do even that much for the air because under the
current CAFE rules, the Japanese, because of the way their
fleets were structured and the credits which have been built
up, can continue to sell large vehicles. What we are saying is
if we follow the current CAFE structure is that they can sell
as many big Tundras and other SUVs that they want, even though
they are not more fuel efficient than comparably sized American
vehicles.
There is a myth that Japanese vehicles are more fuel
efficient than American vehicles. They are not. The same size
vehicles are the same, either fuel inefficient or fuel
efficient. We have another chart on that issue, and then my
time is up.
We have taken examples of a large SUV, a medium-size SUV
and a pickup truck. We will go down the line. A Chevrolet
Suburban gets 17 miles to the gallon. A comparably sized Toyota
Sequoia gets 16 miles to the gallon, less; a mid-size, Dodge
Nitro, Toyota 4Runner, the same; a large pickup truck, a
Silverado gets 18 miles to the gallon; Toyota Tundra gets 16
miles to the gallon.
It doesn't do anything for the air. It doesn't do anything
for the environment to tell people you can buy all the Toyota
Tundras you want at 16 miles per gallon, but you can't buy all
the Chevrolet Silverados that are more efficient. It doesn't do
anything for the environment and it hurts the American economy.
So I would urge you to do a number of things. No. 1, and I
don't have to urge you to do No. 1, No. 1 you are doing, which
is to look at this globally in terms of trying to figure out a
way to reduce carbon use in the world. When you focus on the
American contribution to the problem, that we give incentives
to industry to do the leap-ahead technologies which will really
make the difference, rather than to debate endlessly whether or
not CAFE is raised 2 percent per year, 3 percent, or 4 percent
a year.
For two reasons: No. 1, it doesn't do much. It is a peanut
in the scheme of things, if that is all we are going to do. No.
2, it is highly discriminatory against American production,
American workers. We lost 3 million manufacturing jobs in this
Country, and if we do nothing for the environment, at the same
time we lose more jobs in America, we have made two mistakes.
No. 1, we focused on the wrong place to help the environment;
and No. 2, we have taken a shot at American workers instead of
solving our problem.
I thank again the Chair. I have gone over my time.
[The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Carl Levin, U.S. Senator from the
State of Michigan
Madam Chairman, you are doing a great service by hearing different
colleagues and various positions on the subject at hand.
Global warming is a fact. There is a consensus, or a near
consensus, among scientists that action is required. The risks of
inaction far outweigh the costs of action. The dislocations that would
result from an increase of even a few degrees in global average
temperatures are enormous. If we are to rise to this challenge, we need
to take dramatic action and to do so without delay.
Climate change is a global problem, and it requires a global
solution. I believe we need an effective and enforceable international
agreement that binds all nations to reductions in greenhouse gasses,
including developing nations such as China and India. Although the U.S.
is currently the top emitter of greenhouse gases, China and India are
producing more and more CO2 each year. China is opening up a
new coal-fired power plant every 7 to 10 days, and in seven years China
is expected to produce more greenhouse gases than we do.
We can argue here about what we should do to reduce the U.S.
contribution to this major problem. But unless China and India and
other countries are on board, it's almost irrelevant. Whatever we are
hoping to do in this country would be almost fruitless unless these
other countries join in these efforts.
Not only is it necessary that the countries that are producing more
and more CO2 come on board with a new international
agreement, there must be teeth in that treaty. One of the things we
must contemplate would be to allow countries to reject products from
other countries that do not join an international agreement on
CO2 reductions. Additionally, we should insist that
international development agencies the U.S. helps fund, such as the
World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and USAID not support
countries that violate international agreements on global warming.
Where does the United States fit into an international global
warming agreement? World CO2 production is 28 billion metric
tons. The U.S. contribution is 6 billion metric tons, or 21.8% of world
production. U.S. transportation contributes 6.8% of the world
production, and U.S. passenger vehicles and light trucks contribute
4.2% of world CO2 production. The U.S. passenger vehicle
contribution to world emissions is therefore less than one-fifth of the
U.S. contribution. (It's about 1.2 billion metric tons of the 6 billion
metric tons.)
Although vehicles are not the major part of the U.S. contribution,
we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from vehicles, and, if we do
it right, I believe we can unleash great technological advances in
vehicles. We can make leaps in hydrogen use, in hybrid use, including
plug-in hybrids, and biofuels. We need to focus on these leap-ahead
technologies and give the incentives to manufacturers to develop and
move to those technologies.
If we focus on corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) as the
mechanism for CO2 reductions, we will miss an opportunity to
do real good and perhaps do real harm. If we pass a bill that would
increase fuel efficiency by 4% per year, the reduction in
CO2 emissions by 2012 would be almost unnoticeable. It would
lead to a reduction in CO2 of less than one-tenth of one
percent of world CO2 emissions.
There is an alternative which makes more sense because it could
have a far greater impact on CO2. We can spend huge amounts
of money trying to reach increased CAFE numbers which produce only a
tiny reduction of CO2. Or we can give incentives, develop
research and development programs, and work with industry to promote
leap-ahead technologies and alternative fuels that will really do
something significant to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
If we make the wrong choice, not only are we not going to do much
to reduce CO2, we will also be hurting our economy. Under
the current CAFE rules, because of the way their fleets were structured
and the credits which have been built up, the Japanese auto companies
sell more and more large, fuel inefficient vehicles. If we use the
current CAFE structure, we will be simply pushing consumers into
imported large SUVs instead of domestic SUVs of the same size and
efficiency.
There is a myth that Japanese vehicles are more fuel efficient than
American vehicles. They are not. The same sized American vehicles have
the same or in some cases better fuel efficiency than their Japanese
counterparts. Take the examples of a large SUV, a medium-sized SUV, and
a large pick-up truck. A Chevrolet Suburban gets 17 mpg, while a
comparably-sized Toyota Sequoia gets 16 mpg. For the Medium-sized SUV,
the Dodge Nitro and Toyota 4Runner have the same fuel economy, 20 mpg.
Finally, the large pickup truck, the Chevrolet Silverado gets 18 mpg,
while the Toyota Tundra gets 16 mpg.
It doesn't do anything for the air or the environment for Toyota to
be able to sell all the Tundras they want at 16 mpg, but GM cannot sell
all the Chevrolet Silverados they would be able to sell, even though
they are actually more efficient. It doesn't do anything for the
environment, and it hurts the American economy and costs American jobs.
So, I would urge you to do a number of things. Number one, look at
this issue of global warming globally, to reduce carbon use in the
world through a comprehensive agreement which includes all countries.
Second, when we focus on the American contribution to the problem, that
we give incentives to industry to develop the leap-ahead technologies
and alternative fuels which will really make a difference, rather than
debate endlessly whether or not the highly discriminatory against the
U.S. CAFE structure should be raised 2% per year, 3%, or 4%. We have
lost three million manufacturing jobs in the last six years, and if we
continue to focus on CAFE we will be making two mistakes. One, we focus
on the wrong place and wrong way to help the environment. And two, we
take a shot at American workers instead of solving our CO2
problem.
Again, I thank the Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. That is all right,
Senator.
Senator Murkowski, are you on the Commerce Committee still?
OK. I am on the Commerce Committee, and a lot of the CAFE issue
will be debated at the Commerce Committee. I think there are
various degrees of interest in moving forward. But I will say
your points are very well taken. I can tell you this, if you
can sit down with the auto companies whom you represent
beautifully, and the workers you represent beautifully, and
have them come to the table to talk about what would be most
useful, and then winding up with cars that get us somewhere.
Because you are right. This doesn't solve the whole
problem. It is just a little tiny piece of the problem. As we
look at energy efficiency, appliances, you could say the same
thing about air-conditioners, you know, if you represent them.
Gee, we get better efficiency.
But I hear you, and I think the good news that you bring to
me, it is not all bad from my perspective. The good news is you
are saying there are ways for the automobile industry, if I
read you right, to cut back on these emissions, but it is other
ideas other than CAFE.
Senator Levin. With leap-ahead technology.
Senator Boxer. I hear you.
Senator Levin. They can do it.
Senator Boxer. As someone who owns three hybrid cars, I
know the difference it makes in getting what I got before, 18
miles or even less. Now, one of those hybrids gets over 50. The
other one gets about 40.
So the thing is, we can work together, and that is why I am
very glad you came here. You could have stayed away. This is
not a happy issue for you back home. I know that, but I like
what you said. The only thing I would say is, I heard when you
said we have to act globally, and absolutely we do. You are
right. China is going to surpass us, India. We need to work
with those nations. But I think we also need to take the lead
as well. I mean, Britain went ahead and did it, and now
according to Tony Blair, they are reaching past their goals and
there are more jobs produced.
But I think you have brought to the table this notion of
the leap-ahead technologies, and I think the phrase is a good
one. Why don't we pledge that we will work together to see
whatever bills come out of here, that we are incentivizing
those kinds of technologies, because I think it is essential
that we do it, and it will be part of the mix.
Senator Levin. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Levin. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and again to my
colleagues, I intruded on the other order that would have taken
place, and my apologies.
Senator Boxer. We are fine. You all came very early. It is
wonderful.
Senator Murkowski, the floor is yours for 10 minutes. We
are honored to have you here today.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is nice to
be back in a familiar committee room.
I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue. Very
early on, before you were even officially made Chairman of this
committee, you indicated your intentions as it related to
global warming and climate change, and your interest in hearing
from everybody. So I appreciate the invitation to appear before
the committee today to kind of speak from the Alaska
perspective.
I think it is important to remind my colleagues, up north
in Alaska, we are America's only Arctic State. It is in the
State of Alaska that I think it is fair to say we are uniquely
affected by climate change, particularly if the trends continue
as they have in the recent past.
Alaska is also going to be uniquely impacted since, I don't
need to tell anybody, it gets cold back there. Our winters are
long and they are dark and they can be very extreme. As a
consequence, Alaskans are among the highest consumers of energy
on a per capita basis. We are also one of the largest producers
of energy in the Nation. So we have a lot at play when we talk
about the issue of climate change.
Alaska theoretically leads the world in coal reserves. We
likely hold about half of the Nation's undiscovered reserves of
outer continental shelf oil and natural gas. We likely hold the
Nation's largest single reserve of onshore oil yet to be
tapped. We hold the Nation's largest unconventional source of
energy; these are the gas hydrates that Senator Akaka and I
have been working on developing. We have probably enough energy
there with the gas hydrates to power the Country for 1,000
years.
On climate change, from Alaska's perspective, in my opinion
there is no question but that something is going on, something
demonstrable that we can view. Since 1979, this was the start
of the satellite monitoring up north, Arctic Sea ice has shrunk
by an area twice the size of Texas. Sea ice covers less of the
Arctic Ocean now than ever before observed. The ice sheet in
March 2006 was 300,000 square kilometers smaller than it was
just a year earlier.
NOAA, in an updated report on Arctic conditions released
last October, reported that our average permafrost temperatures
in the State continue to rise. Everyone wants to know what is
happening with the glaciers. Well, a few of our Alaska glaciers
are advancing, but the majority are in retreat. The melting of
the Arctic Ocean ice pack has meant more stretches of open
water earlier and later, which has allowed the waves to buildup
during the fall and spring storms. This is causing erosion
damage the likes of which we just haven't seen in the State,
forcing many, many of our villages and our coastal communities
to look toward relocation, an extremely costly expense, but
endangering the lives of many in our villages.
