[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLEARING THE SMOKE: UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACTS OF BLACK CARBON POLLUTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 16, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-15
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
62-588 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin, Ranking Member
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
South Dakota JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOHN J. HALL, New York
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
Michael Goo, Staff Director
Aliya Brodsky, Chief Clerk
Bart Forsyth, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement................. 5
Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 6
Witnesses
Dr. Tami Bond, Associate Professor, Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign...................................................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 11
Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Professor of Climate and Atmospheric
Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography.................. 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 23
Dr. Drew T. Shindell, Senior Scientist, NASA Goddard Institute
for Space Studies.............................................. 36
Prepared Statement........................................... 38
Mr. Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director, Clean Air Task Force.... 46
Prepared Statement and Additional Materials.................. 49
CLEARING THE SMOKE: UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACTS OF BLACK CARBON POLLUTION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2010
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room
1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Cleaver, and
Sensenbrenner.
The Chairman. Good morning.
On December 5th, 1952, soot-filled smoke from London's
factories and fireplaces settled on the city, and over the next
few days thousands of people died from the soot and fumes. For
years, the iconic image of Los Angeles was not the Hollywood
sign; it was an obscured skyline. And while much progress has
been made to clean up this pollution, clouds of sooty smoke
continue to blanket homes from Mexico City to Mumbai, harming
the health of millions of people.
Soot is the visible portion of carbon pollution from
smokestacks and tailpipes, burning fields and forests. It
sticks to our lungs. It causes asthma and heart disease. It is
what gives smoke its ominous color.
And, as the saying goes, where there is smoke, there is
fire. In this case, the fire is increased global warming. The
black carbon in soot is one of the most potent warming agents
affecting our planet.
From diesel trucks to inefficient factories, from the
cookstoves in southeast Asia to the burning forests of the
Amazon, black carbon and other components of soot rise into the
atmosphere every time we burn fossil fuel or biomass. There,
black carbon absorbs sunlight and traps heat. Stuck on water
drops and ice crystals, black carbon reduces the cooling effect
of clouds. And when black carbon eventually falls out of the
air and settles onto ice sheets and mountain snow pack, it
accelerates the melting of ice and snow, contributing to rising
sea levels and threatening water supplies.
Cutting emissions of black carbon could yield rapid
benefits for our health and climate. Black carbon only stays in
the atmosphere for a few days to weeks before settling out.
That means that a global effort to reduce these emissions would
act fast to prevent respiratory disease and aid in the fight
against global warming pollution.
And we already have the technologies needed to achieve deep
reductions, including particle filters, improved diesel engines
and efficient cookstoves. Developing and installing these
technologies would create jobs and move us forward in the clean
energy economy.
Now, I am sure there are some who would argue that if we
cut black carbon pollution, we can delay on reducing greenhouse
gasses like carbon dioxide. This simply will not address the
momentous challenge that we face. For homebuyers, a solid
downpayment can keep the mortgage more manageable, but they
still have to make the monthly payments. If we want to keep the
planet a viable residence, a downpayment in the form of black
carbon reductions won't replace the need to make sustained
investments in clean energy. Each year of delay will make it
more difficult to keep temperatures from rising, and it will
continue to put the American economy at a competitive
disadvantage.
We recently took steps to cut black carbon and greenhouse
gas pollution. Last year, the House passed the Waxman-Markey
American Clean Energy and Security Act, which will set us on a
pollution-cutting path and at the same time create millions of
new jobs, making America the global leader of the clean energy
economy.
Working with Representative Inslee, we incorporated a
number of provisions that would cut emissions of black carbon
here at home and seek opportunities to curb emissions abroad.
This will provide innumerable benefits for our health and for
our climate.
The deadly soot-filled London fog of 1952 encouraged the
U.K. to enact their own clean air laws in 1956. My hope today
is that, even in the fog of war that sometimes envelops our
progress on clean energy and climate change, that we can still
clear the smoke to find common ground on issues like black
carbon.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and
hearing from them how Congress can help address this important
issue.
I would now like to recognize the ranking member of the
select committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr.
Sensenbrenner.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.002
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
There is so much controversy about how to confront climate
change that sometimes there seems to be no common ground.
However, by taking a realistic approach to black carbon, we can
have a positive effect on the environment without breaking the
bank, which is something that both Democrats and Republicans
should support.
Black carbon, which is essentially soot, doesn't get the
attention that CO2 receives. That is too bad because
the more focus on black carbon would produce immediate results
for the environment without requiring the types of regulations
that stifle the economy.
Scientists are learning that black carbon is one of the
leading contributors to climate change. Most global emissions
of black carbon come from energy-related combustion and the
burning of biomass. By coating both the air and the planet's
surface with soot, black carbon absorbs heat at a dangerous
rate. But unlike CO2, which hangs in the atmosphere
for decades, black carbon lingers for only days at a time.
It is also easier for society to address the emissions of
black carbon. There are already a number of ways to reduce
these emissions without relying on the cost-prohibitive
technologies that CO2 regulations would require.
Most of the world's black carbon is produced in Asia.
Surprisingly, when it comes to black carbon, the U.S. isn't
cast as the bad guy, as North America produces less than
Europe, South America, and Africa. But much of the black carbon
produced in the developing world could be offset with simple
technology and techniques.
Improved farming and forestry policies would go a long way
toward reducing the soot. So would cleaner-burning stoves,
which are already readily available and could be cheaply
deployed in many of the developing nations where dirty,
inefficient stoves are commonly used. It would be a lot cheaper
to buy clean stoves for developing nations than to implement
draconian CO2 regulations.
As Congress struggles over how to confront climate change,
black carbon reductions, targeted investments in research and
development, and improved transmission are cost-effective
options that could have large impacts without crippling our
economy.
I want to welcome Dr. Drew Shindell of NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies, who will talk about the immediate
impact that could result from cleaning up black carbon
emissions.
Hybrid truck legislation that I have introduced would also
help black carbon. Diesel engines are a primary source of black
carbon. Since most trucks use diesel, reducing fuel use in
trucks would reduce both CO2 and black carbon
emissions. My bill would create a grant program in the
Department of Energy to fund research and development of hybrid
truck technology.
This is one approach that is simple and affordable. There
are many others, and I hope today's hearing leads to more
understanding of this problem and its solutions.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much. All time for
opening statements of Members has been completed.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Speier follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.004
The Chairman. We will turn to our first witness, who is Dr.
Tami Bond. She is a professor in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Bond's research considers the
interactions between energy use, the composition of the
atmosphere, and the global science system.
We welcome you. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENTS OF TAMI C. BOND, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ARTHUR AND
VIRGINIA NAUMAN FACULTY SCHOLAR, DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-
CHAMPAIGN; VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN, VICTOR ALDERSON PROFESSOR
OF APPLIED OCEAN SCIENCES, DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF CLIMATE
AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, SCRIPPS INSTITUTION OF OCEANOGRAPHY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO; DREW T. SHINDELL, SENIOR
SCIENTIST, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION, NASA
GODDARD INSTITUTE FOR SPACE STUDIES; CONRAD SCHNEIDER, ADVOCACY
DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE
STATEMENT OF TAMI C. BOND
Ms. Bond. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner and members of the committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to discuss black carbon and its role in climate
change. I am really honored to be here and to participate in
the committee's important discussions as you explore a wide
variety of solutions to clean energy and climate change.
I have been working on black carbon for about 15 years. I
do everything from models of emissions in the atmosphere to
measurements of diesel engines and cookstoves. So, although I
sit in front of a computer most of the time, I have definitely
gotten my hands dirty.
Black carbon is the dark component of smoke. I am going to
start by giving you an idea of what a powerful climate impact
it has, putting some numbers on what Mr. Markey said.
One ounce of black carbon in the atmosphere absorbs about
the amount of sunlight that would fall on a tennis court. This
light turns into heat and warms the atmosphere. One pound of
black carbon absorbs about 650 times as much energy during its
short lifetime as one pound of emitted CO2 does
during 100 years.
