[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
February 25, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-224 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
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 WAYS AND MEANS
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California DAVE CAMP, Michigan
SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan WALLY HERGER, California
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington SAM JOHNSON, Texas
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia KEVIN BRADY, Texas
RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
XAVIER BECERRA, California JOHN LINDER, Georgia
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas DEVIN NUNES, California
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio
MIKE THOMPSON, California GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut GEOFF DAVIS, Kentucky
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
RON KIND, Wisconsin CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR.,
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey Louisiana
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida
ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
BOB ETHERIDGE, North Carolina
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
Janice Mays, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Jon Traub, Minority Staff Director
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of
converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
Page
Dr. James Hansen, Adjunct Professor, The Earth Institute at
Columbia University, New York, New York........................ 6
Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, Climate Scientist, Union of Concerned
Scientists..................................................... 10
Dr. John Christy, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science
and Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of
Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama..................... 24
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, Statement....................... 62
Paul G. Gaffney II, Statement.................................... 67
Richard Pauli, Statement......................................... 70
Wayne Pacelle, Letter............................................ 73
HEARING ON SCIENTIFIC OBJECTIVES FOR CLIMATE CHANGE LEGISLATION
----------
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles B.
Rangel, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
ADVISORY
FROM THE
COMMITTEE
ON WAYS
AND
MEANS
CONTACT: (202) 225-1721
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 18, 2009
FC-1
Chairman Rangel Announces Hearing on
Scientific Objectives for
Climate Change Legislation
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel today
announced that the Committee on Ways and Means will continue its series
of hearings on climate change. The next hearing will take place on
Wednesday, February 25, 2009, in 1100 Longworth House Office Building,
beginning at 10:00 A.M.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral
testimony at this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However,
any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may
submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for
inclusion in the printed record of the hearing. A list of invited
witnesses will follow.
BACKGROUND:
During the 110th Congress, the Committee on Ways and Means began a
series of hearings on climate change. In the first hearing, the
Committee heard testimony that human greenhouse gas emissions are
having an adverse impact on our planet's climate. In the second
hearing, the Committee heard testimony from numerous witnesses
recommending that Congress implement revenue measures (e.g., auction-
based cap-and-trade proposals or carbon taxes) that would reduce human
greenhouse gas emissions. In connection with the development of these
revenue measures, witnesses at this hearing also encouraged the
Committee to (1) promote a comprehensive global effort to address
climate change and to ensure a level regulatory playing field for U.S.
manufacturers, (2) mitigate higher energy costs borne by consumers, and
(3) maximize the impact that climate change legislation will have on
growing the U.S. economy.
In announcing this hearing, Chairman Rangel said, ``The development
of climate change legislation will be a priority for the Ways and Means
Committee during the 111th Congress. The Committee must define the
environmental objectives that we hope to achieve with climate change
legislation before we can design such legislation. These objectives
must be based on science.''
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
The hearing will focus on a scientific discussion of the objectives
that climate change legislation should seek to achieve.
DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:
Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit
for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing
page of the Committee website and complete the informational forms.
From the Committee homepage, http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select
``Committee Hearings''. Select the hearing for which you would like to
submit, and click on the link entitled, ``Click here to provide a
submission for the record.'' Once you have followed the online
instructions, complete all informational forms and click ``submit'' on
the final page. ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect
document, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below,
by close of business Wednesday, March 11, 2009. Finally, please note
that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police
will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings.
For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call
(202) 225-1721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the
official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the
record according to the discretion of the Committee. The Committee will
not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to
format it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the
Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the
printed record, and any written comments in response to a request for
written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any
submission or supplementary item not in compliance with these
guidelines will not be printed, but will be maintained in the Committee
files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in
Word or WordPerfect format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages,
including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the
Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for
review and use by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons,
and/or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears. A
supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the name,
company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness.
Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on
the World Wide Web at http:waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons
with disabilities. If you are in need of special accommodations, please
call 202-225-1721 or 202-226-3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four
business days notice is requested). Questions with regard to special
accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee
materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as
noted above.
Chairman RANGEL. The Committee will come to order. I want
to thank the Members that are here. I am certain others will be
coming soon.
I want to thank the Committee Members and our witnesses for
joining us on what may not be a historic occasion, but
certainly indicating that the Congress is prepared to move on
this very, very important issue.
Our President has spoken to this issue. The Speaker has. I
am certain we all agree that we have a responsibility to
continue.
This is the third hearing that we have had on climate
change legislation. The whole world is watching, not
necessarily this Committee, but certainly the direction in
which the Congress is going to go.
We hope that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle
will cooperate in trying to set up some type of a taskforce
with other Committees of jurisdiction so we can see what, if
any differences we had, so we can make certain that we get all
the ideas on this very complex subject in line.
We think we have enough scientific evidence to move forward
on this, the distribution of resources that will have to be
collected is a very complex problem.
I want to first welcome Dr. James Hansen, who has an
international reputation for expertise in this area, spending
decades bringing this to the attention of the American people
and the world, sounding the alarm as early as in 1988 when he
was in testimony before the Congress, who raised awareness of
global warming issues.
Your leadership has been appreciated. It is invaluable. We
are really grateful that all of you have adjusted your
schedules to share your very, very important views with us.
I want to welcome Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel, who joins us today
representing the Union of Concerned Scientists. It is a science
based non-profit organization.
The Union of Concerned Scientists recently released the
U.S. scientists and economists' call for a swift and deep cut
in greenhouse gas emissions, and we are honored and pleased
that you have presented yourself to us as well as 1,700
scientists and economists with expertise in dealing with this,
and we thank you again.
I also would want to include in our welcome to Dr. John
Christy, who is a distinguished professor of atmospheric
science and director of the Earth Science Center at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville.
He has served the State since 2000 and brings with him a
great resume of experience in this area.
Since you all have been pioneers and recognized the serious
nature of this issue, and I hope you are pleased to know that
our national leadership has agreed that it is time to stop
talking and to move and to continue to call upon your expertise
as we prepare a bill to present to the President of these
United States.
I would like to yield to Jim Camp on this sensitive
subject.
Mr. CAMP. It is Jim McCrery and Dave Camp.
Chairman RANGEL. I am sorry.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you before we get into the substance of this hearing for
exerting our jurisdiction over this issue.
This is an important issue. It is an issue with significant
revenue ramifications, and the Committee on Ways and Means
needs to be very importantly involved in it.
As Dr. Hansen, the witness, notes--I want to thank all the
witnesses for being here--he notes in his written testimony,
primarily on the cover, that tax and trade is
``pseudonymously'' and sometimes disingenuously termed ``cap
and trade.''
I am not sure I could have better stated that fact, that
the so-called cap and trade measure is a revenue measure. That
should originate in the House, and more specifically, it should
originate in this Committee.
The question of this hearing is what are the scientific
objectives for climate change legislation, and I would like to
take a step back and ask what is the science of climate change,
what can it definitely tell us, can it say who is responsible
for it, can it tell us what impact we can have on it, and if we
can, what are the results both positive and negative.
From what I have read, there remains still a great deal of
uncertainty with regard to the scientific evidence about
climate change. However, I do think you can find virtually
unanimity, and that is in acting alone, the United States can
do very little if anything to reduce global greenhouse gases.
Unless larger emitters like China and India agree to
binding reductions in their emissions, there will be no
benefit, only significant job losses here in the U.S.
Let me repeat that. Unilateral action by the United States
will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions in any significant
way, but it will reduce U.S. economic growth and destroy
millions of American jobs, especially in the manufacturing
sector. In a state like Michigan, that is absolutely critical.
Those jobs are the backbone of our economy as well. That is
because at its core, any tax and trade plan is designed to
increase the cost of energy. Energy that fuels our cars, lights
our homes, powers our assembly lines, and ensures an affordable
food supply.
Even if we ask the American worker to make this economic
sacrifice, there are no guarantees that China and India will
follow suit. In fact, the Chinese and Indians have made it very
clear that they will not agree to any reductions in emissions
but instead expect millions of dollars of U.S. aid and
technology.
When asked about capping China's greenhouse gas emissions,
Ma Kai, head of the country's National Development and Reform
Commission, said and I quote ``Our general stance is that China
will not commit to any qualified emission reduction targets.''
Similarly, Shyam Saran, India's principal negotiator on
climate change, when asked about his country's interest in
capping its greenhouse gas emissions, said and I quote again
``Industrialized countries should meet their own commitments in
the fight against climate change rather than asking countries
like India and China to cap greenhouse gas emissions. We do not
want to announce targets which we have no intention of
achieving.''
Many of you have heard the Chairman and I discuss the need
to work in a bipartisan fashion on this Committee, so before I
yield back, I just want to comment that before Members vote to
eliminate millions of American jobs, let us find out if an
economy-choking solution will actually provide any measurable
benefit.
I expect all of our witnesses today will caution that the
U.S. acting alone cannot make a bit of difference in actually
changing the climate.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time and thank
you again, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you, Mr. Camp. I now have the great
honor of calling on Dr. Hansen, who certainly has done a
yeoman's job of bringing this serious problem to the attention
of our great country and the world, and I hope all three of you
will make yourself available as we move forward in trying to
get these ideas in a legislative form.
Dr. Hansen, thank you once again. I look forward to your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HANSEN, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR, THE EARTH
INSTITUTE AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, NEW YORK
Mr. HANSEN. Thank you, Chairman Rangel and Mr. Camp.
We have a planet in peril. The President recognizes this.
The situation is clear. Evidence from the Earth's history and
ongoing global climate changes reveal that the ``dangerous
level'' of atmospheric carbon dioxide is much less than was
believed even recently.
The safe level is no higher than 350 parts per million,
probably less than that. We just passed 385 ppm.
Climate change threatens everyone, especially our children
and grandchildren, the young and the unborn, who will bear the
full brunt, through no fault of their own.
It is clear that we cannot burn all fossil fuels releasing
the waste products into the air without handing our children a
situation in which amplifying feedbacks begin to run out of
their control, with severe consequences for nature and
humanity.
We have to face the truth. We cannot burn all of the coal,
let alone unconventional fossil fuels such as oil shale, unless
the combustion products are all captured and disposed of, which
is implausible.
The Obama Administration has taken steps that may lead to
improved vehicle efficiencies and reduced coal use. These
actions are necessary and important but they will be effective
only if we address the root cause of the problem.
The root cause is our failure to make polluting fossil fuel
energy more expensive than clean energy. We must put a price, a
rising price, on carbon emissions.
There are two competing ways to achieve this price. One is
tax and 100 percent dividend. Tax carbon emissions but give all
of the money back to the public on a per capita basis.
For example, let us start with a tax large enough to affect
purchasing decisions, a carbon tax that adds one dollar to the
price of a gallon of gas. That is a carbon price of about $115
per ton of CO2. That tax rate yields $670 billion
per year.
We return 100 percent of that money to the public, each
adult legal resident gets one share, which is $3,000 per year,
$250 per month deposited in their bank account. Half shares for
each child up to a maximum of two children per family, so a tax
rate of $115 per ton yields a dividend of $9,000 per year for a
family with two children, $750 per month.
The family with carbon footprint less than average will
make money. That dividend would exceed their tax.
This tax gives a strong incentive to replace inefficient
infrastructure. It spurs the economy and it spurs innovation.
This path can take us to the era beyond fossil fuels, leave
most remaining coal in the ground, and avoid the need to go to
extreme environments to find every drop of oil.
We must move beyond fossil fuels anyhow, so why not do it
sooner for the benefit of our children. Not to do so and
knowing the consequences is, I think, immoral.
The tax rate likely must increase in time, but when gas
hits $4 per gallon again, most of that $4 will stay in the
United States as dividends. Our vehicles will not need as many
gallons. We will be well on the way to energy independence.
The alternative to carbon tax and 100 percent dividend is
tax and trade foisted on the public under the pseudonym ``cap
and trade.'' A cap increases the price of energy as a tax does.
It is wrong and disingenuous to try to hide that fact, to hide
the fact that cap is a tax.
Other characteristics of the cap approach include one,
unpredictable price volatility. Two, it makes millionaires on
Wall Street and other trading floors at the public expense.
Three, it is an invitation to blackmail by utilities who
threaten blackouts coming to gain increased emission permits.
Four, it has overhead costs and complexities inviting lobbyists
and delaying the implementation.
The biggest problem with cap tax is that it will not solve
the problem. The public will soon learn that it is a tax and
because there is no dividend, the public will revolt before the
cap tax is large enough to transform society.
There is no way that the cap tax can get us back to 350
parts per million of CO2. We need a tax with 100
percent dividend to transform our energy systems and rapidly
move us beyond fossil fuels.
For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we cannot
let the special interests win this fight. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of James E. Hansen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. James Hansen, Adjunct Professor, The Earth
Institute at Columbia University, New York, New YorkTestimony Before
the House Committee on Ways and MeansFebruary 25, 2009
Our planet is in peril.\1\ Climate disruption threatens everyone,
but especially the young and the unborn, who will bear the full brunt
through no fault of their own. Recent science makes it clear that if we
continue to burn most of the fossil fuels we will leave our children a
deteriorating situation out of their control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Clarification of the climate threat could usefully be obtained
by requesting a report from the National Academy of Sciences. The
Academy, established by Abraham Lincoln for the purpose of advising the
President and Congress on important technical matters, is widely
recognized as the most authoritative scientific body in the world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One scientific conclusion is crystal clear \1\: we cannot burn all
of the fossil fuels without setting in motion a process of climate
disruption that threatens the very existence of many species on our
planet. This potential injustice is not limited to the innocent species
we exterminate. The greatest injustice is to our own species \2\--our
children, grandchildren and the unborn, and people who live with
nature, who we may call `undeveloped', indigenous people who want only
to live their lives without bearing burdens that we create.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Sword of Damocles: http://www.columbia.edu/jeh1/mailings/
2009/20090215_Damocles
.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President deserves credit for recognizing that our planet is in
peril, and his administration deserves credit for initial steps that
may lead to increased vehicle fuel efficiencies and constraints on coal
emissions. These steps are important. Greater fuel efficiency, e.g., is
essential. But it must be recognized that these steps address the
symptoms of the problem, not the root cause. Moreover, these steps will
fail if the root cause is not addressed.
The root cause is our failure to make polluting fossil-fuel energy
more expensive than clean energy. Instead we subsidize fossil fuels!
We must put a price on carbon emissions, a rising price. If we do
this promptly we can stabilize the atmosphere and climate, with
healthier air, improved agricultural productivity, clean water, an
ocean providing fish that are safe to eat, with a reversal of the trend
toward increased birth defects and other consequences of fossil fuel
pollution in our air and water.
Fossil fuels are finite. We must find clean energies to replace
them. Why not do that sooner, rather than digging for every scrap of
carbon, and in the process destroying the future of our children and
grandchildren?
The reason ``why not'' is this: the fossil fuel industry has
enormous power over our governments, through their lobbying and
``campaign'' contributions. Yet you and other leaders are elected to
represent the public. The public expects you to look out after their
children, to preserve creation, our children's heritage. Instead we are
robbing money from our children's pockets and piggybanks, borrowing
money from our children to fund subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.
This selfishness is not limited to America. I wrote to government
leaders of several countries that are believed to be among the
``greenest'', one of them led by a physicist. I thought they would
understand the clear scientific rationale that we must phase out coal
use and move beyond fossil fuels, if we are to preserve a planet
resembling the one we inherited from our elders. But I learned that the
fossil fuel industries in those countries have enormous power, as they
do here. Those governments are not green--they are black, coal black.
Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend
If we continue to subsidize fossil fuels and do not impose a carbon
price, our automobile manufacturers will likely fail--they are being
instructed to build fuel-efficient vehicles, which will be in limited
demand as long as fossil fuels do not have to pay their true costs.
Similarly, ``renewable energy portfolios'' for utilities will rip off
the public (rate-payers), with marginal benefit for the environment.
Energy-inefficient buildings will continue to be built. And so on.
The most honest effective way to achieve a carbon price capable of
driving our economy and our society to the clean world of the future is
``Carbon Tax with 100% Dividend'' \3\ For example, a carbon price
equivalent to $1 gallon of gasoline (about $115 per ton of
CO2), for 2007 rates of fossil fuel use in the United
States, generates $670B. If we give one share to each legal resident
age 22 and over, one half-share to college age youth (18-21), one half-
share to the parents of each child up to two children per family, that
yields about 224 million shares in 2007 (this could be off by 10%; I
could not find optimum census data). So the 100% Dividend for a $1
gallon tax rate ($115 per ton of CO2) is:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ http://www.columbia.edu/jeh1/mailings/2008/
20080604_TaxAndDividend.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single share: $3000/year ($250 per month, deposited monthly in bank
account)
Family with 2 children: $9000/year ($750 per month, deposited
monthly in bank account)
The tax rate and dividend should increase with time.\4\ This
approach would reduce demand for fossil fuels, driving down the price
of fossil fuels on the open market. The next time the price of gasoline
reaches $4/gallon most of that $4 should be tax, with 100% of that tax
returned to the public as dividend. Instead of our money going to the
Middle East and other foreign places, most of it would stay at home.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The tax rate should increase until fossil fuel energy is not
competitive with clean energy. The tax gathered, and thus the dividend,
will initially increase as more clean energy enters the mix. But the
dividend will enventually go down, as clean energy becomes ascendant.
That is okay, because, as a result of competition, economies of scale
and innovation, clean energy prices will fall. In addition, increased
energy efficiency and conservation will reduce energy use per person.
\5\ Two years ago I sat next to the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the
United States at a dinner. He became upset, politely, when I mentioned
this concept of a carbon tax. Clearly, he understood the implications.
He did not seem too concerned that it would be adopted--he probably
took it for granted that fossil fuel special interests could overcome
any wisdom of our law-makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This tax, and the knowledge that it would continue to increase in
the future, would spur innovations in energy efficiency and carbon-free
energy sources. The dividend would put money in the hands of the
public, allowing them to purchase vehicles and other products that
reduce their carbon footprint and thus their taxes. The person doing
better than average would obtain more from the dividend than paid in
the tax. The tax would affect building designs and serve as an
effective enforcer of energy efficient building codes that are now
widely ignored. The need to replace inefficient infrastructure would
spur the economy. Tax and 100% dividend can drive innovation and
economic growth with a snowballing effect. Carbon emissions will
plummet far faster than alternative top-down regulations. Our
infrastructure will be modernized for the clean energy future. There
will be no need to go to the most extreme environments on Earth for the
last drop of fossil fuel, to squeeze oil from tar shale, or develop
other unconventional fossil fuels.
