[Senate Hearing 114-205]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-205
EXAMINING THE INTERNATIONAL
CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 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
98-708 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED 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
NOVEMBER 18, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...... 1
Capito, Hon. Shelley, Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 4
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 5
WITNESSES
Maurice, Julian Ku, A. Deane Distinguished Professor of
Congressional Law & Faculty Director of International Programs,
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University........... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Cass, Oren, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research, Inc.................................................. 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Eule, Stephen, Vice President of Climate and Technology, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce Institute of 21St Century Energy........... 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Response to an additional question from Senator Whitehouse... 57
Waskow, David, Director, International Climate Initiative, World
Resources Institute............................................ 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Jacobson, Lisa, President, Business Council for Sustainable
Energy......................................................... 106
Prepared statement........................................... 108
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Articles:
Elloitt Negin; ExxonMobil is Still Spending Millions of
Dollars on Climate Science Deniers......................... 225
SourceWatch; Manhattan Institute for Policy Research......... 230
Office of the Press Secretary; Fact Sheet: United States
Support for Global Efforts to Combat Carbon Pollution and
Build Resilience........................................... 239
EXAMINING THE INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE NEGOTIATIONS
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Shelley Moore Capito
(chairwoman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Capito, Inhofe, Barrasso, Crapo, Boozman,
Sessions, Wicker, Rounds, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, Merkley,
Gillibrand, Booker, and Markey.
Senator Capito. The hearing will come to order.
We have some unusual circumstances. I am not the chairman
of the full committee; the chairman is sitting to my right, as
you know, Chairman Inhofe. He is on the conference committee
for the highway reauthorization, so he has asked to make some
statements and then he is going to go to his meeting. So, with
that, I will recognize Chairman Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. I thank you, Madam Chairman. We actually
have three members of the conference, the highway conference. I
already talked to the witnesses and explained to them. It is
very significant what is going on. We are actually going to
have a formal conference on the highway reauthorization bill.
That hasn't happened since 2005, so we are very excited about
it. And I am sure that another conferee is Senator Fischer, so
I am sure we will all be wanting to go over there.
But she has graciously allowed me to make a brief opening
statement, which I will do now, and I am sure that Senator
Carper won't mind if I go ahead and make my statement.
Senator Carper. I object.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. All right, good.
Well, let me start by saying that all of our prayers are
with the people and what has been happening in Paris. It is so
regrettable.
I thank the witnesses for being here today to discuss the
international climate negotiations. Despite President Obama's
constant rhetoric about transparency, we are a week and a half
away from the start of the United Nation's twenty-first session
of the Conference of Parties. This is the twenty-first year
that we have had this, and several of us on this panel up here
have had different ideas about what is to be accomplished
there. My idea is nothing.
I just sent a letter in July seeking information relating
to the President's intended nationally determined contribution.
Now, that is where he is supposed to be able to document what
he wants, and he did send information in that he is going to be
reaching between a 26 and 28 percent reduction in emissions,
but failed to say how he is going to do this. So we tried to
have a conference. We tried to have a meeting in this committee
and asked the EPA to attend, and they refused to attend.
Now, this is the first time in my experience in the years
that I have been here, 8 years in the House and 20 years in the
Senate, that the committee of jurisdiction making a request
that someone appear and they don't appear. So I think there is
a reason: because they don't know how the calculation of 26 to
28 percent was working.
Together we are especially here to discuss the potential
legal form of the COP 21 agreement. I think that goes without
saying. There have been a lot of things published about is it
legal, is it binding. Until yesterday, when we had, in the
Financial Times, Secretary Kerry announced that there would be
no binding agreement from COP 21. No binding agreement from COP
21. Now, that incurred the wrath of President Hollande of
France, along with several other people. Anyway, that was an
honest statement because there won't be any.
When it comes to the financing, I know that a lot of people
over there, the 192 countries would assume the Americans are
going to line up and joyfully pay $3 billion into this fund,
but that is not going to happen either.
So, anyway, this is going to be very similar to the other
20, so I am sure there will be many on this panel who will be
attending. I don't plan to attend.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Let me start off by saying my prayers are with the city of
Paris and all those who have been impacted by the attacks last
Friday.
We are a week and a half away from the start of the United
Nation's 21st session to the Conference of Parties and have yet
to hear directly from this administration on the president's
international climate agenda. This is not due to a lack of
outreach on our part, but rather a continued disrespect for the
rule of law and on obstructionist approach to Senate oversight.
I invited the EPA, CEQ and State Department to testify
before the committee and provide missing information related to
the president's 26 to 28 percent greenhouse gas emission
reduction target (by 2025). According to our last expert panel
on the subject, which included former Sierra Club Climate
Counsel, David Bookbinder, the president's plan simply does not
add up. Even Senator Boxer's witness from the World Resources
Institute admitted that additional actions will have to occur
for the targets to be met, which will likely come from the
refining, cement and agriculture industries, among others.
EPA and CEQ's response that they lacked involvement and
relative expertise is not only counter to public records and
press accounts, but completely unbelievable. Recently released
agency documents related to the Keystone XL Pipeline decision
further confirm that Administrator McMarthy has an
authoritative role in State Department actions, especially when
they concern the president's climate agenda and international
perceptions. Just last week, it was reported (in Climatewire)
that Administrator McCarthy meets weekly with White House staff
alongside Secretary Kerry and Secretary Moniz to ``prepare for
Paris'' and is likely going herself.
If as Secretary Kerry recently stated, the administration
does not have a problem with congress reviewing the Paris
agreement, then I expect an affirmative response to testify
from EPA, CEQ and the State Department in the new year.
Primarily from press accounts, we know the presidents
alongside international bureaucrats intend to produce an
agreement of some form that commits countries to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions over certain time periods. We have
seen this type f agreement before, most recently with the Kyoto
Protocol and there was never a question that if President
Clinton wanted to make the United States a party to that
agreement, the Senate had to be involved.
With the formal submission of various countries ``intended
nationally determined contributions'' (INDCs), we know the
structure of emission reduction commitments has changed from a
top-down Kyoto-style approach to a bottoms-commitments has
changed for President Obama is the application of the 1992
UNFCCC ratification agreement and its express limitations.
Specifically, the caveat included in the Foreign Relations
Committee report the ``[A] decision by the Conference of
Partied to adopt targets and timetables would have to be
submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent before the
United States could deposit its instruments of reification for
such and agreement.''
If the president wished to produce something substantive
from the Paris negotiations - and presumably stronger than
Kyoto - there is no way around the Senate. However, if the
president heeds the advice of other COP 21 participants and
wished to bypass congress, then he will be limited to making a
non-binding, political commitment with no means of enforcement,
accountability, or longevity.
Beyond the process, there is the financing element of these
negotiations for the Green Climate Fund. The president would
like to shut down livelihoods and ship American jobs overseas
while imposing a cap and trade energy tax on the American
people so he can pay for his international climate legacy that
hinges on cooperation from rent-seeking developing countries
lining up for a piece of the president's multi-billion dollar
slush fund.
This administration has shown time and time again that
political perceptions carry more merit than any expert
assessments, especially when they include technical or economic
inconveniences. Beyond diplomatic grand-standing and a few good
press releases, the only certain outcome of the Paris
negotiations is increased global CO2 emissions.
The president's so-called ``Climate Action Plan'' has never
been about saving the environment or the world from impending
global warming doom. It is about making up for the
embarrassment of Copenhagen and solidifying his environmental
legacy. I, along with my Republican colleagues, am not willing
to let him or any other United Nation's bureaucrat circumvent
the Constitution in an attempt to imbed climate change policies
whose net effort will do nothing more than undermine America's
outlook for success.
I thank the witnesses for being here today and look forward
to their testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. I thank the chair and we wish good luck and
quick work on the conference committee, because I think we are
all anxious to have that piece of legislation before us. So I
will go ahead and open, if that is OK with you, for my opening
statements.
I want to welcome the panelists, first of all, and the
members, the senators here. Much of what Senator Inhofe has
said is contained in my opening statement, but I think some of
it bears repeating.
Just yesterday we passed two bipartisan resolutions under
the congressional Review Act, one of which I sponsored. And I
brought those up because, in my opinion, they are inextricably
tied to the upcoming climate negotiations. President Obama
cannot meet his goal of 26 to 28 percent reduction of
CO2 emissions without the full implementation of
this regulation, and we believe that that stands on shaky legal
and political ground. The Senate has now formally rejected
these rules and we expect the House to do the same, and then
the President will have a chance to make his opinion known. But
over half our States, 27 to be precise, have now sued the EPA
to block these rules.
Last week, as Chairman Inhofe said, it was reported that
Secretary of State insisted that the international climate
agreement expected to be reached in Paris was ``definitely not
going to be a treaty,'' and Chairman Inhofe mentioned that he
said there would be no binding agreement.
This prompted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius to
suggest that Secretary Kerry was ``confused.'' The French
president then weighed in: ``If the agreement is not legally
binding, there won't be agreement,'' as did the European Union,
whose spokesperson was quoted as saying, ``We work on the basis
that the Paris agreement must be an internationally binding
agreement.''
If major participants in the upcoming COP 21 negotiations
cannot agree on the legal status of any forthcoming agreement,
no wonder those of us here today have questions. Will this
agreement be legally binding or not? If so, will it be
submitted to the Senate for ratification, as required by the
Constitution?
Chairman Inhofe, as he mentioned, too, invited the EPA, the
CEQ, and State Department to testify before the committee and
provide missing information related to the President's 26 to 28
percent greenhouse gas emissions target. EPA and CEQ have thus
far demurred, saying they lack involvement and relative
expertise.
I share the chairman's hope that the Administration will
reconsider and allow witnesses to come before this committee in
the coming year, particularly given press reports such as last
week when Climate Wire reported that EPA Administrator McCarthy
meets regularly with White House staff, alongside Secretary of
State Kerry and Secretary of Energy Munez to prepare for Paris
and is likely going herself.
The legal status of an agreement is one issue that
negotiators must resolve. Financial payments demanded by
developing countries from the United States and other countries
are another, and I hope we will touch on those today.
The President has pledged to send $3 billion to the Green
Climate Fund. He included a $500 million request in his Fiscal
Year 2016 budget. The House and the Senate, State and foreign
appropriators, I am on the appropriation committee, have
allocated zero dollars. It is important to make clear, I think,
to the rest of the world, as climate talks approach, that
Congress has the power of the purse.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of
witnesses. Again, I thank them for coming and that we have a
robust discussion, as we always do on this committee. I have
learned that in the short time I have been here.
And I would like to recognize Senator Carper for an opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thanks, Madam Chair. It is a pleasure to
have a couple of West Virginia kids up here leading the charge
on this important day. Thanks for pulling this together and
thanks to all of our witnesses for joining us on what is a much
welcomed hearing.
Today we are here to discuss, as we know, our Country's
efforts to fulfill a promise that was made some 23 years ago,
in 1992, to address global climate change. George Herbert
Walker Bush was our president at that time, as you will recall.
But in 1992, the United States and other countries around the
world agreed to a treaty that established the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. The goal, to find a way
to limit global climate pollution and limit the impacts of
climate change to preserve and protect our environment for
future generations.
In 1992, President Bush signed the treaty and the Senate
subsequently ratified it. Today, there are 196 countries that
are part of that treaty.
