    [Senate Hearing 116-107]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-107

        REDUCING EMISSIONS WHILE DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH: INDUSTRY-LED
                                  INITIATIVES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON CLEAN AIR
                               AND NUCLEAR SAFETY

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION
                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 17, 2019
                                   __________

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

                      [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

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

                                  ___________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    38-868 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2020

    [[Page (ii)]]

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director
                                  ----------

                  Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety

                         MIKE BRAUN, Indiana, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming (ex officio)  TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex
                                             officio)

    [[Page (iii)]]

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                OCTOBER 17, 2019
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Braun, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana.........     1
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................     3
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware,
      prepared statement.............................................   134
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma,
      prepared statement.............................................   155

                                   WITNESSES

    Wilkinson, Todd, Policy Division Vice Chairman, National
      Cattlemen's Beef Association...................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Braun.........    14
    Macchiarola, Frank, Vice President of Downstream and Industry
      Operations, American Petroleum Institute.......................    16
        Prepared statement...........................................    18
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Braun............................................    75
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    78
    Durbin, Martin, President, Global Energy Institute, U.S. Chamber
      of Commerce....................................................    82
        Prepared statement...........................................    84
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Braun............................................    91
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    91
    Dutton, Andrea, Visiting Associate Professor, Department of
      Geoscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Gainesville,
      Florida........................................................    95
        Prepared statement...........................................    97
    Wilson, John, Vice President and Director of Corporate
      Engagement, Calvert Research and Management....................   104
        Prepared statement...........................................   106
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Braun.........   110

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    From Senator Braun:
        Letters:
            To Senators Braun and Whitehouse from the American Forest
              & Paper Association, October 9, 2019...................   156
            To Senators Braun and Whitehouse from the City of
              Farmington, New Mexico, October 15, 2019...............   160
            To Senators Braun and Whitehouse from the National
              Audubon Society, October 16, 2019......................   162
            To Senators Braun and Whitehouse from the Portland Cement
              Association, October 17, 2019..........................   164
        Enchant Energy San Juan Generating Station--Units 1 & 4,
          CO2 Capture Pre-Feasibility Study. Final,
          prepared by Sargent & Lundy, July 8, 2019..................   167
        Pursuing Policies to Drive Economic Growth and Reduce
          Emissions, The Heritage Foundation, October 16, 2019.......   207
    From Senator Carper:
        The Kigali Amendment is a Win for the Environment and the
          U.S. Economy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, May 8, 2018........   224
        Testimony of Ross Eisenberg, Vice President of Energy and
          Resources Policy, National Association of Manufacturers,
          before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
          Subcommittee on Environment and Climate Change, September
          18, 2019...................................................   227

        REDUCING EMISSIONS WHILE DRIVING ECONOMIC GROWTH: INDUSTRY-LED
                                  INITIATIVES

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2019

                                   U.S. Senate,
             Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                  Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike Braun
    (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Braun, Whitehouse, Barrasso, Capito,
    Ernst, and Carper.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE BRAUN,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

        Senator Braun. Good morning. I call this hearing to order.
        Thanks to everyone for being here today.
        We are meeting today to begin the important work of
    examining our changing climate and its effects on producers of
    American goods, services, and agriculture. Today, we will hear
    testimony from experts on the innovative private sector led
    initiatives in the U.S. that reduce air emissions while
    promoting economic growth. We will begin with opening
    statements and then hear from our panel of witnesses.
        I will start here. During the month of August, I traveled
    around the Hoosier State on my Summer Solutions tour. In the
    first little over 9 weeks, I did visit all 92 counties and got
    a real good reading of where Hoosiers are on issues related to
    climate. Nearly every stop, we discussed the importance of
    sustainability and the need to protect our environment.
        As I have learned through visiting with Hoosiers over the
    past 2 years, I have concluded the American people are paying
    attention to these important conversations. You wouldn't know
    it by watching the news, but we have all been thinking about
    and investing in this problem for a long time. Everyone, that
    is maybe except Washington, who has been too polarized for too
    long to deal with much of anything, particularly our changing
    climate.
        Instead, American innovators and capital have been leading
    the way, our manufacturing, agriculture, and generation sectors
    have seen significant improvements from the voluntary adoption
    of new, lower carbon corporate practices.

    [[Page 2]]

        According to the Energy Information Administration, U.S.
    energy related CO2 emissions decreased nine-tenths
    of a percent in 2017 alone. The American economy has been so
    impressive at reducing emissions that, in 2018, BP noted in its
    statistical review of world energy that the U.S. was the world
    leader for reducing carbon emissions, prompting the American
    Enterprise Institute to note that for the ninth time in this
    century, the U.S. has had the largest decline in emissions in
    the world. And we still need to do better.
        In fact, in 2017, the U.S. Energy Information
    Administration found U.S. emissions from energy sources hit
    their lowest level in 25 years, while during those same 25
    years, U.S. GDP more than doubled, and real median household
    income rose by nearly 20 percent.
        And yet, innovation continues. In September, Duke Energy, a
    company which serves 7.2 million customers, announced an
    ambitious new initiative, which would bring its carbon
    emissions to net zero by 2050.
        The world's largest retailer, Amazon, has announced its
    plan to achieve net zero by 2040.
        Last year, in an Indiana subsidiary of Nicor, a natural gas
    utility that serves almost 4 million customers, announced a
    Your Energy, Your Future plan. Under this initiative, Nicor
    plans to cut 90 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.
        What is perhaps most impressive about changes made by
    industry is that we have been able to accomplish significant
    emissions reduction while not sacrificing the country's overall
    economic competitiveness. But we must constantly remain
    vigilant of the balance.
        There is a real risk that in attempting to curb emissions,
    American families, workers, and businesses will be hit with
    rising prices, fees, and utility bills. It is our duty to
    balance these two interests. Rather than dictate choices, we
    should allow for the market to drive new ways to produce and
    consume energy and goods more efficiently.
        However, our national debate is deviated from this balance,
    instead focusing on policies which would, without question,
    severely limit consumer choice in many areas, from the type of
    energy you should use to the kind of car or appliance you
    should buy, to how much meat you should eat. In the case of the
    Green New Deal, a complete central planning reorganization of
    our economy, I believe the effect would be significant, and not
    in the right direction.
        It is one thing when you make these decisions for yourself.
    It is another one when Washington forces its decisions upon
    you.
        Economic competitiveness would be the real cost of these
    proposals, when ironically, if we really are going to solve our
    environmental problems, we will need innovators to produce the
    technologies to get us there, the hallmark of what has built
    this country. This is why today's focus on private sector
    investment has been so critical, what has been driving these
    decisions and what the results have been.
        I look forward to each of your testimonies as we continue
    to consider these questions. And I draw the parallel of being
    on the HELP Committee, where we are taking on the health care
    industry, who I have solely blamed for the pickle we are in
    with high

    [[Page 3]]

    health care costs, and have asked them to get with it, start
    fixing yourselves. When 80 Senators weigh in, you should be
    getting the message.
        I have been impressed, in the energy sector, in what we are
    going to talk about today, the interest within the industry of
    being responsible in trying to help protect the environment.
        Now I would like to recognize Ranking Member Senator
    Whitehouse for his opening statement.
        Senator.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. Let me start by thanking Senator Braun
    for holding this. He is a terrific colleague to work with on
    these issues. I think there is a real chance for progress in
    the weeks and months ahead.
        I will start my remarks by looking backward to 1986, when a
    similar subcommittee of this Committee had 3 days of hearings
    on climate change. After these hearings, six members of this
    Committee, three Republicans and three Democrats, wrote to the
    executive director of the now defunct Office of Technology
    Assessment, and asked for a study of policy options to reduce
    carbon pollution. They all wrote together that they were deeply
    troubled by climate change and its implications for the human
    and natural worlds. Deeply troubled, and implications for the
    human and natural worlds being quotes from their letter, 33
    years ago.
        In the intervening decades, carbon pollution and global
    temperature increase and warming and acidification of the
    oceans and the experience of climate related events like
    wildfires have all accelerated. The disastrous effects of
    climate change are now plain for anyone who is looking to see.
    Yet Congress has undertaken no serious legislation to address
    our climate crisis.
        Why is that? Because hundreds of millions of dollars are
    spent by the fossil fuel industry to block climate action. Much
    of this is spent through trade associations and front groups
    that are controlled by the fossil fuel industry.
        Two of these trade associations are present here today. The
    watchdog group, Influence Map, identified the U.S. Chamber as
    one of the two most obstructionist groups on climate policy.
    API is not far behind.
        There are signs of change at the Chamber, and at the
    National Association of Manufacturers, the two tied for worst
    climate obstructers in America. And even at API. I want to
    express my appreciation to the Chamber for inviting me, of all
    people, to speak to a Chamber gathering in New York City during
    Climate Week, which I hope is a sign of good progress to be
    made in the future.
        I appreciate very much also that the Chairman and my
    colleague from West Virginia are working with me to provide
    Federal dollars for developing new technologies to reduce
    industrial emissions. Our industrial emissions bill is a good
    one. The Chamber and NAM are supporting it.
        But what companies are doing voluntarily to reduce their
    emissions won't come close to the reductions that we need. A
    2018 study by America's Pledge totaled up the voluntary pledges
    from compa

