[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DRIVING A GLOBAL, WHOLE-OF-SOCIETY RESPONSE TO CLIMATE ACTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
May 12, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-36
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://
docs.house.gov,
or http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-473 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York, Chairman
BRAD SHERMAN, California MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas, Ranking
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey Member
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
KAREN BASS, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island DARRELL ISSA, California
AMI BERA, California ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas LEE ZELDIN, New York
DINA TITUS, Nevada ANN WAGNER, Missouri
TED LIEU, California BRIAN MAST, Florida
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota KEN BUCK, Colorado
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas MARK GREEN, Tennessee
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia GREG STEUBE, Florida
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York
ANDY KIM, New Jersey AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
SARA JACOBS, California PETER MEIJER, Michigan
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
JIM COSTA, California RONNY JACKSON, Texas
JUAN VARGAS, California YOUNG KIM, California
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
Sophia Lafargue, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Kerry, The Honorable John, Special Presidential Envoy for
Climate, U.S. Department of State.............................. 9
INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Letter submitted for the record.................................. 41
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 57
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 58
Hearing Attendance............................................... 59
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Statement for the record from Representative Connolly............ 60
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record.................. 62
DRIVING A GLOBAL, WHOLE-OF-SOCIETY RESPONSE TO CLIMATE ACTION
Wednesday, May 12, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Gregory Meeks
(Chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Meeks. The Committee on Foreign Affairs will come
to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any point. And all Members will have
5 days to submit statements, extraneous material, and questions
for the record, subject to the length limitations in the rules.
To insert something into the record, please have your staff
email to the previously mentioned address or contact full
committee staff.
As a reminder to Members, please keep your video function
on at all times, even when you are not recognized by the Chair.
Members are responsible for muting and unmuting themselves.
Consistent with House rules, staff will only mute Members,
as appropriate, when they are not under recognition, to
eliminate background noise.
I see that we have a quorum. And I now recognize myself for
opening remarks.
Let me say good morning to everyone and welcome Special
Envoy John Kerry to today's committee hearing entitled Driving
a Global Response to Climate Action.
Last month's Leaders Summit on Climate, the first summit
for the Biden Administration, was another strong signal to the
world that the U.S. is back after years of costly absence. And
the stakes could not be higher. Although the threats sometimes
seem distant, we cannot turn back the clock.
This is especially true of climate change where we have
lost precious time in responding to a mounting crisis. Even if
we achieve our ambitious goals of keeping 1.5 percent warming
within reach, our children will still have to learn to live on
a dramatically changed planet. Many will have to move from
uninhabitable land, if they can. Others, who are not so lucky,
must endure more frequent and severe weather events: fires,
drought, and pollution, which have become the new perilous
norm.
But, yet, I remain an optimist. The Biden Administration
committed to drastically reduce U.S. emissions by 2030. Now,
certainly this is ambitious, but ambition is what we need right
now.
We welcome the British pledge to ban non-electric, non-
electric vehicles by 2030, which sparked similar plans in at
least 16 other countries and several U.S. States. And on the
global level, we saw China set long-needed targets on Coal.
Brazil pledged to end deforestation by 2030. Argentina and
others committed to deploy more renewables. Japan, South Korea,
and Canada made more ambitious pledges than those in Paris.
Now, as a believer in the science behind climate change, as
well as the benefits of trade, investment, and American
ingenuity in the face of competition, what I see is
opportunity. A well-defined plan on climate action will create
high-paying, good jobs for the American people. And our
committee will play its crucial role in getting us there.
We are exploring legislative options that will support
innovative approaches with civil society and the private
sector. And as Chair, I fully support efforts to galvanize
climate option in the lead up to the Glasgow and beyond.
It is not just about summit diplomacy and commitments on
paper, it is about paving the road to Glasgow and follow
through beyond. There remain obvious hurdles in achieving the
necessary collective action, however. Yes, we have work with
strategic competition--competitors like China and Russia, but
we also have to hold them accountable. And, yes, they will
require investment in developing countries. And, yes, it will
involve helping our neighbors, as good neighbors do.
What do we do as leaders on the global stage to tackle this
problem? We work strategically with other ambitious countries
to spark the momentum leading up to Glasgow. This includes the
G-7 and the G-20, which shows a multilateral approach has us
moving in the right direction.
We must also empower the U.S. Government, including through
the International Development Finance Corporation, to have
global reach assisting all countries, including all those in
the Caribbean, Eastern Europe, and Africa to have access to
needed financing and investment opportunities. When it comes to
building a green, resilient economy, adapting and protecting
one's people, countries should not be left with only China as
an option, whose investments often come with strings attached.
Financing options should not be based solely on income
criteria, but on vulnerability and risk to external shocks.
In the years since, we survived the hottest years on record
and emitted the highest levels of carbon in human history. The
gap of what is being done and what needs to be done has also
grown. And I think of the words of John F. Kennedy, Jr., who
said, ``Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.''
So, I pledge not only to try, as the Chairman of this
committee, but demand that we do our best to save this planet.
With that, I will turn to my good friend and the Ranking
Member of this committee, Mr. McCaul, for his opening
statement.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's
hearing. And I want to welcome you, Secretary Kerry, back to
the Hill. It is good to see you.
I believe the climate is changing. And we must take steps
to address it. However, the answer is not the Paris Agreement
in its current form.
The People's Republic of China is the world's leading
greenhouse gas emitter, and is responsible for almost 30
percent of global emissions. Yet, the Paris Agreement does the
bare minimum to hold the PRC accountable, while allowing them
to continue increasing their emissions until 2020--2030.
At the same time, it disproportionately penalizes American
workers and American industries, even though the PRC emits over
twice as much carbon dioxide as the United States.
And, Mr. Secretary, I understand you have a big challenge
ahead of you. We had a good visit on this issue. But I just do
not see how we can truly make an impact if China isn't held to
the same standards as the United States. Last year alone, the
Chinese Community Party brought more than three times as many
new coal-powered plants online in the PRC as the rest of the
world combined. And they aren't just polluting at home. Beijing
is exporting coal-fired power plants throughout the developing
world through their Belt and Road Initiative.
In fact, the CCP is the biggest financier of coal plants in
the world. It is clear the Chinese Communist Party does not
care about the environment, but they have proven time and again
they cannot be trusted, and are not a reliable partner in
addressing climate change.
That is why I have worked with Representatives Graves and
McMorris-Rodgers to introduce the Paris Transparency and
Accountability Act. Our bill acknowledges it is vital we
renegotiate the Paris Agreement to create a level playing
field. And it calls for this new agreement to be submitted for
Senate approval. Any comprehensive agreement that will
significantly impact American jobs and the American economy
deserves that much.
Our bill would also ensure there is sufficient oversight of
the committees, and commitments the President makes on behalf
of the American people under the agreement. And it makes
certain those commitments do not jeopardize our national
security or our competitiveness.
Like you, Secretary Kerry, I am a father, and I care about
the world we are leaving behind for our children and our
grandchildren. And we have that in common. Yet, after the
United States finally achieved energy independence in oil and
natural gas, we now appear to be trying--or tying our future
energy needs to the CCP-dominated supply chain such as solar
panels and electric batteries.
If we truly want to reduce emissions, we must keep all
these options on the table. That also means investing in
renewable energy. But it also means expanding our nuclear
energy capabilities, including, as you and I talked about, the
development of small modular reactors with zero carbon
emissions.
And it means utilizing fossil fuels with a smaller
environmental impact. For example, LNG from my home State of
Texas has significantly lower lifecycle emissions than coal or
Russian piped gas. The United States has been a leader in
addressing climate risk through innovation and technology. Now,
more than ever, we need to take advantage of our strengths,
which have enabled us to become energy independent.
So, Secretary Kerry, I look forward to hearing your
thoughts on what steps can be taken to address climate risk in
a responsible way that also protects American interests and
jobs.
And before I close, I and many of my colleagues are
concerned by alleged conversations that you have reportedly had
with Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif after you were Secretary of
State. Iran is the world's largest State sponsor of terror and
one of our biggest adversaries. I hope that you will address
these allegations today before Congress, and I hope you will
reassure this committee that classified or sensitive
information was not shared with Iranian officials when you were
either Secretary of State or after you left your post.
Again, thank you for being here today. And, Mr. Chairman, I
yield back.
Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. Now I will introduce
our witness.
On January 20th, 2021, John F. Kerry was sworn in as the
Nation's first Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, where he
leads the United States international effort to address climate
change. In recent years, Special Envoy Kerry was a Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace's first ever visiting
distinguished Statesman, following his 4 years as the 68th
United States Secretary of State.
In that capacity, he was a critical part of the successful
negotiations in the Paris Climate Agreement. From 1985 to 2013
he served as a United States Senator, representing
Massachusetts, and was the Chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee from 2009 to 2013.
Secretary Kerry served in the United States Navy,
completing two combat tours of duty in Vietnam for which he
received a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and the Combat V, and
three Purple Hearts.
He received his undergraduate degree from Yale University
and his law degree from Boston College Law School. Most
importantly, he is an American patriot, a patriot and a close
friend of mine.
And I welcome Secretary John Kerry. Without objection, the
witness' prepared testimony will be made part of the record.
And I now recognize the Honorable John Kerry.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN KERRY, SPECIAL PRESIDENTIAL
ENVOY FOR CLIMATE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Kerry. Well, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCaul,
distinguished Members of the committee, it is a great privilege
for me to be able to be here and a pleasure to testify to you
today. And I look forward to answering your questions and
having, hopefully, a really good dialog on the subject of the
climate crisis that we all face, and also explaining President
Biden's climate agenda.
And, Ranking Member, I expect to have the opportunity, I
will address your questions. And I particularly look forward to
talking with you about the Paris Agreement and China. And I
think, hopefully, there will be a lot of discussion about China
today.
But during his campaign President Biden identified climate
crisis as one of the four historic crises facing our country,
alongside COVID-19, the economic crisis, and the racial
division in our country.
And I think, personally I think he was right to do so.
Everywhere around the United States and around the world we
are all living with these mounting costs, present day costs, of
global warming and of a more volatile climate.
2020 set a new record, U.S. record of 22 weather and
climate disasters costing over $1 billion each. Last year's
tally of 22 hurricanes, floods, droughts, and wildfires
shattered the previous annual record of 16 such events. And
that was set only 4 years ago. So, these natural disasters have
cost the United States, our taxpayers, more than $1.79 trillion
since 1980.
The 2020 U.S. wildfire season burned more than 10 million
acres--an area greater than the State of Maryland. We saw five
of the six biggest wildfires in California's history last year,
as well as the single largest wildfire in Colorado's history.
2020 was the warmest year on record. The last decade was
the warmest decade on record. The decade before that, the
second warmest; the decade before that the third warmest. You
do not have to be a scientist to begin to feel that we are
looking at a trend line.
For the first time in our country's history, NOAA now
considered Fairbanks, Alaska, as a warm summer continental
climate because for 4 months of the calendar year the average
temperature is now 50 degrees Fahrenheit or more.
As my friend Secretary Blinken noted recently, we are fast
running out of records to break.
And that is why I was so honored to be asked by the
President to lead his all-out diplomatic effort to ensure that
the United States is once again a global leader in combating
the climate crisis.
As the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, it is my job
to make sure that the rest of the world sees that the United
States is re-engaged, re-energized, and re-dedicated to
tackling the climate crisis both at home and abroad. In
practice, that means marshaling all of our resources to ensure
that we can keep a 1.5 degrees Celsius within reach. That is
the target.
Scientists started out in Paris, Ranking Member, with a
well below 2 degrees. But then, because the island States and
very vulnerable nations thought that was not good enough, 1.5
was adopted. And now, as of 2018 when the scientists reported
back on where we were, they said we have got to try and achieve
the 1.5.
So, unless emissions targets across the world are enhanced
and implemented, we are now headed into a dangerous world above
3 degrees Celsius of warming. That is the current direction we
are on.