Over the past 23 years, the United States and our treaty
partners have held meetings, usually each year, to address
these goals, and later this month the twenty-first meeting will
take place in Paris. These negotiations are critical because to
effectively address climate change we cannot act alone. We
cannot do this alone. We have to work cooperatively with our
neighbors around the world.
There are a host of scientific studies that underscore the
urgent need for action, but, for me, the most compelling factor
in supporting efforts to address climate change is more
personal. I live in the lowest lying State in America. We see
every day the ravages of climate change and sea level rise. I
have children, someday I hope to have grandchildren, and I want
to make sure they have a real bright future in Delaware and
other places throughout our Country and, frankly, around the
world.
The science is clear. Our future generations face no
greater environmental threat. We face a lot of threats, but no
greater environmental threat than the threat of climate change.
We know the price of action pales in comparison to the cost of
doing nothing. This is why I believe we have an absolute duty
to fight to change our behavior, continue to change our
behavior not only in Delaware and across the Country, but also
around the world, to help stem the tide of climate change.
When it comes to global challenges, the United States
doesn't just sit back and wait for someone else to lead. We
lead. This should be no different. When the challenge was
fascism, when the challenge was communism, today terrorism,
cyberattacks, the U.S. has led as the world has risen to face
those challenges.
Climate change is real. Global warming is real. Sea level
rise is real. We see it, again, happening every day in my own
State. We see it every day happening in Ben's State, over here,
my neighbor to the east and to the south. The U.S. cannot do it
alone, but we can provide leadership, and somebody needs to do
that, and that should be us.
Since the current Administration has retaken a leadership
role on this issue, others have followed. Countries like China
and Brazil, that have been hesitant before to make carbon
reductions, have changed their tune. I think largely because we
have acted.
As someone, again, who was born in coal country, Beckley,
West Virginia, but spent his entire adult life, most of his
adult life in the lowest lying State in the Nation, I know this
issue is complicated and I know compromises have to be made for
all of us to survive in a low carbon world. However, let me
conclude by saying I have confidence that this Administration,
working in conjunction with 50 laboratories of democracies, our
States across America, using common sense, using sound science,
will find the right recipe.
In closing, I encourage our Administration to continue its
work to drive the international community toward a broader
global agreement in Paris so that together we can successfully
meet the challenges facing our planet and ensure a brighter
future for our grandchildren and for their grandchildren.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Statement of Hon Thomas R. Carper, U.S. Senator
from the State of Delaware
Madam Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing today,
and thank you to our witnesses for joining us. I look forward
to hearing your testimony.
Today, we are here to discuss our country's efforts to
fulfill a promise we made in 1992 to address global climate
change.
In 1992, the United States, and other countries around the
world, agreed to a treaty that established the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. The goals--find a way
to limit global carbon pollution and limit the impacts of
climate change to preserve and protect our environment for
future generations.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the treaty and
Congress subsequently ratified it. Today, there are 196
countries that are part of that treaty.
Over the past 23 years, the United States and our treaty
partners have held meetings, usually each year, to address
these goals and, later this month, the 21st meeting will take
place in Paris. These negotiations are critical--because to
effectively address climate change we cannot act alone, we have
to work cooperatively with our neighbors around the world.
There's a host of scientific studies that underscore the
urgent need for action but, for me, the most compelling factor
in supporting efforts to address climate change is deeply
personal.
Being a parent has been a transformative experience in my
life, and my love for my sons has inspired me to make the world
a better place for them, their children, and their
grandchildren.
And the science is clear, our future generations face no
greater environmental threat than the threat of climate change.
We know the price of action pales in comparison to the cost of
doing nothing.
This is why I believe we have an absolute duty to fight to
change our behavior--not only in Delaware and across the
country, but also around the world--to help stem the tide of
climate change.
When it comes to global challenges, the United States
doesn't often sit back and wait for someone to lead. We take
the lead. Here should be no different.
Fascism, Communism, Terrorism, Cyberattacks, the U.S. is a
leader of the world. Climate change is real. Global warming is
real. Sea level rise is real. We see it happening every day.
The U.S. can't do it alone, but we can provide leadership.
Since the administration has retaken a leadership role on
this issue, others have followed. Countries like China and
Brazil that have been hesitant to make carbon reductions have
changed their tune because we have acted.
As someone who was born in coal country--Beckley, West
Virginia--but spent his adult life in the lowest lying State in
the nation--I know this issue is complicated. I know
compromises have to be made for all of us to survive in a low-
carbon world.
However, I have confident that this administration, and
future administrations, working with 50 labs of democracy in
the states, using coming sense and sound science, will find the
right compromises.
In closing, I encourage the administration to continue its
work to drive the international community toward a broader
global agreement in Paris, so that, together, we can
successfully meet this challenge facing our planet and ensure a
brighter future for our grandchildren and for their children.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator.
We will begin to hear testimony from our witnesses. I am
going to introduce everybody briefly and then we will begin
with Mr. Ku.
Mr. Julian Ku, who is the Maurice A. Deane Distinguished
Professor of Constitutional Law & Faculty Director of
International Programs, that is one long title, at the Maurice
A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University. Next we will hear
from Mr. Oren Cass, who is Senior Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research, Incorporated. Next we have Mr.
Steven Eule, Vice President of Climate and Technology, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st Century Energy. We have
Mr. David Waskow, Director, International Climate Initiative,
World Resources Institute. And then we have Ms. Lisa Jacobson,
President, Business Council for Sustainable Energy.
Again, thank you all. We will have 5 minute statements.
Your full statements have been submitted to the record.
Mr. Ku.
STATEMENT OF JULIAN KU, MAURICE A. DEANE DISTINGUISHED
PROFESSOR OF CONGRESSIONAL LAW & FACULTY DIRECTOR OF
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS, MAURICE A. DEANE SCHOOL OF LAW AT
HOFSTRA UNIVERSITY
Mr. Ku. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I want to thank the
chairman, the ranking member, the members of this committee for
inviting me to participate in today's hearing.
As you just noted, my name is Julian Ku. I am Professor of
Law at Hofstra University in New York, and my academic research
focuses on the relationship between international law,
international agreements, and the United Constitution. My
testimony today will consider the requirements and limitations
under the Constitution for an agreement relating to climate
change.
In my written testimony I review the legal status of each
kind of international agreement; a treaty, a congressional
executive agreement, a sole executive agreement. And I also
explain my written testimony why I believe the Paris agreement
should be submitted to the Senate for its approval if that
agreement contains legally binding emissions reduction targets
and timetables. And I am happy to take questions on that issue
particularly if members of the committee are interested.
But for the purposes of my oral remarks, I want to focus on
the possibility that the Paris agreement will contain non-
legally binding political commitments. I think this is the
direction that the Administration is heading.
In response to a letter from Senator Bob Corker, the State
Department has indicated that the United States is not seeking
an agreement in which the parties take on legally binding
emissions targets, and this response means that, at the heart
of the Paris agreement, the emissions targets will not be
legally binding if the United States gets it way in Paris.
Now, I do not have any constitutional objection to the use
of a political commitment in the manner described by the State
Department as long as all parties understand what a political
commitment, as opposed to a legally binding commitment, is.
By making a political commitment, the United States would
not owe any legal obligations to foreign countries under
international law to reach any particular emissions reductions
target. And as a political commitment, no future president or
Congress would be bound under U.S. law to reach these emissions
targets.
So, as a matter of law, a non-legally binding Paris
agreement would be no different than the President giving a
speech saying I promise to reduce emissions or reach certain
emissions targets in future years. However, as Madam Chairman
noted, press reports indicate that other countries in Paris are
expect the agreement to be a legally binding agreement. I also
will quote again the statements from France's President,
Francois Hollande, in which he said if the agreement is not
legally binding, there won't be agreement, because that would
mean it would be impossible to verify or control the
undertakings that are made.
So statements like this by our treaty partners, or
potential treaty partners, will make it tempting for U.S.
negotiators to call the Paris agreement legally binding while
they are in Paris, while at the same time assuring Congress it
is not legally binding. And I think this kind of deception, or
at least some confusion, is troubling because it either results
in misleading foreign governments as to what the United States
is promising or it results in the President violating the
Constitution by concluding an agreement on his own authority as
a sole executive agreement.
So as I explained in my written testimony, I don't believe
the Constitution allows the President to use a sole executive
agreement without any approval from Congress to legally bind
the United States to particular greenhouse gas emissions
targets. And a lack of clarity on the legal nature of the Paris
agreement could spur future litigation where a plaintiff might
sue, for instance, to demand U.S. compliance with a legally
binding Paris agreement.
So, for this reason, if the Paris agreement is finalized
with political commitments, as Secretary Kerry and the
Department of State seem to indicate, I recommend that the
Senate request that the Administration identify publicly which
particular provisions of the Paris agreement, if any, are
legally binding and which particular provisions are just
political commitments. Such an explanation ideally should take
the form of a public statement by a senior member of the
Administration, ideally Secretary of State Kerry himself, that
reviews each provision of the Paris agreement and explains what
is binding and what is not.
Such a statement would make it clear that the Paris
agreement is or is not binding under domestic or international
law and such a statement would also make clear, if it is not
binding, that no future U.S. president or Congress is bound to
fulfill the substantive obligations in the Paris agreement, and
also shield a future president from litigation on this
question.
So thank you. I would be happy to take questions on other
issues, if you are interested.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ku follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Ku.
Mr. Cass.
STATEMENT OF OREN CASS, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR
POLICY RESEARCH, INC.
Mr. Cass. Thank you for inviting me today. My name is Oren
Cass. I am a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute for
Policy Research.
My primary message to the committee is this: climate
negotiations no longer bear a substantial relationship to the
goal of sharply reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, the
upcoming Paris conference will focus on a commitment by
developed nations, including the United States, to transfer
enormous sums of wealth to poorer countries.
This outcome is not surprising to those skeptical that U.S.
so-called leadership on climate policy could persuade the
developing world to forgo economic growth for the sake of
emissions reductions. However, it differs dramatically from the
popular narrative in which Paris represents the historic
culmination of a worldwide process to bring countries together
and act on climate.
My written testimony makes three points which I will
summarize here.
First, the negotiating process is specifically designed to
produce an easy consensus and excuse inaction. It relies upon
each country announcing an intended nationally determined
contribution, or INDC, that represents its proposed actions and
emissions reductions. However, the contents of the INDC itself
are entirely discretionary. There is no requirement that cuts
achieve certain levels or that the INDC even use consistent
formats, metrics, or baseline. There is also no consequence for
missing a plan's goals.
Boosters are highlighting the INDC-driven structure and the
parade of submitted plans as proof that the world can take
meaningful action on climate. That is exactly backward.
Negotiations have followed this course of discretionary,
unenforceable pledges only because the positions of the
countries are so irreconcilable that no substantive agreement
is possible.
And that brings to me to my second point, which is that
attempts at so-called leadership, as Senator Carper described
in his introduction, have not spurred others to action. My
written testimony details the various manipulations that have
produced impressive estimates for INDC impact. However, these
use a century's worth of escalating efforts, not the actual
commitments made, or else they compare the actual commitments
to plainly incorrect baselines that the UNIPCC does not
recommend. And this is precisely the basis for positive-seeming
estimates cited in Mr. Waskow's testimony as well.