An old diesel truck, not our current regulations, but an
old diesel truck driving for 20 miles would emit about a third
of an ounce of black carbon. That is about the weight of two
nickels. That would heat the atmosphere during its short
lifetime as much as adding a home furnace to it. Now, after a
week, that heating is gone because the particles fall out of
the atmosphere. If they fall on snow, they can warm it and melt
it.
Over that same 20 miles, the same truck will emit about 70
pounds of CO2. And that would add five times the
warming of the black carbon but spread over 100 years. So there
are two mayor effects: one short, one long.
Estimates of black carbon ``forcing'' or the atmospheric
warming today are between 20 percent and 60 percent of carbon
dioxide's. We have high confidence that atmosphere and snow
forcing by black carbon and its interaction with sunlight leads
to warming and is significant in comparison with greenhouse
gasses. One of the uncertainties, however, is how those same
emissions change clouds.
I would like to add an analogy to that of Mr. Markey.
Reducing black carbon emissions is a short-term solution to
climate change. It is a bit like applying an emergency brake to
a car that is out of control. You slow the vehicle quickly, get
a little time to think, but your vehicle will still run away if
you don't take your foot off the gas pedal, if CO2
emissions are maintained.
The estimated emission rate of black carbon is about 8.3
million tons per year. Total emissions from the United States
are about 460,000 tons. That is about 5.5 percent of the global
total. Of this total--that is, the global total--diesel engines
provide about a quarter. Solid fuels like wood and coal burned
for home cooking and heating are also about a quarter. Small
industries are about 10 percent. And open forest and grassland
burning is the remaining 40 percent.
There are uncertainties in global emissions. The totals are
probably underestimated, especially in developing countries.
However, we are confident that the sources I mentioned are very
large contributors to global black carbon.
It is important to note that there are international
initiatives working on both diesel engines and cookstoves. This
doesn't mean that they have all the resources they need.
I have given you a very simple picture. However, sources
that emit black carbon also emit several other pollutants:
Cooling particles that reflect light away from the Earth and
gases that warm the Earth by changing ozone and methane. You
can think of each source like a bathroom faucet. The mixed
water can be very warm if you turn on the black carbon or the
gasses, very cold if you turn on the cooling particles, and the
net result depends on the balance.
So sources with high emissions of warming pollutants are
the most promising targets for reducing warming. Of the sources
I listed above, diesel engines are the richest in warming
pollutants by far, followed by residential cooking and heating,
industrial sources, and, last, open burning of biomass.
Since the late 1800s, emissions in the United States have
gradually transitioned from residential wood and coal to
industry to diesel engines. This development track is common
through much of the world. In countries at low levels of
development, black carbon emissions come mainly from solid
fuels for heating and cooking. In developed regions like the
United States and Europe, the main sources are diesel engines.
There are three big drivers of cleaning up black carbon.
First, technology. Our very first success was in the use of
pulverized coal boilers to increase coal use and yet reduce
black carbon emissions at the same time. Second, clean fuels.
Introduction of natural gas, electricity, and liquified
petroleum gas has played a large role in cleaning up
residential emissions. That is just one example. And, finally,
regulation and government participation in technology
development, such as the initiative that Mr. Sensenbrenner
mentioned. These have driven advanced technologies and retrofit
programs for diesel, for example.
Now, to confirm that reducing sources rich in black carbon
will benefit----
The Chairman. If you could just summarize, please.
Ms. Bond. I am on my last paragraph.
To confirm that reducing sources rich in black carbon will
benefit climate, we have to estimate the net effect of cleaning
up individual emission sources, our best estimate of cloud
response to particle emissions, which is very important. I and
three other scientists are leading a group of about 30
coauthors in a study to assess those questions, and we expect
to have a product in June.
I don't think that all the questions about black carbon
will be solved by June, but that report should be able to tell
us which actions can be taken soon and what targeted research
is needed to evaluate actions in the near future.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Bond follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.014
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Bond, very much.
Our second witness is Dr. V. Ramanathan. He is a
distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences at the Scripps
Institution of Oceanography at the University of California,
San Diego, and the director of the Center for Atmospheric
Sciences. He is the chair of the National Academy of Sciences
panel that provides strategic advice to the U.S. Climate Change
Science Program.
We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF VEERABHADRAN RAMANATHAN
Mr. Ramanathan. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, and other honorable members of the committee, I
am truly honored by this.
My own work is using autonomous----
The Chairman. Is your microphone on down there?
Mr. Ramanathan. I think so. Can you hear me now?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Ramanathan. Can I start over or get 20 seconds?
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Ramanathan. My own work is using autonomous, unmanned
aerial vehicles to measure this absorption of sunlight by black
carbon directly.
We also use instrumented aircraft like the Gulf aircraft,
and we have followed black carbon transport all the way from
China across the Pacific Ocean into the U.S. So these things
travel long distances.
We also have stations in the Himalayas and in the Sierras
to see how the black carbon settling on the snow darkens the
snows and causes melting. And we have measurements for all of
these phenomena.
And the first thing we have to recognize--first of all, I
completely agree with the opening statement by both the
chairman and the ranking member. The BC impact, impacts the air
pollution and health at regional scales--and I will talk about
that--and global scales, in terms of global warming.
At the regional scale, black carbon influences cloud
formation and heats the air around it, disrupts rainfall
patterns, such as a monsoon in India. And the deposition of
black carbon on bright snow surfaces darkens ice and snow. And
this, along with the warming of the air by BC, contributes to
the warming of the Arctic--my colleague, Dr. Shindell, will
talk about that--as well as the elevated regions of the
Himalayan-Tibetan glaciers and snow packs. Thus, black carbon
is directly linked with the water budget of the planet.
Relating to the global warming effort of BC, current
estimates show the contribution of BC, black carbon, to the
heat addition of the planet is as much as 20 percent to 60
percent of that due to carbon dioxide. The 60 percent value is
my estimate with Professor Carmichael, in which we constrained
the global network of instruments and aircraft data.
As has been mentioned, BC is an important fast-action tool
in mitigating long-term warming due to greenhouse gases. To
give an example, reducing black carbon emissions by 50 percent
today will lead to a 50 percent reduction in the heat trapped
by them within a few months so that policymakers will witness
the success of their actions during their tenure. I think it
would also be a great opportunity to test climate scientist
theories and models. And it is instructive to compare the
potential of BC as a mitigation tool with that of
CO2 reduction.
The manmade carbon dioxide blanket weighs a staggering 880
billion tons. The weight of black carbon in the blanket is a
minuscule 250,000 tons, except it almost has half the effect of
CO2. However, we have to point out, CO2
reductions are required to avert large warming. For example, we
are currently adding about 35 gigatons every year, and it is
growing at a rate of 2 to 3 percent. At this rate, we will be
adding another 1,500 billion tons of CO2 during this
century. So black carbon reduction should be thought of as
complementary and not as supplementing CO2.
As has been pointed out, two important targets for
reductions of black carbon are those generated by diesel and BC
generated by cooking with biomass fuels. For example, I am
working with a village in India, trying to understand replacing
the cookstoves, the traditional cookstoves, with nearly smoke-
free cookstoves, how much climate warming we would avoid.
So the last thing I want to conclude, the science of black-
carbon-climate link we have to understand is relatively new,
compared to what we have spent--over 4 or 5 decades--
understanding the issue of CO2. And, as a result,
every month we are finding out yet another way in which black
carbon impacts the environment. So this is the science in the
making.
I just want to give you three major examples. The
interaction of black carbon within clouds and the impact on
precipitation and cloud extent--this might emerge as one of the
bigger issues. The role the black carbon atmospheric heating
and ice/snow darkening, its role on the observed warming and
melting of the alpine glaciers and snow packs. It is an
emerging science. Lastly, impact of black carbon on the Arctic
warming and sea ice retreat, which I think will be covered by
my colleague, Dr. Shindell.
Thank you so much.
[The statement of Mr. Ramanathan follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.027
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, very much.
Our next witness is Dr. Drew Shindell, a senior scientist
at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He is also a
lecturer in the earth and environment sciences at Columbia
University. Of his many distinctions, he received a National
Science Foundation Antarctic Service Medal and a Scientific
American Top 50 Scientists award.