The warmer temperatures have had impacts on marine mammals,
birds and sea life. You have clearly heard about the study now
underway to determine whether or not to list the polar bears as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. This is not
necessarily because their current populations are down. They
are not in Alaska, but because they may decline if enough sea
ice melts that reduces their hunting zones in the summer and
harms their nutritional intake.
We also have firmer data about the Kittlitz's murrelet.
This is a bird that lives near the glaciers. They are
declining. Their numbers are down 83 percent since 1976 in the
Kenai Fjords area; 60 percent down in Glacier Bay. We also have
the black guillemot, this is an Arctic sea bird. They used to
thrive in the northern islands in the Beaufort Sea, but melting
sea ice has cutoff their foraging areas and wiping out, or
nearly wiping out, a major colony on Cooper Island.
If we had more time this afternoon, I could speak to the
issue of the spruce bark beetle infestations, which killed to
date more than 5 million acres of Sitka spruce trees. We could
talk about the lakes that appear to be drying up since the
melting permafrost is allowing their waters to drain. We could
talk about the effect on the fisheries and the marine mammals.
We see our crab stocks falling, but our salmon stocks have been
increasing.
The question is whether or not we are simply in a natural
cyclical warming trend that will reverse itself, or whether
man-made greenhouse emissions are permanently changing the
climate, overwhelming nature's ability to maintain a balance in
the atmosphere. Now, the props that I have in front of me today
are not just stuff from my desk. These are copies of the
scientific reports that my office has been accumulating since I
have been here in the Senate on climate change as it relates
specifically to the State of Alaska.
So there are some of the reports that say absolutely we are
seeing a change. There are other reports that will contradict
that. Last fall's NOAA report entitled, ``State of the
Arctic,'' actually reports that ocean salinity and temperature
profiles at the North Pole and in the Beaufort Sea, which had
shown abrupt warming in the 1990's, have been moderating back
toward normal since the year 2000. We have permafrost layer
thickness at some testing stations in Alaska that have actually
been slightly increasing over the past few years, although I
will note that that is not the case in a majority of our test
sites.
NOAA's report for the end of last winter showed a return to
more normal temperatures in parts of the Arctic Ocean that
could drive both sea ice and air temperatures back to their
previous norms.
So again, the question that we find ourselves asking is
whether these findings are simply a natural variability in the
other direction, or is it a sign that an atmospheric cycle is
ending. I have to admit, I don't know. I don't know the answer.
So what I would like to suggest today, though, is not focusing
too exclusively on one report, and the Stern Commission report,
or the critiques of it, or that we don't venture into the
storms of whether or not 2005 record number of hurricanes in
the Atlantic were furthered by global warming.
Those are to a certain extent a sideshow, a detractor of I
think what our main issue is. Today, I am not going to focus on
all the ideas to directly limit greenhouse gases, whether by
cap and trade or mandatory regulations. I think what we need to
consider is that all of these options will mean a more complex,
complicated, a time consuming process that deserves careful
consideration. I think, Madam Chairwoman, you are starting that
conversation today, and that is very, very important.
What I am suggesting that we do now is to turn our
attention to seriously funding, funding through both grants and
tax policy, the research and development of the new
technologies to produce alternative forms of energy, some
renewable, some continuing to come from fossil fuels, but in
ways that cause little or no greenhouse gas emissions. And then
to produce that energy at prices that will not harm our economy
or lower the standard of living, and as you have mentioned, a
key focus on promoting energy conservation and fuel efficiency.
We have a great deal to do in that area, but without the
technological breakthroughs and an economy that is strong
enough and healthy enough to nourish and move forward that
scientific advancement, we won't be able to cut our levels of
emissions of greenhouse gases. We won't be able to help the
developing world and other nations to reduce their emissions,
something that is going to be vitally important as we look to
what China is doing, and their world leader as an emitter of
carbon.
What I am proposing is that we debate the science and what
to do about it, and that while we are debating, we launch a
full scale effort to fund a host of technologies to improve
energy production that is going to be needed regardless of the
outcome of the climate change debate.
In 2005, we passed legislation to aid wind and biomass and
solar. We worked to jump start the next generation of nuclear
power. We took some small steps toward combined cycle coal
gasification. We need to do more of that. We need to provide
the same support for geothermal, for hydroelectric, for all
forms of budding ocean energy. This is an area I get excited
about, and coming from California, you should have some
interest there, too. We need to do the same things that we have
done for wind, solar and biomass. We need to increase our
funding for the advanced coal technologies so that we can make
carbon sequestration affordable, not just possible. That is
something that we must focus on.
We have to continue to support the development of biofuels,
as the President has suggested, to help them to maturity, but
to get them to the point where they are economically and
environmentally sound at the same time. We need to treat
funding alternative energy sources and advancing fuel
conservation as a priority, and not as an afterthought.
We in Congress 2 years ago authorized considerable funding
for a good bill to promote alternative energy technologies, but
really, in fairness, we have funded very little of it. We need
to implement the loan programs that we created. Because of the
fiscal impacts of aid to our new technologies and our budget
process, we limited the tax breaks in 2005 to such short time
periods that most people can't actually design and then build
the plants in time, and they can't benefit because we have
narrowed those windows down. Frankly, the private sector would
have been insane to proceed with too many projects based on
what I consider to be very tepid price signals and a shallow
show of Federal support that was offered.
I am going over my time, Madam Chairman, but I want to put
in a brief plug for legislation that I have introduced that
would improve our CAFE standards and performance, authorize
more funding for geothermal, ocean energy, small hydrate
energy. I have a wonderful acronym, the REFRESH Act, and I
would love to talk with you about it at some point in time.
But again, we must expand the pace of moving new energy
technologies out of the development and into the practical use
so that we can move the economy forward, producing the new
industries, the new jobs for Americans from the new
technologies that we advance.
I look forward to working with this committee, even though
I am no longer a member. This is something that regardless of
the State, regardless of the committees that you serve, we all
have an interest in what is happening to our environment as it
relates one State to another, one country to another.
So I do hope that this is the beginning of a good and a
productive dialog, and would encourage you to keep up the very
ambitious pace that you have set already.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator from the
State of Alaska
Madame Chairman (woman), Ranking Member Inhofe, thank you so much
for the opportunity to appear before you. It is a pleasure to be back
among you all today; who says you can't go home.
I appreciate the opportunity to offer my perspectives as Alaska--
America's only Arctic state--will be uniquely affected by climate
change if trends continue like they have in the recent past. Alaska
also will be uniquely impacted, since Alaskans, to ward off the long
winter's cold, are among the highest consumers of energy on a per
capita basis, and also one of the largest producers of energy in the
nation.
Alaska theoretically leads the world in coal reserves, likely holds
about half of the nation's undiscovered reserves of Outer Continental
Shelf oil and natural gas, likely holds the nation's largest single
reserve of onshore oil yet to be tapped, and holds the nation's largest
unconventional source of energy, gas hydrates--probably enough to power
the country for a 1,000 years.
On climate, from an Alaska perspective, there is no question that
something has been going on.
Since 1979--the start of satellite monitoring--Arctic sea ice has
shrunk by an area twice the size of Texas. Sea ice covers less of the
Arctic Ocean now than ever before observed. The ice sheet in March 2006
was 300,000 square kilometers smaller than it was just a year earlier.
NOAA in an updated report on Arctic conditions released last
October reported that average permafrost temperatures in the state
continue to rise. While a few Alaska glaciers are advancing, the
majority are in retreat.
The melting of the Arctic Ocean ice pack has meant more stretches
of open water earlier and later, which has allowed waves to build
during fall and spring storms, causing more coastal erosion damage than
previously seen. That has endangered a number of villages.
The warmer temperatures have had impacts on marine mammals, birds
and sealife. You have heard about the study now underway to determine
whether to list polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act, not because their populations currently are down--they aren't--but
because they may decline if enough sea ice melts that it reduces their
hunting zones in summer and harms their nutritional intake.
There is firmer data that Kittlitz's murrelet, a bird that lives
near glaciers, are declining, their numbers down 83% since 1976 in the
Kenai Fjords and 60 percent in Glacier Bay. The black guillemot, an
Arctic seabird, used to thrive on northern islands in the Beaufort Sea.
Melting sea ice has cut their foraging areas, nearly wiping out a major
colony on Cooper Island.
If I had more time we could discuss spruce bark beetle infestations
that have killed more than 5 million acres of Sitka spruce trees. We
could talk about lakes that appear to be drying up since melting
permafrost is allowing their waters to drain. We could talk about
affects on fisheries and marine mammals: crab stocks falling, while
salmon stocks have been increasing.
But the question is whether we are simply in a natural cyclic
warming trend that will reverse itself or whether man-made greenhouse
gas emissions are permanently changing the climate, overwhelming
nature's ability to maintain a balance in the atmosphere.
My staff has been collecting scientific reports on climate change
as it relates to Alaska for several years, (as you can see from the
piles in front of me); yet the jury still seems out on the issue.
Last fall's NOAA report, State of the Arctic, actually reports that
ocean salinity and temperature profiles at the North Pole and in the
Beaufort Sea, which showed abrupt warming in the 1990s, have been
moderating back toward normal since 2000. Permafrost layer thickness at
some testing stations in Alaska actually have been slightly increasing
over the past few years--although that is not the case at the majority
of test sites. And NOAA's report for the end of last winter (March
2006) showed a return to more normal temperatures in parts of the
Arctic Ocean that could drive both sea ice and air temperatures back
toward their previous norms.
Are these findings simply natural variability in the other
direction or a sign that an atmospheric cycle is ending? I don't know.
What I would like to suggest, though, is that we shouldn't focus
too excessively on the Stern Commission Report, or the lengthy
critiques of it, or that we don't venture into the storms over whether
2005's record number of Atlantic hurricanes were furthered by global
warming. Those are side shows.
And for this moment, I'm not even going to focus on all the ideas
to directly limit greenhouse gases, whether by mandatory regulations,
cap-and-trade mechanisms, or carbon taxes. In a multi-trillion dollar
economy, analyzing what all of those options will mean is a complex and
time-consuming process that needs more careful consideration than we
have time for today.
What I am suggesting we do right now is turn our attention to
seriously funding through both grants and tax policy, the research and
development of new technologies to both produce alternative forms of
energy, some renewable and some continuing to come from fossil fuels--
but in ways that cause little or no greenhouse gas emissions--and then
to produce that energy at prices that will not harm our economy or
lower our standard of living. And as a corollary we should focus on
promoting energy conservation and fuel efficiency; and also on more
domestic production.
Even if we overnight perfect hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, we will
still need to find and use more oil, natural gas or coal to produce the
feed stocks for petrochemicals and building supplies and the thousands
of products that come from hydrocarbons: everything from aspirin to
plastics.
Without technological breakthroughs and an economy that is healthy
enough to nourish scientific advancement, we can't cut our emissions of
greenhouse gases by 60% to 80% without returning to the Stone Age. And
we won't be able to afford to help the developing world to reduce
emissions, something that will be vital given that China is likely to
surpass the U.S. as the leading emitter of carbon within just two
years.
What I am proposing is that while we debate the science and what to
do about it, that we launch a full-scale effort to fund a host of
technologies to improve energy production that will be needed
regardless of the outcome of the climate change debate.
