[Senate Hearing 114-119]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-119
ROAD TO PARIS: EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AGENDA
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 8, 2015
__________
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
97-557 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
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 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
Ryan Jackson, Majority Staff Director
Bettina Poirier, Democratic Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 8, 2015
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 3
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
prepared statement............................................. 94
WITNESSES
Hausker, Karl, Senior Fellow, World Resources Institute.......... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Responses to additional questions from Senator Booker........ 37
Ladislaw, Sarah O., Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and
National Security Program, Center for Strategic and
International Studies.......................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Holmstead, Jeffrey R., Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani........... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Responses to additional questions from Senator Wicker........ 64
Bookbinder, David, Partner, Element VI Consulting................ 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Rabkin, Jeremy A., Professor of Law, George Mason University
School of Law.................................................. 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Congressional Record full text, Framework Convention on Climate
Change, Senate--October 7, 1992................................ 113
Center for American Progress--The Authority for U.S.
Participation in the Paris Climate Agreement................... 129
Open Secrets, Lobbyist Profile Summaries for Jeffrey Holmstead,
2010-2015...................................................... 173
ROAD TO PARIS: EXAMINING THE PRESIDENT'S INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE AGENDA
AND IMPLICATIONS FOR DOMESTIC ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. James M. Inhofe
(chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Capito, Crapo, Boozman,
Sessions, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Now that Senator Sessions and Senator
Wicker are here, our meeting will start. Senator Cardin, it is
good to have you here, and I see Senator Sullivan in there.
Well, there has been a lot of coverage regarding the United
Nations Twenty-First Annual Climate Conference at the end of
the year. We have heard how the President has pledged the U.S.
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent compared
to the 2005 levels by 2025, and how he is going to lead other
countries in openness, transparency and accountability.
You know, we have been here before. I remember so well,
Copenhagen, I think it was about 5 years ago in Copenhagen,
they all went over there, Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, John Kerry,
Al Gore and they assured everybody that we were going to pass
legislation over here that was going to control the emissions
and all these good things were going to happen.
I went over as the one man truth squad, Barbara, to let
them know that it wasn't going to happen and it didn't happen.
So all of these statements sound good in a press release, but
the slightest level of scrutiny reveals a significant lack of
authenticity, substance and merit.
While the President is lecturing the rest of the world on
the importance of credibility and transparency, he is going out
of his way to write the U.S. Senate and the American people out
of the final agreement. That is why we are here today, to take
a closer look at the President's international climate agenda
and what it actually means for the United States.
The President may have creative legal arguments to sign
onto a legally non-binding international agreement but he does
not have the backing of the U.S. Senate, which significantly
limits such an agreement's domestic application. I carried that
same message in 2009 when I attended the Copenhagen meeting, as
I mentioned just now.
The President's Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution--that is a new one, that is INDC--is not only
unrealistic, but it also does not add up. Let's show the chart
up there, that is the white area that does not add up. I am
sure that our witnesses will be addressing this.
According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber of the
Presidents INDC, it is about 33 percent short of meeting stated
targets. Mr. Bookbinder, who has done his own analysis, and I
appreciate your being here, Mr. Bookbinder, I recall when you
were our witness before. You were a witness for Senator Boxer,
now you are one of our witnesses. He has done his own analysis
and has found even a greater gap. I am looking forward to his
thorough breakdown. Additional studies are forthcoming showing
similar results.
The Administration has yet to describe how the 26 to 28
percent of greenhouse gas reductions would be achieved. In fact
the Administration's own deputy director for climate policy
remains unable and unwilling to answer this basic question.
Further concerning is that a large portion of the INDC
stated targets depend on the successful implementation of the
President's so-called Clean Power Plan. This proposal not only
faces significant obstacles at the State level, there are 32
States now on record opposing it, but it would also increase
the price of electricity, depress local economies and cost $479
billion and ship American jobs overseas. It is also on legal
treacherous ground especially in the wake of the two recent
Supreme Court decisions, UARG v. EPA and Michigan v. EPA, which
was just decided last week.
The remaining portions of the INDC rely on an exaggerated
stretch of current and future regulatory actions without
consideration for inevitable legal challenges and delays, which
I can assure you would take place. Even the very notion that
the President's domestic and international climate agendas are
about protecting the environment lack credibility. His EPA did
not even bother to access the minuscule environmental benefits
associated with the Clean Power Plan and its supposed core
domestic climate policy. The international climate negotiators
have already admitted that while they are not entirely clear on
what actions will need to limit the temperature increases to 2
degrees Celsius, they are sure that the Paris agreement will
not be enough.
The Paris agreement will be the 21st such agreement that is
under the United Nations, and it is a pretty expensive one.
They eat well and drink well but nothing ever happens. I thank
the witnesses for being here and look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Boxer.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
There has been a lot of coverage regarding the UN's climate
conference at the end of this year. We've heard how the
President has pledged the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions by 26 to 28 percent compared to the 2005 level by
2025 and how he is going to lead other countries in ``openness,
transparency and accountability.''
All of these statements sound good in a press release, but
the slightest level of scrutiny reveals a significant lack in
authenticity, substance and merit. And while the President is
lecturing the rest of the world on the importance of
credibility and transparency, he is going out of his way to
write the U.S. Senate and the American people out of a final
agreement. That is why we are here today--to take a closer look
at the President's international climate agenda and what it
actually means for the U.S.
The President may have creative legal arguments to sign on
to a ``legally nonbinding'' international agreement, but he
does not have the backing of the U.S. Senate, which
significantly limits such an agreement's domestic application.
I carried that same message in 2009 when I attended the UN's
COP-15 in Copenhagen, and it remains true.
The President's Intended Nationally Determined Contribution
(INDC) is not only unrealistic, but also does not add up.
According to a recent analysis by the U.S. Chamber, the
President's INDC is about 33 percent short of meeting the
stated targets. Mr. Bookbinder, who has done his own analysis,
has found an even greater gap, and I am looking forward to his
thorough breakdown. Additional studies are forthcoming showing
similar results.
The Administration has yet to describe how the 26-28
percent of greenhouse gas reductions would be achieved. In
fact, the Administration's own Deputy Director for Climate
Policy remains unable and unwilling to answer this basic
question.
Further concerning is that a large portion of the INDC 's
stated targets depend upon the successful implementation of the
President's so-called Clean Power Plan. This proposal not only
faces significant obstacles at the State level--32 States
oppose the $479 billion Federal takeover that would increase
the price of electricity, depress local economies and ship
American jobs overseas--but is also on legally treacherous
ground especially in the wake of two recent Supreme Court
decisions--UARG v. EPA and Michigan v. EPA decided just last
week. The remaining portions of the INDC rely on an exaggerated
stretch of current and future regulatory actions without
consideration for inevitable legal challenges and delays.
Even the very notion that the President's domestic and
international climate agendas are about protecting the
environment lack credibility. His EPA did not even bother to
assess the minuscule environmental benefits associated with the
Clean Power Plan--his supposed core domestic climate policy--
and the international climate negotiators have already admitted
that while they aren't entirely clear on what actions will be
needed to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius,
they are sure that the Paris agreement will not be enough.
I thank the witnesses for being here and look forward to
their testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The impacts of dangerous climate change are all around us.
Just ask the people living in Texas who have had to face
extreme weather rainfall events, record flooding. Or
Californians who have had to deal with the crippling drought or
New Yorkers who have suffered through Superstorm Sandy. Or
those in Hawaii who are having to choose between saving their
beachfront condominiums or losing their beach and their coral
reefs. I saw that with my own eyes.
Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken serious
steps to address this growing crisis by reducing dangerous
carbon pollution. The U.S. has committed to cutting our carbon
pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
I believe this is achievable, because the President's Climate
Action Plan contains the tools that are necessary to get the
job done, even without Congress.
We have a decades-long record of success in our landmark
environmental laws. We have withstood moves in this Committee
and on the Senate floor to disassemble those landmark laws,
such as the Clean Air Act.
Now, my colleague was right: we failed to pass cap and
trade. The highest level we got was 56 votes, we needed 60. The
bottom line is we have the Clean Air Act. The opponents of
doing anything under the Clean Air Act took the case to the
Supreme Court. It took 8 years. The Supreme Court found very
clearly that carbon pollution is covered under the Clean Air
Act.
So the Obama administration has taken significant steps
under the Clean Air Act. They have included establishing new
fuel economy and carbon standards for cars and heavy duty
trucks which has been embraced by Detroit. We have seen a
rebirth of the automobile industry. We see that the power plant
sector, we are moving toward cleaning that up. We have fights
on our hands, I predict we will win those fights. The U.S. has
always been a leader. We don't sit back and let other countries
lead the way. And we are.
Climate change is a global problem. Two weeks ago, the G7
agreed to work with all countries to reduce carbon emissions by
up to 70 percent by 2050. Action by the Obama administration
prompted China to make its first-ever commitment to reduce
carbon pollution. Already coal use is down in China by 8
percent just this year.
The EU has pledged to reduce carbon pollution, and
developing countries such as Mexico and South Korea have come
forward with their first-ever commitments to control their
carbon pollution. Already, countries covering over 60 percent
of global carbon emissions have agreed to take action to cut
carbon, and other countries will join the effort.
There are huge benefits when we undertake cutting carbon.
The recent study by the EPA shows us 57,000 fewer deaths per
year from poor air quality, with economic benefits valued at
$930 billion, 12,000 fewer deaths per year from extreme heat
and temperature changes, $180 billion per year in avoided
damages from water shortages, $3 billion per year avoided
damages from poor water quality, $11 billion a year avoided
losses in our ag sector, 40 to 59 percent fewer severe and
extreme droughts and almost 8 million fewer acres burned each
year from wildfires.
This is something we have to do. And it breaks my heart
that the party in control of this Committee doesn't believe in
any of this and is trying to fight it. But the American people
see it clearly. So this Congress is out of step with the
American people.
The economy today will be made stronger if we take these
steps. We see as a result of the Obama Plan 470,000 additional
green jobs compared to the status quo.
In California, I think I can speak to this. We are on a
path to cut our carbon pollution by 80 percent by 2050. That is
required under our law at home. Very strongly supported by the
California people. We had oil companies try to overturn it and
the people said, sorry, we are sticking with it. During the
first year and a half of my State's cap and trade program we
added 491,000 jobs, a growth of 3.3 percent which outpaces
national growth.
I welcome the witnesses today. I feel stronger than ever
the President is on the right path. This Committee is on the
wrong path.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:]
Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer,
U.S. Senator from the State of California
The impacts of dangerous climate change are a daily reality
that we simply cannot ignore. Just ask people living in Texas,
who have had to face extreme weather rainfall events and record
flooding, or Californians who have had to deal with a crippling
drought, or New Yorkers who suffered through Superstorm Sandy.
Fortunately, the Obama administration has taken serious
steps to address this growing crisis by reducing dangerous
carbon pollution. The U.S. has committed to cutting our carbon
pollution by 26 percent to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
This target level, known as an ``intended nationally determined
contribution'' (INDC), is an achievable goal because the
President's Climate Action Plan contains the tools necessary to
get the job done. We have a decades-long record of success of
our landmark environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act
which has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Obama administration has already taken significant
steps toward reaching this target, including establishing new
fuel economy and carbon standards for cars and heavy duty
trucks, proposing to cut carbon pollution 30 percent from our
power sector, and reducing carbon pollution from Federal
operations by 40 percent in 2025.