We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF DREW T. SHINDELL
Mr. Shindell. I would like to first thank the committee for
the opportunity to testify this morning.
Direct observations of climate seldom reveal cause and
effect, so that the influence of black carbon on surface
temperature must be estimated using models as well as data.
Several independent methods find broadly similar results, with
an overall global mean warming due to black carbon that is
about 15 to 55 percent of the warming due to carbon dioxide, as
we have heard. Black carbon has likely had even larger regional
effects, especially in areas such as the Arctic, due to its
strong impact on snow and ice.
Black carbon affects other aspects of climate in addition
to surface temperature. Several studies have indicated that the
large amounts of smoke and haze observed near Asia can cause
shifts in a monsoon.
The physical mechanism linking black carbon to changes in
precipitation is clear and operates worldwide. Unlike
temperature changes, shifts in precipitation nearly always have
negative net economic impacts, as long-term infrastructure has
quite sensibly been designed for norms over past decades.
Actual policies will usually impact emissions of many
compounds simultaneously, since incomplete combustion produces
substantial amounts of other particulates and gases in addition
to black carbon. Hence, it is necessary to examine the net
impacts of all emissions from a particular activity on climate.
Furthermore, emissions of pollutants also affect the quality of
the air we breathe. Policies typically treat the air quality
and climate effects separately, however.
Encouragingly, research has shown that the optimal
strategies to reduce black carbon and the ozone precursors
carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, and methane are
similar whether the goal is improving air quality or limiting
global warming. This argues for a stronger emphasis on
reduction in emissions of these pollutants in air quality
policies, for which there would be a climate co-benefit, and in
climate policies, for which there would be an air quality co-
benefit.
Research suggests that strategies to simultaneously improve
air quality and mitigate global warming differ from region to
region. In the U.S., reductions in overall emissions from
diesel vehicles appear to achieve both goals, with the
substantial part of the benefits coming from reduced black
carbon. More generally, increases in fuel efficiency coupled
with reductions in emissions from both gasoline- and diesel-
fueled vehicles show the most positive results for climate and
air quality.
In contrast, many countries in the developing world use
fuel with high sulfur content, as the U.S. did years ago.
Hence, in developing Asia, where particulate emissions are
larger than in any part of the world, reductions in emissions
from both industrial processes and residential cooking stoves
offer ways to simultaneously improve air quality and mitigate
warming.
The health benefits that would be gained from reductions in
particulate and ozone concentrations are clear from
epidemiological studies. While these benefits are most strongly
felt in nearby population, long-range transport of air
pollution can also be substantial. And, hence, the health
impacts of air pollution are not simply a local issue. Climate
impacts extend even more broadly.
Particulates also impair visibility, with detrimental
impacts on tourism and recreation. Elevated levels of ozone
cause damage to plants, leading to economic losses from reduced
agricultural and forestry yields and decreased food security.
Many projects to control black carbon, carbon monoxide,
volatile organics, and methane emissions may therefore have
higher benefits than costs, even without including any value
from reducing warming. For example, both State and Federal
diesel emissions regulations have shown human health benefits
five times or more than the cost of implementing the
regulations.
Air pollution leads to $70 billion to $270 billion in
damages per year in the United States alone. So there is
clearly a great deal of potential for co-benefits, including
health care cost savings.
Though further research is clearly needed to reduce
uncertainties, we can already conclude that reductions in
emissions of black carbon are likely to be a useful component
of strategies to mitigate climate change. Realistic emissions
reductions would affect several types of particles and gasses
and, thus, require a careful analysis of their net impact.
In summary, while there is more to learn, several things
are already clear: Reductions in emissions of products of
incomplete combustion will virtually always improve health. And
by targeting emissions rich in black carbon, carbon monoxide,
volatile organic compounds, and methane, many options are
available that will simultaneously mitigate climate change.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Shindell follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.035
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
And our final witness is Conrad Schneider. He is the
advocacy director of the Clear Air Task Force, a nonprofit
environmental research, education, and legal advocacy
organization.
We welcome you, sir.
STATEMENT OF CONRAD SCHNEIDER
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, and members of the committee. My name is Conrad
Schneider, advocacy director of the Clear Air Task Force. And I
want to thank you personally for the leadership that you and
this committee have shown on the issue of climate change and
for the work done in passing the Waxman-Markey bill. I
appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding
policy options for reducing black carbon emissions.
The Waxman-Markey bill made an excellent start in dealing
with this issue, and we appreciate you revisiting it today
because it represents a promising approach that deserves
immediate attention, both in the climate bill and in other
legislation currently before Congress.
At the outset of today's hearing, I just want to make one
thing very clear: Addressing black carbon and the other short-
lived climate forcing agents, such as methane and ozone, is not
a substitute for enacting comprehensive climate change
legislation to deal with carbon dioxide emissions. We are going
to need both and then some in order to address the climate
crisis.
I want to try to give a sense of urgency to this hearing,
as well, and these solutions. Imagine a world in which the
Arctic is literally melting; that the Arctic Ocean is about to
become ice-free, we are told; that permafrost is melting,
potential releasing millennial stores of carbon dioxide and
methane. And we are searching, globally, we are searching for
strategies that can counteract this situation almost
immediately. And we find a strategy that not only can act
immediately to do so, but it could save hundreds of thousands
of lives globally.
We don't have to imagine very much. That is the situation
we face today. And reducing black carbon is a strategy that can
deliver those immediate benefits. In fact, some experts
estimate that black carbon emissions to reduce global warming
could deliver as much as one to two of the Socolow wedges that
you all are familiar with--the goals of trying to use a variety
of different steps to meet the Carbon Mitigation Initiative's
200-billion-ton goal.
And, as you have heard, black carbon is not only a climate
forcing agent, it is a potent, deadly air pollutant. In the
U.S., we have estimated that diesel particulate emissions alone
will cause over 21,000 premature deaths this year.
So black carbon is a win-win for climate and public health,
but given the tremendous environmental and health benefits of
reducing it, relatively little is being done in the U.S. or
globally to actually attack this problem. The previous
panelists identified diesel engines, cookstoves, and
agriculture burning as the most controllable sources of black
carbon. So I am going to focus there today on the policies that
we can use to attack them.
Now, last year, due in part to the leadership of
Representative Inslee, Congress directed the U.S. EPA to study
the issue of black carbon and report back early next year,
about a year from now. It is supposed to inventory the sources,
assess the potential metrics, and identify the most cost-
effective approaches for reductions.
Now, on one level, the solutions for these source
categories are pretty simple. For diesel engines, there are
filters available to trap up to 90 percent of this pollution.
For cookstoves, the key is replacing existing smoking
cookstoves with more efficient cookstoves. And for agriculture
burning, it involves shifting the burning away from the spring
season and using pyrolysis to turn waste into biochar that
sequesters carbon and increases agricultural productivity.
However, all of this is easier said than done. There are
over 11 million diesel engines in use today without filters,
tens of millions globally. Half the people on Earth use
inefficient cookstoves, and unnecessary agriculture burning
persists in many places.
For diesels, the debated policies boil down to two things,
and the kind of things that you don't want to hear,
necessarily: mandates and money. The U.S. and the EU have
adopted new engine standards that are going to reduce these
emissions by 90 percent, but it will take decades before they
are fully effective. In the meantime, we really need to focus
on retrofitting the existing diesel fleet with these filters.
Now, the Waxman-Markey bill directed EPA to exercise its
existing authority over black carbon. And the lion's share, as
you have heard, in the United States comes from diesels. But,
unfortunately, the EPA, under the Clean Air Act, has the
authority to regulate only 1 million out of those 11 million
diesel engines. An analysis by MJ Bradley Associates estimated
that targeting just that million could achieve the climate
benefits of removing 21 million cars from the road and would
save approximately 7,500 lives, yet EPA has failed to act.