    [[Page 4]]

    nies and State and local government emissions reduction
    commitments and found that they would only result in a 17
    percent decline in carbon emissions by 2025, which is well
    short of even the rather weak kneed Paris Agreement pledge of
    28 percent. We actually need far larger reductions if we are to
    hold warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and avoid the very worst of
    consequences.
        Innovation is a beautiful thing. America specializes in it,
    but it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Without Federal policies
    such as a price on carbon, there is little incentive for
    businesses to innovate. We have seen this principle proven out
    over and over, whether for criteria air pollutants under the
    Clean Air Act, or CFCs under the Montreal Protocol. Federal and
    international policies provided the framework for businesses to
    rely on and develop new technologies that reduced those
    emissions.
        Investors also recognize this. More than 200 major
    investors with $6.5 trillion in assets under management
    recently wrote to almost 50 blue chip companies that,
    ``Corporate commitments to embrace energy efficiency and set
    greenhouse gas reduction goals are necessary and welcomed, but
    to facilitate the deployment of capital at a necessary pace and
    scale, a strong public policy framework is needed.''
        More than 500 investors with over $35 trillion in assets
    under management recently called on policymakers to put a
    meaningful price on carbon emissions. The reason for this is,
    of course, the well documented warnings which I have forwarded
    to every single one of my Senate colleagues of a carbon asset
    bubble crash and a coastal property values crash. Progress on
    climate is increasingly seen as essential to successful
    business models in the banking, investment, and agricultural
    sectors.
        To get that progress done, corporate America must ensure
    that the trade associations to which they belong are not major
    climate obstructionists. And I hope the Chamber and API are
    getting the message.
        If one message can come out of this hearing, it is that it
    is well past time for corporate America to break the fossil
    fuel industry's stranglehold on these trade associations, and
    instead, demand the climate action that is needed to protect
    our economy and their own business models.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, Senator.
        I am pleased that we have a great panel here today. Our
    witnesses come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and I am
    looking forward to the different perspectives that will
    facilitate our discussion today.
        Our first witness today is Todd Wilkinson, who is co-owner
    and operator of a commercial cow-calf operation in South
    Dakota. He is also co-owner of Redstone Feeders, a family owned
    cattle feeding and finishing operation, and a founding member
    and current vice president of the South Dakota Cattlemen's
    Foundation.
        Mr. Wilkinson is here today in his capacity as policy
    division vice chairman of the National Cattlemen's Beef
    Association. Mr. Wilkinson has practiced law for more than 35
    years, specializing in estate planning and agricultural law. He
    is a graduate of

    [[Page 5]]

    Augustana College and the University of South Dakota Law
    School.
        Our next witness is Frank Macchiarola, the vice president
    of downstream and industry operations at the American Petroleum
    Institute, API. He joined API in January 2016, where he leads
    association efforts on fuels, refining, marketing, and
    downstream safety, security, and technology. Prior to joining
    API, Mr. Macchiarola served as executive VP of government
    affairs at America's Natural Gas Alliance. From 2004 to 2013,
    he worked here in several senior staff positions in the U.S.
    Senate, including staff director and counsel to the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and minority staff
    director of the U.S. Senate Committee on HELP.
        Mr. Macchiarola earned his BA from the College of Holy
    Cross, and his J.D. from New York University School of Law.
        Next in line will be Marty Durbin. Mr. Durbin is the
    president of the Global Energy Institute at the U.S. Chamber of
    Commerce. Previously, Mr. Durbin was the executive VP and chief
    strategy officer at the American Petroleum Institute, and the
    VP of Federal relations at the American Chemistry Council.
        Earlier in his career, he served as a staffer for Senator
    Alan Dixon, and for Congressman Rick Boucher. Mr. Durbin
    received his bachelor's in government and politics from the
    University of Maryland-College Park.
        Fourth will be Dr. Andrea Dutton. She is an associate
    professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where her
    research focuses on various impacts of climate change, in
    particular its impact on sea levels. Previously, she spent 8
    years as an assistant professor in the University of Florida's
    Department of Geological Sciences.
        Prior to her professorship at the University of Florida,
    Dr. Dutton was a research fellow at the Australian National
    University, where she worked to understand historical warming
    periods. Dr. Dutton holds a bachelor's degree in music from
    Amherst College, in addition to a master's and Ph.D. both in
    geology from the University of Michigan. She completed her
    post-doctoral work at the Australian National University.
        Final witness today is John Wilson, the VP and director of
    corporate engagement for Calvert Research and Management. His
    firm specializes in responsible and sustainable investing
    across global capital markets. Mr. Wilson leads the design and
    execution of Calvert's corporate engagement and shareholder
    activism strategy.
        He began his career in the investment management industry
    in 1997. Before joining Calvert Research, he was the head of
    governance and research at Cornerstone Capital Group. He also
    served as the director of corporate governance at TIAA-CREF and
    was the director of socially responsible investing at Christian
    Brothers Investment Services.
        John earned a B.A. in English from Georgetown University,
    an MBA in finance from Columbia University, and an MIA in
    economic and political development from Columbia University
    School of International and Public Affairs.
        I want to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be made part of the official hearing record.
    Please keep your

    [[Page 6]]

    statements to 5 minutes, so that we may have plenty of time for
    questions.
        We look forward to hearing your testimony, beginning with
    Mr. Wilkinson.
        Please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF TODD WILKINSON, POLICY DIVISION VICE CHAIRMAN,
                 NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S BEEF ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Wilkinson. Good morning, and thank you, Chairman Braun
    and Ranking Member Whitehouse.
        My name is Todd Wilkinson. I am an owner of a cow-calf
    operation with my son and a part owner of a commercial feed
    yard with my brothers near to Smith, South Dakota. I am proud
    today to testify on behalf of the American cattle producers.
        The United States has one of the lowest beef greenhouse gas
    emission intensities, 10 to 50 times lower than other countries
    around the world. That statistic is not accidental. American
    cattle producers work hard to implement new technologies and
    practices that reduce our environmental impact while
    simultaneously increasing our efficiency.
        Farmers and ranchers face increasing pressure from
    consumers to be socially responsible while managing existing
    environmental responsibility and attempting to remain
    economically viable. According to the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency, direct emissions from cattle represent just
    2 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions in this country.
        Climate change policies that unfairly target cattle
    producers fail to recognize the positive role of cattle. Rather
    than waiting for Congress to adopt misguided policies that
    threaten the viability of this key industry in the climate
    fight, we hope to shift the conversation to continue to be the
    innovators.
        Cattle graze on over 660 million acres in the United
    States. That is nearly a third of our Nation's continental land
    mass. This acreage not only feeds cattle, but also sequester
    carbon. The ruminant grazing enhances sequestration. Emissions
    from cattle are a part of the natural cycle of the methane.
        Cattle consume grasses and then emit methane through
    belches as a part of the ruminant digestive process. In just 10
    years, more than 90 percent of that methane oxidizes in the
    atmosphere and converts to CO2. The CO2
    is then absorbed by grasses. Those grasses are eaten by cattle,
    and the process goes on and on.
        Methane has no long term impact on the climate when the
    emissions and the oxidation are in balance. While cattle are a
    nominal contributor to America's overall greenhouse gas
    emissions, our industry works to further increase our
    efficiency every day by implementing grazing management
    systems.
        Our operation developed a grazing management system through
    USDA's Natural Resource and Conservation Service, which guides
    our implementation of a rotational grazing system. Rotational
    grazing creates an opportunity for cattle to intensely graze
    pastures, thereby compounding carbon sequestration while
    naturally decreasing weed and invasive species growth.
        If producers have learned anything, it is that there is no
    one size fits all, no silver bullet solution. Cattle producers
    across the Nation

    [[Page 7]]

    effectively implement voluntary conservation practices with
    technical assistance from USDA and land grant universities. The
    benefit of technical assistance is its personalized approach.
    Local NRCS employees work with agricultural producers to
    implement a suite of conservation practices best suited to fit
    each individual need.
        Voluntary conservation practices supported by research and
    implemented by producers with technical assistance are the keys
    to increasing efficiency and resilience. The American cattle
    herd provides an incredible environmental benefit through
    unmatched ability to upcycle byproducts. Upcycling being
    defined as a concept of using discarded materials to create a
    higher value product.
        In addition to the cattle's ability to turn grass into a
    nutrient dense protein, cattle also upcycle other byproducts
    when they move from pasture to the feed yard. Ninety percent of
    the cattle feed yard diet is human inedible. At Redstone
    Feeders, we feed a byproduct of an ethanol called distiller's
    grain. By feeding distiller's grain to cattle, not only do we
    provide the animals with an essential set of nutrients, but
    simultaneously reduce the greenhouse gas emissions.
        Distiller's grain is just one example. There are many
    byproducts that are fed to cattle to enhance their diet in a
    safe and efficient manner, including potato peelings, bakery
    trimmings, even byproducts of chocolate.
        NCBA was a founding member of the U.S. Roundtable for
    Sustainable Beef. The roundtable is a multi-stakeholder
    organization which aims to demonstrate and improve beef
    sustainability. The roundtable began with a discussion on how
    we, as members of the beef value chain, can directly and
    measurably impact sustainability. This approach is unique from
    previous sustainability efforts, because it is anchored by the
    institutional knowledge of America's cattle producers.
        Farmers and ranchers are America's original
    conservationists. We provide a safe and affordable beef supply,
    and we work hard every day to ensure that we can pass our
    operations on to the next generation.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkinson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Mr. Macchiarola.

     STATEMENT OF FRANK MACCHIAROLA, VICE PRESIDENT OF DOWNSTREAM
         AND INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

        Mr. Macchiarola. Thank you, Chairman Braun, Ranking Member
    Whitehouse, and Senator Capito. Thank you for the opportunity
    to testify this morning.
        The subject of today's hearing raises important policy
    questions affecting our Nation's economic strength, energy
    security, and environmental stewardship. How we address these
    topics will have meaningful implications for our Nation's
    future and our standing globally.

