    [Senate Hearing 113-796]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 113-796

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2911, SUPER POLLUTANTS ACT OF 2014

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                DECEMBER 2, 2014

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   __________

                           U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    98-201 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 SECOND SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York         JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

                    Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
                      Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                DECEMBER 2, 2014
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     1
    Murphy, Hon. Chris, U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut...     3
    Thomas, Hon. Carper R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware,
      prepared statement.............................................   103

                                   WITNESSES

    Zaelke, Durwood, President, Institute for Governance &
      Sustainable Development........................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer.........    19
    Fay, Kevin, Executive Director, Alliance for Responsible
      Atmospheric Policy.............................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Shindell, Drew, Ph.D., Professor of Climate Sciences, Nicholas
      School of the Environment, Duke University.....................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer.........    51
    Peiser, Benny, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation....    56
        Prepared statement...........................................    58
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    71
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........    72
    Moore, Stephen, Chief Economist, Institute for Economic Freedom
      and Opportunity, The Heritage Foundation.......................    74
        Prepared statement...........................................    76
        Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........    84
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........    84

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Article; The New York Times, In Step to Lower Carbon Emissions,
      China Will Place a Limit on Coal Use in 2020...................   105

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2911, SUPER POLLUTANTS ACT OF 2014

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2014

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room
    406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of
    the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Whitehouse, Merkley,
    Boozman.
        Also present: Senator Murphy.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. The committee is in order. I am delighted to
    call us to order, because we are looking at a bill written by
    two of my colleagues, Senator Murphy and Senator Collins, the
    Super Pollutant Act of 2014, S. 2911, which is a bipartisan
    bill that supports innovative technologies and policies to
    reduce short-lived climate pollutant emissions, otherwise known
    as SLCPs, which if you can pronounce that, OK. Because I won't
    even try.
        These emissions, we are talking about black carbon,
    methane, hydrofluorocarbons. And recent headlines have sounded
    the alarm on the mounting impacts of climate change. The reason
    I am so excited about this bill, when Senator Murphy talked to
    me about it, is it is really a bipartisan breakthrough. That is
    very important, because we are not going to get anywhere if we
    just have a partisan divide on climate.
        Over the past few months, we have seen everything, from the
    hottest August, the hottest September, the hottest October on
    record, to historic droughts and extreme wildfires, ravaging my
    home communities, to vanishing wildlife habitat in Alaska, to
    toxic algae blooming out of control and contaminating drinking
    water in Toledo, Ohio. I think it was 500,000 people had to
    drink bottled water because of this toxic algae, which is
    directly related to the heat in the water.
        Yesterday, I read a story in the New York Times, it was
    actually the lead story, and it summed up what scientists are
    now telling us. They are saying if we stay on this path, our
    grandkids will face a grim future. They actually lay it out
    even in a more stark fashion, they say our grandchildren will
    either have a planet that is unpleasant to live in or a planet
    that is not inhabitable. Those both are bad choices, but we see
    where we are heading. That is why I am so grateful, because
    maybe we can start to take congressional action here. The
    President is taking action, and bless him for doing it. I say
    that sincerely, because I know he cares so much about the
    future. He looks into his daughters' eyes and he knows that he
    in many ways has a chance to make the planet a better place.
    And he is doing it, despite all the opposition and hysteria
    about it.
        Well, this hearing will focus on some common sense steps we
    can take to address this critical threat. S. 2911, the Murphy-
    Collins bill, identifies a number of practical steps by the
    private sector and policy measures on the Federal level that
    can be taken to limit pollutants that cause climate change.
    Action to limit these super pollutants can help slow climate
    change over the next several decades while also providing
    important co-benefits to public health. That is so key. When we
    cut back on climate pollution, we have co-benefits that involve
    making the air cleaner and less asthma and less heart disease
    and strokes and all those things. So it is a win-win.
        Now, black carbon is a fine particulate matter that is
    harmful to human health and the environment. If we address
    that, we can help avoid the worst impacts of climate change and
    also reduce exposure to air pollutants, again, that cause all
    these respiratory and cardiovascular ailments and premature
    deaths.
        Similarly, reducing methane leaks and emissions can prevent
    increases in ground level ozone pollution, which will reduce
    the threat to public health. We know the President has put out
    a really good policy on this ground level ozone pollution,
    which we know is smog that can worsen bronchitis, emphysema and
    asthma. I often say, and I will say it again, if any of us, as
    a Senator, visits the schools, and I know, Senator Murphy, how
    old are your boys now?
        Senator Murphy. Six and three.
        Senator Boxer. Six and three. I say the next time you go
    visit their class, the older one, ask the class, how many of
    you kids have asthma, or how many of you kids know someone with
    asthma. You will be stunned to see, well, maybe you won't be
    stunned, I was stunned when I asked that question, I was in a
    school in San Francisco with Hillary Clinton way back in the
    1990's. We asked the class, and way more than half of the class
    raised their hands. She had asked that question. And it just
    tells you the story. We have to protect our children from
    bronchitis and asthma.
        So S. 2911 has all these benefits and it also supports U.S.
    companies that are in the forefront of producing innovative
    chemical substitutes for HFCs and new technologies to control
    black carbon and methane leaks. And it is a real win-win when
    we can have our private sector stepping up to the plate, doing
    good things and doing well financially. That is the ticket
    here. And that is what S. 2911 does, because they establish an
    interagency task force to mitigate short-lived climate
    pollutants, they ensure Federal agencies have plans in place to
    reduce HFC and methane at Federal facilities. We are the
    biggest landlord in the Country. If we start doing these
    things, it has a real impact.
        It also says we should use existing Federal authorities to
    phase in these alternatives to HFCs and encourage HFC recovery
    and recycling. And also encourage substantial black carbon
    pollution reduction efforts in developing countries as part of
    the State Department's programs. It also calls for directing
    Federal agencies to assess whether the pipeline transmission
    rates and new standards for pipeline systems can reduce methane
    leaks.
        This is incredible. I once looked at this issue, how many
    people we could put to work just going after these leaks and
    have that win-win benefit. It is so good.
        And I want to welcome our witnesses, and Chris Murphy, I
    want to particularly say thank you so much. I think what you
    have done is a breakthrough. Because not only is it important
    in addressing climate, but it is a bipartisan effort.
        So would you start off, and then we will go to the rest of
    the panel.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRIS MURPHY,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