On the money side, the Kerry-Boxer bill that passed the
Senate committee devoted a portion of that bill's allowance
allocation proceeds to fund the Diesel Emission Reduction Act,
DERA. DERA passed in 2005 and authorized a billion dollars over
5 years to clean up diesel. However, it has been chronically
underfunded. The Recovery Act provided $300 million for DERA,
but EPA received $2 billion worth of applications for that
money and is sitting on $1.7 billion worth of project
applications that could cut black carbon emissions
significantly today. Additional funding for DERA should be
included in any jobs bill that passes this year. And since DERA
expires next year, it should be reauthorized and fully funded.
In addition, the upcoming transportation bill
reauthorization offers the opportunity to reduce black carbon
from diesel construction equipment. We believe that work on
federally funded transportation infrastructure projects should
be accomplished with clean diesel equipment paid for through
the transportation bill funds.
And Associated General Contractors, the people who own that
equipment, they agree. Last year, we negotiated a set of joint
clean construction principles with AGC. Now Representative Hall
of this committee, with the support of several Members here, is
championing the effort to see that those principles are
included in the transportation bill.
For cookstoves, the Waxman-Markey bill calls for providing
assistance in foreign countries to reduce black carbon
emissions and specifically outlines actions to provide
affordable stoves for developing countries. It notably also
provides a set of performance standards, which are excellent.
However, the bill did not allocate any allowances or
auction proceeds to fund the program. The U.S. should lead in
the creation of jointly funded international programs to
develop regionally appropriate strategies to deploy these
stoves. But they face many other challenges, as well, including
cultural acceptance of the stoves, the need for on-site
verification and mitigation, and cheaper stoves that can be
deployed at scale.
And, lastly, stemming agricultural fires in the spring when
Arctic ice and snow is most affected by the deposition of black
carbon requires overcoming cultural resistance to long-held
agriculture practices. Black carbon emissions from spring
agricultural burning in the northern latitudes are highest in
Eurasia and in North America, in the grain belt. Black carbon
emissions can transport directly from there into the Arctic,
darkening the surfaces there and accelerating melting. So these
fires present a clear target for mitigation.
So, in conclusion, policies targeting black carbon
emissions offer a viable climate strategy that can be
implemented without delay, that will deliver immediate climate
benefits, using technology that is available today. And,
moreover, they can deliver important public health protections
from one of the most potent and widespread air-pollution-
related public health threats.
Winning these policies will not be easy, but their
significant benefits make them extremely cost beneficial, and
they may constitute our best hedge against near-term climate
impacts.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Schneider follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.060
The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman from Washington
State, Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
This is really an excellent panel. Dr. Bond, if I had had
someone like you in college, I would have fulfilled my
fantasies of becoming a physicist. So, thanks for your
educational work here.
First question: Is black carbon a proxy for the health
benefits of reduction of other emissions associated with fossil
fuels? If we reduce black carbon, do we get the benefits,
almost by necessity, of reductions of other emissions? Or are
they different?
Ms. Bond. There is a lot of similarity, and there are some
differences.
Black carbon is just a component of particulate matter,
which has severe health impacts. And so you can reduce
particulate matter and also reduce black carbon, or you can
reduce particulate matter and if you don't target black carbon
sources, then don't get the black carbon reductions.
Now, your question was the other way around. If you reduce
black carbon, do you always get the health benefits? In fact,
the health benefits are more clear for black carbon reductions
than the climate benefits. The climate benefits have some
uncertainty. There are sources for which we are confident in
the climate benefit. But the health benefits are always
existing.
Mr. Inslee. So let me ask a little different question. If
we made an investment in our diesel transportation fleet of X
dollars right now and our interest was on the health impacts,
would the best investment to be, at least in the short term,
the filtration systems to capture black carbon and then get
health benefits associated with that, or would there be a
better investment for better health impacts?
Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. I will try to take that one.
The Clean Air Task Force has analyzed the benefits of
looking at power plant pollution cleanup, diesel pollution
cleanup, car pollution cleanup from both a health perspective
and from a climate perspective. And if you factor in, if you
take into a combination both the health and the climate
benefits, there is no better investment than in a particle
filtration system.
Particulates are the most deadly air pollutant. Black
carbon may deliver the fastest climate benefits. So, taken
together--and when you have a technology that can deliver a 90
percent reduction in the particulate/black carbon, you have a
real winner for a technology.
Mr. Inslee. I introduced this black carbon bill, I don't
know, about a year, year and a half ago, and it seemed to me
the right thing to do. But since then I have seen a documentary
showing that the soot on the surface, it was either the Arctic
or Greenland, and I can't recall which it was, but it showed
these depressions. The whole sheet of ice I saw had these
depressions. And at the bottom of the depression, there would
be this patch of black soot, and I mean black soot, against the
white ice. And it looked like the entire cap was covered with
this stuff, at least at the bottom of each one of these little
melt pools. It caught my attention.
And I guess the question is, is the albedo effect of black
carbon, how does that compare to the general climate change
when it is in the atmosphere? Is it just a small part of the
problem or a big part of the problem?
Mr. Ramanathan. Maybe I can answer part of that question.
If you look at global warming effect of black carbon, this
albedo effect contributes about 10 percent of the total black
carbon effect. But if you look in the Arctic or in Alpine
glaciers, then the darkening effect may be the dominant effect.
Because black carbon warming comes from trapping sunlight in
the air. But, locally, in the sea ice and the glaciers and the
ice sheets, the darkening effect may very well be the dominant
effect.
Dr. Shindell.
Mr. Shindell. Thank you.
We believe that anywhere where there is snow and ice, the
effect you have been describing occurs. In places like the
Himalayas, the results are somewhat more ambiguous because you
have a fair amount of wind-blown dust and other types of
pollutants that are already deposited on those glaciers. So it
almost certainly contributes, but how much it contributes there
is more ambiguous.
In the Arctic, which tends to be very far from, say, dust
sources, the snow is very clean, so the effect is extremely
large. And there we believe that it is quite possible that
black carbon is responsible for over half of the accelerated
melting we have seen in the last few decades, or at least over,
say, the 20th century.
Mr. Inslee. Do you mean the albedo effect from the black
carbon?
Mr. Shindell. Well, it is both the effect of black carbon
in the atmosphere and the albedo effect. And the effect on
albedo is obviously very local, but even the effect in the
atmosphere has an extra powerful impact on the Arctic because
most of the sources are from the Northern Hemisphere
industrialized or developing nations, which means that their
emissions are closer.
So, unlike CO2, which just drifts around
uniformly everywhere, the black carbon being physically emitted
in the Northern Hemisphere, fairly close to the Arctic, allows
it to have an even stronger impact on the Arctic than it does
on the global average.
Mr. Inslee. Mr. Schneider, you pointed out what sounded
like a potential imperfection of the Waxman-Markey bill, which
we don't believe there could ever be an imperfection on that
work of art. But you did make reference to, I thought that the
provision that would implement a regulation on black carbon
would apply only to 1 million of the 11 million units. Could
you explain that?
Mr. Schneider. I will. And thank you very much. And let me
just offer another opportunity to thank and commend the
committee and the people who worked so hard on that bill. And I
appreciate you all revisiting the issue today, hopefully to
maybe strengthen the black carbon provisions, which are already
the best in any bill.
Mr. Inslee. And, by the way, if there is an imperfection,
it is not those two gentlemen's responsibility. I will take
full responsibility.
Mr. Schneider. I suspect that when----
The Chairman. I actually praised Congressman Inslee in my
opening statement for the provisions. So I think he deserves
full credit for everything that is----
Mr. Inslee. Including the imperfections.
Mr. Schneider. The bill basically directs EPA to exercise
its existing authority over all sources of black carbon, the
largest, nearly 60 percent of that in the U.S. being diesel. So
it is sort of directing EPA to deal with diesel.
And the imperfection, if there is one, is not in the
Waxman-Markey bill. It is in the Clean Air Act, which gives EPA
only the authority, in terms of in-use diesels, to deal with a
very small slice of those engines. The only provision in the
Clean Air Act that allows that is one called--it is a rebuild
provision. Whenever any truck engines are rebuilt--that is,
taken from an old, rebuilt to be in a new--EPA has the
authority to issue more stringent emissions standards for those
rebuilt engines.