A more realistic interpretation of the analyses suggest
total impact of all the INDCs is less than 0.2 degrees Celsius,
and using the U.N.'s own A1B baseline for longtime standard,
there is no improvement at all. Country-by-country analysis
tells the same story. China has committed to reaching peak
emissions around 2030, but studies consistently show they were
already on this trajectory.
India's commitment manages to be even weaker. The most
obvious reference point is in the INDC itself. India reports
that energy efficiency improved more than 17 percent in that
country between 2005 and 2012. India could improve only half as
fast going forward and still meet the goal that it set for
itself.
Now, such efforts have received loud applause from the
White House, from the media, and by NGO's demanding climate
action. But if the INDC process relies on peer pressure and so-
called naming and shaming those who drag their feet, then
cheerleading for empty non-commitments destroys the premise of
the entire enterprise. One might even conclude that political
point-scoring has taken precedence over actually addressing
climate change, which brings me to my third point.
The Paris negotiations are not about emissions reduction;
they are about cash. The developing world expects developed
countries to offer more than $100 billion per year in what is
called climate finance. The rationale for the money, the source
of the money, and the use of the money are all unclear.
Developing nations believe they are owed a ``ecological debt''
for past developed world emissions and also owed
``reparations'' for the damage from storms they link to climate
change.
Now, these are plainly non-starters for the United States.
But the developing world is also asking to be reimbursed the
cost of mitigation measures they take. India alone says in its
INDC it needs $2.5 trillion between now and 2030. But if the
INDCs represent business as usual, funding is clearly
inappropriately.
Realistically, developed world leaders are pursuing a
transaction in which, having staked their political capital and
their legacies on achieving an agreement, any agreement, they
will now pay developing nations to sign on the dotted line.
To conclude, we should worry that U.S. negotiators and
their colleagues desperate to produce an agreement will commit
dollars from taxpayers that they cannot actually develop and
get nothing in return. The Senate should preempt any purchase
of a piece of paper. A clear, simple resolution rejecting
enormous transfers of wealth from the United States to other
countries would highlight the issue for the American public, it
would tie negotiators' hands, and it would ensure that any
future climate change negotiations actually focus on climate
change.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Eule.
STATEMENT OF STEPHEN EULE, VICE PRESIDENT OF CLIMATE AND
TECHNOLOGY, U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INSTITUTE OF 21ST CENTURY
ENERGY
Mr. Eule. Thank you, Senator Capito, Senator Carper, and
members of the committee. This hearing could not be timelier.
As the Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Paris
draws closer, it is important for policymakers to take a clear-
eyed view of what a new post-2020 agreement might hold.
The main points I would like to make, which are detailed in
my written testimony, are as follows.
First, the Obama administration's unilateral emissions
reductions commitment for Paris is unrealistic and doesn't add
up. We estimate that 41 to 45 percent of the Administration's
emission target remains unaccounted for; and that is assuming
EPA's Clean Power Plan survives court scrutiny, a big if.
Selling such an uncertain plan internationally may prove very
difficult.
Second, the emission goal nations have offered are hugely
unequal and will not change appreciably the rising trajectory
of global emissions. While the United States, Europe, Japan,
and a few others have offered large emission cuts, nearly all
developing countries, particularly the large emerging
economies, have offered little beyond business as usual. A
recent report from the Framework Convention estimates that even
in the unlikely event all country pledges are implemented to
the letter, global emissions will still rise about 18 percent
between 2010 and 2030, within or close to the range of where
emissions were headed anyway. Given how the Framework
Convention is structured, this should surprise no one.
Third, the disparity in national commitments results from
the fact that most countries place a greater priority on
economic development than they do on cutting emissions of
greenhouse gases. More than a billion people worldwide lack
access to the modern energy services that could lift them out
of poverty. Coal will remain for some time the fuel of choice
for electrification in developing countries. Using data from
plants, we estimate that on the eve of the Paris climate talks,
1.2 trillion watts of new coal-fired power plants are under
construction or planned throughout the world. That is about 3.5
times the capacity of the entire U.S. coal fleet. A carbon
constrained world this is not.
Fourth, the Administration's plan will likely result in
emissions from the U.S. leaking to other countries, merely
moving, not reducing them. The United States has a tremendous
energy price advantage over many of its competitors.
Overregulation from EPA, however, could force energy-intensive
industries to flee to other countries, similar to what we are
seeing in Europe, where energy costs to industry are two to
four times higher than here in the United States.
Fifth, developing countries will not undertake any
meaningful commitments without large doses of financial aid.
China, for example, has proposed that developed countries kick
in 1 percent of their annual GDP from 2020 on, which in 2014
would have implied a U.S. contribution of $170 billion. Other
suggestions are equally extravagant. Whatever the final finance
provisions look like, a great deal of the U.S. share of this
funding will have to be appropriated by the Congress.
Sixth, technology is the key. At its most fundamental
level, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a technology
challenge. Existing technologies can make a start, but, as we
have seen, they are not capable of significantly cutting
emissions on a global scale and at an acceptable cost. That is
why the chamber will continue to emphasize energy efficiency
and policies designed to lower the cost of alternative energy
rather than raising the cost of traditional energy.
Finally, there is the larger question about the real goal
of the Framework Convention. The organization's Executive
Secretary, Christiana Figueres, recently had this to say about
the Paris deal: ``This is the first time in the history of
mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of
intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the
economic development model that has been reining for at least
150 years, since the industrial revolution.'' The same free
enterprise economic model Secretary Figueres wants to discard
is the same model that has produced the largest flourishing of
human health and welfare in all of history. The rest of the
world understands that affordable, available, and scalable
energy is not the problem, it is the solution.
Given all this, it seems clear that the Paris agreement,
whether it has legal force or not, should be submitted to the
Congress for its approval; otherwise, it is hard to see how
anything agreed to in Paris will be binding on any future
administrations or congresses.
Back in 1997, the Clinton administration offered up an
unrealistic U.S. goal and, disregarding clear guidance from the
Senate, signed the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty it knew was
political poison and therefore never bothered to submit to the
Senate for its advice and consent. It now looks like the Obama
administration is set to repeat the mistake of signing onto a
lopsided deal and making promises future presidents and
congresses may be neither willing nor able to keep.
As the late, great Yogi Berra might have said, it's daj` vu
all over again. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eule follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Waskow.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WASKOW, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE
INITIATIVE, WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Mr. Waskow. Good morning and thank you, Senator Capito and
Senator Carper. My name is David Waskow and I am the Director
of the International Climate Action Initiative at the World
Resources Institute, a non-partisan, nonprofit environmental
think tank.
My testimony this morning makes three main points. First,
taking action on climate change can bring substantial economic
benefits and is in the national interest of the United States.
A growing body of evidence shows that economic growth can in
fact go hand-in-hand with efforts to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases, and recent experience of the national and
State levels demonstrates that we can achieve both, a
prosperous, low carbon future by harnessing key drivers of
economic growth such as more efficient use of energy and
natural resources, smart infrastructure investments, and
technological innovation.
Businesses have recognized the economic value of action as
well. More than 80 major global companies, including a number
of U.S. companies such as Dell, Coca-Cola, General Mills, and
Procter & Gamble, have recently committed to set emission
reduction targets in their own supply chains that are in line
with science.
Taking this action is also essential because, if nations
fail to come together to combat climate change, the U.S. will
suffer billions of dollars of damage to agriculture, forestry,
fisheries, and coastal areas; and a recent report from the CAN
Military Advisory Board of retired, high-ranking military
officers, highlighted the growing threats to national security
from the effects of climate change as well. It is thus in our
national interest to act at home and to work with other
countries to achieve an international agreement where all
countries act together and where the most severe impacts in the
United States can be avoided.
My second theme: the U.S. emissions reduction target
announced this past March is in fact achievable; ambitious, but
achievable. We can meet this target using existing Federal laws
combined with action by the States. Well-designed policies can
accelerate recent market and technology trends in renewable
energy, energy efficiency, alternative vehicles, and in other
areas to meet the 26 to 28 percent below 2005 pledge by 2025.
WRI's recent report, ``Delivering on the U.S. Climate
Commitment,'' shows several pathways to get there.
We can achieve this target while generating multiple co-
benefits and maintaining economic growth. For example, the
Clean Power Plan will result in reduced exposure to particulate
pollution and ozone, and EPA estimates that these health and
other benefits are worth $32 billion to $54 billion.
And then, third, leadership by the United States is paying
significant dividends, helping to spur greater action by all
countries around the world. In the lead-up to the Paris
agreement, more than 160 countries, 119 of them developing
countries, have submitted national climate plans, representing
over 90 percent of global emissions. Countries like China,
where reductions in coal use are already taking place, are
taking unprecedented action.
These national climate plans will deliver significant
reductions in emissions. The International Energy Agency
estimates a shift in global average temperature rise to 2.7
degrees Celsius, down from almost 4 degrees given business as
usual policies. It is not enough yet, but it is a significant
step.
Moreover, the agreement will be reached between all
parties, all countries at the climate summit in Paris and is a
major step forward in meeting U.S. objectives in this venue.
Most important, this will be a universal agreement applicable
to all. Based in and implementing the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change, which was ratified by the Senate in 1992 by
voice vote, the Paris agreement will involve action to reduce
emissions by all countries, both developed and developing, and
its structure based on nationally determined plans has enabled
broad-based participation and sets a new pathway for
international action.
The agreement will also include vital provisions on
transparency and accountability, and it should ensure that all
countries continue to move forward in a regular and timely way
toward a commonly understood goal. And, finally, it can help
mobilize the investment needed for low carbon and climate-
resilient economies from an array of countries, including
developing countries, and from the private sector, and it can
address the serious climate-related impacts experienced around
the world, especially by the most vulnerable countries.
To conclude, the actions that countries are taking around
the world, along with the international framework for those
efforts, should be viewed as a significant success for the
United States and its leadership role. Meeting the global
challenge of climate change requires global solutions with
action by all. The world is now on the cusp of an international
agreement that will realize that vision.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Waskow follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Ms. Jacobson.
STATEMENT OF LISA JACOBSON, PRESIDENT, BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR
SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you, Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator
Carper and members of the committee.
The Business Council for Sustainable Energy is a broad-
based industry association and we represent companies and other
trade associations in the energy efficiency, renewable energy,
and natural gas sectors. Since its founding in 1992, the
Council has been advocating for policies at the State,
national, and international levels that increase the use of
commercially available clean energy technologies, products, and
services.
As an important backdrop to my testimony, the Council would
like to share some of the findings from the 2015 ``Sustainable
Energy in America Factbook.'' The Factbook was researched and
produced by Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and commissioned by
the Council. It is a quantitative and objective report intended
to be a resource for policymakers with up-to-date, accurate
market information. Its goal is to offer important benchmarks
on the contributions that sustainable energy technologies are
making in the U.S. energy system today. It also provides
information on finance and investment trends.
The 2015 edition of the Factbook points to the dramatic
changes underway in the U.S. energy sector over the past
several years. Traditional energy sources are declining, while
natural gas, renewable energy, and energy efficiency are
playing a larger role. These changes are increasing the
diversity of the Country's energy mix, improving our energy
security, cutting energy waste, increasing our energy
productivity, and reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas
emissions.