Now, keeping 1.5 degrees alive is our north start over the
months to come. But achieving that goal is going to mean
bending the emissions curve downward substantially by 2030.
That makes this the decisive decade in the climate fight. And
at home, that will entail an all-of-government effort, an
interagency effort, to which my colleagues across the
Administration are now fully dedicated, including my good
friend from Massachusetts and National Climate Advisor Gina
McCarthy.
My friends, I spent 28 years as a Senator, and 4 years as
Secretary of State. And I have voted on important issues like
you do and are now. I will just share with you from an
imperative analysis here, these stakes could not be more
serious, not just in terms of damage and problems, but in terms
of economic possibilities. A race, if you will. Who is in the
race and who isn't? And what technologies are going to define
the future?
The United States is contributing a declining share of
global annual emissions. The Biden Administration has made
important and measurable strides just in the first weeks. At
the President's landmark 100-days-plus Climate Leaders Summit
on April 22d and 23d, we put forward a very strong 2030
emission reduction target alongside ambitious new targets which
we worked on with Canada, with Japan, with the EU, in order to
implement a stronger 2030 goal.
And the U.K. has set a new pace-setting 2035 goal with a 78
percent reduction in emissions.
Many of our closest allies, a coalition accounting for more
than half of the global economy of the world, are now clearly
committed to climate technology leadership and the pace of
emissions reductions required globally to meet the goal of
keeping 1.5 degrees alive. That means 55 percent of the global
GDP is now committed to move in the direction of keeping 1.5
alive. But it also means that 45 percent is not yet. And that
is the challenge, Ranking Member, that you raised with China
and others. And we will talk about it.
South Korea came in with a recent announcement that it will
strengthen its 2030 target later this year.
And we are far from alone. Argentina has updated its 2030
target. It is ramping up renewables, including sourcing from
U.S. suppliers. So, we gain.
South Africa moved forward with peaking, with setting a new
peaking year, moving a full decade forward to 2025.
Additionally, the Chinese Government did commit to
implement the Kigali Agreement to the Montreal Protocol to
phase down HRCS, and they indicated that they will now strictly
control coal-fired power generation projects, building on their
2020 commitment to achieve carbon neutrality before 2060.
So, there is much more to be done, in China and elsewhere,
and we are working with partner governments to secure enhanced
action and additional pledges ahead of the COP26 global climate
summit in November. But, my friends, this represents, what I
have described, is actually the result of a pretty serious
sprint that we have been engaged in since January 20th when I
came into this job and the President issued his executive
orders a day later.
Now, I know that today's hearing is focused on our efforts
abroad. But I also know that every member here is deeply
concerned with our economic health and prosperity here at home.
The fact is, addressing the climate crisis is integrally
related to our economic recovery here in the U.S. It is a huge
opportunity for jobs, for new technology, for our communities.
Yes, there is a transition involved in some of that. But we
have been through transitions before as a Nation. And just as
America led the world in the industrial revolution, just as we
led the technological revolution, we can and will lead the
energy revolution.
And just as we developed the lightbulb and the airplane,
and just as we developed the internet and vaccines, and went to
the Moon, we can and will develop the battery storage
technologies, the direct air capture technologies, the green
hydrogen, the smart-grid technologies that will change the
world and stave off the catastrophic impacts of the climate
crisis.
There are tough choices in politics. We all know that. But
this is not one of them.
Because in addressing the climate crisis, we are actually
taking advantage of the greatest economic opportunity the world
has ever known.
Before the pandemic, two of the three fastest-growing jobs
in the country were wind turbine technicians and solar
photovoltaic installers. From 2017 to 2020, clean energy jobs
grew by an average of 6 percent each year, faster than fossil
fuels and the rest of the energy economy, and about twice the
pace of the U.S. economy as a whole.
We now have more Americans working in clean energy--3
million--than we have bankers or middle and elementary school
teachers, and clean energy jobs outnumber fossil fuel jobs in
the U.S. three-to-one. And it is broad-based. Clean energy jobs
outnumber fossil fuel jobs in 81 percent of rural counties.
So, there is an even bigger growth opportunity for the U.S.
in the years to come.
In 2020, global investment in clean technologies crossed
the $500 billion mark. And the International Energy Agency
predicts that clean energy investment could triple during this
decade.
Solar and wind investment is forecasted to be five times
larger than that for coal or for gas-fired power plants through
2050--that is 30 more years it will be five times higher.
Similarly, the size of the global electric vehicle fleet is
expected to jump to 116 million in 2030, up from only 8.5
million in 2020.
Jobs and dollar figures alone do not tell the whole story.
We are also seeing that clean energy can power our homes
and businesses. For a period on April 24th in California,
California's electrical grid was powered--California obviously
being the size of, it is what, the sixth largest nation in the
world--well, in April 24th its electrical grid was powered by
95 percent energy, renewable energy, without any loss in
reliability or supply. Countries as diverse as Denmark,
Ethiopia, and Slovakia now all power 80 percent or more of
their grid with emissions-free generation.
We see markets moving inexorably in the direction of clean
energy and low-carbon solutions.
Ahead of the summit, six leading United States banks
pledged to mobilize $4.15 trillion of low-carbon capital by
2030. That is over the next 10 years, 4.15 trillion spent in
investment. America's three largest U.S. asset managers also
announced that $19 trillion in assets that they manage will be
moved to low-carbon investments by 2050.
American automakers are positioning to lead the global
electric vehicle revolution.
The transformation I am talking about is not a future
projection. It is happening here and now. It is a reality as we
speak.
The trajectory toward the new energy economy is now
unmistakable in so many sectors. As we saw over the last 4
years, much of that movement is irrespective of Federal action.
It is not the Government saying go do this, the marketplace is
moving in that direction. And so, dollars are rapidly draining
away from investments that do not fit squarely within that
crucial 1.5 degree pathway, which boards of directors all
across our country, the boardrooms of our biggest corporations,
they are talking about ESG--environment, social, and
governance--and its requirements. They are talking about
sustainable development goals. And they are setting their own
goals in order to set investment on a different track.
So, Members of the committee, there is already so much
progress being made. There is much more work still ahead. And
as we move toward the COP26 global summit in Scotland this
November, we are clear-eyed about the bold goals that we have
set for ourselves. Our engagement is designed to help build out
opportunities for our country. President Biden knows how
important it is for the United States to join the nations
around the world to meet the challenge of the climate crisis.
I served here, as I mentioned earlier, on Capitol Hill for
28 years. I have always had respect for the oversight role of
Congress. And I have already had several productive exchanges
with Members of the committee. And I look forward to continuing
those discussions in the months ahead.
I welcome your guidance, and your feedback, and input as we
work to implement a critical agenda for our Nation and for the
world. It is ambitious, but it is also essential.
So, I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kerry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Meeks. Thank you, Secretary Kerry, for your
testimony. And I, too, look forward to a insightful
conversation, and dialog, and questions with our Members.
I want to inform all Members we have a hard 1 p.m. stop.
And so from henceforth I will be adhering strictly to the 5-
minute rule. So, I am going to be--not meaning to be
disrespectful to anyone--at 5 minutes I will be banging the
gavel so that we can get to as many Members as possible.
Mr. Kerry. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to interpose, but I was
just asking my staff. We originally, the hearing was set from
10 to noon. And I can push to 12:30. But I am flying commercial
and have a flight that I have to make. So, I have to leave here
by 12:30.
Chairman Meeks. Got it. My information, I have been
corrected, so we have an even harder gavel purpose.
Mr. Kerry. So, at 12:30.
Chairman Meeks. I will be very mindful of the 5-minute rule
to get as many Members to ask their questions as possible.
I will recognize Members by committee seniority,
alternating between Democrats and Republicans. If you miss your
turn, please let our staff know and we will come back to you.
If you seek recognition, you must unmute your microphone
and address the Chair verbally, and identify yourself so that
we know who is speaking.
I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, vulnerable communities across the world are
already facing severe adverse impacts of climate change from
drought, crop failures, severe weather events, rising seas, and
even a changing ocean chemistry. Those that can move and adapt,
they will. However, historically marginalized communities will
likely face the brunt of the impact in the incoming years.
So, my question to you is how can we ensure that global
efforts to combat climate change do not neglect these
communities?
Mr. Kerry. We are trying, Mr. Chairman, to pay very, very
close attention. We started at the summit. And I will tell you
why.
I remember in Paris in that negotiation where I had the
privilege to lead our team, in the lead-up to Paris there was
not enough dialog with marginalized countries, less developed
countries, people who suffer the greatest problems. There are
about 138 nations on the planet all of whom are less, they are
a fraction of 1 percent of emissions. I mean, within fractions.
But they are the ones suffering the greatest consequences.
I have been on the phone in the last weeks with the
President of the Marshall Islands, the President of Fiji--I
mean the Prime Minister of Fiji, others. They are facing not
just adaptation; they may have to move altogether. Those
nations, most likely, some of them are facing extinction, and
that is existential for them.
So, we invited those nations not to wait until we get to
Glasgow. We had about 20 of those nations involved in the
climate summit the President just had. So, the President
invited the 20 biggest emitters in the world, biggest, most
powerful economies. We had President Xi, we had Russia, we had
Modi, so forth. But he also invited Bangladesh, and the
Marshall Islands, and small entities because we wanted to hear
from people about this demand for adaptation and mitigation.
Now, we depend on you. Congress will decide what it is
willing to appropriate to this task. The President has put
forward a proposal to double the amount that we are doing for
adaptation, and to triple the amount we are doing for
resilience on behalf of other countries.
And as you know, there is a Green Climate Fund. It has
maybe about 10 billion in it total at that point. It is a part
of the larger commitment made in Paris for the world to
mobilize about $100 billion on an annual basis by 2020 in order
to help those nations do what they need to do to respond to
this crisis.
We have never been able to get to the 100 yet. We are at 80
billion right now. And I think it is going to be very difficult
in Glasgow if the developed world cannot step up.
Let me put this in perspective.
A hundred billion to try to help 138 nations that do not,
some of them do not even have electricity, to be able to
respond to what is happening, measure that against the fact
that about two or 3 years ago we all spent here in America $265
billion just to clean up after three storms: Harvey, Maria, and
Irma.
Irma had the first sustained winds of 185 miles an hour for
24 hours.
Harvey dropped more water in the greater Houston, Louisiana
area in 5 days than goes over Niagara Falls in an entire year.
And Irma and Maria, we all know, savaged the infrastructure
of Puerto Rico.
So, if we do not want to just rebuild and rebuild, if we
want to get the world enlisted in this, we have got to begin to
look at some greater effort to help countries adapt and to help
people build resilience so that we are a global community
shifting our energy basis in an appropriate way to avoid this
crisis in the long run.
And I think this is something that President Biden is going
to continue to try to ask you to help him with and help our
country do, because a lot of people are going to suffer if we
cannot do that.
And the military, by the way, our own military will tell
you that climate crisis is a threat multiplier. And so conflict
will grow as people are fighting for a place to live, a place
to have water, a place to be able to feed themselves. And we
already do have climate refugees on the planet. So----
Chairman Meeks. My time has expired.
I now recognize Representative McCaul for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Secretary. You have a very enormous
challenge and a very important one in front of you.
Secretaries Blinken and Pompeo both said that the CCP is
committing genocide against the Uyghur Muslim population. Last
month this committee marked up a bill that I introduced along
with Chairman Meeks condemning this genocide. You recently said
that--were quoted saying, ``We have other differences on human
rights,'' but those should not get in the way of something that
is as critical as dealing with climate.''
I know you can try to compartmentalize it. The problem is
it is intertwined. Because when you look at the supply chain
and you look at China, they dominate the critical mineral
supply and solar supply chains, all coming out of Xinjiang
Province which we believe is using slave labor to create these
renewable energy sources.
So my question to you is how can you assure us, or ensure
that this quest that we are on, that slave labor coming out of
China where genocide is taking place as we speak, are never a
part of the climate solution in the United States?