And in this country, over the next decade, we project that
only about 1 million vehicles will rebuild in that way. So if
EPA exercised, as you directed them, to use the full extent of
their authority, they could only cover that 1 million set of
rebuilding engines over that period of time, whereas the in-use
fleet is 11 million. That would include all the other trucks
that don't get rebuilt and would include all the off-road
engines: The construction equipment and other engines. EPA
right now has no authority over those, and the courts have said
so. I mean, it is very clear that that is constrained.
So one of the first things we would say that needs to be
fixed in that regard is to give EPA broader regulatory
authority to require filters and after-treatment devices on the
existing fleet. And we promote the idea of doing that in
conjunction with incentives to turn over the fleet faster and
potentially economic incentives, like in the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act, to pay for some of that.
But one of the things that is holdings us back right now is
we have this golden opportunity to deal with these sources,
which are public health threats and climate forcers, but EPA
really can't go much further.
I don't mean to be overly critical, but I would point out
also that, even with respect to the engine rebuild rule, EPA is
aware that that authority exists and is studying the question,
looking at the question of whether to exercise that authority.
And we hope they will shortly, but to date they have not.
Mr. Inslee. What is the best assessment of the costs
associated with that that has been done already?
Mr. Schneider. In terms of the rebuild rule itself?
Mr. Inslee. Yes.
Mr. Schneider. I believe that to deal with those million
engines, depending on what--not every engine can take the most
advanced type of filter, so that you have a mixture of
solutions. It is several billion dollars, with a ``B,'' to
comply with that.
Mr. Inslee. All right.
So, next question: To what extent is black carbon an issue
on our coal-fired utility plants? We have talked about diesel.
Is black carbon an issue at all with coal-fired utility plants?
Ms. Bond. Not to the best of our knowledge. The combustion
in a coal plant is good enough that it burns out all the black
carbon. And that has changed in the last hundred years, but
that has been one of our successes. So there may be particulate
matter, but most of it isn't black.
Mr. Inslee. And I just was reading a little blurb today
about a U.N. program to improve residential stoves,
essentially, in the sub-Saharan African area, to try to get the
more efficient stoves. Is this a viable strategy? On an
international basis, what would it take to really have a
meaningful system to improve the efficiency of these?
Open question.
Ms. Bond. I will say something. I am sure Dr. Ramanathan
will want to speak, as well.
Two answers, as any good scientist would give you, or any
good economist. First, yes, it is, because people want new
technologies, people want clean cooking. And of course there
are some cultural barriers, but it is definitely a potential
solution.
The second answer is that you have to be careful how you do
it. We have learned quite a lot about how to improve
residential combustion. That includes both what to do and what
not to do. What not to do is to parachute in, drop a bunch of
improved stoves, and hope that people accept them.
But there is a lot of history in that field. And, as
mentioned, you need to work with the communities, follow up,
and, above all, think big-scale. And that involves both
technological and implementation innovation.
Mr. Ramanathan. I will just follow that for India and South
Asia. In India alone, 150 million households use mud stoves,
using firewood. There has been a long history of trying to
replace this, and, by and large, they have failed.
And we got into this just since last year. We have taken a
small village, and the first thing we found was that
technologies were not ready. I mean, they were sort of built in
a laboratory and really didn't adapt to village conditions. And
just in the last year or two, there are several companies,
Shell and British Petroleum have come with improved stoves.
There are also some U.S.-based companies. And they, we find
now--we have tried five of them. And I am not allowed to give
the names yet because we will publish the data.
At least one of them seems to do the job. The women are
happy with it. I am happy with it because it cuts down the
black carbon emissions. So it is a convergence of the
scientific interest of reducing and cooking with something
which is adaptable to local taste. So I think the technology is
almost there.
The last thing I want to mention is that India has now
started on a major cookstove program nationwide. And it is not
clear which way that program is going.
Mr. Inslee. You mean not clear whether it is going clean or
unclean?
Mr. Ramanathan. No, I mean to cleaner cookstoves, India's
program towards cleaner cookstoves.
Mr. Inslee. Got it.
I am going to ask one more. This question is a little
farther afield of this hearing, but I will ask Dr. Bond.
I have experienced a lot of frustration at the lack of
understanding in a lot of places, including the U.S. Congress,
about science associated with climate change, ocean
acidification, black carbon, and the like. And one of the
sources of frustration is that the information the scientific
community has does not get shared with Members of the U.S.
Congress. They just don't have an appreciation, for one reason
or another, because they haven't heard from scientists enough,
frankly.
I am surprised that--you know, we have people walking
around here today, the U.S. Capitol, who are aggrieved, and
they are petitioning their government for redress of grievances
in a certain sort of direction. But I haven't seen scientists
up here demanding action from the U.S. Congress, except in the
most restrained, polite, academic, almost silent ways.
If I was a scientist and I knew what, frankly, a lot of
scientists know in this country is going on out there in the
planet, in the climatic systems, and in the oceans, I would be
in somebody's grill about that, telling them that we need
action. And yet you just don't see that from the scientific
community, with very few exceptions.
We got a letter from, I think, 250 scientists last week I
read, saying, ``Wake up and smell the roses. This problem is
still there, even though there were some nasty e-mails out of
England.'' But that is about it--a letter, not a person laying
down on the tracks.
Why doesn't that happen? Should it happen? And how do we
engage the scientific community to be more sharing of the
information they have when it needs to be shared?
I am focusing on you, Dr. Bond, because you are an educator
and you are responsible for the future crop of scientists that
we are going to depend upon.
Ms. Bond. Thank you, Mr. Inslee.
I think it was just Monday when I told my air quality
modeling class that some of them should run for office. So I
hope that helps.
Mr. Inslee. That would be great, just not against me.
Ms. Bond. You are well-established enough. I think I voted
for you when I was at University of Washington.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I appreciate that.
Ms. Bond. At any rate, this is a difficult question, and it
has to do with the nature of scientists and how they approach
science.
If you have an action outcome, one is almost afraid that
you will affect the science, because you are supposed to look
at it dispassionately. And so, how we conduct our business,
99.9 percent of the time we must step back from what we want
the outcome to be. We are not allowed to want an outcome.
And perhaps that leads to a disconnect between us and the
people like you and like the rest of the committee who are able
to put that science into action so wonderfully, to think of so
many measures, as Mr. Schneider outlined, to implement action
in society.
Ms. Bond. I don't have a good answer for you. I can't
advise the scientific community to become more passionate
because they want to be very careful, and that is a very
important component of the scientific method. But I can say
that if you perhaps had discussions like this one, or even more
informal discussions in which there was mixing between the
committee, like yourself, and a group of scientists, that that
communication might flow a little more easily.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I will just take this one opportunity to
encourage the scientific community to figure out a way to be
dispassionate objectively, but passionate about sharing the
information they do have with the people who can give effect to
those policies. And I think that is possible in the human
intellect to do both of those things.
And if we don't have the scientific community doing that
right now, we are not going to solve this problem because
people, frankly, won't know about it. And this is great to have
our committee doing this, but if we don't have scientists
getting people and shaking them by the collars to get them to
understand how significant this problem is, people are
sleepwalking over a cliff. And frankly, the scientific
community are the people vested with the intellect and
knowledge who have the ability to get people to wake up. So I
am just pleading with you, as members of the scientific
community, to try to engage your members and colleagues in an
effort to educate the U.S. Congress, because I think the moment
demands it, and we don't have a lot of time.
Thank you.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much.
Let me ask this question: The temperatures in Alaska have
warmed six degrees Fahrenheit since 1950. Could any of you
comment on the role that black carbon has played in terms of
the changes that are occurring in Alaska or in the Arctic?
Mr. Shindell. That is something that, as I mentioned in my
statement, cause and effect is very difficult to understand
simply from observations because you only have one way that the
real world happened to behave. So what has been happening that
is distinct since the 1950's, while concentrations of
CO2 have been rising steadily, concentrations of
different types of particulate have been changing, with time--
after the Clean Air Act some have gone down--and in different
locations. So we can identify the pattern and try to attribute
cause and effect to those. The difficulty there is that the
effect of sulfate, which is something we have controlled well
because of acid rain, looks very similar to the pattern of
black carbon.