The U.S. has always been a leader among other nations, and
we are leading the way to address dangerous climate change. We
know that we must cut harmful air pollution to protect the
health and welfare of the American people, and our resolve has
brought other countries to the table to make their own domestic
commitments to reduce carbon pollution.
Climate change is a global problem, and we are seeing
progress on the international level. Two weeks ago, the G7
agreed to work with all countries to reduce carbon emissions by
up to 70 percent by 2050.
Action by the Obama administration prompted China to make
its first-ever commitment to reduce carbon pollution--and
already, coal use is down by 8 percent in China this year.
The E.U. has also pledged to reduce carbon pollution
significantly, and developing countries, such as Mexico and
South Korea, have come forward with their first ever
commitments to control their carbon pollution. Already,
countries covering over 60 percent of global carbon emissions
have agreed to take action to cut carbon pollution, and other
countries will soon join this effort before heading to Paris
later this year.
Taking action globally to address the threat of climate
change will not only help us avoid the worst impacts, but it
will provide enormous health and economic benefits to the U.S.
A recent peer-reviewed study by the EPA analyzes in detail the
benefits of global action on climate change. According to this
study, by the end of the century there will be:
57,000 fewer deaths per year from poor air quality, with
economic benefits valued at $930 billion;
12,000 fewer deaths per year from extreme heat and
temperature changes;
$180 billion per year in avoided damages from water
shortages;
$3 billion per year avoided damages from poor water
quality;
$11 billion per year avoided losses in our agricultural
sector;
40-59 percent fewer severe and extreme droughts; and
Almost 8 million fewer acres burned each year from
wildfires.
While taking action to reduce our carbon pollution avoids
these significant impacts in the future, it is also good for
our economy today. A recent report by the New Climate Institute
found that the policies in the U.S. INDC will result in the
creation of 470,000 additional green jobs, compared to the
status quo.
We have seen this type of success in my home State of
California. California is on a path to cut its carbon pollution
by 80 percent by 2050, as required under our greenhouse gas
emissions law, A.B. 32. During the first year and half of my
State's cap and trade program, California added 491,000 jobs--a
growth of almost 3.3 percent, which outpaces the national
growth rate of 2.5 percent.
I welcome the witnesses today and look forward to a
discussion on how the Obama administration's actions to reduce
dangerous carbon pollution are leading the world to address the
climate crisis.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
We do have a very distinguished panel of Karl Hausker,
Senior Fellow at the World Resource Institute; Sarah Ladislaw,
Director and Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security
Program, Center for Strategic and International Studies;
Jeffrey Holmstead, Partner, Bracewell and Giuliani; David
Bookbinder, and I am real pleased, David Bookbinder was here
before but he is here as a majority witness today. He has
testified here before. And Jeremy Rabkin, Professor of Law,
George Mason University School of Law.
We will start with you. Your entire statement will be part
of the record, try to keep your remarks to right around 5
minutes. Mr. Hausker.
STATEMENT OF KARL HAUSKER, SENIOR FELLOW, WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE
Mr. Hausker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
My name is Karl Hausker, and I am a Senior Fellow at the
World Resources Institute. WRI is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
environmental think tank that goes beyond research to provide
practical solutions to the world's most urgent environmental
and developmental challenges. Thank you for the opportunity to
serve on this panel.
The main message in both my oral and written testimony is
this: the U.S. can meet the Administration's 2025 emissions
reduction target while maintaining economic growth and
employment.
My testimony has four key themes. First, a growing body of
evidence shows that economic growth can go hand in hand with
efforts to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases. Recent
experience at the national and State levels demonstrates that
we can achieve both. What Senator Boxer referred to in
California is a perfect example of that.
However, the policies often necessary to unlock these
essential economic win-win opportunities have market barriers
and hamper investment on what are otherwise beneficial
activities. So good policies can unlock the win-win
opportunities for the economy and the environment.
So we can achieve a prosperous low carbon future by
harnessing key drivers of economic growth including more
efficient use of energy and natural resources, smart
infrastructure investments and technological innovation. These
low-carbon solutions often create net economic benefits. For
instance, we know that increased efficiency pays off.
Let me give three examples. With strengthened CAFE and GHG
standards, drivers will save on average a net of $3,400 to
$5,000 over the life of light duty vehicles made in 2025
compared to those made in 2016.
Another example: Federal appliance efficiency standards put
in place over the past 25 years have resulted in $370 billion
in cumulative utility bill savings. Finally, States with energy
efficiency targets and programs in place are generally saving
customers $2 for every $1 invested.
Let me turn to my second theme. The U.S. emissions
reduction target announced in March is ambitious, but it is
achievable. We can meet this target using existing Federal laws
combined with actions by the States. Well designed policies can
accelerate recent market and technology trends in renewable
energy, energy efficiency, alternative vehicles and in other
areas, combining to reduce emissions 26 to 28 percent below
2005 levels.
WRI's recent report delivering on the U.S. climate
commitment shows several pathways to get there. However, U.S.
and global efforts to combat climate change can't stop in 2025.
Deeper reductions will be needed in the decades ahead to avoid
the worst impacts of climate change.
Therefore, it is incumbent on this Congress to play a
constructive role in efforts to reduce emissions in the years
ahead. This can and should be done in a cost effective manner
such as by establishing an economy-wide price on carbon.
Third, we can achieve the U.S. 2025 target while generating
multiple co-benefits and maintaining economic growth. The
proposed Clean Power Plan, a key policy for meeting the target,
will result in reduced exposure to particulates and to ozone
pollution. EPA estimates these air pollution co-benefits alone
are worth $25 billion to $62 billion per year.
And the economy is projected to keep on growing. The Energy
Information Administration projects the macroeconomic impacts
of the proposed Clean Power Plan will be very small,
approximately a tenth of a percentage point decrease in GDP in
2030. This in the context of economy projected to grow from $17
trillion to $24 trillion in 2030. Similarly, the EIA is
projected net employment impacts are essentially zero.
Fourth, U.S. leadership is essential to the global efforts
to limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
levels. Failure to meet that goal will increase economic,
social and environmental risks for the United States and for
all nations. We can't simply ask, how much does it cost to
avoid climate change. We must also ask, what does it cost our
country if we don't avoid climate change? If nations fail to
combat climate change, the U.S. will suffer billions of dollars
in damage to agriculture, forestry, fisheries, coastal inland
flooding damages, along with heat-driven increases in
electricity bills, among multiple other impacts.
So our country has a choice. It can show international
leadership and bring the same spirit of competition, ingenuity
and innovation to the climate challenge that it has brought to
other problems. Or we can be left behind as other countries
develop the solutions, capture the markets for the fuels,
technologies and processes that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
In closing, the target is ambitious and achievable, fully
compatible with economic growth and employment. Thanks, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hausker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Hausker. Ms. Ladislaw.
STATEMENT OF SARAH O. LADISLAW, DIRECTOR AND SENIOR FELLOW,
ENERGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAM, CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
Ms. Ladislaw. Good morning, members of the Committee. Thank
you very much for the opportunity to testify today.
My name is Sarah Ladislaw, and I direct the Energy and
National Security Program at the Center for Strategic and
International Studies. CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit
organization in Washington, DC. My remarks today represent my
own personal views and not those of CSIS as an institution.
The Obama administration came into office in 2009 with a
goal to reestablish the United States as leader in the fight
against global climate change. Climate leadership under the
Obama administration has two primary goals. One, lead by
example through domestic action; and two, create a durable
international framework that is able to mobilize and coordinate
global efforts. These two goals are interdependent, because no
single country acting alone can effectively deal with the
challenges of global climate change and because the global
community will not mobilize without leadership from major
economies.
I plan to make three points about the Obama
administration's actions to address climate change in the
context of these ongoing international negotiations. One, U.S.
actions are in line with the actions of other major economies.
Two, ambition plays a key role in the negotiations, and it is
important to understand that. Three, more action will be
necessary to meet global targets.
First, some people have criticized the Obama administration
for pursuing emissions reduction policies. They argue that
other countries are not taking similar measures and that acting
alone will hurt U.S. economic competitiveness. In reality,
climate change policies and regulations are spreading around
the world.
According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel's Fifth
Assessment report, as of 2012, two-thirds of global greenhouse
gas emissions are covered by some sort of national policy or
strategy compared to 45 percent in 2007.
As of yesterday, 18 formal pledges, covering 46 countries,
well over 55 percent of global emissions, were submitted in
advance of the climate negotiations in Paris and more
submissions are expected by October. In this regard the United
States is acting in line with and not contrary to the global
trend with regard to mitigation activity.
The question of whether the actions taken by the United
States are comparable to the efforts of other countries is
inherently difficult to assess. Take for example two of the
major parties in the negotiations, China and the United States,
two of the world's largest emitters with different economies,
different political structures and different approaches to
climate change.
The U.S. commitment to reduce emissions from 2005 levels is
arguably more stringent than the Chinese goal to peak
emissions. But the Chinese target to increase fossil fuel
resources in the energy mix is arguably more ambitious than the
corresponding U.S. goal. Exact comparability is difficult to
assess, but both countries' cumulative targets represent an
increase in ambition from the business as usual future.
Second, several analyses have suggested that the United
States will be unable to meet its 2025 emission reduction
target under the actions announced thus far. While this point
has been used to criticize the Administration's goal, it is not
clear that having a stretched target is negative in the context
of international negotiations.
All countries want to see that other countries are working
hard to meet their emission reduction pledges. It signals a
level of ambition that entices participation from certain
countries as well as more ambitious action from others. For
example, the idea that the United States and China are
committed to emissions controls despite having a potentially
hard time meeting those targets, whether that is true or not,
can catalyze additional action by other countries.
Third, according to the International Energy Agency
analysis, current pledges would be consistent with an average
temperature increase of 2.6 degree Celsius by 2100 and 3.5
degree Celsius by 2200. Clearly, additional action will be
required if the standing global target is to be achieved.
This begs the question, if the negotiations fail to yield
emission reduction pledges on the order of the 2 degree target,
how can they possibly be considered a success? As the IEA
states in their report, the Paris outcome will be successful if
it is viewed as the foundation upon which to build a future
action.
According to the IEA, the new international negotiating
process will be less about big deliverables and big agreements
but instead about creating a virtuous cycle of strengthening
mitigation ambition over time. From a U.S. domestic standpoint,
if the goals of this negotiation are achieved, the United
States and other major emitters will eventually have to take
additional domestic action to reduce emission further.
The Obama administration has sought to take a leadership
role in the realm of international climate action. The
Administration's agenda has grounded in domestic action with an
eye toward building long-term sustainable strategy for
achieving deep emission reductions and preparing the United
States and other countries to cope with the impacts of a change
in climate.
The key question for this Congress, the next Administration
and Congress as well as the partners at the State and local
level in industry and in civil society is how to ensure that
the policies being put into place today are the ones that most
effectively address the challenge of global climate change and
serve the long-term interest of the Country in light of this
ongoing challenge.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ladislaw follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you Ms. Ladislaw. Mr. Holmstead.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY R. HOLMSTEAD, PARTNER, BRACEWELL AND
GIULIANI
Mr. Holmstead. Thanks to all of you for inviting me to
participate this morning. My name is Jeff Holmstead. I am
currently a partner at the law firm of Bracewell and Giuliani.