        Senator Murphy. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer. Thank
    you for calling this hearing today. Thank you for your
    encouraging words with respect to our legislation. I am pleased
    to share the panel here, at least kick it off with some very
    able experts. Thanks to Ranking Member Vitter as well for
    making this hearing possible today.
        We are here to discuss, as you very aptly described, SLPCs,
    short-lived climate pollutants. These are substances that do
    grave damage to the climate, often at a rate that is tens of
    hundreds of times the damage on a time-to-time basis that
    carbon dioxide does. But frankly, they are a lot less well-
    known than carbon dioxide. The problem posed by SLPCs, they
    represent an opportunity, it is an opportunity to save lives,
    to create a lot of jobs and to protect fragile ecosystems.
        They also represent a political opportunity. I am honored
    to have this considered as a breakthrough, but phasing down
    these pollutants can be done more quickly and relatively easily
    when compared to the hard but desperately necessary work that
    we have ahead of us to slow CO2 emissions.
        As members of the committee well know, we are talking here
    about black carbon, methane, and hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs.
    The first is a byproduct of combustion. The second is a fuel.
    The third is an industrial chemical.
        None of them are as vital to the functioning of the world's
    economy as carbon dioxide. That means that adopting sensible,
    money-saving policies to phase down emissions of all of these
    will require an effort that is relatively manageable compared
    to the scale of the other global challenges that we face.
        So that is why Senator Collins and I worked together to
    draft the legislation that is under consideration by the
    committee today, the Super Pollutants Act. If enacted, this
    legislation would expand existing programs to launch new
    initiatives needed to tackle the many ways in which SLPCs are
    emitted.
        We are not talking about revolutionary change here. We are
    just talking about some common sense steps that can bring
    Republicans and Democrats together around cleaning up our
    climate. Our bill encourages USAID and development agencies to
    consider methane and black carbon emissions when financing
    projects overseas. Our bill would urge modifications in the
    Energy Star program to recognize refrigeration systems that use
    non-HFC chemicals while still achieving energy savings. We
    would help coordinate interagency SLPC initiatives, so that
    individual departments are working in tandem when it comes to
    these pollutants.
        Both Senator Collins and I realize that considerable
    obstacles confront the enactment of this or any legislation in
    this present congressional environment. However, we believe
    this legislation represents an opportunity to have an important
    foundation for bipartisan cooperation on climate and public
    health issues. That is because one can favor reductions in
    methane, black carbon and HFCs for reasons that frankly have
    little to do with climate change. There is a huge climate
    change component to this legislation, but Senator Collins has
    been a leader in pushing for the expansion of clean-burning
    cook stoves in the developing world. Because indoor burning of
    wood and animal dung kills millions and millions of people
    every year. Installing filters diesel truck engines similarly
    reduces soot emissions, while promoting the use of American-
    made technologies, an effort that Senator Inhofe has strongly
    supported for years.
        Transitioning away from HFC compounds, both here and
    abroad, promotes the use of American technologies and
    manufacturing know-how. The economic benefit to this Country is
    great. The demand for air conditioning in India alone is
    anticipated to grow by a factor of 50 by 2013. Wouldn't it be
    better if Indians were able to meet that demand by embracing
    technological solutions developed in partnership with U.S.
    firms?
        Limiting methane leaks can actually save considerable sums
    of money for companies and governments that are willing to
    recapture it and burn it themselves. Indeed, man-made methane
    emissions are expected to grow by 25 percent over the next 15
    years. In the oil and gas industry, it is a win-win for
    distributors and consumers to make sure that less product leaks
    out of wells and pipes on its way to the end users, as Senator
    Boxer said.
        Now, I say this not to belittle the climate impacts that
    reducing SLPCs could produce. Estimates show that aggressive
    action could prevent nearly a half a degree Celsius of warming
    in the atmosphere. Instead, I am making this case because
    tackling climate change needn't be as fiercely and reflexively
    partisan an issue as it has become in recent years. We can do
    immense good for the climate while doing good for our health
    and our businesses as well. SLPCs can and should represent the
    beginning of much-needed bipartisan goodwill on this topic.
        So I would like to thank both the business and non-profit
    communities who have been a part of drafting this bill, for the
    members of the committee who have already reviewed or co-
    sponsored the legislation, I thank you. For those who haven't
    examined it in detail, I hope that they will and their staffs
    will do that in the coming weeks. If they think it can be
    improved, Senator Collins and I would love to work with the
    committee to do that.
        Madam Chair, I have with me a statement from Senator
    Collins. She has another hearing today, but she would love to
    have entered into the record a very strong statement of support
    for our bill.
        Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Collins follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Murphy. So I look forward to testimony today.
    Again, I thank you, Chairwoman Boxer, for bringing us together
    and again express my gratitude for the attention and the time
    of the committee today.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator. You are free to
    stay, I know you have a crazy schedule as well.
        But I will move on, with Mr. Durwood Zaelke, President,
    Institute for Governance & Sustainable Development. Welcome,
    sir.

         STATEMENT OF DURWOOD ZAELKE, PRESIDENT, INSTITUTE FOR
                  GOVERNANCE & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

        Mr. Zaelke. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to
    testify today.
        Solving climate change may be hard. But getting started is
    easy. The Super Pollutants Act that we are discussing today
    gets us started solving the fast half of climate change. And it
    will help us build the on-ramp, the bipartisan on-ramp, to
    solving even more difficult parts of climate change involving
    fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.
        As Senator Murphy said, there are many reasons to support
    this bill. Climate is the first and perhaps the most important.
    But if you want to see other reasons, look to the public health
    benefits. The World Health Organization tells us that seven
    million people a year die from black carbon air pollution and
    millions more are made so sick they can't go to work, they
    can't go to school, the asthma that the Chairwoman mentioned.
    Cutting black carbon can save at least two million of these
    lives and it can make other citizens of the world healthier and
    more productive.
        There is no dispute about the health benefits of black
    carbon. You can see it, you can taste it. It kills people and
    cutting it will save lives and improve health. California has
    already done this. California has cut black carbon by 90
    percent and it has pioneered the development of the technology
    that the rest of the world needs to cut its black carbon.
        China, for example, has just mentioned that they are going
    to be putting $277 billion into cleaning up their air
    pollution. That is a tremendous market for U.S. technology. The
    rest of Asia needs the same technology, India in particular,
    but also Africa and Latin America. The whole world does. This
    is a tremendous opportunity.
        We could also look to the benefits for crop productivity.
    Methane and the photochemical smog it creates damages crops.
    When we lose crops around the world, we create conflicts that
    often our military has to go help solve. So we can bring
    tremendous benefits on that side as well.
        Finally, the Super Pollutants Act will help us reduce this
    third super pollutant, the HFCs. There are some efforts
    underway already in the U.S. and elsewhere. Europe, for
    example, has a law that goes into effect next month that will
    cut HFC emissions by 79 percent by 2030.
        At the global level, the U.S. has led the effort to use the
    Montreal Protocol to phase down HFCs. This will level the
    playing field and prevent a patchwork of regulations that our
    industries would have to face. The Montreal Protocol was first
    negotiated under President Ronald Reagan. It is widely regarded
    as the most efficient and effective international environmental
    agreement we have ever created. It has already phased out
    nearly 100 damaging chemicals by nearly 100 percent. It has
    ever country of the world as a party, developing and developed.
    And they all have mandatory obligations under this treaty. They
    all have nearly 100 percent compliance as well.
        As we phased out the prior chemicals, the CFCs under the
    Montreal Protocol and now the HCFCs, no one noticed. No one was
    inconvenienced. No one's air conditioner didn't work or
    refrigerator didn't work. In fact, they became more efficient
    and the consumer saved money. So this treaty has been
    incredible, not only in putting us back on the path to solving
    this stratospheric ozone challenge but also in helping us with
    climate. This treaty has already done five to ten times more in
    climate mitigation than the Kyoto Protocol. And it stands ready
    to do even more by phasing down the HFCs.
        Just to give you the scale, the combined effort to phase
    down the short-lived climate pollutants will avoid about .6
    degrees of warming by the mid-century. That is compared to an
    aggressive effort to cut CO2 , which will avoid
    about .1 degree, a lot less. By the end of the century, they
    begin to equalize. We have to do both, of course.
        So we are ready to do the next big piece with HFCs. And it
    will give us perhaps the single biggest and fastest piece of
    climate mitigation in the world, and it will incredibly
    inexpensive.
        If you go back to the early efforts----
        Senator Boxer. I am going to ask you to wrap up your
    statement.
        Mr. Zaelke. I will wrap up, and thank you.
        In conclusion, the Super Pollutant Act can help save
    millions of lives, improve crop yields, promote U.S. industry,
    cut near-term warming in half through the middle of the
    century. Just as important, the Act can help create the
    bipartisan momentum that we so desperately need to solve the
    rest of climate change.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Zaelke follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Zaelke.
        I am going to just tell you what the plan is here. Senator
    Whitehouse is going to run this hearing. I have been called to
    a hearing on sexual assault on college campuses, and I need to
    run there. My hope is to run there and back, but one never
    knows. He has graciously said he is going to take this.
        Colleagues who are here, Senator Boozman, Senator
    Whitehouse, Senator Murphy was here, Senator Murphy started
    off, he gave his statement. He also put in the record a
    statement by Senator Collins and made the point this is our
    first real bipartisan breakthrough on an issue dealing with the
    climate. But as was pointed out, it is a lot more than climate,
    it is about a lot of other things as well.
        So I am going to hand this over to Senator Whitehouse and
    he will run this. I just want to thank you all so much. I am
    excited about this bill.
        Senator Whitehouse, why don't you take it from here.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        [Presiding] Very well, and Mr. Fay, we will turn to you.