The Factbook also shows that the U.S. economy is becoming
more energy productive and less energy intensive. By one
measure, U.S. gross domestic product per unit of energy
consumed, productivity has increased by 54 percent since 1990.
Between 2007 and 2014, total energy use fell by 2.4 percent,
while GDP grew by 8 percent. This was driven largely by
advances in energy efficiency in the transportation, power
generation, and building sectors. Of note, energy-related
carbon dioxide emissions decreased by 9 percent in the 2007 and
2014 time period.
BCSE members in the energy efficiency, natural gas, and
renewable energy sectors offer readily available, low carbon
and zero carbon energy solutions. This portfolio of
technologies can be used today to provide reliable, affordable,
and clean energy options for public and private sector
customers. In 2014, U.S. investment in clean energy
technologies reached $51.8 billion, and these sectors are
providing hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs in this
Country.
The Council will bring a delegation of its members to
attend the COP 21 as business observers. This organization has
consistently engaged in the international climate change
process since the early 1990's. BCSE participates in this
process to offer information on deployment trends, technology
costs, as well as policy best practices. Council members view
the climate change negotiations as a valuable forum to share
information on policy frameworks and to help inform the policy
choices of countries looking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and deploy clean energy options.
Further, Council members view the outcomes of the
international climate change negotiations as important signals
to the market that countries are serious about investing in low
carbon solutions. These signals will serve to reduce the
uncertainty that can stall private sector investment.
U.S. Government leadership and engagement in the
international climate change process supports U.S. business
interests and expands clean energy business opportunities
outside our borders. Further, U.S. leadership increases the
ambition of other nations and helps showcase U.S. technology
innovations and policy frameworks. It also helps protect U.S.
business interests, such as protection of intellectual property
rights.
The Council's coalition calls for governments to deliver a
clear, concise, and durable climate change agreement at COP 21.
With over 91 percent of global emissions and 90 percent of
global population covered by the intended, nationally
determined contributions of 161 countries, nations are showing
a collective commitment to spur investment, innovation, and
deployment of clean technologies in countries around the world.
The Council believes that a well-structured Paris agreement
can facilitate higher levels of investment over time. But as we
look toward the next several decades, even higher levels of
investment will be needed. We need to be focused in the
trillions, not the billions of dollars in investment. The world
energy markets cannot afford any backtracking at this critical
time, and the business community is increasingly considering
climate change and its impacts as part of its corporate
strategies.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Capito. Right on the dot there. Very good. Thank
you very much.
I will begin with the questions, and I want to start with
Mr. Ku, Professor Ku, because there are two questions that I
would like to get to in my 5 minutes, and the first one is the
legally binding issue, whether this is a treaty, whether it is
a sole executive agreement. So it is kind of a two-part
question.
Some have argued that the Senate approved emissions
reductions when it ratified the U.N. Climate Framework in 1992.
But didn't the Bush administration then, in 1992, State that
amendments to that Framework, especially ones establishing
targets and timetables, should be presented as new treaties and
have separate consents?
So that is my one question: Was the intent in 1992 that any
further targets that were established would be part of an
approval process with Senate consent?
And then I am going to ask you the next question. You can
answer once.
On the sole executive agreement issue, it is stated that
those have been used to justify the authority for COP 21. Would
you say that those are typically used in narrow and limited
circumstances? And do you believe that COP 21 would be
considered a narrow and limited circumstance?
So I want to dig down on the legality issue.
Mr. Ku. OK. Thank you, Senator.
On the first issue, I think that the U.N. Framework
Convention was a framework convention, it was to set up a
framework for further negotiations and a process, but did not
in fact and should not be read as authorizing new agreements
without having to go through the normal process. So it is my
view that convention does not authorize, it requires any new
agreement for legally binding emissions to go back to the
Senate.
In fact, I think in 1992 the Senate, as part of the process
for approving the U.N. FCC, actually asked the Bush
administration whether future protocols to the treaty would
require Article II, meaning going back to the Senate, and the
Bush administration said if the new protocol contains legally
binding emissions, targets, or timetables, then they would send
that back to the Senate.
So that is essentially a promise by the executive branch
that we will come back to the Senate. It is the type of thing
that should be respected as inter-branch dialog, and I think it
is one of the reasons why I think an agreement with legally
binding emissions targets and timetables should be sent back to
the Senate for its approval.
On the second question of sole executive agreement just
quickly, sole executive agreement is typically done in pretty
narrow circumstances. The format typically is Article II
treaties or Congress specifically authorizes the President to
make an executive agreement in a particular area like trade,
like the TPP or something like that. A sole executive agreement
is when the President just acts under his own authority, and I
think that is not so much that it is unusual, but it is narrow
and relatively narrow.
I don't think that in this circumstance, I think the
President could say, well, I agree to every year report on what
we are doing, and that would be something that he could do as a
sole executive agreement. I don't think he could commit the
United States to reduce emissions by a certain amount, by a
certain year, in a sole executive agreement; I think he would
either have to get Congress to approve that through new
legislation or I think the best way to do it is to go back to
the Senate for approval as a treaty.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Mr. Cass, you mentioned a giant transfer of wealth.
Obviously, the President is going to go to this negotiation
with no money and a green climate fund that has been
appropriated by the Congress. What kind of effect will that
have, do you think, in terms of future commitments that the
United States is supposedly making if this Congress won't
appropriate any money? There is no guaranty that future
congresses would. At the same time, I am certain the world
community is counting on the United States to bring the money
to the table.
What comments would you have on that?
Mr. Cass. Well, I think probably everyone, including
negotiators from other countries, understand that the President
cannot appropriate money on his own. I think the larger concern
is that, faced with the choice of Paris collapsing without an
agreement or saying, yes, I will go find a way to get the
money, U.S. negotiators will say we will find a way to get the
money and essentially shift the onus back to Congress and say,
look, the world has come together on this agreement; you, if
you do not appropriate the money, will be at fault for the
agreement failing.
So to preempt that I think it is actually very important
that Congress act first and say to the world, let's be clear,
we will not appropriate that kind of money; don't come back
with an agreement that requires it because that should not be
the lynchpin of an agreement that does not even include
significant emissions reduction.
Senator Capito. All right, thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks so much.
Again, our thanks to all of you for being with us. Some of
you this is the first time we have met you; others we have
known for some time. New or old, we are happy to have this
chance to spend this time with you.
Just a word on leadership, if I can. I think that
leadership is probably the most important ingredient of any
organization I have ever been part of or led; I don't care if
it is the Navy, military, business, this place, sports team,
college, hospital, school. Leadership is the most important
thing. And leadership is demonstrated in a variety of ways. I
always said that great leaders are those who look at a problem
and say what is the right thing to do; not the easy thing, not
the expedient thing, but what is the right thing to do. And the
right thing to do is to provide leadership in this instance.
Leadership is staying out of step when everyone else is
marching to the wrong tune, including some with whom I serve.
We lead by our example. It is not by do as I say, but do as I
do. That is why it is important for us to actually set an
example and encourage others to lead. I find in my life and my
experience a lot of time they do.
Leaders should be aspirational. It has been said that
leaders are purveyors of hope.
As I listen to this testimony today, I heard some testimony
that was doom and gloom, and, frankly, I heard some testimony
that was aspirational and uplifting; and I know you can
probably figure out where those came from. Leaders just don't
give up. Leaders don't give up. You know you are right, you are
sure you right, we don't give up.
I would just say you don't need a tutorial on leadership,
but it is the most important thing here and every place I have
ever worked or served.
I want to talk a little bit about acid rain. We are in a
party of the Country where we deal with sea level rise on the
East coast, Mid-Atlantic, Northeast as well. Twenty, thirty
years ago we had a big problem with acid rain. You may remember
that. And a lot of folks said, well, we can never afford.
President Herbert Walker Bush said we have this idea, we call
it cap and trade, and we are going to try to reduce sulfur
dioxide emissions and the effect of acid rain. People said, oh,
you can't do that; it will kill the economy.
Well, guess what? As I recall, as I recall, what we finally
did, putting in place, implementing the plan that he proposed,
we achieved our goals in half the time and one-third of the
cost. Imagine that. And we spurred a lot of innovation;
innovation that turns to economic products and technologies
that we can export all over the world.
I remember sitting here in this room about 10 years ago.
George Voinovich and I were leading the Clean Air subcommittee
of EPW and we had testimony on mercury reductions and how much
mercury we could release from coal-fired plants. My
recollection is we had somebody say, oh, we could never do
that, it would cripple the economy, that is just impossible.
We had one witness, Lisa, sitting right where you are
sitting today, and the guy who was representing all the
association technology companies and he said, we can do this.
We were talking about 80 percent reductions in mercury
emissions. He said, we can do this. In fact, he said, I think
we can maybe even do better than that in the timeframe that you
are talking about.
Well, guess what? We did. And we didn't do 80 percent
reductions; we did 90 percent. And we created technology
innovation that we have been able to sell all over the world.
And if we are smart about it, all these coal plants you all are
talking about in China, they can actually have the kind of
technology that we have put in or prepared to put into new
coal-fired plants here.
Lisa, I am going to ask you to just take a minute and just
give us a comment on one of the things we have heard from our
first three witnesses that you think needs to be rebutted or at
least addressed. Would you do that, please?
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you. I think on the INDC topic.
Senator Carper. INDC stands for?
Ms. Jacobson. Yes. So they are the commitments that other
nations have brought forward. The Council, in our experience in
discussing with other countries and what is expected in COP 21,
we did not expect that those would be legally binding
commitments. There may be other aspects of the treaty that have
more legal force. As we all know, that topic is one that has
not yet been resolved.
But just the fact that that scope and scale of countries
have come forward with greenhouse gas mitigation and adaptation
plans in any shape or form is a major breakthrough, and, as
companies, we see that as an important market signal and then
we can respond to that. We can look at the experience in the
U.S., where States, local governments, or the Federal
Government have made policy frameworks that signal low carbon
investment, and then we come in, roll up our sleeves, and say
how can we get that done, very similar to the comments that you
made about control technologies for mercury.
We have innovation and we have investment capital to bring
to the table, and when we see 160 countries say I want to
consider my energy policies and I want to consider low carbon
solutions, we will step up and work with them through public-
private partnership and through investment to help them reach
their goals. So when we look at the INDCs, we see business
opportunities for U.S. companies and we see jobs in the United
States.
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to just give everybody an opportunity to comment on
one particular part of this, and the part that I am concerned
with is any time we have a leader who steps forward and says we
want to make some changes, in the United States, this is a case
of where you have to bring Congress with you; and it seems as
though everything works out better if you have a bipartisan
effort to get something done.
What I am concerned about is that there has been a little
bit of a discrepancy in terms of the discussion here today
among our panelists with regard to what occurred in 1992 with
the UNFCCC or the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. I am just curious, for each of you, if you
could give us your brief thought process. Did that particular
Framework, as agreed to by the Senate by a voice vote, did that
provide the opportunity for the President today to step in and
to have a binding agreement for this Country to reduce levels
with regard to climate change issues?
I know that there was specific language placed within the
provisions of the ratification agreement as put forth by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee when it was presented to the
Senate in 1992, but I would like your thoughts to see if we
would all agree or disagree, or where the discrepancy might be
with regard to how that would be interpreted today.
If we could, I will just go down the line and simply ask
each one of the members here if you would give me your
thoughts, if you would care to.