Mr. Kerry. You are absolutely correct, Ranking Member
McCaul. It is a problem. Xinjiang Province not only produces
some of the solar panels that we believe are being in some
cases produced in forced labor by Uyghurs, but also there are a
significant amount of rare earth minerals that is used in the
solar panels themselves.
It is my understanding that the Biden Administration is
right now in the process of assessing whether or not that will
be the target of sanctions. I have heard some discussion about
it. I am not privy to where that decision is at this point in
time.
But I can tell you that nothing can be traded. And I have
made that very clear. President Biden has made it very clear.
Climate is existential for everybody on the planet. We have to
deal with it. And because China is nearly 30 percent of all the
emissions on the planet, China has got to be part of the
solution, not part of the problem.
So, we have had very direct conversations with the Chinese
on this. They have moved somewhat in the course of the last
month-and-a-half, 2 months, after we have engaged.
For instance, they had a peak date of peaking in terms of
their emissions by 2030. That is where we began. And they were
not willing to change it. And in addition, they were not even
discussing mitigation during the course of the next 10 years.
Well, we have been having some very serious conversations
about the reality of the science, the 1.5 degrees, the need to
hold it. And so, China has now announced, President Xi
announced, he announced a number of things:
No. 1, that they believe this is a climate crisis now. Our
joint statement, that is entitled U.S.-China Joint statement on
Climate Crisis. They have never done that. They now have, in
the body of the text, they have agreed they have to change and
do something into 2020, 2030's.
They have agreed that the peaking now they think may be
able to take place by 2025-24. We do not know yet.
So, we are in an ongoing negotiation with them. And where
we are at the aftermath of the summit that we had where
President Xi made some of these announcements is that we have
got to go back to work. We have five more months left to get
them to embrace something that we believe you will view,
hopefully, as a legitimate, you know, a legitimate initiative
that makes sense. We are not there yet.
And so I think both on the--you know, and I have made it
clear there are serious issues we all know with China, issues
of Hong Kong, to Taiwan, to the South China Sea, to access to
the marketplace, cyber and cybertech. These are big challenges.
But, historically, we have always proven ourselves capable of
negotiating, even when we have big disagreements. Ronald Reagan
went to Reykjavik and negotiated with the Evil Empire,
Gorbachev. And they came away from there repurposing over
50,000 warheads which we both had pointed at each other.
Mr. McCaul. Can I just say in closing, I think your
successes will be tied to China. And I think that the more you
can hold them to the same standards as the United States----
Mr. Kerry. Mike.
Mr. McCaul. The more you can hold the CCP to the same
standards as the United States, I think the more successful you
will be. But we are not seeing that right now.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Brad Sherman of California
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Ambassador Kerry, welcome back.
We all know climate change is not free, it is not going to
pay for itself. And, as you point out, it is the issue of our
time. It is worth the effort.
There is a tendency of Americans to think it is all about
us. And if we just live our lives differently, everything will
be as it should. Yet, the United States and the EU combined are
way less than 20 percent of the emissions. The U.S. is 11
percent; the rest of the world almost 90 percent.
So, while the whole U.S. Government, the people of the
United States are focused on reducing our emissions, you and
you alone are able to head the effort to deal with almost 90
percent of the problem while all your fellow Americans are
focused on 10 or 11 percent of the problem. You have an
important job.
And as we focused on, we are dealing with China. And China
has grudgingly made a few comments. As you just pointed out,
they have been willing to use the word ``crisis.'' But the fact
is, even if China uses the word ``crisis,'' even if they make a
commitment, they may not actually do anything on the ground.
What they do on the ground is more important than what they
say.
And every week they build a new, large, coal-fired power
plant, week after week. And when you build this plant it is not
with the intention that they are going to decommission it five
or 10 years after they put it online. As others have pointed
out, they are also financing coal-fired power plants around the
world.
You are a very good diplomat. You are very persuasive. But
all you have in your toolbox is a chance to appeal to the
conscience of a regime that Ranking Member McCaul has described
as genocidal, a regime that puts its own people by the millions
in concentration camps. And we have given you the job of
appealing to their better nature, appealing to their conscience
and getting them to spend hundreds of billions of dollars in
order to help their fellow human beings.
So, my question is, would you be in a stronger position if
we were threatening, gave you the power to impose an additional
10 percent tariff on all goods coming into the United States
from China and, of course, work with our allies to do the same
thing?
Right now our total average tariff on goods coming from
China is less than 10 percent, just a bit less than 10 percent.
And it occurs to me that you may, through great diplomacy, be
able to get a genocidal and conscience-free regime to make a
statement or two. But to actually get them to stop building a
coal-fired power plant every year, you may need more arrows in
your quiver.
Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman, thank you for the question.
The fact is that Europe is considering a border adjustment
mechanism. And this is a mechanism which President Biden has
also asked us to evaluate as a means of placing an additional
cost on the cost of goods that come from places that are not
responsible in what they are doing, or how they are being
produced.
Now, no decision has been made about deploying that or
doing it. But I think Congress looking at this would be a very,
you know, important analysis, an important undertaking to sort
of look at the dynamics of this.
But let me share with all of you, if I can, in this
negotiating process I learned over the years, both negotiating
in the Senate and here in Congress, but more importantly with
other countries, and especially in the Iran nuclear agreement,
Ronald Reagan had a saying, you know, ``trust but verify.'' We
changed that a little bit and have a saying, do not trust but
verify.
And in this endeavor with China you have got to be eyes
wide open. You cannot go in and just take their word.
Chairman Meeks. I apologize to you, Mr. Secretary, but
Members are reminded again, if you want your questions answered
you have a certain amount of time you have to ask them, because
I am stopping at 5 minutes.
I now recognize Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey,
who is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global
Health, and Global Human Rights, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr.
Secretary, welcome to the committee.
As you know, under President Xi Jinping, human rights abuse
throughout China have significantly worsened, including the
pervasive use of torture, religious persecution, human
trafficking, and genocide against Muslim Uyghurs. Paper
promises made by Beijing, as you know as well, are simply not
kept. Broken promises are the rule, not the exception, under
Xi. And the people of Hong Kong are suffering as we speak
because of it.
As you know, Xi Jinping has completely reneged on the
promises made in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration that
facilitated the conveyance of Hong Kong from the U.K. to China
beginning on July 1st, 1997, that autonomy, human rights,
including press assembly, association, religion, would be
exactly the same as before the handover for at least 50 years.
Xi Jinping has completely reneged on promises made in the
basic law of Hong Kong, adopted by the Chinese People's
Congress in 1990 before the give-back that autonomy, human
rights, and adherence to the rule of law would be protected.
The Chinese Communist Party, again as you know, has not
been truthful concerning the origin of COVID-19. The CCP tells
lies concerning the genocide against the Uyghurs, and continues
to brazenly violate its WTO obligations, U.N. sanctions on
North Korea, and so much more.
So, two questions:
During your trip with leaders of the Chinese Communist
Party, did you raise human rights in general?
Did you ask them to stop the genocide against the Uyghurs
and the brutal suppression of Hong Kong, and other massive acts
of cruelty?
And, if you did, how did they respond?
And, second, given the Chinese Communist Party's massive
unwillingness to honor its word, do you believe the CCP will
honor its word on climate? Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Kerry. Of course, I raised, I have always raised the
issue of human rights in every conversation I ever had as
secretary anywhere I was related to that issue.
Mr. Smith. But on this trip as well, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Kerry. Yes, but I am just about to get to it.
In this trip I raised it with the Chinese officials, not
the climate folks, because the climate, you know, climate
emissary for China, Xie Zhenhua, has been their Special Envoy
on Climate for about 20 years. And, you know, we could casually
talk about it, but he does not have any input or capacity to do
anything on it.
But I have raised it at the highest levels with officials
in China and they deny certain things that we allege,
obviously, and move on. It is a wall of, you know, different
attitude about what, what they are willing to acknowledge and
not acknowledge.
Clearly, we have a very different perception of what is
happening, for instance, in Xinjiang than they are willing to
acknowledge.
So, a decision has to be made, whether by Congress or the
Administration, how we will respond to that. You have
legislation, Ranking Member McCaul, and maybe that is the way
it is going to be responded to.
I am not, that is not my lane. My lane is very specifically
to try to get the Chinese to move to do what we need to do with
respect to climate itself.
And I will just point out something to everybody on the
committee. China is already the leading producer in the world
of solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles, and lithium
ion batteries. They produced 72 percent of all the solar panels
globally in 2019. That is up from the last year when they were
at 67 percent.
U.S. companies only produced, you know, a very minor amount
compared to that. So----
Mr. Smith. Mr. Secretary, I know the Chairman will have to
cut me off and everybody else at 5 minutes. But do you believe
that they will honor their word on this issue of climate?
Mr. Kerry. As I said earlier, do not trust, and verify. You
have to set up a structure where you are doing things which you
can see happening and you can measure. And that is what is
critical here. This is not a question of relying on somebody's
word.
But I do want to share with you, and I wanted to share this
a moment ago in answer to the prior question, let me just share
with you what was published in an internal meeting of President
Xi with the Communist Party Members about a week-and-a-half
ago. And this is new.
``President Xi: China will make cutting emissions a focus
of its ecological strategy in the next 5 years. President Xi
Jinping said, he vowed,'' vowed is used, to cutoff projects
which consume a lot of energy and cannot meet global
standards.'' And he talked about moving away from coal and how
they are going to do it.
Now, we are going to have to check on that.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kerry. I would rather have those words than not have
them. And now we get into the verification.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Albio Sires of New Jersey,
who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere,
Civilian Security, Migration, and International Economic
Policy, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here.
During President Biden's Leaders Summit on Climate, Brazil
pled to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, and eliminate
illegal deforestation by 2030. One day after making this
pledge, President Bolsonaro approved a 24 percent cut to the
environmental budget for 2021.
What should the U.S. policy toward the Brazilian Amazon
consist of? And how can we address the consistent lack of
adequate spending on environmental regulations by the current
government in Brazil?
Mr. Kerry. It is a terrific question. And the answer is we
are trying to set up a new structure of verification and
accountability. Promises have been made in the past. Brazil
actually did quite well between 2004 and 2012. Deforestation
was making prog--they were making progress in stopping it.
But in 2012 to 2020 Amazon reached a 12-year high in the
level of deforestation. And, unfortunately, the Bolsonaro
regime has rolled back some of the environmental enforcement.
We have had this conversation. They say they are committed
now to raise the budget. And they are going to put together a
new structure.
We are willing to talk to them, not with any blinders on,
but with an understanding of where we have been. But if we do
not talk to them we are guaranteed that that forest is going to
disappear.
And scientists are telling us today that the level of
cutting of the forest is so significant that there is a
possibility it has reached a tipping point already in the
ability of the forest to remain a rainforest.
In fact, a week ago there was an article saying that the
Amazon is now releasing more carbon than it is consuming. So,
we have already--something is going on. So, we need to figure
that out.
The bottom line is, we are going to engage in order to try
to find out what is possible, and we will report back to you. I
assure you, before we wind up going to Glasgow we will have a
better sense of where we are in the next month.
Mr. Sires. Thank you. And going to the Northern Triangle,
the dry corridor of Central America has been experiencing years
of severe drought and floods, made much worse by the climate
crisis. These impacts are destroying livelihood across
Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador, and pushing people to
migrate to the U.S. out of desperation.
Are we planning to deal with this in this Northern
Triangle, these countries, to stop this push north because of
the severe drought in the area?
Mr. Kerry. I hope we are. I think people are trying to put
together those responses now, from what I understand.
When I was secretary, and the President was the Vice
President, we became very involved with those countries, with
Guatemala, with Honduras, with El Salvador. We went down there.
We met with the Presidents. And we tried to--because we also
saw the connection of what was happening with their
dislocation, and then the pressure on the border of the United
States. It was part of the culture of people moving because
they couldn't grow things anymore. And that has a serious
impact on their livelihoods.