       STATEMENT OF KEVIN FAY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALLIANCE FOR
                     RESPONSIBLE ATMOSPHERIC POLICY

        Mr. Fay. Thank you, Senator.
        I serve as Executive Director of the Alliance for
    Responsible Atmospheric Policy. We appreciate the opportunity
    to testify today.
        The Alliance, originally organized in 1980, is a coalition
    of manufacturers, businesses and trade associations which make
    or use fluorinated gases in their course of business. Today,
    Alliance member companies are leading the development of next
    generation, climate-and ozone-friendly technologies and
    applications.
        The U.S. fluorocarbon using and producing industries
    contribute more than $158 billion annually in goods and
    services to the U.S. economy, and provide employment to more
    than 700,000 individuals.
        S. 911 would help to focus government activities on the so-
    called short-lived climate pollutants, including HFCs, further
    congressional understanding and identify potential future
    steps. Our comments today are specifically in relation to the
    provisions governing HFCs.
        The Alliance commended the sponsors of the legislation upon
    its introduction. We did so because the legislation would one,
    recognize the appropriate role of the Montreal Protocol in
    advancing ozone protection while reducing greenhouse gas
    emissions calibrated to the pace of technology developments and
    the availability of proven energy efficient alternatives. Two,
    acknowledges the important role of effective refrigerant
    management and recovery and re-use of refrigerant as near-term
    approaches that can achieve significant HFC emissions
    reductions. And three, close the HCFC-22 exception that permits
    the use of ozone-depleting residential air conditioning units.
    The legislation promotes both ozone protection and improved
    energy efficiency of newer systems.
        The highly successful Montreal Protocol Treaty is grounded
    in scientific understanding, includes an effective technology
    and economic assessment process and recognizes the special
    needs of developing country economies. The Protocol identifies
    long-term objectives and achieves its environmental protection
    benefits in a sensible approach, guided by economic
    feasibility.
        As a result of our experience under the Protocol over the
    last 27 years, we believe it can play an instrumental role in
    also reducing the greenhouse gas contributions of ODS
    substitutes. This approach is far preferable for uniform
    treatment of HCFs than command and control regulations by the
    United States and other nations, or the market-fracturing
    approach that will result if the major economies were all to
    choose different means of achieving HFC greenhouse gas
    reductions.
        We believe with the appropriate policy signals and flexible
    implementation, it is possible to achieve a substantial
    reduction of HFC greenhouse gas contribution over the next
    several decades. That is why in September of this year, the
    Alliance announced its intent to ``take actions and support
    policies to achieve an 80 percent reduction of global HFC
    emissions on a GWP-weighted basis by 2050.''
        The legislation acknowledges the Protocol's success and
    encourages addressing HFCs through an amendment. We would
    concur.
        The bill also encourages the utilization of Section 608 of
    the Clean Air Act as a means of reducing service emissions of
    current HFC-using equipment and promoting refrigerant recapture
    and re-use. We know that the majority of HFC emissions occur
    during the service, maintenance, repair and disposal of air
    conditioning and commercial refrigeration units. Moreover, this
    equipment operates most efficiently when properly charged and
    maintained, minimizing energy consumption and related
    greenhouse gas emissions. In reducing the contribution of HFCs
    to climate change, initiating proper refrigerant management
    practices remains the lowest-hanging fruit.
        The legislation also calls attention to the important role
    of the fluorocarbon compounds with regard to energy efficiency
    of the air conditioning units and refrigeration equipment in
    which they are utilized. Ninety-five percent of the greenhouse
    gas contribution of this equipment is derived indirectly as a
    result of its lifetime energy consumption.
        In the transitions achieved to date, and the pending
    transition to low-GWP compounds, it is imperative that this be
    part of the technology assessment process, and must include
    coordination with energy efficiency standards processes and
    appropriate modifications to building codes and standards.
        The last item highlighted in S. 2911 is language to close
    an exception for what are known as the dry-22 units. In a
    rulemaking 5 years ago, EPA defined uncharged condensing units
    to be a service component not otherwise subject to the Clean
    Air Act prohibition to place in commerce equipment that relies
    on HCFC-22, which is phased out under the protocol. As a result
    of this rule modification, the manufacture of these units
    increased significantly at a time when their phase-out was
    nearly complete. The manufacturing community has recently
    advised EPA of its unanimous position that the manufacture of
    these units should be phased out. The language in the bill
    would effect this change and the Alliance would be supportive.
        U.S. industry has been at the forefront of the technology
    advances over the last several decades on ozone protection and
    climate protection. We are now investing in the innovation of
    low-GWP compounds and technologies that will allow us to
    achieve ozone protection, climate protection and energy
    efficiency goals. We have embraced this new challenge. However,
    much work remains to be done. Technology pathways have not been
    identified for all the critical uses. Industry leaders recently
    highlighted the multi-billion dollar investments to be made
    over the next decade in order to achieve these goals. U.S.
    industry leadership and an effective global approach on the
    Montreal Protocol will be key to this achievement.
        S. 2911 is a useful legislative vehicle with regard to HFCs
    because it helps focus the attention of the relevant U.S.
    Government departments and agencies on key issues in that
    regard, including effective assessment of low-GWP alternatives
    for responsible refrigerant management and the market support
    of Montreal Protocol amendment as an appropriate path forward.
        We appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today.
    We look forward to working with you in the next Congress as
    these issues are addressed and will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Fay follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Fay. I appreciate your
    testimony.
        Before we turn to Dr. Shindell, would it be possible to get
    a list of the membership of the Alliance for Responsible
    Atmospheric Policy? You have some pretty strong participants,
    and I think it would help if there was a record of that.
        Mr. Fay. Surely.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
        Dr. Shindell, if you please.