Mr. Ku. As I said, I think that it is pretty clear from the
approval of the Senate they were worried about giving, when
they approved it, that that would be an implicit authorization
for a new agreement which didn't come back to them. So I would
read it as requiring a promise by the President to come back if
I have legally binding emissions reduction targets and
timetables. And I don't know that there are that many people
who disagree with that. That was sort of an understanding when
the Senate approved the UNFCC.
Mr. Cass. I would agree with Professor Ku that certainly
anything legally binding with respect to emissions targets
would need to be approved by Congress or the Senate.
Mr. Eule. I would agree with that as well, and I would just
remind everybody that in the Kyoto Protocol, which had legally
binding targets and timetables, the expectation was that that
would have to go to the Senate for its advice and consent.
Mr. Waskow. On the original UNFCCC, it obligates all
countries to take steps to reduce emissions in order to avoid
dangerous climate change. In the present instant, I think what
is important to keep in mind is the Administration's position,
which they have stated as being that they are seeking an
agreement that is consistent with existing U.S. law, and also
one that does not have legally binding provisions having to do
with mitigation obligations on emission reductions. So I think
that sets in a critical way the framework for thinking about
what is happening in the current negotiations, along with the
fact that in fact all countries essentially are stepping up to
put their mitigation plans, as well as adaptation plans, on the
table.
Senator Rounds. But does that mean that for legally binding
changes or limitations that you believe they would also have to
come back to the Senate for that ratification?
Mr. Waskow. I wouldn't presume to know exactly what the
legal outcome of the agreement would be and what the
implications of that would be for Senate ratification. I think,
however, the Administration has made clear how it is looking at
the mitigation obligations or the mitigation provisions in
particular, and that those should be non-legally binding. And
in that instance, assuming that the agreement is consistent
with existing U.S. law, and I think Professor Ku would agree
with this, the law would suggest that the Administration, the
President can enter into an agreement under those
circumstances.
Senator Rounds. Ms. Jacobson.
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you. I mean, I think the Framework
Convention on Climate Change was a catalyst for significant
policies at the local, State, and national level that aimed to
address climate change, greenhouse gas emissions, and
adaptation. I think it will depends what comes out of this
agreement in Paris to how Congress will engage, but I think, no
matter what, congressional engagement is a positive and
constructive part of our Country, thinking about how it is
going to manage energy and climate change concerns.
So our organization urges and is, first of all, very
pleased that there will be delegations, and have been every
single year, from Congress, both members, Senators, and staff
that come to the negotiations; and also we look forward to
engagement with Congress in the present time, as well as after
Paris, to assess what has been agreed to and to provide any
oversight functions it feels is necessary. So we welcome that.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
One more real quick question. This is for Mr. Eule. Mr.
Eule, Secretary of State John Kerry recently told the Financial
Times that the Paris agreement is definitively not going to be
a treaty. Responding to criticism from European counterparts,
the State Department quickly backtracked the statement by
saying, our position has not changed. The U.S. is pressing for
an agreement that contains provisions both legally binding and
non-legally binding, while the exact legal form of a COP 21
agreement remains unclear.
Do you believe that there is a role for the Senate in
assessing these policies that stand to have broad-reaching
economic and employment consequences?
Mr. Eule. Absolutely, Senator. As I said in my testimony, I
think whether the treaty is legally binding or not legally
binding shouldn't make a difference. A treaty that really
extends into every nook and cranny of the U.S. economy I think
should go to the Senate and to the House for approval.
Senator Rounds. That would follow, then, with what we would
find under the State Department Circular 175, in which they lay
out eight items identifying what is the differences between a
binding and non-binding item required for treaty, or that they
would expect to be under a treaty provision?
Mr. Eule. Yes, Senator, I would agree with that.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the testimony and I appreciate this discussion
because the impacts of global warming are extensive and
current, certainly on the ground in Oregon, where we see
growing damage from pine beetles because the winters are
warmer. We see extensive increases in forest fires. The season
has gotten longer, the fires have gotten more extensive,
destroying natural resources. We have had a huge loss of snow
pack in the Cascades, affecting not only our streams, making
them warmer and smaller, but affecting our agriculture, with an
extensive three worst-ever droughts in a period of 15 years in
the Klamath Basin. Even the oyster industry is having troubles
because the ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it was before
the industrial revolution.
There is certainly no great mystery over the legal status
of this. An executive agreement under authority of a ratified
treaty and under authority of current U.S. domestic law, with
non-binding emission targets and binding responsibilities to
report on progress. We can play with this extensively and try
to divert attention from the core issue, but let's not. Let's
address the core issue. Let's look at the fact that there are
enormous economic consequences, that global warming is a huge
assault on our rural resources, huge devastation to our
agriculture, to our fishing, and to our farming. So this is
something that the U.S. must exert leadership on, and bringing
together the nations of the world to be able to put forward
their vision of how we can collectively take this on is an
important act of the collective international community.
It has been said that we are the first generation to be
feeling the impacts of global warming and the last generation
that can do something about it because of the fact that it is
so much harder as the momentum builds in the warming feedback
loops. So we have a moral obligation to act. And certainly many
of the major corporations that make up the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce are coming forward on their own to say that this is an
important objective, that they are deeply committed to making
change; and I hope their voice will start to be heard in key
forums around the world and take us forward.
I just want to note that in the conversation it is often
said, well, we really need to have developing nations
participate. Well, now we have developing nations participate.
It has been asserted, I believe, Mr. Ku or Mr. Cass, in your
testimony, they were saying, well, China is not doing very
much. China has pledged in the next 15 years to deploy as much
renewable energy and electricity as all the electricity
generated in the United States by coal, by gas, and by
renewable efforts. That is a massive, massive deployment in a
very short, in a decade and a half, and represents an
extraordinary change in their disposition and their sense of
responsibility.
I would also like to note that the Senate Appropriations
Committee did act. They acted on an amendment, an amendment
that was put forward and had bipartisan support to say the
United States should provide funds to the Green Climate Fund;
that this is certainly part of the equation, because developing
nations around the world could say we are not going to act
until the per person footprint of the United States is equal to
our footprint, which is much, much smaller. They could say
that. But if they say that, our planet is doomed.
So they have courageously come forward and said we
understand that this is something that has to have every nation
involved but, you know what, we haven't produced much carbon
and the carbon that the developed nations have produced is
having a big impact on us, so can you help us out a little bit
to address these issues. And that certainly is a reasonable
proposition to put forward. So I commend the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Committee for having voted in full committee to
provide some assistance in that regard.
I want to just invite David to ask to address whether we
can wait another 30 or 40 or 50 years to take action and expect
not to have catastrophic consequences.
Mr. Waskow. Thank you for the question. Not acting
increases the cost of action. The longer that we delay in
acting will increase the cost of action because we will have
infrastructure lock-in and other dynamics that will make it
increasingly difficult to in fact shift to low carbon
economies.
We do have the opportunity and I think we in fact are on
the trajectory, as Lisa and others have said, of moving very
rapidly toward that low carbon economy. The price of solar
panels, for example, has fallen 75 percent in the last 5 years.
Senator Merkley. And we can create hundreds of thousands of
jobs in doing so?
Mr. Waskow. And we are in fact creating. There are 100,000
jobs in Texas alone related.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. My time has expired, but I do
want to welcome Sam Adams, former mayor of Portland, who works
with the World Resources Institute on Climate Change and did a
tremendous amount as mayor of Portland to take the city forward
in this regard.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
This is an invaluable hearing. I think it is very clear the
President does not have the power to unilaterally bind the
United States in these kind of agreements.
There is a bipartisan agreement and support, and we have
made a lot of progress together on things like reducing
pollution, which often means improving coal use. We have made
progress on automobile mileage. We have had strict requirements
on that and so far the automobile industry has done that. We
haven't made the progress we should have made on nuclear power,
in my opinion. That has the greatest potential over time. So we
have electric cars and other ideas that could become reality.
Solar panels are getting more competitive and maybe can play a
larger role in time to come.
But the American people are not sold on this, and neither
am I. The idea that we have to spend billions, even trillions
of dollars on CO2 as a result of the concern of global warming
is what is not being sold effectively and is not being accepted
by the American people. Maybe I will show a couple of charts in
just a second here.
This is polling data, the Gallup Poll earlier in the year,
in March, that shows 18 issues, and the last one on the minds
of the American people as an important issue was climate
change. And I think the data shows that we are not seeing the
kind of increases in temperatures that were projected. If you
take the objective satellite data compared to the red line
here, which is the average of 32 computer models, over 100 runs
of those models shows that the temperature would increase at a
rather dramatic rate. I thought a number of years ago we may
actually be seeing that, but the blue dots and the light green
dots represent the climate temperatures actually occurring
according to satellite and balloon data.
So, in essence, I'm just saying that the projections of
disaster aren't coming true, and Dr. Pilke testified here from
the University of Colorado or Colorado State in which he said
that we are not seeing more hurricanes, not seeing more
tornadoes, we are not seeing more droughts, and we are not
seeing more floods. So that is part of the background of where
we are.
All right, Dr. Eule, the Green Climate Fund proposal and
Copenhagen commitment is a commitment of developing countries
to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of
developing countries. Do you know what the United States' share
of that likely would be? Has that been discussed?
Mr. Eule. I don't think it has been discussed. The
Administration has proposed a $3 billion amount that would go
to the Green Climate Fund, but that is pre-2020.
Senator Sessions. Well, we pay about 25 percent of the U.N.
Mr. Eule. Right. If we are about 25 percent of the United
Nations, actually, when you take a look at the countries that
are responsible for providing funds to the Green Climate Fund,
it is the countries that are in what is known as Annex 2. It is
a small subset of developed countries. And the U.S. accounts
for about 45 percent of the emissions from those countries. So,
in reality, we could be on the hook for about $45 billion of
that.
Senator Sessions. Forty-five?
Mr. Eule. Yes.
Senator Sessions. And that would be annually?
Mr. Eule. That would be annually. Now, you have to remember
$100 billion was just a starting point. You know, a group of
developing countries have said that should rise up to $600
billion. The Chinese have said it should be 1 percent of the
GDP of developed countries, which the U.S. share of that would
mean about $170 billion.
Senator Sessions. We are pushing on 18 trillion GDP, so 1
percent of that is $180 billion a year?
Mr. Eule. That is right. It is a large amount of money even
by Washington standards.
Senator Sessions. I would agree. An African group is
insisting on ramping up the funding to $600 billion a year by
2030?
Mr. Eule. That is right.
Senator Sessions. Well, my time is about up, so I think we
made the concerns pretty clear here. Yes, let's do the things
that make sense; let's look for the efficiencies and anti-
pollutants, which I don't consider CO2 to be a pollutant.
Plants need to grow.
And I think if we work on that, Madam Chair, in a
bipartisan way, we will also get reduction in CO2 and we will
also get reduction in pollutants and we will benefit. But to
impose these kinds of costs on the economy, when I think there
is no realistic expectation the other countries that sign it
will meet their requirements is not wise.
Senator Capito. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much.
The world is going to gather in Paris in 2 weeks, and the
central objective is to deal with the dangerous human
interference with the climate system, and countries from around
the world are coming in order to make their commitments. One
hundred sixty countries that actually are responsible for 90
percent of global carbon pollution have already made climate
pledges in advance of the Paris talks, and we are positioned to
have a very successful outcome from this huge international
meeting. I believe that the United States can meet our goals.