So, what we are doing now is trying to figure out was back
then we put some money on the table. We helped them deal with
some of the problems within their community to be able to hold
on to those populations and to be able to provide a food chain
and a capacity to survive.
But this is, this is a harbinger of what may come as more
and more regions are not able to pursue the livelihood that
they used to pursue in the way that they did because the
climate is changing.
So, I know the Administration is focused on this now, and
trying to, you know, mobilize initiatives.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio, who is
the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific,
Central Asia and Nonproliferation, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, as has already been stated, the PRC is one
of the worst actors on the world scene, whether we are talking
about stealing half a trillion dollars of our intellectual
property every year, or employing unfair trade practices that
undermine our economy and destroy American jobs, or conducting
a massive military buildup, or using aggressive bullying
tactics against Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, India, Australia,
Vietnam, and others.
In fact, if you read an article in the Wall Street Journal
this morning, you can even add Sweden to that list. Not to
mention the atrocities against the Uyghurs, Tibetans, Falun
Gong, the crackdown on Hong Kong, and a variety of behaviors
aimed at reorienting the world to revolve around Beijing.
And, indeed, when he testified in March, Secretary Blinken
said that confronting this menace is the biggest geopolitical
task of the 21st Century.
Now, I know you are focused on climate, but the American
people deserve to know where this Administration's priorities
really are. Is it climate change that is the top priority for
this Administration, or is it confronting a more and more
aggressive Chinese Communist Party?
I know you will probably say something along the lines that
we can walk and chew gum at the same time. And I get that. But
when push comes to shove and the President has to either play
nice with China to get them to cooperate on climate change or
confront them on their latest attempt at stealing American
jobs, or bullying an ally, or committing genocide, what is it
going to be, Mr. Secretary, in your opinion?
Mr. Kerry. It has to be all of the above. There is no
choice. This is not an either/or. And the President does not
see it as either/or.
The best way the United States of America, frankly, can
aggregate efforts to deal with these many different legitimate
concerns about China's behavior is for us to be strong. The
stronger the United States is you are going to address more of
these issues.
And by stronger I mean one of the, one of the things that I
overheard years ago was a new narrative that is coming out of
China about how this century is the century of China, and the
United States is in decline, and the West is in decline, and
the liberal order of the West is in decline, and that they
cannot make decisions, and they cannot pass budgets, they do
not get anything done, they are not investing in their country.
I have heard this out there.
And I just have to tell you that the best thing we could do
is be more competitive. When I say 73 percent of these items
are being built in China and sold around the world, they are
cornering the market on that, why aren't we? What has happened
to us that we are not the country that is pushing the curve on
the technology, and the R&D? Now, that is what President Biden
has put forward.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, but the Chair has
been, he has been pretty strict with our time, and I am running
out of time. So I want to get one more question in, if I can.
Mr. Kerry. Sure. Sorry.
Mr. Chabot. And I commend him for being strict with all of
us.
Mr. Kerry. Yes, right.
Mr. Chabot. When you signed the Paris Agreement and praised
China for participating, China at that time emitted about 20
percent of the total global emissions. Now they have gone up to
27 percent. And even though the previous Administration had
pulled us out, we have been going down. And, in fact, since
2005 we have gone down I believe it is 4 billion tons, or
excuse me, a billion tons and they have gone up 4 billion tons.
So, they are going in just the wrong direction and we are going
in the right direction.
And I think the United States should be commended for that.
But as some of the other Members have indicated, even if we
reach an agreement with the PRC on this, in light of the fact
that they pretty much break every international agreement that
they make, why should be trust them?
And I know we say trust and verify, but there is a lot of
skepticism not only by this committee, I think, but the
American people for good reason overall.
So, in the short time that I have got left could you
address that lack of trust of the PRC as to whether they will
followup an agreement?
Mr. Kerry. Obviously the lack of trust is real. I mean,
they do not trust us and we do not trust them. And we have to
find a way forward in the midst of that that they have a global
crisis that cannot be solved by any one----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Gerry Connolly of Virginia,
who is the President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. And welcome back, Mr. Secretary, to the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. And thank you for addressing the Sustainable
Energy and Environmental Caucus last week. We really
appreciated your presentation.
I wanted you to talk a little bit about the engagement with
our alliance, the North Atlantic Alliance's Membership
especially. The Secretary General of NATO Jens Stoltenberg
comes from Norway, has visited Svalbard, has seen firsthand the
effects in the Arctic of climate change: the receding glaciers,
the opening up of the Arctic waterways to additional shipping
and exploitation of natural resources. How, especially with the
Alliance, can we anchor a commitment to reversing climate
change, addressing climate change with the Alliance
specifically?
And how did those conversations go when you met with the
European Council and other allied Members in Europe?
Mr. Kerry. Well, thank you, Gerry.
Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, is deeply committed on
the climate issue. And he is also very seized by the reality
that this is a defense security issue. And he, together with
Secretary Austin, General Austin also, and General Milley, are
both seized by the notion that they have serious challenges
within the military to deal with with respect to readiness,
deployment, conflict. There are a lot demands that are falling
on the military.
There is not a ``military solution'' here, but the military
has a big carbon footprint. And it is already wrestling with
the issue of fuels for aircraft, of supply chains, and so
forth.
I think, you know, there are, there are also some
interesting contributions that current military capacity may
provide with respect to the provision of power because there
are small unit nuclear capacity energy providers in literally
small, mobile reactors. And that may be something that is going
to be combined with the technology that Bill Gates is pursuing
for small modular reactors, which he is building a prototype
of.
And I met with a group at MIT recently who were talking
about the possibilities of literally what they call a quantum
battery, which is a small nuclear battery that is the size of a
container the length of these tables.
So, there are very exciting things that Jens Stoltenberg
and the military are starting to grapple with about how they
will contribute their part, as well as be ready for the crises
and the challenges that may come, and the consequences, the
threat multiplier that they believe the challenge is.
Mr. Connolly. Me too, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for your
leadership. I am so glad you are in the position you are. We
look forward to supporting you over the coming years.
I yield back.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Joe Wilson of South
Carolina, who is the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the
Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Chairman Greg Meeks, for your
leadership, very positive leadership.
Secretary Kerry, taking up with the issues of Congressman
Steve Chabot, last week a report revealed the People's Republic
of China's greenhouse gas emissions exceeded those of United
States and other developed countries combined. China currently
accounts for nearly 30 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions, not including emissions associated with the Belt and
Road Initiative.
Do these trends show a serious commitment to its advertised
targets?
Mr. Kerry. A great question. Let me be clear. And I want
everybody to agree with your fundamental premise, China
produces more emissions than all the rest of the OECD countries
put together. They are currently funding coal, external coal-
fired power.
What we have been working on, this is one of the things we
have really engaged on in quite--we have had some very heated
discussions about this. Because, obviously, it is not
sustainable. There is no way the United States and the rest of
the world can get to our goal if China does not join in and
become part.
It is not just China. There are other countries who are
part of that 45 percent. We need to see greater reductions in
India. India, however, Prime Minister Modi has made a
commitment to deploy 450 gigawatts of renewable energy. We have
created a partnership with India because of that commitment,
because they do not have the finance and technology completely.
So, we are going to try to help them bring the technology to
the table, bring the finance to the table. And they have to do
certain things internally to make this happen.
But, if you deploy in the next 10 years 450 gigawatts of
renewables, then India is in keeping with the 1.5 degrees. So,
it is a huge step forward. It is worth the investment.
Mr. Wilson. And, Mr. Kerry, I am so grateful for the
leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. What a great job he
has done for the people of India.
On another issue, what is the Administration's
justification for canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, which
created American jobs, for refusing to implement the required
sanctions on Nord Stream 2 pipeline which promotes the Russian
intimidation of Europe?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I do not know where the, where the latest
is on the Nord Stream, so I cannot speak to that here with any
authority.
What I can tell you is that on the Keystone the
Administration is trying to put teeth in its words and its
commitment to a climate crisis. We do not need to be building
that additional infrastructure at this moment when we have
other options, which are readily available to us, for how we
supply and what we supply.
We need to do a greater build-out of alternative renewable
in this country.
Mr. Wilson. But, Mr. Secretary, this creates--destroys jobs
in the district I represent. The tires that are used for the--
in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, are made in South Carolina.
And so you are destroying jobs all over the United States of
what had been an achievement, and that is energy independence.
And that needs to be promoted.
And so I deeply regret. And then Nord Stream 2, what that
does to Europe is just so sad for the people of the--our allies
across Europe.
Thank you very much. And I yield back.
Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman----
Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield. Could I just use a
little bit of the time.
Chairman Meeks. The time belongs to Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. I yield.
Mr. Issa. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I apologize, I did not mean to cut you off. We can both
talk. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Kerry. No, I was just going to say that we opposed Nord
Stream, as I think you know. We, the Obama Administration,
myself, we were involved in those discussions. And
notwithstanding, they went forward. And you know what the State
of play is right now.
But I just very quickly say to you, we should not be
leaving people behind. And that is President Biden's code here.
He does not believe that doing this transition has to be
massive job loss.
Mr. Issa. And, Mr. Secretary, quickly on behalf of the
member that yielded, the cancellation of this pipeline in the
United States does not change the amount of oil, it does change
how that oil is coming through. Isn't it true that pipelines
are more carbon-delivery efficient than trains, or trucks, or
other forms of delivery? If you could answer just that
question.
Mr. Kerry. Yes, that is true. I think that is true. But it
does not mean we necessarily want to be adding another line
when there are other alternatives.
But, is it better than train, and better than truck? Yes,
it is.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Kerry. In my judgment.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Ted Deutch of Florida, who
is the Chair of the Subcommittee on the Middle East, North
Africa, and Global Counterterrorism, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry, it is good to have you back. Your
appointment as Special Presidential Envoy is, I think, a strong
signal by President Biden right out of the gate that he
attaches great significance to this issue. I have been
heartened by your and the Administration's pace, ambition, and
I think pragmatism, as evidenced by the bold yet achievable
initiatives that were announced at the President's Summit last
month.
As the founder and co-Chair of the bipartisan House Climate
Solutions Project, and a Member of Congress from South Florida,
I know firsthand how important it is that we approach this
challenge with realism as much as with urgency. Sea level rise,
intensity of storms, so many ways that climate change is
impacting us right now.
That is why we reintroduced the Energy Innovation and
Carbon Dividend Act in April to put a price on carbon. The
legislation will help the U.S. reach net-zero carbon emissions
by 2050, and will return 100 percent of the net revenue back to
American families to help them afford any increase in energy
costs, and have money left over to help with the daily expenses
as our Nation recovers still from the pandemic economy.
So, I wanted just to ask about your coordination with our
geopolitical partners on how to present a united front when
dealing with countries with which we have a more adversarial
and difficult relationship.
So, you talked earlier about the EU. If you could expand
upon that, is part of the strategy to stay aligned with the EU
specifically on carbon pricing schemes and carbon tariffs so
that we can collectively pressure China on this issue more
effectively?
Let's start with that.
Mr. Kerry. No decision has been made at this point in time
about carbon pricing. The President, it is not in his current
plan. He is, obviously, embracing a clean electricity standard.
That would be one big step forward if Congress were to come
together on that.
But I think you all need to develop further what that
proposal might look like and whether or not it is possible.
Mr. Deutch. We do have to do that. We will have those
conversations. It is, this is the moment when so many, as you
well know, so many companies already place carbon in their own
analysis. They are simply waiting, as so many are, for the
price to be imposed so that we can actually see this urgent
approach that will get us to net zero.
But I just want to get back to the question. You could
broaden it if you like if you care not to talk about carbon
pricing, but just generally staying aligned with the EU and
bringing collective pressure on China, can you speak to that,
the approach that you are taking there and how that can lead to
the results that we are all looking for?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I just had a meeting yesterday, or I think
it was yesterday, yesterday or the day before with all of the
European foreign ministers. I did it virtually, obviously, with
them in Brussels. And we discussed exactly this. It was
alignment as we go into these next 5 months going into Glasgow.