But I spent much of my career in the Federal Government, in the
White House during the deliberations over the 1990 amendments
to the Clean Air Act and then as the Head of the EPA Air Office
from 2001 to 2005.
I kind of feel like we are talking about different issues
up here today. And I guess I have just a different view of what
it means to make a commitment in the international community. I
guess I am puzzled by the assertion that the President shows
leadership by making promises that he has no way of keeping.
Last November, the Administration announced it had reached
this landmark deal with China. They made a very specific
commitment, 26 to 28 percent reduction. Then in March, the
Administration made the same commitment to the rest of the
international community in its official statement for the Paris
Climate Change Conference. The Administration has said
repeatedly that it will meet this commitment by taking actions
under current law and that no action from Congress is needed.
As you may remember, when the Administration announced this
agreement with China, senior officials took to the airwaves to
tout it. Mostly, they talked about what a great achievement it
was that they had persuaded China to agree to increase its
emissions only for the next 15 years.
But they also explained how they had come with their very
specific 26 to 28 percent pledge. EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy stated that ``the entire target was based on a
thorough interagency review of the available tools in each of
the agencies. The ones that are outlined in the Climate Action
Plan, but also other tools and initiatives that could be teed
up and brought to fruition very quickly.''
White House senior advisor John Podesta wrote on the
official White House blog that the 26 to 28 percent numbers
were ``grounded in an intensive analysis of what actions can be
taken under existing law.''
Given these very specific targets, I assumed that there was
a document that tallied up the emissions reductions that would
be achieved by all the things that had been identified by this
thorough interagency process and this intensive analysis. But
many people, including a researcher from the Congressional
Research Service, have asked the Administration for such a
document or for any other evidence that this extensive analysis
ever took place.
But the Administration has never provided anything like
this. In fact they won't even say whether such a document
exists. As you heard from others, a number of people have
looked at this and said all the things they are talking about
are not nearly enough to meet the 26 percent reduction that the
Administration has promised to achieve.
Now, it is possible that the Administration does have a
plan that includes additional actions they have not yet
announced. Perhaps the agricultural sector, given it is the
section with the largest emissions that have not yet been
regulated. But it now seems more likely that the Administration
simply does not have a plan for achieving even a 26 percent
reduction by 2025.
In my view, this is troubling. When the President or the
State Department makes a commitment on behalf of the United
States, this is not something that should be taken lightly. I
think most Americans would be concerned to learn that the
President has made a commitment to the international community
that he does not intend to meet.
Various officials in the Administration have said that
climate change is a legacy issue for the President. Under our
constitutional system, when a President wants this type of
legacy he and his Administration normally work for legislation
to accomplish it. But this Administration has never done this
type of work. To be sure, the President has called on Congress
to pass climate change legislation. But the Administration has
never made a serious effort to engage Congress or stakeholders
on the difficult issues involved.
It is useful to contrast the Obama administration's
approach to climate change legislation to the approach taken by
the first Bush administration when President George H.W. Bush
called for a fundamental overhaul of the Clean Air Act. That
approach led to the 1990 amendments, the last major
environmental statute to be passed by Congress.
President Bush did not just call on Congress to pass
legislation. His Administration developed a detailed
legislative proposal and submitted it to Congress. Then, while
the relevant congressional committees were working on the
legislation, the Bush administration did not just stand back
and hope for the best. At least five senior White House
officials were involved in the legislative effort on almost a
daily basis for more than a year, meeting with Members of
Congress and congressional staffers and with industry and
environmental groups and often hammering out specific
compromises.
Even though the Obama administration has said it views
climate change as a legacy issue, it is has never done any of
these things.
I do not pretend that the 1990 amendments represent an
ideal piece of legislation. There is much to criticize about
those amendments. But the process that led to the amendments
was instructive. It shows what an Administration can do even
when Congress is controlled by the opposing party to get
legislation through Congress when such legislation is actually
a priority for the President.
In my view, it is a shame that the Obama administration has
not made this type of effort when it comes to climate change
and has instead pursued an ill-advised regulatory approach that
simply will not meet the commitment that they have made to the
international community.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holmstead follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Holmstead.
Mr. Bookbinder. Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF DAVID BOOKBINDER, PARTNER, ELEMENT VI CONSULTING
Mr. Bookbinder. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Boxer.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the United States
commitment to the Paris climate process. My name is David
Bookbinder. I am a Partner in Element VI Consulting and adjunct
fellow at the Niskanen Center here in Washington.
Chairman Inhofe, you mentioned that I have testified here
previously as a witness, asked by Senator Boxer. I think it is
a bit of sad commentary that we have to point out that someone
can be a witness for both a Republican Chairman and a
Democratic Chairman. I think that is a sad that this is seen as
something extraordinary.
In order to make sure that I had the right format for my
testimony, I actually looked at the testimony that I gave back
in 2007. The first sentence in that testimony bears repeating
today. It was, ``Let me begin acknowledging that climate
change, a problem that affects every aspect of our environment
and whose solution will affect every aspect of our economy, is
best addressed by tailor-made legislation.'' Seven years later,
those words are even more true.
First, as predicted, we have seen enormous amounts of
Federal and State regulation and subsidies dealing with the
climate issue. That is a second best solution. Everyone,
everyone agrees that regulation and subsidies are not the
optimal way to deal with climate change.
Second, 7 years later, the effects of climate change are
all the more apparent. The science is, if anything even more
certain, and the effects are growing and are becoming worse
every day. Action is something we need to take.
So custom made Federal climate legislation, preferably in
the form of a carbon tax would be the most useful thing
Congress can do in order to make an effective international
agreement possible. That international agreement is the only
way we are going to deal with climate change.
And now that I have lectured you as to your
responsibilities, I am going to talk about what the
Administration has proposed, which is the Paris commitment.
What is the fuss? This is arithmetic, it is nothing but
arithmetic. The INDC submission lists a series of regulatory
measures and says we can get 26 percent from below 2005 by
2025. All I did was take a look at each of those measures, take
the maximum amount of emissions reductions from each of those
measures as described either by EPA or by the Department of
Energy or to the best of my ability and my partners' ability.
By the way, speaking of bipartisanship, I was the former
Chief Climate Counsel of Sierra Club. My partner was the former
Director of Climate Policy at ExxonMobil. And we have yet to
have a policy disagreement.
So we went down this list of measures and we looked at the
numbers. We added them up and we did the exact same thing that
Karl Hausker did at WRI, that I understand the Chamber did,
that other groups have done. We all came up with the same
result. We all say that these listed measures get us between
68, 70, 75 percent of what we need, depending on how you treat
those numbers. The fact that all that all these different
analyses come up with the same range tells you that you should
have some confidence in that.
I want to emphasize that this should come as no surprise to
you and what is more, this is no surprise to anybody. We are
not the only ones who can do the numbers. I promise you the
rest of the world can look at the same regulatory measures and
can do the numbers just as well as we can. The Chinese, the EU,
the Indians, the developing countries, they all have very
sophisticated people who understand U.S. regulatory measures.
They are all going to come up with the same answer.
No one has disagreed with these analysis. If I have left
out any regulatory measures or my numbers are wrong, I would
deeply appreciate somebody pointing that out to me, and I would
be delighted to go back and work through them and see if we can
get to a more accurate figure. So far no one has done that. But
I welcome, I welcome anyone coming forward and saying, no, you
are wrong about X, Y or Z, in which case I would absolutely,
after discussing it with them, come up with a better number.
And that is all I have to say right now.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bookbinder follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Bookbinder. Professor
Rabkin.
STATEMENT OF JEREMY A. RABKIN, PROFESSOR OF LAW, GEORGE MASON
UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Mr. Rabkin. I am Jeremy Rabkin. I teach at the George Mason
Law School.
I should start by saying I am not an expert on climate
science. I am not even a specialist in environmental law. I
have written about international law and foreign relations law.
The issue that I want to put in focus here is, can we undertake
a response to the climate challenge through the President
acting on his own.
A lot of people who are advocating for this say, oh, yes,
we do this all the time. The President signs agreements on his
own, it is true. But they are very specialized, very limited in
their effect, or else they have been authorized by Congress. If
this were a normal thing to do, you have to ask yourself, why
didn't President Clinton think of this? Because President
Clinton negotiated the Kyoto protocol, saw that he didn't have
the votes in the Senate. He didn't say, never mind, I don't
need the Senate, I will just do it because I am President and
that is what matters.
Let us remind ourselves that Vice President Gore was right
there, he was actually the one who went to Kyoto. Gore was very
committed to this. He didn't say, no record of him even in
private telling President Clinton, you can do this on your own,
don't worry about it.
Now we have the successor protocol which seems to be
basically the same thing but with more ambitious goals and we
are told, last time we needed the Senate, we don't need the
Senate, we don't need anyone, the President can do this on his
own. That is a pretty astonishing thing and I think the Senate
needs to look hard at that and ask itself, going forward, does
it really want to let the President make these kinds of
commitments.
So I briefly want to discuss two follow-on issues that
arise. It is said, well, it is OK for the President to do this,
because he has all kinds of domestic legislation which he can
rely on. I think the answer to that is maybe or maybe not. We
will see. But I think it is pretty likely going forward that
the EPA and others will say, this domestic legislation has to
be interpreted in the light of commitments that the President
has made to foreign governments. That is also disturbing
because what it means is, when you enact legislation, that is
just the starting point. The President then gets to bargain
with foreign governments about what that legislation is
supposed to mean. I think that is very disturbing.
The final thing I want to talk about is what it means to
have a political commitment. We are told it is not a treaty, it
is not even really an agreement. Much of it would be a
political commitment meaning the President has promised.
Why does that bind the United States? I think there are two
possibilities. Either it is just talk and so it is meaningless,
or actually the President thinks and other people think we are
kind of on the line because we have made this promise. It is
true and it is fair enough to remind ourselves that Presidents
in the past have made political commitments. President Nixon
went to China, and his first visit there in 1972 he issued with
Chairman Mao the Shanghai Communique saying, going forward, we
promise each other our relations are going to be governed by
these principles. There are a number of examples of political
commitments like that.
I believe without exception they dealt with diplomatic
relations, things we would do out in the world. They were very
vague and there was no kind of implementation machinery. What
we are doing here is something that doesn't fit that pattern at
all. What we are doing here is exactly what we did previously
by treaty. We are saying let's have a very elaborate
international agreement which is a very precise commitment
about how much we will do in how many years. We will have
implementing machinery. We will have regular conferences.
It is all the aspects of a treaty, not just a political
statement, not just a political framework. All the aspects of a
treaty except for the Senate.
If you think that, yes, the President can make that kind of
political commitment and then the Congress is obliged to follow
through, I have two questions for you. First, the President has
been saying for years he wants to do something about
immigration reform. Why can't he make a political commitment to
the President of Mexico saying, we are going to change American
immigration law in the following ways? I will draw on existing
legislation to the extent that I think I can. And then the
Congress has to follow through and do the rest because I have
committed the United States. How do you feel about that? I
don't see that it is different.
Or another example, Canada has much stricter gun control
than we do. What if the President makes a political commitment
to the Prime Minister of Canada, we both agree that there have
to be tighter gun controls on both sides of the border,
especially our side in America. So I am going to use existing
authority to the extent I think I can and beyond that, Congress
is obligated because I promised.