    [[Page 8]]

        Over the past decade, the United States has experienced a
    dramatic transformation in our energy landscape. Ten years ago,
    energy analysts and policymakers spoke in terms of energy
    scarcity with the expectation that we would predominantly be
    importing natural gas from the Middle East, Russia, and West
    Africa to meet our growing energy demand. On the petroleum
    side, a similar picture was emerging, with projections of flat
    domestic production and growing dependence on foreign sources
    of oil.
        As a result of oil and natural gas industry innovation, and
    the advancement of engineering technologies, such as hydraulic
    fracturing and horizontal drilling, we speak today in terms of
    energy abundance, and our Nation's energy future is bright.
    Domestic oil production has risen from 5 million barrels per
    day in 2009 to now more than 12 million barrels per day today.
    On the natural gas side, U.S. production of natural gas has
    increased by more than 50 percent over the last decade, with
    natural gas deliveries to electric power consumers doubling
    since 2004.
        American oil and gas development and production from
    unconventional shale resources has fundamentally changed the
    energy landscape while creating economic growth and significant
    employment opportunities across the country. And congressional
    leadership to end the crude oil export ban has favorably
    reshaped our Nation's energy security posture.
        The U.S. is poised to remain the world's leading producer
    of oil and natural gas, which will continue to help strengthen
    our economy and national security for years to come. Challenges
    remain, however. And the oil and natural gas industry is
    committed to meeting these head on. One such challenge includes
    addressing the risks associated with global climate change
    through collaborative efforts of private industry, Government,
    and the public.
        The oil and natural gas industry is focused on solutions to
    help reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while ensuring access to
    affordable and reliable energy that helps enhance our standard
    of living around the world. At the same time, the U.S. has
    become the leading producer of natural gas, CO2
    emissions here at home have declined to their lowest levels in
    a generation. From 2005 to 2017, the U.S. economy grew by 20
    percent, while CO2 emissions fell by 14 percent
    overall.
        In addition to reductions in emissions of CO2,
    the growth of natural gas in power generation over the last
    several years has led to significant reductions in nitrogen
    oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter emissions,
    contributing to cleaner air for all Americans.
        Importantly, while we have experienced a dramatic increase
    in U.S. production of natural gas, emissions of methane from
    our industry have decreased over the past 20 years. The story
    here is the same. We have accomplished positive environmental
    outcomes by advancing technologies that ensure we are capturing
    both VOCs and methane.
        Our industry has been at the forefront of innovation,
    developing technologies to reduce emissions from hydraulic
    fracturing completions, storage tanks, pneumatic controllers,
    and leaks. We have worked directly with the EPA since the early
    days of the Obama administration in 2010 to ensure that EPA's
    regulations incor

    [[Page 9]]

    porate these and other effective emissions reductions
    requirements. And we continue to support these regulatory
    requirements.
        Our industry has also established the Environmental
    Partnership, a program for continuous improvement in
    environmental performance with an initial focus on VOC and
    methane emission reductions. There are currently 67 companies
    participating in the program, including 18 of the 20 top
    natural gas producers. Companies in the partnership agree to
    implement emission reduction programs for leaks, pneumatic
    controllers, and for liquids unloading operations.
        On the downstream side of our industry, more than 98
    percent of vehicles on the road use our fuels to conduct
    commerce, commute to work, go on vacation, and visit loved
    ones. Today this is done with cleaner fuels that allow
    automobile manufacturers to build engines that reduce
    emissions. This progress has helped drive significant
    reductions of major air pollutants, even as vehicle miles
    traveled have tripled.
        A strong natural gas sector and a strong oil sector is
    essential to our Nation. Our industry supports 10.3 million
    jobs in nearly 8 percent of the U.S. economy. More importantly,
    the men and women who work in our industry are committed to
    providing reliable and affordable energy, and to protecting the
    environment. After all, they live in the communities in which
    they work. Through a balanced approach that promotes innovation
    and smart regulation, we can provide affordable, abundant
    energy that Americans rely upon. And we can do it with an
    emphasis on environmental protection and stewardship.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Macchiarola follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Mr. Durbin.

    STATEMENT OF MARTIN DURBIN, PRESIDENT, GLOBAL ENERGY INSTITUTE,
                        U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

        Mr. Durbin. Chairman Braun, Senator Whitehouse, thank you.
    Thanks for the opportunity to testify today.
        Let me start by saying the Chamber believes the climate is
    changing, and that humans are contributing to these changes.
    Inaction on climate is not an option, and there is much common
    ground on which all sides of this discussion should come
    together to address climate change with policies that are
    practical, flexible, and durable. We also believe in a policy
    approach that considers costs, benefits, and the
    competitiveness of the U.S. economy.
        In order to tackle the global climate challenge, we must
    commercialize and deploy clean energy technologies. It will be
    largely up to the business communities to develop, finance,
    build, and operate the solutions needed to power economic
    growth worldwide, mitigate greenhouse gas emissions, and build
    resilient, lower carbon infrastructure. In short, we will need
    more energy with fewer emissions. The good news is, we are up
    to the challenge.
        Thousands of companies have already taken voluntary steps
    to reduce emissions and have pledged further reductions.
    Sustain

    [[Page 10]]

    ability plans are now the norm for major corporations. Our
    Global Energy Institute has launched an Energy Innovates
    initiative to showcase the innovators, projects, and
    technologies that are shaping America's future energy
    landscape.
        The specific examples are included in my written testimony,
    but we have highlighted technologies such as battery storage,
    advanced nuclear, power plants that utilize CO2
    itself as an energy source, and energy efficient, smart
    neighborhoods. All of these technologies will be needed.
        Such technologies are being developed and deployed first in
    the United States, but ultimately, are an opportunity for the
    U.S. to become the world's leading exporter of clean energy
    technology. This will not only be a business opportunity and an
    economic boon, but also a way for the U.S. to take a leadership
    role in reducing global emissions and to improve the quality of
    life in developing countries that lack access to the basics,
    like electricity and refrigeration.
        These global realities illustrate the paramount importance
    of technological breakthroughs that will enable financially
    constrained developing countries to adopt the technologies
    necessary to slow and ultimately reverse emissions growth. The
    good news is that numerous technologies hold great promise to
    do just that, and that is why the Chamber has made the
    development and acceleration of these alternatives a top
    priority.
        All told, the private sector was responsible for more than
    $45 billion of energy related research and development in 2017.
    But we can't do it alone. There remains an important role for
    the Federal Government to play in technology development,
    including through the Department of Energy's National
    Laboratory System.
        However, statistics show that U.S. investment in R&D is
    only average compared to other developed nations. The Chamber
    has long supported increasing R&D budgets with programs like
    ARPA-E, a great example of what can be accomplished.
        We agree more must be done to meet the challenge of climate
    change. The Chamber has established a task force on climate
    actions, which will help us gain a better understanding of the
    range of mechanisms, innovations, and internal processes that
    our members are employing to address climate change. This
    dialogue will make us smarter about how existing policies and
    future proposals affect our broad membership. What we learn
    will help inform our approach to legislation and other policy
    proposals to address this important issue for our members, the
    Nation, and the world.
        That said, we believe there are concrete actions Congress
    can take now which would help accelerate the innovation agenda
    necessary to address this challenge. We recently led a letter
    with 27 organizations from across the political spectrum,
    calling on Senate leadership to schedule floor time for a
    series of legislative proposals which would reduce emissions.
    My written testimony highlights the specific bipartisan
    legislation the Chamber supports, many of which were introduced
    or are co-sponsored by members of this Committee.
        As we said in that letter, more needs to be done. But there
    is no reason to delay passage of initiatives we know would help
    us re

    [[Page 11]]

    duce emissions right now. Doing so would send a signal that
    Congress is serious about this issue.
        American businesses have a long history of rising to the
    world's challenges. Companies and entrepreneurs are bringing
    innovation, technology, and ingenuity to the climate change
    challenge. We believe combating climate change and growing the
    economy can and should go hand in hand. Our members are already
    hard at work in bringing solutions to the table.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Durbin follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Dr. Dutton.

       STATEMENT OF ANDREA DUTTON, VISITING ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR,
      DEPARTMENT OF GEOSCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON,
                          GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

        Ms. Dutton. Thank you, Chairman Braun, and Ranking Member
    Whitehouse, for inviting me to speak today.
        I am a geochemist and field geologist who conducts research
    on past climate and sea level change. The main focus of my
    research is the behavior of sea level and polar ice sheets
    during past warm periods to better inform us about future sea
    level rise.
        My research accomplishments have been widely recognized,
    for example, as a Fellow of the Geological Society of America,
    as a Fulbright Scholar, and as a newly minted MacArthur Fellow.
        I am here today to offer my expert opinion as a geologist
    and climate scientist on the scale of the challenge that we
    face from industrial greenhouse gas emissions and resulting
    human caused global warming.
        The devastating impacts of climate change will vary by
    region. Some will contend with worsened wildfires, while others
    will grapple with intensified inland flooding or rainfall,
    inundation from sea level rise, or more intense and slower
    moving hurricanes.
        This list may evoke personal memories of extreme weather
    events from the past few years. That is because climate change
    is already here, and it is going to get worse before it can get
    better.
        All regions of the U.S. will experience higher
    temperatures. Consider Florida, where I have lived for the past
    9 years. In 2000, Miami had 24 days with a heat index at or
    above 105 degrees Fahrenheit, the official danger level
    according to the National Weather Service. By 2030, Miami is
    projected to experience 126 danger days a year, that is about 1
    in 3 days, where crippling heat will make it dangerous for
    people to be outdoors.
        Are voluntary reductions in industrial emissions enough to
    avoid such futures? The answer is no. They don't even come
    close. Voluntary reductions are but proverbial drops in the
    bucket.
        Because of decades of relative inaction, the scale of the
    problem has grown, and the time to act is rapidly shrinking.
    Policy solutions must therefore be bold, moving us rapidly
    toward net zero emissions, with the aid of stringent and
    integrated policy interventions, including putting a price on
    carbon.