        STATEMENT OF DREW SHINDELL, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF CLIMATE
     SCIENCES, NICHOLAS SCHOOL OF THE ENVIRONMENT, DUKE UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Shindell. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
        We have heard that the World Health Organization has
    recently estimated that seven million die every year from poor
    air quality, making it the leading environmental cause of
    premature death worldwide. In many parts of the world, it is
    the single leading cause for women and children. It is a silent
    killer, but it is out there. In the United States it is
    responsible for over 100,000 deaths per year.
        Of all the sources of the emissions that lead to poor air
    quality in the United States, coal burning is the single
    largest, causing, by my calculations, about 47,000 premature
    deaths per year. That happens to be larger than the total
    number of Americans killed in all the years of the Vietnam War
    by hostile fire. So we hear a lot up here on Capitol Hill about
    things like the war on coal; what we forget is coal's war on
    us. There is a heavy toll, not just from coal and not just in
    terms of death from air quality. One hundred eighty thousand
    non-fatal heart attacks per year, 150,000 cases of
    hospitalization for respiratory and cardiovascular disease, all
    of these health care costs are passed on to the American
    people.
        And it is not just the American people, it is American
    business, 18 million lost work days every year due to poor air
    quality, 11 million missed school days for our children. Air
    quality is a pressing issue at the same time that climate
    change's toll continues to mount.
        The good news here is that there are solutions in many
    cases, especially when it comes to the short-lived climate
    pollutants that are the heart of this bill. In the study for
    the U.N. environment program that I led, we found that
    aggressive action to reduce methane and soot, along with the
    related emissions that come out with soot, would, as we have
    heard this morning, reduce climate change over the next, by
    mid-century or so, by about half a degree. The climate has
    already warmed by nearly a degree, and most of the nations of
    the world have pledged to reduce, to keep the warming to about
    2 degrees. So although half a degree may not sound like much,
    it is really a big deal.
        At the same time, the other benefits of targeting these
    pollutants have enormous consequences. Over the next 25 years,
    they would save about a billion tons of agricultural yield. In
    the United States alone, more than a hundred million tons of
    crop losses due to ozone pollution could be saved by phasing in
    strong reductions in methane and soot and its related
    emissions. Over a quarter million American lives could be saved
    by phasing in these same aggressive measures to reduce
    emissions of these pollutants.
        I am gratified to see that the bill that has been proposed
    and that we are discussing here today looks at many of the
    exact same measures that were included in the study that I have
    just quoted from, specifically targeting methane emissions from
    the oil and gas industry, from coal mining and from municipal
    waste, and targeting emissions of soot and related compounds
    from diesel engines, from cook stoves and from small
    industries.
        It is also particularly important to look at emissions in
    the Arctic, a particularly sensitive region of the planet to
    warming, and a place where particles can have an extra powerful
    effect on leading to a warming planet.
        Some areas in particular, as Senator Boxer mentioned this
    morning, have solutions where the finance and the industrial,
    or the economic motivation is especially strong. In particular,
    for the oil and gas sector, what is being proposed in many
    cases is simply the best practices that are already put into
    place by much of American industry being extended to the rest
    of the industry that is not yet using those and around the
    world. So sharing our technology, our industries' practices
    that already have been shown to work, taking those and
    spreading those around for the common benefit.
        At the same time, use of low-sulfur fuels allows greater
    control of particulate emissions. A recent study that we
    completed on the use of kerosene for lighting in the developing
    world shows that in many countries, for example in India,
    kerosene is heavily subsidized by the government. The financing
    required to adopt an alternative is already there and simply
    needs to be redirected. U.S. leadership can help make that come
    to pass.
        I would just like to close by pointing out that we pay a
    great deal of attention to problems and catastrophes when they
    are local and when they occur suddenly. An example, the faulty
    ignition switches in the General Motors cars. These killed
    approximately 20 people, the precise number is still a bit
    debated, over the last decade or so. At the same time, the cars
    manufactured by GM produced air pollution that killed about
    40,000 Americans. We don't pay attention to that nearly enough,
    so I am grateful to see a bill that targets this pollution that
    is leading to climate change, air quality, agricultural loss.
        I thank you for your efforts.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shindell follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Dr. Shindell.
        Our next witness is Dr. Peiser. Please proceed, sir.