It is really worth asking yourselves, how that is
different. I don't see how that is different. So I think going
forward if the Senate shrugs its shoulders and says the
President can commit us on this very complicated, costly,
elaborate, ambitious climate agreement, maybe he can do it on
many, many other things and is that really the way you want to
be governed.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rabkin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Rabkin. Those are
some new thoughts we haven't heard before.
We are going to have 5-minute rounds. We are going to ask
our colleagues to adhere to the clock here because we have an
excellent turnout and we want to get to everyone here. So let
us start with you, Mr. Bookbinder.
While I do not agree with some of the conclusions you have,
I do agree that you have put together a study--put that chart
back up, will you, that 30 percent chart--that shows the way we
are trying to do this now doesn't seem to work. Now, you are on
the same side as the White House in terms of your philosophy on
global warming and all this. I am sure you have talked to them
about this chart, about the gap that is there, this
approximately a 30 percent gap which I think everyone agrees is
there.
Were you not able to get information that you needed?
Mr. Bookbinder. Chairman Inhofe, I have not talked to the
White House about this. I have made public statements on blog
posts, I have responded to e-mail inquiries, I have talked on
the phone to people. I have had no communication with the
Administration or any officials concerning this analysis.
Senator Inhofe. Let me ask you, then. Why would the
President come out with INDC that doesn't work mathematically?
Mr. Bookbinder. I think you would have to ask the President
or Secretary Kerry.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Holmstead, on this same chart giving
the 30 percent gap, what concerns me, and it concerns a lot of
people from my State which is a rural State, which is an
agricultural State. Where would you go to make up, what are the
possibilities of where you would go to make up the gap?
Mr. Holmstead. Well, if you look at the major sectors that
emit greenhouse gases, most of them are now regulated or soon
will be under various regulatory programs that the
Administration has either adopted or promised to adopt.
The biggest remaining sector that is not regulated is the
agricultural sector. And they have a voluntary program. There
is a history that sometimes voluntary programs become
regulatory programs. And so if they are serious about filling
in that 30 percent gap, you might anticipate that they would do
such things as mandating changes in the way that conservation
tillage is done, restricting nitrogen fertilizer, mandating
different treatment of manure waste and other such things.
Senator Inhofe. Crop insurance to emissions or something
like that?
Mr. Holmstead. Who knows? But if you are looking for where
you might get those emission reductions, I think that is really
where you would have to start.
Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that, because I look at this,
we have studied in our Committee to see where would you go,
were that to be desired. My farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma
understand this. They understand that the greatest problem they
are facing is nothing that we normally face in the Ag Bill but
it is overregulation by the EPA. And they are afraid of that.
Professor Rabkin, if the President signs a unilateral
political agreement, let's say he figured a way to do that in
Paris. And I know something about this, I mentioned the
Copenhagen agreement, when I went over. Those 191 countries
assumed since they had the Vice President, they had the whole
group that I mentioned to you over there assuring them,
including Obama, that once those people agreed, it doesn't take
legislation. They probably still assume that today.
Now, if they were to figure out a way to do this without
coming for ratification to Congress, and I might remind
everyone here, I know you are aware of this, but it is worth
bringing up again, the Clinton-Gore Administration never did
bring this for ratification to Congress. Because they knew it
would not be ratified.
Now, if they are able to do something without ratification,
without Congress's input, wouldn't the next Administration be
in the same position to undo anything that was done?
Mr. Rabkin. The next Administration could certainly say
they made a political commitment, we repudiate it. That was
their commitment, you shouldn't have trusted them. Of course,
that is an awkward thing to do because it does undermine the
credibility of American Presidents. So I think it is lamentable
that President Obama is putting his successor in that position,
either repudiate my extra-Constitutional commitment or else
undermine American credibility.
But of course they will be tempted to say, maybe they will
be under a lot of pressure to say, I as Obama's successor
cannot be committed by his unilateral posturing.
Senator Inhofe. Very good. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. Thanks.
Mr. Rabkin, are you aware that 94 percent of our treaties
are executive, done by the executive? Are you aware of that?
Mr. Rabkin. I am very aware of that.
Senator Boxer. Good. Because you didn't seem to, you were
so outraged. Now, are you aware that in 1992, Congress ratified
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change?
Totally bipartisan. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Rabkin. Very aware of that.
Senator Boxer. Are you aware that these negotiations are
based on that ratified treaty?
Mr. Rabkin. Yes.
Senator Boxer. So whoa, whoa, whoa. Then, your comments,
sir, just make no sense at all. You speak as if this is a rogue
President.
Now the fact of the matter is not only do we have that
vote, but we also have the Clean Air Act. Do you know how many
times the Supreme Court has upheld that Clean Air Act? And how
many decisions there have been that said greenhouse gas
emissions are covered? Do you know how many cases there have
been?
Mr. Rabkin. About greenhouse gas emissions? Probably single
digits.
Senator Boxer. There are three, that is right, and the
Supreme Court has spoken. So the fact is the Clean Air Act
governs here, you have the treaty that governs here, you have a
President who is carrying out the Clean Air Act. And frankly,
sir, if he didn't he would be hauled into court.
So I just have to say that your outrage doesn't match the
law.
Mr. Rabkin. OK, so we agree on certain facts. That is what
the initial colloquy was, do you know this, do you know this,
yes, I know it, I know it, I know it. Now let me explain to you
why I wouldn't say I am outraged, but I am very concerned and
let me explain to you why.
Senator Boxer. But, sir, you already did in your----
Mr. Rabkin. Oh, no, no, no you are raising challenges and
you have to let me answer.
Senator Boxer. I have the time if Senator Inhofe wants to
give you more time. Your entire presentation was bashing this
Administration without mentioning once that the Supreme Court
upheld this law and that we have a convention that was ratified
by Congress. So I am going to move on because I only have 3
minutes left. Mr. Bookbinder, I want to talk to you about
something.
Senator Wicker. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that we extend
Senator Boxer's time, so that the gentleman could answer the
question and she could still have the remaining 2 minutes and
32 seconds to ask what she wants.
Senator Inhofe. A good suggestion, Senator Wicker from
Mississippi, that is exactly what we are going to do. Because
he wants to respond and we are going to give him time, if
necessary my time on a second round. Go ahead, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. OK, can I go back to 2:32 because I was
interrupted?
Senator Inhofe. Sure.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Bookbinder, you have come a long way in my direction
since the last time I saw you. You are calling for a carbon
tax. And that is where I am at. I think it is the simplest way
and it is a way to put a price on carbon that is fair.
And you point out that your partner, his background is with
Exxon and I was going to ask you about that. You say you have
never had a disagreement with him? Does he agree with you that
a carbon tax is the right way to proceed here?
Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, he does.
Senator Boxer. Well, that is really newsworthy. Let's get
that in the record, that ExxonMobil believes we should fight
climate change with a carbon tax.
Mr. Bookbinder. Excuse me, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. A former employee of Exxon.
Mr. Bookbinder. Yes. Please do not----
Senator Boxer. I am sorry. You are right. A former employee
who spent how many years with Exxon?
Mr. Bookbinder. Decades.
Senator Boxer. Decades with Exxon. This is progress, folks,
and I hope that would be the news coming out of here.
Now, Mr. Bookbinder, I also reread your testimony and I
appreciate the fact that you are not backing off from what you
said. So I am just going to read certain things.
You said severe heat waves are projected to intensify in
magnitude and duration over the portions of the U.S. where
these events are already occur, with likely increases in
mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, young
and frail. Do you still believe that?
Mr. Bookbinder. I assume you are reading from my previous
testimony?
Senator Boxer. Correct.
Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, I still believe those things.
Senator Boxer. OK. Do you also agree now that climate
change is also expected to facilitate the spread of invasive
species and disrupt ecosystems?
Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. Do you also agree that climate change is
expected to lead to increases in ozone pollution, with
associated risks in respiratory infection and aggravation of
asthma?
Mr. Bookbinder. Yes, I do.
Senator Boxer. Now, what you say in this in the very
beginning is worth repeating. You point out that the best way
to approach fighting climate change is through specific
legislation. I couldn't agree with you more. I agree that the
carbon tax, cap and trade, the things I have been fighting for.
But you said in the absence of such legislation the Clean
Air Act will still enable us to get the job done. Do you still
agree with that?
Mr. Bookbinder. It depends really on what you mean by the
job.
Senator Boxer. They are your words, not mine.
Mr. Bookbinder. I understand that. Senator, aside from that
first paragraph that I cribbed, I haven't looked at that
testimony since I gave it.
The Clean Air Act will reduce carbon dioxide emissions,
there is no doubt about it. That is why I advocated
successfully to bring the Massachusetts case. It is simply not
as efficient a means.
Senator Boxer. I agree.
Mr. Hausker, does your analysis indicate that the U.S.
target of reducing carbon pollution in the range of 26 to 28
percent by 2025 is achievable?
Mr. Hausker. Yes, I want to emphasize very strongly that it
is achievable and I want to say I disagree strongly with Mr.
Bookbinder's characterization of the WRI report as consistent
with what he did in showing that there is a gap or that there
are missing tons. I am happy to expand on that if you like.
Senator Boxer. My time has run out. I so appreciate the
time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. Now, I am going to take the Chair's
prerogative and give Mr. Rabkin a chance to respond as he was
so anxiously trying to do a just a moment ago.
Mr. Rabkin. Thank you.
So on the first point, 94 percent of our agreements are
executive agreements, that is true. But almost all of them are
either authorized by Congress like the trade agreements.
Senator Boxer. So is this one.
Mr. Rabkin. No, this----
Senator Boxer. Yes, in 1992.
Mr. Rabkin. So you want to say the Framework Convention on
climate change authorized the President to do anything that he
wanted later on. And my simple answer to that is, if that is
true why didn't anyone tell President Clinton? Why didn't
President Clinton say, oh, Kyoto doesn't have to be a treaty, I
was authorized by the 1992 Framework Convention. Al Gore, so
enthused about the subject, why didn't he say, Mr. President,
you don't need a treaty, don't bother with the Senate, you can
do this inherently. So that seems to mean not at all
convincing.
And I do want to go back and say apart from things that are
implementing treaties, there are a number of executive
agreements which are implementing treaties. Almost all of them
are extremely narrow and technical, which is not what this is.
This is a very big, ambitious thing.
The last point that you raised, which I think you were most
substantive, don't we have the Clean Air Act and hasn't the
Supreme Court said that is relevant to it? Yes, we do and yes,
they have said it. It matters a lot when you get down to it.
What is it that we think we are achieving in regard to climate
change?
It is one thing to say we actually have a treaty which
Congress has considered in some form. Maybe not two-thirds of
the Senate but some congressional participation. That is one
thing.
It is another thing to say, oh, you know, the President has
made a deal so that Clean Air Act now needs to read this. And
on particular issues there could be billions of dollars at
stake. You are really making the Clean Air Act into a kind of
blank check for the President and whatever people he happens to
make agreements with. I think that is a real problem.
Just a last thing. We have this case, Michigan v. EPA. And
it is about mercury and there is actually an international
convention on mercury. Some amicus brief said, hey, what about
the international convention on mercury. Neither the Government
nor the Supreme Court brought it up. I think that is because on
both sides they thought, that is really dicey, let's not go
there. I do not think it is at all settled that as long as the
President has made a promise you can reinterpret domestic
statutes accordingly.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Professor, for that
clarification. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
panelists, for your testimony. We are dealing with some
important issues.