A tax on coal, oil and gas is simple. It can be collected easily
and reliably at the first point of sale, at the mine or oil well, or at
the port of entry. This approach also implies the fastest most
effective way to international agreements. A proportionate duty should
be applied to any imported products whose manufacture produced carbon
emissions. The system could impose presumptive border taxes, allowing
individual firms to prove that a lower rate should apply.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Metcalf-Weisback-Design of a Carbon Tax
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A carbon tax will raise energy prices, but lower and middle income
people, especially, will find ways to reduce carbon emissions so as to
come out ahead. Effects will permeate society. Food requiring lots of
carbon emissions to produce and transport will become more expensive
and vice versa. There will be a growing incentive for life style
changes needed for sustainable living.
One may ask: is there sufficient technology today, and just around
the corner if the economic incentive exists, to allow phase out of coal
emissions in the near term and other fossil fuels on a longer time
scale? The answer is a clear ``yes'', as discussed in a workshop report
\7\ (this report is a draft--criticisms would be welcomed). Indeed,
Stoft \8\ shows that `Tax & Dividend' supports and makes more effective
appliance efficiency standards and renewable portfolio standards.
However, in order for energy efficiency and non-fossil energies to
rapidly supplant fossil fuels, the carbon price should be substantial
and rising.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ P. Kharecha et al. http://www.columbia.edu/jeh1/2009/
ECWorkshop_report.pdf
\8\ S.E. Stoft http://stoft.com/ebooks/cap-secrets.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tax & Trade (a.k.a., `Cap & Trade', pseudonymously and sometimes
disingenuously)
`Cap & Trade' increases costs to the public as does `Tax &
Dividend', but without the dividend. Thus it should be termed `Tax &
Trade'.\9\ Part of the reason for the pseudonym is to avoid the stigma
of a tax, under the presumption that the public is too gullible to
figure it out. Other parties support `Cap & Trade' because they hope to
profit--it is a give-away to special interests, who feel, based on
extensive empirical evidence, that they will be able to manipulate the
program through their lobbyists. Except for its stealth approach to
taxing the public, and its attraction to special interests, ``Cap &
Trade'' seems to have little merit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Much of the support for Cap & Trade stems from the desire to
avoid the term ``tax'' and create a real ``cap'' or declining limit on
emissions. However, as shown in the European Emissions Trading Scheme
and the Los Angeles RECLAIM program, among others, weaknesses in the
cap-and-trade concept make it inapplicable to the climate crisis.
Specifically, over-allocation of credits, lack of accurate measurement,
fraudulent outside offsets, and the failure to create true incentives
for early investments in clean energy technology and infrastructure
will doom the prospects for real emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course the proponents of `Cap & Trade' are not all special
interests and their lobbyists, or people who hope to make millions on
Wall Street from price volatility and manipulations. That is surely
right. Many, without looking closely at the details, assume that the
successful `Cap & Trade' used to help solve the acid rain problem,
might be a good model for the climate problem. Acid rain was much
simpler, partly because it was a program that required existing
facilities to employ a relatively simple low-cost solution. Unlike
climate change, the acid rain problem did not require massive
investments in new infrastructure and innovation. Instead it required a
group of existing facilities, with accurate emissions measurement, to
make minor burner modifications and use readily available low-cost low
sulfur coal. A few new rail lines were built and some facilities
purchased more efficient scrubbers.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2009/02/21/what-worked-
for-acid-rain-won%e2%80%99t-work-for-climate-change/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caps have not generally been applied at the mine or well-head,
rather further downstream. Proponents of `caps' say they will try to
push them upstream. That would open up consequences that now should be
unacceptable to Americans: volatility, manipulation, and trading floor
millionaires. Where would the millions come from--the common person, of
course, the rate payer, the public.
The abject failure of Cap & Trade was illuminated for all to see by
the Kyoto Protocol, the granddaddy of all Cap & Trade schemes. Even
countries that accepted the toughest emission reduction targets, such
as Japan, saw their emissions actually increase. The problem is the
inevitable loopholes in such complex approaches, which take years to
negotiate and implement.
The Congressional Budget Office \11\ provides a comparison of
carbon taxes to cap-and-trade. That report concludes that a given
emission reduction could be achieved at a fraction of the cost via a
carbon tax, as opposed to cap-and-trade. Another useful comparison is
also available.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Congressional Budget Office, ``Policy Options for Reducing
CO2 Emissions,'' February 2008, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/
89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf
\12\ L. Williams and A. Zabel, http://www.carbonfees.org/home/Cap-
and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The worst thing about cap-and-trade, from a climate standpoint, is
that it will surely be inadequate to achieve the sharp reduction of
emissions that is needed. Thus cap-and-trade would practically
guarantee disastrous climate change for our children and
grandchildren.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Brattle Group Report, CO2 Price Volatility:
Consequences and Cures, http://www.brattle.com/_documents/UploadLibrary
/Upload736.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only solution to the climate problem is to leave much of the
fossil fuels in the ground. That requires a high enough carbon price
that we move on to our energy future beyond fossil fuels.
Summary
The honest approach, the effective approach, for solving the global
warming problem would be a tax with 100% dividend. The public is not
stupid. They will understand that the hooks and eyes of a less
comprehensive more dissembling approach will be put there for some
reason other than saving the future for their children.
One of the biggest advantages of the Tax and Dividend approach is
its simplicity, which would allow it to be introduced quickly. The
Kyoto-like Cap & Trade is notoriously slow to negotiate and implement,
as well as being ineffective in the end. A related point is that an
effective international accord could be implemented with only a few of
the major economies. Import duties on countries not imposing a
comparable tax would surely bring broad rapid compliance.
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you.
We are now pleased to invite Dr. Brenda Ekwurzel who
represents 1,700 climatic scientists, and we are anxious to
hear your views. Thank you for being with us this morning.
STATEMENT OF BRENDA EKWURZEL, CLIMATE SCIENTIST, UNION OF
CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
speak about climate science and policy as part of the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
UCS is a science based non-profit working for a healthy
environment and a safer world.
I am a geochemist with years of experience studying the
Arctic. Back in September 1991, I was conducting research in
the Arctic Ocean. As our ship approached the North Pole
station, I expected to find a long and difficult passage
through very, very thick ice. Instead, I was astonished to find
lots of open water that we passed through easily.
That was 17 years ago. Since then, the Arctic sea ice has
shrunk and in 2007, it broke all records.
The most important objective of climate change legislation
is to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. There are
common sense solutions that have profound benefits for public
health, energy security, and our economy.
In May of 2008, I joined with over 1,700 scientists and
economists who hail from all 50 states calling on our Nation's
leaders to cut heat-trapping emissions swiftly and deeply.
This group also said the near term emission reductions
could be done in a way consistent with sound economic policy.
In my testimony, I will lay out reasonable goals that we
can meet with the urgent time line that the science demands.
These include faster than expected increases in sea level
rise as shown by the satellite observations and Summer sea ice
plummeting in the Arctic.
An important fact that is often overlooked is this: We are
diminishing the ocean's ability to absorb carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere. We have dumped so much CO2 into the
air that it will take at least 1,000 years for the ocean to
absorb most of this excess.
This means that a ton of CO2 that we emit today
will leave more in the air than when we emitted a ton decades
ago. Therefore, we cannot afford further delay.
As you consider policies to reduce emissions, the basic
questions you must consider are this: how much more of a
temperature increase can we tolerate and what does this mean
for the United States.
First, an increase in global average temperature above more
than two degrees Fahrenheit above today poses severe risks to
natural systems, human health and our quality of life.
To even have a 50/50 chance of preventing temperatures from
rising above this level, we must stay below 450 parts per
million of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. Remember,
this is an absolute maximum. Recent scientific evidence
suggests a lower goal may be even more prudent.
What does the U.S. need to do? In the USC analysis that
looked at current industrialized nations' share of global
emissions and the U.S. share of that level of emissions, we
found that the U.S. would be allotted a budget of 265 gigatons
of carbon dioxide heat trapping gases between the years 2000
and 2050.
To stay within that budget would mean that we would have to
reduce our emissions at least 80 percent by the year 2050. The
earlier we cut emissions, the more flexibility we will have
later, but if we delay until 2020, that means we would double
our rate of emissions' reductions in order to avoid a crash
finish.
Additionally, decisions that industries make today have
long lasting consequences. For example, coal plants can last
upward of 60 years. Therefore, we must send the market a clear
signal now to build energy infrastructure that will avoid
dirtier consequences that would lock in irreversible
consequences.
The IPCC examined one scenario that had industrialized
nations cutting between 35 and 50 percent below today's levels
in order to stay below a 450 parts per million goal.
For these reasons, USC thinks it is prudent to reduce U.S.
emissions around 35 percent from today's levels, which is about
25 percent below 1990 emission levels, by the year 2020. We
project around 10 percent of these reductions can come from
tropical forest protection and the rest can come from
transport, electric and agricultural sectors of our economy.
We recommend a comprehensive package of climate energy and
policies in which a well designed cap-and-invest program is a
foundation. The most effective means of limiting emissions
sufficiently is to put a cap and set those limits directly in
the legislation.
Another benefit of a cap-and-invest program is we always
keep the focus on the climate consequences we will avoid, which
as a scientist, is very important to me.
We also urge Members of Congress to include a rapid
response science review provision in any climate legislation to
ensure that government updates policies in light of the latest
evidence.
We look forward to working with Congress to help assure
policy is designed well to achieve the needed emissions'
reductions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Brenda Ekwurzel follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you.
Dr. Christy may have a different idea, but we certainly do
welcome your input into this very complex subject and look
forward to working with you and your ideas as well.
Thank you so much for coming. We are prepared to take your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY, ALABAMA STATE CLIMATOLOGIST AND
PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
Mr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am John Christy, Alabama State's climatologist and
professor of atmospheric science at University of Alabama at
Huntsville, and a participant in many national and
international climate panels, including the IPCC, as lead
author.
I really do appreciate this opportunity to speak. I want to
bring some hard metrics to the hearing today.
The first one comes from my testimony in Federal Court
about California's proposed auto emissions standards that the
EPA may allow to go forward.
I calculated using IPCC climate models that even if the
entire country adopts this rule, the net global impact would be
at most one hundredth of a degree by 2100, and even if the
entire world did the same, the effect would be less than four
hundredths of a degree by 2100, an amount so tiny we cannot
measure it with instruments or notice it in any way.
The issue here is that the scale of global CO2
emissions is enormous. I also determined the impact of an
enormous construction project of 1,000 nuclear power plants to
be operating by 2020, about 10 percent of the world's energy.
The effect on global temperature would be only seven
hundredths of a degree by 2050 and 15 hundredths by 2100.
Again, we would not notice it, but it is a dent.
I recall that John McCain wanted to build 45 nuclear
plants, not 1,000.
The point here is that the proposed actions that we can
test to limit emissions will have little effect on whatever the
climate will do, even if you assume a relatively high
sensitivity of temperature to CO2.
There is new information about that sensitivity. Current
climate models assume that the global temperature is very
sensitive to greenhouse gases. We are adding CO2 to
the air. There is no question about that. The real atmosphere
has many ways to respond to that change that the extra
CO2 is forcing upon it.
My colleague, Dr. Roy Spencer, has shown with satellite
observations that during warming episodes, clouds respond by
stepping up their cooling effect counteracting the warming.
Not one climate model could demonstrate this cooling
response. Rather, clouds in the models caused the opposite,
further warming.
We hypothesize that the poor cloud formulations are causing
models to overshoot the observed temperature.
Surface temperatures are often used to demonstrate global
warming. I am one of the few in this science who actually
builds these climate datasets from scratch.
In several published papers, I have documented two serious
problems that strongly suggest the surface warming of the past
century is overstated.
First, popular global datasets use only stations with easy
to access data. I have published results for North Alabama,
Central California, and soon, East Africa, where I went to the
hard data to find sources to increase the number of stations
tenfold. In each case, I found that the popular stations showed
too much warming.
Secondly, we have demonstrated that with the development of
agriculture and urbanization, complicated processes are
triggered which lead to higher night time temperatures which
are not related to CO2 emissions. Thus, the current
land-based mean surface temperature charts overstate the
temperature because they include these night time readings.
In closing, we utilize carbon based energy not because we
are bad people, but because it is the affordable foundation of
our improving standard of living, our health and our welfare.
I was a missionary and science teacher in East Africa and
witnessed this simple rule: without energy, life is brutal and
short.
Worldwide, carbon-based energy demand will grow as Africans
and others continue to experience improving technology,
medicine, mobility and agriculture, and reap the benefits of
higher standards of living. We will not stop human progress.
Alabama's affordable energy has led to economic development
in some of the poorest parts of our Nation, jobs, health care,
educational opportunities and tax revenue.
However, paraphrasing what one manufacturer said to me,
Alabama is our last stop in the United States. If our energy
costs rise, we will be taking these jobs to Mexico and China
and manufacture our products with even more emissions than we
create here.
From my analysis, the major actions being considered to
reduce emissions will one, have an imperceptible impact on
whatever the climate will do, and two, make energy more
expensive.
We have found that climate models and popular surface
temperature records overstate the actual changes that are
occurring, and if Congress deems it necessary, the single most
effective way to reduce carbon emissions by a small but at
least detectable amount is through a massive nuclear power
program. Other alternatives simply cannot produce enough power
to be noticed. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of John R. Christy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you so much.
Dr. Hansen, whether we talk about a carbon tax or cap and
trade, enormous amounts of moneys are to be raised as some type
of deterrent or penalty on the energy producing company, which
means, of course, that for the consumer, there will be a
tremendous increase in costs.
Could you share with us how you would suggest that the
moneys raised be used to cushion the increase in costs,
especially for lower income people?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes. I think it is essential that we give back
100 percent of the money that we take in the tax.
Chairman RANGEL. How?
Mr. HANSEN. With a dividend, with a monthly deposit in
their bank accounts.
Chairman RANGEL. If they do not have a bank?
Mr. HANSEN. Then they get a check. That may have to be
annual. It probably could be monthly by check also. Legal
residents would get the dividend. As I pointed out, it is
large. For example, at the rate of $115 per ton of
CO2 for a family with two children, it would be
$9,000 a year.
That would give them the money to invest in the
technologies that would allow them to reduce their emissions.
It would be a strong incentive to reduce their emissions, buy
the most fuel efficient vehicles, insulate their homes, buy
appliances that are more energy efficient.
You have to give all the money back to the public or they
are not going to allow such a high tax, but the low income
person in particular is going to pay very close attention to
this, and he will end up with more dividend, more return to
money than he is paying in the tax.
The whole idea is you have to affect--you apply the tax at
the well head or at the mine, at the port of entry in the case
of imported fossil fuels, but it has to cover coal, oil and gas
entirely, with an uniform tax. That is the fair way to do it
and affect the way the economic system works.
Economists agree that is the way to do it. In fact, there
was a study by the Congressional Budget Office that said it is
five times more efficient than a cap, and it is much easier to
implement. It is much simpler. It is much more honest.
Chairman RANGEL. Dr. Ekwurzel, have the scientists given
any thought of the redistribution of the revenue?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Yes. Again, I am not an economist but
economists that have been looking closely at this, in my
conversations with them, they really emphasize the benefit of a
cap and invest program is really a one-two punch.
First, you actually set a limit on the emissions, which is
the ultimate goal. We have to keep track of the goal. That
ratchets down over time.
The second step is it generates resources to transition to
a clean energy economy which is for consumers, workers and low
income communities, and a well designed cap and invest program
would invest and buffer low income communities from the
inevitable price changes that would happen as we transition,
but also what is more important is it provides choices for
those longer investments.
We need to have cars that are getting us further down the
road on a gallon of fuel. We need to have weatherization
programs to buffer people, to have more energy efficiency,
which is the low hanging fruit we have to deploy right away.
If we do not reinvest into some of the rapid research and
development and deployment of the new technologies while we are
rolling out the stuff that is already off the shelf, I do not
see how you get that without a cap and invest program where you
can reinvest in a targeted and smart way.
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. Dr. Christy, I know you do not
see this as a crisis, but do you see any problems in this area
that we should be aware of at all?
Mr. CHRISTY. I agree with one statement of Dr. Hansen.
Well, a number of them actually, that taxing is more
transparent than cap and trade. I am worried about that Alabama
trucker who is an independent trucker and he pays thousands and
thousands of dollars into that thing and only gets $3,000 back.
Yes, I do not see it as a crisis. I happen to think it is
still politically correct to manufacture the cars we drive and
appliances we use and grow the food we eat right here.
Other considerations might be useful here, more useful for
the security of our nation to produce its energy locally, here,
so there are a lot of ways by which you can go there.
It certainly helps the balance of trade. It certainly keeps
dollars within the country.
How can we do that without making energy costs go up so
that the jobs leave? That is really more of a question for your
Committee, I think, than anything.
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Camp.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Christy, I would
just like to ask you, given the complexity of the global
climate system, which all of you have testified to frankly, and
given those factors, can you tell us what the impact would be
on the global climate system if the United States alone were to
completely eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions?
Mr. CHRISTY. If the United States alone were to eliminate
all greenhouse gas emissions, that would be equivalent to
building 2,000 nuclear power plants. In 100 years, that would
be about three-tenths of a degree, something we could measure
with our instruments but we probably would not notice it at all
in terms of what goes on in the climate system otherwise.
Mr. CAMP. That is less than half of a degree by 2100?
Mr. CHRISTY. That is correct; yes.
Mr. CAMP. Is losing three million jobs worth half a degree
by 2100?
Mr. CHRISTY. I can just say from the State of Alabama's
standpoint, we do not want to lose one job.
Mr. CAMP. In your testimony, you have analyzed the rate of
warming is less than what has been predicted by climate models.
You talked about the research you have done.
In contrast, Dr. Ekwurzel has said that the measure is
really the amount of Arctic ice. That cover has changed
dramatically, and that is showing that climate change is
actually occurring faster than predicted.
Can you explain this difference for those of us who are not
scientists?
Mr. CHRISTY. In the Arctic--there is a bigger question. We
do create datasets that specifically test model projections. In
virtually every case, we find the models are overshooting
almost everything.
In the ice case, it is a bit different. That is a very
complicated system that climate models do not do well at
describing at all. In fact, I just taught Monday on ice
theology, on the dynamics of ice, to our graduate class in
climate dynamics. Models do not have ice done well.
There is high variability of that quantity. It goes up. It
goes down. A thousand years ago, 5,000 years ago, there was
less ice than there is now in the Arctic.