So what we can see is that, in these kind of studies, more
than half of the rapid warming in the Arctic is attributable to
particulate, but some of that is due to a reduction in sulfate
and some due to increases in black carbon, both of which have
been taking place largely in the last 30 years. So it is very
hard to really separate the two. Probably a third to a half, or
slightly more, is the best number.
The Chairman. Dr. Ramanathan.
Mr. Ramanathan. I think just to echo what was said, we have
been doing this air pollution reduction almost to speed up the
warming. We talked about the smoke in the blanket, the sulfates
and other aerosols act like mirrors on the blanket reflecting
sunlight and shielding the greenhouse warming.
So since 1975, we have decreased the sulfate pollution
quite a bit, almost 25 percent globally, but just in the Arctic
nations, the reductions in North America and Europe is almost
50 percent. So the unmasking of the warming is definitely
contributing to the Arctic warming.
The second thing that has been contributing to the warming
is that fossil fuel black carbon has increased. Not all black
carbon is the same. The biomass black carbon cools a lot less
compared to fossil fuel black carbon. So there are three things
which are happening at the same time to contribute to the
Arctic and the Alaska warming: One is the increase in the
greenhouse gases; reduction of sulfur pollution and unmasking
the warming; and the third is increasing the fossil fuel black
carbon. So what fraction that is I have to leave it to modeling
scientists like Dr. Shindell.
The Chairman. Any other comments?
The Congress, Mr. Schneider, is moving towards the
encouragement of all electric vehicles, plug in hybrids. Could
you talk a little bit about that trend and the role that that
could play in reducing black carbon?
Mr. Schneider. Sure. First of all, a lot of the discussion
in this country around electric vehicles and plug in hybrids is
in the light-duty sector. We don't have a lot of diesel
vehicles in the light-duty sector here as in other countries,
and particularly EU. So a conversion of the light-duty fleet to
more electric vehicles and more plug in hybrids is critical
with respect to the reduction of greenhouse gases, but probably
won't make much of a difference with respect to black carbon
reductions.
Representative Sensenbrenner has a bill--it passed the
House--that talks about hybridizing more heavy-duty vehicles,
and that is a strategy that over a long period of time, if it
was able to be successful and all the R&D and so forth worked,
could have a benefit. But the technology immediately that could
be implemented on heavy-duty diesels where most of the black
carbon is coming from in this country really is the
installation of the filters that I described.
So these are all complimentary strategies, and it is
important to look at which sector and what problem you are
trying to address, but I think primarily the electrics and plug
hybrids would be addressing greenhouse gasses from the light-
duty automotive sector.
The Chairman. The Recovery Act, the stimulus package from
last February, included $300 million for projects to reduce
diesel exhaust resulting in replacement of old dirty engines
with new cleaner ones and in retrofitting engines to capture
black carbon and other pollutants. There is still more to do.
Could you outline the remaining needs in the United States
and what we can do to reduce black carbon quickly and
effectively?
Mr. Schneider. Well, first of all, let me commend everyone
who supported those provisions in the Recovery Act. That is
probably the biggest breakthrough in terms of diesel retrofit
money that there has been since DERA was passed. DERA was
authorized at $1 billion. It has typically been funded in the
annual appropriation of EPA at around $50 million to $60
million, but in the Recovery Act, as you said, it got $300
million. And as I said in my testimony, for that $300 million,
the EPA received $2 billion worth of applications. So that
really demonstrates that the demand is out there, that people
want to participate in the program, both in terms of
replacement and retrofits, but EPA is sitting on about $1.7
billion worth of applications. And their internal review
suggests that about $1 billion of those are very high quality.
So we have suggested that in any jobs packages that move
that include spending, that perhaps, like the Recovery Act,
more money could be devoted to the Diesel Emission Reduction
Act. And EPA's message is, we can move $1 billion worth of
these immediately because we have the applications sitting at
our desk. And that would be probably be the fastest thing
because the idea of the Recovery Act and the Jobs Act is to get
the money out quickly to create the jobs. This type of DERA
investment was estimated by Key Bridge Research to generate
about 19,000 jobs per $1 billion invested, which is very
favorable when you look at the average of the Recovery Act. So
this is a win-win-win: It is a climate win. It is a public
health win. It is a jobs win. So probably the most immediate
thing that could be done is more funding.
The Chairman. Who won the $300 million, Mr. Schneider?
Mr. Schneider. How do you mean?
The Chairman. In terms of the $300 million, you said there
was $1 billion worth of applications, who were the winners?
Mr. Schneider. First of all, there were a diverse set of
winners. Applicants included public entities, included public-
private entities. So, for example, a public entity, that might
be a school district that wanted to retrofit school buses and
not only protect the community, but protect the kids on the bus
from the fumes on the bus. It would include municipalities that
wanted to retrofit their transit buses. It included contractors
who wanted to retrofit their construction fleets, and there was
some success in terms of those types of awards.
There were other awards in which the people used the DERA
money almost as a Cash-for-Clunkers type of situation where
they were able to replace existing older vehicles, scrap the
older ones and bring in ones with a new, cleaner technology. So
that would include some private fleets, some State government
fleets, and some fleets that work on contracts for State
governments. So there was a whole variety of folks in every
State of the Union I believe that were able to----
The Chairman. What has been the results in terms of the
implementation of the programs that the $300 million have
incentivized?
Mr. Schneider. Well, first of all, I think EPA is trying to
calculate right now what the emissions benefits have been from
that, and they can do that because the applications are quite
detailed. But that money was able to be awarded very quickly.
It is a reimbursement program, so it will take a little time to
get the money out, but the orders came in and those fleets were
transformed. I think that is the good news, is that many of
those fleets were able to take advantage of that. And there
have been announcements around the country where kids are
riding cleaner buses to school, people are riding cleaner
transit buses to work. Ferries have been retrofitted so that
when they pull into their dock, the black smoke doesn't
infiltrate the shore. All of these things have been
accomplished through the Recovery Act.
The Chairman. So I should ask the EPA then to give me
their----
Mr. Schneider. Their assessment of that, yes.
The Chairman [continuing]. Report in terms of how
successful the $300 million has been. You said that for $1
billion, it would create how many thousands of jobs?
Mr. Schneider. Nineteen thousand.
The Chairman. So, theoretically, then 6,000 jobs were
created with the $300 million.
Mr. Schneider. Correct.
The Chairman. So I think it is important for us to get the
information on that as well because, as you said, it is win,
win and win. Thank you.
Again, you each, I think, made some reference to the fact
that acting on this black carbon sector should not in any way
reduce our activities to reduce CO2 in general. So
could each one of you take 30 seconds to succinctly make your
own point on that subject?
Let me go to you, Dr. Bond.
Ms. Bond. The fact that we should not reduce CO2
endeavors because of black carbon? We have----
The Chairman. No, that we should not reduce our efforts to
reduce the CO2 because we are also working on the
carbon issue.
Ms. Bond. Correct. I think Mr. Schneider said it best; we
need both and everything else that we can think of.
Right now, we are in a position where we need to act
quickly. We don't have the 50 years it will take to come up
with new technologies to reduce atmospheric forcing. And so
black carbon is a quick solution, but we will still be left
with the bill after putting CO2 into the atmosphere.
We can't afford to miss either opportunity.
The Chairman. Dr. Ramanathan.
Mr. Ramanathan. It is important to recognize that black
carbon reduction is not supplementing our prevention efforts to
reduce CO2 simply because we are adding 35 billion
tons of carbon dioxide every year, and it is increasing at the
rate of 2 to 3 percent. If we don't do anything about
CO2 emissions, the CO2 concentration
alone in this century can be double, and the warming from that
added CO2 can exceed 2 degrees. So there is nothing
BC reductions is going to stop this. The BC reduction is more a
short-term gain to slow down the climate change. Ultimately,
that climate change is from CO2, and we have to
reduce it. Thank you.