I just would say this. The American people are getting
frustrated, that we have individuals executing policies that
affect their everyday life, driving up the cost of their whole
existence based on legal theories that are so tenuous that it
is almost breathtaking in its thinness.
For example, the Clean Air Act was passed with no thought
whatsoever that we would be controlling CO2, an
odorless, tasteless gas that is a plant food. And now we have a
5 to 4 decision in the Supreme Court, five members of the Court
now saying that EPA can regulate your backyard barbeque, your
lawnmower or any other item that emits any CO2. It
is a breathtaking thing.
Congress has never voted for it, Congress will not vote for
it. American people do not favor it. In a poll I saw recently
of 18 important issues listed, global warming was 18th.
So here we are, a group of elitists in this country,
through the thinnest of legal arguments, imposing huge costs on
the American economy. I am worried about it. I don't think this
is democracy in action, and we have to be careful about how
this all occurs.
Mr. Rabkin, it seems to me that Congress, in resisting a
President's overreach, could do something like Senator Cotton
did with regard to Iran, write a letter and make sure that
people who sign on with the United States know that is not
binding on the United States. Is that a legitimate response?
Mr. Rabkin. I think it is a really good idea. Because one
of the things that we are going to be told is, oh, you are
undermining trust in America if you don't follow through on
what the President has promised. What you are proposing is to
warn people, don't rely on what the President is saying, he is
speaking for himself.
Senator Sessions. That is exactly what is going to happen,
colleagues, on the trade, the motion authority. If the
President comes back with a bad treaty and somebody says, oh,
we shouldn't adopt it, he is going to say, well, you authorized
me to negotiate it. And now I negotiated it and you are going
embarrass the United States before the whole world and we are
going to be a renegade nation, et cetera.
Mr. Rabkin. Could I just say, it is bad to disappoint
foreigners. It is also bad to disappoint Americans and if you
are elected by Americans maybe you should take the American
reaction more seriously.
Senator Sessions. Exactly. Well, as lawyers we know who we
represent. Our duty is to our constituents who voted for us.
Now, with regard to what the other action would be we could
pass legislation. But as a practical matter, any legislation
that were to be passed is subject to a Presidential veto, is
that correct, Mr. Rabkin?
Mr. Rabkin. Yes, what happened with Kyoto was the Senate
passed a nonbinding resolution. So it wasn't subject to a veto.
But that was registering how much opposition there was to the
impending Kyoto deal. I believe that is why President Clinton
backed off from submitting it, because of the resolution.
Senator Sessions. Well, I believe it was 97 to nothing,
that resolution rejecting the Kyoto requirements.
Mr. Rabkin. Right.
Senator Sessions. Yet now we have a President signing a new
one that would go even further than Kyoto, and there is no
public support or congressional support that would ratify that
in any way.
Mr. Rabkin. I think you have described this exactly.
Senator Sessions. Senator Boxer talked to you about these
treaties that we have signed. But if it is signed by the
President and not ratified by Congress, it is not a treaty, is
it?
Mr. Rabkin. The word treaty is usually reserved for things
that are ratified by the Senate.
Senator Sessions. Now, with regard to another response the
American people might have, what else could Congress do to
represent their constituents if the President commits us to
something that is not appropriate? It seems to me that the
power of the purse remains maybe the only realistic option. Can
Congress use the power of the purse to rein in a President who
is spending to carry out programs that the people don't agree
with?
Mr. Rabkin. That is why they have the power of the purse.
Senator Sessions. So the power of the purse is essentially,
Congress has no duty, does it, to fund any program that it
believes is inimical to the interest of the constituents they
represent?
Mr. Rabkin. Well, this is what we will be arguing about.
The President will say, I have made a political commitment and
you have to support me because we will be embarrassed. And the
Congress will have to consider that.
Senator Sessions. Well, I appreciate your testimony. This
is a matter of real concern, and I have come to see more and
more that the classical powers of Congress are being eroded.
And it is not just the power of the Congress, it is the
American people's power, their ability to control the people
who control them. So now we are going to have somebody in some
entity in some foreign country that is going to be directing
us.
Mr. Rabkin. I would just like to add one word to what you
said, which is Constitution. We have certain background
assumptions about how our Government is supposed to work. That
is why we have a Constitution and what this is fundamentally
about is saying, ah, that is old-fashioned, forget that. That
didn't work for Clinton. We are moving forward with something
different in which the President gets to commit us. That is a
real change in our Constitution.
Senator Sessions. A grave concern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Sessions follows:]
Statement of Hon. Jeff Sessions,
U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama
Today's hearing, ``Road to Paris: Examining the President's
International Climate Agenda and Implications for Domestic
Environmental Policy,'' highlights a disturbing trend: we are
dealing with an Administration that seeks to impose its will by
any means possible, whether through unauthorized administrative
fiat or international negotiations which usurp the Senate's
advice and consent role provided by the Constitution. In the
case of climate regulations, President Obama has committed the
United States to achieving 26 percent to 28 percent reduction
in greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, compared to a 2005
baseline--this commitment was made through the submission of an
``Intended Nationally Determined Contribution'' to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In other words,
despite repeated instances in which Congress has blocked
climate change legislation, this Administration has decided to
willfully ignore the legislative branch and unilaterally pursue
crippling emissions reductions in an international forum, at
great cost to the American people and to our system of
government.
The consequences of the President's international climate
change agenda cannot be overstated. In his written testimony
for today's hearing, Professor Jeremy Rabkin provides the
following:
``The danger down the road is that this approach to
committing the United States won't be seen as exceptional but
as a general precedent for how our country coordinates its law
with international standards in the era of global governance .
. . We cannot go very far down that road before the idea that
we are governed by law starts to look like a fable for school
children. Our own elected Congress will share its legislative
powers and responsibilities with the world at large--as the
President (or his officials) borrow the authority of
congressional enactments for purposes not endorsed and perhaps
not even clearly contemplated by the enacting Congress.''
The President's international climate agenda represents yet
another grave threat to American sovereignty and our
constitutional republic. I am reminded of the numerous issues
that have been expressed regarding the President's negotiations
with Iran, and in particular Senator Cotton's concise open
letter to Iranian leaders reminding them of the unique
governmental structure contained in the Constitution. In that
letter, I joined Senator Cotton and several of my colleagues in
observing that the next President could revoke an executive
agreement with Iran ``with the stroke of a pen,'' and future
Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.
In the context of current and future climate negotiations,
international parties should likewise be aware that the
President is not a king, and any agreement reached by the
President is of limited effect without congressional approval.
Moreover, just as a future President could revoke an executive
agreement with Iran ``with the stroke of a pen,'' so too could
a future President withdraw from any international climate deal
lacking congressional approval.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Interesting discussion, thank you all for your testimony.
Does anyone here disagree that climate change is a real
challenge that we need to be engaged in addressing?
[No response.]
Senator Merkley. Anyone here disagree that human activity
and burning of fossil fuels is a contributor to the challenge?
[No response.]
Senator Merkley. Well, thank you. I think that is the
foundation for this discussion. I don't want us to get lost in
losing our perspective on the forest, if you will, while we are
looking at the individual trees.
I can certainly convey that in my home State of Oregon,
climate change is very evident in a number of ways. Our fire
season has increased by something close to 60 days over a few
decades, far more forest being burned. We have a much bigger
problem in the west with pine beetle, with warmer winters not
killing the pine beetles as they have in the past.
We have a big challenge to our shellfish industry,
specifically our oysters, because of the acidification of the
Pacific Ocean, which is tied to the same carbon dioxide that is
causing climate change. We have a significant problem with loss
of snowpack in the Cascades, which is resulting in warmer
streams.
My rural communities care a lot about their fishing.
Streams are not as good when they are small and when they are
warm as when they are cold and when they are deep. They care a
lot about their forests and they care a lot about their
farming. And we have a massive drought that is tied in as well.
So in terms of the impact of this on rural America, it is
massive. And it is manifested in farming, in fishing and
forestry, all in my home State. So I have been struck by how
important this conversation is as one that has direct impacts
on the ground right now. We don't have to look at 50 years out
or 100 years out.
Now, it is important that this be an international
conversation. Pollution of the air or seas is a tragedy of the
commons, if you will. In that sense, China has committed to
producing as much new renewable energy between now and 2030
that is equal to all the electricity produced in the United
States today. In fact, currently the U.S. produces about 1,000
gigawatts of electricity, all forms, including fossil fuels.
China has committed to produce about 1,400 gigawatts of
renewable non-fossil fuel energy by 2030.
So we are not talking about measures that they are
committed to doing after 2030. We are talking about things they
are doing between now and 2030. That is a massive deployment of
renewable effort.
India has been a little slower to come around. But they
have committed to increasing their solar capacity by 100
gigawatts by 2022, just 7 years from now, and to work toward a
more global HFC phase-down. Brazil has announced that it has a
goal of 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources,
and pledging to restore 12 million hectares of forest, about
the size of England, by 2030. So many nations are working
together to take this on.
The U.S. has often been in the forefront of bringing the
world together to take on world challenges. Certainly that is
true of disease and taking on the pandemics of AIDS and
tuberculosis and malaria. It certainly should be the case here.
I do feel that this it is important to place this
conversation into that context. The exact nature of agreements
that occur later this year in terms of setting goals and
pledging the U.S. to work toward those goals, you can argue as
lawyers over the fine print. But let's not lose perspective on
the fact that this is about a major challenge to the world that
is having impact in our home States every single day on our
rural resources and more to come.
Dr. Hausker, I wanted to, you touched briefly in your
written testimony on the interaction between climate policies
and international businesses. Why is it that we are seeing
companies like Starbucks, eBay, Nike, Ikea, Sprint lobbying for
action on climate change when, according to some of my
colleagues, climate change will do harm to the economy?
Mr. Hausker. That is a very good question. You have pointed
out the fact that more and more corporations, both U.S. and
multinationals, are pressing for climate action by governments.
They are also taking internal steps to reduce their own
greenhouse gases.
I might add in that context, we talked about Exxon a short
time ago. Exxon Corporation recognizes the problem of climate
change and they have adopted an internal price on carbon to
guide their investments. Many other companies have done that as
well.
So the business community is taking this increasingly
seriously and taking internal steps as well as advocating sound
public policy.
Senator Merkley. I think it goes to the heart of
demonstrating that businesses' boards that are committed to
profits see that climate change can be enormously harmful to
our future economy. Thank you, my time is up. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Merkley. Senator
Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
panelists' coming in and already having a very important
discussion.
I always think it is important to begin these sessions by
making it clear that we all care about clean air, clean water.
I think sometimes my colleagues on the other side try to claim
a little bit of the high ground, that they care more about it.
They don't care more about it. My State probably has the
cleanest air, cleanest water, certainly in the United States,
maybe in the world. It is largely because of local actions, not
the EPA, I guarantee you. Alaskans care more about the
environment than officials here in the EPA in Washington do in
our State.
But we also have significant concerns about what we call in
Alaska Federal overreach. That is usually in the form of an
agency taking regulatory action without statutory or
constitutional authority. Big concerns. They usually take the
action because it is not popular in the Congress, so they can't
get it through, so they take it anyway. At least in Alaska, the
EPA is considered the poster child of an agency that conducts
Federal overreach on a very regular basis.
So legally, I think that the EPA is a rogue agency. But I
think importantly, you don't have to take the word of members
of the Senate or members of the public. We are seeing this more
broadly.