In 2005 we passed legislation to aid wind, solar and biomass. We
worked to jumpstart the next generation of nuclear power and we took
fledging steps toward combined-cycle coal gasification and liquid fuel
plants that can actually separate out the carbon they emit and then, if
we have the will, pump it and lock it back underground.
We need to do far more of that. We need to provide the same support
for geothermal, hydroelectric and all forms of budding ocean energy
that we have provided for wind, solar and biomass/landfill gas
development. We need to increase our funding for advanced coal
technologies so that we make carbon sequestration affordable, not just
possible.
We need to utilize the CO2 we will be generating to get
more oil out of the ground, so-called enhanced oil recovery, because
the hybrid vehicles that are reducing our fuel consumption run best on
gasoline--at least until hydrogen fuel cells can be perfected or
battery life for plug-in hybrids can be improved significantly.
We need to get on with finding a storage solution for nuclear
waste, since nuclear power does not produce greenhouse gases, and
because the world is proceeding with building nuclear power plants
whether we do or not. So we will be facing the issue of their waste
whether we follow suit or not.
We need to continue to support the development of bio-fuels as the
President proposed, and help them to maturity, but only to the extent
that they ultimately will prove economically and environmentally sound.
And I truly think we need to treat funding alternative energy
sources and advancing fuel conservation as a priority, not an
afterthought. We in Congress two years ago authorized considerable
funding for a good bill to promote alternative energy technologies, but
we have actually funded very little of it. We and the Administration
have barely begun to implement the loan programs that we created.
Because of the fiscal impacts of aid to new technologies on our
budget process, we limited the tax breaks in 2005 to such short periods
that most people couldn't actually design and build plants in time and
thus couldn't benefit. And frankly the private sector would have been
insane to proceed too far with too many projects based on the tepid
price signals and the shallow show of federal support that we offered.
At this point I want to put in a plug for a bill I introduced that
would improve CAFE standards and performance, and authorize more
funding for ocean, geothermal and small hydro energy development. I'll
be happy to buttonhole you to explain the merits of S. 298, the REFRESH
Act, and I'll be happy to discuss my support for the many good ideas
that others have already proposed.
We must expand the pace of moving new energy technologies out of
development and into practical use so that we propel our economy
forward--producing new industries and new jobs for Americans--from the
new technologies we advance.
In the meantime I believe we still need to both explore for and
produce fossil-fuel energy to help cover our needs and improve our
national and economic security until this new technology can change the
current energy playing field. The idea that we aren't ``weaning
ourselves'' off oil, simply because we continue to produce it is
irrational, as long as we seriously fund, encourage and send clear
signals to the markets that we want to move toward using
environmentally cleaner forms of energy, as soon as they can be safely
advanced.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Murkowski. We do
miss you on this committee. I can assure you that new
technologies, I think there is broad agreement that we can't do
this without the new technologies.
In a free market system, they have to be able to compete,
and that is why we need to make some of these investments that
you are talking about. But I think you are going to find a
broad array of agreement on that.
I think one of the interesting things about my having this
hearing and listening to everybody is that there is just enough
common ground here, I think, where we can come together on
various aspects, because there isn't one thing that we are
going to do to solve it. It is going to be many things. I think
you have laid out that whole new technology idea.
I will say this. I think the majority of this committee, if
not every person, has agreed it is time to do something. You
are right. The debate will continue, but in most of our minds,
there is a consensus. We are going to move forward. I think you
have put before us some very exciting ideas, and I will work
with you on your bill and look forward to moving those ideas
into law.
Senator Murkowski. If the committee would like to avail
themselves of any of ours studies, we would be happy to share
them with you, but we do look forward to working with you.
Senator Boxer. We do appreciate it, and I know there are so
many words written about global warming. One of the things I
did today in my presentation was to take what I consider to be
the growing consensus from the business community, even from
some of the largest producers of coal, or I would say
purchasers of coal like Duke Energy and others, saying now it
is time to really move. That is really remarkable, to have the
business community saying hurry up and do something. Because
what is happening is a lot of our States and localities are
moving ahead, and then there is a patchwork of these different
rules, not to mention the EU has different rules.
So I think it is important for the economic prosperity of
this Country in the future is to grapple with this issue. I
think you have laid that down. I thank you for your
contribution.
Senator Akaka, it is wonderful to have Hawaii and Alaska
here together, our newest States and our States that will be
very impacted by this. So we really appreciate your being here,
Senator Akaka.
Thank you again, Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
HAWAII
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I want to congratulate you and your
Committee on Environment and Public Works, and what you are
doing in promoting global warming as a problem, and as an
opportunity to find relief because of global warming.
I would like to also commend our new colleague, Senator
Sanders, and you for your hard work and efforts to continue the
legacy of Senator Jim Jeffords on this critical topic of global
warming.
I congratulate you both on the reintroduction of S. 309,
the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, of which I
am an original cosponsor.
I also commend Senators McCain, Lieberman and Bingaman, who
have each been critical in introducing legislation that has
moved the debate forward, bills which I have cosponsored or
supported as well. The cumulative effects of this discussion
and debate are gratifying, and I believe we have the momentum
to move our Country forward with your leadership.
The global warming debate began in Hawaii over 30 years
ago, when the Mauna Loa Climate Observatory first documented
evidence of increased carbon dioxide levels in the Earth's
atmosphere. The international scientific community now concurs
that human activities are altering the entire system.
It is important that the United States, which is the
world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, be accountable as
a leader in reducing emissions and combating the threats
resulting from global warming.
This bill, one of several that we will be considering
during the Congress, is comprehensive legislation that will
assist in decreasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. I have
spoken before about the fact that my home State of Hawaii is
disproportionately susceptible to increases in sea level and
ocean temperature that jeopardize public safety, economic
development, and the health of our unique island ecosystems and
wildlife.
It is clear that coastal States will also face similar
challenges caused by sea level rise, resulting in the flooding
of low-lying property, loss of coastal wetlands, beach erosion,
salt water contamination or drinking water, and damage to
coastal roads and bridges.
Immediate action is needed to reverse current trends and to
reduce emissions. This will be achieved by the energy
efficiency targets set by S. 309, that will assist both the
industry and consumers in meeting these standards. A
substantial investment in research to develop technologies to
control greenhouse gas emissions, including renewable energy
technologies, will play a crucial role in successfully meeting
the objectives of the legislation. This investment will also
boost economic activity and create jobs in the United States.
In addition, I have great concern for the public health
implications for tropical and subtropical areas like my State.
Part of the South Atlantic and the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico
States, and territories in the Pacific. Scientists are warning
that the effects of global warming will only intensify the
likelihood of severe weather events, and of overall warming,
particularly in tropical areas.
These trends are likely to lead to a number of public
health issues, such as the growth and spread of infectious
disease, air pollution, asthma and waterborne diseases. In
fact, the group, Physicians for Social Responsibility, has
called responding to global warming, ``a public health
imperative.''
S. 309 set ambitious goals which will put the United States
on a path to provide necessary requirements and incentives for
EPA to minimize U.S. emissions and assist in the stabilization
of global atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. We have
much at stake, and I am pleased that the United States can now
take a leadership role in promoting responsible energy use on a
global level.
I remain committed, Madam Chairman, to working with my
colleagues to enact legislation that will improve the health of
our planet and the quality of life for all Americans.
Thank you and I ask that my full statement be submitted for
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Akaka follows:]
Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, U.S. Senator from the
State of Hawaii
Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of
the Environment and Public Works Committee for holding this hearing
today. I commend my friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, and our new
colleague Senator Sanders, for their hard work and efforts to continue
the legacy of Senator Jim Jeffords on the critical topic of global
warming. I congratulate them both on the re-introduction of S. 309, the
Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, of which I am an
original cosponsor.
I also commend Senators McCain and Lieberman for increasing
awareness on the issue over the last five years and introducing their
groundbreaking legislation. In addition, I thank Senator Bingaman for
his leadership in putting forward a cap and trade bill that I supported
during debate on the 2005 Energy bill and in the critical Senate vote
in 2005. The cumulative effects of this discussion and debate are
gratifying and I believe we have the momentum to move our country
forward.
The global warming debate began in Hawaii over 30 years ago when
the Mauna Loa Climate Observatory first documented evidence of
increased carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere. The
international scientific community now concurs that human activities
are altering the climate system. It is important that the U.S., which
is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases be accountable as a
leader in reducing emissions and combating the threats resulting from
global warming. This bill, S. 309, is one of several that we will be
considering during this Congress and it is comprehensive legislation
that will assist in decreasing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
I have spoken before about the fact that my home state of Hawaii is
disproportionately susceptible to increases in sea level and ocean
temperature, which jeopardize public safety, economic development,
cultural resources, and the health of our unique island ecosystems and
wildlife. It is clear that coastal states will also face similar
challenges caused by sea level rise resulting in flooding of low-lying
property, loss of coastal wetlands, beach erosion, saltwater
contamination of drinking water, and damage to coastal roads and
bridges.
In addition, I have great concern for the public health
implications for tropical and subtropical areas like my state, Pacific
island nations, and states along the Atlantic, Carribean, and Gulf
coasts. Scientists warn us that global warming will intensify the
likelihood of severe weather events and overall warming, and that these
trends are likely to lead to a number of public health issues, such as
the growth and spread of infectious diseases, air pollution and asthma,
and water-born diseases. In fact, the group Physicians for Social
Responsibility has called responding to global warming ``a public
health imperative.''
As stewards of our planet, immediate action is needed to reverse
current trends and actively seek solutions to curb the buildup of
greenhouse gases. S. 309 sets energy efficiency targets to assist both
the industry and energy consumers in meeting these standards. This
legislation lays out ambitious goals and necessary incentives to
minimize U.S. emissions and assist in the stabilization of global
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.
We must invest in technology research to control greenhouse gas
emissions. Encouraging renewable energy technologies will play a
crucial role in successfully meeting the objectives of this
legislation. This investment will also boost economic activity and
create jobs in the U.S. Much is at stake and I am pleased that the U.S.
can now take a leadership role in promoting responsible energy use on a
global level.
Under the guidance provided by this bill, I firmly believe the
state of Hawaii, along with the rest of the United States, will be
poised to substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I remain
committed to working with my colleagues to enact legislation that will
improve the health of our planet and the quality of life for all
Americans.
Senator Boxer. Without objection.
Senator Akaka, I want to thank you for your leadership
here. You were one of the first to go on the Jeffords bill and
one of the first to go on the Sanders-Boxer bill. I call that
the gold standard bill because I believe that is the bold bill,
that is the one that does what California does. It is really
the best insurance policy that we have against the worst
predictions.
I think what has been so wonderful, and I will share this
with Senator Lincoln, who I will call up in a moment, we have
already heard from 27 Senators today. It is just unprecedented.
We had 14 members of the committee. We had seven of you who are
not on the committee, McCain, Feinstein, Kerry, Obama,
Bingaman, Murkowski and Akaka. We have two statements in the
record. We now have an additional four.
Now we are going to hear from Senators Lincoln, Durbin, and
who are the other two? Nelson of Florida. So we are really
getting toward hearing from about one-third of the Senate.
With that, I will let you go, Senator Akaka. I thank you
very much for your wisdom, and we will work together.