We agreed to work extremely closely together, that we
needed to unify, particularly with respect to some of our
conversations with China, with other countries, where we are
trying to move more rapidly to a mutuality of effort here.
So, the answer is yes, we are trying to align as much as we
can. But we are also trying to solicit from them help with
other countries.
I mean, my, my small staff that I have is engaged with
really major dialogs with about 25 nations right now, and in
running around the world, Indonesia, Australia, and many
others. And we are trying to get Europe to come together with
us in that effort because there is much that they can bring to
the table. There is great expertise, great technology, and a
huge commitment on this. Because Europe has committed to a 55
percent reduction.
And Germany, in Germany the Constitutional Court of Germany
just decided that the Government was not doing enough for
future generations. And Angela Merkel, the Chancellor, had to
go back to the Government. They just put together a new plan.
They have moved up by 5 years their commitment to net-zero. And
they have raised the level of their reductions to about 65
percent. So, there is a serious effort here which we hope to
bring to the table----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Deutch. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative----
Mr. Perry. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mast. Point of order.
Chairman Meeks. Point of order.
Mr. Mast. Are our questions and the Secretary's responses
so unimportant that we must cut him off? I know we want to get
to everybody, but we are here to hear his answers. Is that so
important----
Chairman Meeks. As I reminded Members, you can form your
questions without statements. If you make statements it is
going to mean a reduction of time.
Mr. Mast. Totally agree. But can we hear his answers?
Chairman Meeks. If they stay within the timeframe of 5
minutes, you can.
Mr. Mast. So, not that important. Check.
Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Scott Perry
of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, would you say you have a good relationship
with Foreign Minister Zarif?
Mr. Kerry. Right now I do not have a relationship with
Foreign Minister Zarif.
Mr. Perry. Well, when you had one, when you were
negotiating, was it good or was it bad?
Mr. Kerry. I would characterize it as professional.
Mr. Perry. OK, professional.
You have still got a security clearance?
Mr. Kerry. Do I?
Mr. Perry. Yes.
Mr. Kerry. Yes, I do.
Mr. Perry. You do. Okay.
So, you're a smart guy, Navy lieutenant, Senator for many
decades, Secretary of State. You know that since 1979 Iran is
responsible for killing more Americans than any other nation-
State; right? I suppose you know that?
Mr. Kerry. I have heard that.
Mr. Perry. Yes, of course.
You went to Yale, so you are probably familiar with 50 U.S.
Code 2204, 18 U.S. Code 2381, I suspect. I am not going to get
into it. If you want me to, I will.
But, Mr. Secretary, the foreign minister claimed that you
had discussed more than 200 Israeli operations against Iranian-
backed terrorists in Syria. Did you provide information to Mr.
Zarif on Israeli operations against Iranian-backed terrorists
during or following your tenure as Secretary of State?
Mr. Kerry. On no occasion. Never.
Mr. Perry. Never.
So, Mr. Zarif is a liar?
Mr. Kerry. Mr. Zarif may be confused or incorrect, or he is
trying to embellish his--what I read about that article said
that he was portraying himself as out of the loop and whatever.
And quite emotional, apparently, is what I read. And I have
seen him be quite emotional.
And I cannot vouch for why he did that, what he said. I am
just telling you that did not happen. End of story.
Mr. Perry. That never happened. And I know you are not
under oath. But we have seen many Administration officials come
to this Congress and lie straight faced to Members of Congress.
You are saying for the record that that----
Mr. Kerry. The first time----
Mr. Perry [continuing]. Never occurred?
Mr. Kerry. The first time I ever heard this number 200 was
when I read the article a few days ago. I have never heard of
that.
Mr. Perry. Well, that is heartening to hear. But I will
tell you that there is reason for suspicion in this, in this
Congress and across America. And I just want to go through the
record.
In 1985, you as Senator traveled to Nicaragua, against the
Administration's wishes, to meet with Marxist leader Daniel
Ortega.
In 2006, you traveled to Syria to meet with the dictator
Bashar al-Assad, contradicting President Bush's efforts to
isolate Assad for supporting Hezbollah. And I remind you that
it is a sea of war and horrifying activities in Syria right
now. I mean, if we could have done something with Assad then
maybe we wouldn't be dealing what we are dealing with now.
In 2018, you told the Palestinian Authority to hold on, the
Palestinian Authority to hold on and be strong, and play for
time, and do not yield to the President's demands.
And, finally, following your term as secretary, we know
that you met with Mr. Zarif. I know that you said you had a
professional relationship, apparently it was not a good
relationship, but professional enough that you met with him at
least three times to discuss how to save the JCPOA, undermining
President Trump's peace efforts.
I remind you that as we speak, the Iranian proxy Hamas is
raining down rockets across Israel right now.
That is why people are right to be skeptical. That is why
we ask this question. And so you say you are surprised and have
no recollection of ever discussing these activities with Zarif
regarding Israel in Syria. One more time, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Kerry. I did not discuss, I did not even know about
this number, as I said, until we, until we read the article the
other day.
Mr. Perry. I'm not asking about the number.
Mr. Kerry. No, I never had a discussion with him about
Israel with respect to attacks or anything. No. I told you.
That is the end of the story.
But let me, I want to say something to what you just said.
I traveled to Nicaragua as a United States Senator with another
United States Senator on an officially sanctioned U.S. Senate
trip in order to try to learn about what was happening with
respect to the war in El Salvador. And, you know, Ortega was
one of many people we met with.
We met with people like you do on any given trip as a
member of the U.S. Congress. And we were handed a letter we
brought back to the United States. We turned it over to
President Reagan and to Vice President Bush. They had a big
meeting about it because he was offering some kind of peace
initiative. And that was the end of it.
We did not have any further involvement or engagement in
that.
Mr. Perry. He is a brutal dictator and a communist.
Mr. Kerry. You are damn right.
Mr. Perry. Yes, that is exactly right.
Mr. Kerry. You are damn right.
Mr. Perry. You are supporting America.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Karen Bass of California,
who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,
and Global Human Rights, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bass. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary, for taking the
time out with us today.
Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
Ms. Bass. Before I ask my question, and I did want to talk
about Africa, similar to the conversation we were having before
the hearing, was there anything else you were trying to say
that you did not have time to?
Mr. Kerry. Simply that I think it is important for people
to understand that in the course of being an ex-secretary you
do wind up going to various events that you are invited to, and
you have conversations, for instance, Munich Security
Conference. There are only four times that I know of that I saw
Prime Minister Zarif in the aftermath of being secretary. And
they were all at an international event or sanctioned period of
time.
So, I, I just, you know, I do not think that--well, I do
not think it needs any further comment.
Ms. Bass. Okay. No problem.
So, I wanted to ask, how do we balance our interests abroad
with our domestic interests and all that we need to do in terms
of maintaining the pace of the growth of jobs in the renewable
energy space and then what it is that we are trying to do
internationally, especially in regard to Africa?
Mr. Kerry. What was the first part of the question?
Ms. Bass. About how we maintain our interests abroad. I
mean, we have our goals around climate domestically. And,
obviously, the connection internationally. But the
international focus I wanted to zero in on.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think, thank you, Representative, it is
a very important focus. The fact is that Africa is one of the
most negatively affected continents as a consequence of the
climate crisis. And it is exacerbated by virtue of the fact
that so much of Africa is still undeveloped, less developed. I
mean, there are about 860 million people with no electricity,
and most of them are in Africa.
And, so, we have an enormous challenge in order to help
with adaptation, help with resilience. But, also, in the doing
of that to help with development. We used to do that more.
Right now we are basically, I mean people are legitimately
complaining about some of the things that are happening out
there with respect to either China or another country, but the
fact is that China is filling a void. We used to do that. We do
not do it now.
Ms. Bass. Could you imagine a possibility of the EU and the
United States working together to address an infrastructure
problem like you mentioned, two-thirds of the continent----
Mr. Kerry. Sure.
Ms. Bass [continuing]. Doesn't have electricity? Could you
envision the EU? The EU is going through its whole reckoning.
They have the issue with the migrants. We know why they travel
and risk their lives.
Mr. Kerry. I could easily envision that. I think it would
be very productive. But it does require some funding. It is
very hard to do if you are not in that business anymore.
And to a large measure, we have stepped back our budget
over the years. I think, I mean the total budget of everything
we do abroad with USAID, and our embassies, and the entire
State Department, is around $51 billion or so, 52, somewhere in
there. I do not have the latest figure. But it has not changed
in a number of years. It has been cut to some degree in the
last few years. So we cannot do that.
Ms. Bass. Do you see this Administration proposing
significant increases?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I do not know what the President is going
to decide. He has the four crises he is trying to deal with
now.
Ms. Bass. Yes.
Mr. Kerry. He has to build back from COVID.
You all have rapidly addressed the initial legislation.
There is obviously more coming. But, hopefully, we will get
back in that business. It begins here at home, I understand
that. It begins here at home. But you have to be able to go
further abroad also.
I mean, we are only, we are now, actually, down to 11
percent of the world's emissions. Last year we were at 15
percent. And then we moved down.
So, that means that 89 percent is in the rest of the world.
Ms. Bass. Uh-huh.
Mr. Kerry. And there is no way to solve this crisis. Mother
nature does not decide, oh, it is only coming from here or it
is coming from there. It is the conglomerate amount that makes
the difference. And if 89 percent of it is coming from the rest
of the world, we, as a leading economy, leading nation, need to
step up in order to help those other people be able to solve
the problem because it is our problem, too.
Ms. Bass. In the international conferences is there ever
any attention paid or focused to Africa.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Mr. Kerry. The answer is yes.
Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Adam
Kinzinger of Illinois for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Secretary,
thank you for spending a little time with us
To echo your comments about development and competition, I
think it is important. We, you know, we cannot both cut our
international affairs and funding and development budget and
then expect to be able to compete with China when they are
using money as a soft power weapon. And I think that is an
important point.
More to the task at hand, I am a strong supporter of an
all-the-above approach to fighting climate change. And I fear
that some, including the Administration and our allies, have
written off the largest source of carbon-free energy on the
planet. For example, the EU has developed policies is clearing
nuclear energy from their green goals.
As you may know, my district is home to four nuclear power
plants that are critical to the U.S. goal of cutting carbon
emissions. Unfortunately, years of regulatory hurdles have left
many of these plants on a weak financial footing.
Would it be possible for the United States to meet our
climate change goals if we took a similar approach to nuclear
as our European colleagues have? And maybe with that, if you
can explain why in the fight against climate change the EU
appears to be taking this tool off the table?
Mr. Kerry. The nuclear tool off the table?
Mr. Kinzinger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kerry. Well, Germany has very much taken it off the
table. Others have not.
As you know, France provides about 70-some percent of all
their power comes from nuclear. 20 percent of our power comes
from nuclear. And we still have, we have another nuclear plant,
I think, coming on.
China is building, I think, 12 or 13 nuclear plants. And so
they are trying to diversify a little bit.
But nuclear has been off the table, obviously, for a number
of reasons. It became uneconomical in the aftermath of a
combination of Three Mile Island, Fukushima, and Chernobyl.
And, you know, the economics of it do not work at the current
moment.
On the other hand, there are lots of people who believe
that it may become very difficult to get the kind of baseload
guarantee we need for our businesses, our homes, and
communities without having something like small, next
generation, fourth generation modular nuclear as part of the
mix.
So, it is being pursued. I think the U.S. Government is
currently putting something like $500 million or so into the
R&D and development of this. Bill Gates is putting a similar
amount of his own money into it and building a prototype. And
it may well be that this is going to come back into the dialog
because the pace at which we have to reduce is so significant.
I am told by scientists and experts in the field of
emissions reduction, that about 50 percent of all the emissions
we need to cut are going to come from technologies that we have
not yet developed or taken to the marketplace. So that, I mean,
that is astounding.
So, whether it is direct air carbon capture, or green
hydrogen, or storage, we still have a lot of discovering to do.