The Chairman. Dr. Shindell.
Mr. Shindell. Well, in the nineties, the U.K. introduced a
public health law that said that anybody emitting black smoke
could be deemed a public nuisance, meaning legally actionable.
So this led to the City of London suing the London Underground
over a power plant emitting black smoke, which they got out of
by claiming it was brown.
And I bring this up because the interesting thing about
this, as well as being amusing, is this was the 1890s, not the
1990s. And we have known for a long time about the public
health impact, and black carbon should be dealt with because it
is a public health impact, whether or not it had any climate
impact. There is an extra impetus now because climate is such a
severe problem. And I don't even like the expression that this
buys us time because we really don't have any time on the
CO2 issue either. That problem is coming down the
road; it is simply a different time scale.
That problem, since CO2 accumulates in the
atmosphere and lasts in the atmosphere for centuries, that
problem will be with us for a long time, even if we begin to
address it right away. And so addressing black carbon and the
other short-lived pollutants can help, but really has to be
side by side with already immediate action on CO2.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, I like your metaphor about the
house payments, down payment and monthly payments. We have a
lot of experience in this particular area right now; if you
make a down payment and fail to make the monthly payments, you
know what happens. You get a foreclosure. And if we act on
black carbon and make that down payment but we fail to make the
monthly payments we need on greenhouse gases, our project will
fail. And maybe we theoretically have bought ourselves a few
years, but we will have squandered that opportunity, that down
payment, if we don't follow through and make the necessary
reductions in greenhouse gases. It will take, as I said, both--
and in order to reach the target levels that people say will
avoid the worst effects of global warming.
The Chairman. By the way, I wanted to tell you, Dr.
Ramanathan, the reason we are having this hearing is I read
this brilliant article that you had in Foreign Affairs. And
from a public education perspective, if I could have 435
Members of Congress read it, I think that we would have a
different reaction to the actions that we have to take and the
recommendations for actions that we have to take to solve the
problem but also why it is a smart way to go because it is
something that can happen relatively quickly and have a big
payoff as well.
If I could go to India for a second, and maybe you could
expand a little bit more, Dr. Ramanathan, talk a little bit
more about India and other countries and their cooking devices
and what strategy you would recommend to be implemented. And
what percentage of all black carbon comes just from those
cooking mechanisms that are used in third-world countries?
Mr. Ramanathan. In fact, some of the statistics I am going
to give you come from the pioneering studies of my colleague
sitting to my right. But we have verified it with observations
collecting isotope data of black carbon. It turns out at least
two-thirds of the black carbon over South Asia, which includes
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, comes from biomass burning
in terms of cooking stoves.
The Chairman. Did you say two-thirds from those countries
or two-thirds for the whole world?
Mr. Ramanathan. Two-thirds from those countries. If you
look at the total emissions from India, about two-thirds is
from biomass burning. I know my own grandmother cooked with
these cook stoves. And they do that because the food from that
is the most delicious at least I have ever eaten, just like the
smoked salmon here. So that is the reason for the difficulty
changing that to LPG stoves and others.
But that was the reasons given by all of the nonprofits
with which I have interacted. But our experience based on this
1 year in this selected village is that the women are tired of
cooking with these traditional mud stoves. It simply takes a
long time to collect the fuel, and it is a lot of work.
And so I think the communities, at least the communities I
have worked with, are ready. We are working with the most
densely populated part of India. It is called the Indo-Gangetic
Plain. Over 600 million live there.
And the other beautiful thing which is happening is the
Indian Government has realized this is a development issue, a
health issue. And now I have teamed up with some economists at
Berkeley and Duke to show that it is also contributing to
agriculture decrease of the yield. So all of this is coming
together. And also the realization it may be impacting the
glaciers is also bringing in a lot of communities together.
So my personal feeling is the timing is really perfect for
a major bilateral collaboration between U.S. and India to take
it to the next stage.
The Chairman. And what is the next stage? How can Americans
change Indian cooking habits?
Mr. Ramanathan. I think the change can happen, my feeling,
is through technology, transfer of the stoves, and there are
various ways to do that. And there are also ways we can remove
the black carbon from the chimneys, and so let them use. And
the third is, of course, funding. Those three.
And the fourth I want to mention, the key thing is what we
are doing; we have to document how much of the health we are
saving, exposure studies. And we have to document how much
global warming benefit will you get. My personal calculation
suggests removing 1 ton of black carbon in those villages will
have the same effect as removing thousands of tons of carbon
dioxide, in terms of global warming. And these are theoretical
calculations. So there are a number of scientific engineering,
and just the question of giving loans to 150 million. So there
are a variety of ways in which bilateral collaboration could
just push it to the front page.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize, I am running between committees. I always like
this committee and try to get here under almost any
circumstances because of how significant it is.
I walked in on this conversation. My family is in Tanzania,
Arusha, about 400 miles south of Nairobi and at the foot of
Mount Kilimanjaro. I stood out one evening with one of my
relatives, and we looked up at the moon. And we could actually
see the outline of craters. And I said to him, you are
fortunate in many ways over the Western World because there is
no pollution. I think, in Arusha, average income is $1,500 a
year; there may be 10 cars. I mean, if I am underestimating,
let's say 100 cars on the high side, and yet I get on this
committee and start learning about the soot that is there
because my cousins cook outside. I mean, everybody is cooking
outside. In fact, my cousin, believe it or not, in Africa is
running a barbecue business, and so people line up outside, and
nobody is thinking about what is going on.
But the concern I have is, it is low-hanging fruit. We can
probably eliminate that intrusion into the atmosphere, black
carbon, but how do we do it? It is something that we know we
can do if we can just change the culture and also provide some
kind of way for cooking that does not pollute, but it is going
to cost money. I am thinking about my cousin or any of my
relatives, they would easily probably go to another form of
cooking if they could afford it.
And so, in the absence of having the money, what do we do?
I mean, is it something that the United States and the
polluters, the big polluters--India, China, Europe--is that our
responsibility, or are there any suggestions? I will go tell
them. You tell me what to do, and I will go tell them. I know
the mayor. Anybody.
Ms. Bond. First of all, this is a big problem, of course.
This is about half the people in the world. And there are
places to target first to move rapidly. One of those areas is
high-population density where that kind of cooking leads to
high concentrations and impacts on quite a lot of people. And
so it is easier to deliver to those groups of people than it
would be to deliver to your cousin, who has a barbecue at the
foot of Mount Kilimanjaro--forgive me if I have gotten your
geography a bit wrong.
Mr. Cleaver. No, you are right.
Ms. Bond. Now, Mr. Markey asked about the role of the
United States. There is some funding needed, but we are also in
a really good position to develop enabling technologies. For
example, we find that a better stove can be made not by making
a great stove here and delivering it there or by paying them to
make a stove, but by developing capability to build mass
production for a combustion chamber so that people there can
build their own stoves, but the critical piece is made
possible.
And so if you think of this as a large-scale problem and we
have to solve every single household, it seems big and almost
undoable. I think the role of the United States can be in
identifying targeted research and targeted studies and targeted
development for those things that are keeping new, clean,
better technologies from spreading. And I don't want to
underestimate the role of clean fuels as well as clean
technology; clean fuel means not only modern fuels, but also
methods for working on crop waste and creating pellets and that
sort of thing. So I think we have the vision and we have the
capability and we have a history of identifying those trigger
points that make a big difference.
Mr. Ramanathan. May I add to that, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Cleaver. Yes, please, Doctor.
Mr. Ramanathan. First thing to recognize is that they are
using the most environmental friendly fuel because it is not
adding carbon dioxide to the air if you are cooking with crop
residues and cow dung mixture.
And the cost of these stoves is such that, I think of, for
example, India, 750 million depend on this, 150 million
households. It is a $4 billion problem. So to me, I think it is
a solvable problem. You are not talking about trillions. We are
not talking about hundreds of billions; with clever micro
credits and others, we could distribute this.