Senator Akaka. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. I am thrilled that our colleague, Senator
Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is here. I am asking her if she
would come up and join with us. She is on some very important
committees, not the least of which, of course, is Finance,
which is going to have a lot of ability here to give the kind
of incentives and tax breaks and so on, that Senator Murkowski
talked about, Senator Lincoln, the incentives to our business
community, incentives to our consumers to do the right thing,
and to move to those better technologies.
So we welcome you here. I am really thrilled that you are
here. You have 10 minutes, so please use it as you will.
STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ARKANSAS
Senator Lincoln. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
It is certainly not by accident that I do sit on the
Finance Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Energy
Committee, because renewable energy, as well as looking for
alternative energy sources, is absolutely essential for me. As
you and I have mentioned many times, it is absolutely essential
for future generations, for our children and our grandchildren,
that we put the dedicated time and energy into finding the
solutions that will really make a difference in their lives.
So pairing those committees up together, I feel like I can
look for the new and innovative ideas. I think I can look for
the incentives that need to be there. I also think that we can
look at using the opportunity for renewable fuels and for
alternative energy sources as a way to revitalize rural
America.
I look forward so desperately in working with you to really
focus on what this could mean for rural America in the coming
years. I think it is an important place for us to make an
investment, and it is an essential part of our culture in this
great Country, and I think it will make a big difference for
the lives of all Americans, not just those that live in rural
America, but for our entire Nation.
So I am grateful to your committee, and especially to you.
I appreciate the opportunity to come before the committee and
speak on such a critical issue to all of us. I would especially
like to thank you, Senator Boxer, for your leadership and your
energy particularly on climate change. There is no doubt that
if you singlehandedly had to, you could put the energy that
needs to be into this issue to solve this problem. We are so
grateful to you for your dedication and your energy toward
that. You have been out front on this from the beginning, and I
certainly look forward to working with you in this Congress.
In 2003, Madam Chairman, when the Climate Stewardship Act
came up for a vote in the Senate, I opposed it. It was one of
the most difficult votes I have taken in the Senate, and I had
great thought and great prayer over that vote, knowing that
there were things that we needed to do, but wondering whether
or not we had arrived at being able to do it through that bill.
I was concerned that the bill could drive up utility rates,
with energy companies forced to use more expensive fuels or
forced to develop new infrastructure, with the attendant costs
being passed on to the consumers. In a State like mine, Madam
Chairman, with pervasive crippling poverty, even a $5 a month
increase is enormously significant in the lives of many of our
families. These are people living paycheck to paycheck, with
all of their income committed each month, and oftentimes more
than they have in their pay being committed. That $5 has to
come from somewhere, if that is what the increase is. For a
family with children, it might mean school supplies or new
shoes or books. For an elderly person, it could mean giving up
money that should be spent on prescription drugs in order to
pay those utility bills.
Either way, this would be forcing the least amongst to bear
a burden that many others would not. At that time, that was the
way I viewed the issue and could not support the bill on the
floor. Since then, I have had continual dialog with many of my
colleagues about how we include in what we do the capacity that
we have in this great Nation, and certainly in this body, to be
able to ensure that there are provisions there that will not
put the burden of what it is we have to do collectively as a
culture and as a people, on the backs of those that are the
least among us.
Now, I stand before you as not only a supporter of the
Climate Stewardship Act, but one of its original cosponsors.
Many have asked what has changed. The answer is simple. It is
abundantly clear that we must take action on this issue now if
we are to have any hope of correcting it. We are stewards of
this Nation and of this planet. Our ultimate responsibility is
to leave it a better place for our children. I fear that if we
do not take action soon, we will have lost that chance.
Madam Chairman, it is as simple as that. We have an
opportunity. We have a window of opportunity that has grown
smaller and smaller, and if we don't seize the opportunity now,
it is not only what we might do to ourselves, but unfortunately
what we might do to our children and our children's children.
I would like to give you an example from my home State of
Arkansas, and this is one that you will see readily applies to
me and to my family. Recently, my husband and I took our two
boys, Reese and Bennett, duck hunting. My husband and I both
grew up in the duck blinds with our fathers. It was a family
outing. My sisters as well would join us, and our fathers spent
many cold mornings in the duck blind with their children.
We visited there. We talked about the environment. We
talked about the world around us. We talked about challenges
that we faced then, and that we might face in the future in our
lives. It is something that generations of our families have
enjoyed for quite a long time, being in the outdoors, enjoying
one another's company, in the solitude of the environment.
Recently, a study by the Arkansas State University revealed
the potential effects global warming would have on duck
populations and migration patterns in Arkansas. What they found
was not surprising. Ducks migrating from the north were not
coming as far down the continent as they once did, likely
because they didn't have to fly as far to find the climate that
was acceptable to them. While the northern and middle parts of
the Country were experiencing increasing numbers of ducks, the
southern region was seeing a dramatic decrease.
If climate change were to continue on its current path, it
is not too farfetched to say the ducks could stop migrating to
the Deep South altogether as warmer temperatures in more
northern regions would reduce their need to do so.
As the study points out, the effect on the small
communities whose economies depend on hunting season could be
devastating. Now, I know that is regional, and I know it is
something that probably only myself and a few others could
really identify with. My objection to supporting the Climate
Stewardship Act in 2003 was based on economics, but as the
above example illustrates, the economic impacts are far from
straightforward. They multiply across the globe and certainly
across regions.
These communities that depend on duck season and the boost
it gives their economies once a year are filled with the people
I described earlier as living from paycheck to paycheck. If a
mother who is working as a waitress at the local diner loses
her job because the diner closes due to the lack of its usual
customers during hunting season, is that not an economic
impact? We can write these bills in such a way as to compensate
for an increase in utility rates for low-income people, and any
bill I support must do just that.
But I am proud to say that my colleagues have reached out
to me, understanding my concerns about our low-income consumers
and making sure that we will have a portion of that bill
dedicated to that. But I do not know if Congress has the
capability to rebuild communities across this Country that will
have such severe economic livelihood fundamentally altered by
climate change.
It is time that we begin to ask serious questions about not
just the cost of action, but more importantly, Madam Chairman,
the cost of inaction. These costs can be quantified, but they
can also be psychological.
My husband and I want our boys to have that wonderful
opportunity to hunt on those very same lands that for
generations in our families they have enjoyed, being a part of
the family, enjoying one another, and enjoying the gorgeous
environment that we have been blessed with. It is my belief
that the only way this can happen is if we take significant
action, not way down the road, but in the near future.
I want to thank the committee for giving me the opportunity
to speak on this very important issue and I certainly look
forward to working with this Chairwoman and this committee and
all of the others interested in this body, in moving something
in a timely fashion that will truly make a difference for
future generations.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lincoln follows:]
Statement of Hon. Blanche Lincoln, U.S. Senator from the
State of Arkansas
Ladies and gentleman of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity
to come before and speak on this very important issue. I would like to
especially thank Senator Boxer for her leadership and energy on climate
change. She has been out front on this from the beginning and I look
forward to working with her in this Congress.
In 2003, when the Climate Stewardship Act came up for a vote in the
Senate, I opposed it. It was one of the most difficult votes I have
taken in the Senate. I was concerned that the bill could drive up
utility rates, with energy companies forced to use more expensive fuels
or forced to develop new infrastructure, with the attendant costs being
passed on to consumers. In a state like mine, with pervasive crippling
poverty, even a $5 a month increase is significant. Now, I stand before
you as not only a supporter of the Climate Stewardship Act, but an
original co-sponsor. Many have asked, what changed? The answer is
simple; it is abundantly clear that we must take action on this issue
now if we are to have any hope of correcting it. We are stewards of
this nation and this planet, and our ultimate responsibility is to
leave it a better place for our children. I fear that if we do not take
action soon, we will have lost our chance to do so.
Let me give you an example from my home state of Arkansas.
Recently, my husband and I took our two boys, Reece and Bennett, duck
hunting. My husband and I both grew up in duck blinds with our fathers,
and our fathers spent many cold mornings in duck blinds with their
fathers. It is something that generations of our family have enjoyed.
Recently, a study by Arkansas State University revealed the potential
effects global warming could have on duck populations and migration
patterns in Arkansas. What they found was not surprising. Ducks
migrating from North were not coming as far down the continent as they
once did, likely because they didn't have to fly as far to find a
climate that was acceptable to them. While the Northern and middle
parts of the country are experiencing increasing numbers of ducks, the
Southern Region is seeing decreases. If climate change were to continue
on its current path it is not too far fetched to say that ducks could
stop migrating to the deep south altogether as warmer temperatures in
more northern regions would reduce their need to do so. As the study
points out, the effect on the small communities whose economy depends
on hunting season could be devastating.
My objection to supporting the Climate Stewardship Act in 2003 was
based on economics, but as the above example illustrates, the economic
impacts are far from straight forward. It is time that we begin to ask
serious questions about not just the cost of action, but the cost of
inaction. Those costs can be quantified, but they can also be
psychological. My husband and I want my boys to have the opportunity to
hunt on the same lands that their grandfathers and our grandfathers
hunted on. It is my belief that the only way this can happen is if we
take significant action in the near future.
I want to again thank the committee for giving me the opportunity
to speak on this important issue and look forward to working with you
during this Congress.
Senator Boxer. Senator, I really want to thank you for your
contribution. As usual, you have got it down to, you know, the
family. It all comes back to that at the end of the day. You
would have been very interested to hear Senator Whitehouse go
through how the southerners, particularly from the Carolinas,
would always come up to Rhode Island just to get away from the
very hot summers, and now it is already starting to change, and
the summers in Rhode Island now are getting very warm.
You point out that these are real serious changes in our
way of life, in the American way of life. You talked about the
hunting industry, then of course there is the fishing industry,
there is the skiing industry that we have so much in our State.
The ripple effect to these recreation industries, as you point
out, to the waitress who serves in the diner down the road, is
what we are talking about here.
I think on a larger scale, you have taken it to the small
scale, on a larger scale the Stern Report that basically said
every dollar we put in now to mitigate will come back to
benefit us in about $5 in worldwide gross product.
So there is no question that you have hit on something, and
I am very proud that you are on the, I think it is now
Lieberman-McCain bill, or McCain-Lieberman. I think that is a
huge amount of momentum for that approach of a cap and trade.
The fact that you allowed yourself to be open to the arguments
just says a lot about you as a legislator, and your
constituents should be very proud.
Senator Lincoln. Well, I appreciate that. I just want to
say, you know, so much of this is about the environment, but it
is about the environment of our lives and not just the
outdoors. But if you think about it, one of the things that the
American family is craving for the most is time. They want time
to spend as a family so they can strengthen their family, so
they can love and encourage their children, so that they can be
a family and enjoy all of the aspects of that.
I would say that the climate, the environment that we have
in this great land is one of those things that encourages that
time, whether it is time that you spend on vacation at the
beach or in the duck woods, or really just traveling to see the
wonders of our great Nation. But it is time that people spend,
and more often than not, when they need time to be a family,
what they look to is the outdoors, the environment, and it is
an enormous part.
I would just say that if there is anything, I have always
been an enormous believer in recycling, whether it is recycling
of plastics or aluminum or anything else. One of the best ways
I could convince the men in my life to recycle was to let them
know that the more they recycled, the less would go into
landfills that would usually cover up the duck woods that they
wanted to hunt in.