I noticed that left out of this discussion was what
happened in Antarctica, two weeks after the Arctic sea ice
reached its ``record minimum,'' the Antarctic sea ice on the
South Pole reached its all-time record maximum.
Globally, right at that point, if you were to average it,
we would have average sea ice. Right now, it is a bit below on
the global average.
The Arctic ice is a complicated thing. It has been missing
before. It has melted before. This is something that has high
variability in that part of the world.
Mr. CAMP. Are factors causing that--are there factors other
than CO2 that would result in that? Obviously, if
this has occurred over a 5,000 year period, and I presume
that----
Mr. CHRISTY. The climate system has so many degrees or so
many loose handles to it, so to speak. No one really knows
everything about the climate system so they can predict what it
is going to do in the future.
Let me just say yes, there are natural forces that have
huge variations or cause huge variations in the Arctic ice.
By the way, through this whole period, when the ice was
much less and it was much warmer up there, the polar bears
survived.
Mr. CAMP. I think Dr. Hansen has written that global
greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced to no more than 350
parts per million. I asked you a question about total
elimination of greenhouse gases.
If they were reduced to that level, what would be the
impact on the global climate system, in your opinion?
Mr. CHRISTY. By what time at 350?
Mr. CAMP. You name the timeframe, whether it is 100 years.
Mr. CHRISTY. It is something I have not calculated because
that is fewer emissions--that is a lower concentration than
there is right now. I do not know how to get to there in
reality.
Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RANGEL. The Chair expects a vote soon. For the
witnesses, we will be inconveniencing you because we expect to
be on the Floor for several votes, which will take
approximately 30 minutes.
At this point in time, I would like to yield the Chair to
my friend, Mr. Levin, who will proceed to call the witnesses
until such time as the bells ring, and then we will resume the
hearing as soon as the last vote takes place. I do not want to
put any more inconvenience on these outstanding witnesses than
our legislative agenda has.
I do hope that each and every one of you recognize that we
are only leaving and recessing because of the call of the Chair
in legislating and voting.
We want you to know both Mr. Camp and I are pleased you
have inconvenienced yourselves to share the basis of your
research over the years with us as we move forward on this very
complicated but important legislation.
I will be returning with the rest of the Members of this
Committee. At this time, I yield to Mr. Levin from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN [presiding.] Thank you very much. Welcome.
I want to ask the three of you to comment on Dr. Christy's
testimony, so we get to the basic issue of whether there is a
problem, and then others will question how we best solve it.
Let me say to my colleague from Michigan, no one is talking
about doing this thing alone. I think while it is not easy to
carry that out, it is really a bit of a straw person to say we
are going to do this alone.
Secondly, I do not think any of us have to be told about
the importance of manufacturing in this country. I just do not
think that using that as an excuse to do nothing is tenable.
The real challenge is how we combine our emphasis on
manufacturing and other sources of jobs with addressing this
issue of global warming.
I must say that I think this division that is embodied in
this testimony really is a threat to bipartisanship because if
we start from opposite assumptions, we will never work out
something together.
I just to want to ask the two of you who disagree with Dr.
Christy to comment on his two basic statements, and we have to
resolve this if we are going to move on a bipartisan basis.
He says actions being considered to stop global warming
will have an imperceptible impact on whatever the climate will
do.
Each of you will have at best a minute, but be very
pointed. Do not pull your punches because you are sitting there
together.
The second is we have found that climate models in popular
surface temperature datasets overstate the changes in the real
atmosphere and that actual changes are not alarming.
We will start with you, Dr. Hansen, down the row, and then
maybe Dr. Christy will have a chance to respond within my 5
minutes. Maybe not. Others can carry that on.
On those two statements, be very succinct.
Mr. HANSEN. It is a tactic of those who want to do nothing
to make it sound like there is a debate. In fact, I think that
is the wrong road to go down. I think if there is any question
about the reality of this, which scientifically, there is not,
then you should ask, Congress should ask the National Academy
of Sciences, which is the most authoritative scientific body in
the world, to deliver a report back to Congress or the
President should ask for that.
The science has become crystal clear. There is an issue and
we can see it happening. It is not based on climate models. It
is looking at what is happening in the real world. Arctic sea
ice is decreasing. The tundra regions at high latitudes are
beginning to release methane. The ice sheets are now unstable
and are losing mass at the rate of a couple of hundred cubic
kilometers per year.
The science is clear.
Mr. LEVIN. Let me just go down the row. That green light
will change to red soon. Dr. Ekwurzel?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. Very quickly addressing one issue.
It is very well known that we have driven the climate beyond
all reasonable doubt, that it is a greater than 90 percent
likelihood humans have caused global warming, the warming we
have seen, above natural cycles since 1950.
The models are in fact under-predicting the changes that we
are observing on the ground, in the Arctic, and in Dr. Hansen's
and many other temperature records that are out there, as well
as many other changes that we are seeing with species
migrations and so on, but, the models are not getting the pace
of change because models tend to be conservative.
They are not exactly accurate and they are not accurate in
the wrong way for us, which means the urgency of action is even
more prudent and we have to have the National Academy of
Sciences reporting back so that Congress can know the latest
science. Thank you.
Mr. LEVIN. My time is up. Dr. Christy, maybe another will
ask you to respond. I hope you might answer the question what
happens if you are wrong.
I think, Mr. Herger, you are next. I do not have the list.
Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I represent a rural northern California district with some
nine national forests in it. We have experienced some very
severe fires in the past year.
It is my understanding that wild fires emit an average of
105 million tons of greenhouse gases every year. Putting this
number in perspective, it is about 40 percent more than the
total emissions of all the cars in the State of California.
As you noted in a 2004 article in ``Southwest Hydrology'',
poor management practices have led to an excess of underbrush
in western forests which contributes to the size and intensity
of wild fires. This excess growth could be removed from the
forests, thus reducing emissions from fires and used to produce
renewable carbon-neutral biomass energy.
Would you and your organization agree that one part of our
effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be responsible
forest management to banned excess growth and if the risk of
climate change is as severe as you have stated today, would you
agree that the Committee should consider incentives for the
production of clean energy from excess forest biomass?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. You bring up a very important
feedback mechanism that is amplifying global warning, and in
contrast to that study, that article I wrote in ``Southwest
Hydrology'', there have been since studies that also have
looked at unmanaged forests at high elevation in the western
states.
What they found is when we have global warming amplifying
the drying out of the soils of these high alpine systems, that
by the time you get to the end of the summer, if there is a
lightning strike, you can start a fire naturally but the extent
of the damage can be quite immense.
Without that managed forest system--these are natural
systems, so we are seeing the global warming making it more
likely that we are turning our forests into a tinder box,
sending that precious stored carbon back into the air, making
it harder for us.
This is another mechanism in addition to the ocean slowing
down its absorption of carbon dioxide, that it is getting
harder for us to manage this system that we have unleashed by
our excess carbon dioxide.
Mr. HERGER. Again, my question is would your organization
support our going in and thinning these forests, which we are
not able to do right now, and also an incentive to do so?
Dr. EKWURZEL. I am not a forest manager but I do understand
that very smart forest management systems to adapt to the
climate change that is happening would be prudent, but also we
need to do mitigation of the climate change itself so that all
of our good effort to preserve a forest does not go up in
smoke.
Mr. HERGER. Does that mean you would support this?
Dr. EKWURZEL. I would have to see the details of what the
management design----
Mr. HERGER. Thinning these forests and getting at the
problem that you have very accurately pointed out----
Dr. EKWURZEL. I am not a forest manager. We need healthy
forests and that means a biodiverse forest. It depends on what
you mean by ``thinning.'' If you thin a forest so much, it
could be an unhealthy environment and there are also pests such
as the bark beetle that take advantage of the increased
temperatures.
It is a very difficult problem and it is out of my area of
expertise.
Mr. HERGER. You agree that they are far too dense now?
Dr. EKWURZEL. I am not a forest manager. Thank you.
Mr. HERGER. That is what your article referred to.
Dr. Hansen, on December 29, 2008, you wrote on your website
``It is essential that dogmatic environmentalists opposed to
all nuclear power not be allowed to delay the research and
development on fourth generation nuclear power.''
Could you elaborate further on your views on nuclear power
as part of the effort to address climate change?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes. I think everyone hopes that increased
energy efficiency--and that would be encouraged by a higher
price on carbon emissions, and renewable energies--could do the
job.
Most energy experts are skeptical about that. They think we
need base load power, and it cannot be coal if we are going to
avoid climate catastrophes.
I think we should do the research and development on an
urgent basis to see what is the potential of fourth generation
nuclear power. Fourth generation nuclear power could burn
nuclear waste and help us solve the nuclear waste problem.
We had our Argonne National Laboratory in the nineties
ready to make a demonstration plant, but the Clinton
Administration decided to stop the research on that, and I
think that was a mistake.
I am not sure that we need the nuclear power, but it looks
like--China and India, it is a little difficult to see them
using wind and solar to provide all of their energy. They are
using mostly coal.
If we are going to phase that out, which we have to do,
then next generation nuclear power is a candidate that should
be looked at.
That is all I am saying. I am not saying we are ready to
begin to implement it, but we should not be afraid to do the
research and development and see what its potential is.
Mr. HERGER. I could not agree more. Thank you very much.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. McDermott?
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I put on the monitors the volatility in the cap and trade
system in the European system. I really think our issue here is
to decide between a carbon tax and a cap and trade system. To
do nothing as Dr. Christy suggests or allow ourselves to be
bullied or blackmailed by the industrialists of Alabama is not
an option.
What I would like the two of you to talk about between
yourselves is why your system is better. My understanding is
that the environmentalists would like to have an absolute cap
and industry would like to have absolute certainty in the cost.
Those seem to be the polar things that this Committee is going
to have to balance off in any system.
I would like to hear the two of you talk about why you are
falling on one side and you are falling on the other.
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. HANSEN. Caps have several disadvantages, as I
mentioned. They worked in the case of sulfur dioxide because
you had a single source and you had relatively easy solutions
to it.
The Kyoto protocol is a perfect attempt. That is a cap
system. It did not work at all, even the countries that claimed
they were meeting their target, in fact, their emissions went
up because there are escape valves.
Cap and trade is good for lobbyists and speculators.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. It looks like from that chart that is really
what we are seeing.
Mr. HANSEN. Yes; exactly.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. The stock market makes a lot of money out of
a system and there is nothing to put back into the system.
Mr. HANSEN. Right. The tax is much more honest.
Unfortunately, the main reason for a cap is for the sake of
pretending that it is not a tax. In fact, either one increases
the price of energy for the user. Either one is a tax. We
should insist that the cap people call it a cap tax because
that is what it is.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Dr. Ekwurzel?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Thank you. I think we can draw upon the
lessons from the European Union and their cap and invest
program, as well as in the northeastern U.S. That is why we
advocate for 100 percent auction that sufficiently has tight
limits on emissions.
The reason is that the European Union originally gave away
free allowances. We saw this collapse of the price. It was not
an assurance for someone at British Petroleum or the oil
industry to be investing long term infrastructure decisions or
a coal power plant designer to design next generation power
plants.
You cannot make that decision without some 40 year
certainty, which a cap and invest program gives you because we
are ratcheting down the cap over 40 years. That is a 40-year
economic frame that business can work within, which is very
attractive.
Also, there is no guarantee that the use of funds in the
dividend situation will go toward activities that will reduce
emissions. Especially because we have not reinvested in a
targeted way, we do not provide a guarantee that people will
have choices available to them to purchase energy efficient
homes, cars, and consumer goods through standards and
investment and research to try to get more choices on the car
dealership floor, for example.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. In a cap and trade system, how do you deal
with the impact on the lower income people in society who get
hit with the cost of increased energy or fluctuating energy
prices?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Exactly. An attractive thing with the
fluctuating prices is when you have a down turn in the economy,
the price is going down, it is mimicking the economy. If we set
a level, then you might have an undue burden across the board
during the down turn in the economy, so the price following the
economy is somewhat attractive.
Also, my economist colleagues tell me that when you
reinvest a well-designed cap-and-invest program, you buffer low
income residents from the price spikes because we know we can
have programs for weatherization of homes. We can have cash and
dividends that are set out in a targeted way to those who are
most vulnerable to the price change.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. How do you give the oil or the energy
entrepreneurs the ability to know what the price they are
competing against is going to be?
If you are going to build a solar plant, if you are going
to build a wind plant, whatever, and the thing is jumping up
and down, how do you know as an investor or a venture
capitalist how you are going to put your money into that?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Yes. I see we are running out of time. I am
not an economist but what I understand, my colleagues tell me
if, for example, on the acid rain program, the prices were the
most efficient and low cost way to go because the market
adjusted to the cap on sulfur emissions from that successful
program. The prices were lower, and it was a much more
efficient system and the acid rain problem was solved.
Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. LEVIN. Five/six minutes. Mr. Brady, do you want to take
three of those or do you want to wait?
Mr. BRADY. That would be real quick, Mr. Chairman. I would
like to submit a statement for the record dealing with this
issue and its trade implications as well.
Most of the legislation introduced in the last Congress
that composed a cap and trade scheme on the U.S. include
provisions to impose additional tariffs on imports from
countries that do not have similar policies.
This has significant trade implications for the United
States, as well as developed and developing countries, which
could result in violations of WTO obligations or inviting
retaliatory measures.
My belief, Mr. Chairman, is these consequences deserve a
thorough and comprehensive examination by the Committee.
I would submit that for the record.
Mr. LEVIN. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of the Hon. Kevin Brady follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. BRADY. Mr. Hansen, very quickly, how do you measure the
amount of carbon--you are calling on a carbon tax on imports
from other countries. How big would that tax be? How do you
measure what the amount of carbon is in an import?
Mr. HANSEN. The tax has to be large enough to affect
people's decisions. I gave you an example of quite a large tax.
You would impose presumptive import duty on any country that
does not have comparable tax rate. That would allow them if
they could show that their manufacturing did not use carbon,
then you would allow them that option of proving that and then
you remove that duty.
Otherwise, you assume that the standard amount of carbon
that is used in making that product has been used in their
country.
It is an easy way to make this international. While cap and
trade, we negotiated 10 years and could not get everybody to
agree to the Kyoto protocol. If you have a tax, all you need is
a few major countries to agree to this and then they will say
we will put an import duty on you if you do not have a similar
tax.
Very quickly they will realize you are collecting the money
instead of us, so they will put a tax on it. That is the
fastest way.
Mr. BRADY. Would the EU and Australia that has cap and
trade schemes be excluded from this carbon tax or included?
Mr. HANSEN. A cap can be included amongst a system that has
a tax and dividend. You can have internal to that some limited
caps and trade on a given industry, for example.
Mr. BRADY. Thanks, Dr. Hansen.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Lewis had hoped to inquire. Do you want to
be very brief so we can escape to vote?
Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I will try to get it in, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Christy, are you suggesting that we do not do anything,
that we do not use the Tax Code to do something about climate
change, global warming?
Mr. CHRISTY. I think what you are getting into here is
changing behavior of people who have a fairly high standard of
living, and that is going to be a very tough sell.
Scientifically, the carbon dioxide is not a toxic gas. It
does not harm anything in that way. Plants love it. They grow
better with carbon dioxide.
Its effect on the climate is the only thing at issue, and
our studies show when we go and create the numbers and test
these hypotheses, that these dramatic changes just are not
occurring at the rate climate models say they are.
I have the numbers right in the testimony.
Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I do not want to cut you off but time
is short and we have to go vote.
Dr. Hansen said in his statement not to act is immoral. I
notice you are a scientist but you also have a divinity degree.
Does that not say something about what type of planet, what
type of piece of real estate we are going to leave for the
unborn generation?
Mr. CHRISTY. I can say this, I have gone to a village like
Kimahordery to tell the parents of a child that the child has
died because they live in a place of very low standards of
living. They will not stand for that because they love their
children as much as we do and they are experiencing grief
inconsolably. They need to increase their standard of living.
Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. Are you buying this line well, maybe
China would not act or India would not act, so we will not act?
Is this not something that says something is good in itself, to
save the planet, that people have a right to know what is in
the food we eat, what is in the water we drink, the air we
breathe?
Mr. CHRISTY. Carbon dioxide does not affect those things
you just talked about. Yes, there are many reasons to find
alternative energies than carbon based; many reasons. I
mentioned some about the balance of trade or creating energy
locally.
We are Americans. We innovate. I think we will find new
ways to create energy.
Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. We will threaten the planet, Dr.
Christy.
Mr. CHRISTY. In the datasets we create to test those very
hypotheses, we do not see the planet threatened.
Mr. LEWIS OF GEORGIA. I think Dr. Hansen will probably
disagree with you.
Mr. HANSEN. It is clear that we see things happening. The
ocean is becoming more acid. That is not good for the life in
the ocean. This is very clear. We are pushing the system well
beyond limits which are going to have major consequences and
already beginning to do so.
Mr. LEVIN. We will stand in recess for about 20 minutes or
so.
[Recess.]
Chairman RANGEL [presiding.] The Committee will resume the
hearing. Again, I apologize to our distinguished guests. It is
unavoidable.
The Chair will recognize Mr. Ryan. He is not here. Mr.
Linder of Georgia.
Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is strange that we are sitting here today
talking about making trillion dollar decisions based on
computer models and what we have just been dealing with for the
past 6 months as a trillion dollar collapse based on computer
models.
For 30 years, Wall Street got rid of their risk managers
and replaced them with mathematicians and computer experts, and
they gauged risk by algorithms. It appears that those computer
models did not have a place for fear and greed, so it failed.
Of the 20 or so climate computer models, none of them take
into account natural impulses by nature. For example, Dr.
Christy referred to the iris effect observed some years ago
over the Equator with the natural release of heat, but not any
of the computer models take into consideration the iris effect.
We are told that the science is clear. I think Dr. Hansen
said the science is clear. Others say the science is settled.
In my 50 plus years observing science and being a part of it, I
have never seen settled science. I do not believe there is such
a thing, only settled scientists. Galileo would understand
that. So, would Einstein.
In fact, if the science was settled, not by observation in
some instances, but by pencil and paper, it has been noted that
the 1995 IPC report highlighted key phrases by the scientists
who did the work.
None of the studies said by clear evidence, we contribute
it to humans, and five different ways were stated. All five of
those statements were removed from the report and replaced by
one, ``The biostatistical evidence in chapter eight when
examined in the context of our physical understanding of the
climate system, now points to a discernable human influence on
the global climate.''
When the bureaucrat was asked under oath why that change
was made, he said immense pressure from the top of the Federal
Government.