    [[Page 12]]

        Reductions do not happen in a vacuum, though. They are
    driven by policy, which in turn drives innovation to meet new
    targets.
        As a geologist, with the perspective that deep time brings
    to this issue, I offer these four critical insights. No. 1, we
    are conducting an uncontrolled and unprecedented experiment
    here on planet Earth. Our extensive knowledge of past climate
    change reveals that there is no other event in Earth history
    that approaches the combined rate and magnitude of change that
    we are causing, aside from cataclysmic events such as the
    massive asteroid impact that marked the end of the Cretaceous.
    While Earth survived that impact, the dinosaurs did not, nor
    did about 75 percent of all marine species. Climate change is
    not so much about saving our planet, then, as it is about
    maintaining thriving ecosystems that support human
    civilization.
        No. 2, while there are natural, stabilizing processes that
    draw down carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, they are too
    slow, by several orders of magnitude, to keep up with the rate
    at which we are pumping them into the atmosphere. It would take
    many thousands of years to draw down the carbon dioxide that we
    have already emitted.
        No. 3, our actions today will impact the climate for
    millennia to come, a lesson drawn from studies of geological
    changes. The U.S. leads the world in cumulative carbon
    emissions. The faster we slash these emissions, the less
    dangerous the outcomes. Committing to additional fossil fuel
    infrastructure, conversely, locks in more dangerous impacts.
        No. 4, finally, the geologic record tells us that we can
    expect big impacts from what sound like small perturbations. We
    are already witnessing the effects of climate change at just
    over 1 degree Celsius, and every fraction of a degree matters.
    For comparison, Earth was no more than 4 degrees Celsius colder
    at the peak of the last ice age, when ice sheets more than a
    mile thick covered parts of North America and mammoths and
    mastodons roamed through present day Florida.
        My own research tells us that increasing Earth's
    temperature by as little as 1 degree Celsius could commit us to
    at least 6 meters--that is 20 feet or more--of sea level rise.
    If we don't enact policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
    as the best available science dictates, we are committing to a
    very expensive and dangerous future.
        Talking to Floridians on the front lines of sea level rise,
    I know that they are deeply concerned about climate change and
    want to know what is being done. During the recent global
    climate strike led by our youth, millions took to the streets
    telling us in no uncertain terms that it is up to us to act now
    or we take their future from them. As a mother, as a scientist,
    and as a citizen of the United States, I hear their call. And I
    hope that you will too.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dutton follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Mr. Wilson.

    [[Page 13]]

       STATEMENT OF JOHN WILSON, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF
         CORPORATE ENGAGEMENT, CALVERT RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT

        Mr. Wilson. Chairman Braun, Ranking Member Whitehouse,
    thank you for your invitation to speak before you today.
        My name is John Wilson, and I am Vice President and
    Director of Corporate Engagement for Calvert Research and
    Management. Our firm sponsors one of the largest and most
    diversified families of responsibly invested mutual funds. We
    seek to generate favorable investment returns by allocating
    capital consistent with financially material environmental,
    social, and governance issues and through structured engagement
    with our portfolio companies.
        Climate change is an urgent issue for us as fiduciaries
    because investment returns depend on a robust and growing
    economy. The U.S. Government's Fourth National Climate
    Assessment makes clear that unchecked climate change could
    reduce economic activity in several U.S. sectors by hundreds of
    billions of dollars by the end of the century. We believe our
    investment portfolios will be exposed to these risks within the
    coming decades, well within a typical investment time horizon.
        As one element of our overall investment analysis, we
    evaluate the exposure of companies we invest in to the risk of
    climate change. This assessment is consistent with well
    grounded empirical evidence. A recent meta-analysis of 32
    studies found a negative correlation between corporate carbon
    emissions and financial performance.
        Many mainstream investors and companies now support action
    on climate change. Three hundred and sixty investors with $36
    trillion under management have committed to engage the top
    greenhouse gas emitting companies in dialogue about how they
    can drive a transformation toward a clean energy economy and
    achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement.
        On the corporate side, nearly 7,000 companies worldwide now
    report on greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation strategies to
    the Carbon Disclosure Project, the most comprehensive database
    of this information in the world. According to CDP, the 215
    largest global companies alone report over $1 trillion of
    capital at risk from climate impacts, many of which may be felt
    in the next 5 years.
        Among the many industries making commitments to transform
    their business models, at least 17 U.S. utilities have pledged
    to cut emissions by at least 80 percent by 2050, to the
    Chairman's earlier point. And all major automotive companies
    are investing heavily in low or no carbon transportation
    alternatives, and committing to expand their line up of
    electric powered vehicles.
        Despite the efforts being made on all sides, consensus is
    emerging among both investment professionals and corporate
    executives that voluntary efforts will not be enough. Business
    incentives are misaligned because those responsible for the
    emission of greenhouse gases do not bear the costs of climate
    related harms such as extreme weather events, drought, or sea
    level rise. Instead, those costs are borne by the entire
    market.
        For this reason, a coalition of 515 institutional investors
    with $35 trillion under management urged world governments to
    enact enabling policy to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,
    in part by

    [[Page 14]]

    helping to accelerate sound business investments in climate
    mitigation. A clear policy signal, such as a carbon price,
    would allow investors to better quantify the economic
    implications of climate change on investment decisions.
        For companies, it would help to overcome the pressures of
    short-termism, which sometimes hampers long term innovation. We
    observe, for example, that a mix of subsidies and requirements
    has helped to incentivize research and development that has
    rapidly reduced the cost of wind and solar energy over the last
    several years.
        Both corporations and investors can and should make
    important contributions to the public dialogue about climate
    change policy. We are concerned, however, that some companies
    have failed to align their public policy engagements with their
    long term business strategies to invest in climate solutions.
    In response, 200 investors with $6.5 trillion under management
    forwarded a letter to company CEOs calling on them to harmonize
    their lobbying activities with the goals of the Paris
    Agreement.
        This letter asks companies to develop governance procedures
    to ensure consistency between long term business strategy and
    public policy engagement, including both direct engagement as
    well as lobbying by intermediaries, such as trade associations
    and social welfare organizations.
        We are pleased that some of these third parties have
    recently expressed support for action on climate change, and
    encourage them to back up their words with substantive action
    consistent with the scale of the economic challenge that we
    face.
        Most concerning to us as investors is the lack of U.S.
    leadership in climate policy. Rather than supporting investors'
    and companies' efforts to make economically rational long term
    investment decisions, the Federal Government is moving in the
    opposite direction, first by initiating steps to withdraw from
    the Paris Agreement, and most recently by seeking to block
    States' efforts to address the issue.
        A failure of the U.S. to address climate change could
    impact U.S. competitiveness relative to countries that are
    supporting the next generation of technology and solutions.
    Investors and companies across the globe are collaborating with
    the public sector to address the risks that greenhouse gases
    pose to portfolios and long term business investment. The
    absence of U.S. Government leadership from this partnership
    ensures that these technologies and solutions will arise
    elsewhere.
        We urge the Committee to support legislation that will
    allow us to rapidly scale investments in climate change
    mitigation, and I would like to thank the Committee for
    allowing me the opportunity to share my perspectives on these
    important topics.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        I am going to start with the questions, and I would like to
    address the first one to Dr. Dutton.
        I really do believe that the dynamic we are facing is
    significant. I think--Senator Whitehouse and I have talked
    about modeling that is out there, that is going to give
    believability to where you

    [[Page 15]]

    don't--it is going to be hard for any of us to react to
    something where the world is going to end in 12 to 15 years. We
    are already beyond the point of redemption, I am going to
    guess, if that happens.
        I think to make this sellable to the American public--we
    all know that sea levels will rise over time. I think you
    referred to 6 meters, over what period of time? When do you
    expect that?
        Ms. Dutton. Great question. So my research, a lot of it has
    focused on looking at past warm periods, trying to understand
    how much the ice sheets melted and then how quickly that
    happened, which is what you are asking there.
        Senator Braun. Yes.
        Ms. Dutton. So that 6 meters, or 20 feet, will not happen
    in your lifetime or mine. But the problem is, we don't know the
    full answer to that question yet. And that is in part because
    we have never been around to witness dynamic retreat of
    Greenland and Antarctica of the type that is starting to happen
    now. So we don't know all of the physics involved in that ice
    sheet retreat. And that is the largest uncertainty when we look
    at sea level projections into the future.
        However, having said that, we are certain that sea level is
    rising. So that uncertainty about exactly how quick shouldn't
    really be the focus of the issue. Yesterday in the Miami
    Herald, they reported that the northern part of Key Largo has
    now been underwater, a neighborhood, for more than 40 days in a
    row. And they are in about a foot of water.
        Right now, tides up and down the U.S. east coast from New
    York to Miami are running about a foot to a foot and a half
    higher than predicted. It is not just because of sea level
    rise, but additional impacts of swell, and when you get intense
    rainfall, there is no place for it to go.
        So these effects will in fact happen sooner than most
    people think they will.
        Senator Braun. What would be the next two or three biggest
    general impacts? We all know sea level, because we hear that
    all the time. Can you graphically give us what you think the
    next two or three biggest differences would be in terms of how
    it is going to impact everyday life?
        Ms. Dutton. Right. Well, there are a myriad of ways. As you
    know, there is a domino effect as well.
        But one thing I have been focusing on recently when I give
    public talks is just the heat, which came up in my testimony
    today. So if you have experienced heat of 105 degrees, it is
    crippling. Even though I work most of the day indoors, and I go
    outside just to walk to my car, it feels miserable, right? You
    can't do much outside then.
        So heat, there is a limit of the heat that we can tolerate
    as humans and still perform as we expect to. So heat is a big
    one.
        Another one is the wildfires that we are now seeing play
    out across the western U.S. The area of those wildfires is
    growing, and a lot of it is attributable to climate change.
        And hurricanes are more intense; slower moving hurricanes
    are going to be big contenders.