So I think as we look for the practical application of
making sure that whoever may not be sold on the initiatives
that we want to see move forward, there are multiple ways we
can explain it to them. I look forward to working with you to
do just that.
Senator Boxer. Senator, no one could do it like you can. I
thank you very much.
We will take a brief break while we wait for, is it two
more Senators? Senator Nelson and Senator Durbin. So we will
stand in recess.
Thank you, Senator Lincoln, very much.
[Recess.]
Senator Boxer. Senator, we started in this committee room
at 9 o'clock a.m. We have heard from about 27 Senators either
in person, the vast majority, and a few in writing. You and
Senator Durbin are going to close down this hearing today,
which has been just extraordinary.
I know what a great steward you are of the environment, so
I was thrilled when I heard that you wanted to be heard. So you
have the floor for 10 minutes, and I know that you are going to
be part of the solution. So please go right ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
FLORIDA
Senator Nelson. I am going to, with your permission,
distill my remarks, Madam Chair, and let me just say, as you
and I have discussed privately for some period of time, I
became more of an environmentalist when I went into space and
could look back and see the entire ecosystem at once. When you
look at the rim of the Earth from space, you see a thin little
film and you realize that that is what sustains all of life.
That is the atmosphere.
From that perspective, our home is so beautiful, and yet it
looks so fragile. It is clearly exceptional.
Do you want me to suspend and defer to my senior colleague?
Senator Boxer. You just go ahead. You have 9 minutes left,
and Senator, you have the floor, and you will close down these
hearings today, if that is OK.
Bill was just talking about his trip up in space, and he is
so articulate about it, this little thin, what did you say,
film of?
Senator Nelson. As you look at the rim of the Earth from
space, you see the thin film that sustains all of life. It is
the atmosphere. Our home is so incredibly beautiful. It is this
colorful creation suspended in the middle of nothing, and space
is nothing. Space is an airless vacuum that goes on and on for
billions of light years, and there in the middle of it is this
wonderful, colorful, alive planet that is home.
You can't help, when you have an experience like that, of
having some sense of greater responsibility for stewardship.
For example, coming across South America, even at that
altitude, I could see the destruction of the rain forests by
the color contrast with the naked eye. In the same window of
the spacecraft, I could look and see to the east partially the
result of that destruction of the rain forest, because at the
mouth of the Amazon, the waters of the Atlantic were discolored
for hundreds of miles out into the Atlantic from the additional
silt that comes. Now, silt is a natural phenomenon in the
Amazon, but the destruction of the trees upriver is all the
more so.
So I wanted to lay that as the predicate to tell you why I
come to the table as a sensitive person for the environment.
Now, of course, the States that we represent likewise are
highly sensitive, and of course global warming, if somebody is
going to be affected, it is going to be Florida. You have about
800 miles of coastline in your State. We have 1,500 miles of
coastline in Florida, only exceeded by Alaska, but Alaska
doesn't have any beaches compared to the beaches of Florida.
So there is a lot at stake. I can tell you when I was
Insurance Commissioner, I could not get the heads of the
insurance companies out of the sand. They were acting like
ostriches on something that was going to have an enormous
financial consequence upon them, because as the Earth warms and
the seas rise, the storms have become more frequent and more
ferocious. The plagues increase, and you have the result in a
State like mine.
So I come to the table convinced, and we have been going
through this drill where people are saying, and the scientific
community is split. Well, anybody can say that they are split,
but the vast majority, almost unanimous opinion, is that it is
real. So we ought to do something about it and quit playing
these games.
So I have sponsored the McCain-Lieberman bill. I have done
that for the last 4 or 5 years. I am doing it again, but thank
goodness, you are the Chair and we are going to get something
moving. There will be others. Your colleague from California
wants to talk to me about a particular approach that she has.
Global warming, you are really not going to do anything
until we address the issue of fossil fuels. Wouldn't it be
wonderful for us suddenly to understand that two policy goals,
protecting the environment and at the same time getting
ourselves less dependent on foreign oil, they happen to
coincide, and that you could address one by addressing the
other.
So why are we still the handmaidens of the oil industry and
the American automobile industry that continues to refuse to
modernize? Why don't we have a mandated 40 miles per gallon
fleet average within 10 years? Look what that would do to our
dependence on foreign oil that comes from where? Places like
the Gulf, Nigeria, Venezuela, which happen to be areas of
considerable political instability.
We have gone back to sleep when we had the warning in the
early 1970's and we had again warning in the late 1970's, and
here we are. We are back.
Now, I am going to conclude my remarks with something that
I intend to address since Danny Inouye has made me his new
Chairman of the Space and Related Sciences Subcommittee in the
Commerce Committee. That is, we have a bunch of highly
sensitive environmental surveying satellites that are going to
go kaput by the year 2010. We have a lack of cooperation
between NASA and NOAA. We have some satellites that have been
planned to replace the other satellites that haven't been
designed right. What this is going to be is a spelling disaster
if we don't get it up.
Now, I don't want you, Madam Chairman, to fall for this
seductive argument that it is either manned space flight or
this. It isn't that. In a little R&D agency like NASA, which
has produced so much accomplishment of exploration of peeling
back the unknown, surely in a Nation as large as ours, we can
find the resources not only to keep pressing the envelope on
technology, which happens to be in the unmanned program,
scientific satellites and so forth, but also in the manned
program.
The President speaks a big line about all this. He has all
this initiative, back to the moon, and go to Mars, which I
support. But just like in the No Child Left Behind, when it
comes time to putting the money out, he cut NASA by $1.1
billion from the authorization bill that we had passed in the
Congress. As a result, the Administrator of NASA, Dr. Griffin,
who is doing a great job, we finally have a rocket scientist
there who knows what he is going, who also has a sense of
humility, I might say. Where is he going to get the money to do
everything he has to do? So there is some cut that is coming in
this area.
The National Academy of Sciences have warned, mind you,
they have warned that we are going to lose access to valuable
information that these satellites provide, and according to
that Academy report, 40 percent of the sensors and instruments
on NASA's aging weather and global monitoring satellites is
going to stop working, are going to stop working in 2010.
So the study blamed the budget cuts, replacement costs and
delays and the lack of cooperation on NASA and NOAA. So we have
to all address this, Madam Chairman, and that is what I wanted
to come and share with you today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Nelson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Bill Nelson, U.S. Senator from the
State of Florida
Madam Chair, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today on the
issue of global warming.
Twenty-one years ago I was privileged to see our fragile ecosystem
from the window of the shuttle Columbia as it orbited the earth. It's
truly awesome to see the soft, white clouds, brilliant blue oceans, and
subdued brown continents against the backdrop of the vast darkness of
space.
But, from down here, we're finally acknowledging that climate
change will have devastating effects on the Earth's very delicate
ecological balance.
Experts largely agree that weather extremes will be more intense if
global warming goes unabated. If the trend continues, Florida, and many
other places around the world, could suffer relentless heat waves,
beaches submerged by rising sea levels, contaminated drinking water,
and more severe and damaging hurricanes.
And it will only get worse unless we begin controlling our
greenhouse gas emissions.
It's about time we start taking this threat seriously. It's time
for Congress to take meaningful steps to cut down on our nation's
greenhouse gas emissions.
I am a co-sponsor of the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of
2007 (CSIA)--a bill offered by my colleagues Senators Lieberman and
McCain, which will work towards this goal.
This legislation will not only hold at bay the devastating impact
of global warming, but also ensure that American companies and American
ingenuity plays a large role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
By capping greenhouse-gas emissions at 2004 levels in the next five
years, we will make substantial reductions in a root cause of global
warming.
But this proposal goes even further by requiring several major U.S.
economic sectors to reduce by \2/3\ their greenhouse gas emissions by
the year 2050.
Making this legislation law is just the first step in fighting
global warming, and Congress can't delay any longer.
While this is just one of several ideas being debated in Congress,
we also must take steps to improve the fuel efficiency of our vehicles
and develop energy alternatives to fossil fuels.
Madam Chair, I also want to tell you all about another aspect of
this important debate: the tools our scientist use to measure global
warming--our first line of defense against climate change.
Much of our information on global warming comes from satellites
orbiting the earth. These satellites play a key role in helping us keep
an eye on planetary changes. Scientists use the data to, among other
things, monitor the ozone layer, solar and earth radiation, sea levels;
sea temperature, wind changes, air pollution, and measure glacier and
ice cap changes.
Unfortunately, according to a group of the country's leading
scientists, our nation's weather and global monitoring satellites are
at ``great risk''.
Members of the National Academy of Sciences, warned that the U.S.
will soon lose access to valuable information these satellites provide.
According to the report, 40 percent of the sensors and instruments on
NASA's aging weather and global monitoring satellites will stop working
by 2010.
The study blamed budget cuts, replacement costs and delays, and the
lack of cooperation between NASA and NOAA.
Those of us in Congress need to take this warning seriously.
We can't afford to go without the tools that help us monitor and
prepare for the effects of global warming. And, we can't afford to cut
corners when lives, property, economies and ecosystems are at stake.
We must maintain these satellites that provide our scientists,
forecasters and others with the data they need to help observe and
better understand our ever-changing weather patterns and conditions
here on earth.
We must do everything we can to ensure the earth remains as
beautiful as it appeared from space. And, we must take meaningful steps
now to reach this goal.
I look forward to working with this committee and all of my
colleagues to make real progress towards reducing the effects of global
warming.
Senator Boxer. Well, Senator Nelson, again my deepest
thanks. You know, Vice President Gore introduced me to a
scientist who said that it is critical that these satellites be
continued, because otherwise we are flying blind. We don't know
what is happening to us.
So I just want you to count me in as a real partner in
this. I know our colleague, Senator Durbin on the
Appropriations Committee and in the leadership of the Senate,
this is crucial. We cannot understand global warming if we lose
our eyes on this matter. So we are very fortunate to have you
as Chair of that subcommittee, and look forward to working with
you.
Senator Durbin, it is very appropriate in many ways that
you are our final speaker. We will have heard from one-third of
the Senate today. To close with your testimony is an honor for
me, because you are, you know, the Assistant Leader of the U.S.
Senate. So we are thrilled that you are here, and you have the
floor.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Durbin. Chairman Boxer, thank you. You arrived in
the nick of time, and I mean that. Having seen the documentary,
An Inconvenient Truth, I really sense that time is running out,
the time for talk, the time for excuses. If we don't do
something decisive and soon, it literally may be too late. Some
of the damage we may not be able to ever repair. I am glad you
are here to lead us in this effort, which I believe will be a
bipartisan effort. I think we will have many supporters, some
on the other side of the aisle joining us in this effort, which
is exactly what we need.
I was heartened when President Bush mentioned global
warming in relation to energy security in the State of the
Union Address. You and I have been disappointed in the last 6
years in several things that have occurred in this
Administration when it comes to the environment, climate
change. The President and his Administration commissioned
government experts and scientists to complete a study on global
warming, only to omit parts of the final report that really got
down to the heart of the matter.
They attempted to silence a NASA scientist wanting to
inform us that climate change is in fact real and must be
addressed immediately. There is a long list of things which I
think have been done by this Administration that moved us in
the wrong direction.
But having said that, let me give you an example of one
thing they suggested that is moving us in the right direction.