    STATEMENT OF BENNY PEISER, DIRECTOR, THE GLOBAL WARMING POLICY
                               FOUNDATION

        Mr. Peiser. Thank you. First of all, I would like to thank
    the Chairman and committee for the opportunity to testify
    before your committee on, and I make that absolutely clear, on
    unilateral policies to tackle climate change, in particular
    greenhouse gases. So I am not going to talk today about real
    air pollution, but about the challenge to come to a global
    policy which is the only policy that would actually tackle
    greenhouse gases.
        My name is Benny Peiser. I am the Director of the Global
    Warming Policy Foundation, a non-partisan think tank based in
    London. And as the name suggests, our main concern are the
    policies adopted by governments. That is what I would like to
    draw your attention to, particularly the experience we are
    having in Europe with unilateral climate policies.
        The European Union has long been committed to unilateral
    efforts to tackle climate change, and in the last 20 years has
    tried very hard, felt a duty to set a kind of example through
    radical bills such as this one. We have had it, as I said, for
    many, many years, very radical climate policymaking at home.
    But it was just Europe.
        As a result, European governments have advanced the most
    expensive forms of energy at the expense of the least expensive
    forms of energy. And about 14 years ago, the EU adopted the so-
    called Lisbon Strategy with a goal of making ``Europe the most
    competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world,
    capable of sustainable economic growth and more embedded jobs
    and greater social cohesion.'' In the same year, the EU also
    adopted the European Climate Change Program, which developed
    the EU implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.
        Today, 14 years after having adopted these key policies,
    the economies of most EU member states are stagnating or in
    decline. Instead of sustainable economic growth, instead of
    more jobs, instead of greater social cohesion, the OECD warned
    last week that the crisis-ridden EU has become a major threat
    to the world economy. So much for Europe becoming the most
    competitive place on earth.
        Europe's unilateral climate policies have played a crucial
    role in the EU's economic decline. And it is this experience
    with unilateral action that I want to focus upon. The other
    thing is, even though Europe has managed to reduce
    CO2 emissions domestically, this has only happened
    because it shifted essentially energy-intensive and heavy
    industries and their emissions overseas to nations where there
    are no similar emission limits, where energy and labor is cheap
    and which are now growing much faster than the EU. As a result,
    Europe's manufacturers are rapidly losing ground to
    international competition.
        The EU's unilateral climate policies pose an existential
    threat to Europe's industrial base. This threat is real, as the
    EU's outgoing industry commissioner, Antonio Tajani, has warned
    in no uncertain terms, that is the EU industry commissioner:
    ``We face a systemic industrial massacre. We need a new energy
    policy. We have to stop pretending, because we can't sacrifice
    Europe's industry for climate goals that are not realistic, and
    are not being enforced worldwide.'' That is the crux of the
    problem.
        There is another problem, a problem that is hitting
    Europe's poorest most, energy poverty. In the EU, hundreds of
    billions of Euros for climate policies have been paid by
    ordinary families and small and medium sized businesses in what
    is undoubtedly one of the biggest wealth transfers from poor to
    rich in modern European history. As wealthy homeowners and
    landowners install wind turbines on land and solar panels on
    their homes and commercial buildings, low income families all
    over Europe have to foot skyrocketing electricity bills. This
    winter, millions of poor families will have to choose between
    eating and heating. And many can no longer afford to pay. So
    the utilities are cutting off their power.
        Let me conclude. Europe's climate policy has burdened
    families and businesses with astronomical costs while shifting
    its heavy industry and its CO2 emissions to other
    parts of the world. The EU's climate fail demonstrates beyond
    doubt in my view unilateral policies are a complete fiasco and
    don't really solve anything. Europe is ground zero for failed
    climate policy and here is a lesson: don't make the same
    mistake or you will suffer the same consequences. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Peiser follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you for your testimony, Dr.
    Peiser.
        Our final witness, Mr. Steve Moore. Please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF STEPHEN MOORE, CHIEF ECONOMIST, INSTITUTE FOR
       ECONOMIC FREEDOM AND OPPORTUNITY, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senators, for the opportunity to
    testify this afternoon.
        I am the Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation. I am
    not an environmental expert, but I am an expert on what is
    happening with the U.S. economy. I thought I would spend my
    time and devote my remarks to how the fossil fuel revolution
    that is going on in this Country has really so dramatically
    changed the economic outlook in our States. I know some of you
    represent States that are part of this oil and gas revolution
    that has played such a vital part in our economic recovery.
        Let me start by stating a simple fact that is almost
    undeniable, that the whole world of energy production changed
    almost overnight six or 7 years ago with the introduction of
    shale oil and gas and the technologies that allow us to get at
    oil and gas in the United States that has been stored there for
    hundreds of thousands of years but we never had the technology
    to get at it.
        If you look at the chart in my testimony, the first chart,
    you can see the ramifications of this for our energy production
    and also our energy imports. This has been a seismic change.
    The United States over the last 6 years has increased its oil
    and gas output by almost 50 percent in the last 6 years. That
    is something, by the way, that no one would have predicted
    possible as recently as four or 5 years ago.
        President Obama, just as recently as two or 3 years ago,
    said the United States was running out of oil and gas. I would
    amend that to say, Mr. President, with all due respect,
    American isn't running out of oil and gas, we are running into
    it big time. We have hundreds of years of supply.
        You can also see the big reduction in imports, which is a
    huge lift to the American economy.
        The second point I would like to make is maybe the most
    important, that without the shale oil and gas revolution, it is
    quite possible the United States never would have exited the
    recession. That is how important this energy revolution has
    been to the American economy.
        And if you look at the second chart in my testimony, I
    think it underscores this point. If you look at all employment,
    this goes through the end of 2013, you can see that virtually
    on net, all the new jobs created in the U.S. economy over the
    last six or 7 years have come from the oil and gas industry. We
    just 2 months ago got to the point where in all industries
    where we replaced all the jobs that were lost during the
    recession. Without the oil and gas industry, we would have been
    in a much, much worse situation and the recession would have
    lasted much, much longer.
        The third point I would like to make is that many people a
    number of years ago bet on green energy. Dr. Peiser made a
    great point on this, that European countries did go all in on
    green energy 10 or 15 years ago and it hasn't worked. What you
    are seeing is right now if you look at what is happening in
    Germany, Germany's industrial production fell the last quarter.
    This is the second quarter in a row that Germany has had net
    zero industrial growth and many of the experts believe that one
    of the reasons that German manufacturing and Germany industrial
    production has fallen so dramatically, so far behind the United
    States, is because of the fact that they are trying to use
    green energy, which is much, much more expensive. When you are
    competing in international markets and your energy prices are
    much higher, you suffer.
        By the way, I would make a side point that one of the real
    strong elements of the U.S. economy today is the U.S. economy
    is going through a manufacturing renaissance that a lot of
    people would not have predicted. It is going on in Michigan, it
    is going on in Indiana, my home State of Illinois, it is going
    on in Ohio and Pennsylvania. A lot of this industrial
    manufacturing rebound in autos and steel and other vital
    industries like plastics and chemicals is a direct result of
    the energy boom.
        The next point I would like to make is that shale gas is
    reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This is something that
    most Americans are not aware of, because the media doesn't talk
    a lot about this. But if you look over the last 10 years, the
    United States has reduced our CO2 emissions more
    than any other industrialized country that we compete with.
    This is according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, and
    you can see in the chart that we have reduced our carbon
    emissions. The EU has reduced their emissions but not as much
    as we have. And of course, China and India are out through the
    roof in their CO2 emissions.
        The lesson here by the way is that when you shift to shale
    gas, natural gas as a form of electricity production, you
    dramatically reduce your greenhouse emissions. So the shale gas
    is a wonder fuel, because it is cheap, it is abundant, it is
    made in America and it is clean-burning.
        In my last minute or so, I would like to make this point
    about income inequality. As an economist, as you all know, this
    has become one of the No. 1 issues for Americans, is the gap
    between the rich and poor. One of the points I would like to
    stress to you all is that by making anything that makes
    electricity production more expensive, it makes it more
    expensive for people to heat their home, makes their utility
    bills more expensive, actually makes income inequality worse.
    Because the poor spend a much higher fraction of their income
    on electricity than the rich do.
        So we ought to look at this energy boom as also something
    that is reducing income inequality in the United States. By the
    way, if we adopt policies and regulations that make electricity
    more expensive, we are making the income inequality problem
    worse.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Moore. I
    appreciate your testimony. I thank the entire panel for being
    here.
        Let me first ask Dr. Shindell, you testified that
    aggressive reductions in methane and black carbon could
    reducing warming rates over the next decade by about half. You
    are at Duke University now, which is in North Carolina, which
    has a coastline which is experiencing some sea level rise.
    Could you correlate the reduced warming rates as a result of
    reducing methane and black carbon emissions to the sea level
    rise that we are seeing in Rhode Island and you are seeing down