    [[Page 16]]

        Part of the reasons I highlight these wildfires and
    hurricanes, they require huge responses in terms of Federal
    disaster management. And the rapid intensification that we have
    seen in some of these hurricanes, which is a trend that should
    increase with increasing temperatures, makes it very difficult
    from an emergency response perspective.
        Senator Braun. One final question on the subject of what
    might happen. Does climate change in any fashion have an effect
    that would not be catastrophic? In other words, in places
    where, just to get it out there, I would like to hear, or is it
    just universally going to be destructive and bad?
        Ms. Dutton. So you may argue that some people, it might
    benefit them. So maybe you can grow apples farther north or
    something like that. The problem is, the rate at which the
    temperatures are changing and these zones are migrating
    northward are too fast for us to keep up in terms of
    infrastructure.
        We have developed and built things based on the climate of
    that region. To expect farmers to say, oh, well, instead of
    planting this, now I am just going to completely change and do
    something different, we just can't adapt that quickly. And that
    rate of change is really the biggest challenge.
        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        I am going to go to Senator Whitehouse here in a moment.
        But I think the thing I grapple with mostly is how we
    marshal the resources, especially in the context of a place
    that is not functioning here well currently, with trillion-
    dollar deficits, when you look at what the cost would be. So
    there is going to be a lot of practicality that is going to
    have to be applied, in how you start the correction.
        That is why I think that the more accurately we can have
    models that we can trust would be kind of the selling tool to
    take this in a broader way, not only here, but to convince
    industry and emitters across the board that it is happening,
    and to make it realistic on the other side of how we marshal
    the resources to combat it.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman, and
    thank you again for this hearing.
        Let me start by asking Mr. Durbin and Mr. Macchiarola
    whether your trade associations ordinarily develop policy
    positions based on the consensus position of your member
    companies.
        Mr. Durbin. Yes, we strive for consensus with the members
    to reach a policy position.
        Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Macchiarola.
        Mr. Macchiarola. Yes, Senator, policy establishment at API
    is largely based on the consensus based approach, as well as
    principle based approach, reflecting the views of the broad
    membership of the association.
        Senator Whitehouse. So, Mr. Durbin, let me follow up a
    little bit more in detail about the Chamber.
        As I understand it, the Chamber has several dozen policy
    committees. And your member companies can pay extra to sit on
    those policy committees, is that correct?
        Mr. Durbin. Well, the policy committees, there are various
    affiliates, including the Global Energy Institute that I lead,
    where mem

    [[Page 17]]

    bers can pay to be a part of that group. But the broad policies
    of the U.S. Chamber are set by the board of directors of the
    broad U.S. Chamber.
        Senator Whitehouse. Is there a policy committee on
    environment and energy?
        Mr. Durbin. There are two separate committees that are open
    to the broad membership; again, every member, one on energy and
    agriculture, the other on environment and air. Just had a call
    with them yesterday. Yes, those committees do exist.
        Senator Whitehouse. If there is a call that goes out to the
    members of those committees, do you contact every single member
    of the Chamber? Or is there some way in which companies have
    identified their interest in that committee, and you have a
    list?
        Mr. Durbin. Exactly. They opt in.
        Senator Whitehouse. And do they compensate the Chamber in
    any way for the right to opt in?
        Mr. Durbin. Not beyond their membership.
        Senator Whitehouse. It is a function of their regular dues?
        Mr. Durbin. Indeed.
        Senator Whitehouse. Can you tell me which companies--this
    probably should be a question for the record--the two
    committees that you mentioned, can you tell me which companies
    sit on them?
        Mr. Durbin. Certainly, I will take that as a question for
    the record.
        Senator Whitehouse. Great. I don't expect you to have that
    off the top of your head.
        Do you know how much the companies on those two policy
    committees contributed to the Chamber, let's say, in 2018, to
    the Chamber and its affiliates?
        Mr. Durbin. I don't. I can look into that, and not every
    company pays the same amount.
        Senator Whitehouse. We will make that a question for the
    record then, also.
        Do you know how much in total fossil fuel industry
    companies and allied organizations contributed to the Chamber
    in 2018?
        Mr. Durbin. Again, I will get back to you on that.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK, we will make that a question for
    the record, too.
        Do you know if the Chamber and its affiliates take money
    from non-corporate sources of funding, such as political
    advocacy groups?
        Mr. Durbin. Not to my knowledge. And I promise I won't play
    this line too frequently today, but yesterday was--now there
    are 6 weeks. So I would be happy to get back to you, like so
    many of those, I would be happy to get back to you on a
    question for the record.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK, we will follow up.
        Do you know if Marathon Petroleum is a member of either of
    the two policy committees that you mentioned?
        Mr. Durbin. I believe they participate.
        Senator Whitehouse. In both?
        Mr. Durbin. I don't know.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. So a lot of this is going to end up
    as questions for the record, and I appreciate that you are
    newer there, and that some of these are specific questions that
    you shouldn't be

    [[Page 18]]

    expected to know the answer to off the top of your head. So
    turning them into questions for the record is fine with me.
        Do you know much ExxonMobil contributed to the Chamber and
    its affiliates in 2018?
        Mr. Durbin. I do not. I will get that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Ok. Can you tell me what Chamber member
    companies were consulted by the Chamber about the Chamber's
    decision to sue EPA to block the Clean Power Plan?
        Mr. Durbin. Again, I can get back to you on the process
    that was used to determine that.
        Senator Whitehouse. I have the question with respect to the
    Chamber's decision to sue EPA to block the Clean Power Plan,
    the same question regarding the Chamber's decision to intervene
    in litigation to support the Trump so called ACE rule, the
    replacement for the Clean Power Plan. And third, the Chamber's
    decision to fund a study critical of the Paris Agreement that
    has since been widely debunked. So that is a QFR, I guess,
    times three.
        Mr. Durbin. OK.
        Senator Whitehouse. So my time has expired for this round
    of questioning, and I will yield back. My apologies for going
    over a few seconds.
        Senator Braun. Thank you. It looks like we are going to
    have plenty of time to ask questions, aren't we? Good.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Braun. One of the vexing issues of what we are
    dealing with is that there has been great progress made here in
    our own country. I do remember vividly when the Cuyahoga River
    caught on fire. I couldn't believe that could even happen. I
    know that in even a local river, the White River, borders the
    northern edge of our county. Never, 20, 25 years ago, would we
    have fished in it, let alone eat the fish. Now I routinely see
    eagles along it. And we do fish, and eat the fish.
        So in places, we have made great strides. I really think it
    is important that I think we are leading the way, but we were
    the largest emitters. I guess the only good news is
    internationally, we have been eclipsed by China.
        So I don't want to get, and I am really worried about how
    we get the rest of the world to see the light when coal
    facilities are still being built, and it doesn't seem like that
    same trajectory is necessarily occurring.
        Mr. Wilkinson, I want to ask you, because I heard when it
    comes to something like beef production, did I hear correctly
    that the methods used elsewhere would emit--what was the
    quantity more in terms of greenhouse gases?
        Mr. Wilkinson. Ten to 50 percent, or 50 times more than us.
        Senator Braun. That is what I thought I heard you say. That
    is unbelievable in terms of how the methodologies could be that
    different. I think where beef production in the U.S., you said,
    was 2 percent of emissions, is that within the country, or is
    that across the world?
        Mr. Wilkinson. No, that is within the country.
        Senator Braun. OK. And then, what is it in terms of beef
    production across the world? Assuming if we are much better,
    where

    [[Page 19]]

    would it stack up in terms of what that particularity would be
    generating across the world? Do you know that?
        Mr. Wilkinson. Depending upon the metrics that you use to
    measure that, it is anywhere from 3 to 5 percent across the
    world. We are statistically lower than that because, frankly,
    we are more efficient. The example I can give you with that is
    back in the 1970s, we had a third more cows. And yet we produce
    the same amount of beef today with a third less cows.
        Senator Braun. Better feed conversion.
        Mr. Wilkinson. Better feed conversion, better genetics. Our
    producers are--that is their life blood. They want to improve
    all of those traits.
        Senator Braun. And could you cite a couple of the methods?
    I was a turkey farmer for 32 years. I know all the advances
    that were made, better feed conversion. Of course, that lowers
    your footprint.
        What has happened in the cattle industry? I think that is
    one of the things that has been thrown out there in kind of a
    figurative way as being a part of the problem. I am glad you
    pointed out what that is percentage wise here and across the
    globe.
        Talk about a couple or three things that have really made a
    difference over the last decade.
        Mr. Wilkinson. Well, in my lifetime, the biggest one I can
    point to right off the top is rotational grazing, intensive
    grazing. When I started out in the industry, when my brother
    started out in the beef business, we didn't do rotational
    grazing. It seemed counter-intuitive, the fact that we would
    put our cow herd on a confined area and let them graze that
    area more intensely. We just let them generally run over the
    tract of land.
        Now we specifically have those areas fenced off, and we
    rotate them in and out of those various paddocks. As a result
    of that--and again, it is logic, I guess, when you examine it
    after this many years--as a result of that, the cattle eat down
    the grass, the root system goes down deeper into the soil, and
    more carbon is sequestered.
        Another one is distiller's grain. That is a great example
    of--it causes us to use less corn, and it is a byproduct. But
    it has improved the efficiency of the animals.
        And I have to end up saying for the seed stock producers
    that we represent that the genetics of the animals, that the
    seed stock, if you looked at what was a champion bull in 1950
    in the Angus breed, it is going to be about this high. I mean,
    that animal is now bigger in stature; it can put more pounds on
    more efficiently. So our seed stock producers are doing a
    wonderful job.
        Senator Braun. It begs the question--and give me a quick
    answer here--why has not the rest of the world copied what we
    have done here, if you are assuming that we still need beef
    production? Why haven't those techniques been used across that
    other 3 percent that maybe totals 5? It seems like we could get
    emissions from beef production almost down to 3 percent in
    total if others would copy the methodology.
        Mr. Wilkinson. Well, Senator, the first one I am going to
    have to point out is India. They have an affinity to not want
    to eat beef. So there is a bit of a problem there.