It is called FutureGen. It may not be a big news item in
California, but it is in Illinois, because what the
Administration has proposed is that we would take as a
demonstration project using local coal, and we have high
sulfur, dirty coal in some parts of Illinois, and generate
electricity with that coal with zero emissions, sequestering
carbon dioxide, saying it can be done.
Well, there are four finalists for this plant, two in Texas
and two in Illinois. I hope this year that Illinois is the
winner, but regardless we need to develop that technology. We
have this great local energy source that has been handcuffed by
the environmental concerns that we share. So having been
critical of the Bush administration for a lot of the scientific
things that they have done in this area, let me commend them
when it comes to this FutureGen. I think it is a futuristic
look at where we need to go.
I just want to suggest to you, Madam Chair, if you would
consider, before I talk a little bit more about global warming,
I think we ought to have a very clear starting point in this
debate. We ought to work together on a bipartisan basis to
write this starting point, and have it enacted by the Senate.
It should be a starting point that says global warming and
climate change are a clear and present danger to our
environment, our economy, our security and our health, and the
survival of many species on Earth.
Recognizing that, we have an obligation to move with all
deliberate speed to address this problem in America, setting an
example here for the rest of the world. If we started there, if
we had a consensus there, then a lot of things would follow.
Until you took over the chairmanship, the debate was still on
as to whether it was even an issue. Thank goodness we are
beyond that on this committee. Now we have to move beyond it in
the Senate and in this Nation.
I recently returned from an official trip with Senator Reid
down to South America. We had a delegation of six Senators from
both sides of the aisle. We made a point of asking in Bolivia
and Ecuador and Peru what they thought about global warming.
They all looked at us and kind of smiled and said, why of
course it is going on. Do you want us to show you glaciers or
snow melt? We can see it here. Don't you see it there?
Well, we do, but we have ignored it and we have
rationalized some position that we can't do anything about it
or don't need to do anything about it. Those days are over. I
think it is time for us to move forward and to understand that
if we don't do it in the United States, setting the example,
very few people will consider.
It also creates political instability, as we know. People
who are the victims of this get up and move. I just had this
recent report that came out last week from the Royal United
Services Institute for Defense and Security. At a conference,
Paul Rogers from Bradford University explained that recent
climatology work suggested global warming could increase
migratory pressures by an order of magnitude, ``In other words,
about 400 million people, not the current 40 million people,
desperate to cross borders.'' That is political instability,
that is failed states, that is the United States drawn into
conflicts in the far reaches of the world that we don't want to
be drawn into.
So we know now that this is a matter of security. The
Department of Defense is joining us in that. We know that the
United States has to lead the way. We use the most energy in
the world. We have the most prosperous economy in the world,
and we are looked to. Developing countries think the United
States is trying to hold us back because they have already
reached economic development success. Well, we have to
demonstrate that we can achieve success economically, while
still respecting the environment.
Exhibit A, your home State. For how many years did we use
to kind of laugh behind our friends in California as they
talked about California engines in cars and California
standards for energy efficiency. But you can tell that story
better than anyone here today, about that dedication to energy
efficiency, and how as a result of it, you were able to have an
expanding economy, while reducing the use of energy. It can be
done.
Your example in California and other places in the United
States should be an inspiration to all of us, because what I
see coming is an opportunity, an opportunity for the United
States to once again lead the world in the production of energy
saving devices and technologies. Let's get out in front of this
and commit ourselves to it, and have the world come to our door
when they want to find ways to keep their economy moving
forward and still reduce the use of energy and the pollution
that results.
I think it is much like Silicon Valley and what we saw with
information technology, when it comes to this new environmental
technology, a great opportunity for great jobs.
Now, let me say a word about an issue near and dear to my
heart, and I will confess against my own interests that I have
had little or no success on the floor of the Senate with it,
and that is CAFE standards. For the longest time, it struck me
that if we were serious about fuel economy and fuel efficiency
in the vehicles we drive, we would never seriously tackle this
issue. Sixty percent of our oil goes into the cars and trucks
we drive, and if we don't make them more fuel efficient, when
we are going to be driving the same or more miles using more
gas every single year, burning more, emitting more.
Well, as the Senator knows because she has been by my side,
that each time that I tried to improve CAFE standards, I have
not received a majority vote. I was disappointed, but I sense
that things are changing. I sense that with the statements
being made from our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, they
understand this. We have to challenge automobile manufacturers
and truck manufacturers in the United States and around the
world to do better. We have to really tell them that it is
unacceptable for us to continue to build and buy these heavy
vehicles with less fuel efficiency.
I think if they get the message, they can respond to it. In
1975, faced with 14 miles per gallon, Congress mandated an
increase in fuel economy and fuel efficiency in the fleet of
vehicles other than trucks, and saw that number rise over 10
years to 27 miles a gallon. People say, well, I hate government
mandates. Well, it worked. This mandate worked, and at the end
of the day we had more fuel efficient cars.
Since 1985, we have done absolutely nothing. As a
consequence, our overall statistics on fuel economy have gone
down, instead of up. I think we need to rededicate ourselves to
more fuel efficiencies in these cars and trucks. I hope that
our friends in Detroit, making cars in America, will be
listening. I think they have been too slow to respond to this
change. They have unfortunately in many instances seen Japanese
competitors get their first, the long lines to buy a Prius, the
long lines to buy a new hybrid Toyota Camry. All of these
suggest there is strong pent-up consumer demand there, and I
hope that Detroit will realize it.
My wife and I bought a Ford Escape hybrid. It is good. It
could be a lot better. It uses Toyota technology. I am sorry
that it is Toyota technology, but at least we are trying to do
the right thing in the production of those vehicles. Plug-in
hybrids and all those opportunities lie ahead.
Let me conclude by thanking you for your patience. I can't
think of anyone more patient than someone who would sit and
listen to 33 Senators in the course of a day. But I think that
all of us understand, this may be our last chance. If we don't
do this right, things are going to change in this world for the
worse for our kids. That is unacceptable.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator Durbin, it means a lot to me that
you came on a personal level, and also on a policy level,
because anything we do we are going to need you down there on
the floor getting those votes.
The reason I was so happy to do this today is I am really
trying to figure out where the votes are and where the passion
lies. I think today we have learned a lot.
So I just want to thank you. I know you are very, very
hectic, so you go right ahead and you go, and while you are
going I am going to put in the record, I am going to complete
the record.
Senator Durbin. Thanks.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Dick.
I am going to put in the record a statement by Senator
Feingold, one by Senator Enzi, one by Senator Kennedy, one by
Senator Lugar. These are all extremely interesting. I would say
to be fair that Senator Feingold believes that ``with each
passing year we fail to act, the challenge of addressing global
warming and reducing emissions becomes increasingly difficult
and costly. The time to act is now.''
Senator Enzi has a different view. He says he didn't think
we had to have this hearing. He thinks people could have just
expressed themselves on the floor of the Senate. He said he
doesn't believe climate change is as pressing a problem as many
would suggest. He says he doesn't trust his weatherman to
predict the temperature, let alone what is going to happen 100
years from now. He does say, and this is the part where I
always found a little nugget in everybody's testimony, that the
right approach is to develop technologies and to share that
technology with other nations. So as cleaner technologies
spread through the world, they will address what many believe
is a global problem.
So I think even Senator Enzi and his, shall we say,
negative view of what we are viewing, does come up with the
pathway toward better technology.
Senator Kennedy strongly supports the Sanders-Boxer bill.
He says, ``We need to act now.''
Senator Lugar I think has a very interesting statement. He
says that, ``Solving these challenges will require a stronger
commitment by our government to scientific research, policy
innovation and diplomacy.'' He calls on Congress to work with
the executive branch in a way that inspires Americans, and he
wants to work with us to do that.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Statement of Hon. Russ Feingold, U.S. Senator from the
State of Wisconsin
Thank you Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for inviting
your colleagues to testify today on the important issue of global
warming.
The question before us today is not should we act to address global
warming. The question is how. Politicians are often portrayed as only
having their sights on the next election, and being unwilling to make
changes in the near-term in order to produce long-term benefits. I am
delighted that this Committee is intent on seeking effective long-term
solutions to this serious problem.
I was pleased to join you, Chairwoman Boxer, and several of our
colleagues in co-sponsoring Senator Sanders' bill, the Global Warming
Pollution Reduction Act. I believe this bill provides the leadership
and the comprehensive, scientific-based approach to addressing global
warming that Americans demand and deserve.
Leading climate scientists have identified 450 parts per million of
atmospheric carbon dioxide and increases above 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit
above pre-industrial levels as the tipping point. To stay below these
levels, this bill commits to incrementally reducing the United States'
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and then to making further reductions
between 2020 and 2050. I believe these goals are achievable using a
combination of mandatory measures and incentives.
The bill also recognizes the importance of taking an economy-wide
approach to addressing global warming, and not one that targets a
single sector. Industry, power, transportation, and building sectors
all have a role to play in reducing global warming-causing emissions.
As many of my colleagues and I wrote to the President last year, by
sending the right market signals and supporting the ``deployment of
existing technologies and development of new technologies to reduce
emissions,'' we can keep U.S. businesses competitive in the emerging
carbon-conscious global marketplace. I am also heartened that the
economy-wide approach is supported by the majority of the 160
organizations that attended last year's conference hosted by the Senate
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Another key component to addressing global warming is right in the
name--global. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I was
pleased to cosponsor, last Congress, a Lugar/Biden resolution on the
need for the United States to reengage with the international community
on climate change. We must continue to participate in international
negotiations with the objective of securing United States participation
in agreements that advance and protect our interests, establishing
mitigation commitments by all countries that are major emitters of
greenhouse gases, establishing flexible international mechanisms to
minimize the cost of efforts by participating countries, and achieving
a significant long-term reduction in global greenhouse gas emissions.
As of the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African
Affairs, I am concerned about the threats global warming pose to the
continent of Africa. As we look to the future, we must address the
consequences our global energy habits will have on less developed
nations, in addition to the consequences on our own constituents.
I think we all agree there is no use in a plan that does little to
reduce global warming-causing emissions and makes our economy
vulnerable. I do not pretend that the decisions before us are going to
be easy. However, with each passing year that we fail to act, the
challenge of addressing global warming and reducing emissions becomes
increasingly difficult and costly--not only economically but
environmentally. The time to act is now.
[The prepared statement of Senator Enzi follows:]
Statement of Hon. Michael B. Enzi, U.S. Senator from the
State of Wyoming
Madame Chairman and Ranking Member Inhofe, thank you for allowing
me the opportunity to submit a statement at today's hearing. I agree
with the Ranking Member of the Committee that such a statement is
better suited for a session of morning business on the Senate floor.
However, I believe it is important to have a balanced debate, and so I
want to make my views clear for the record.
There is no question that the issue of climate change is on the
minds of the American people. Discussions on climate change, which are
traditionally commonplace in the media, are now commonplace around the
water cooler. Unfortunately, those discussions are dominated by
misinformation and are based on scare tactics. Rather than allowing the
science to run its course, the issue has become politicized.
I do not believe that climate change is nearly as pressing a
problem many proponents would suggest. We do not trust our weathermen
to predict the temperature a week in advance, and so it is difficult
for me to believe that individuals can predict the weather 100 years
from now. Particularly given that just a few decades ago, we were told
that the world was entering the next ice age, I struggle to see how
some can discuss the issue with absolute certainty.