    in North Carolina?
        Mr. Shindell. Yes, thank you.
        Sea level rise is a cumulative process, as heat goes
    steadily into the oceans. So it is a function of how much we
    have changed climate or emitted things like carbon dioxide in
    the past as well as our future emissions. So it would be
    somewhat less than temperature, which is a bit of a faster
    response. But it would be of similar magnitude, say on the
    order of maybe 40 percent rather than 50 percent. So a very,
    very large difference.
        Senator Whitehouse. And you have been a scientist at NASA
    for the last 20 years or so?
        Mr. Shindell. Correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. You were at the Goddard Institute, a
    pretty prestigious place?
        Mr. Shindell. Yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. There is a theory that is brooding
    around Congress that the science of climate change is being
    fabricated by a global cabal of scientists who are eager to get
    their hands on research grants and get attention. You been
    watching the scientific discussion on climate change for many
    years now from a very prestigious location. As you have watched
    this debate develop, is there any truth to that theory that we
    sometimes hear here?
        Mr. Shindell. There is not only no truth to that theory,
    there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Not only did I
    work at a NASA institute, but NASA along with other space
    agencies around the world launches the instruments, and we
    watch the planet from satellites. We see everything all around
    the world. And the satellites don't lie. They tell you that the
    ice caps are shrinking. They tell you that the ocean is rising.
    They tell you that the temperature is going up. They tell you
    that the atmosphere is getting wetter as the air holds more
    water vapor.
        They even show that carbon dioxide is rising and they show
    that methane is increasing. All of the things we are talking
    about today.
        It has been analyzed by independent science bodies from
    almost every country in the world, almost everybody with
    credibility, with expertise in the subject matter says that
    yes, the evidence is overwhelming. The IPCC group sponsored by
    nations around the world says that the evidence is unequivocal.
        Senator Whitehouse. Not a word one usually hears in
    science.
        Mr. Moore, you founded the Free Enterprise Fund with the
    well-known economist Dr. Arthur Laffer, who was associated with
    the Reagan administration. Your bio on the Heritage Foundation
    website identifies Dr. Laffer as having a profound influence on
    your thinking. Dr. Laffer has supported a carbon fee on
    economic grounds, if, big if, it is offset with reductions and
    other taxes.
        Mr. Moore. Right.
        Senator Whitehouse. Let me quote him, what we had to say in
    support: ``I do it for pure economics. I am worried about
    economic growth in the United States and the creation of jobs,
    output and employment. If you tax people who work, you are
    going to get less people working. What the carbon tax would do
    is remove the tax from people who work and put it on a product
    in the ground. That would be very beneficial for the economy,
    pure and simple.''
        Do you agree with Dr. Laffer?
        Mr. Moore. I am familiar with the repot that you are
    talking about that Dr. Laffer put together. There is a big
    debate among conservative free market economists about whether
    a swap, where you taxed carbon and you reduce taxes on, say,
    capital or work, would be something that would be economically
    efficient. It is something I would certainly be open-minded to.
    I would have to see the details of the plan. It is certainly
    true, when you tax something, you want to tax bad things and
    you want to lower taxes on good things. So work and effort and
    capital investment are good things, and pollution is obviously
    a bad thing. So if a deal were well constructed, it might be
    something there might be bipartisan agreement on.
        Senator Whitehouse. You said in your testimony shale gas is
    reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Why is that a good thing?
        Mr. Moore. Why is it?
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Mr. Moore. Well, because carbon emissions, as a goal we
    want to reduce carbon emissions. I am not an expert on global
    warming. But other experts here know far more than I do about
    that.
        Senator Whitehouse. And you don't dispute them? You believe
    that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a worthy goal?
        Mr. Moore. Reducing carbon emissions?
        Senator Whitehouse. Greenhouse gas emissions was the phrase
    you used. So I am using your own words.
        Mr. Moore. I think it probably should be a goal, and my
    point, when you asked me why is it that we are reducing our
    carbon emissions due to natural gas is because we are
    converting, as you know, Senator, we are converting electricity
    production in the United States away from coal and far more
    toward natural gas. I think next year will be the first year we
    produce actually more electricity from natural gas than from
    coal. That has been a positive development.
        Senator Whitehouse. The microphone now goes to the
    distinguished Ranking Member, Senator Vitter of Louisiana.
        Senator Vitter. Thank you, and thanks to all of our
    witnesses. I am sorry I was late. I was on the floor to
    actually help pass something into law, which doesn't happen
    every day. I came here as soon as I could, and thank you for
    all of your testimony.
        I will start with Dr. Peiser. Thank you, Dr. Peiser,
    particularly for traveling so far to be with us.
        You brought up with me and my staff the serious concern of
    the cycle of subsidies that seems to occur once renewable
    energy mandates are initiated. How has subsidizing renewable
    energy led to subsidizing other energy sources and industries
    in Europe? Why does this seem to occur as a direct and natural
    consequence of these climate regulations?
        Mr. Peiser. The problem, a lot of unintended consequences
    of well-intended policies occurred mainly because most
    policymakers were told that the science is settled and
    therefore the policies are settled. That is, I think, the
    biggest problem in Europe, that with the kind of hammer of the
    science, very poorly thought-through policies were adopted.
    Regardless of the science, the policies make no sense. And even
    a carbon tax, if I may say so, would not make any sense if it
    is just adopted by the U.S. Because it has exactly the same
    effect, that it would drive energy-intensive industries to
    locations where there is no carbon tax. So a carbon tax would
    only make sense if it were adopted universally so that there is
    a level playing field.
        In Europe, what has happened is because there is now a
    situation where there is a lot of renewable energy which is
    expensive because of the subsidies. But what it is happening,
    and that is a risk that the U.S. faces even with cheap shale
    gas, is that conventional power plants are no longer running
    efficiently. They are only used, or many of them used for
    backup or only 70 percent. They run uneconomically, they are
    loss-making.
        So what is happening in Europe, the governments in Europe
    are now subsidizing conventional, have to subsidize
    conventional power plants to keep them open, to keep the lights
    on. Now that we have subsidized renewable and we have
    subsidized conventional power plants, the energy price
    obviously goes up dramatically, has doubled in the last 10
    years by and large. And the industry comes and says, we can't
    survive with these energy prices, so they are subsidized as
    well.
        That is the sad, sad situation based on well-intentioned
    policies, policies that have caused a lot of damage, not just
    to industry but also to a lot of families.
        Senator Vitter. OK. And can you also discuss exactly how
    the opt-out provisions of the new EU deal on climate works, and
    if you believe member states are beginning to recognize the
    economic challenges they face in looking for basically a way
    out, at least in the face of China and India not having
    anything similar or rigorous?
        Mr. Peiser. We have for the first time that I can remember
    a European leadership that seems to be more skeptical about
    these policies than the U.S. Administration. I can't recall any
    time that that has ever happened, because Europe always adopted
    much more aggressive and much more green policies. Here, the EU
    leaders have made their targets for 2030 conditional on a
    legally binding U.N. agreement in Paris. And they have agreed
    that unless there is this agreement that is binding, and I
    understand there are now big problems even as we speak in Lima
    about this very issue, the Europeans will revisit their
    targets.
        So the targets are conditional on a binding agreement,
    whereas the U.S. Administration seems to be quite happy to go
    it alone.
        Senator Vitter. OK. And Mr. Moore sort of related to that
    in terms of unilateral versus something else. Could you comment
    on President Obama's recent deal with China and what did China
    get out of the United States in the deal?
        Mr. Moore. I am deeply skeptical that China will ever meet
    these targets that were allegedly agreed to. Actually, if you
    read the statement by the Chinese president, it says we intend
    to do this, which is hardly an iron-clad agreement. If you look
    at that chart, Senator, it is that chart on the third or so
    page of my testimony, you can see that the last 10 years, while
    we have reduced our carbon emissions by about 6 percent, China
    has increased theirs by 156 percent. That doesn't sound like a
    country that is getting very serious about reducing their
    carbon emissions.
        We do know that China is building substantial numbers of
    new coal-burning power plants. They are buying a lot of coal
    from the United States. They also, as I am sure you read, they
    have a new agreement with Russia where they are going to spend
    several hundred billion dollars on pipelines to pipeline oil
    and gas from Russia into China. As I said in my testimony, that
    doesn't sound like the actions of a country that intends to
    substantially reduce its fossil fuels production.
        Senator Vitter. And in fact, beyond that, couldn't an
    argument be made that they almost have an incentive to increase
    their peak several years out, because reductions are measured
    from a peak?
        Mr. Moore. Look, if their economy continues to grow at the
    rate that it has, what has happened in China over the last 25
    years, one of the great economic miracles of human history,
    where they have been growing at a 12 to 13 percent compounded
    rate. Not many economists think they can keep that up. But even
    if their growth rate falls in half, they are still growing at 6
    to 7 percent.
        They are going to consume a whole lot, they are going to
    need coal, they are going to need oil, they are going to need
    gas, they are going to need nuclear power. And they may also
    use green energy as well if it can be done and produced in a
    way that is cost-efficient. I think the point that Dr. Peiser
    and I are making is that right now it is not cost-efficient. It
    is substantially higher in cost to generate electricity from