    [[Page 20]]

        But if you look at Australia, Brazil, two of our biggest
    competitors, our geography gives us a competitive advantage
    over those areas. We are not having to deforest, cut down
    forests, to increase our grazing capabilities. We have natural
    prairies and forests where we can graze at. We can take out the
    fire load out of our forests rather than cut them down.
        Senator Braun. So it gives us a comparative advantage.
        Mr. Wilkinson. Yes, it does give us some advantage.
        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you again, Chairman.
        Mr. Durbin, I will follow up with two questions on our
    previous line of questioning. Am I correct that there are
    different membership levels in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
    Signature, Advantage, Elite, and C100?
        Mr. Durbin. There are different levels.
        Senator Whitehouse. And am I correct that your Web site
    shows that the option to serve on these policy committees is
    for those who subscribe to the Elite and C100 higher membership
    levels?
        Mr. Durbin. Again, let me get back to you on that question.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. Let me put the Web page into the
    record as an exhibit so it is clear what I have been talking
    about.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. Just today, the Chamber scorecarded the
    Senate resolution to disapprove the Trump ACE rule. My
    information is that the so called ACE rule requires zero
    emissions from natural gas. And further, that from coal, while
    it encourages certain efficiency improvements, it offsets those
    with opportunities for increased generation and could actually
    increase emissions.
        So again, you guys just put this out today, neither you nor
    I have had a chance to review it. But I would like to ask you,
    the Chamber, for the record, to respond to how it is that the
    Chamber is willing to support a rule designed to reduce carbon
    emissions that actually doesn't reduce carbon emissions, and
    appears to have been a product of the fossil fuel industry's
    work.
        I don't want to sandbag you with that, because I didn't get
    it until just now myself. So we will leave that as a question
    for the record.
        Mr. Macchiarola, let me ask you a little bit about API. In
    my experience, ordinarily, trade associations set their
    membership dues with some correlation to the member
    corporations' revenues or profits. Is that the way API
    operates?
        Mr. Macchiarola. Thank you for your question, Senator. API
    generally sets its dues structure on the basis of production on
    the upstream side, throughput on the downstream side.
        Senator Whitehouse. So bigger companies should be expected
    to pay more.
        Mr. Macchiarola. Larger producing companies within the
    United States would be expected to pay more, that is correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. OK. You--API, I mean--supported the
    Trump proposal to scrap the rules regarding methane emissions
    at oil and gas facilities. Is that correct?

    [[Page 21]]

        Mr. Macchiarola. API supports the current methane rule in
    place in 2011 and 2016. We support the----
        Senator Whitehouse. The August proposal by EPA, you
    publicly support it, correct?
        Mr. Macchiarola. Correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. At the same time, ExxonMobil and BP and
    Shell publicly criticized that proposal. Based on the way in
    which you have said you calculate your dues, I would expect
    that ExxonMobil and BP and Shell would be three of API's
    biggest contributors, correct?
        Mr. Macchiarola. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. I am interested in how API took this
    position, just to use this as one example, contrary to the
    public positions of three of its largest members. Can I ask you
    just to frame this out, how much money ExxonMobil, BP, and
    Shell gave to API for 2018?
        Mr. Macchiarola. Senator, with respect to the specific
    question regarding membership dues, I don't know the answer to
    that. So I will have to get back to you for the record.
        Senator Whitehouse. Not a problem. That is not a problem at
    all.
        Mr. Macchiarola. With respect to the consideration of
    support or opposition to a specific rulemaking, as you referred
    in your previous question, Senator, we are a consensus based
    organization that takes into account the views of the broad
    spectrum of the membership, and work very hard to represent the
    industry and not one individual member, regardless of the size
    of the member.
        Senator Whitehouse. Let me add to the QFR question you are
    taking back also Marathon Petroleum, in addition to the three
    companies I named, in terms of what their contributions were to
    API during or for 2018.
        The reason I am asking these questions--may I extend it
    another minute? The reason I am asking these questions is
    because Exxon and BP and Shell have taken a number of public
    positions that are contrary to positions that API then comes
    and pushes in Congress. The most significant of them is that
    Exxon, BP, and Shell all publicly say they support a price on
    carbon.
        So my question to you is, can you share with us any sincere
    effort by ExxonMobil, BP, and Shell to support carbon pricing
    within your organization or to have you reflect their views in
    opposing the methane rule? What I am trying to get at is the
    extent to which Exxon, BP, and Shell are just basically
    greenwashing themselves with public statements while leaving
    you to do the dirty work of opposing things they claim to
    support.
        So I don't know what information you can give me along
    those lines, but that is where this line of questioning is
    trying to get. I see very big companies that presumably
    contribute very significantly to your organization that seem to
    be economic winners from things you do that they claim not to
    support. And that is the discrepancy that concerns me here.
        Mr. Macchiarola. Senator, it doesn't--so that is not
    unusual for trade associations, first off. And second, it
    doesn't fall on that side of the ledger every time. For
    example, I look at the issue of CAFE standards, we had member
    companies who have positions that

    [[Page 22]]

    would be more against your position on CAFE closer to the
    position of the Trump administration. And our association
    actually did not take that position.
        So again, to your earlier point, sir, we are a consensus
    based, principle based organization. We are not an organization
    that is dictated by one member view. We wouldn't last as a
    trade association that long, because we don't represent one
    member, we represent the broad spectrum of the industry.
        I appreciate the point, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. I've gone well over my time, and I will
    just make a question for the record to see whatever documents
    you have that document that Exxon, BP, or Shell actually
    pursued their concerns within your organization as opposed to
    saying one thing to the public and using your organization to
    do the opposite. I will follow that up with the question for
    the record.
        Mr. Macchiarola. Senator, to the extent those materials are
    not proprietary, I am happy to share anything I can to shed
    some light on a pretty robust policy discussion that again,
    wants to end up with an outcome that reflects the broad view of
    the industry, not the view of a specific member. But thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Chairman Braun. I apologize for going 3 minutes
    over.
        Senator Braun. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. I was happy to yield my 3 minutes.
        Welcome, one and all, to this hearing. Ironically, this
    kind of hearing is a timely hearing, it comes on the heels of a
    weekend, a weekend that I spent in Aspen, at the Aspen
    Institute Seminar where we had Democrats and Republican House
    members and a couple of Senators. And we had folks from a
    couple auto companies and people from all different walks of
    life and businesses who have an interest in these issues.
        In fact, the intersection, if you will, of how do we get
    cleaner air, cleaner water, address climate change, and create
    economic opportunity. I am one of those people who believe it
    is possible to do both. In fact, it is necessary for us to do
    both.
        I am a retired Navy captain, a P-3 aircraft mission
    commander, Vietnam veteran. Tomorrow morning, in fact, I will
    be at the Naval Air Station in Jacksonville, Florida, with my
    flight suit on, and go out and fly with a P-8, a new P-8 air
    crew, and go out and drop some torpedoes out in the ocean.
    Hopefully not too close to Russian submarines, but we will see.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Last weekend, there was a lot of news in
    Florida, because Miami is flooded again. Again. Not the first
    time. It won't be the last time. And it is just getting worse.
        We are not that far away from a place you heard about a lot
    last year, Ellicott City, Maryland. My wife was just there,
    went there with some of her friends, just to go on the heels of
    all the bad weather they had, just to demonstrate some
    solidarity and help do something for their economy and stay
    there for a couple of nights and eat in their restaurants.
        As you know, they have had two 1,000 year floods in like 18
    months. People say, what is a 1,000 year flood? It is something
    that

    [[Page 23]]

    happens every 1,000 years. They have had two of them in 18
    months. So something is happening. I live in the lowest lying
    State in America, Delaware; we are sinking, and the seas around
    us are rising. So this is real for us. And we want to make sure
    that we address it.
        And as it turns out, it is not just enough to do rules and
    regulations. It is not just enough to rely on innovation. We
    need to do both. And I say probably once a day, we have to be
    able to walk and chew gum at the same time. It has probably
    been said here already. There is an opportunity to do both, and
    we need to do both.
        My sister and I were just barely teenagers and we were
    driving back from Beckley, West Virginia, where we were born,
    back to Danville, Virginia, where we were growing up, and my
    mom was driving in our 1955 Chrysler Plymouth, which was like a
    tank of a car. We were up mountain roads, and it started
    raining, bad thunderstorms. She lost control of the car,
    bounced off a rock cliff on the right side, over to the left
    side, down the mountainside, over and over and over and over
    again. Kind of came to a rest, and we were all thrown out of
    the car, we had no seatbelts. They didn't make seatbelts in
    most cars, and the auto industry did not receive them warmly
    when they were pressed to do that.
        I love the auto industry. I have worked for years to be
    supportive of the auto industry. I still go to the Detroit Auto
    Show just about every year. We had auto people with us at this
    last weekend.
        And I have been working and talking over the last week with
    Michal Freedhoff, who is a chemist, a Ph.D. chemist, and a
    member of our EPW staff. Smart as a whip. And we have been
    talking to representatives from all the major auto industries,
    auto companies, and asking what we can do to be helpful for
    them.
        They are looking for a certain predictability, I think most
    businesses look for a certain predictability, that is what they
    are looking for with respect to fuel efficiency standards. The
    Obama administration left in place a rule, regulation that
    provided very rigorous standards between 2021 and 2025, I think
    about 5 percent increases a year. What the auto industry is
    asking--they are not asking to get rid of fuel efficiency
    standards, they are asking for some near term flexibility.
    Maybe 3 percent instead of 5.
        And they all wrote a letter to the President about a month
    or two ago and said, Mr. President, you think you are helping
    us out by saying we are basically going to flat line
    everything, like we did in the 1970s, when we raised fuel
    efficiency standards; remember CAFE? And we hit the target, 27
    and a half miles and then just, we went to nothing more, and we
    stayed there for like 20 years. Maybe more than 20 years.
        And the auto companies said, we don't want to do that, that
    is not what we are asking for. They are going to build a lot of
    electric powered vehicles; they are going to build hydrogen
    powered vehicles. And what we are going to do in this Committee
    and in the legislation that we have reported out to Surface
    Transportation, is help facilitate, enable them to be
    successful when they build those vehicles, by providing money
    for charging stations, electric vehicle fueling stations,
    hydrogen powered vehicles. That is part of what we are going to
    be doing.