Because the science is not settled on the issue of climate change,
I will not support any actions that will put the United States at an
economic disadvantage without any guarantees that the problem is real
and without any guarantees that these so-called solutions will address
the issue.
As that is the case, I base my position on climate change on the
Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which passed the United States Senate on June
12, 1997 by a vote of 95-0. The legislation should set the standards
for United States signature on any treaty that forces the reduction of
greenhouse gases. The resolution requires that all nations, including
developing nations like China and India, be a part of any agreement.
Additionally, the resolution requires that any measures enacted
domestically do not harm our country's economy.
If we act, we must do so in a way that makes sense and does not
dramatically disadvantage the United States. My experience at the Kyoto
Conference tells me that the mandatory CO2 caps that have
been proposed do not meet the high standard laid out under the Byrd-
Hagel Resolution.
I was a member of the United States Senate delegation to Kyoto,
Japan in 1997 where the Kyoto Protocol was drafted. One of the things I
noticed when I got to that conference was that the delegation from the
United States was one of the only delegations who were treating Kyoto
as an environmental conference. The vast majority of nations in
attendance realized that it was an economic conference. They saw Kyoto
as an opportunity to harm the U.S. economy. The Chinese delegation,
whose country represents the world's fastest growing emitter of
CO2, made it clear that they would never be part of a treaty
that forced them to reduce their CO2 emissions. Without
involving China, no treaty or action to reduce CO2 makes any
sense.
Instead of enacting costly legislation to cap CO2
emissions, I think the right approach is to develop technology and to
share that technology with other nations. Doing so allows cleaner
technologies to spread throughout the world, which is the best solution
to what many believe is a ``global problem.''
Thank you again for allowing me to share my thoughts on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]
Statement of Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, U.S. Senator from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
I commend Chairman Boxer and the Committee for scheduling this
hearing today to give Senators the opportunity to voice our concerns
about the growing climate crisis and our ideas on how to avert it.
We can no longer ignore the consequences of America's excessive
reliance on fossil fuels. The evidence is overwhelming that they are
devastating our environment and threatening public health, and our
reliance on foreign oil is putting our national security at risk.
I strongly support the ``Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act''
introduced recently by our new colleague, Senator Sanders. The act
calls for ambitious, but necessary and achievable greenhouse gas
reductions--including a ``20 by 2020'' renewable portfolio standard--to
gain control over these emissions before major damage is done to the
global climate.
In dealing with the global warming challenge, Congress must also
set aggressive fuel economy targets and encourage greater fuel
diversity. The fuel economy standards enacted 30 years ago are no
longer adequate. They should be increased for cars to at least 40 miles
per gallon over the next 10 years and to at least 27.5 miles per gallon
for SUVs and vans.
There's no silver bullet to end global warming, but greater use of
renewable energy and increased fuel efficiency could have a major
impact on cutting the nation's carbon dioxide emissions.
So can greater use of passenger rail and other forms of public
transportation. In a single year, Americans travel nearly five trillion
miles in the United States, more than 80 percent in personal vehicles.
Yet, Amtrak is twice as energy efficient as highway traffic by car,
truck, or motorcycle.
Unfortunately, the Administration is no friend of public transit.
It has even sought to zero-out Amtrak's operating subsidy. Instead, we
should support Senator Frank Lautenberg's bill to give Amtrak the
resources it needs to manage its debt and make capital improvements,
particularly in the heavily-used Northeast Corridor.
We must do more to increase fuel diversity so that cars and trucks
aren't so heavily reliant on petroleum. Senator Bayh and Senator
Brownback have offered legislation, the DRIVE Act, to steer motor
vehicle technology in the direction of bio-fuels, fuel cell vehicles
and hybrid-electric cars, and support alternative fueling
infrastructure so that consumers can fill their tanks with alternatives
to petroleum.
Tax policy is also an important part of the solution to the
challenge, and I hope this Committee can work closely with the Finance
Committee to develop a comprehensive approach. We should certainly
extend the tax credits for renewable energy technology such as hydrogen
fuel cells and solar energy cells. Senator Gordon Smith proposed
legislation in the last Congress for a multi-year extension of the tax
credits for each of these technologies, and I urge this Congress to
pass it or similar legislation as soon as possible.
A long-term extension of these tax credits is needed to attract
potential investors in these technologies. Massachusetts, California
and Ohio are among the nation's leaders in this field. In Massachusetts
alone, more than 60 companies are involved in fuel cell and hydrogen
technologies.
We should also do more to enable consumers to make environmentally-
wise decisions about the power they use. Hundreds of utilities across
the nation now offer ``Green Pricing'' programs that enable consumers
to have their homes powered with electricity generated from renewable
energy technology. We could encourage more rapid conversion to green
power by offering a ``Green Power Pricing'' tax credit equal to the
difference in the cost of clean power over dirty power.
We can reduce energy consumption in homes. We should make
construction more energy efficient, such as by establishing a grant
program to train the next generation of architects and building
designers in ``zero-energy home'' principles, so that building owners
can install more energy efficient technologies. Adopting these
principles for new home construction will bring down the cost of
household energy and support one of our nation's bedrock industries.
Finally, any comprehensive plan should reinstate the windfall
profits tax on the oil industry. We cannot rely on the oil companies to
restrain themselves during the worst of times, so a windfall tax is
clearly needed to protect consumers from price manipulation.
Again, I commend the Committee for taking up this immense
challenge, and I look forward very much to working with you in the
weeks ahead to enact legislation to deal with the urgent problem of
climate change.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Statement of Hon. Richard G. Lugar, U.S. Senator from the
State of Indiana
Chairwoman Boxer, members of the committee, I thank you for holding
this important hearing to examine the global climate change debate and
to train our minds on possible solutions.
For too long, the climate change debate has been a niche issue,
pitting implacable skeptics against so-called ``green idealists.'' Yet,
safeguarding the environment should not be viewed as a zero-sum
decision, where limited resources may be diverted away from programs
that more directly impact our immediate well-being. To the contrary,
the environment and energy security are interlinked priorities, the
advancement of which increases the welfare of all Americans.
Conversely, the deterioration of either will harm our national security
interests, economic well-being and our way of life. Both priorities
also have many of the same solutions.
Current trends are endangering the priorities of our foreign
policy. High prices and booming demand for oil are enriching some
authoritarian regimes, which use revenues to repress democracy and fund
terrorism or demagogic appeals. As we attempt to lift developing
countries from poverty, high oil prices also dull the effect of our
foreign aid. Without a diversification of energy supplies that
emphasizes environmentally friendly energy sources that are abundant in
most developing countries, the national incomes of energy poor nations
will remain depressed, with negative consequences for stability,
development, disease eradication, and terrorism.
Additionally, the burning of these fossil fuels has greatly
increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that could cause major
changes in the earth's climate. Climate change will bring more
droughts, floods and other weather calamities. Pests and disease will
spread into new regions of the world, threatening public health and
economic growth and making these areas more prone to conflict.
The interlinked challenges of global health, energy security,
democracy promotion, and extreme climate change should be addressed in
a comprehensive way. In my view, there are at least four components in
devising such a strategy.
First, America must radically reduce its reliance on oil, with an
emphasis on transforming the transportation sector. In 1999, when a
barrel of oil was just $20, I joined former CIA Director Jim Woolsey in
warning that our over-reliance on petroleum made it more difficult for
America to act responsibly in the world to safeguard peace, security
and prosperity. Dr. Woolsey and I advocated the development of
cellulosic ethanol as an alternative to petroleum for transportation
fuel. In terms of environmental impact, cellulosic ethanol's advantages
over gasoline substantially outweigh its disadvantages.
Today, President Bush and a large bipartisan coalition in Congress
support the production of more biofuels like ethanol. We must now put
in place the economic incentives to ensure that all cars and trucks can
burn these fuels and that filling stations readily provide them.
Second, the United States needs effective programs that harness
market forces to prod carbon constraints and cuts. Such programs should
include a carbon trading mechanism. Last year, I listed my farm in
Indiana on the Chicago Climate Exchange to set an example for farmers
and foresters in my state and throughout America. The hardwood trees on
my farm sequester 3,400 tons of carbon, which have market value on the
exchange despite the lack of a broader cap and trade system in America.
Changes sometimes come slowly, but I am hopeful that the Chicago
Climate Exchange will illustrate how easily market value can attach to
the most rudimentary of carbon reduction efforts.
For example, the exchange mechanism could be utilized by turning
unused farmland into tree farms that sequester carbon while providing
farmers with extra money. Or, farms could be used to grow grasses,
which are then converted into cellulosic ethanol. I was pleased to
learn of farmers in Iowa who use no-till cultivation practices--thus
keeping carbon in the ground--and have subsequently placed their farms
on the Chicago Climate Exchange. In short, American farmers could
become the vanguard in using market forces to the benefit of both the
environment and the pocketbook.
Madam Chairwoman, I would ask consent to submit into the record a
report from the Pew Center on Global Climate Change entitled
``Agricultural & Forestlands: U.S. Carbon Policy Strategies'' in which
Professor Kenneth Richards of Indiana University discusses in further
detail strategies for greenhouse gas sequestration in agriculture and
forestry.
Last October, I had the privilege to meet several energy
entrepreneurs on a tour through Indiana. One dairy farm I visited was
designed to capture methane gas from feedlots to power the farm. The
captured methane, which would otherwise be released into the atmosphere
as a potent greenhouse gas, will eventually be sold to a nearby ethanol
plant. Completing a remarkable cycle, the distillers dry grains--a
byproduct of ethanol production--will be returned to the farm as cattle
feed. Such exemplary innovations not only improve our nation's net
energy position, but generate new revenues and less waste in
agriculture.
These innovations could create the foundation for an entirely new
business model for rural and small town America: by utilizing crops and
agricultural waste for fuel, American agriculture could reinvigorate
itself, while simultaneously alleviating our energy dependence.
Third, America needs to carry out coordinated and sustained energy
diplomacy with our partners abroad. Just as securing our energy
requires international agreements and cooperation, so too does securing
our environment. As China, India, Brazil, and other industrializing
countries come on line as major energy consumers, they will
increasingly become a source of global climate change and environmental
degradation. It is in our interest to coax these countries into
international environmental frameworks by actively participating in the
agreements ourselves. For this reason, I have co-authored with Senator
Biden S. RES. 30, which calls on the United States to pursue agreements
under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Fourth, America must ready itself for the security ramifications of
energy dependence and climate change in the international political
sphere. As a preliminary step, I authored and the Senate approved a
resolution that calls upon the United States to lead discussions about
the role NATO could play in energy security. The resolution also
instructs the President to submit a report to Congress that details a
strategy for NATO to help in the development of secure, sustainable,
and reliable sources of energy, including contingency plans should
current supplies be put at risk.
In a speech I delivered in advance of the NATO Summit in Riga,
Latvia, I urged NATO to consider invoking its mutual defense commitment
in case of an energy cut-off affecting a NATO member state: an attack
on one may require a response by all. Any such threats to America's
energy supplies could be greatly reduced by focusing on sustainable
fuels and preparing for supply disruption.
We must also develop strategies for dealing with environmental
calamities related to climate change. Soybean rust has already migrated
from tropical areas to the detriment of crops as far north as Indiana.
The spread of disease or pest infestations could likewise cause
political, economic and social turbulence throughout the world.