The Supreme Court, we talked about Supreme Court opinions,
in the last two terms, in terms of the UARG v. EPA, Michigan v.
EPA, the Supreme Court has come out and said the EPA has
violated the law or the Constitution. It is increasingly
conservative and liberal commentators who are starting to hold
this view that the EPA is out of control legally.
You may have seen Laurence Tribe, well respected liberal
Harvard law professor who testified in front of Congress
recently on the EPA's CO2 regs, saying ``The EPA
possesses only the authority granted by Congress, and its rule
is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that belongs to
Congress. Burning the Constitution should not become part of
our national energy policy.'' That is Laurence Tribe.
I think this should be a concern of every Member of
Congress. And yet the EPA just kind of continues. This should
be a concern of every member of this Committee when we have an
agency that doesn't respect the law of the land. We were
talking about outrage before. I am outraged. We should all be
outraged, Democrats, Republicans, that an agency regularly
violates the law.
My biggest concern is they just power through and keeping
doing it. There was a Wall Street Journal editorial yesterday,
Mr. Chairman, that I would like to submit for the record,
called Stopping EPA Uber Alles. Essentially what the Wall
Street Journal was saying is that the EPA, even when it gets
struck down by the Supreme Court, it takes 5 or 6 years to have
that happen, they just keep powering through anyway, ignoring
the law.
Senator Inhofe. Without objection, that will be made a part
of the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
So I would just like to ask a few questions, Mr. Holmstead,
Professor Rabkin, Mr. Bookbinder, others, do you believe, like
the Supreme Court, like Laurence Tribe, that the EPA legally is
a rogue agency?
Mr. Rabkin. Laurence Tribe was one of my teachers. I never
disagree with him, especially when he is right.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
Mr. Bookbinder. That is an incredibly loaded question,
Senator.
Senator Sullivan. Just a yes or no, or you can defer.
Mr. Bookbinder. I would say, and this is from someone who
sued EPA frequently in the past, no, I don't believe it is a
rogue agency.
Mr. Holmstead. I am quite confident that EPA does not let
statutory intent get in the way of what it wants to do.
Senator Sullivan. I would take that as a yes.
Mr. Holmstead. We have seen that most prominently in the
Clean Power Plan.
Senator Sullivan. Let me ask another question. With the
executive agreement with China, does anyone on the panel
believe that that somehow grants authority for the EPA, and I
am not talking about the Clean Air Act, the President executes
an executive agreement with China, does that give the EPA even
the smallest legal authority to start implementing domestic
legal commitments on U.S. companies? An executive agreement.
And I am not referring to the Clean Air Act, just that
agreement.
Do they have any authority to anything legally,
domestically here in the United States based on that agreement?
Mr. Rabkin. It is a really good question. My answer would
be no, I am not sure what their answer is.
Senator Sullivan. Any other panelists want to respond to
that?
Ms. Ladislaw. No, but I am not entirely sure it is
necessary for the Administration to accomplish what they want
to.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is
up.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much
appreciate your holding this hearing, The Road to Paris. Paris,
to me, is going to be an important moment in our global
commitment on the problems of climate change.
It is interesting, a good deal of the discussion here seems
to be the role between the executive and legislative branch,
rather than dealing with the underlying problem of how America
needs to respond to the global climate change challenge. I
don't see any disagreement that climate change is real, that we
could do something to mitigate it, that there are health risks,
that there are economic risks, there are security risks to the
United States in regards to global climate change. If we don't
take aggressive steps, the world depends upon U.S. leadership.
There seems to be more fight as to whether Congress needs
to take action or the executive action. I would hope both would
take action.
I serve as the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee. I am frequently in international meetings
when climate change comes up. And I must tell you, President
Obama is getting good reviews internationally. The U.S.
Congress is not.
I think the international community would welcome the
ability of the United States to speak with a more united voice
and would welcome Congress taking affirmative steps by
legislation to deal with the climate change issue. We have
tried, Mr. Chairman, we have tried. Senator Boxer has taken a
real leadership role. I was here with she worked with Senator
Warner of Virginia and Senator Lieberman, and we came close.
Senator Markey, who is not here right now, took an incredible
leadership role on the House side in past legislation.
The challenge is that we need to put a price on carbon. We
have to put a price on pollution. It is unlikely that will
happen. I think we all understand the realities of the politics
of this Congress. But the United States has an opportunity and
President Obama is taking advantage of that to show world
leadership, to make a difference not only for the United States
security and health and economy but for the global security,
health and economy.
So Mr. Hausker, I want to ask you a question if I might.
What action would you think Congress could take that could be
most helpful to achieving the goal President Obama has laid out
for us to meet as we go into the Paris meetings?
Mr. Hausker. I would certainly wish that Congress would be
supportive of achieving the target that President Obama has set
forth. It is an ambitious but achievable target. It can be done
using existing Federal authority, supplemented by actions by
the States.
And in the longer term, I would hope that Congress would do
what you pointed to, which is put a price on carbon, which
could be done in a variety of ways. There is WRI research and
research by other think tanks and academics pointing to the
multiple benefits of putting a price on carbon and the ways it
could be constructed to promote economic growth.
So I think there is a short-term mission to advance the
agreement that we hope will be concluded in Paris into 2025 and
then the longer term agenda of putting the right press signals
in place that can help this country as well as help the globe
toward the decarbonization in the decades ahead necessary to
solve this problem.
Senator Cardin. Senator Whitehouse is here, who has been
one of the real leaders on this issue on the price of carbon
and dealing with energizing the private sector to develop ways
in which we can meet our economic challenges, recognizing there
is a price of carbon. We can show it directly in regards to
what it does to our environment, what it does to our health.
There is clearly a price.
By recognizing that, the private sector then comes up with
ways in which we can reduce our carbon and help our economy and
do it in the most cost effective way. That is what many of us
have been trying to do. We thought that it is a sensible bridge
between the Democrats and Republicans to energize the private
sector.
What I really think the tragedy is here is that we don't
have to get into a philosophical debate here. It seems to me
the same solutions help our economy, help our security and help
our environment. So all of us want to do all three. I am not
sure why we are having this tough philosophical debate about
recognizing the dangers of carbon emissions and having our
vibrant economy figure out ways that we can again lead the
world in innovation and dealing with the underlying problems.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It was mentioned before that maybe we shouldn't forget
about the forest, and we are looking at the trees. Well, I
would say the purpose of this hearing is to look at the trees.
We are looking at the road to Paris. As Senator Cardin said, we
tend to get into philosophical discussions here on climate
change and where we are on that. But I would like to get back
to where the hearing is focused.
My friend from Oregon was talking about rural America and
the effects that climate change has on rural America. Well, I
am a cattle rancher. I live in a county in Nebraska with less
than one person per square mile. So I think I can speak about
rural America. I think I can focus on maybe some of the effects
that the road to Paris will have on rural America and have on
agriculture.
I happen to know where my friend from South Dakota lives.
He lives 2 hours north of me in Pierre, South Dakota. He can
speak to rural America as well. Basically, we live in the
middle of nowhere or the center of the cosmos, one or the
other.
Mr. Holmstead, you had spoken earlier about the regulations
that are out there, the known regulations, the issue that we
would have with those and the effects that they would have on
families and businesses. And you had kind of gotten started
into where the unknown regulations would come from that you
believe would need to be imposed on families in order to meet
those targets of 26 to 28 percent in reductions.
You mentioned the agriculture sector. That is the economic
engine of Nebraska. It is an economic engine for this country.
This road to Paris would have an effect on families, on the
economy and they are unknown. They are unknown regulations.
Can you let us know what you think some of those
regulations would be and the impacts that they would have?
Mr. Holmstead. My point, as you know, was that the sector
that, according to EPA, emits greenhouse gases that are not
really regulated is agriculture. I am probably not the right
person to predict exactly what those would be. But what I would
say is, if you look at the things that the environmental
community is calling for in terms of tighter controls on animal
manure, in terms of changes in the way that we plant crops, in
terms of changes in the way we do grazing and all these sorts
of things, changes in the way that fertilizer is used, these
are the things you can imagine.
Again, my point is, if they really are serious about
meeting their commitment, they almost have to do those things.
So it is either they are not serious about meeting their
commitment or we can anticipate perhaps a greater regulatory
burden on rural America.
Senator Fischer. Mr. Bookbinder, you stated in your
testimony that the reduction target submitted by the President
would also be attributed to unknown regulatory measures. Those
are going to add costs to families and businesses. Do you have
any idea what some of those unknowns would be, what the
Administration needs to be looking at in order to meet those
requirements that they have set out for the American people?
Mr. Bookbinder. Senator, let me make sure I understand your
question. You are asking, am I aware of what the regulatory
measures the Administration is contemplating to make up what I
call the gap, I have no idea what the Administration is
contemplating. None.
Senator Fischer. Do you have suggestions or any ideas on
where the Administration might be looking?
Mr. Bookbinder. No client has come to me to ask me to try
and figure out where those missing tons have come from. If they
did, I would be delighted to think about it. But my job so far
was to say, hey, there is just a missing bunch of tons here.
Senator Fischer. I guess I am not going to pay you then, to
give me an answer. Is that correct?
Mr. Bookbinder. I certainly don't want to add to the
deficit.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Mr. Holmstead, do you think that existing U.S. law,
particularly the Clean Air Act, authorizes the President to
achieve the carbon reductions that are promised in this
international carbon commitment?
Mr. Holmstead. No, I don't see how the Clean Air Act can be
used to get the reductions that they have promised. Again, if I
can just point out, the Clean Air Act hasn't changed really
since 1990. So if the Clinton administration believed that it
could have achieved these reductions under the Clean Air Act,
you would think it would have done something.
So what we are seeing is an incredibly creative use of the
Clean Air Act in ways that I think the courts are almost
certainly going to strike down.
Senator Fischer. So more lawsuits in the future. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
This is a very important hearing. It kind of calls into
question the can-do capacity of the United States in order to
meet big challenges. Can we do it? We know the threat is there.
Do we have the capacity to do it?
Well, back in 2005, the annual U.S. carbon pollution was
the second highest level ever, just slightly lower than the
peak of 2007. Back then in 2005, fuel economy standards for the
United States were 27.5 miles per gallon.
We passed a new law. The President implemented the law. For
model year 2016, the average is going to be 34 miles per
gallon. No one had that on the books in 2007. But we passed a
law. And that is dramatically reducing emissions, and it is
going up to 54.5 miles per gallon by the year 2025. We can do
it.
Same thing is true for the price of natural gas. It was
$7.33 per 1,000 cubic feet in 2005. And that price has
plummeted. No one had that on the books that through new
fracking technology we would see such a dramatic reduction in
natural gas prices that would substitute natural gas for coal,
reducing right there by 50 percent the amount of emissions that
were coming out.
No one had that on the books. Technology and innovation
made the difference.
In 2005, we connected a mere 79 megawatts of solar for the
whole year and about 2,400 megawatts of wind. That is 2005. In
2014, we added 7,000 megawatts of solar up from 79 megawatts in
2005. We expect to add 11,000 megawatts of wind just this year.
That is not on the books in 2005.
This is innovation. This is America saying, there is a
problem, we are going to solve it.
So if we can make those kinds of changes, then the sky is
the limit if we have a sense of American can-do.
In New England, New York, Delaware, Maryland, we
implemented a Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. From 2007
until today, we have reduced our greenhouse gases across those
nine States by 40 percent. In Massachusetts, we saw an increase
in our gross domestic product by 29 percent at the same time.