And whoever breaks through on those things, boy, that is going
to be, you know, that will be competition for the wealth of
Amazon, and Bezos, and others. It is going to be an
extraordinary amount of money made by people who come up with
several weeks of storage, or with cheap green hydrogen.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, sir. I do not mean to cut you
off. I just do have another question. I appreciate it.
So, I introduced with Congresswoman Spanberger the Energy
Resource Governance Initiative Act, which would formalize an
initiative at State to make sure that the U.S. and our allies
are leading the way on responsible mineral sources.
Unfortunately, many of our clean energy technologies purchase
their materials from the Chinese Communist Party who are the
world's leading polluters.
What else can be done, not only to push back on the CCP's
policies, but to encourage American companies to source their
materials from responsible partners?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think we can create incentives. That is
something that you all have a huge capacity to do.
And, you know, I think the second thing to do is get
aggressively into those markets.
I mean, clearly the tax, the tax credit on renewables has
worked. It has been extremely effective. And so we are seeing I
think, you know, the more you create one incentive or another
in the directions that we need to move, the more impact you are
going to have on the marketplace.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, sir.
Let me just close with saying that--just another plug--that
I hope the Administration pushes forward on the congressional
mandated sanctions on Nord Stream 2.
I had a question but no time, so I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Bill Keating of
Massachusetts, and the Chair of the Subcommittee on Europe,
Energy, and the Environment and Cyber, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.
Secretary for being here.
You know, just in the last couple of days we had a landmark
decision affecting U.S. energy policy here in the United States
with the record of decision on Vineyard Wind, which was the
first major offshore wind project in our Nation. You know, it
was just 7 months ago that the former President was using wind
power as a punchline in his campaign rallies. And within the
next 7 months we are likely to be breaking ground under the
Biden Administration in construction on this project.
This project really meets so many our needs and priorities,
our energy goals, our environmental goals, and our employment
goals--good jobs.
And this project also unlocks the projects for the whole
eastern seaboard. And this project alone, one project, would
have enough energy produced for 400,000 homes, for all their
energy needs for a year. And the potential on the eastern
seaboard is for 10 million homes being able to get their power
from offshore wind in the future as well for a whole year.
It is a great example of a public/private partnership. And
with your efforts with the Administration and internationally,
to me I get great optimism out of seeing the private investment
that is going to occur. That is going to help us meet our
goals. Without it, we will not be successful.
The Biden Administration in the tax policy recognized this
in terms of clean energy tax credits and advancing clean
electricity production, by providing a 10-year extension in
production tax credits, investment tax credits for energy
generation, whether it is solar, wind, or energy storage. That
is just part of what they are doing.
But you touched upon it in your opening remarks, we have to
get a partnership on the private side going forward. Can you
give us a little more detail about the Glasgow Financial
Alliance for net-zero and the change to bring together 160
firms with assets in excess of $70 trillion?
And, also, could you touch upon how we can use our
alliances, our transatlantic alliances with our partners, to
better coordinate the private investment side of how we are
going to finance this going forward?
It is a very important issue. And if you could take the
remainder of your time, my time, just touching on the potential
that is there, what your plan is, what can be done?
Mr. Kerry. Well, thank you, Congressman. Thank you very
much. And I agree with you that it is very exciting what is
happening with Martha's Vineyard Wind possibilities.
I really am excited about having a chance to share this
with our colleagues here. And I particularly want to call
attention of this to our friends on the other side of the
aisle.
I think that when you look at this challenge of climate
crisis, the U.N. has done a thorough analysis of what it is
going to cost us. Most economists will tell you today that it
is more expensive not to respond to the climate crisis than it
is to respond. And the private sector understands this.
In Europe they demanded disclosure in the sector
investments. And they have a new standard on disclosure with
respect to investments.
What has happened is the largest asset managers in the
world, the BlackRocks, and the Vanguards, and others, have made
a decision already that this is an area for major investment
and investment returns. It is not a give-away. And so banks
have come together, the six major banks in the United States,
our biggest banking institutions, have volunteered that they
are going to commit in climate sector over the next 10 years
$4.16 trillion.
And they joined, they have joined a thing called the Net-
Zero Asset Managers Initiative. There is, in addition to that,
a Net-Zero Banking Alliance. There is a Net-Zero Asset Owner
Alliance that is 37 institutions with $5 trillion. The Net-Zero
Banking Alliance is 28 trillion in assets; 43 banks have
committed to this.
And the Glasgow Financial Alliance for net-zero brings a
lot of those others all together. So, there are about 130
financial institutions, worth a hundred-and-some trillion
dollars in assets being managed for lending, they are committed
to be investing in this sector over the course of the next
years. That is going to be----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired. Sorry,
Mr. Secretary.
I now recognize Representative Lee Zeldin of New York for 5
minutes.
Mr. Zeldin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry, did you meet with Iranian Foreign Minister
Zarif in Munich during the Munich Security Conference in
February 2019?
Mr. Kerry. I do not know if I met with him in 20--I do not
have a recollection of 2019.
Mr. Zeldin. You maybe do not remember the year.
Mr. Kerry. I met with him, I know I met with him, I know I
met with him in 2018. And I met with him, I met with him I
think twice in 2018, and twice in 2017.
Mr. Zeldin. Do you recall meeting him in Munich during the
Munich Security Conference?
Mr. Kerry. I recall meeting him. I just cannot remember
exactly which year or when it was.
Mr. Zeldin. Were there other U.S. participants in that
meeting?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think it was not a meeting. I think I
just----
Mr. Zeldin. Were there other U.S.----
Mr. Kerry [continuing]. Exchanged pleasantries.
Mr. Zeldin. Were there other Americans with you in that
discussion?
Mr. Kerry. I do not recall. There were in one or two, but I
do not recall which ones.
Mr. Zeldin. In the meetings that you did have with U.S.
participants, who were the U.S. participants?
Mr. Kerry. In Oslo I met with I think, I think John, a
fellow named John Finer might have been with me in Oslo.
I do not know in New York. I cannot remember who was with
me in New York. It was during the UNCA, during the United
Nations meeting.
And the Oslo meeting was a public event which I did with
the High Representative of the EU, the former High
Representative of the EU--no, she was then still sitting High
Representative. And it was hosted by the Norwegian Peace
Institute.
Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Well, I'm just asking which U.S.
participants were in the meeting? Any other names there?
Mr. Kerry. But I remember I had other people with me. I
would have to go back and figure out. I do not recall who was
the traveling party.
Mr. Zeldin. Did the discussion involve foreign affairs?
Mr. Kerry. Writ large, yes.
Mr. Zeldin. Did it involve U.S. foreign policy?
Mr. Kerry. I mean not--I mean, it involved sort of
listening to views of what is happening in the world, where are
we, where are we going, what do you think about this, what--I
mean, just general conversations, similar to one, by the way,
that many Members of Congress met with him during that same
period when I was in New York and had a meeting in New York. He
met with Congress, he met with the New York Times editorial
board, he was on T.V. It was a public dialog.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes. I am just asking about your meetings.
Any other meetings with--how many meetings did you have
with Zarif during the Trump Administration?
Mr. Kerry. I think during the Trump Administration I had
four meetings.
Mr. Zeldin. Did you have any phone calls with Zarif during
the Trump Administration?
Mr. Kerry. No. No.
Mr. Zeldin. Would messages, communications be passed
between the two of you----
Mr. Kerry. No.
Mr. Zeldin [continuing]. Separately during this time?
Mr. Kerry. No. The only time we ever had any communication
was about the specific meeting to get together to compare notes
on what was happening in the world.
Mr. Zeldin. Did you have access, did you obtain any
classified information during the Trump Administration?
Mr. Kerry. No.
Mr. Zeldin. Do you recall having a conversation with the
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff at the Munich
Security Conference?
Do you recall having an extended conversation with the
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff at the Munich
Security Conference?
Mr. Kerry. I think we had a, I think we had a beer in the
Rathskeller underneath the thing. But I do not recall
specifically very much.
Mr. Zeldin. Okay. There was a main room--because I was
there as well--there was a main room where there was a bunch of
speakers. And I was there. I watched. And you guys had an
extended conversation. You do not recall that conversation?
Mr. Kerry. In the, in the main hall?
Mr. Zeldin. Yes.
Mr. Kerry. It is entirely possible. I just, I remember
sitting with him and having a beer with him.
Mr. Zeldin. But you do not recall having that conversation
with the Chairman?
Mr. Kerry. I do not recall the conversation. It is
entirely--I think he, yes, I think he sat beside me. We sat on
the right side of the hall looking toward the stage. And I
think we sat there----
Mr. Zeldin. Okay. Well, I mean, you guys were standing.
But, when you guys met with Zarif, when you were talking
about U.S. foreign policy would you advocate for your position
on policy?
Mr. Kerry. The only time--I did not advocate for my
position. When I, during the period of time I met with Zarif we
were in the agreement. From the time President Trump pulled out
of the agreement in May 2018, and I do not recall having
another conversation with him after.
Mr. Zeldin. Yes. Well, we are running out of time.
We have one president at a time, and those conversations
weren't helpful.
I yield back.
Mr. Kerry. Well, one president at a time----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative David Cicilline of Rhode
Island for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you for your
serVice to our country.
I do want to correct my friend Mr. Keating. Of course,
Rhode Island is the offshore wind capital of America. This
project he is speaking about is the second one, and we welcome
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the industry. But,
seriously, it is exciting for Rhode Island and Massachusetts
but, obviously, particularly exciting for us in Rhode Island as
we lead the industry in this area.
You know, there has been a lot of discussion about the
importance of climate, responding to the climate crisis because
of the consequences to our planet, you know, our ability to
maintain a habitable planet and, obviously, understanding the
economic opportunities that renewable energies present.
But I would also like you to spend a moment talking about
what the implications are to conflicts around the world. We
know climate change risks starting, prolonging, or exacerbating
armed conflicts around the world. The U.N. Security Council
meeting organized by the United Kingdom recently sought to
expose the link between our warming climate and conflict. We
have seen how drought has made the conflict in Syria that much
more difficult. And how States like Mali face threats from
insurgents because of issues like food insecurity.
And I think it is one thing that people do not hear enough
about. And so I would love to hear your thoughts on the nexus
between climate change and conflict and why, if we do not
invest in a real climate response, that we might risk further
conflicts in the future.
And then my second question, and I will give you time to
answer both of them, is there was a recent report by the U.N.
Environment Program that outlines the importance of
dramatically and quickly reducing global emissions of methane
and because of all the dangers that methane presents. And
particularly since methane helps create smog, cutting emissions
in half to present as many as 250,000 deaths each year
worldwide if we do this.
Can you speak about the UNEP report and what steps the
Biden Administration is taking both here in the United States
and in concert with our partners around the world to reduce
methane emissions?
Mr. Kerry. I will try to run through that really quickly.
First of all, the implications of the climate crisis to all of
us in terms of foreign policy and military are that you could
have millions of people who are homeless, literally their
habitat is no longer habitable.
Last year in Pakistan it was 130 degrees in one community.
In the Middle East it was 130 degrees. Here in California, in
Death Valley, it was 130 degrees. The human body is not
prepared or it is not meant to be living in 130 degrees. It is
going to go up still in some of those places.
We have seen heat, heat waves in the ocean literally, with
massive die-off and impact on the food protein source for
millions--billions of people actually.
So, as that gets disrupted you are going to have downstream
impacts. If the Himalayas cease to have the ice, or begin to
reduce in its amount, you are already seeing water impacts.
Rivers are going to start to dry up. Billions of people rely on
those rivers for food in parts of the world. The Mekong, the
Yellow River, the Yangtze, the Yang, the Ganges, these rivers
are all sourced in places that rely on the ice sheet, the melt,
the snow. As that changes you could have profound impacts.