Solving these challenges will require a stronger commitment by our
government to scientific research, policy innovation and diplomacy. It
will require Congress and the Executive Branch to come together in ways
that inspire Americans rather than divide them. I believe that we have
many opportunities for furthering this work in this Congress, and I
look forward to working with my Colleagues to do so.
Thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman, for calling this timely
hearing.
[The referenced document follows on page 1054.]
Senator Boxer. So I think all in all, it has been quite a
day. Now, is there anything else? We will keep the record open
for just about 3 working days, and I will be able to publish
this hearing because I think there is a lot in here for the
American people to really look at.
So we will do that. We will also see if we can put it in
the congressional Record as a hearing. I don't know if we can
do that or not, but we are going to certainly publish it.
I meant to say to Senator Durbin something that some of you
may already know. My staff will correct me if I don't say this
exactly right. But if the rest of the Country had the energy
efficiency record of California, in other words, the per capita
use of energy in California, if just the rest of the Country
did it, we would save the equivalent in energy of all the oil
we import from the Middle East, at least.
So I think energy efficiency is a way to go that doesn't
require giving up really any creature comforts. The first thing
that every man I know asks me when I step out of the hybrid is,
but does it have pick-up? I can tell you, it absolutely has
pick-up.
So with that, I just want to thank the audience. A lot of
you were here through this entire hearing, and I do think this
is a beginning of what is going to be a fascinating journey,
and at the end of that journey, as soon as we can, we are going
to have something to show for it, and we are going to start to
have America take the lead on this issue that is facing us.
Thank you very much, and we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m. the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Statement of Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, U.S. Senator from the
State of Hawaii
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Senator Boxer for
initiating this Members hearing on this important issue. It is an
excellent opportunity to bring together the various Committees and
Members with an interest in energy conservation, climate change, and
the environment.
I also want to commend Senator Boxer for her leadership on these
serious issues. I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the Global
Warming Pollution Reduction Act of 2007, introduced by Senators Boxer
and Sanders. I look forward to working on other legislation with my
many colleagues who are committed to addressing the very real problem
of global warming.
As Chairman of the Commerce Committee, I would like to explain the
important role the Committee would play in developing policy responses
to the many problems associated with global warming. With jurisdiction
over rail, surface, and air transportation, we oversee the sector of
our economy that is responsible for the largest proportion of our
nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The Commerce Committee exercises
jurisdiction over the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) and its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, which
sets miles per gallon (mpg) targets for the passenger automobile fleet.
The Committee has jurisdiction over science and technology matters
directly relevant to climate change. For example, the Committee has
primary jurisdiction over atmospheric monitoring and science, and over
the principal federal agencies that conduct or fund climate change
research--the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the
National Science Foundation. The Committee also developed and oversees
the Global Change Research Act, which sets forth authority for federal
interagency research on climate change, as well as the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, which is charged with guiding
and integrating research and science policy across government agencies.
Finally, the Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over engineering and
technology research and development, as well as the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST), which has a role to play in
developing better measurements, standards, and technologies to help
reduce the production of greenhouse gases.
Because of our broad jurisdiction, and the imminent need to address
climate change related issues, my Commerce Committee colleagues and I
anticipate an active agenda for the Committee in terms of both
legislative initiatives and our hearing schedule. Let me briefly
highlight some of the legislation and hearings that we anticipate
working on during this session.
Last week, Senators Feinstein, Snowe, Durbin and I introduced the
``Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act of 2007,'' which would mandate that the
passenger fleet, which would include light trucks weighing less than
10,000 lbs., as well as cars, achieve a combined CAFE average of 35 mpg
by 2019. I would like to thank Chairman Boxer for joining us in this
important effort. This bill takes a real world approach to improving
passenger fleet fuel economy and would be a significant positive step
in cutting our national greenhouse gas emissions. By 2025, the
provisions of this bill would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 358
million metric tons, which is the equivalent of taking 52 million cars
and trucks off our nation's roadways. In addition, assuming today's
price for a gallon of gas, the Act would effectively reduce consumption
of foreign oil by 2.1 million barrels a day by saving over 35 billion
gallons of gasoline annually.
The Committee's agenda at the start of the 110th Congress will
feature a number of hearings on climate change science and technology
issues. In a few weeks, we will be holding a hearing on climate change
science and scientific integrity to address federal scientists' ability
to convey research findings and conclusions to policy makers and the
pubic without being constrained by any political agenda. We also expect
to hold hearings on the relationship between our oceans and climate
change, including the impact of climate change on our coastal
environments and our marine resources.
The Committee is also concerned with the declining federal budget
for climate change research, and reports that the federal climate
research program is not only stagnating, but also subject to cutbacks
that would endanger the future health of research and monitoring. The
Committee will be pursuing legislation to strengthen the federal
climate research program to ensure support for the fundamental science
needed to fully understand the impact of climate change.
The Committee may also pursue legislation aimed at promoting
innovative energy technology, and directing the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to improve measurement technologies and
standards that are essential to decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.
Given the growing number of uses of our oceans and the Commerce
Committee's jurisdiction over the transportation and commerce aspects
of the Outer Continental Shelf, coastal zone management, marine
fisheries, and oceans, we hope to revisit some of the language in the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to account for these other aspects and to
improve coordination of the permitting process for offshore activities,
including oil and gas exploration.
I look forward to working with all of you to improve the
environment and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.
__________
Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., U.S. Senator from the
State of Delaware
If anyone wants evidence that the climate is changing, just look
around this room. The climate has changed here in the Senate and
climate change is on the agenda. The heat is on us to do something
about it.
I congratulate Senator Boxer on her ambitious agenda for this
committee, and for convening this forum today.
One of the President's first acts in office was to break his
promise to do something about climate change. Instead of action, he
turned his back on international cooperation and pulled us out of the
Kyoto process.
That train has now left the station. The rest of the industrial
nations have taken on commitments to reduce their emissions to 7
percent below 1990 levels, during the period 2008 to 2012. We missed
the chance to find a way to make the Kyoto Protocol workable for the
United States. We missed a chance to begin the process of slowing,
stopping, and reversing our emissions.
We missed the chance to turn the impending threat of catastrophic
climate change into an opportunity to reduce the security threat of our
dependence on oil, to reduce the health threat from pollution, to
reduce the sheer waste and inefficiency in our economy.
And we missed the chance to do what many of the leading businesses
in this country know we should do capture a leadership position in the
global competition for the next generation of clean technologies. Last
week, we heard from an alliance among some of our most important
corporations and some of our most respected nongovernmental
organizations, the United States Climate Action Partnership. I am
particularly proud that DuPont, from my home state of Delaware, has
taken the lead on this issue for many years.
Once again this year, Senator Lugar and I have joined together to
introduce a resolution calling on the Administration to return to a
leadership role in international climate change talks.
Our resolution calls for United States participation in
negotiations under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change--signed by the first President Bush--that will protect the
economic and security interests of the United States, and that will
commit all nations--developed and developing--that are major emitters
of greenhouse gases to achieve significant long-term reductions in
those emissions.
The resolution also calls for a bipartisan Senate observer group--
based on our experience with arms control negotiations--to monitor
talks and ensure that our negotiators bring back agreements that all
Americans can support.
S. Res. 30 states that evidence of the human role in global warming
is clear, that the environmental, economic, and security effects will
be costly, and that the response must be international. The resolution
recognizes that there are real economic benefits from both reducing the
waste and inefficiencies inherent in greenhouse gas emissions, and from
the markets for new, climate-friendly technologies. Most importantly it
puts the Senate on record, calling for the United States to resume its
role as leader in the international effort to address this global
threat.
As the body that will ratify any international treaty on climate
change, the Senate's position must be clear to the rest of the world.
This resolution says we are reading to take on binding commitments that
achieve significant long-term reductions in global greenhouse gas
emissions.
The physical consequences of global warming are right before our
eyes: the shrinking polar ice cap, retreating glaciers, stronger storms
driven by warmer ocean waters, and changing growing seasons, animal
migration, and rainfall patterns.
Future consequences if we continue business as usual will include
rising sea levels, the spread of diseases, abrupt climate shifts that
could shut down of the Atlantic cycle that warms Europe, or the shrink
the Amazon rainforest that provides twenty percent of the oxygen we
breathe.
These changes will profoundly alter the assumptions on which the
economic, political, and security arrangements of our world have been
constructed. Our national borders, our cities, our cultures, are all
built around patterns of rainfall, arable land, and coastlines that
will be redrawn as global warming proceeds.
By one estimate, 200 million people, in the coastal cities of New
York, Tokyo, Cairo, and London, in low-lying countries such as
Bangladesh, in the islands of the Pacific and Caribbean, could be
permanently displaced by climate shifts.
Throughout human history, massive population shifts, frustrated
expectations, and the collapse of economies, have all led to conflict.
Even the richest nations, source of the emissions behind global
warming, will face huge costs coping with those catastrophes.
The poorest nations, whose economies have contributed little or
nothing to the greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, will be hit the
worst, and will have the fewest resources with which to respond. This
is a recipe for global resource wars, and even greater resentment of
our wealth by those less fortunate--a new world disorder.
We are failing in our responsibility to steward the riches we have
inherited. We are bequeathing our children not just a ruined landscape,
but a world of conflict as well.
This is a classic tragedy of the commons. We have treated our
atmosphere as a costless dump for the waste gases that are the
byproduct of our great wealth.
There was a time when we could plead ignorance. That day is past.
The science is now clear. There was a
time when we might have claimed the cost of changing our ways was
too great. That day is past. We now know the costs of inaction are
unacceptably high. There was a time when we could claim that our
actions, in isolation, would be ineffective. That day is past. It is
now clear that our inaction reduces the effectiveness of international
efforts to address climate change, and provides an excuse for China,
India, Mexico, Brazil, and the other leading emitters of the future to
stay with us on the sidelines.
I personally believe that the single most important step we can
take to resume a leadership role in international climate change
efforts would be to make real progress toward a domestic emissions
reduction regime. For too long we have abdicated the responsibility to
reduce our own emissions, the largest single source of the problem we
face today. We have the world's largest economy, with the highest per
capita emissions. Rather than leading by example, we have retreated
from international negotiations.
Beginning with the hearing Senator Boxer has convened today, we
will see renewed efforts to pass legislation to create that regime, to
reduce our domestic emissions, and to open our many responsible
American businesses to both international emissions trading and the new
markets for clean technologies in the developing world. Moving toward
that goal will be crucial to the effectiveness and credibility of our
international efforts.
There are many possible paths to that goal. Our legislative process
will provide the forum for us to consider many options. One option that
we do not have is inaction.
We are all on this planet together. We cannot protect ourselves
from the effects of climate change by acting alone--this is a global
problem that will require a global solution. To undertake meaningful
reductions, countries will need to know that their actions will not be
undercut by ``free riders'' who continue business as usual while they
commit to change. To build that trust will require commitments by all
of the key players, and the institutions to coordinate the actions of
independent nations.
That is why the United States must be a leader on climate change
issues, and that is why I have been working for three decades to take
on this challenge.
On this issue, quite literally, history will be our judge. I
congratulate Senator Boxer for her leadership on this issue, as well as
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who will have joined in this
effort.
A copy of Senator Biden and Senator Lugar's resolution calling for
the United States to return to international negotiations on climate
change is attached.
[The referenced document follows on page 1135.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]