I do not know what the ideal carbon dioxide level in the
environment is. I think, Dr. Ekwurzel, said it should be 450
parts per million max. I think Dr. Hansen said 350 parts per
million.
Either of you should then explain to us the experience 542
million years ago, when in a very short period of time, all of
plant and animal life that we have ever known came to be found
in the fossil evidence within five to ten million years, in a
blink of an eye in a four and a half billion year old planet.
CO2 levels were 7,000 parts per million. The
planet not only survived, it thrived. 300 million years ago,
the CO2 levels were 2,000 parts per million. The
planet did fine. It seems to me you need to explain that.
It has been said here who is going to get hurt if we try
this. Only the 1.6 billion most vulnerable people in the world.
The people who are starving and consigned by this to a life of
poverty and hunger because they need CO2 to grow the
plants to live. They need power.
We have enjoyed it for 100 years. China and India are
enjoying it now. The Sub-Sahara area in the African region
desperately needs CO2 to plant their farms, to feed
their families.
This is a huge mistake based on faulty computer modeling.
Dr. Ekwurzel, you were astonished to sail into the Arctic
and find very little ice there. That is what Emerson said in
1903 when he sailed it in a sailboat. As Dr. Christy has
pointed out many times here, these things change back and
forth.
This is based on computer modeling, not observation,
because if it was based on empirical observation, you would
note that the evidence of a hot spot over the Equator is
absent, although on the 20 plus computer models, it is
necessary.
Dr. Christy, would you just comment on that?
Mr. CHRISTY. Yes, the experiment was very simple or the
paper we published. If a climate model has the same surface
temperature record as the real observations, what happens in
the upper air, and then we found a significant difference
between observations and climate model estimates.
Mr. LINDER. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman RANGEL. The Chair would like to recognize Richard
Neal for 5 minutes.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panelists as well and thank the Chairman for scheduling this
hearing.
One of the verdicts that emerged from the last election was
that we ought to proceed with our faith in science and how
important that is to the debate on climate change.
I have had a number of meetings in recent weeks with a lot
of people who have wanted to discuss the Massachusetts' model
as it relates to health care reform.
I am pretty happy with the fact that Massachusetts has kind
of led the way on how to proceed in the health care debate, and
your presence today is helpful to this argument as well.
If we use Massachusetts as the model of what we might do,
Dr. Hansen, what would you suggest in terms of criticism of
what some other countries have or have not done on the global
warming front?
Mr. HANSEN. Well, the principal criticism, what I have
learned is that even the countries that seem to be the greenest
where the politicians say they understand there is a global
warming problem and they will take action, it turns out that
the actions are inconsistent with that.
In Germany, for example, I wrote a letter to the Chancellor
and they asked me to come over and talk to them. They are
saying they will have a cap on their emissions, but they are
going to build 20 new coal fired power plants. You cannot do
that and have any chance of getting CO2 back to a
safe level.
There is a finite amount of carbon in oil, gas and coal.
What we can see is oil and gas, which we are going to use,
readily available oil and gas, it is going to get us well into
the dangerous zone.
The only way we can solve the problem is phasing out coal.
I think the way to do that is with a price on the carbon
emissions, but I do not think the governments have yet faced up
to what is going to be needed in order to get us to a safe
level of CO2.
Mr. NEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RANGEL. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tiberi.
Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess the question
for all three of you to answer starting with Dr. Hansen,
probably a follow up to what Mr. Neal talked about, you have
developed countries, you have developing countries in the world
today, and China is one country that obviously is using more
and more coal operating or opening new coal power plants every
year, many.
In my hometown of Columbus, Ohio, we did an analysis and
said in less than ten years, emissions from developing
countries will exceed the total amount of emissions from all
currently developed countries.
In such a scenario, you could argue that if the United
States goes to zero, abandons your point, coal, we could still
see a scenario where countries that we are competing with
economically are creating more global warming.
What is your response to that, Dr. Hansen?
Mr. HANSEN. These developing countries have very strong
incentives for wanting to reduce the emissions and the air
pollution and water pollution that goes with it. China is very
concerned about that. They are beginning investments in many
ways aimed at clean energy.
That is why a carbon price is so important. Once the major
countries--our few major trading partners, Europe and China,
agree to a carbon price, then because you can impose import
duties on those countries that do not make products that do not
have a carbon tax, you can in the most efficient way phase out
the carbon emissions.
The developing countries have as much or more incentive to
do that as we do.
Mr. TIBERI. Doctor?
Ms. Ekwurzel. Thank you. I think because the U.S. actions
alone will not be enough further underscores the need for the
U.S. leadership in the international agreements.
The U.S. accounts for around 20 percent of the worldwide
emissions, and also the tropical deforestation accounts for
another 20 percent.
If you were to add up European Union and the United States,
that is almost 55 percent of the world's emissions.
We know that the world has already chosen a market based
cap and invest system we currently limit our ability to compete
within that market. I think it is very important that we engage
in the carbon trading that is already going on and including in
our own United States, because we have a northeast carbon
trading cap and invest system as well.
Mr. TIBERI. Dr. Christy?
Mr. CHRISTY. This is where it becomes a moral issue. The
third world will develop with affordable energy. Making energy
more expensive for them will limit their ability to grow and
develop.
As I said before, without energy, life is brutal and short,
and I saw it.
Chairman RANGEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, can I
follow Mr. Larson? He has a conflict.
Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Larson.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses as well. I especially want to say from the outset how
we all share the fierce urgency of now with respect to
addressing this issue.
The Friends of Earth did a study that said a carbon or
greenhouse gas auction would create the world's largest new
derivatives market. In fact, the Commodities Future and Trading
Commissioner, Art Children, called carbon futures the biggest
of any derivatives' product.
Many of my colleagues, including Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Van
Hollen, have worked for years to introduce oversight into the
commodities futures markets to little avail.
There is still the over the counter dark unregulated
markets, which in a recent 60 Minutes' investigation claimed
was on the scale of 40 to $60 trillion.
My question is what makes you think that an auction for
carbon emissions where the market sets the price would not turn
into the unregulated speculative mess that we have witnessed in
other markets?
Mr. HANSEN. I think that is one of the dangers. I think you
are bound to get--it is really hard to avoid speculators from
getting involved. That is why you want a simple, honest tax and
dividend, I think.
Dr. EKWURZEL. I would argue that with a well designed cap
and trade, we can buffer the prices through banking and
borrowing. Also, what is more important with the cap and invest
system is that in that type of system, all actors who can
contribute, such as farmers, forest managers, and tropical
forest protection, can be part of the market cap and invest
system.
Mr. LARSON. I realize you said in your testimony that you
are not an economist. I respect that. I am not trying to put
you on the hook for that.
I have a difficult time explaining to constituents at Augie
& Ray's what an ``auction is,'' and it will actually take place
and who benefits.
I think a number of people on the Committee starting
certainly with Mr. McDermott raised valid points in terms of
volatility, and how will volatility impact the constituents we
are all sworn to serve, and what will be the cost savings that
is passed along as Mr. Hansen indicated. How will constituents
benefit from this as opposed to the obvious benefactors on Wall
Street.
Dr. EKWURZEL. I would cite the Center for Budget and Policy
Priorities. They have recommended that about 14 percent of the
auction revenues would go directly into a low income credit, a
credit card, for energy prices, to buffer them from that price
volatility, as well as making sure that the revenues that are
generated----
Mr. LARSON. Fourteen percent of trillions of dollars, that
is what would trickle down to the ultimate end user and the
person that is going to have to bear the brunt of the price
increases that will come?
Ms. Ekwurzel. One advantage is that when you reinvest in
creating more choices, especially in energy efficiency, the
costs of energy are going to go down.
Mr. LARSON. How will China and India in a not so
transparent system, and as we look, as some of the questions of
Mr. Levin and others have raised with respect to trade, be able
to brought along in a system that is not transparent and
accountable and direct?
I think it masks itself in many respects as opposed to this
straightforward leveling with the American people what the
sacrifice will be, but also what the benefit of their
participation will be in terms of either lowering their payroll
taxes or getting a direct dividend as Mr. Hansen and others
have suggested.
Dr. EKWURZEL. I would say that my top priority is solving
the climate crisis. Having a cap directly addresses that.
Mr. LARSON. Are you open to something other than a cap? Are
you open to not falling into the trap that we saw with the
derivatives market and the less than transparent means of
collecting this money and then passing it on to the people who
will be truly impacted?
Are you open to it, at least?
Dr. EKWURZEL. I think there has to be a suite of policies
and cap and invest is a part of it. We also need to have
incentives. We need to have standards to make sure that our
plasma TV's are not emitting and using as much energy as they
currently do. When you replace a TV. with a plasma TV., we are
taking many steps backward.
These types of incentives and carrot and stick methods will
have to be across all sectors, but with cap and invest, we can
bring in the agricultural sector.
Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Doctor. I agree with your scientific
goals. I hope you are open to achieving some of the economic
results downstream on our constituents who will be impacted.
Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Boustany is recognized.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
None of the three of you are politicians or economists. You
are scientists. For a moment, I want to just focus on the
context of what has been said here in the hearing.
Dr. Hansen, you said the science is crystal clear based on
a lot of empirical findings with the diminishment in the Arctic
ice and other findings that have been observed.
Dr. Ekwurzel, you stated that models have actually under
stated the actual pace of change.
Dr. Christy has talked about models, planet models
overstating average temperature.
There is a lot of difference of opinion right here, just in
the context of this hearing.
Could each of you point out to me what you see as flaws in
the current scientific modeling, and what needs to be improved,
what steps need to be taken to bring these models up to speed
to give us a better indication of what is going on empirically?
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. HANSEN. First of all, I did not mention models. I think
by far, our best indication of how the Earth responds to
changes in its boundary conditions and its atmospheric
composition is based on the history of the earth. That is what
has improved enormously in recent years, the paleoclimate
information.
Also, we see what is happening with the changes that are
occurring now.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Is not the causality or the assumption of
causality between emissions and global warming based on models?
Mr. HANSEN. No. Our knowledge of climate sensitivity to
changes in atmospheric composition is far more precise based on
the Earth's history, based on how the Earth has responded in
the past. Then that automatically includes every physical
mechanism that exists in the real world, while models are
always deficient. You never know whether you have all the
processes in there or whether you have the physics right.
Indeed, by setting different scientists up at a table, you
will always get differences of opinion. That is why I strongly
recommend, if you want to have the best assessment or summary
of our knowledge, that you ask the National Academy of
Sciences. Then we can stop debating things which are already in
fact quite clear.
I do not mean to imply that every detail of the science is
settled, but the broad picture--you need to look at the forest,
not just the individual trees. The best body to help us look at
the forest, I think, would be the National Academy of Sciences.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you. Dr. Ekwurzel?
Dr. EKWURZEL. I think it was very clear we all agree that
the climate is warming. We are a big part of the problem. That
gives me hope. That means we can be part of the solution.
Otherwise, we would be at the vagaries of natural processes,
and the Earth's history has taught us a lot, how sensitive the
climate is.
Where the science is leading now is to try to figure out
what are going to be the local impacts, how fast are the
changes going to be, and how can we adapt.
That is where the science is. The broad reason behind it
and factors that we have understood for many years, indeed some
of the concepts were proven over 200 years ago and still remain
robust.
Mr. BOUSTANY. I understand that. Does not the modeling give
us some sort of an indication of how we should intervene?
Dr. EKWURZEL. We have plenty of evidence just based on what
has happened in the past and observations, especially very high
quality scientific records, especially over the last century.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Try to explain the fact that the models based
on emissions do not account for the rapid pace of warming, what
are the other factors?
Mr. HANSEN. What has become clear is there are amplifying
feedbacks in the climate system. One of them is in the Arctic
where as the sea ice melts, it exposes a darker ocean that then
absorbs more sunlight and it speeds the melting of ice there.
Even slow feedback, things that we thought were slow, like
ice sheet disintegration and like melting tundra and release of
methane, we did not include that in the models, but in fact we
are seeing it begin to happen, still modest in its size.
When we look at the Earth's history, we see that when those
things got started in the past, they sometimes then began to
grow quite rapidly. Ice sheets disintegrated at a rate that had
sea level going up one meter every 20 years.
Those kind of processes are not really included in the
models. In that sense, the models are less dynamic than the
real world.
Mr. BOUSTANY. Thank you.
Chairman RANGEL. The Chair recognizes Mr. Doggett.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
conducting this hearing and involving this Committee in finding
a solution to this critical issue.
It is timely particularly because as you recall, last night
in his address, President Obama asked ``Congress to send him
legislation that places a market based cap on carbon pollution
and drives the production of more renewable energy in
America.''
I think it is not too much to say that this President is
committed to changing the White House into a greenhouse, not
just an efficient house as a model for the country, but a
greenhouse in the sense of cultivating, of creating, of
applying science based approaches to how we solve the critical
national security issue of climate change.
I think our President gets it. We need to help him get the
progress that we seek by moving forward in the very near
future, in the next few months, in offering legislation to
address this issue.
The time to act was really long ago and it is with the
economic crisis that only swift bold action can help us be
pulled back from the abyss that you have described this
morning.
Fortunately, the world climate, while it is worsening, the
climate here on the Hill for change is greatly improving. Last
Congress, I introduced the Climate Matters Act cosponsored by a
majority of the Democratic Members of this Committee, almost
100 cosponsors, that set limits on greenhouse gas pollutants.
Now, with Chairman Henry Waxman at the helm of the Energy
and Commerce Committee, I believe our two Committees can work
together as partners to lead a Congressional response in
reaction to President Obama's leadership.
While disagreeing with your conclusions on the best remedy,
I particularly applaud the years of commitment of Dr. Hansen,
and I share, Dr. Hansen, your zeal for action and the need to
have acted yesterday.
Most Americans, I think, understand that it is not whether
we respond to the crisis of climate change, but how quickly we
respond to it.
I am very pleased that Dr. Ekwurzel is here. The Union of
Concerned Scientists was one of a large number of groups that
appeared in this room last Summer when we had hotter weather
and when we also had a broad consensus in favor of climate
legislation, and I appreciate the role the Union has played in
exploring this and certainly in the supportive comments it has
offered on the climate change bill.
Any time you have a problem that is this massive but where
the benefits of solving it are felt years down the road and the
difficulty and pain of coming up with a solution is felt now,
there will be many excuses for inaction that are very appealing
from a political standpoint.
The economic crisis is the latest excuse for doing nothing.
In fact, I believe, as your testimony indicates, that the
crisis that we have now is directly linked to our over
dependence on fossil fuels and fossilized thinking, and that we
need to be creating green jobs now to get us out of that
crisis.
Another excuse that we have heard this morning is that what
we need to do is let India and China dictate our policy in this
country. You know, it is not so many years ago that Exxon
Mobil, one of the current advocates for a carbon tax, was over
telling the Chinese and the Indians that they needed to not be
concerned about this problem and not participate in helping us
to find the solution.
I believe that you have outlined the fact that we need all
of these countries cooperating, of course, to solve the climate
change. It is a false discussion to say let us just look at
what the United States could do to contribute. We can do a
great deal.
My state of Texas, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gas
emissions in the country that is either number one or number
two with the Chinese in greenhouse emissions, can do a great
deal to solve this problem.
We have to do it through cooperation and also through the
kind of trade mechanisms that we outlined in the Climate
Matters bill. Secretary of State Clinton has been there placing
this at the top of the foreign policy agenda.
One of the things, Dr. Ekwurzel, that you referred to that
I think is so central to the Climate Matters Bill, is we have
to have a rapid response in terms of scientific review,
periodic review.
As we get into this, we learn even more and more and we may
see an even more rapid deterioration and the fact that the
worse case scenario we have heard about is maybe not as far
reaching as the facts dictate.
Let me ask you, Dr. Ekwurzel, as far as the cap and invest
approach, if you believe that an investment of some of these
revenues that would be gained is critical to helping us resolve
the problem and provide additional resources for energy
efficiency, clean transportation and green energy technology?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Yes, I think it is absolutely critical as
well as buffering low income constituents that are so critical
in this path forward. We need that one-two punch of the early
cap and also ratcheting down in the second punch of
reinvestment so we can have the longer term solutions when the
cap is so low and the price goes up.
We need those better technologies down the road over the
next 40 years. Thank you.
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you very much.
Chairman RANGEL. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr.
Etheridge.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank each
of you and thanks for this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Hansen, some have criticized carbon tax proposals
because they say they do not provide certain reductions in
emissions. How would you address this criticism?
Mr. HANSEN. I think in fact, carbon tax is your root to the
fastest reductions. What the science has told us is that we
need to make reductions as fast as we can.
The cap, the problem is attempts to define caps then result
in escape hatches, and we see in the Kyoto protocol that in
fact, we did not get reductions, even the countries that
accepted the targets of large reductions did not achieve them.
Instead, they would use some escape hatch and plant a tree in
some country or something.
The most effective way is to put a price on the emissions
and that will give a big incentive to develop those
technologies that do not emit carbon and move us in that
direction as fast as possible. We can adjust that rate by
changing or increasing the tax rate.
If we are giving back 100 percent of the money to the
public, the public will not object to a higher rate.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I met with a group this morning, and
obviously, different groups have different issues as it relates
to whether it is capping trade or tax, and certainly, the
agricultural industry in this country, depending on whether it
be people who grow animals or whatever, there is a different
degree of where you are, and you will have a certain group that
will love capping trade because they are going to make money at
it, because they can have offsets from industry.
Otherwise, one issue was raised this morning. Dr. Ekwurzel,
I would be interested in your comment. The issue they raised
was not so much getting there, they were willing to do certain
things, but fertilizer and a lot of the components in
agriculture is really tied to natural gas, has a significant
impact on the input costs and the fluctuations that take place.
If within the process of what we are doing we have adequate
natural gas in place, then you have a level playingfield over
the long run, but if not, and this gets to other areas, you are
going to have tremendous peaks in the cost of food, et cetera.
Would you feel comfortable in commenting on that? I have a
follow up question I really want to get to.
Dr. EKWURZEL. I think the price volatility would be
something that a well designed cap and invest program would
have to address. Your point to other actors, for example, a
farmer, a dairy farmer, who can get power from the methane
emissions or the nitrous oxide that comes from the farming
practices that can last in the atmosphere for about a century,
these types of issues can be well addressed with a well
designed cap and invest program.
We could bring more actors that can help solve the problem
of climate change, which is what I am most interested in.
I cannot speak to your natural gas issue.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. I will save that for a later day.
Your proposal focuses on preventing a greater than two
degree change in temperature. My question is what are the risks
associated with allowing a two degree change in temperature,
and secondly, what is the level--why is that acceptable when
three degrees would not be or one degree?