We can do it. We can do it. We have to believe in
innovation.
So let me come to you, Dr. Hausker. From your perspective,
what do these changes in the last 8, 9, 10 years mean in terms
of what is possible in the future, from your perspective?
Mr. Hausker. Senator Markey, I think you offered some great
examples of the power of innovation, the power of ingenuity and
the way American business can rise to challenges and produce
not only jobs and economic growth, but fewer greenhouse gas
emissions.
The kind of things driving some of the changes that you
cited is we are in the middle of a clean energy revolution.
Over the last 5 years, we have seen the cost of wind power
decrease by 58 percent. We have seen the cost of solar PV
decrease by 78 percent. That is innovation, that is achieving
economies of scale and those trends can continue also with
supportive public policies and can lead to the kind of
decarbonization of the economy as we continue to grow and
provide jobs.
We have seen that across vehicles, power generation, HFC
reduction technologies, across the board we are seeing the
innovation that can deliver on the kinds of reduction targets
the Obama administration is set.
Senator Markey. But again, we have to drive the innovation.
When the Wright brothers were taking that first flight in 1903,
at Kitty Hawk, even they would not have envisioned the role an
airplane would play in World War I, just 14 years later. They
could never have imagined. But because of the commitment of
innovation, because of the American can-do, it revolutionized
the rest of the world.
Dr. Hausker, your analysis found that the United States
could meet the President's proposed targets with existing
authority. Mr. Bookbinder's testimony finds an emissions gap.
Can you tell us why your arithmetic adds up?
Mr. Hausker. Yes, thank you. Here is how, I have reviewed
Mr. Bookbinder's analysis, and here is how I can explain why he
has one set of conclusions and the WRI analysis has a different
set of conclusions.
I think I understand what you did, Mr. Bookbinder. You have
looked at rules that have been finalized or rules that are in
near-finalized state across some different end uses and sectors
and added up their emissions reductions as projected for 2025
and compared that to the target.
What is final or near final doesn't add up yet. The WRI
analysis, which I would be happy to put into the record, looks
beyond what is just finalized and near-finalized. We look at
the potential across the economy for the use of existing
Federal authority to reduce emissions.
So that looks beyond some of the categories you looked at.
We also looked at industry, at aviation, at some reductions in
the trace greenhouse gases like PFC and SF6. We also looked at
deeper gains from energy efficiency, deeper gains from the
reductions.
Senator Markey. Mr. Hausker, I hear you are being gaveled.
I thank you. I agree with you. I would just say this, Wright
brothers, Elon Musk, that kind of innovation if we keep the
rules in place. We will solve this problem. We just have to
believe in ourselves.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Markey. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
thank the panelists, too. This is a very interesting
discussion. I don't know if the panelists know, I come from
West Virginia, which is heavily impacted by the Clean Power
Plan. We have had heavy impacts to this point with the MATS
ruling.
I would like to stick on the legal parameters to begin
with, at an agreement that could be reached in Paris. My
colleague from Massachusetts was touting the fact of more
efficiencies in cars. One of the quotes he used was, we passed
a law, we, being Congress, passed a law and forced that. So I
think that is the crux of the argument, for me, especially
after the decision of the Supreme Court last week.
So Mr. Holmstead, the Administration is relying on the
Clean Power Plan to deliver a substantial share of 26 to 28
percent reduction. But we know that the Clean Power Plan is
going to be on shaky legal ground. We don't know when this is
going to be settled. It could be overturned in whole or in part
just as the Supreme Court rejected EPA's Mercury Rule last
week, by not considering economic impact. We keep trying to get
the EPA to come to West Virginia to look at the economic
impacts of their regulations, and we have yet to achieve that.
So what are the domestic legal implications of a Paris
agreement that commits the U.S. to a level of emission
requirements that the courts could later then determine were
faulty EPA interpretations of the Clean Air Act? How would you
see that?
Mr. Holmstead. I don't understand how the President's
pledge can change domestic law. And Professor Rabkin may know
more than I do about these issues, but I thought a lot about
what would happen, what kind of a lawsuit would somebody bring.
I think the answer is that there is nothing like that.
That is why, again, I think it is a problem to have the
President, no matter what you think about climate change, why
should the President be out making commitments on behalf of the
country that he has no way of meeting? That is my real problem.
So I don't see how he can change domestic law by making
that kind of a unilateral agreement.
Senator Capito. Would you agree, Professor Rabkin? You have
pretty much addressed this issue.
Mr. Rabkin. So there is this canon of construction that you
should avoid interpreting a statute in a way that puts it in
conflict with international law. If there were a treaty that
had been ratified by the Senate, I think it would be a
plausible argument which might move some justices or some
judges on an appellate panel to say, let's avoid the conflict
with a treaty.
I think it is really a big stretch to say, let's avoid a
conflict with a President's political commitment because he
promised. That is really allowing the President to rewrite
statutes, just because he has foreign friends. I don't think
that can work.
Senator Capito. Mr. Bookbinder, let me ask you a question.
The system of pledging review that Paris is based on seems to
confer, gives a lot of flexibility on developing nations, but
more hard commitments by industrial nations like the United
States, both in terms of emission reductions and possible
financial obligations.
I have already spoken about my State and what we see in
terms of what kinds of impacts this could have, the Clean Power
Plan and further agreements could have on a State such as ours.
We are so heavily reliant on coal. We have a lot of it as a
resource, we have a lot of natural gas. We are happy about
that.
Are there any safeguards that are being considered to
protect American industries, consumers, workers? We already
know the cost of our power is going to go up and the cost of
energy is going to go up. What kinds of parameters in an
agreement are to be considered as you look at us as an
industrialized nation in contract to the developing nations?
Mr. Bookbinder. Senator, you are going to hear words from
me that you rarely hear in Washington, which is, I don't know.
I know almost nothing about the Paris process. I will defer to
people who do.
I simply looked at the U.S. commitment and added up the
numbers. I think Dr. Hausker and I have a slight difference. He
said I looked at measures. I looked at every one of the
measures that Secretary of State Kerry put in the INDC. So I
simply took the measures that the Secretary of State put in the
INDC and added them up. If there are others, then there are
others. He didn't put them in the INDC.
Senator Capito. Mr. Holmstead, do you have any reaction to
that? Or is that something, in terms of developing nations
commitments and industrialized nations, are we looking at what
kind of advantage or disadvantage that would play and how it
might impact us?
Mr. Holmstead. I don't think there is any explicit
consideration of that in Paris.
Senator Capito. It sounds like a Supreme Court decision to
me.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me thank Mr. Hausker for bringing up the
value of the price on carbons, since I have a bill to exactly
that effect, that appears to comport with at least the general
principles that most of the Republican study groups that have
looked at this issue require, i.e., that the money go back to
the American people and not be used to fund any growth in
Government.
Let me just sort to set a baseline for the hearing ask each
witness to answer the following question. That is, if you
believe that climate change, man-made, through carbon
emissions, is a serious problem that merits the sincere
attention of Congress. Mr. Hausker.
Mr. Hausker. I completely agree with that statement.
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Ladislaw.
Ms. Ladislaw. I agree.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Holmstead.
Mr. Holmstead. I agree.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Bookbinder.
Mr. Bookbinder. I agree, and I want to add one thing.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me finish what I have asked first.
Mr. Rabkin.
Mr. Rabkin. Sure.
Senator Whitehouse. I could hear through the hearing, and I
have heard a lot of my colleagues talk about their concern that
the gap would be an opening to regulate agriculture in
different ways. I would simply urge my Republican colleagues
who are concerned about that to talk to big American
corporations like Cargill, which are heavily, heavily invested
in agriculture. Big American companies like Mars that depend on
agriculture for their product lines.
I think you will find that they are urging the agricultural
sector to move in this direction on their own. This isn't some
plan that just got hatched in the White House. Because they
understand that climate change is real. We on a bipartisan
basis have done things like approve funding for biodigesters in
the Agriculture Bill to help reduce the methane. That is a
pretty simple way of addressing the manure from ginormous feed
lots that put out tons and tons of manure.
So it is not as if there are not ways that we can address
this in a bipartisan fashion. There are ways we already are
beginning to address this in a bipartisan fashion and ways in
which the corporate community, particular big American
corporations, are leading us on this.
I hope that we can address the question of regulatory
burden in this Committee, but I don't think that we can address
the question of regulatory burden in the context of a Committee
that refuses to acknowledge that climate change is real. I am
glad that all the witnesses get it. I doubt if we polled the
Republican side of this Committee you get the same answers.
It is unfortunate, because I think it is hard to address a
problem that people are busy denying is a real problem. I
particularly note what I consider to be the baleful effect of
the Citizens United decision. We actually had a lot of good,
bipartisan work going on climate change until the Citizens
United decision came along.
In this Committee, John Warner was the Republican co-author
of Warner-Lieberman. Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins got
together to do a very significant cap and dividend bill back in
the cap and trade era. Senators like Senator Flake have written
articles saying that a carbon tax would be the way to go as
long as, again, back to the original requirement, it is revenue
neutral, the money goes back to the American people.
Senator Kirk, back in the day, voted for the Waxman-Markey
bill. Senator McCain campaigned vigorously for President as the
Republican nominee on doing something about climate change.
So there is a steady, steady heartbeat of Republican
activity until Citizens United happened in January 2010. After
that, it has been like the EKG flat-lined. I think there is a
direct correlation between the fossil fuel industry taking
advantage of the bullying and manipulating power that Citizens
United gave it to perform exactly those tasks and trying to
bring the Republican party in Congress to heel. Unfortunately,
I think they succeeded in doing so.
Fortunately, the American people have a very different
point of view. There is going to be a big accountability moment
in November 2016, when the Republican party has to take what is
presently its theory about carbon change, which is either it is
not real or people don't have anything to do with it or I don't
want to talk about it and vet that before the American voters.
I don't think that is going to be a very healthy moment for
that particular set of political theories.
So I hope we can continue to work together on this. But I
do think that Citizens United has had a really, really
unfortunate effect on this conversation. My time is over, so I
will yield.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Senator Boozman, thank you for
your patience.
Senator Boozman. Not much choice on who to recognize.
Senator Inhofe. That is right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, and thank all of you
for being here.
As Senator Markey said, we can and should be very proud of
the innovations we have made and the ability of America's can-
do spirit. The other side of that, though, is that we are a
Nation of laws. We have checks and balances in place. There is
a proper way to do things. So I guess the real question is,
does the President have the authority to go overseas and strike
an agreement that is very, very far reaching.
In listening to the panel today, and you have done an
excellent job, really representing both sides, but anybody who
has listened today, anybody who has read the literature, there
is profound disagreement as to whether or not this 26 to 28
percent can be reached and what it would take to do that.
Mr. Holmstead, in the course of studying, being a part of
the Clean Air Act for many, many years, how long under the
current scenario that we are doing, how long would it actually
take to get to a goal like that?
Mr. Holmstead. The single biggest thing that the
Administration has promised to do is something called the Clean
Power Plan. And their assertion is that that can achieve a
significant reduction. It is maybe half of what the President
would need to get to 26 percent.
I have been dealing with the Clean Air Act for 25 years. I
just don't think the courts are going to uphold that. It is so
far beyond what the statute says. So if you take that away, you
are looking at things that could improve the efficiency of a
lot of different things, cars we already have, we could do
other things. But I don't see how you get to 26 to 28 percent.