    wind and solar than it is from coal, natural gas and nuclear
    power.
        Senator Vitter. OK, thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Senator Merkley and then Senator
    Boozman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Dr. Moore, you are familiar as an economist with the
    concept of externalities. In Oregon right now we are seeing a
    fire season that has grown by about 60 days over a couple of
    decades. We are seeing greater pine beetle damage to our
    forests. We are seeing problems with the reproduction of
    seafood, particularly oysters, because of the 30 percent more
    acidic ocean water. And we have a great drop in the snow pack
    in the Cascades, which is leading to significant water
    shortages in the Klamath Basin.
        These are externalities that it didn't sound to me like you
    have calculated into your analysis. Why is that?
        Mr. Moore. You are right, there are externalities with any
    form of energy production, no question about it. So the
    tremendous amount of water that is used by modern drilling
    techniques is certainly a cost. As I said, there are costs to
    nuclear power in terms of the risk of accidents, there are
    costs from oil in terms of oil spills. Obviously wind and solar
    have external costs as well. We have to kind of balance in the
    cost and the benefits.
        You are quite right, taking in those costs may reduce some
    of the benefit that I documented by some degree, but not
    substantially in my opinion. Because we are talking about
    costs, for example, of energy production from coal and natural
    gas that is very substantially lower than the cost of
    producing, say, from windmills or solar paneling.
        Senator Merkley. I would certainly encourage you to
    actually look at these externalities seriously. For example,
    the impact on coral reefs around the world from the greater
    acidity and the warmer oceans is having a big impact on
    fisheries around the world. Just these examples, they are
    multitudinous. And when you add up the costs, it suggests that
    maybe the calculation is that the costs do exceed the benefit.
    These are not captured in the price of carbon burning.
        I wanted to turn to Dr. Shindell. I read recently, and you
    mentioned space-based analysis of what is going on on the
    earth. I believe that I read about satellite data that was
    related to tracking methane concentrations. I think it referred
    to a methane bubble in areas where fracking has occurred. There
    is enough fugitive methane from fracking that it has started to
    become detectable. Are you familiar with that particular part
    of the problem?
        Mr. Shindell. Yes, thank you. What we heard before was that
    natural gas has a lower greenhouse gas emission than coal. In
    fact, what is really the case is natural gas has lower carbon
    dioxide emissions than coal. But methane is a much more
    powerful greenhouse gas, and hence the focus of part of this
    bill. Indeed, it only takes a few percent methane leakage to
    more than offset any benefits that you get from carbon dioxide.
    So industry tends to report, and in many cases it seems
    accurate, that their leak rates are extremely low from oil and
    gas operations, often less than 1 percent.
        However, when you measure from aircraft flying overhead, or
    look down from satellites, often you see far larger methane
    amounts that are very inconsistent with those estimates derived
    from industry. They imply several percent.
        In fact, you even see places like some towns in Wyoming
    that have severe ozone levels, greater than, say, New York or
    Los Angeles, even though there is not a lot of industry, there
    are not a lot of vehicles. So it is clearly all the pollution
    coming from the oil and gas extraction operations in the
    vicinity.
        So that is the beauty of having these space-based
    observations. Researchers are not allowed to go in except where
    industry permits them to take measurements at the wellhead, at
    the gas facility. But from the air, you can really see that
    there are at least, in many cases, or at least in some cases,
    there are extremely high levels, which means that natural gas
    is actually contributing more to climate change than coal.
        But again, we have the technology to clean it up. So if we
    use best practices that are in place in some places, if we use
    those elsewhere, we could really make a big difference.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        Mr. Fay, by various analyses, there is a translation of, if
    you will, gigatons of carbon dioxide that translates into
    certain parts per mission, about eight gigatons, translates
    into one part per million in the atmosphere. And by some
    calculations, to have a 50 percent probability of staying
    within the 2 degrees Centigrade, we can only burn about 500 to
    600 gigatons, or create that much carbon dioxide by burning
    fossil carbon.
        If you look at it that way, and on our current trend, we
    would expend that entire carbon budget within 16 to 20 years.
    Is that a reasonable way of looking at this particular issue?
        Mr. Fay. I am not the carbon guy, but I guess I would have
    to say that from the industry perspective, we have tried to
    look at this at longer than a 16 to 20 year timeframe. Because
    some of these are very long-term issues to resolve. The
    Montreal Protocol that we have dealt with in the ozone-
    depleting compounds is now almost 30 years old. And we have
    identified paths forward for reducing the HFCs that are
    substitutes that are out there and growing rapidly between now
    and 2050. It can be done in a cost-effective way, it can
    increase energy efficiency which can help reduce carbon dioxide
    output as well.
        But I think it is important to take a long-term view in
    terms of what is achievable and identify goals and objectives
    that you can reach. I think that is what the industries that
    are involved in the HFC side have done and have proposed.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Fay, thank you very much.
        Senator Whitehouse. Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Moore, you mentioned the problem of income inequality
    being made worse by high electricity prices impacting single
    moms, people on fixed incomes. Can you talk a little bit about
    heavy manufacturing, what that would do to jobs? It sounded
    like in Mr. Peiser's testimony that in Europe, you have a
    situation where they are moving jobs offshore to beat the
    standards that are on them. Here, it looks to me like you have
    a possibility of meeting the standards, but also in this global
    economy making it such that without that on you, then your cost
    point would make it such that you could be competitive.
        Can you talk a little bit about that? And the other thing,
    too, is you have a dirtier world than ever because they are
    moving them to places where they are not going to do what we
    do, and we can be proud of our reductions, and we need to
    continue our reductions. But they are not going to do what we
    do, and what Europe has done.
        Mr. Moore. So let me answer the first part of our question,
    which is about this issue of inequality. The big story of the
    U.S. economy over the last six to 8 weeks, of course, has been
    the massive and dramatic reduction in gasoline prices. We know
    why that is happening, gasoline prices are falling primarily
    because the United States output has increased so
    significantly.
        Now, I just did the calculations on this, Senator. Every
    time the gasoline price at the pump falls by one penny, by one
    penny, that is a $1 billion tax cut for the American consumer.
    So that means that low income people who don't have to spend
    $70 to fill up their tank, but are only spending say, $50,
    because we had a 40 percent reduction in the gasoline price,
    that means they could spend it on other things. I think
    Christmas sales are going to be high as a result of these
    reductions in gas prices.
        So this is a big stimulus to the economy. My point was, the
    people who benefit the most are people at the bottom, because
    they are paying three to four times the percentage of their
    income on electric utilities than a wealthy person.
        Now, the other point that is related to this, which I find
    interesting, you here in the Senate debate oftentimes the Low
    Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program, that is a big
    program of importance in the State of Rhode Island. There have
    been some calculations, I can get you the studies on this, that
    show that the reduction in the natural gas price, because of
    fracking and horizontal drilling, that reduction in the price
    in terms of utilities, that has benefited poor, low income
    Americans, the bottom fifth, to three times as much as the Low
    Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program.
        So think of this gas boom as three times more important for
    low income people than LIHEAP. So that is a big benefit to the
    poor.
        I think Dr. Peiser could probably answer the second part of
    your question better than I can.
        Senator Boozman. About heavy manufacturing moving overseas
    and how that affects jobs.
        Mr. Peiser. Well, we all know what happened to the textile
    industry in Europe. It doesn't exist anymore, because it went
    to cheap labor countries. And there was a big piece in the
    Financial Times last week saying, cheap energy is the new cheap
    labor. Manufacturing that requires a lot of energy moves to
    countries where energy is cheap. That is happening now. The
    European policymakers are desperate, not because of energy
    poverty and inequality, they never care about that, but that
    the industry now is moving away and that European companies,
    instead of investing in Europe, are investing in North America
    because of cheap energy. That drives them crazy.
        And the other thing is that in Germany, heavy industry is
    subsidized to the tune of $3 billion Euros per year. So they
    are essentially exempt from the energy price that the ordinary
    families have to pay.
        So ordinary families and small businesses are hit twice
    over. First they have to pay for the extremely high energy
    price and then they have to pay for the subsidies for the
    industry, just to stay there.
        As I said in my testimony and I have explained it in more
    detail, if you ever wanted to develop a policy that is most
    damaging to your country and to your industry, you couldn't
    make a better policy than the one Europeans have adopted. It is
    as dramatic as that. And for the first time, European leaders
    are willing to speak out. This was a taboo issue in Europe. It
    is not like in the U.S. I understand in the U.S. it is a very
    partisan issue, very, very heavily debated. In Europe, it was
    whole party, complete consensus and no one dared ask awkward
    questions. This has changed. People are beginning to ask these
    questions, why did we do that and why did no one else follow
    us.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think
    anybody on this panel minds asking awkward questions.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        I appreciate very much the testimony of the witnesses. I
    would ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made a
    part of the record, which it was not, because I was not here at
    the beginning.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]