What is that break point? I have heard the consequences but
I would like to get it on the record.
Dr. EKWURZEL. I would just caution that with the
understanding of the science, for example, some projections of
disintegration of some of the ice sheet, contributions to sea
level rise, some of those range from between 1.5 degrees
Celsius above pre-industrial up to higher, so perhaps two
degrees Celsius above pre-industrial might not save the worse
case of the scenario's of some of the models for ice sheets,
but many of the impacts--what we are saying is that two degrees
is an absolute maximum.
The atmospheric concentrations that go along with a good
temperature, it may be more prudent to go even lower. Some
issues for example, you can lose are species that are sitting
at the top of mountain tops or at the polar regions that do not
have other places to escape, as well as our own coastal
infrastructure.
We developed our economy, our agricultural system over the
past 2,000 years with a relatively benign situation. We knew
the sea levels, where they were, and that type of rapid change
is something that would be an immense cost to us as well as
threats to many people around the world for food supply, water
resources, flooding and destruction, and more extreme weather
events.
These are some of the impacts we would like to avoid.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the Chairman. Thank you for this
important hearing, Mr. Chairman. I commend the panel. I think
each of you have been extremely interesting and quite clear in
discussing a complex scientific matter.
I represent the State of North Dakota. We farm up there. We
have a substantial coal industry, lignite coal. We use it to
generate power, another major source of economic activity. We
heat our homes through long cold winters. We drive long
distances between our towns.
We are anxious about this. On the other hand, we care more
than anything about the world we will pass on to our children
and our grandchildren.
We are trying to find our way here. A course that I think
Congress needs to pursue is we have to keep a mind on ultimate
political sustainability of changing course and beginning to
address this issue.
What would be the impact of what you think might be an
optimal answer in a place like North Dakota?
Mr. HANSEN. I think North Dakota, as the price on carbon
emissions goes up, the coal industry is going to go down. North
Dakota has an abundance of wind resources. It also could be a
contributor to well designed biofuels programs, not corn based
ethanol, but there is a role for biofuels in our future energy
supplies.
I think that it is not going to be necessarily detrimental
to even a state like North Dakota.
Mr. POMEROY. Dr. Hansen, coal is the most abundant, most
affordable energy source in the world. I flew out
coincidentally Monday from Bismarck with an engineer working
for North American Coal heading to India, where he is going to
spend the next 3 months assisting them in the construction of a
power plant. They are building a pile of them. He's on the
mining side. He did not think there was a heck of a lot of
investment going in on the environmental side of that plant,
which will be four times larger than any plant in North Dakota.
Talk about extraordinary air deprivation, deterioration
already, per capita energy consumption at about one-sixth of
what we have in this country there, full speed ahead in terms
of expanding power.
What about coal? If our Nation decides--are we truly going
to shift the cost to the consumer, going without this energy
resource, and even if we would, what about the rest of the
world which is unlikely to follow this example?
Mr. HANSEN. Yes. It is not a trivial problem. The science
has really made clear we cannot burn all of that coal without
sending us back to where the planet was when that carbon
dioxide was in the atmosphere before. Where it was, there was
no ice on the planet. Seventy meter sea level rise.
It would not happen instantly. We would set in motion
processes that would be affecting our children and
grandchildren for many generations.
We simply cannot do it. We have to figure out a way. Coal
could be part of it if you really developed a carbon capture
and sequestration.
My guess is--I do recommend there should be real effort to
do that. Not the imaginary one we had over the last seven or 8
years where we pretended we were doing it and then did not do
it.
That is a possibility. I would compare that to fourth
generation nuclear power. I would work on both of those and
figure out which one is more effective. Maybe both. My
suspicion is we do need baseload electrical power and I doubt
that the renewables will do that.
Mr. POMEROY. Not to interrupt, I see my time is running. We
have a very substantial coal sequestration initiative in North
Dakota that enhances all recovery in Canada. It does not
capture 50 percent of emissions, but it was not even
constructed for that purpose. I think we can do much better.
Would you say as part of the approach a substantial
investment in clean coal to see what we can achieve needs to be
part of a sustainable political answer?
Mr. HANSEN. I think that is a role that a government should
be expected to play. The carbon price will then encourage
private investment if it looks like that is a viable way.
I think on a really big issue like that, which is a decade
long type thing, that the government should contribute to that
and also to nuclear power.
Mr. POMEROY. Thank you. I did not have time to include the
other panelists, but thank you.
Chairman RANGEL. The Chair would like to recognize Mr.
Davis of Alabama.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me tell you, lady and gentlemen, at the outset, I think
I am in the camp that Mr. Pomeroy represents, my very learned
colleague from North Dakota.
We are searching for--the phrase ``middle ground'' is
tried, it is over used. For lack of a better term, both of us,
and I think Mr. Etheridge, are searching for some sort of a
path in the middle.
I want to use my time to tell you, Dr. Hansen, what I find
unsatisfying about your testimony, and then Dr. Christy, I will
tell you frankly what I find unsatisfying about your testimony.
Beginning with Dr. Hansen, when Mr. Pomeroy asked you
questions about what the impact would be if we were to have a
dramatic departure from coal based sources of energy, your
answer essentially was well, we would certainly lose coal based
sources of energy under your scenario, but there are numerous
other ways that North Dakota could pick up the slack.
This is my concern with that answer. It is not a
theoretical abstract issue. If coal based sources of energy
were to deteriorate in major portions of this country, you
would lose whole mining communities, you would lose whole job
sources for people, and the average age of people in the mining
industry is not young. These are individuals often, I think, in
their late 40s/early fifties.
It is not uncommon for people to be at that age and working
very productively in the mining industry. They are not going to
be retrained in this phase of their career to do something.
There will not be a seamless transition at all.
Mr. Etheridge, I think, may have voiced some concerns about
some of the impact of some of the renewable electricity
standards on southern states.
That is a genuine concern that some of us have, that you
could see acute impacts on particular regions, on particular
sectors of the economy, those impacts will be magnified by the
effects of globalization in many ways, and they are also
magnified by the now 26 year deterioration in the manufacturing
sector in this economy, and again, the costs are not academic.
They are real families that are not likely to be retrofitted
for different kinds of work.
Having said all of that, Dr. Christy, I had a chance to
review your written testimony. I am going to tell you what I
find unsatisfactory about your approach.
Number one, I am not a scientist and will not play one on
close circuit TV. here today, but I am not overly sympathetic
of the science and the scientific argument you have advanced,
but I do not want to dwell on that.
Frankly, I was more bothered by another observation you
made in your written testimony. You say that you are
paraphrasing, but there is a quote from you based on a
conversation you had with a manufacturer, ``Alabama is our last
stop in the United States. If energy costs rise, we will be
taking all these jobs to Mexico or China and building our
products, leaving more emissions and less efficient plants than
we create here.''
That is some version of an argument that I hear a lot as a
Member of Congress from Alabama. This is how a typical week
often goes. On Monday, I will hear someone in the business
community say unions are bad for my state and we have been
selling Alabama on the grounds that we do not have a lot of
unions, so if we bring in unions, we will lose that competitive
edge.
On Tuesday, someone will say in the context of the stimulus
package that just passed, this will make us expand our
unemployment insurance, and we have been selling Alabama on the
grounds that we do not require very much in the way of
unemployment insurance, that is a competitive edge that we have
had.
On Wednesday, particularly until last August, someone would
come to me and say yes, it is true, we are 49th in the country
in our water protection standards when it comes to the amount
of carcinogens we tolerate in the water supply, but we use that
to get a competitive edge over other states.
Now I hear from you well, the particular energy profile
that we have in our state is a competitive advantage that we
have on other states.
I am waiting for, I guess, the Friday when somebody comes
in and says maybe the competitive edge that we ought to be
developing in Alabama and states like it is that we are
producing very good workers, developing very high quality
schools, and developing very good comprehensive workforce
development programs.
I just want to hear that as the solution advanced by people
one of these days. I have a hunch that if we are serious about
where your state and my state is going to be 10 years from now,
15 years from now, it is going to require that we frankly, yes,
invest in nuclear. Yes, we invest in alternative sources of
energy.
It is also going to require a focus on education, on job
creation. I just do not like hearing this argument that
Alabama's competitive advantage is that we protect our workers
less and we protect our environment less and demand less of
industry and the people around us.
I imagine the states that surround us want jobs as much as
we do. I imagine they want a strong economy as much as we do,
but they seem to be choosing different courses than the ones
that some policy makers in Alabama are encouraging.
My time has run out. If any of you want to respond to what
I said and the Chairman will allow it, that is fine.
Mr. HANSEN. You are certainly right. If we phase out coal,
the coal mining jobs are gone. The studies have shown that the
jobs created by the alternative energies actually are more
labor intensive and will produce more jobs than the coal
mining.
Of course, the coal miner--the United States has always
moved fairly quickly from one thing to another, and that does
create a hardship if a person is not retrainable.
You will need to take some steps to try to minimize that
impact. I think overall for the country, it will not be a
reduction in number of jobs.
Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Van Hollen is recognized.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank all
of our witnesses for their testimony.
Dr. Hansen, if I could start with you. Dr. Ekwurzel has
argued for an initial target of 25-percent reductions off the
1990 levels by the year 2020. Consistent with both meeting the
science and the evidence with respect to global warming and
also not doing undue harm to the economy, does that path make
sense to you? Is that something you think is an appropriate
target?
Mr. HANSEN. That would be reasonably consistent with
phasing out coal as rapidly as practical. In order to actually
achieve that, when we set goals before, it has not been a very
effective approach. We have to identify where the main source
is and the one that we are going to have to cut back, and that
is coal, and we will need, I think, in order to achieve that,
to have a price that encourages it to happen.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. You anticipated my next question, which is
really for both of you. Let us assume that is the path we want
to reductions on that schedule. What would be the effective
price for carbon in order to hit that goal and any schedule in
terms of price increases?
I understand you mentioned the number of $115 per metric
ton of carbon. Is that the kind of price we are talking about
and at what point in this schedule. These are obviously the
real considerations for the Committee.
Mr. HANSEN. It is difficult to set that. That is why I like
the carbon price as the tuning knob because it is a stable one
with a linear, while in the case of caps, there is too much
volatility.
The price has to be high enough that the consumer feels the
impact and it affects their choices in vehicles they buy and it
encourages them to weatherize their home and things like that.
It has to be a substantial price. That is where the discussions
on the cap have really been, I think, inadequate, to really get
the major changes that we are going to need.
I am saying I cannot tell you exactly. By the way, the $115
is per ton of CO2, not carbon.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. CO2. I am sorry. Doctor, do you
have a sense of what the price would have to be if you do a cap
or a tax?
Dr. EKWURZEL. Certainly, as the cap ratchets down,
theoretically the price is going to go up. We have limited
allowances. I would not be able to say what the price would end
up being.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. For you, Dr. Ekwurzel, Dr. Hansen has
proposed that in order to address the price impact on the
consumer, you essentially have a rebate, a 100 percent rebate.
As we all know, one of the impacts of this will be to increase
the price of carbon products.
I know you have said we should use some of the revenue for
some of these purposes in clean technologies.
I guess the question on the minds of many consumers is not
Dr. Hansen's approach a more direct approach to ameliorating
that cost impact on a consumer, and does it not also allow them
to draw a more direct connection between increase in prices but
also the relief that they will feel in terms of the additional
costs through a rebate?
Dr. EKWURZEL. In some senses, it could be seen as
regressive in that one rebate across the board per capita is
for everyone, whereas if you directly target the investments
toward those who have low income, you might be able to give
even more money than what the rebate is.
There is also no guarantee that what they are buying is
necessarily reaching our goal. That is from my perspective of
wanting to reduce the cap on emissions. I am not so sure you
get there with the dividend.
What is important is you really need to provide more
choices for the American consumer so that when they do spend
their money or if they have energy credits, depending on if it
is a well designed program, then we want to have more choices
that are very energy efficient and allow them to weatherize
their homes and get windows and have wonderful new options when
they buy appliances and have new standards on plasma TV.'s that
are really climate friendly products that are out there, so
that requires a suite of programs.
I do not know how a dividend would necessarily provide
similar guarantees. If you send the money over to other
countries that are producing consumer products, I am not sure
how that incentivizes climate friendly products.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, a brief follow up on that. I
think we should all agree the primary mechanism we are using
here to try and drive investments in alternative energy
sources, non-carbon based sources, is by setting the price on
carbon, and that will drive investments in these other
technologies because consumers will want to buy them.
I could not agree with you more on weatherization as a good
investment. As you know, we have a major investment in the
economic recovery plan.
Just in terms of consumers understanding that we are going
to offset some of the increased costs they are going to incur
through a rebate, I think there is probably a good argument to
be made, that that is a more visible and direct impact.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. Mr. Kind?
Mr. KIND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the
guests for your patience. You have given us a lot of time
today. I apologize if you have already addressed the issue I
want to delve into briefly with you. I have had to run in and
out.
Dr. Ekwurzel, let me start with you because I was looking
over your PowerPoint first thing when I came in, and noticed
that in the share of the emissions' pie, you have it broken
down between industrial and developing nations, where the
industrial, as far as projected nations' emissions, comprises
about 40 percent impact on the globe, and developing nations,
roughly 60 percent.
My question for you and anyone else on the panel here today
is how do we create a system to incentivize the full
participation of the developing world in what we are doing?
Even if we try to make the right decisions and get
everything right here at home, if we do not get that buy in
from the rest of the world, especially China and India, we may
be just tilting at windmills here.
I do not know if you have an opportunity to think about
what we can do in working in concert with the developing world
and some of the faster emerging nations that are emitting a
lot. In fact, China just surpassed us recently as the number
one emitter in the globe.
Dr. EKWURZEL. Those were 2005 numbers. It was just an
illustration really to show how deep our emissions would be,
even if we based it on our current emissions, which are quite
high. In fact, China and India--China has surpassed us. We are
number two. India is coming fast along, and Russia.
What I see is that in fact if we were to create cheaper
forms of energy from many different sources all on the table
and we developed the products here and engaged in that, instead
of Germany selling the products to the rest of the world, I
would like us to be selling energy efficient products to the
rest of the world.
If we can generate revenues and invest it in our companies
here at home to create the new energy infrastructure and the
jobs of the future, we can have instead of a person going over
there building a new coal plant, we could have a person over
building a plant that perhaps is much more climate friendly,
and that would be really beneficial to our economy as well as
the climate. I like both happening at the same time.
Mr. KIND. It is certainly what the President was alluding
to in his speech last night, how we need to ramp up our
investment in clean technology, clean energy sources. Of
course, what we were trying to accomplish in the recovery
package as Mr. Van Hollen just pointed out as well, how do we
ramp this up capacity wise in this country so we can lead the
world and share with the rest of the world.
Mr. Hansen, do you have any thoughts?
Mr. HANSEN. With regard to China and India and the
likelihood that they would cooperate, it should be pointed out
they will suffer more from climate change than we will. They
have a few hundred million people living near sea level. They
are already suffering from coal pollution, a few hundred
thousand people per year are dying of air pollution.
They will have strong incentives to go in the same
direction as we do. I have had workshops with Chinese and
Indian scientists. I find they are eager to move in these
directions. We just have to have the incentives there to make
sure it happens.
That is why I think the price incentive with the tax and
100 percent dividend gives that kind of push.
Mr. KIND. Dr. Hansen, do you feel with your contacts with
the scientists in India and China that they are basically where
established science is today or do they have a raging debate in
their own society?
Mr. HANSEN. No, this raging debate is not unique to the
U.S. It is certainly occurring in other countries, in Europe
now also. Not to the degree that it is here.
That is why I really think that we should ask the National
Academy of Sciences. I know what you see on television is not
representative of where the science really stands.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Christy?
Mr. CHRISTY. Yes. I object to that comment. I am one of
those few people that actually builds these climate datasets.
If we could show number three up there, I just want to show one
thing to dispel some of the things you have heard here today.
The climate is not changing or more sensitive than what
models say it is. This is the range of climate model trends in
temperature for the planet.
The red is the highest range. The orange is the low range.
The blue and the green lines are where the real world is. In
other words, the real world is responding in the climate system
at the very lowest of the sensitivity, the mean sensitivity is
not being achieved by the real world.
These are numbers that we build and we know they can be
repeated. That is the point I am trying to make. We are not
changing at the rates that are being promoted primarily by the
media, I think.
Mr. KIND. Right. I want to thank you all again. You were
very generous with your time and testimony. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. Let me thank the three of you
on behalf of the Committee and share with you the thinking of
the Chair and the Committee.
As you know, the President has accelerated our hearings in
getting something done, the leadership of the House and Senate
have indicated a priority, and we intend to meet with the other
Members of the Committees of jurisdiction to see how we can
consolidate our thinking and get a consensus on the direction.
I do hope that you would continue to be generous with your
time, advice and direction, and we will try to make certain
that we can avoid all of the Committees calling you down to say
the same things. I will try to consolidate your time if you
would be kind enough to continue to give us the benefit of your
research and advice.
You have been very, very helpful. I suspect that we have
the capabilities as we certainly have the willingness to do
this and perhaps that would be your rewards for a lifetime of
research that your country has finally responded.
Thank you very, very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the Record follow:]
Statement by Laurie Williams and Allen Zabel of www.carbonfees.org
The single biggest obstacle to solving the climate crisis is the
fact that the cost of fossil fuel energy remains relatively low,
creating little incentive for conservation or for the scale-up of clean
energy. While prices for clean energy have fallen, clean energy remains
significantly more expensive than fossil fuel energy. For instance,
fossil fuel-generated electricity currently averages between 6 and 10
cents per kilowatt hour, while, depending on its design and location,
solar currently averages 2 to 3 times that amount. As we explain here,
a cap-and-trade approach (the Acid Rain template), widely presumed to
be an appropriate tool for addressing climate change, has several fatal
flaws, including the fact that it will not insure a competitive price
advantage for clean energy over fossil fuel energy in the near future.
As a result, cap-and-trade will not create the incentives for
investment in a rapid scale-up of clean energy substitutes. Cap-and-
trade keeps our eyes focused on the wrong ball--on maintaining low
costs for fossil fuel energy. Instead, our eyes need to be focused on a
very different ball (the CFC-tax template)--on changing the relative
cost of fossil fuel energy and clean energy, while keeping the energy
needed for everyday life and in everyday products affordable for
everyone and minimizing economic disruption. Carbon fees with a 100%
rebate, delivered monthly in equal payments to all, is the tool that
can swiftly and effectively accomplish this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ We have written this paper as concerned citizens and parents.