This is not conjectural. It is already happening in certain
places. There are climate refugees today, just not yet in the
millions depending on. But if you have a complete collapse in a
region, those people are going to be knocking on the door of a
place that is livable. And there will be, we have already had
wars over water, we had fights over water, conflict as water
becomes more of a problem.
Our own reservoir, the Ogallala Reservoir which is the
principal reservoir of the United States of America, has
challenges. Go to the Four Corners of Nevada and Colorado, et
cetera, and find out how development is already being impacted
by lack of water.
So, there are major challenges going forward as the world's
climate changes, and where we can produce and what we produce
also shifts with it.
There are other potential conflicts. We saw in Syria about
a million people come out of the desert into the Damascus area
because there was a drought of several years. And that had a
profound impact on the politics of the region. And it became
part of the dynamics of what went on with Assad and Daesh and
the exploitation of people as a consequence of their shifted
locale and lack of integration to that particular new locale.
On the subject of methane, methane is 20 to 80-plus times
more damaging than CO2.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Darrell Issa of California
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good to have you back, Mr. Secretary.
During the 2-years that I was out of Congress and,
similarly, you were not currently in government, I was involved
with the Trade Development Agency which is established to
basically export, if you will, infrastructure around the world.
It has a mandate that includes virtually all of Africa, much of
South America, and much of Asia.
That organization competes directly with the Belt and Road
Initiative of the Chinese, but with less than 2 percent as much
money as they operate on. Isn't it fair to say that if what we
want to do is enable developing nations, including those in
Africa, to reduce their carbon footprint as they grow their
economy, we are going to have to be the country that delivers
that type of infrastructure, because China certainly is not
doing that today?
Mr. Kerry. China is not delivering that kind of
infrastructure today. We need to, I think, be in the game, and
we need to help deliver it. But not alone. There are plenty of
countries that know how to do it and will do it well that are
engaged.
Mr. Issa. And we do partner with Japan and other countries.
Mr. Kerry. Correct.
Mr. Issa. And I am glad to see us doing that because we
are, of course, delivering a smaller footprint.
You mentioned that China produces 73 percent of, if you
will, the renewable assets, wind and solar. If they had used it
themselves rather than building those coal-fired plants, would
they have gone up or down likely in their CO2 emissions?
Mr. Kerry. They actually are using it themselves,
Congressman. They are the largest--they have the largest
deployment of renewable as anybody else in the world.
Mr. Issa. But they also use twice as much coal as we do,--
--
Mr. Kerry. That is correct.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. And continue to grow.
Mr. Kerry. That is correct.
Mr. Issa. As we look at a number of countries, I want to
quickly go to India.
During the last Administration, India negotiated numerous
times to acquire LNG capability and convert some of their coal-
fired plants, future coal-fired plants to natural gas. At the
end of the day, they reneged and did not buy anything.
Isn't it true that part of the challenge you face with
India and China is the attitude we cannot afford to be clean,
and that that is one of the reasons both of those countries
will continue to peak up in CO2 emissions while the United
States has been dropping for more than a decade?
Mr. Kerry. I would say to you, sir, with all respect that
there is an attitude, but that is not it. The attitude is we
are less developed countries, and we have to still develop. And
according to the original Paris standard, there is a thing
called common but differentiated responsibility. So----
Mr. Issa. I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, and I think you
are exactly right. There are two different ways to say the same
thing: we are not developed enough; we are not rich enough.
But, at the end of the day they believe they have a right to
continue producing more CO2 in order to catch up with our
economy----
Mr. Kerry. They do.
Mr. Issa [continuing]. While we do it down.
So, domestically for a moment, isn't it true that we are
going to have to find ways to reduce our carbon footprint while
in fact not putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage to
our competitors around the world who are using lower cost
energy, lower currently than most renewables?
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Mr. Issa. So, if we are to do that, wouldn't the Biden
Administration have to continue a trajectory that began with
the Bush Administration and continued through the last two
Administrations, which is to convert from coal to natural gas,
to increase efficiencies, to use all of the above, and to
ladder our way down in the consumption--or the production of
CO2, rather than a draconian one?
And I want to followup with one quick question. You said--
you quoted, I think, the LA Times, and you said that California
had 95 percent renewable at one point on 1 day. Oddly enough,
my district in Southern California has had repeated blackouts
as a result of having not enough energy because on a hot
afternoon when the sun starts going down we run out of power.
So, isn't all of the above and a blended solution what the
United States should do, while at the same time laddering down
our CO2 emissions?
Mr. Kerry. Well, the key, I think, Congressman, is to do it
in a way that is integrated so that you cannot have any of
those challenges.
Now, this was 1 day. And I think they were pushing the
curve to try to find out what happened. It is obviously not a
long-term situation.
Mr. Issa. But the blackouts were many days.
Mr. Kerry. No, I get it.
But, but that is why we need to have a smart approach that
is integrated. At the same time, gas is a challenge.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kerry. Naturally. Maybe we will have more time so we
can followup.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
I now acknowledge Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas,
who is the Chair of the Subcommittee on International
Development, International Organizations, and Global
Corporation Social Impact, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Castro. Secretary Kerry, great to see you again. Thank
you for joining us today.
Climate change is an existential threat that the United
States must lead on. And your appointment is a welcome sign.
Most of the work on the Paris Agreement and our efforts to
strengthen the agreement focus on controlling carbon emissions.
And this is critical. But I want to ask you what we are also
doing to address the effects of climate change which are
already occurring.
Current laws on refugees and international migration are
not well-suited to address the needs of people displaced by
climate. And the effects of climate change on crops and
livelihoods have contributed to migration in Central America,
the Middle East, and West Africa.
And I know in response to Mr. Cicilline's question you
touched upon this. But I wanted to ask you, does the United
States and other countries that have disproportionate emitted
carbon have a responsibility to take in those displaced by
climate change?
Mr. Kerry. I think, commensurate with our overall
innovation goals and targets, they have to be included. It is
not an automatic license that you are going to be able to take
everybody, obviously. But within our appropriate limits, we
have to.
But I think the more important thing, frankly, Congressman,
is, you know, rather than wait for these effects to hit us the
way we do, I mean, for the spending, for instance, of the $265
billion I talked about, I talked in my opening comments about
22 separate events last year, a record, all of which required a
billion dollars of expenditure.
If we do not start to think ahead and apply some vision to
our making of policy, we are going to wind up paying, paying,
paying, and not getting any real consequence for it. We have
got to start investing in the future now.
And that is the theory of what President Biden has put on
the table: invest. It is not just an expenditure, it is an
investment. And if we do that, then we have an ability to get
to the root causes, the root challenge for why people are
moving and why this pressure is growing, otherwise it is going
to be a, you know, like a firehose actually coming at you.
Mr. Castro. And just to followup to that, two questions
that I will put together.
What will the Biden Administration do to update and
strengthen international rules for resettling people displaced
by climate change?
And, do you support amending U.S. law and conventions at
the United Nations to include climate refugees?
Mr. Kerry. I do believe we have to have formal acceptance
of the concept of climate refugees. Yes, I do.
I do not have an answer to the first part of your question.
I would have to get that from those folks in the Administration
working on that.
Mr. Castro. Yes. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize Representative Ann Wagner of Missouri, who
is the Vice Ranking Member of the full committee, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Wagner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Kerry, on April 25th, the New York Times
published Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif claimed
that you, as Secretary of State, revealed classified
information regarding Israel's covert attacks on Iranian
interests in Syria. These allegations are extremely disturbing.
Iran poses an existential threat to Israel, a key U.S.
ally. And it has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to
attack Israel directly, both through proxy and from its
position in Syria.
Given the gravity of the security threat Iran poses to the
U.S. and allied interests, I believe the report should be
investigated in full. If true, Javad Zarif's claims raise
serious questions regarding your ability, sir, to unreservedly
protect U.S. interests as Special Presidential Envoy for
Climate. The degree and the nature of U.S. participation in
international climate change agreements must, and I underscore
must, be informed by our national security interests.
An overly narrow focus on left wing action items like the
deeply flawed Paris Agreement, and the Iran Nuclear Deal,
cannot blind us to the malign intentions of adversaries like
Iran, Russia, and the People's Republic of China.
On April 28th I sent a letter, this letter, to the Acting
Inspector General of the Department of State, and to the
Secretary of State, requesting an investigation into your
relationship with Iran's foreign minister. Are you aware of
this letter, sir?
Mr. Kerry. No, I am not.
Ms. Wagner. I will make sure you have a copy.
Mr. Kerry. Well, obviously I am aware of it now.
Ms. Wagner. The letter also requested a response to several
very specific questions by today, May 12th. As I have not
received answers--and, Mr. Chairman, I would like this entered
into the record.
Chairman Meeks. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Wagner. I would like to ask you now, what were the
circumstances surrounding your alleged leak of information to
Javad Zarif, including the timing of this conversation; what
role have you had in formulating U.S. policy on re-entering the
Iran Nuclear Deal, sir?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think the premise is incorrect. The
story did not allege that I transferred classified information,
it did not even characterize it as classified. It simply said
that on a tape Javad was overheard in a long, long lamentation
about how he was out of the loop in Iran and in the policy, and
how he had learned this and learned that from somebody. And
then popped in saying----
Ms. Wagner. He said he learned it from you, sir, and it is
over 200 instances.
Mr. Castro. He said he learned one thing from me. And I
have already answered that question. I never said that. I do
not know how he came up with that. Don't know where it came
from.
And it was not, there was no--nothing stated in there about
my having released anything on classified information. And in
28 years in the U.S. Senate, and in 6 years on the Intel
Committee, and as Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
and as Secretary of State in 4 years, never has anybody
suggested I did not protect classified----
Ms. Wagner. Well, I would like a full investigation. And I
would like my questions answered. I will see that you have a
copy.
The Biden Administration seems to be copying the same
climate rhetoric and policies as California. Like, California
has some of the highest electricity prices in the country, is
the largest importer of energy, and rolling blackouts are not
uncommon. In fact, the State has been sued by civil rights
groups for the impact of their climate policies on low income
and communities of color.
And to top it off, according to the Department of Energy,
California performance since 2010 in reducing energy-related
carbon emissions ranks 43d among all States.
What is your opinion of the California approach? And do you
think it is a model for the rest of the country, sir?
Mr. Kerry. I think California has done an incredible job.
It is pushing the curve. It is try----
Ms. Wagner. Forty-third. Ranked 43d in the country.
Mr. Kerry. In? Forty-third in what?
Ms. Wagner. Among all States in reducing energy-related
carbon emissions. And they are doing a great job?
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
I now recognize Representative Dina Titus of Nevada for 5
minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Kerry, for being with us today. We
certainly appreciate your efforts in this area, and commend you
for the work that you are doing.
We have heard a lot about the major focus of COP21 and the
Paris Agreement being on reducing global emissions. And that
sounds great. But it seems to put us in a position of working
from behind.
Could you address some of the things that we need to do to
be proactive around the world so we can meet long-term gains,
not just cleanup the mess that exists but make the future
better.
Mr. Kerry. Well, I think the single most important thing
that we need to do, we are doing, which is the United States of
America under President Biden has put forward an extremely
thoughtful, achievable, and aggressive reductions level so that
we are leading by example, which the President has talked about
a great deal.
So, we are, we are going to be striving for over the next
10 years a 50 to 52 percent reduction in our emissions. I will
tell you that that has really helped us to come back to the
table with credibility on an international basis.
Now, I emphasize, no one nation can solve this problem. I
mean, we can sit here and lament. We can, you know, be talking
about America's preeminence in one sector or another, but the
truth is that there are 89 percent of the global emissions
coming from other countries, and 20 countries are responsible
for 73 percent of all emissions.
So, 20 countries, this was the theory of our summit, it
brought those 20 countries together. The majority of them have
stepped up and are stepping up with new reduction targets. But
we need other countries to do that.
But what the United States is trying to do now under
President Biden's leadership is to reach out to those countries
and work with them. We have a working group that is literally
sitting with these nations and trying to articulate to them in
a thoughtful and respectful way how they might be able to
transition faster off of some coal, or how they may be able to
implement and deploy more renewables faster. And it is only by
that kind of help from the developed world that we have a
prayer of winning this battle.