               Statement of Hon Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senator
                         from the State of Rhode Island

        Good afternoon. Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member
    Vitter for holding this important hearing, and to Senator
    Murphy [and Senator Collins if she attends] for joining us
    today and working across the aisle on the Super Pollutants Act.
    I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the bill and hope
    to see more practical and bipartisan legislation to protect the
    environment and manage the ever-worsening problem of climate
    change.
        Climate change is a clear and present danger for the
    American public and the world. Measurements of the atmosphere
    and oceans reveal dramatic, even unprecedented, changes in the
    climate. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, the first 10 months of 2014 have been the
    hottest since record keeping began, and 2014 is on track to be
    the hottest year on record. We're already seeing that unchecked
    emissions of greenhouse gases are pushing the climate into new,
    costly, and potentially dangerous territory.
        While we cannot ignore the dominating effect of carbon
    pollution on the climate, super pollutants like HFCs, black
    carbon, and methane also contribute to the problem. These super
    pollutants trap much more heat, ton-for-ton, than carbon
    dioxide.
        Let's consider methane. The latest scientific findings show
    that the warming potential of methane is 28 times that of
    carbon pollution when measured over 100 years and 84 times
    greater over 20 years. Methane is also the second most abundant
    greenhouse gas emitted by human activities after carbon
    pollution, and the bulk of U.S. emissions--about 30 percent--
    are from oil and natural gas production.
        Methane that's leaked, vented and flared from oil and gas
    systems pollutes the environment and wastes a finite resource.
    Methane is, after all, the principal component of natural gas.
    Oil and gas producers who fail to prevent emissions of methane
    are wasting energy and losing potential profits. According to
    Ceres, in 2012 alone, North Dakota oil and gas producers flared
    more than $1billion worth of natural gas in the Bakken.
    Addressing methane emissions from oil and gas production and
    distribution will provide significant economic and
    environmental benefits.
        Some super pollutants are also linked to diminished air
    quality and threaten public health. For example, the list of
    health effects from black carbon exposure includes asthma,
    bronchitis, lung cancer, and premature death. In my home State
    of Rhode Island, the number of children and adults that suffer
    from asthma are both higher than the national average. We also
    have one of the highest rates for lung cancer in the Northeast.
    Lost school and work days, as well as the costs of inhalers and
    emergency room visits, add up. Reducing black carbon emissions
    has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support in this committee
    and I believe this bill provides us another opportunity to work
    together in a bipartisan manner to address this public health
    threat.
        Until there is an economy-wide price on carbon pollution,
    methane, and other greenhouse gases, we need to use all the
    tools at our disposal to deal with climate change. This bill
    aims to do just that. By supporting common-sense measures to
    reduce the emissions of these powerful greenhouse gases, it can
    help us reduce the threat of climate change and improve
    environmental quality.
        Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for
    holding this hearing, and to our distinguished panel of experts
    for joining us today to help us understand to the risks of
    super pollutant emissions as well as how we stand to benefit
    from reducing them.

        Senator Vitter. Mr. Chairman, if I could follow you with
    the same unanimous consent, request for my opening statement.
        Senator Whitehouse. Absolutely. That will be done.
        Senator Whitehouse. And there is a Politifact that was done
    with respect to the minority leader's statement that the U.S.-
    China climate deal means China won't have to do anything for 16
    years. And the conclusion of Politifact was that that was a
    mostly false statement. I ask unanimous consent that the
    relevant Politifact be made a part of the record as well.
    Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Anything further to be made a part of
    the record?
        The record of the hearing will remain open for an
    additional 2 weeks for anything else that anybody cares to add.
    I know Mr. Fay is going to be sending us the list of his
    membership. I appreciate very much the association's testimony
    in support. I know a lot of work went into this.
        This was a potentially kind of an interesting breakthrough
    moment, to have a bipartisan bill that actually addresses
    climate change. So I will close by remarking on that. I think
    that is a good sign that the wall that has divided us is
    starting to come down in a few ways, the reality of climate
    change is being acknowledged, the forcing role of greenhouse
    gases is being acknowledged and now we are debating solutions,
    which I think is a much healthier conversation than having
    parallel realities.
        With that, we will be adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:29 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

               Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Delaware

        I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing
    and thank Senators Murphy and Collins for their legislation
    that addresses so called short-lived climate pollutants.
        I've been working across the aisle for years to address
    many of these pollutants and welcome this legislation.
        Pollutants such as HFCs and black carbon are called short-
    lived climate pollutants because they don't stay in the air for
    a long time. But despite their short time in the air, we know
    they do great damage to our health and to our climate.
        That is why reducing these harmful pollutants are a win-
    win-win. We lessen the threats posed by climate change; we
    improve public health; AND we create economic opportunities in
    this country.
        And though short-lived climate pollutants isn't the easiest
    thing to say, some of these pollutants are the easiest and most
    cost effective climate pollutants to clean up.
        For example, the No. 1 source of black carbon in the United
    States is old, dirty diesel engines. We can retrofit or replace
    these old, diesel engines with new, American-made technology
    and reduce black carbon emissions by more than 90 percent.
        Without assessing climate benefits, our diesel retrofit
    programs authorized through the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act
    are some of the most cost-effective clean air programs we have
    today. In fact, DERA provides more than $13 in health and
    economic benefits for every Federal dollar spent.
        I've been proud to work with former Senator Voinovich and
    Senator Inhofe on reducing black carbon pollution from our
    diesel engines.
        This bill takes another approach to addressing black carbon
    and I look forward to hearing more.
        Before I finish, I would be remiss not to mention the
    benefits of reducing the short-lived climate pollutant called
    hydrofluorocarbons--or HFCs. I am pleased to see language in
    this bill that addresses these pollutants.
        As many of you remember, in the 1970's and 80's we faced
    another global environmental crisis--there was a hole in the
    ozone and it was growing at an alarming rate. Most scientists
    believed many of the compounds used globally in refrigerants,
    aerosols and solvents were to blame.
        As a result, the global community came together to phaseout
    ozone depleting compounds --known as the Montreal Protocol.
    Since the ratification of the Montreal Protocol, we have seen a
    97 percent reduction in the global consumption of controlled
    ozone depleting substances.
        Because HFCs are easy to use, efficient, and safe for the
    ozone many countries, including ours, transitioned ozone-
    depleting substances to HFCs. Unfortunately, HFCs have a high
    global warming potential.
        If HFCs usage continues unchecked, HFCs could account for
    approximately 20 percent of greenhouse gas pollution by 2050.
    So by using HFCs, we are address one global environmental
    problem, while contributing to another.
        Luckily, companies in this country are already producing
    replacements for HFCs that can be used just as safely without
    damaging our climate.
        Since 2007, I've worked with my colleagues, stakeholders
    and the EPA to find a glide path to reduce the usage of HFCs in
    this country. Although we haven't passed legislation, I am
    heartened to see the Administration work with industry and the
    international community to reduce HFCs here at home and
    globally.
        In closing, I believe the Murphy-Collins legislation is an
    important next step to building on the work we've done here at
    home--through programs like DERA--and globally to reduce short-
    term climate pollutants

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]