President Obama has made them at different times before
this huge summit. That is because our fuel economy standard to
go to 54.5 miles per gallon. That is the largest single
reduction in greenhouse gases in history of any country. That
is still on the books. The President's Clean Power Plan will
dramatically reduce emissions from that sector as well. We have
energy efficiency standards and we have massive deployment of
wind and solar all across our Country that is unleashing
business opportunity.
So I guess I go to you first, Mr. Waskow. Do you agree that
the Paris agreement includes meaningful emissions reduction
pledges from all the countries, including developing countries,
in your opinion?
Mr. Waskow. Thank you. As I mentioned, there are more than
160 countries, 119 of them developing countries that have put
forward their plans. We are seeing significant actions in many
of them. I would just note, for example, in the case of India,
that their domestic plans are to increase renewable energy to
175 gigawatts total by 2022, and 100 gigawatts of that would be
in solar energy; and that is more than half the current global
solar installed capacity. That would then ramp up.
Senator Markey. That is 170,000 megawatts of renewable
electricity.
Mr. Waskow. That is right.
Senator Markey. So that is incredible. And China is making
a comparable kind of commitment, even larger in terms of its
deployment, by the year 2030.
Do you anticipate that an agreement reached in Paris will
include procedures for reporting, monitoring, and verifying
those pledges?
Mr. Waskow. The underlying U.N. Framework Convention in
fact has provisions for countries to provide information about
their emissions to report on their inventories. This agreement
will build on that. We already had progress forward in the
Copenhagen and Cancun agreements about increasing the degree of
transparency. This agreement, I think, will increase that to an
even greater degree and have convergence between developed and
developing countries in terms of the requirements that they
face in terms of transparency.
Senator Markey. Thank you. Has America's leadership been
the key to bringing all the other countries to the table? Has
the fact that we have made this commitment to reduce by 26 to
28 percent by 2025 been the forcing mechanism that says to
China and to India and to other countries you too must do
something?
Mr. Waskow. I think our actions have been noted around the
world. I think that when one goes to the negotiations, one has
a sense that countries see what we are doing. And I think one
of the underpinnings, in fact, of this agreement is the work
that the United States has done with China in particular to
move forward.
Senator Markey. I think you are right. Honestly, you can't
preach temperance from a bar stool, so we had to put up our
commitments, and that is what the problem was back in Kyoto; we
weren't putting up what we were going to be doing. So here we
have that and we have had a response from countries all around
the world.
In the business community I think they are looking forward
to this, are they not, Ms. Jacobson, so that there can be a
signal that is sent to the business community that they can
rely upon, that there is going to be an investment atmosphere
that is going to unleash hundreds of billions, trillions of
dollars into this renewable energy sector?
Ms. Jacobson. Very much. And energy efficiency and other
clean generation options. I mean, what the business community
needs is a clear, sustained market signal to drive investment.
Right now we are seeing investment sitting on the sidelines
because there is not enough clarity. The United States has made
tremendous progress in providing clarity over the last several
years in terms of its domestic policy agenda in the energy
sector. We need to see that in more countries, and we believe
that the Paris discussions and the outputs from the conference
are going to create a stronger investment signal in other
countries outside of ours.
Senator Markey. What would it mean if we extended the wind
and solar tax breaks for 15 years in this Country, in terms of
the climate for investment?
Ms. Jacobson. We have seen, just looking at the ITC and the
production tax credit experienced just in the last five or 6
years, you can see when we had a sustained investment policy
for the ITC we saw investment and deployment increase
dramatically. And when we didn't have that clarity in other tax
provisions for clean energy, things dropped off. So it is a
very clear spotlight on what the power of policy certainty can
provide to the investment of this community.
Senator Markey. Thank you. We are going to have 300,000
jobs in wind and solar by the end of next year; 65,000 coal
miners. So you can see how this is a growth trajectory that if
we kept these tax incentives on the books, the clean power plan
and the fuel economy standards, we would revolutionize our own
Country, but give the leadership to the rest of the world; and
be able to export these technologies, by the way, around the
rest of the world.
I thank you for all of your help here today.
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
It is my understanding that we have had a vote that has
been called, so what I am going to do is step away from the
chair while Senator Boozman questions; make my vote really
quickly and then get back so we can keep continuing with the
hearing. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
[Presiding.] Mr. Eule, as you know, it was revealed earlier
this month that China's coal consumption is 17 percent higher
than was previously reported. This confirms what many of us
have been saying: we can't trust China to keep track of carbon
emissions and play by the rules. I have said many times that
one of my major concerns is when we impose expensive carbon
mandates here and force the price of electricity to necessarily
skyrocket. It just forces our manufacturers to close, and their
competitors in China will grow and emit even more into our
atmosphere.
Mr. Eule, is China the only country that has problems
keeping up with its own CO2 and GHD emissions?
Mr. Eule. No, it is not. And when you take a look at the
error that the Chinese made, we are not talking about a
rounding error here; this is a huge error, equivalent to about
the GHD emissions from Germany. So what is going on in China is
going on in a lot of other countries in the world that just
don't have a handle on how much greenhouse gas emissions they
are actually emitting.
Senator Boozman. If China can't accurately account for its
emissions, should we expect them to actually deliver on setting
up a complex and sophisticated national emissions trading
system?
Mr. Eule. Quite frankly, I don't see how they can do that.
I mean, part of an emission trading system is the idea of
trust; that when you purchase a ton of CO2 allowance, that
actually represents a ton of CO2 emissions. And right now we
don't have that confidence, and I am not so sure in the next
year or so, when Chinese expect to roll out their emission
trading, I am not so sure that confidence can be instilled in
such a short period of time.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Cass, you highlighted in your testimony that the COP 21
negotiations will focus little on greenhouse gas emissions and
almost entirely on climate finance, specifically on motivating
developed countries like the U.S. to offer more than $100
billion per year starting in 2020 through the green climate
slush fund. Of course, thankfully, Congress is not going to
provide that money. But for those countries that might put a
few dollars into this fund, is there any indication of how
these funds would be used?
Mr. Cass. Thank you, Senator. I think one of the open
questions right now is exactly that, which is what does this
funding look like. The Green Climate Fund actually just
announced its first set of grants, and it was sort of a
hodgepodge of small dollar grants to build resilient
infrastructure, potentially some investments in the direction
of clean energy.
But there frankly, at this point, is no clear guidance on
how the money would be spent, and I think, most importantly, we
know from our experience with foreign development aid that
sending large amounts of money to developing countries even to,
say, build a school is enormously challenging and rarely
produces the desired result. Sending that money to build a
revolutionary electricity grid where none has existed I think
is doubtful to work very well.
Senator Boozman. No, that was my next question. We are
really talking about countries that really have trouble with
governance; lots of corruption, money not putting to good use.
So, again, I guess your testimony is that that would be very,
very difficult to manage.
Mr. Cass. I think it is, and I think we take for granted,
as we develop green infrastructure and renewable energy in the
United States, that we have all the existing infrastructure to
build off of and that we are adding a few percentage points to
an enormous baseload of reliable energy. And now we are trying
to do that in a developing world that has no such baseline, and
this is exactly why the developing world doesn't want to go in
that direction, because it is not the right way to develop.
Senator Boozman. What level of oversight would be assigned
to the global fund? Is there any oversight in place?
Mr. Cass. There is an elaborate U.N. style structure of
oversight over the Clean Climate Fund, with boards and
committees and guidelines. In practice, how the money comes and
goes I think will likely look more like what we have seen from
other U.N. efforts than what we are used to domestically.
Senator Boozman. Right. Thank you.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
So there clearly is a crisis, and I am glad I didn't hear
anybody sort of denying that we don't have a climate problem.
And the data and the facts speak for themselves. Just over the
past week, scientists reported that global carbon dioxide
concentrations have exceeded, perhaps permanently, the 400
parts per million threshold and carbon dioxide levels are now
substantially higher than at any point in the last 800,000
years. Global temperatures have now exceeded about 1 degree
Celsius above the pre-industrial age, with 2014 being the
warmest year on record. These are facts. 2015 actually is on
pace to be even warmer than 2014.
And this is something that is not just heralded by the
scientists around the globe, but also important global
organizations. Earlier this month, The World Bank announced
that due to currently projected sea level rise and an uptick in
extreme weather, climate change could force an additional 100
million people on the planet Earth into poverty by 2030.
So in the face of global crises, it seems that I hear in
Washington over and over again that America must lead, that our
leadership is important. Indeed, as we see with the war on
terror, people calling again and again for American leadership.
Well, clearly this global crisis is another case where we must
lead. America has led throughout the decades in generations
past, from the space race, which has yielded billions and
billions of dollars in economic benefit to the United States,
to even important global issues like mapping the human genome.
So in the face of this need for American leadership, in the
face of these facts about a global crisis, it is important to
me that there are actually things that Paris can do and will
do, if not the least of which is increasing communication,
transparency, and greater levels of accountability for nations,
as well as corporations. But critical to me, I mentioned the
space race, is this understanding that leadership has its
benefits and this crisis has its cost. The U.S. historically
providing leadership to help solve global crises is something I
am proud of, and this is an occasion where we must rise again.
By exercising leadership, the United States economy can
benefit, and it can benefit in astonishing ways, with trillions
of dollars of new investments, increased jobs, and, most
importantly, as I am seeing on the coast of New Jersey, we can
avoid the social costs.
A recent NYU report finds that a global agreement to limit
temperature increases to 2 degrees Celsius will provide $10
trillion in direct benefits to the United States. I know the
costs both to the local communities in New Jersey, from our
fisheries to the storms and the weather changes, but the
opportunity, the upside for this leadership is profound.
So I would like to ask questions first to David Waskow. Mr.
Waskow, in your opening statement you mentioned some of the
potential economic benefits. This is something that is often
not talked about. People keep talking about the costs, the
costs, the costs, but the upside is pretty extraordinary. So if
you could elaborate for me about what our Country, what the
United States of America could see when it comes to economic
benefits, job benefits from reducing carbon emissions.
Mr. Waskow. Sure. The benefits are quite extraordinary, as
I mentioned. The EPA has estimated that the benefits of the
Clean Power Plan themselves, from health benefits and others,
are $32 billion to $54 billion by 2030. That, in itself, is
substantial and noteworthy.
In addition to that, key actions that we can take, such as
in energy efficiency, provide economic benefits, the evidence
is that for every dollar invested in energy efficiency, you get
at least two back. And the appliance efficiency measures that
the Administration has put in place since 2009 alone would
bring consumers $450 billion in benefits by 2030.
Senator Booker. No, I appreciate that. And as somebody who
had to run a city, I saw a triple bottom line when it came to
dealing with energy efficiency and trying to deal with global
issues. We not only are able to reduce our expenditures by
doing environmental retrofits where we were able to lower our
carbon footprint, but we created jobs for our community and
began to deal with the crisis in urban places like epidemic
asthma rates.
Ms. Jacobson, a similar question for you is can you
describe some of the potential economic opportunities for the
United States that would result from strong international
agreement in Paris? And, please, you have 30 seconds. There is
a ferocious chairman here and I want to stay on his good side.