    [[Page 24]]

        And seat belts, catalytic converters, air bags; as much as
    I love the auto industry, they weren't anxious to do any of
    those things. And now they advertise their products, how safe
    they are and all this stuff they used to oppose.
        So I just want to--that will be an opening statement, I
    have an opening statement for the record, Mr. Chairman. But I
    had to just, that was an audible, as they say in football, that
    was an audible.
        So I do have a question or two, if I could, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Braun. Yes.
        Senator Carper. Thanks so much. I apologize for being here
    so late. We had a prayer breakfast in Wilmington, Delaware,
    this morning, and James Lankford from Oklahoma was our guest
    speaker. It was great.
        This would be for Frank, who I think is somebody who's
    known Mary Frances Repko for a year or two. I am reminded that
    every now and then I will hear somebody say in the meeting
    room, they will say, someone who is my opponent doesn't have to
    be my enemy.
        Mr. Macchiarola. That is absolutely true, Senator.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. Might be true with you and MF; I hope so.
        In your testimony, you described the investments in
    innovative air pollution reduction technologies that have been
    made by your industry. The question goes on to talk about lead,
    which everyone agrees harms children's brains. One of the six
    criteria air pollutants referenced in your testimony.
        The thing is though, getting the lead out of gasoline was
    not a voluntary measure, as you recall. It was a mandatory EPA
    rule that was, I think, initially opposed by, I think, by the
    organization that you represent here today.
        I think somebody probably already mentioned this to you
    before I got here, but I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, for
    unanimous consent to insert a copy of the API's testimony
    opposing EPA's rules to remove lead from gasoline into the
    record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. And my question would be, do you agree that
    this phase out never would have happened if EPA had just left
    it, or may--I will say this, it is a better way to ask this
    question. Would you agree that this phase out might never have
    happened, or it would have taken a whole lot longer if EPA had
    just left it up to the industry to get the lead out
    voluntarily? That is not a trick question, it is just a
    question from my heart.
        Mr. Macchiarola. Yes, thank you for your question, Senator.
        It is hard to predict what might have happened, but I
    certainly take your point that sometimes Government action is
    required to make progress on the environment. We at API support
    that, we support a wide measure of rulemakings where the
    Government steps in and takes action.
        But we also have worked very hard as an industry to commit
    ourselves to reducing emissions through our own technological
    advancements and either not waiting for regulation or doing it
    on top of regulation. I think a perfect example of that is what
    I spoke of earlier, the environmental partnership, which is a
    program of large

    [[Page 25]]

    member companies and small companies who join together to share
    practices and to take action on reducing methane emissions. And
    the progress in just a short period of time, less than 2 years,
    has been remarkable.
        The industry, while producing--increasing production since
    2006 by more than 50 percent of natural gas, methane emissions
    have remained flat. That is a recent NOAA study on the
    industry.
        So I do certainly agree with your point that oftentimes,
    Government action is required to make this progress. But we as
    an industry are committed to reducing emissions through our own
    activities.
        Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much, Frank.
        Could I just have a minute to ask something of----
        Senator Braun. One quick one.
        Senator Carper. Thank you--of Dick Durbin's nephew. Nephew,
    right? I think.
        Cagoule, I could barely spell cagoule a couple of years
    ago, now I use it a lot. But there used to be a time when we
    had this hole in the ozone, as you recall. And people tried to
    figure out what was causing that. It turns out it was
    chlorofluorinated carbons, and it was coolants out of
    refrigerators and stuff. So we stopped using those and phased
    those out and replaced them with HFCs. We find that that is
    good for the hole in the ozone but not so good for climate
    change.
        So now a number of companies, Honeywell is one of them,
    Kumars is one of them, these others, American companies, have
    developed a follow on to the HFCs. They are good for the hole
    in the ozone and good for climate. And we need the Senate to be
    able to vote to ratify a treaty, it flows out of the Montreal
    Protocol.
        There are a bunch of us who want to do it, a bunch of
    Democrats and Republicans, led largely by our colleagues from
    Louisiana. Any quick comments on that? And I appreciate your
    support and the support of the Chamber on this.
        Mr. Durbin. Thank you for the question, Senator. Again, I
    agree with your premise, too, that there are times that the
    regulation does help move things forward for us in the
    environmental arena. I do think that the example you presented
    there on the stratosphere for ozone is an opportunity for us to
    work together to continue that and make that progress.
        Senator Carper. That would be great.
        Mr. Chairman, that is a great opportunity for us to work on
    this stuff together. I hope that we will. We can do both. We
    need to do both.
        Thank you all.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]

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

        Thank you, Chairman Braun and Ranking Member Whitehouse,
    for holding this hearing. I also appreciate the willingness of
    our witnesses to share their expertise with us.
        Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of innovation, and I am proud
    to live in a country with such a rich tradition of industry-led
    innovation and economic success. And I can truly say--as some
    of our witnesses will today--that that innovation has re

    [[Page 26]]

    sulted in extraordinary improvements in air and water quality,
    as well as public health and safety.
        But I'd be remiss if I did not point out that in so many of
    those cases, innovation alone was insufficient to protect the
    public health and safety. In fact, at times, industry has
    fought tooth and nail to oppose any efforts to protect the
    public health from dangerous products.
        Beginning in the 1950s, the automobile industry fiercely
    opposed requirements aimed at improving passenger safety,
    including innovations like seat belts and air bags that we all
    take for granted today. Thankfully, the Federal Government
    rejected those arguments and over time required seat belts and
    air bags, including passenger-side air bags, in all new cars.
    The result was not economic devastation to the auto industry,
    but rather saving hundreds of thousands of lives.
        In the mid-1970s--at a time when 88 percent of children
    under the age of 5 had elevated levels of lead in their blood--
    the oil industry vociferously opposed the EPA phase-out of lead
    from gasoline. Before the predecessor to this committee, the
    American Petroleum Institute testified, ``[i]n our judgment,
    further control of lead is not necessary.'' Thankfully, the EPA
    phase-out continued uninterrupted, and by the time it
    concluded, the reductions meant that less than 2 percent of
    young children had elevated blood lead levels.
        In the 1980s, the world recognized that concerted,
    international action was necessary to halt and reverse the
    growing hole in the ozone layer. President Reagan's EPA
    Administrator at the time, Lee Thomas, later recounted that
    industry lobbied his Administration, claiming that they could
    not phase-out the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) causing the ozone
    hole--that it would be too costly, and that the science was
    uncertain.
        President Reagan, however, recognized the risk of
    chlorofluorocarbons, heeded the science, and helped to lead the
    development and implementation of the Montreal Protocol. The
    U.S. Senate ratified the resulting treaty unanimously, by a
    vote of
    83-0. Today, 99 percent of ozone depleting substances have been
    phased out. EPA projects there will be a near complete recovery
    of the ozone layer by the middle of the 21st century. And the
    hairspray industry--which predicted economic calamity--survived
    just fine.
        In the early 1990s, while I was serving as Delaware's only
    Congressman in the House of Representatives, I had the
    privilege of working alongside the late John Dingell, when he
    chaired the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Under
    Chairman Dingell's leadership, we passed the landmark Clean Air
    Act Amendments of 1990 with the support of President George
    H.W. Bush. Operators of coal-fired power plants argued that the
    law's acid rain provisions would cause rolling blackouts, and
    cost ratepayers billions of dollars. Instead, the law's cap-
    and-trade program successfully leveraged the power of market
    forces to reduce pollution, with costs only one-seventh of what
    industry projected.
        Similarly, for toxic air pollution, the 1990 Clean Air Act
    Amendments looked to successful ways that industry was already
    controlling emissions. The law required the largest polluters
    to install ``maximum achievable control technology,'' based on
    what each industry's most effective innovators were already
    doing to reducing pollution. Some might derisively call this a
    Federal mandate. I call it ensuring fair competition--a level
    playing field so that polluters don't get an unfair advantage
    over their cleaner competitors, at the expense of public
    health.
        Unfortunately, when it came to toxic pollution from power
    plants, EPA dragged its feet. In the 2000s, when Senator Lamar
    Alexander and I first introduced a bill to require power plants
    to install already available technology to reduce mercury
    pollution by 90 percent, the utilities said it couldn't be
    done. It would cost too much and take too much time, they told
    us. Thankfully, in 2012, the Obama-Biden EPA finally
    promulgated the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, which reduced
    mercury pollution by 90 percent, and did so faster than the
    utilities predicted and at one-third of the cost. Today, every
    power plant in our country complies with those standards.
        American industry is great at innovating. But the fact is,
    companies are motivated chiefly by near term shareholder
    pressures, not by the longer term goals of protecting the
    broader public health and welfare. And too many times in our
    history, industries have been resistant to the Government
    actions and responsible regulations necessary to address
    serious health and environmental problems. Yes, lead and
    mercury levels are way down, our ozone layer is much restored,
    and Americans are much less at risk as a result, and we can
    thank smart laws and policies that resulted in unleaded
    gasoline, innovative scrubbers, and CFC substitutes for these
    successes.
        Sometimes, changing the law or writing a new rule is, in
    fact, the only way to resolve critical challenges to our
    environmental quality and public health.

    [[Page 27]]

        As we look ahead to our continuing challenges--the climate
    crisis, mercury and other air toxics, emerging contaminants,
    vastly increasing extinction rates, and others--we will need to
    deploy all of the tools at our disposal to ensure we leave
    behind a healthy planet for our children and grandchildren to
    call home.
        So, I hope to learn more about how voluntary actions and
    industry-led initiatives are going to help. I surely hope that
    in some cases, voluntary industry efforts will help solve the
    problem. That said, it is critical we see and accept that there
    will be many cases in which those efforts are not enough, and
    the Government needs to step in and act.
        Once again, I thank our witnesses for sharing their time
    and knowledge with us. I hope we will work together as we
    continue to seek the right marriage of industry and Government
    leadership to improve the quality of the environment.