One thing I want to talk to you about is the brown clouds
or the haze you saw covering Kilimanjaro. In Africa, part of
the source of this black carbon is savanna burning.
Mr. Cleaver. Is what?
Mr. Ramanathan. Savanna burning, so that contributes quite
a bit to that Africa-wide haze, plus the cooking, both those
sources.
Mr. Cleaver. Let me follow up.
When I used to have knees, I could go up to the top of
Kilimanjaro, and if any of you have done it, you know you start
at the bottom, and you are in very tropical clothing because
the temperature is going to be at the century mark. The higher
you go, the colder it gets, and so you start changing. By the
time you get to the top, you are on snow. That was a while
back. Now you get to the top, and you may see little sprinkles
of snow. The snow on Kilimanjaro, it hasn't completely
vanished, but it is going there.
In reading through the testimony and becoming a little more
familiar with this issue, I started wondering, in this land
where the Kilimanjaro Airport is not far from the mountain, and
I am starting to think maybe more planes are landing here,
maybe that is what is doing the damage. Because there is no
industry. The industry there is the Western World stealing all
the water to do plants so that we can have fresh plants in
hotels every morning, but that is other another whole issue.
So I am wondering if what causes that haze is the same
thing that is causing the melting of the snow.
Mr. Ramanathan. I will comment on that. First, you have to
understand, when you see the haze above your head, particularly
if it is above a mile, it may have nothing to do with the local
source. These things transport over thousands of kilometers.
For example, in the dry season, between October to April,
the entire Arabian Sea and the North Indian Ocean is filled
with haze. It is transported both from the South Asian side and
from Africa. We have seen elevated regions of the Himalayas
covered with thick brown clouds. We have been there. We have
taken pictures with aircraft.
So the issue of the whole Kilimanjaro, as you know, its
retreat, originally it used to be thought it was all due to
global warming. Now, some glaciologists have estimated at least
half of that, a lot of it is coming from really what we call
sublimation, just the air becoming dry and the snow
evaporating.
So there are multiple causes happening in Kilimanjaro, but
I would point out, no one has taken a look at really what this
black carbon is doing to that retreat. It is an area, new
research to find out. But we know from satellite images that
soot looms hover around the Kilimanjaro region.
Mr. Cleaver. Dr. Shindell.
Mr. Shindell. I was going to comment on the previous
question a little bit, which was, if, say, the Waxman-Markey
bill becomes law in this country, there will be a price on
carbon, like there is in much of the world. I would think that
it is not necessarily a useful thing to link funding that has
been associated with the greenhouse gases that are controlled
under the Kyoto Protocol, the clean development mechanism
whereby the United States and other wealthy countries pay for
reductions in other countries; I don't think it makes sense to
link those with the short-term pollutants like black carbon
because, as we have talked about, they operate on very
different time scales.
But analogous sources, for example, there was an editorial
in the Wall Street Journal about a global methane fund, where
the U.S. could help other countries to pay for reductions or a
global black carbon fund. I think all of these kind of ways
that the United States can help the developing world to do
things, like intervene in residential cooking stoves, are quite
sensible, but I really think we need partners there.
I am chair of a United Nations environment program
assessment of the effects of black carbon and ozone on climate.
And what we are really trying to do is bring in the developing
world scientists, as Dr. Bond was mentioning, and there is
capacity there, too. I think if those scientists are able to
convince their countries that these things are really in their
own best interests because they are damaging their ability to
grow crops to feed their population and they are affecting
their development goals by air pollution--one of the leading
causes of adverse health impacts in the developing world--if it
is in their own interest and there is this additional kind of
carrot of having funding from developing nations to help them
do something about it, I think that is a combination that would
actually help to get something done.
Mr. Cleaver. It is a major challenge because the people who
live in this area, the Maasai Tribe, which inhabits this
particular area, they know nothing about global warming. I
mean, you may as well keep speaking English because they have
no idea what you are talking about when you start talking about
global warming because all they know is that the snow on the
mountain is not as thick as it used to be. That is all they
know. And they have not had any intellectual conversations or
debates about it, and nobody is bringing the issue forth. It is
a challenge to us because I think we are partially responsible
for much of what they experience. I simply wanted to get some
kind of reading on this because I guess maybe I am personally
involved in it and was hoping that--and I still hold that
hope--that the Waxman-Markey bill will be approved, and if we
need to tweak it later.
I like a world black carbon fund idea. I think if we tweak
it later, it can be the major step to save the planet.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver, very much.
Here is what I am going to do; I am going to ask each one
of you to give us your 1-minute summation of what it is that
you want us to remember, which is a test because you have a lot
that you want us to know about these subjects. We will go in
the reverse order of the opening statements.
And we will begin with you, Mr. Schneider.
Mr. Schneider. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I am going to just tick off the policy pieces that you
really asked me to address today.
The first one is funding through the climate bill, if we
are lucky enough to have one, funding for the Diesel Emission
Reduction Act and through the Jobs bill, a reauthorization in
funding, and funding through a transportation bill,
reauthorization, which requires clean construction equipment
and funds it as a part of that transportation bill.
And then, lastly, giving the EPA the regulatory authority
to cover more of the existing in-use diesels that could require
the use of today's technology to reduce the black carbon
emissions from them. We have had a good discussion just now
about the cook stove issue; I am not going to add to that. I do
talk about the black carbon fund in my written testimony, so I
would refer you to that.
And then, lastly, we haven't talked as much about the
agriculture burning issue. That is an issue that deserves more
attention. It is going to require international cooperation and
enforcement of national laws in other countries to really
accomplish that, but we probably can't get the full benefits of
black carbon reduction unless we address that.
Thank you very much for the time today, I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Dr. Shindell.
Mr. Shindell. Well, I would start by reiterating that we
have two problems: a long-term climate change problem and a
near-term climate change problem. And we can't deal with the
long-term problem without beginning to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions as soon as possible.
But for the near-term problem, I think that consideration
of the short-lived warming agents, as we are talking about
today, and not just black carbon, but also methane, carbon
monoxide and volatile organic carbons, which are also emitted
by similar processes--for example, the diesel particulate
filters we have been talking about substantially reduce about
90 percent black carbon, but also carbon monoxide and volatile
organics. So if you target all of these as a basket, you are
likely to make more effective decisions, reductions that can
lead to significant improvements in air quality as well as
mitigating climate change.
And I just repeat the summary of my testimony, that
reductions in emissions of products of incomplete combustion
will virtually always improve health. And if targeting
emissions that are rich in black carbon, carbon monoxide, VOCs
and methane, you can often find options whose co-benefits are
so large that they can simultaneously mitigate climate change
and improve air quality at substantially reduced cost.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Ramanathan.
Mr. Ramanathan. The Copenhagen Accord requires us to limit
climate change to less than 2 degrees from pre-Industrial. We
have already put enough greenhouse gases on the planet,
according to our climate models, they would already warm the
planet by 2 degrees. So we are losing time. So we have a
Herculean task in front of us to meet the Copenhagen Accord,
and I consider black carbon reductions as an important
component of our battle to meet that 2 degree warming.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Bond.
Ms. Bond. Thank you very much.
We have discussed some emission sources that produce black
carbon and other pollutants. And we have also discussed how
there is the long-term and the short-term effect. What I really
want you to think about is that we have a portfolio of
potential solutions that can address climate change in the long
term and the short term. So don't think about either/or; think
about, how will we manage the atmospheric trajectory during our
lifetimes and your children's lifetimes and our grandchildren's
lifetimes? And our lifetime is a significant component of that
and of interest to many people.
The United States has the opportunity to lead in both
technology and in engagement internationally in this endeavor.
There are ways to improve both climate and human welfare at the
same time. I will leave it there. We have a lot in front of us,
but we have a lot of solutions, and I think we have a lot of
opportunities.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
And a lot of opportunities to create new jobs, a lot of
opportunities to engage in technological transfer, a lot of
incredibly great side benefits from working on this problem if
we do so in a way that sees the opportunities as well.
We thank all of you for your tremendous testimony and for
your incredible work on this subject. That is what made it
possible for us to have this hearing today.
With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2588A.087