Ms. Jacobson. I think I will just go back to my point on
energy productivity and looking at what productivity gains our
economy has achieved as we have also reduced our greenhouse gas
emissions. It shows that you can reduce emissions, you can cut
energy waste, you can create jobs, and you can improve the
competitiveness of the U.S. economy at the same time. So these
things make economic sense.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to note that I finished before
my time expired.
Senator Boozman. Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. You surely did; three, two, one. Let me
just make a statement, because we do have a vote and many other
things to get to, so I will not have a chance to do a question.
I want to put in the record at this point, Mr. Chairman, a
peer reviewed article by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg of Copenhagen
Consensus Center, entitled, ``Impact of Current Climate
Proposals.'' Could I put that in the record at this point?
Senator Boozman. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wicker. I also would like to put into the record a
press release issued by the Copenhagen Consensus with regard to
that peer reviewed study.
Senator Boozman. Again, without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Wicker. Let me just say this. Mr. Lomborg and I
have not always seen eye-to-eye on the causes of climate
change, but he has, I think, released a very important peer
reviewed study. And, of course, I look on the Internet and I
see the first thing that happens when you challenge the status
quo is that there is a chorus of people saying that the data is
wrong and faulty and should be disregarded.
But here is what Dr. Lomborg tells us about the Paris
promises. He basically says this: if Paris accomplishes
everything they want to, and if you use their own projections,
if we measure the impact of every nation fulling every promise
by the year 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048
degrees Celsius. In other words, by the end of this century, if
everything they say is correct, we will have accomplished a
change in degree Celsius of less than five-hundredths of a
degree Celsius.
My friend from New Jersey may or may not be correct about
the problem, but the question is we spend all this money and
divert it from all of these other areas. What are we going to
get for it in addressing this problem? And this peer reviewed
study says you are going to get less than five hundredths of a
degree by the end of the century.
The United Kingdom is diverting $8.9 billion from its
overseas budget, going to turn it over to climate change. We
are going to divert almost $9 billion and get five-tenths of a
degree Celsius?
I think the people of the world who answer public opinion
polls are correct. When asked where action-related climate
change ranks out of 16 categories, they rank it dead last. I
think the people that are most disadvantaged in this world
would rather have us use money to improve education, to
increase electricity availability, to fight malaria.
Malnourishment claims at least 1.4 million children's lives
per year. Yet we are taking money away from programs that do
that. We are taking money that could be used for malnourishment
and putting it on something that is going to five us less than
five hundredths of a degree.
1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty. Think of what
the United Nations could do with the money that we are going to
put, if it is $100 billion or whatever. Think of what we could
do to help people in poverty, to help children who are dying,
dying from malnutrition. Two point six billion human beings on
this planet lack clean drinking water and sanitation. We could
prevent 300,000 deaths a year if we took this money and put it
on malaria.
So I just say I hope this Congress, I hope this Senate will
act with caution. I hope the representatives of the American
people act with caution when they go to Paris. And I hope
whatever is done, I hope we make it clear, and the word should
go out from this hearing and from this capital that whatever is
agreed to by the people representing the United States of
America in Paris should come back to this Congress for debate,
for consultation, and for approval or disapproval by the
Congress.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito.
[Presiding.] Thank you.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Jacobson, in your written testimony you wrote that the
U.S. business community is increasingly considering the climate
change in its energy corporate strategies and that companies
are pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and are
implementing other climate change initiatives. Can you discuss
with the committee some examples of how companies are embracing
the move to lower our carbon emissions and promote greater
sustainability? And have they used efforts to combat climate
change as an opportunity to innovate and grow?
Ms. Jacobson. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to
this. Several Business Council for Sustainable Energy members
made recent pledges this fall related to greenhouse gas
mitigation and other compatible, sustainable energy
initiatives. These include Calpine, ENER-G Rudox, Ingersoll
Rand, Johnson Controls, Kingspan Insulated Panels, PG&E,
Qualcomm, and Schneider Electric. This really shows them plus
their peers. In the recent announcements, as was mentioned by
David, there were over 80 companies that came together,
representing, I believe, $3 trillion investment, and they
provide hundreds of thousands of jobs in this Country and offer
their technologies, products, and services in a competitive and
effective way globally.
They see this as a mainstream business issue, and the range
of tools vary, but they may be things like energy management
practices, setting targets for reducing their energy use,
working through their supply chains. Some even put carbon
pricing into their investment decisions. And they are doing
this because they get economic benefit from doing so.
The last decade, through tools like the Carbon Disclosure
Project and other initiatives, track how businesses have really
evolved in the way they have responded to the call from their
customers and from shareholders to consider sustainability
initiatives and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We also now
are seeing companies take it to the next level and look at what
science and policymakers are doing in terms of their own
trajectories for greenhouse gas emissions and matching them in
their corporate strategies.
So it is a mainstream issue and companies are responding in
different ways, but I think the essential piece is that
companies are responding.
Senator Gillibrand. Can you please describe the importance
of reaching an international agreement in Paris to the business
community that you work with? And what effect do you think the
global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases will have on the
ability of U.S. companies that have already embraced
sustainability to compete internationally?
Ms. Jacobson. Well, I think the second question first. The
U.S. has a path forward. It has it at the State level, it has
it at the local policy level, and we have it at the Federal
level through the investments we are making in energy research,
development, and deployment through things like the Clean Power
Plan. We already have a roadmap. Other countries where we
compete for customers and to invest need to be on a similar
roadmap.
And what the International Climate Change Agreement does is
it brings to light, it provides transparency on not only what
we do, but what other governments are doing. So that sends a
very strong signal to investors of where to place their
capital. In the energy sector, these are long-lived
investments; they are decades-long investments. And right now,
with a lack of clarity in many parts of the world, capital is
sitting on the sidelines, and that is not good for U.S. firms
and it is not providing the job creation opportunities that
U.S. firms would like to provide here at home.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Mr. Waskow, in your testimony you State that the leadership
shown by the United States has paid substantial dividends
internationally. Can you please elaborate on how the United
States leadership has spurred action by other countries, and
what changes have we seen from the lead-up to the Copenhagen
meeting in 2010?
Mr. Waskow. Thank you. The leadership that the United
States is showing has really had ramifications sort of rippling
outwards, I think, and the underpinnings of that leadership
really has been the agreements that the United States has
entered into or arranged with China. Beginning a year ago, with
the joint announcement by the two countries, where each put
forward what its climate plans for the coming decade and, in
China's case, for the coming decade and a half will be, that
really laid the ground for an understanding that action was
going to be international in scope, when the two major
emitters, the two largest emitters came forward in that way.
And what we saw coming out of that, I think, was in fact a
ripple effect that turned into a wave of action
internationally. And we have now seen all major emitters, as
part of that 160-plus set of countries with national climate
plans, come forward with their plans, and we have seen actions,
as I mentioned the Indian renewables target, for example, that
have come forward. India has gone even beyond those 2022
numbers to commit that it would have 40 percent of its energy
supply from non-fossil sources by 2030. And we have seen this
happen in any number of countries.
This is very different from the Copenhagen situation. We
have seen a doubling of countries that have put forward plans
that have greenhouse gas emissions targets in them, as opposed
to general actions, and we are seeing a plethora of renewable
energy plans as well. We have analyzed the national climate
plans, the INDCs, to look at renewable energy in particular.
Just the eight largest emitters have put plans in place for
more than 8,000 terawatt hours of renewable energy by 2030.
This is about 20 percent more than what they would have done
under business as usual.
So we are seeing something that is really remarkable.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
If we could hold here for just a minute or two. Senator
Whitehouse is on his way back, would like to participate in
some questioning. So we will just of at ease, I guess would be
a way to say it.
Senator Carper. Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Yes.
Senator Carper. Rather than just sit here and not continue
our conversation, could I be recognized, please?
Senator Capito. Yes.
Senator Carper. A little bit of levy here. Yogi Berra. Who
mentioned Yogi Berra? Daj` vu all over again. One of my
favorite Yogi Berra stories is Yogi Berra is in the dugout with
the other Yankees, and before the game started one of his
teammates came in and said, did you hear the news, did you hear
the news, Yogi? He said, a Jew has been elected mayor of
Dublin. And Yogi thought about it and said, only in America.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. Another Yogi favorite is Yogi once said,
when you come to a fork in the road, take it. I think we're at
the fork in the road, and my hope is that we will take it.
I learned a few things in preparing for this hearing, Madam
Chair. One of those is many of these, I will call them, other
executive agreements not approved by Congress have there been?
I did have no idea, but it turns out there has been something
like 18,000 of them since 1789, compared to about 1,000
treaties that would have been agreed to.
And I thought, well, are some of those executive agreements
that have not been approved by Congress? One was the Yalta
Agreement that ended World War II in 1945. Another was the
Paris Peace Accords that ended the war in Vietnam in which I
served. Another was the various adjustments to the Montreal
Protocol and substances that depleted the ozone labor from
1987. More recently, the Minamata Convention on Mercury from
2013, a global agreement to protect human health from mercury
pollution. All of those were not treaties, they were really
essentially executive agreements.
I will yield back my time and thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Capito. Sure.
Senator Whitehouse. May I first ask unanimous consent to
enter into the record the key vote alert from the Chamber of
Commerce claiming to represent ``the interests of more than 3
million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions''
threatening to ``score the vote'' yesterday to destroy the
President's Clean Power Plan?
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
May I also ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
letter signed by more than 360 companies, including General
Mills, Nestle USA, Dannon, Staples, Adidas, Gap, Levis, and
Schneider Electric, which has a good Rhode Island presence,
always glad to have Schneider Electric involved, that was sent
to the Nation's Governors expressing strong support for
implementation of the EPA's carbon pollution standards for
existing power plants?
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair.
May I also ask unanimous consent to enter the White House
American Business Act on Climate Pledge into the record? This
is 81 companies with operations in 50 States who employ over 9
million people, represent more than $3 trillion in annual
revenue, and with a combined market cap of over $5 trillion?
The signatories include Alcoa, Bank of America, Best Buy,
Cargill, Coca Cola, Google, McDonald's, Pepsi, Proctor &
Gamble, Walmart, and Walt Disney.
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
And, finally, let me ask unanimous consent to enter into
the record a financial sector statement on climate change from
the financial giants Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs,
JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo calling for a
strong global agreement?
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. I don't have it with me, but I will get
it before the record of the hearing closes. I would also ask
unanimous consent that an advertisement in support of climate
action put into the Financial Times by Unilever, by General
Mills, by Mars, by Nestle, by Ben & Jerry's, and by Kellogg's
be added to the record.
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. And I would like to, with the Chair's
permission, ask a question for the record of the Chamber of
Commerce, which is present here in the form of Mr. Eule. The
question for the record is how does the Chamber's relentless
opposition to any climate action represent the views of the
companies on these letters who are chamber members?
I think that will probably take a little bit of time, so I
would like to make that a question for the record.
Let me also add into the record an article----
Senator Capito. Just let me clarify. That means you are
wanting a written response from Mr. Eule?
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. And/or the Chamber, if they want
to respond through some other personage.
Senator Capito. All right.
Senator Whitehouse. I would also like to put into the
record a recent press story called ``The Koch ATM,'' which
reports that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce received $2 million
from Freedom Partners, which is a Koch-backed operation, and
also reflect for the record here that the Center for Media
Democracy reports that from 2001 to 2012 The Manhattan
Institute received over $2.1 million from foundations
associated with the Koch brothers, including the Charles G.