Our educational background includes undergraduate degrees from Yale
College (Laurie) and the University of California, Santa Cruz (Allan)
and J.D.'s from Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of
California, Berkeley. We are employees of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA''), Region 9, in San Francisco,
however, we are writing only in our personal capacities, and nothing in
this paper is an attempt to present the views of EPA or the
Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illustration 1: Fossil fuel energy provided approximately 86% of U.S.
energy in 2006.
The Role of Fossil Fuels and Renewable Energy in the Nation's Energy
Supply, 2006
(See http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/
rea_prereport
.html)
1. What is Cap-and-Trade and How Did It Become the Leading Proposal to
Address Climate Change?
Cap-and-trade is a program that sets a collective declining
emissions limit (``cap'') for particular pollutants from all sources
within the program. The idea is to gradually lower the total amount of
pollutants emitted from these sources until the environmental goal is
achieved (in this case massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions).
The trade portion of the program allows participating sources to lower
the cost of reducing their emissions by purchasing permits to pollute
from others who may be able to cut back more cheaply, thereby helping
to keep the overall costs of the commodities manufactured, in this case
fossil fuel energy, as low as possible.
Outside Offsets: An additional concept that has been part of most
cap-and-trade proposals for climate change is the idea of outside
offsets. Outside offsets mean allowing additional pollution above the
cap for sources within the program, if they are able to pay for
decreases in the pollutant outside the program. For instance, a coal-
fired power plant (a source within the program) could continue emitting
CO2 above the levels that would otherwise be permitted, if
the owners of the facility have purchased an offset, such as a
reforestation project expected to capture CO2, i.e., a
carbon ``sink,'' outside the capped sources. In most cases, cap-and-
trade proposals for climate change suggest allowing ``offset'' projects
in other countries.
Support for Cap-and-Trade: Many prominent people and organizations
have supported cap-and-trade as a next step for addressing climate
change. President Obama has said that his administration will seek
enactment of a cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gases to 80%
of their 1990 levels by 2050. Although individual state programs may be
preempted by a future federal program, the trend toward cap-and-trade
is also shown by the California Air Resources Board's 2008 decision to
rely heavily on cap-and-trade for reducing California's greenhouse gas
emissions. The Western Climate Initiative, a group of western U.S.
states and Canadian provinces, anticipates collaboration among its
members on a cap-and-trade program. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., of the
Natural Resources Defense Council (``NRDC'') has said that adopting
cap-and-trade to address climate change is a ``no brainer'' in his
forward to ``The Green Collar Economy'' by Van Jones. In addition,
using cap-and-trade for climate change is endorsed by an array of U.S.
organizations, including oil companies (BP America, ConocoPhillips and
Shell) and environmental groups (Environmental Defense, NRDC and World
Wildlife Fund), many of whom joined an industry/environmental coalition
called ``USCAP,'' the stated purpose of which is to bring about
enactment of a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade program. See USCAP's
proposed program at www.us-cap.org.
Given the high profile of the cap-and-trade idea, it is somewhat
shocking to many to find that the analysis supporting this approach is
seriously flawed and is rejected by many prominent economists.\2\ A
combination of factors led to this disconnect:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Harvard economist, Greg Mankiw's blog at http://
www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/business/16view.html.
(1) The Acid Rain Myth: Cap-and-trade advocates have claimed that
the success of EPA's Acid Rain program has proved that cap-and-trade
will work for climate change, failing to appreciate the critical
differences between the climate change challenge and the acid rain
problem. As discussed below, the U.S. chlorofluorocarbon (``CFC'') tax
to address ozone depletion under the Montreal Protocol provides a much
more applicable analogy.
(2) No New Taxes: Many analysts, including Peter Orszag, Director
of the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (``CBO''), have recognized that
carbon taxes (or fees) would be a more efficient method of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. See Orszag, Nov. 2007, http://www.cbo.gov/
ftpdocs/87xx/doc8769/11-01-CO2Emissions.pdf. However, many politicians
have viewed any new taxes as politically unacceptable to voters, even
before the economic collapse of 2008. These evaluations fail to
consider the possibility of 100% rebate, the economic advantages of
fees with rebates over cap-and-trade for most individuals, and the
potential of public education on the policy choice to address this
concern; and
(3) Urgency: Favorable analyses of the applicability of cap-and-
trade to climate change originated when scientists believed we might
have several more decades to achieve an 80% reduction in
CO2. However, recent studies indicate that the current level
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (385 parts per million (``ppm'')
CO2) will lead to dangerous climate change, even if no
additional increases occur. Since CO2 levels have been
increasing at approximately 2 ppm per year over the last eight years,
many scientists have concluded that the climate problem is much more
urgent than they believed it to be earlier in this decade. This
evidence suggests we have a much shorter time to a transition away from
fossil fuels, especially coal, in order to reduce the risk of runaway
climate change and ecological disaster. See the 2008 discussion of
climate evidence by James Hansen, et al at http://www.columbia.edu/
jeh1/2008/TargetCO2_20080407.pdf. Specifically, Dr. Hansen and his
team found: ``Continued growth of greenhouse gas emissions, for just
another decade, practically eliminates the possibility of near-term
return of atmospheric composition beneath the tipping level for
catastrophic effects.'' (Emphasis added.) Given growing demand for
energy world-wide, only strong incentives for conservation and a rapid
scale-up of clean energy can stem the continued growth of emissions
that Hansen and his team have determined are likely to spell disaster.
While people we admire, people of good faith, great intelligence
and real integrity, have supported cap-and-trade, our hope is to
explain why moving forward with a cap-and-trade approach creates an
unacceptable risk of catastrophic global warming and why there is a
much more effective alternative that could become politically feasible
with appropriate public education and leadership from President Obama.
2. Why is Cap and Trade the Wrong Tool?
The Acid Rain Myth: As noted above, those who champion using cap-
and-trade to address climate change claim that it has been ``proven''
to work in the U.S. Acid Rain program. See e.g., Bill Chameides of
Environmental Defense at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/
102851/837. However, this assertion ignores crucial distinctions
between the challenges we faced in 1990 with Acid Rain and the
challenges we face today with global warming. Most importantly, the
success of the Acid Rain program did not depend on replacing the vast
majority of our existing energy infrastructure with new infrastructure
in a relatively short time. Nor did it depend on spurring major
innovation. Rather, the Acid Rain program was successful as a mechanism
to guide existing facilities to undertake a fuel switch to a readily
available substitute, the low sulfur coal in Wyoming's Powder River
Basin. Existing fa-
cilities needed only the addition of a few new railway lines, burner
modifications to accommodate lower sulfur fuel, and, in some cases, new
or more efficient scrubbers. Little new technology or infrastructure
was needed and little was created.\3\ The goal of the Acid Rain program
was to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, while keeping the cost of
energy from coal low. To be effective, climate change legislation must
do the opposite; it must gradually increase the relative price of
energy from coal and other fossil fuels to create the appropriate
incentives for both conservation and the scale-up of clean energy.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/dispelling-the-myths-of-
the-acid-rain-hb/.
\4\ While the coal industry has lobbied for support for ``clean
coal,'' sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions from burning coal has
not been demonstrated to be safe or permanent and is expected to be
costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the Acid Rain program did not allow any outside offsets
and so provides no basis for the widespread assumption that an offset
program will help with climate change. In addition, the success of the
program was aided by the low, competitive price of low-sulfur coal.
According to Professor Don Munton, author of ``Dispelling the Myths of
the Acid Rain Story'' the impact of the program has been overstated:
The potential for a massive switch to low sulfur coal was no
secret. Such coal was cheap and available, and it became cheaper and
more available throughout the 1980s. Indeed, low-sulfur coal became
very competitive with high-sulfur supplied well before the Clean Air
Act became law.
See http://www.bookrags.com/highbeam/dispelling-the-myths-of-the-
acid-rain-hb/.
Accurate Measurement: In addition to cap-and-trade's focus on
keeping the cost of fossil fuel energy low, the program is vulnerable
to inaccurate measurements. Unless all cap-and-trade elements,
including outside offsets, are limited to systems with accurate
emissions measurement, the cap on total emissions is likely be inflated
and claimed reductions exaggerated. While the emissions of large
electrical generating facilities with continuous emission monitoring
systems can be accurately tracked (the Acid Rain program was limited to
such sources), many other sources of emissions and offsets cannot be as
closely monitored or quantified. Where these less-accurately-measured
sources participate, the integrity of the cap-and-trade program is
undermined, as is the certainty of the reductions sought and claimed.
Most recently proposed cap-and-trade programs do not limit their
proposals to sources with accurate measurement.
Fraudulent Outside Offsets: Most U.S. proposals and the European
Union are planning to make extensive use of outside offsets in their
cap-and-trade program. The idea is to use outside offsets as a
mechanism for keeping fossil fuel energy inexpensive and for
encouraging ``additional'' projects that reduce carbon emissions in the
developing world. Research to date on these projects indicates they
will be subject to extensive fraud and will undermine pressure for
reductions within the capped economies. First, the underlying concept
of ``additionality'' (i.e., the reductions would not have happened
without offset funding) is flawed because this key component of the
program cannot be proven. The definition of additionality is therefore
subjective, inviting intense lobbying by sophisticated,
profit-seeking market participants and their consultants, and
defeating program integrity in terms of net emissions reductions.
Further, since people (and profit-motivated corporations) will always
seek the cheapest offsets that they can purchase, there is a race to
the bottom, through selection of the most flawed (least additional and
measurable) projects, as documented by two Stanford researchers, David
Victor and Michael Wara in their research paper available at: http://
pesd.stanford.edu/publications/
a_realistic_policy_on_international_carbon_offsets/. In addition,
offsets have become a source of negative unintended consequences, such
as the production in China of HCFC 23, a potent greenhouse gas which is
a by-product of manufacturing HCFC 22. Research indicates that
manufacturing of these products may be occurring solely for the purpose
of destroying HCFC 23's and selling this activity as a carbon offset.
(See http://www.sourcewatch.org/ index.php?title=Clean_Development
_Mechanism_and_HCFC-23_destruction.) Finally, an investigation into
expenditures by the U.S. Congress of carbon offsets indicated that most
of the projects were already completed at the time of the purchase,
i.e., not additional. See: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/
story/2008/01/8/ST2008012800764.html
Rationing, Manipulation and Price Volatility: Even if the cap-and-
trade market were limited to facilities with continuous emission
monitors and no outside offsets, the program would essentially be a
form of rationing. Unlike a fee or tax, a cap requires Soviet-style
preplanning. Program managers would try to choose a level of reductions
in fossil fuel emissions that the economy could adjust to without
energy shortages. Rolling blackouts/gas station lines could become a
reality if demand for fossil fuels exceeds the supply and appropriate
clean energy alternatives have not yet been built to fill in for
reduced availability of fossil fuel energy. This type of problem
occurred in a Los Angeles cap-and-trade program called RECLAIM in 2000
(described below). The program was put on hold for a period of time
because, if the cap had been enforced, it would have resulted in a
lengthy period of rolling blackouts.
Permits to pollute can easily be subject to gaming and
manipulation, creating artificial scarcity that is likely to result in
disruptions and unfairness, as initial and future allocations of the
right to emit are distributed (whether by auction or other means) and
traded. A preview of such disruptions was provided by the market
manipulations that created the California energy crisis early in this
decade. This potential was also demonstrated in a 2008 simulation at
the University of California at Berkeley's Haas School of Business, in
which students gamed a carbon-trading market for individual gain,
leading to scarcity and high prices. (See, article on the UC Berkeley
simulation: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=91625716.)
This potential for market manipulation is likely to contribute to
undesirable price volatility. The resulting lack of price
predictability in a cap-and-trade system (specifically, the lack of
certainty concerning when the price of energy from fossil fuels will
exceed the price of clean energy) reduces the incentive for the
substantial investments in the new infrastructure and innovation
necessary to provide alternative energy at affordable prices. (For
additional information on price volatility and the resulting delay in
clean energy investment, see the January 2009 study by the Brattle
Group described at http://www.brattle.com/NewsEvents/NewsDetail.asp
?RecordID=589).
Complex Bureaucracy, Lack of Enforceability and Inertia: In
addition, setting up a cap-and-trade system will be very complex and
time consuming. Once begun, a cap-and-trade program would have a great
deal of inertia. It would be difficult to dismantle and would create a
variety of interest groups with investments in maintaining the program,
however ineffective it proved to be for addressing climate change.
Further, the complex system of permits and offsets would be extremely
difficult to police. A lack of effective enforcement (virtually
impossible for offsets given the murky standards for additionality and
plans to allow international trading) will encourage fraud and make the
program a sham, while interest groups with a stake in the program fight
to maintain and to ``fix'' it.
RECLAIM and Over-allocation: In contrast to Acid Rain, the Los
Angeles cap-and-trade program known as RECLAIM (the Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market) failed spectacularly. The program was aimed at
reducing ground level ozone. In RECLAIM, despite the presence of
accurate monitors and sophisticated regulators, the initial cap was
inflated (set too high,
also called ``over-allocation''), which delayed most emission
reductions for approximately seven years. At the end of that time,
companies were accustomed to artificially low credit prices and almost
no one had invested in emission control. As a result, the market
collapsed when prices soared because the gradually declining number of
permits no longer exceeded actual emissions. Following market collapse,
the necessary control technology was required by regulation. http://
www.law.duke.edu/journals/cite.php?9+Duke+Envtl.+L.+&+Pol'y+F.+231
European Trading Scheme (``ETS''): Similarly, attempts to
design an effective carbon cap-and-trade system have failed in
Europe under the Kyoto Protocol--a 1997 international accord to cut
greenhouse gas emissions which the U.S. never ratified. In a
demonstration of the many flaws of the cap-and-trade approach,
utilities and other sources have underreported their emissions,
purchased flawed offsets, driven up prices, reaped billions in
undeserved profits and generally failed to produce promised emission
reductions or any significant scale-up of clean energy. While Europe
has indicated it can fix the problems it experienced in the first phase
of its program, there are many indications that this is a flawed
assertion. See analysis of problems with ETS at http://
www.openeurope.org.uk/research/etsp2.pdf and in a November 2008 GAO
report at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-151.
Conclusion on Cap-and-Trade: A cap-and-trade program for climate
change focuses on keeping the price of fossil fuel energy low. Even a
cap-and-trade program that did not include offsets or facilities
without accurate monitoring (most plans include both of these
components) will only have an indirect impact on the relative price of
fossil fuel and clean energy. This lack of price predictability makes
analyses of when clean energy investments will become profitable very
uncertain, thereby delaying crucial investments in clean energy
technology research, development and infrastructure scale-up. In
addition, the integrity of cap-and-trade programs is vulnerable to
over-allocation, poor quantification of emissions, invalid offsets,
market manipulation and a lack of enforceability. In a cap-and-trade
system, prices are raised and resources are drained by the profits and
costs of brokers, traders, certifiers, lawyers and investors in carbon
offsets, all of whom develop a vested financial interest in maintaining
the program. Cap-and-trade will also require a huge oversight
bureaucracy whose efforts will be thwarted by the inherent flaws in the
program.
3. What are Carbon Fees with 100% Monthly Per Capita Rebate?
Even if you accept our conclusion that cap-and-trade is virtually
certain to fail, you may reasonably wonder whether there is a better
alternative. Many economists, former EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus, the
former Director of the Congressional Budget Office Peter Orszag and the
CEO of ExxonMobil agree that carbon tax (or as we prefer to call it
``carbon fees''\5\) is a better alternative, with many advantages in
transparency, fairness and likelihood of effectively reducing
emissions. See Congressional Budget Office report dated February 2008
at p.VIII, (``A tax on emissions would be the most efficient incentive-
based option for reducing emissions and could be relatively easy to
implement'') http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/89xx/doc8934/02-12-Carbon.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ While the debate has not been framed this way to date, we use
the term ``fees'' and ``rebate'' rather than the terminology of
``taxes'' and ``dividend,'' because we believe these terms may more
accurately convey two important points to the general public. First, a
``fee'' is generally a charge for doing a specific activity (here using
destructive fossil fuels), and when fees are collected, they are
generally used for a specific purpose, not just dumped into the general
revenue fund. Similarly, a ``rebate'' is more familiar to the general
public as a return of funds previously spent than the concept of a
``dividend.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What are Carbon Fees? Carbon fees are amounts that would be paid
when fossil fuels enter the economy. These fees would be charged when
oil, gas or coal are imported or extracted from the ground. We think
that the term ``fees'' rather than the ``tax'' is most applicable
because this is not a charge on income or property, but rather a
targeted charge on a substance that is doing a major environmental
damage. Since other taxes and fees are often applied at the point of
importation or extraction, the additional cost of tracking and imposing
carbon fees on fossil fuels should be relatively low.
What is the Purpose of Carbon Fees? The purpose of carbon fees is
to insure that, within a set time period, the price of fossil fuel
energy exceeds the price of clean energy from sources such as wind and
the sun. Only an absolute commitment to insuring that the price of
fossil fuel energy will exceed the price of today's clean energy
alternatives will insure the substantial level of investments in the
panoply of possible clean energy technologies that are needed to
rapidly transition away from fossil fuels and to do so in a way that is
fair to all.
Over What Period of Time Would Carbon Fees Be Phased In? In our
example below (Illustration 2, provided as Attachment 1), we show
carbon fees being phased in over a period of ten (10) years. This is a
time frame that has been mentioned by Al Gore and other leaders as
workable for weaning the U.S. economy from fossil fuels. However, fully
phasing in carbon fees does not require a cessation in fossil fuel use.
(See article ``Gore Pitches 10-year plan'' http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/
25718230/.) It would only be the time within which even costly solar
projects would have a price advantage over fossil fuels. Citizens would
continue to receive monthly payments for the average amount of fossil
fuel fees paid in the prior month, allowing them to continue to afford
the average amount of fossil fuel fees paid by everyone.
What Would Carbon Fees Be Used For? Our proposal is that one
hundred percent (100%) of all carbon fees collected when fossil fuels
are first introduced into the U.S. economy would be returned in equal
monthly payments to all adults (a smaller share for children). The
purpose of returning the entire amount to all adults is two-fold.
First, this rebate would ensure that everyone could afford the average
amount of fossil fuels introduced into the economy and that no one
would suffer unfairly during the transition to a clean energy economy.