        Senator Braun. Thank you. It is amazing when time flies
    when you are on an interesting subject. So to respect
    everyone's time, I am going to ask a question here of Mr.
    Wilson and then let the Ranking Member finish up, then I will
    give a little concluding statement.
        When it comes to the whole issue of how--first of all, I
    believe industry, corporations, are generally footdraggers when
    it comes to health care, which I am involved with. I see this
    sector being a lot more ahead in the game, which, depending on
    what you think its speed is, might be disappointing. You ought
    to see how difficult it has been to get the health care
    industry, which is the largest sector of our economy, to get
    with it. Very disappointing.
        I know that when it comes to the cost of capital and the
    return on capital, I am a finance guy, I understand how that
    works, without a pricing mechanism, how much progress do we
    have to where people are just extrapolating the returns on
    investment? And if they are not conscious of the climate, and
    they are not green in nature, is that a mechanism in and of
    itself that will have impact, hopefully geometrically better
    than what we have had up to this point?
        Mr. Wilson. I want to make sure I understand your question.
    Are you asking whether it is possible to achieve sufficient
    reductions without a policy statement?
        Senator Braun. I think your answer to that would be no. I
    am just asking what speed we might see, just for businesses
    making that calculation, that I am not going to invest here
    because it is not addressing the major climate issues, and
    therefore, it would be a return, a poor ROI.
        Mr. Wilson. Right.
        Senator Braun. Which is basically what you have been
    pushing and interested in, since you have been trying to direct
    capital into a better return, because it is conscious of the
    issues out there.
        Mr. Wilson. That is correct. There are a lot of business
    reasons why companies may take on climate change as an issue.
    Right.
        No. 1, obviously, is efficiency. A lot of companies--there
    was a lot of low hanging fruit on the table, companies did not
    have the systems in place to count energy efficiency savings,
    for example, as a return on investment for a long time. So when
    we engaged with companies, there was a lot of low hanging fruit
    like that that they could take advantage of.
        Another benefit of this is, companies are in a competition
    for talent. And talent these days, especially young people, are
    very engaged in this issue, I can tell you. I have two
    children, and they are not of working age yet, but already very
    engaged on this issue.

    [[Page 28]]

    The example you referenced earlier about Amazon, that began
    with a movement within the employee base of Amazon to push the
    company to take greater steps on climate change. So that would
    be another benefit.
        The third, of course, is more consumer interest in these
    kinds of issues. So for everything from automotive, where
    there's a much more avid interest in fuel efficiency, to the
    food industry, that we engage with a lot, and there is a lot of
    interest in not only healthier diets, but more sustainable
    diets as well, which includes, obviously, better meat
    production, but also moving away from meat to plant based
    sources of food.
        So there are different reasons why companies may take this
    as an issue that they have to really think about. However, what
    we find is that the low hanging fruit is rapidly diminishing,
    and companies have gone a long way toward what they can do
    without a price signal. However, obviously, a better signal
    would accelerate all of the kinds of business cases that we
    already see and have already raised with companies.
        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks very much. I will just offer a
    concluding thought.
        First of all, let me thank Dr. Dutton for being here.
    Science has been warning us for a considerable period of time
    that this is coming at us. Science kind of provides the
    headlights for society, giving us a preview of what is coming
    down the road. For a long time; science has been predicting
    that the road was going to get pretty damned rough.
        But a scientific prediction is a different thing than an
    actual human experience. And the fossil fuel industry's attacks
    on science and on its conclusions have kind of fought that
    science to a standstill, at least during the period when it was
    just warnings.
        Now we have entered the phase where the road is actually
    really getting rough. And we are seeing this in previously
    unknown wildfire intensities, and expanding wildfire seasons.
    We are seeing it in the farming community with very atypical
    flooding experiences and very atypical changes in how seasons
    work, so that crops don't grow the same way.
        In my world, the oceans, Ocean State, Rhode Island, we are
    seeing it with fisheries moving about dramatically. Connecticut
    and Rhode Island have essentially lost their lobster fisheries,
    which used to be a pretty big deal. We are seeing it with
    incredibly obviously measurements of sea level rise, of ocean
    temperature. Really hard to argue with a thermometer.
        And of ocean acidification. Any middle school with an
    aquarium knows how to do a pH test. And pH tests are pretty
    hard to argue with, too.
        So all of this experience is now piling up. In addition,
    from the economic side, we are starting to see warnings that
    weren't apparent just a few years ago. So the warnings out of
    the Bank of England and out of so many other sovereign banks
    about a carbon asset bubble crash have the full attention of
    banks, have the full attention of investors, have the full
    attention of a community that did not take this terribly
    seriously until recently.

    [[Page 29]]

        The warnings about a coastal property values crash coming
    from not particularly green places like Freddie Mac have the
    attention of all of the business community members whose
    livelihoods depend on vibrant coastal communities--insurance,
    real estate, builders, all of that.
        So I think what we are at now is a point where for the
    first time, there are very serious business interests for whom
    climate change is no longer just a matter of humoring
    shareholders and customers, but really goes to a potential
    dramatic hit to their business model. And if you read what Mark
    Carney at the Bank of England is warning about in terms of a
    carbon asset bubble crash, even API's corporate members have a
    lot to fear from a disorderly transition.
        Companies that want to put their hands over their ears and
    say la, la, la, la, la, and not pay any attention through this
    stand a very good chance of hitting a wall and having a very
    hard landing. Whereas with some preparation and care, that
    could be something you could work your way through with some
    attentive and thoughtful policy changes.
        There is a big difference between jumping out of a plane
    and jumping out of a plane with a parachute. And the outcome is
    very different when you hit the ground.
        So even API's members, I think, have an enormous stake in
    getting this right. And certainly, the chambers do, across a
    much broader array of industries that the Chamber represents.
        So I look forward to continuing this discussion. I look
    forward to the answers to the questions for the record.
        In addition to asking to have the Chamber's page about
    these different levels of membership put into the record, I
    would also like to have the Chamber's letter of today
    scorecarding the Senate resolution put into the record.
        Then I have three articles, since I raised this issue about
    the methane, three articles about the fossil fuel industry's
    performance with respect to methane leakage and flooring. One
    is a technical presentation, a scientific report called
    Assessment of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Oil and Gas
    Supply Chain.
        The next is yesterday's New York Times story entitled
    Despite Their Promises, Giant Energy Companies Burn Away Vast
    Amounts of Natural Gas. And a final one is today's article from
    Unearthed, whose title is not readily apparent, here we go,
    Exxon and BP Among Worst for Flaring in U.S. Oil Fields,
    Despite Green Pledges.
        With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would ask those to be
    added to the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Whitehouse. And I thank all the members of the
    panel for being here today.
        Senator Braun. By the way, those will be added to the
    record, and the record will be open for 2 weeks for any other
    submissions.
        Very briefly, we are going to use this platform often. I
    think the other news you may or may not know, but we are going
    to introduce a climate caucus. I was the first Republican asked
    to be on

    [[Page 30]]

    it, and was proud to be the first one to say yes. There will be
    others.
        I think this is the defining issue going forward. We just
    need to figure out how we do it in a way that we can pay for
    it, that everyone is engaged. And also, how we get the rest of
    the world involved in doing it.
        I think with the conscientious effort and speed you are
    going to see from this country, and I am sure that we both
    share that interest. This hopefully will be the first of many
    conversations.
        I want to thank all of you for coming in today to share
    your thoughts.
        With that being said, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:34 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]
        [An additional statement submitted for the record follows:]

                      Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
                    U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for hosting this hearing on the
    important ways industry has both voluntarily and effectively
    reduced its impact on the environment. This is a necessary
    discussion as, unfortunately, we rarely hear of the many ways
    industry is already taking initiative to reduce its
    environmental footprint without overly burdensome and
    ineffective Government mandates. I am taking this opportunity
    to highlight an instance when regulators went too far with an
    emission reduction proposal that harmed American innovation and
    economic growth.
        As a former chairman of this full committee, I distinctly
    recall the many spirited policy disagreements I had with the
    Obama administration on environmental regulations. While there
    were many heavy-handed and harmful proposals during that
    administration, one of the most ill-conceived was in regard to
    changes to corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. As
    many know, days before President Trump's inauguration, the
    Obama administration's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    acted unilaterally to lock in its portion of the 2012 CAFE
    standards through 2025. These standards would have
    unquestionably hampered production of trucks and SUVs as these
    types of vehicles do not help automakers meet the arbitrary
    CAFE standards of 50 miles per gallon fuel economy average by
    2025. Government bureaucrats intended to force their radical
    environmental agenda on Americans despite the reality that SUVs
    and trucks make up over two-thirds of vehicles sold in America.
    The standards have also encouraged car companies like Jeep to
    sacrifice passenger safety by forgoing a spare tire in an
    effort to reduce vehicle weight to increase average fuel
    economy. Fortunately, the Trump administration is putting a
    stop to President Obama's harmful fuel economy standards and
    has proposed replacing them with standards that will reduce
    vehicle price tags for consumers while maintaining an ambitious
    national fuel economy standard.
        The Obama-era CAFE standards are one of many instances in
    which bureaucrats have forced their radical environmental
    agenda on the American people. These policies are misguided and
    unfairly limit consumer choice. Oklahomans want affordable
    vehicles and do not need Washington elites telling them what
    kind of cars they can own. I continue to be proud of the Trump
    administration and its efforts to cut red tape and improve CAFE
    standards. Thankfully we finally have a president willing to
    stand up for Oklahoma's farmers, ranchers and small business
    owners.

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]