Koch Foundation and the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, and the
Union of Concerned Scientists reports that since 1998 The
Manhattan Institute received $800,000, $475,000 of which has
come in since 2007, from ExxonMobil.
Senator Capito. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
I think the point I am trying to make here is that the so-
called voices of the business community that we are seeing here
are in fact the voices of the fossil fuel industry,
specifically ExxonMobil, the coal industry, big oil, the Koch
brothers; and that the bulk of the broader American corporate
community is actively supporting taking action on climate,
setting aside the parts of the American economy that are
actually involved in the clean energy economy. These are kind
of just neutral American businesses, as opposed to companies
like I think it is called Mid-America Power, which is providing
so much wind power in Iowa right now and other big ventures
that are investing heavily, creating jobs, developing
technology, and doing good things for the American economy.
So I wanted to make sure that the record of this proceeding
reflected both the position of the broader American corporate
community and also the funding behind two of the gentlemen who
are here today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Well, I think we have reached the end of
our hearing. I want to thank all of you for participating. I
think we have gotten some good discussion.
Senator Carper. Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Yes.
Senator Carper. You and I are both from West Virginia. I
was born long before you were, but when I think about this
issue, I think about the Golden Rule, how do we apply the
Golden Rule so we are fair to everybody. In my State, we face
global sea level rise. It is going to do us in, eventually, if
we don't do something about it.
My native State, West Virginia, one of the top five coal-
producing States in the Country, some of our neighbors where I
was born and grew up, my dad worked as a coal miner for a
little bit out of school. But I have been a longtime supporter
of clean coal technology, I am sure you have as well, for over
twenty-some years. We spent about $20 billion on clean coal
technology, I think, in the last 20 years, and we have a plant
up and running now in Southwest Texas. It will be up and
running next year. It will produce about 250 megawatts of
energy. We have some other plants where work is being done on
those.
It has taken a long time, it has taken a lot of money, but
I am encouraged that we are starting to make some progress. So
when I apply the Golden Rule to those five coal-producing
States, West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Pennsylvania,
Wyoming, and others, I think what is the fair thing to do with
them, and I think part of the fair thing to do is to continue
to invest in clean coal technology and look for the innovation.
All those coal plants that they are going to build in China and
other places, if they can actually use this technology, we
could actually develop it, that could be pretty good job
development for all of us.
Senator Capito. Well, I would agree, and in the form of
letting the panel know that Senator Barrasso is on his way, so
the same courtesies that we extended to Senator Whitehouse we
will extend to him and wait a little bit longer for him to be
able to make questions.
And I do believe innovation, but I do believe that when we
talk about the human price and the human consequences of what
is going on in terms of climate change, you have to look about
what is going on in States like mine right now, and the human
consequences of the highest unemployment, a 4 percent cut in
our State budget, the first time we have ever had to cut
education in many, many years by 1 percent; more people in
poverty; a sense of gloom and doom and depression that really I
have not seen in our State, and we have had a lot of highs and
lows in our State. As you know, we have had experience with
kind of feeling that our economics can't move forward.
But it is indescribable where I am living right now, so I
see the human consequence of moving forward without the
innovation, without longer timelines, without more common
sense. So I will just make that a statement.
I am going to ask a quick question because you brought up
the sole executive agreements that had been made. I think you
said how many over the past, 800?
Senator Carper. Actually, about 18,000.
Senator Capito. Eighteen thousand.
Senator Carper. They call them executive agreements.
Senator Capito. So my question is, Mr. Ku, if this becomes
a sole executive agreement by this President, who is leaving
office in a year, for the next president coming in, what kind
of parameters, does that have any binding measures for the next
president, and could the next president come in and just
totally undo what has been done in that sole executive
agreement?
Mr. Ku. Thanks, Senator. I think that a sole executive
agreement is the weakest kind of commitment that the United
States can make. There are a lot of them, but they are usually
for very small things or things within the president's inherent
powers. So the Supreme Court has said that only for things that
historically Congress has acquiesced in using executive
agreements would the Court uphold such executive agreements.
So I think the way to think about this is that if he makes
the executive agreement under his sole authority, a president
can withdraw the executive agreement under his sole authority.
Senator Capito. But that would mean the succeeding
president.
Mr. Ku. Yes. So a succeeding president would have the
authority to withdraw an executive agreement that was made
under the sole authority of the previous president.
The only difference, I would just say, is that if the other
countries feel like the previous president made a binding
promise, the fact there is a new president doesn't make them
feel much better about it. So there is a cost to it if the next
president withdraws. Even though it is legal, the other
countries obviously become upset and unhappy about it, and that
is why the Supreme Court, I think, and generally scholars think
that the use of sole executive agreements has to be carefully
used only where it is clear the president has the authority and
there is longstanding precedent for use of a sole executive
agreement in that circumstance.
Senator Capito. Well, thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Whitehouse. Madam Chair, before we turn to Senator
Barrasso's remarks, may I simply associate myself with the
thoughtful remarks of Senator Carper of a moment ago? I have to
leave now, but I would like to associate myself with his
remarks.
Senator Capito. All right. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
You know, if there was one message that I would like to
send to the international community ahead of the international
climate change conference, it is this: without Senate approval,
there will be no money.
Secretary Kerry says that a treaty requiring Senate
approval will not emerge from the international climate talks.
This is despite the fact that the State Department is pushing
for parts of the agreement to be legally binding on the United
States.
On November 13th, the State Department, our position has
not changed. The U.S. is pressing for an agreement that
contains provisions both legally binding and non-legally
binding.
Any agreement reached in Paris that contains legally
binding requirements on the American people must come to the
Senate for a vote. This isn't only the right thing to do, it is
also what the Constitution requires.
As we know, the United Nations Green Climate Fund was
proposed during the 2009 conference of parties in Copenhagen,
Denmark. The Fund facilitates a giant wealth transfer of
taxpayer dollars from the developed nations to developing
nations to help them adapt to climate change.
Congress has never authorized funding the Green Climate
Fund. The United States and other developed nations have
pledged approximately $10 billion for the initial
capitalization of the Fund, with the goal of raising $100
billion annually. Most people think that is a misprint, but it
is true, $100 billion annually is what they are talking about.
On November 15th of last year, the Obama administration
pledged $3 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds over the 4-years
during the G20 meetings in Australia. The Administration's
Fiscal Year 2016 budget request asks for $500 million for the
Fund.
We cannot support providing taxpayer dollars to this Fund
is Congress does not get approval of an agreement.
So I want to make it clear to the Administration, as well
as to foreign diplomats across the globe who are looking for
U.S. dollars, which is the linchpin of this conference, without
Senate approval there will be no money, period.
I and many of my colleagues will be sending the President a
letter stating that very soon. We have circulated a copy of the
letter.
Now for the questions.
Mr. Cass, it was recently reported in The New York Times,
page 1, above the fold, Wednesday, November 4th, China is
burning much more coal than it claimed. Article states, even
for a country of China's size, the scale of the correction is
immense. The sharp upward revision in official figures means
that China has released much more carbon dioxide, almost a
billion more tons a year, than previously estimated. A billion
more tons a year than estimated. The increase alone is greater
than the whole German economy emits annually from fossil fuels.
So how does this impact the Chinese INDC submission and
should we be premising U.S. action based on a promise from
China, when they can't even accurate count or won't accurately
account their coal consumption?
Mr. Cass. Thank you, Senator. I think the Chinese
restatement is an important fact, because in that very article
they actually quote China's climate advisor, somewhat smugly
noting this makes it even easier for them to meet their target.
China has never committed to a level that its emissions
will peak at; it has never committed to how its emissions will
decline after that. So by after having already put out its
commitment, noting, oh, and actually we are burning a lot more
coal than we told you, they are in fact making it that much
easier to meet a goal that they were on track to meet anyway,
without actually making any changes to their policy.
Senator Barrasso. But it sounds like the cost and
concessions to be made by the U.S. in the agreement with China
are much more real than what China is ever going to do, and
ours have to be done before 2025 and China can continue to go
to peak in the year 2030.
Mr. Cass. That is correct. And I think what is most
concerning about that in some respects is that we have heard so
much at this hearing about the importance of U.S. leadership
and about this process we have moved forward with that requires
what is essentially called naming and shaming. The premise of
getting action from the developing world is that we are going
to call out those who do not commit to action and shame them
into action. Now, whether that was ever a good idea or not, it
is how we have proceeded; and yet the talking points from the
most vocal advocates of climate action are now that the China
is doing a great job.
Senator Barrasso. And, Mr. Eule, if I could ask you if a
sophisticated country like China can't keep up with its
emissions, what level of confidence do we have that other
countries with fewer resources and capacity will be able to or
willing to produce a reliable system for measuring, reporting,
and verifying emission reduction activities?
Mr. Eule. In the Chinese experience, my guess is nothing
new. I think there are a lot of developing countries that don't
have a handle on how much greenhouse gas emissions they are
actually emitting. So it is an excellent question, and I am not
quite sure at this point that measuring, reporting, and
verification can be set up so that we can, with assurance,
guarantee that the emission cuts they have promised are
actually going to be delivered.
Senator Barrasso. And then a question for both of you, if
you could. There was a recent opinion piece in The Wall Street
Journal by Bjorn Lomborg, who many of you are familiar with,
noted that in the run-up to the negotiations, he says, rich
countries and development organizations are scrambling to join
the fashionable ranks of climate aid, of the donors. This
effectively means telling the world's worst off people,
suffering from tuberculosis, malaria, malnutrition, that what
they really need isn't medicine, isn't mosquito nets, or
micronutrients, but a solar panel.
Could the ultimate effect of the negotiations make it
actually harder, harder for countries to raise their own people
out of the abject poverty in the name of climate change?
Mr. Cass. I think that is certainly a concern, and I think
Senator Wicker called attention to the fact that the U.K.,
under pressure to provide climate finance, has simply said, OK,
we will shift our other develop aid into climate finance.
I think the good news for people in developing countries is
that their own leaders are refusing to prioritize emissions
cuts over economic growth. The bad news is that the developed
world, for the sake of getting a signed piece of paper, may
reorient their own aid toward solar panels instead of drinking
water.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Eule.
Mr. Eule. Mr. Cass said essentially what I was going to
say. The simple fact is when you look at what developing
countries are doing, they have set their priorities, and their
priorities are economic development, poverty eradication, and
energy access; it is not about addressing greenhouse gas
emissions. And I think that is going to be the way it will be
for the foreseeable future.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Carper, anything else?
Senator Carper. If I could make a unanimous consent request
to put in the record, Madam Chairman, a copy of the U.S.
pledges for the general climate fund, which actually appear to
be around $3 billion, instead of the $45 billion quoted
earlier.
I would just say to my friend from Wyoming, you missed
this, but we have a number of States. I was born in one that
produced a lot of coal, and as we go forward and try to figure
out how to deal with this issue of climate change and global
warming, we need to be mindful how do we help the States that
will be adversely affected, just as we try to help the low-
lying States that are in danger of being drowned.
And I would say if we don't provide leadership, the rest of
the world, they are not going to do much at all. Why should
they? If we do provide leadership, we have a shot, we have a
chance.
Thank you.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Thank you again to the panel and thank all those who
attended, and I will call this hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:27 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]