Second, the monthly payments would create an incentive for
conservation, as everyone would be very aware of the amount of their
monthly payment and would be working to insure that they spent no more
than that amount on fossil fuels. Because low-income people generally
use less energy (but spend a bigger proportion of their income on
energy), equal rebates would insure that lower income families would
still be able to afford the fossil fuel energy they need. Finally,
receiving equal monthly payments would help reinforce a collaborative
spirit, a sense that all of us are working together to reduce the risks
of damage to our climate from fossil fuels.
Some people may believe that a portion of carbon fees should be
used for the other critical measures described below. We are not
strongly opposed to this but believe that the goal of cushioning the
transition away from fossil fuels for individuals should not be
compromised. In addition, we believe that regional adjustments in the
amount of the fossil fuel rebate may be appropriate to reflect greater
dependence on fossil fuels in certain regions at this time and, as a
result, greater stress during the transition.
How would Carbon Fees help Clean Energy Development? Carbon Fees
would help clean-energy development by giving prospective investors
certainty in two areas. First, investors would be confident that every
unit of clean energy available at the end of the ten-year time period
would be more affordable to consumers than any unit of fossil fuel
energy. This would mean that, while investors would not know which
clean energy technology or firm would be most successful, they would
know for sure that any firm able to actually produce such energy would
be able to compete successfully with all existing fossil fuel energy
products. Carbon Fees would also insure that there is little additional
investment in fossil fuel projects, such as new coal-fired power plants
or new exploration to develop shale oil.
What Historical Example Demonstrates that Carbon Fees Would Be an
Effective Market Mechanism for Climate Change?
The Montreal Protocol--William Reilly: At the same time that the
Acid Rain program was enacted, in 1990, the United States used a very
different approach to create additional economic incentives for the
scale-up of substitutes for ozone depleting CFC's pursuant to the
Montreal Protocol. William Reilly, the EPA Administrator, noted the
crucial facts in his opening statement at the second meeting of parties
to the Montreal Protocol:
``On January 1, 1990, a new tax went into effect in the United
States, a tax on the manufacture of CFCs. This tax exceeds in value the
cost of CFCs themselves and it will rise steeply in the years ahead,
raising $400 million in new revenues this year, and raising $5 billion
over the next five years. This added cost of CFCs sends a powerful
signal: it says bring on the substitutes fast! And it reduces the
comparative economic advantage CFCs would otherwise enjoy over the more
expensive substitutes. This tax on CFCs has already caused the United
States to reach the agreed targets for reduction earlier than
required.'' (http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/montreal/04.htm)
(Emphasis added.)
As this experience with the CFC tax demonstrates, a carbon fee or
tax can help reach agreed targets for reductions quickly. The entire
economy will be stimulated by the rush to develop the most cost-
effective substitutes for fossil fuels. This CFC tax example, rather
than the Acid Rain example, is the appropriate model for the problem we
face today with climate change. The difference is that, given the
enormous cost and scope of the transition to clean energy, a monthly
per capita 100% rebate will be needed to keep energy affordable for
everyone, while still sending the critical message with respect to the
relative price of damaging as opposed to non-damaging sources of
energy.
Thank you!
Please reference our longer discussion paper at
http://www.carbonfees.org/home/Cap-and-TradeVsCarbonFees.pdf
Laurie Williams and Allan Zabel, as parents and citizens,
6005 Auburn Ave.,
Oakland, California 94618
www.carbonfees.org
Email: [email protected]; [email protected]
** Attached for the record is testimony that was previously
submitted to the House Intelligence Committee. Many of the
environmental and ecosystem impacts of climate change could
significantly affect national security issues. We hope that you will
take these aspects into consideration when establishing environmental
objectives and ultimately in crafting your climate change legislation.
Paul G. Gaffney II (Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.))
President, Monmouth University,
Before a Joint Hearing of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Subcommittee on Intelligence Community Management
and
House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC
Dear Chairwoman Eshoo, Chairman Markey, Congressman Rush Holt (my
Representative) and Members of the Committees:
Thank you for the opportunity to appear this morning at this joint
hearing of your Committees. I am honored by your invitation to briefly
discuss the national security implications of climate change, and to
provide you with thoughts about some steps that the Federal Government
can take to more specifically measure climate change indicators.
In sum, my recommendations to the Committees are two-fold: The
Federal Government must plan seriously for the potential impact of
environmental effects on both the nation's security and the security of
regions around the world; and, To help ensure that environmental
threats are properly understood, we should focus our national
investments and technical capabilities to measure specifically, when we
can, the most critical physical processes of our planet.
These issues are, in my opinion, intertwined and mutually
supportive. I have come to these conclusions as a result of my work
since 1991. Since that time, I have served as: Commander of the Naval
Research Laboratory; Commander of the Naval Meteorology and
Oceanography Command; Chief of Naval Research; member of MEDEA and its
U.S. Environmental Task Force (ETF) and its related Environmental
Working Group (EWG) within the ``Gore-Chernomyrdin Program;'' member of
the Military Advisory Board of the 2007 CNA Study ``National Security
and the Threat of Climate Change (hereinafter the ``2007 CNA Report);''
President of the National Defense University; Commissioner on the U.S.
Ocean Policy Commission; member of the Joint Ocean Commissions
Initiative; and presently as Vice Chair of the statutory Ocean
Research/Resources Advisory Panel (ORRAP) and President of Monmouth
University.
The need to focus the proper attention on environmental threats and
studying the Earth's critical physical processes has only become more
urgent by the climate change discussion. To explain my reasoning behind
my recommendations, I would like to discuss briefly the findings of the
2007 CNA Report and, then, the power of leveraging defense and
intelligence data to both better measure the progress (or even the non-
progress) of global climate change and inform climate change policy.
I was a member of the Military Advisory Board (a group of eleven
retired three- and four-star generals and admirals for all the military
branches) that sat with CNA as it developed its Report on the national
security implications of climate change. I support the Report's
discussion, findings and recommendations and present my own narrow view
of one aspect of the report as recorded on the Report's 23rd page.
Further, I applaud CNA for its timely attention to this heretofore
largely unaddressed aspect of climate change.
The Report, like the recent draft NIA on security and climate
change, does not judge whether climate change is occurring, whether
mankind is responsible for it or whether humans can turn it around.
Rather, it points to the international and regional security
consequences of climate change if the disturbing environmental signals
measured in recent years continue unabated.
The CNA Report likens the threat of climate change to that of the
strategic threats we endured during the Cold War. That is: while the
probability of disastrous climate change cannot be determined
certainly, the effects of climate change (if current trends continue)
on international security are so great that one must prepare to deal
with severe security consequences. First principle: whether one
believes climate change will happen or not, the effects if it does
happen are dangerous enough that security forces must plan for it.
Within the Report, we cite water and water-related issues (such as:
drought, famine, flooding and disease and resultant migration of rather
desperate peoples) as major threats to regional security, globally.
The CNA Report finds that the least developed nations of the world
as most likely to be affected by climate change phenomena and are least
likely to be able to cope with them.
In the Report we call for deliberate planning by U.S. security
organizations including the Defense, Intelligence and diplomatic
communities. I personally think it is most useful if the climate
science community, both from inside Government and outside, can be as
specific as possible about regional effects. Global climate change may
prove to show an overall average warming of global air and sea
temperatures, but global climate change is far from average. In some
regions it can be warmer, others much colder (especially if an abrupt
climate change scenario occurs in the North Atlantic). Some areas could
witness more rain or sea level rise; both imply flooding. In still
other areas, we could see drought and inevitable famine.
I think the CNA Report correctly wraps its findings in a gloomy
theme: adverse environmental conditions created by climate change, if
unabated, affect undeveloped nations first, and whether it is too much
water or too little, the intermediate results will be trans-national
migrations of desperate peoples who are trying to survive which leads,
finally, to regional strife.
The question is: where will the effects of climate change be seen
and what will be those changes be so that U.S. security leaders can
deliberately include expected effects in their regional plans? Second
principle: Understand more specifically, through better measurements,
what is going on with climate change especially in key natural
environments (such as: the Arctic, desert fringe environments, low
lying coastal areas, historical breadbasket regions and glaciers) and
geopolitically sensitive areas (such as: the Subcontinent, sub-Saharan
Africa, Middle East and China).
I have recently heard that the National Academies, with the
personal leadership of its President, Dr. Ralph Cicerone, is working to
establish indices and metrics to inform future long term requirements
for measurements of change on our planet.
I mentioned earlier, the U.S. security community, specifically,
needs to understand where climate change effects have the highest
potential to affect regional security. The nation, generally, needs to
understand if climate change is progressing. And, if the nation takes
any policy steps to stem perceived climate change, it needs to know
whether those steps (policy, lifestyle or investment changes) are
having any impact.
To this end I remain confident that the Defense and Intelligence
communities can and should be leveraged by the civil U.S. climate
science community to better understand perceived climate change
signals.
I have seen the value of leveraging the talent, sensor/analysis/
computation capabilities, global presence, and data collected (or to be
collected) and archived by these government agencies. I saw it during
the period 1991--2000 while MEDEA and its related groups were in
action. Two general benefits derive for such undertakings:
a) previously un-released data and information from national
security systems may help civil scientists get a fuller or clearer
picture of what is going on in nature, and
b) government scientists and decision makers from the security
community may get a better insight into their own mission-related
challenges by conferring with top civil scientists who have received
security clearances.
The following is a sample list of techniques that could be (have
been) used in civil-government collaborations that are designed to
cross security boundaries:
Data can be simply released if deemed no longer classified; it may
never have been classified or outlived its classification and just
never been released.
Raw data can be reclassified, after very deliberate review
following carefully structured processes.
Useful unclassified information can be derived from classified, un-
releasable data
Defense and Intelligence scientists can confer continually with
appropriately (and rigorously) cleared civil climate scientists so both
sides can benefit.
Future space, ship, submarine, aircraft, human and in situ sensor
collections can consider both mission-agency and environmental needs in
system design, operational employment decisions and data distribution.
``Fiducial sites'' (geographic sites predetermined as
scientifically important to observe) can set up at which measurements
from every possible civil, commercial and classified sensor can be
made, repeatedly, over long time periods--allowing climate change to be
actually measured, not just estimated. An example is recently released
sea ice imagery from the Arctic.
Certainly, the deliberate acts of releasing data or deriving
unclassified products from un-releasable data sets will require
additional security processing and actual environmental analysis work,
but such costs will be considerably less than replicating data
collection missions, perhaps too late.
This cost-benefit point is more important when one considers the
stakes involved in either underestimating the effects of or over-
reacting to global climate change or their security-jeopardizing
regional effects. I would make the same comment about costs to
appropriately clear and keep updated a few dozen of the nation's top
climate scientists who would work with government scientists with all
data and all talent available to both.
If national security leaders are to make actionable regional
security plans that consider climate change, then they need climate
change effects specificity for their respective regions/theaters. Even
the best scientists cooperating with government planners, but without
access to the best scale or time-series data, will not be able to help
enough. In those trouble parts of the world about which we worry most,
indigenous populations and governments are not prepared (not willing)
to collect sophisticated, long-time-series data necessary for measuring
climate change speed, magnitude or direction. We can get more precise
data, incidental to other mission-related collection efforts, in the
regions where it has been least collectable by open source means, if we
leverage existing and planned Defense and Intelligence assets more
fully. Yes, the successes of MEDEA are about a decade old and many new
sensor systems have come into being in the civil and commercial world.
I have recently seen a comprehensive unclassified compilation of open
source ``collectors'' that can help us monitor the environment. Yes,
again, we do have access to more ``open'' information, but the national
security communities may have different flexibilities in satellite
orbits, undersea access and resolution, for example. The Defense and
Intelligence community may also have useful archives going back
generations and regional specialists who can add to specificity
determinations and understanding.
I would like to close with a general comment about potential U.S.
national policies and investments to stem perceived climate change.
Climate change is probably occurring, as it has so many times over the
geologic history scale. Man may have created it or may be contributing
to it. Man may be able to turn it around. Maybe, maybe, maybe. But, if
our government makes substantive policy decisions that substantially
consume our wealth or substantially change our life quality, then we
have an obligation to use every asset at out disposal to determine if
those ``substantive (perhaps uncomfortable) policies'' are bearing
fruit. We cannot say that today. New efforts including sufficient
investments in fundamental research, development of an integrated ocean
observing system (IOOS) and the leveraging of Defense and Intelligence
capabilities--to measure the efficacy of our huge investments are
warranted.
Statement of Richard Pauli
It does not have a name like treason or treachery, but the effects
are just as bad--or worse.
Our purposeful ignorance and deliberate scientific deception at the
service of branding and market share is no less than treason to our
civilization. Call them deniers, or denialists, skeptics, deniasaurs:
be they professional PR firms, pundits or pseudo scientists who deny
Global warming or that humans have caused it. I accuse them of helping
to cripple our future. Purposefully promoting confusion by the
corporation, the state or any organization is a horrible crime. This
clearly harms our children and our future. It is a serious crime, only
the punishment is undefined.
The by-product of our carbon industry is a greenhouse gas assault
on atmosphere and oceans. We know of this damage now, so with
purposeful diversion from this danger, this is causing harm.
To pick one of many accused: Since 1998 ExxonMobil has spent over
$23 million in publicly declared funding to support denialist
organizations campaigning to disrupt public understanding of global
warming. Exxon's stated goal was to fund a campaign where ``average
citizens understand'' (recognise) uncertainties in climate science;
recognition of uncertainties become part of conventional wisdom''.
Their PR campaign was to present ``scientific uncertainties in language
that the media and public can understand``--to confuse people. They
have recently halted this funding, saying it diverts attention from
addressing energy in an ``environmentally responsible manner''.
Global citizens assaulted by floods, heat waves, storms have begun
to feel the changes, but somebody continues to manufacture uncertainty.
Now well-funded denialists begrudgingly accept climate change but will
insist that human industry has no influence on CO2 levels in
the atmosphere. Even though all sane and sober climatologists say
humans caused global warming--certainly caused the problem. Denialists
are foisting a message that humans cannot possibly understand the
problem, hence not understand the solution required. Denialists seize
the smallest errant factoid and nurture and amplify those doubts as
worthy of dismissing all.
This same tactic applied to tobacco wars, ``nicotine is not
addictive'' delayed for 50 years . . . to many deaths. And for the anti
darwinist intelligent designers, this now moves into our textbooks and
curriculum. the harm is difficult to calculate.
Pushing this message of deception and confusion is as treacherous
as any other way of lying to children, worse since this robs their
future, and denies the hope for facing problems.
For over 2 decades thousands of scientists world-wide have been
combining research for United Nations IPCC reports on global warming.
Using compromising language of consensus--the group of IPCC scientists
say that AGW is highly likely with over 90% assurance. By contrast,
Exxon's tactical brief asked denialists to: ``Develop a global climate
science information kit for media including peer-reviewed papers that
undercut the ``conventional wisdom``on climate science.''
Global warming is radically dangerous for humans, we face huge
changes. Statistically small odds for implausible outcomes deserve
small consideration--but the demand for attention is diversionary. In
the early days of automobile seat belt deployment [there was a seatbelt
free age], the public resisted with a notion that if a car ended upside
down, we would not want to be trapped by our seatbelt, or if hurtling
off a cliff--we want to be unrestrained by a seat belt so to be thrown
clear unharmed. Certainly this was possible, but completely
implausible. And humans may miraculously avoid significant global
warming, it is just not plausible.
Humans can respond heroically to clear displays of danger--So
another PR and denialist tactic is to label scientific warnings as
``alarmist'' As if all hysterical or alarmist speech is false. This
forces responsible climatologists other scientist into using tame,
milque-toast language. THe IPCC report was forced to use the terms
``likely'' , unlikely and the most serious warning allowed ``highly
likely''. Does your fire alarm or smoke detector say ``It is highly
likely this smoke suggests a fire may be near'' If other famous danger
warnings were delivered as carefully as today's convoluted messages
what might have happened? Paul Revere: ``It is highly likely the
British are coming!'' Can we see past the mask of tame phrasing to act
appropriately? Is this speech wrong. Illegal?
Or with the Titanic, ``There is a 90% chance there is an iceberg
dead ahead, highly likely we will impact'' So how should we act with a
90% assurance of the outcome?
Who is telling us otherwise, and why? The press has abrogated
support of democracy by giving air and ink to the anti science and
industrial PR. Tame, confusing language has worked to stifle public
policy, prevent government from regulating these toxins
Somehow because a few Carbon industrialists whine or complain--this
somehow constitutes a serious challenge to the science? And no,
nicotine is not addictive. And perhaps they will find Iraqi WMDs too.
And carefully polite scientists fail to rise up to that PR fight.
Business supported by cheap carbon does little to restrain the rope-
making that forms nooses around our necks. I see no science here, only
pure business interests pushing muddled thinking.
With the recent Exxon mea culpa, we see denialists begrudgingly
accept that global warming is happening, but stridently claim that
humans had no role in causing it and even Anthropogenic Global Warming
(human caused) is a hoax. This allows their conclusion: ``Since humans
did not cause it, humans cannot possibly fix it`` And works nicely to
reinforce the false notion that humans are powerless and should instead
continue carbon consumption. So the fossil fuelers deliver the message:
``Do not dare interfere with coal, oil, or any other carbon
consumption''.
This is a PR campaign. And it is global carbon industries--
unconstrained by ethics or science--that has helped cause this problem.
Anthropogenic Global Warming denialists may seem tragic and make us
angry, and may even have business motives--but where is the crime? We
should charge them with global ecological treason, being an enemy of
the people, fostering rapacious greed, accelerating the destruction of
civilization and robbing the future from our children. This issue
concerns all beings on the planet. No one has the right to ask us to
die before we fully pursue a life. Do they?
If denialists believed in a flat earth--I could regard this as
charmingly eccentric--unless they demand we change navigation
principles in our travels. Or, if some folks believe the lunar landing
was a hoax; what do I care? unless it restricts real space exploration.
Some still believe in phlogiston, or Bigfoot. But advocating scientific
suppression by confusion and the clouding of conclusions regarding our
dangerous future; Asking me to live in the danger that you create--This
is an undefined criminal act that I cannot accept.
The IPCC says there is a 90% chance of real danger is ahead. If
someone said it is highly likely that you will fall through thin ice
and drown, or a 90% consensus that your beach-front property will be
flooded within 20 years--how will you act differently with that
information? With this warning, I know I have to act differently.
These dangers are real. We see them clearly, and we know more
change is coming. I want to know of dangers ahead.
I speak directly to denialists with these words:
If you fail to see danger ahead, failing to help defend, then just
wake up and open your eyes and ears. If you see danger ahead, and you
are quiet, failing to say anything about it, staying silent--well shame
on you.
Some think that unethical.