And I can tell you we can't get there by 2025.
Senator Boozman. But even with that, if the courts did
uphold it, you still have a huge problem in doing something
different even getting to the 26 to 28 percent.
Mr. Holmstead. Yes.
Senator Boozman. That would take decades.
Mr. Holmstead. I want to point out there, is not such a
disagreement between Mr. Bookbinder and Mr. Hausker. They both
have said that what the Administration has announced is not
enough to get you there. Mr. Hausker believes there are many
other things that they and States can do.
Senator Boozman. Exactly.
Mr. Holmstead. But the EPA doesn't have that authority, in
my view.
Senator Boozman. So in the case of the international
climate agreement proposed by the President, does anyone
disagree that it won't drive up the cost of food, fuel and
electricity for American families and have an impact on
domestic policies ranging from agriculture to energy to
transportation if we were able to do this 26 to 28 percent
reduction?
Mr. Hausker. The analysis that we have performed and the
analysis of other groups that we have reviewed indicate that
the U.S. can maintain economic growth, that it can maintain job
creation.
Senator Boozman. I don't mean to interrupt, but you don't
disagree that it is going to drive up the cost of food, fuel,
electricity for American families and have a significant impact
on domestic policies to achieve the 26 to 28 percent?
Mr. Hausker. I can't make any broad, sweeping statements.
The impacts are going to vary by sector. If we look at
electricity, for instance, and we look at the impacts, the
projected impacts of the Clean Power Plan, we find that
although the price of electricity may go up, the efficiency
programs that would accompany it would actually decrease demand
and that average residential bills would be constant or could
actually decline.
So things interplay in different ways.
Senator Boozman. But you would acknowledge this is a big
deal? To reach a 26 to 28 percent reduction, you are going to
have far reaching things.
Mr. Hausker. We call it ambitious. It requires a lot of
action. It requires a lot of operation.
Senator Boozman. And the question is, does the President
have the unilateral authority to do that? And that is really
kind of where we are.
Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Ladislaw. I just wanted to say, it is kind of a strange
conversation we are having about what authority the President
needs to make that kind of a commitment, whether it is a
domestic or an international authority. I think that it is
important to keep in mind that the Administration has said if
they come back with an agreement that they believe legally
requires State pass through Congress, they will take it that
route.
So the idea here that we know what the agreement looks like
and therefore can justify what kind of authority it requires,
we won't really know until we get the outcome from Paris. There
is some speculation about those things, but we don't really
know the answer to that question.
Mr. Bookbinder. I would like to take a shot at answering
that question. The Congress, your predecessors have created
this system. Congress wrote a Clean Air Act that says EPA shall
regulate a pollutant that is anticipated to endanger human
health and welfare. EPA has determined, quite reasonably, that
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases do endanger human
health and welfare. At which point the Clean Air Act, as
written by your predecessors, says EPA must regulate.
Now, the point I am making is that as a result of that,
Congress has already put a price on carbon. The regulatory
costs, which are mandated by the Clean Air Act, are a price on
carbon. What some in the White House and other people who
propose a carbon tax is a more economically efficient price. So
you are either going to be stuck with an inefficient or
regulatory price or an efficient carbon tax price. Those are
your choices.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The only thing I
would say is if you can't sell it to the Congress, if you can't
sell it to the American public, then again, it probably
shouldn't be done in this manner. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boozman. That is a very
good point.
I am going to do something, and it is within the power of
the chair to do it. Senator Boxer wants a full 5 minutes to
respond to everything. While she was the chairman, I never made
that request.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. However, I am going to allow her to do
that, and no one else coming in, they have now had their chance
to come down. So we are through hearing from other members.
We will acknowledge Senator Boxer for 5 minutes, then I
will acknowledge myself for perhaps an equal amount of time.
Then it is over, you guys.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Senator, thank you.
I am not going to ask any questions. I am just going to
thank the panel. All of you were terrific. Mr. Bookbinder, you
spoke for me in your last comments. You are so right, there is
a price on carbon. It is not the most efficient way. If we
could come together around a carbon tax. I also think the
international oil companies would come into that place, we
would be far better served.
What I want to do in these couple of minutes is just give
kind of a closing argument about why I think the President has
this authority. I agree with Senator Boozman. We are a Nation
of laws. So I will take you back to 1992, October 7th, when the
Senate, by unanimous consent, passed the U.N. Framework
Convention on Climate, under which this President and the next
one has the authority to move forward with executive agreements
as long as they don't violate our laws, such as the Clean Air
Act and our fuel economy and all that. That is his intention.
I also wanted to speak to Senator Fischer's point, the
point that she made as a rancher. You probably know I am not a
rancher, I am not a farmer, I was born in Brooklyn, New York.
There used to be farms in Brooklyn, but not when I was born. I
am not that old.
I represent a State, along with Senator Feinstein, that has
the largest ag production in terms of revenue. We are No. 1. If
we move toward an agreement and toward doing what we have to do
with very catastrophic climate change, we will save, in our
Nation, $11 billion a year out through 2050, in avoiding these
damages to the climate which is going to adversely impact
agriculture.
So it is because I represent this State that I fervently
believe California is on track and the President is on track.
Frankly, the Congress is off track.
Then I think it is very important, Senator Sullivan
mentioned Larry Tribe. I love Larry Tribe. But I think he sold
out in this particular case. It is OK. He took a lot of money
from Peabody Coal and he is presenting their arguments. He has
lost so far. Let's be clear. The courts have ruled against him
so far. I am sure he is doing a great job but that is where it
is at this point.
I wanted to say to Mr. Holmstead, thank you for your
Government service. You were there at EPA for a period of time.
When you were asked if you felt the EPA was a rogue agency, you
gave kind of an answer that I sensed was leaning yes at this
point.
When I look back at your service and your time there, your
refusal and the refusal of the Bush administration to admit
that climate was covered in the Clean Air Act led us to
Massachusetts v. EPA, in which your side lost and my side won.
Now, the point there is, maybe EPA was a rogue agency at that
time when you were there. Because clearly when you read the
case, honest to God, it says, any pollutant that adversely
impacts the climate.
I am not a lawyer. I am married to one, my father was one,
my son is one. So maybe by osmosis I am one. But all you have
to do is read the Clean Air Act. The Bush administration wasted
8 precious long years. It is really worth noting.
Now, Senator Sessions makes a really good point. He says,
shouldn't we use the power of the purse. And the people here
who agree with Senator Sessions, that this is the wrong way to
go, say yes, use the power of the purse. And he made the point,
we shouldn't have to go against our constituents.
Let me show you the recent poll, in January 2015. Eighty-
three percent of Americans, including 61 percent of
Republicans, say if nothing is done to reduce emissions, global
warming will be a serious problem in the future. Seventy some
percent of Americans say the Federal Government should be doing
a substantial amount to combat climate change. That is a
Stanford poll. There is also a Wall Street Journal poll that
has similar findings.
So I am saying to my friends on the other side, you are on
the wrong side of the people and you are on the wrong side of
history because of the way this thing is going.
Finally, I will close with a comment that was made by
Christie Todd Whitman, former EPA Administrator under George W.
Bush. She appeared here on June 18th, 2014: ``I have to begin
by expressing my frustration with the discussion about whether
or not the EPA has the legal authority to regulate carbon
emissions that is still taking place in some quarters. The
issue has been settled.'' She is right. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
First of all, this hearing today is not a science hearing.
The questions that were asked of you, I am sure it was
difficult to answer them. You didn't come here with that
perspective. You came here for the what are we going to do
about Paris and what about this 21st meeting that is coming up,
what power does the President have to do these things that he
seems to think he can do without any ratification by Congress.
I would suggest, I want to clarify a couple of things.
Senator Boxer used the statement that 56 percent of the people
in Congress would adopt something that would be any type of cap
and trade or a similar kind of restriction. That is not exactly
true, because that was on a majority, a vote on a motion to
proceed. I have many times, and every Senator up here has many
times voted to proceed to something to hear it without
supporting it.
The specific votes, the highest one it ever got was 48
percent. And that was the Warner-Lieberman vote, and then 38
percent and 43 percent.
Now, no useful purpose would be used, because I hear the
same things over and over again. I have stood on the floor. I
was down there during the time that right after Tom Steyer put
in his $75 million to elect people that wanted to revive the
old global warming argument. I went down there and listened and
I heard the same things that have been rebuked many times
before. They keep coming up.
We heard it from three of the members over here today. They
talked about, oh, the weather consequences, the serious
consequences, droughts, and in fact that the severe drought,
that 34 percent covered 80 percent of the country compared to
25 percent in 2011. We have all these statements that were
made.
In fact, Professor Rabkin, your university, George Mason,
did a study of all the meteorologists, not all of them, but a
sampling of meteorologists. They reported that 63 percent of
the weather forecasters, those are meteorologists on TV,
believe that any global warming that occurs is a result of
natural variation and not human activities.
Here is a good one here. Dr. Martin Hertzberg, he is one I
knew personally, a very proud liberal Democrat, retired naval
meteorologist with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry, also declared
his dissent of warming fears. He said ``As a scientists and a
lifelong liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of
the anecdotal fear-mongering claptrap about human-caused global
warming to be a disservice to science.'' Continuing, he said
``The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data. All
they have are half-baked computer models.'' He goes on and on.
Then there is Richard Lindzen. I remember him very well,
because he testified here before this Committee. He said that
regulating carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you regulate
carbon, you regulate life. I am sure some of you remember that.
He is one who has been with MIT. Same thing with sea level
and some of the other arguments.
But I do want to mention this. The most recent poll that
Gallup came out with, they sent a list, and these are the 25--I
will make this a part of the record--national concerns of
Americans. Dead last on that list is climate change.
I know people want to believe it, people want to believe
the world is coming to an end. Quite frankly, confession is
good for the soul. I recall when I first was exposed to this,
and everyone said it was true, so I assumed it was until they
came out, it was MIT and some other groups, came out and said
how much it would cost if we were to pass the cap and trade
type of legislation that came originally from McCain and
Lieberman. The range has been between $300 billion and $400
billion a year. That has not really changed.
So I did the math in the State of Oklahoma. Each family in
my State of Oklahoma that files a Federal tax return would end
up paying about $3,000 a year.
By the admission of President Obama's first director, Lisa
Jackson, of the EPA, when asked the question when she was
sitting at the table right where you are sitting today, if we
were to pass some type of a cap and trade legislation, either
by legislation or regulation, would this have the effect of
lowering CO2 emissions nationwide, she said, no, it
wouldn't. The reason was because this isn't where the problem
is. It is in China and India and other places.
By the way, I know all this talk about what China is going
to do, they haven't committed to anything. The President came
back and he talked about this great achievement that he made.
They didn't commit to anything at all.
Now they say, well, we are going to increase our emissions
of CO2 between now and 2025, then we are going to
start decreasing it. That is a deal? It is really not.
So I only want to say that we have had the science hearing.
It is a controversial subject. And I am glad that we are having
this hearing today. I personally, as I said in my opening
statement, went to Copenhagen and was at that time, this was
after all the leadership, as perceived by the other 191
countries, were all on one side. I said no, what they are
telling you isn't true. We are not going to be passing cap and
trade as they told you. This was 2009. And of course, that
didn't happen.
We will continue to look at this. We are concerned about
any issue that comes before this Committee, and we are
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]