When you try to tell me, using mass media to tell me that real and
serious dangers ahead are just hallucinations, if you divert attention
and falsely challenge the science, and you act to deceive, and you try
to sew doubt, and you cancel further studies, you manipulate public
policy, and you deny the entire problem--then damn you as evil.
Whether you are delusional, a fool or a paid stooge of business
interests, that is treachery amounting to global treason on the human
race and all beings. Beyond shame, may you descend to that special
place in hell.
If it is OK to yell ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater, do you think
the opposite is OK? In a crowded theater that is burning, we feel heat
and smell smoke, we move toward the exits--are you telling me is it OK
for the usher to yell ``There is no fire!, sit down?'' or even ``There
is no fire, sit down and lets have a debate.''
Nothing illegal about expressing your thoughts.
You know you are talking about politics, not science
You know the data refutes you,
Your tactics have nothing to do with open discussion,
Everything to do with diversion and delay.
And nothing to do with science.
We know how you have emerged victorious from the tobacco industry
PR campaigns. You helped extend tobacco product sales for decades
beyond their proper life--all by a professionally unified denial
campaign. You kept a toxic drug delivery mechanism out of the FDA and
deflected legislation that properly should have banned nicotine. And
you cemented the flow of profit. Now the very same PR agency and
individuals are deep into the climate change denialist movement--this
time paid for by the carbon fuel industries.
Could it be that all the big carbon fuel companies fully realize
the decades of unrestrained carbon dioxide pollution has actually
caused climate instability?
Could it be that all this subsidized deceit and purposeful
denialism is here just to prevent any interference to their business
operations? Are your words intentionally designed to detract science
and delay responsible legislation?
It is sleazy, immoral, it ought to be illegal, and pretty soon the
courts may find you liable. Eventually you will be shunned and reviled
for your words and actions.
We are not talking about a little tobacco and cancer here. The
stakes are the ultimate: the very survival of our civilization. Call it
Climaticide We need lots of science focused on knowing the extent of
the problem. We don't need paid obstructionists, willful skeptics, and
professional denialists distracting the quest for more information. We
need to be making adaptation and mitigation plans. First off, carbon
fuel companies should stop these PR campaigns. And we have contempt for
your ignorant followers that you trick into academic suicide just to
sabotage research and cripple public policy.
Your actions are close to criminal because your words act to
inflict potential harm to the innocent. If you don't see that then try
these common analogies:
Let's say we all commute in a car where the driver says the brakes
are bad and maybe we should not ride, but one passenger insists the
brakes are fine and we should keep going in fast traffic. The driver is
worried and wants to slow down and check the brakes. Any skeptic that
denies danger and tries to stiffle more information should shut-up and
let the driver decide.
Or say your carload is driving fast in heavy fog on a darkened
highway; the radio reports the bridge ahead has just collapsed. You
start to slow down so as to carefully see the road ahead, but one of
your passengers insists that you keep driving the speed limit. He
claims that he can see perfectly well, and insists that everything is
OK, and he did not hear any warnings. Nope again, in my car, I would
say Shut Up.
Or consider the common story of a successful small town tourist spa
that finds it has poison water that kills people--all the townspeople
violently deny the facts, just to keep their commerce going. The
difference here is that EVERYONE on the planet will suffer in some way.
No matter how many want it to be OK, if there is even suspicion then
everyone needs to find out what is wrong. Don't fight these correct
acts.
Remember that just prior to Pearl Harbor the impending attack was
seen on radar. Seeing more planes on a screen than anyone had ever seen
before, someone was skeptical, and doubted what they saw. They said it
must have been a flock of birds, or friendly flights. But they
certainly did not cling to that skepticism after seeing the smoke and
fire of the attack. They did not persist in denial; I am not sure how a
denialist of today would have been regarded back then.
We are on a warming planet, the climate is destabilizing, we are
getting in trouble and people are dying. You are pandering to human
denial and cultivating human weakness for self-deception. Then you try
to redirect public attention with debates about the shape of the
arguments instead of the substance. Stop it.
And you know, with HUMAN CAUSED, CLIMATE DESTABILIZATION, the
stakes are higher than Pearl Harbor or 9-11 or even Katrina. Until
someone is brave enough to call you out as saboteurs to our future, or
to haul you into court, or to win a lawsuit--and that may happen soon--
until then, just shut-up.
We are looking for solutions, we first have to know just how bad
the problem is, and you don't want to help, you don't want to do
research. You just want to promote delay and engage in ideological
squabbling. Well, you can think your own thoughts, but don't obstruct
the important progress of science and government and industry and
community. We will not award false importance to your delusions by
merely examining the process of a phony debate. There's important work
to do.
Many have served or now serve in the military, Army, Navy or
AirForce. And right now we all serve in the global survival campaign.
And each of us is on guard duty observing changes and learning the
science and calling out errors and blunders, stupidity and folly.
We are looking to know the enemy so we may better act.
If someone can't do guard duty, that's OK, we give them a shovel
because everyone pitches in--there is plenty to do. If we're on guard
duty and we fall asleep and miss seeing the enemy, then our buddies may
cover for us; we quickly learn the consequences and we promise never to
do that again. And we keep that promise If we misperceive and cannot
identify the enemy then we will need more training to better see the
dangers. We learn and we change.
But if the soldier on guard duty deliberately turns away from the
danger, closes eyes, turns away from the watch, mis-reports, misdirects
our defenses, and lies about the crisis ahead, and then works to sew
doubt in the troops--then that is treachery.
All soldiers know this.
Neither fellow soldiers nor generals will tolerate this.
There is no confusion about sabotage.
Warriors will accept no less than loyalty.
The first action is to halt the behavior that amounts to treachery
and treason.
Richard Pauli
Seattle
February 2009
Statement of Wayne Pacelle
Dear Chairman Rangel:
On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the
nation's largest animal protection organization, and our global
division, Humane Society International (HSI), representing nearly 11
million members and constituents, I welcome the opportunity to submit
comments to the Ways and Means Committee regarding scientific
objectives for climate change legislation.
The HSUS/HSI are encouraged that Congress is seeking input on the
future of climate change legislation. We are hopeful that recent
scientific evidence from the United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO), as well as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, regarding the role of animal agriculture in climate change will
be taken into account as legislation to mitigate the effects of global
warming is implemented.
We have provided a number of recommendations to help achieve this
goal.
Background
Agriculture is both a driver of climate change and is also
influenced by climactic fluctuations, such as increases in temperature
and rainfall that result from a changing climate. Although experts
disagree on the precise totals, agriculture and its related land-use
changes, such as deforestation for feed crop cultivation, are
responsible for at least one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.\1\ As well, agriculture is the human endeavor that will
likely be the most affected by climate change or global warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Paustian K, Antle J, Sheehan J, et al. 2006. Agriculture's role
in greenhouse gas mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, p.
18. www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agricul
ture%27s%20Role%20in%20GHG%20Mitigation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal agriculture, in particular, contributes significantly to GHG
emissions--more than 50% of emissions from agriculture and its
associated land-use changes.
An FAO report in 2006 found that the farmed animal sector is
responsible for 18% of global GHGs measured in carbon dioxide
(CO2) equivalent, more than the entire transportation
sector.\2\ In addition, FAO estimates that a cow/calf pair on a beef
farm is responsible for more GHG emissions than a person traveling
8,000 miles in a mid-sized car.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De
Haan C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options
(Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p.
xxi).
\3\ Scherr S and Sthapit S. 2009. Farming and land use to cool the
planet. In: State of the World 2009 (New York: W.W. Norton, 2009)
citing Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De
Haan C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options
(Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Globally, animal agriculture is responsible for 9% of
CO2 emissions,\4\ accounting for sources such as on-farm
fossil-fuel use for lighting, temperature control, automated machinery,
and ventilation (90 million tonnes per year);\5\ the packaging,
transportation, and application of nitrogen fertilizer for feed crops
(more than 40 million tonnes per year);\6\ and deforestation for
grazing (2.4 billion tonnes per year).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, and De
Haan C. 2006. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options
(Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, p.
xxi).
\5\ Id. at 88-9.
\6\ Id.
\7\ Id. at 90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, animal agriculture is responsible for 40% of global
methane emissions and 65% of global nitrous oxide emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GHG Emissions from Industrial Farm Animal Production
In the United States, a substantial portion of the GHGs emitted
from agriculture come from concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs). Specifically, the EPA noted in 2006 that the primary reason
for the overall increase in methane emissions is the shift towards
confining pigs and cows used for milk production in larger facilities
that use liquid manure management systems.\9\ In addition, according to
the EPA, the overall increase in nitrous oxide emissions is largely due
to the concentration and industrialization of the poultry industries,
namely the shift toward litter-based manure management systems,
confinement in high-rise houses, and an overall increase in the U.S.
poultry population.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2005. Draft for public review,
p. 6-7. February 20. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads07/
07CR.pdf.
\10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Inventory of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-2005. Draft for public review,
p. 6-7. February 20. www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads07/
07CR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of their size and production levels, each CAFO is capable
of emitting hundreds or thousands of tons of pollutants into the
ambient air annually. CAFOs are responsible for 47-60%\11\ of the 500
million tons of manure produced by animal feeding operations each year,
more than three times the amount of waste produced by humans in the
United States each year.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Fact sheet:
concentrated animal feeding operations proposed rulemaking. June.
www.epa.gov/npdes/regulations/cafo_revisedrule_factsheet
.pdf.
\12\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit regulation and effluent limitation
guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs); Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 7176, 7180 (February 12, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At least two-thirds of all arable land in the world is used to grow
annual grains, such as corn and soybeans, which depend heavily on
chemical inputs, as well as mechanical tilling of the soil. Nearly half
of all that grain--some 40% of the global corn crop and up to 80% of
the global soybean crop--is used to feed farm animals, not people.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Smil V. Distinguished Professor University of Manitoba. 2008.
Personal communication with Danielle Nierenberg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations
Reducing GHG emissions through improved management strategies: The
GHG emissions from animal agriculture can be reduced. Simple work-
practice changes, such as reducing the time between surface application
of manure and incorporation into soil, ensuring proper soil drainage,
ensuring adequate oxygen exposure to stockpiles, ensuring proper
nutrition for animals, or irrigating directly after application, for
example, can significantly reduce emissions.
Reducing GHG emissions through more natural animal feeding
practices: The transition from farm animal production systems reliant
on feed crops, like grain and soy, to pasture-raised, organic, or other
extensive farming systems can result in less methane, ammonia, and
nitrous oxide, and is potentially more cost-effective as these
extensive farming methods require less inputs, maintenance, and energy
on-farm.\14\ Typically, cattle confined in feedlots or in intensive
confinement dairy operations are fed an unnatural diet of concentrated
high-protein feed consisting of corn and soybeans. Although cattle may
gain weight rapidly when fed this diet,\15\ thereby reaching slaughter
weight in a shorter period of time, such concentrated diets may also
lead to increased methane emissions from the animals.\16\ The standard
diet fed to cattle raised for beef confined in feedlots contributes to
manure with a ``high methane producing capacity.''\17\ In contrast,
cattle raised on pasture, eating a more natural, low-energy diet
composed of grasses and other forages, may produce manure with about
half of the potential to generate methane.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Gurian-Sherman, D. 2008. CAFOs Uncovered. Union of Concerned
Scientists, pp. 3, 54.
\15\ Radostits O, Gay C, Blood D, et al. 2000. Veterinary Medicine:
A Textbook of the Diseases of Cattle, Sheep, Pigs, Goats and Horses,
9th Edition, p. 285.
\16\ Paustian K, Antle J, Sheehan J, et al. 2006. Agriculture's
role in greenhouse gas mitigation. Pew Center on Global Climate Change,
p. 18. www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Agriculture%
27s%20Role%20in%20GHG%20Mitigation.pdf.
\17\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Inventory of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-1996, 5-5. www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads06/98CR.pdf.
\18\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Inventory of U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990-1996, 5-5. www.epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/downloads06/98CR.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Increasing carbon sequestration through pasture-based production:
In addition, well-managed and rotational grazing systems can likely
sequester more carbon than feedlots where animals are raised on energy-
intensive corn and soybeans. Soils and pastures can act as ``carbon
sinks,'' soaking up carbon from the atmosphere. A 2005 study found that
not only do pasture-raised animals require less operational fuel and
less feed than do confined animals, but pasture-based farming systems
could ``tie up 14 million to 21 million metric tons of CO2
and 5.2 million to 7.8 million metric tons of N2O in the organic matter
of pasture soils.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Boody G, Vondracek B, Andow D, et al. 2005. Multifunctional
agriculture in the United States. BioScience 55(1):27-38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing fossil-fuel dependency and on-farm GHG emissions through
organic farming methods: Organic meat production typically uses less
fossil-fuel energy, in part because thousands of transport miles for
shipping feed may be eliminated,\20\ and can also significantly reduce
on-farm GHG emissions. A 2006 life cycle analysis of three modes of
Irish beef production--conventional, agri-environmental, and organic--
found that both types of extensive systems (i.e., agri-environmental
and organic) generate less GHGs than the conventional system, with the
organic system producing the least GHGs (17% less than conventional).
The difference would likely be even more dramatic in comparison to U.S.
conventional beef production, since Irish beef cattle are primarily
finished on grass rather than on grain.\21\ Specifically examining
nitrous oxide outputs, organic farming has reduced emissions compared
with conventional production systems. The organic production method
avoids overproduction of manure due to its practice of limiting animal
stocking densities to the land available for manure application--i.e.,
on an organic farm, farm animal populations usually do not exceed the
land's ability to responsibly absorb and utilize nutrients from their
manure.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Kotschi J and Miller-Semann K. 2004. The Role of Organic
Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change: A Scoping Study. Bonn,
Germany: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.
\21\ Casey JW and Holden NM. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from
conventional, agri-environmental scheme, and organic Irish suckler-beef
units. Journal of Environmental Quality 35:231-239.
\22\ Kotschi J and Miller-Semann K. 2004. The Role of Organic
Agriculture in Mitigating Climate Change: A Scoping Study. Bonn,
Germany: International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investing in scientific analysis and research of the impacts of
farm animal production systems on GHG emissions: Although preliminary
studies have been published, there is a continued and urgent need for
more analysis and research regarding GHG emissions from different farm
animal production systems, as well as different mitigation strategies.
Later this year, the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at the
University of Iowa will release a study comparing beef feedlot systems
to pasture-based cattle production and the University of California
Davis will publish a study analyzing the GHGs emitted by beef cattle,
dairy cow, and pig CAFOs. This type of research will be crucial for
stakeholders, including farmers, lawmakers, businesses, and consumers,
to better identify which kind of production systems will reduce GHGs,
as well as understand the impact food choices can have on both personal
health and climate change.
Protecting valuable carbon sinks: Another area of needed additional
study is the role of forests in mitigating climate change. Keeping
tropical and domestic forests, which are increasingly threatened by
feed crop cultivation and unsustainable grazing practices for animal
agriculture industries, and other carbon sinks intact may be one of the
best ways for fast, cost-effective GHG mitigation. At the same time,
protecting forests has the added advantage of protecting wildlife, as
these animals depend on healthy, functioning forests for habitat and
survival.
Assessing climate change-induced impacts on wildlife: Federal
legislation on climate change should also direct more funding toward
research on the impacts of changes in temperature and more extreme
weather events as a result of climate change on endangered species, the
monitoring of species populations, and the development of potential
climate change mitigation/adaptation strategies for wildlife.
Evaluating the potential risks of large-scale anaerobic digesters
and performing a cost/benefit analysis: In addition, the GHG-reducing
potential of mitigation technologies--such as the installation of
large-scale anaerobic digesters at CAFOs or the production of biofuels
from farm animals' waste and fat--should be more thoroughly
investigated. Despite some of the potential environmental advantages of
the production and use of different kinds of biofuels under certain
circumstances and with strict oversight, these technologies can allow
large-scale, industrial farmed animal production operators to profit
from the huge amounts of waste they create--millions of tons of poultry
litter and the manure from pig and cattle facilities. Bioenergy
production from farmed animal waste has the potential to perpetuate the
environmental problems\23\ created by producing and storing massive
quantities of manure, while giving animal agribusiness the opportunity
to greenwash its unsustainable practices that jeopardize the welfare of
animals in the meat, egg, and dairy production industries. These farmed
animal-based biofuels are not currently reducing consumption of fossil
fuel because biodiesel and the construction and operation of anaerobic
digesters require electricity use from the burning of coal or
petroleum. In addition, unlike the waste created on smaller, more
environmentally sustainable farms raising both crops and animals, where
manure and urine can be utilized effectively for fertilizer, factory-
farm waste is produced in extremely large quantities, making it all but
impossible to use on farmland. Furthermore, the manure excreted by
animals in factory farms often has a range of toxins including
antibiotic-resistant residue,\24\ endocrine-disrupting
chemicals,\25,26\ and other pollutants that not only impair
environmental integrity, but negatively impact communities surrounding
industrial farm animal production facilities.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ For more information, see ``An HSUS Report: The Impact of
Industrialized Animal Agriculture on the Environment'' at www.hsus.org/
farm/resources/research/enviro/industrial
_animal_ag_environment.html.
\24\ Chee-Sanford J, Aminov R, Krapac I, Garrigues-Jeanjean N, and
Mackie R. 2001. Occurrence and diversity of tetracycline resistance
genes in lagoons and groundwater underlying two swine production
facilities. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 4(67): 1494-1502.
\25\ Colburn T, vom Saal F, and Soto A. 1993. Developmental effects
of endrocrine disrupting chemicals on wildlife and humans.
Environmental Health Perspectives 101:378-83.
\26\ Soto A, Calabro J, Prechtal N, et al. 2004. Androgenic and
estrogenic activity in water bodies receiving cattle feedlot affluent
in Eastern Nebraska, USA. Environmental Health Perspectives 112:346.
\27\ For more information, see ``Factory Farming in America: The
True Cost of Animal Agribusiness for Rural Communities, Public Health,
Families, Farmers, the Environment, and Animals'' at www.hsus.org/farm/
resources/research/enviro/factory_farming_in_america.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Requiring CAFOs to measure and reduce their GHG emissions: Finally,
Congress should require CAFOs to measure their emissions and institute
plans to reduce GHGs from their facilities. Currently, these operations
are not required to reduce GHGs, despite their excessive emissions.
As the impacts of climate change become more evident, the need to
transition from industrial farm animal production systems to more
sustainable, responsible farming methods that provide benefits to the
environment, public health, and animal welfare becomes more time-
sensitive. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Wayne Pacelle
President and CEO