So, the key here is for the U.S. to be on target.
The second thing we need to do--which is exciting--I mean,
we are looking at the biggest transitional opportunity since
the Industrial Revolution. The United States of America does
not even have a grid yet, folks. We do not have a grid. We can
go to the moon, but we cannot send an electron from one part of
the country to another.
We have got to build the transmission capacity. We have got
to use AI, quantum computing, be able to instantaneously--and
the Congresswoman talked about where California sits--we could
send California clean energy, windmill, wind power, or solar,
or Nevada or any other place somewhere else in the country at a
given time, with our time difference of 3 hours, and with
battery storage at utility scale that already gets 4 hours, you
could begin to really manage a system as you wait for daylight
and as you wait for the wind.
So, this could be managed. And artificial intelligence and
quantum computing give us a huge advantage in our ability to do
that.
So, that is the way we can help lead the world. We should
be leading on all of these technologies. Historically, that is
what has made America so strong. Now we have to get back into
that race. And I think we are looking at huge opportunities of
providing hydrogen, and storage, and perhaps even on this other
front, fourth generation next modular nuclear. Who knows what
it is going to be.
I am for an all-of-the-above effort because we do not know
which of the best of these technologies is yet going to work
until we have to do it.
One last word. Even if we get to net-zero by 2050, we are
still going to have to suck carbon monoxide out of the
atmosphere. A lot of people do not stop to think of that. We
still need the technology that is going to enable us to do it.
So, I think there are great possibilities here for
discovery. We are creating more jobs in this sector already in
America. And as I mentioned in the beginning, there are already
more people working in this new, clean energy sector than there
are working in fossil fuel or in many other sectors.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. I now acknowledge Representative Brian Mast
of Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, you just quite literally contradicted
yourself. You said you are for all of the above, but you are
not. We spoke earlier, Representative Issa asked a question
about the Keystone Pipeline. You are fundamentally in
disagreement with delivering that fuel into the United States
of America. It would beg the question, did the hack on the
Colonial Pipeline save you the trouble of having to shut that
one down?
Mr. Kerry. Well, Congressman, I appreciate your question.
And may I, as a matter of personal privilege, just say how much
I admire your personal serVice to our country.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Kerry. I would say to you this: I do not think it is a
contradiction. Yes, we are going to use gas for some period of
time. And I am not one of those that comes in and says you have
to shut down today, tomorrow. We cannot do that.
What we can do is begin to take steps that reduce reliance,
even as we keep alive the ability to have sufficient gas for
the purposes we need.
Mr. Mast. It is a fair point, Mr. Secretary. But to the
point that you made to my friend, Mr. Issa, to quote it, ``That
is true. The pipelines are more carbon delivery efficient than
rails and trucks. They deliver the fuel by using less carbon in
order to deliver that fuel--````
Mr. Kerry. But, Congressman, here----
Mr. Mast. Let me finish the quote.
Mr. Kerry [continuing]. Here is the challenge.
Mr. Mast. Let me finish the quote and I will let you
respond.
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Mr. Mast. ``--but it does not mean that you want to be
adding another line, another one of these more efficient
routes. There are alternatives. But, yes, pipeline is better
than trains and trucks.``
Mr. Kerry. So, let me tell you why we can do better in
meeting our goal of reducing our emissions.
All the gas we burn, first of all gas is 87-point-some
percent methane. Gas leaks. If you--in the Permian Basin, for
instance, we have a leakage, you have it around 2.7 percent.
Scientists say that can be more damaging than CO2.
Our leakage is at about 5 percent or 10 percent in some
places in America. Now, if that is the leakage in America,
think what it is in other places.
Because of the melting of permafrost and the melting of the
tundra, the thawing of the tundra, we are now seeing methane
being released around the world that isn't tapped, it isn't
used. President Biden has put an effort into his legislation to
start capping open wells and open mines that are giving off
methane in the United States.
Mr. Mast. Mr. Secretary, could I summarize your----
Mr. Kerry. Here is the challenge----
Mr. Mast. Could I summarize your position by saying you
want no crude or petrol use. Would that be an accurate summary?
Mr. Kerry. For what?
Mr. Mast. You want no crude, no petrol used in the future.
Would that be an accurate summary?
Mr. Kerry. Well, it depends what you mean by the future. We
are going to be doing that. We are going to be using crude. We
are going to be using crude, we're going--well, crude, first of
all, is used for lots of other things than fuel and power. So,
we are going to use crude well into the future.
Mr. Mast. Not delivered by pipeline though?
Mr. Kerry. Well, no, it could well be delivered by
pipeline. Already we are doing that. But our source of power,
President Biden has already made this decision, and the
utilities are already accepting it.
Mr. Mast. I want to ask one more question because I----
Mr. Kerry. By 2035----
Mr. Mast [continuing]. I want to yield some time to one of
my friends here who may not be able to ask you some questions.
Mr. Kerry. By 2035, though, President Biden has determined
we will be carbon free in our power production.
Mr. Mast. You are talking about not allowing these new
avenues to deliver them, even though they are more efficient,
like the Keystone Pipeline. Would there also be an effort to
not promote other forms of delivery, that is to say, not permit
a new railcar that is being used to deliver that because
Colonial is down right now? Not permitting a new truck to go
over the road, which is what is being used to deliver those,
those fuels right now, would that also be a part of the----
Mr. Kerry. No.
Mr. Mast [continuing]. Program?
Mr. Kerry. No. No, I do not--I really think we are talking
much more reasonably, Congressman, in a way that we have to try
to accelerate the transition to clean fuels. That is what we
have to try to accelerate. It is not going to happen overnight.
So, we are going to need--now, I would rather see gas used
rather than coal anywhere in the world. And I think there are
ways to try to assist in doing that.
But even gas----
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I am going to yield my
time to Mr. Pfluger for a moment.
Mr. Kerry. Thank you.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. Secretary, for the first time in 70 years our country
is energy independent. It is a lever of power, it is national
security. Energy security is national security. And so you have
mentioned that we need to take steps. We have taken steps, as
you have clearly highlighted today, from being 15 percent down
to 11 percent. That is huge.
Do you believe that wind and solar can provide baseload
capacity for this country?
Mr. Kerry. Not alone.
Mr. Pfluger. No. That is absolutely right.
Mr. Kerry. Not yet. Not yet.
Mr. Pfluger. We saw it in Texas windstorms, and we have
seen it in California.
Mr. Kerry. I should amend that by saying, Congressman, not
yet alone. If we break through on storage,----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kerry [continuing]. The answer is yes.
Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Susan Wild
of Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Ms. Wild. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Secretary Kerry,
thank you for your lifelong serVice to our country and for
appearing before our committee today.
I want to switch gears a little bit and talk about the
Amazon rainforest which has often been referred to as the lungs
of Earth because of its crucial role in sustaining human life
and biodiversity across the globe. But, unfortunately, under
the Bolsonaro Government in Brazil, as I am sure you are aware,
deforestation has surged to record highs as the Government has
rolled back environmental protection mechanisms and emboldened
those who are engaged in illegal logging and mining.
We saw the culmination of these actions in the catastrophic
mass-scale fires in the Brazilian Amazon in 2019, just as we
see unchecked deforestation contributing to the climate crisis
for our entire planet today.
President Biden has expressed interest in attempting to
negotiate an agreement to protect the Brazilian Amazon, clearly
an imperative for combating climate change. And I was wondering
if you could update us on the status of those negotiations and
address the issue of verification mechanisms?
Mr. Kerry. Well, we are in the midst of that negotiation
now. We have just started it really a few weeks ago.
We have had some positive conversations, and we are hopeful
that we can translate intent into action that will wind up
being effective and verifiable. Obviously, there have been
challenges in that, and we are very aware of those challenges.
The fact, as I mentioned earlier, that the Amazon was doing
relatively well up until I think around 2012, and then suddenly
took a surge in the amount of cutting that took place, and the
land grabbing that took place. We have got to create--the
imperative here is to create a verifiable enforcement structure
that everybody has confidence in. That is the goal. And that is
what we are working toward. And if we can get there, you know,
it may be possible to have an agreement that works for
everybody.
I mean, the truth is there is a value in the Amazon that a
country, Brazil, looks at and says, well, maybe we do not
accept the theory of this, we want to do it this way. And there
are assets within there, not to mention the great asset of
indigenous people who live there and who need to be
significantly taken into account with regard to their future.
Ms. Wild. I am going to ask you----
Mr. Kerry. All of those are the equities.
Ms. Wild. I am going to ask you to stop right there because
you just touched on something that I wanted to ask about, and
that is the role of the indigenous communities in the
negotiations and any subsequent agreement.
Can we assume that they will be included? Has the
Administration been consulting with local indigenous leaders at
all?
Mr. Kerry. We are certainly consulting with representatives
thereof. None of us have been down there or have any personal
meetings at this point in time. But the answer is their
concerns are paramount. And they have a huge voice in this and
they need to be heard.
Ms. Wild. And you agree then that protection of indigenous
communities has to be one of the paramount concerns?
Mr. Kerry. Everywhere. Wherever we are engaged in this
President Biden is super-focused and targeted on justice, on
fairness, and on a process that is sensitive, where sometimes
in the past it has not been.
Ms. Wild. So, let me just switch gears with just over a
minute left.
The EU has approved the principle of imposing basically a
carbon tariff on imports from countries that do not price for
taxed carbon, and is expected to design a directive to attempt
to implement this policy. You know, those of us in districts
like mine with a very intensive manufacturing sector as part of
our local economy are strongly committed to protecting the
interests of our workers and businesses as well.
But my question is just to comment that this policy should
be a last resort, could you update us on the status of this
issue with the Europeans.
Mr. Kerry. The status. I did not hear the original piece.
Of which issue?
Ms. Wild. Of the carbon tariff that the EU is intending to
propose.
Mr. Kerry. Sure. Well, they are calling it a border
adjustment mechanism.
Ms. Wild. Uh-huh.
Mr. Kerry. They are looking right now at exactly how it
would work in order not to be disruptive, but at the same time
to be effective.
I honestly do not have an answer to that at this point in
time. We are looking at it. President Biden has instructed us
to understand it and to thoroughly vet whatever the impacts
might be. That is what we are going to do.
Chairman Meeks. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Wild. Thank you very much. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. I now recognize Representative Brian
Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, who is the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Kerry,
thank you for being here with us today.
According to a recent report by the Rhodium Group, China
emits close to 30 percent of global emissions. China's share of
global emissions has grown more than all of the OECD nations
combined. In fact, today, by comparison, the United States'
emissions are a billion tons less than they were in 2005, and
our trajectory is going down, while Chinese emissions are well
over 4 billion tons higher than they were in 2005, and their
trajectory is going up.
So, a couple questions.
First, is this dramatic increase in emissions consistent
with China's Paris Accord pledge?
And, No. 2, what are the effective accountability
mechanisms in place to certify that countries like the PRC
follow through on their climate commitments?
Mr. Kerry. I did not hear the very last part of that. But
the simple answer is no, no, the current level rate of
reduction is not consistent with the pledge. As it is not, I
might add, for quite a few countries.
There just are too many countries not yet in compliance.
And that will be one of the major--that is why we, President
Biden summoned the Climate Summit he held is precisely to get
people focused on a raising of ambition. And that will be our
goal over the course of these next 5 months.
We cannot look at where we are today, we have got to look
at it as where we could be in the next, you know, beginning
this September, October and head to Glasgow.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Understood, sir. But, obviously, China is
in the center of a lot of different issues from the
intelligence standpoint, the foreign affairs standpoint,
economic.
Mr. Kerry. For sure. No question.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. And there has been a lot of comments
coming out of the PRC regarding their plans to basically
exploit the parameters of Paris by amping up rather than
reducing as we approach that date, amping up their coal
production, their carbon emissions, almost making a mockery out
of the whole intent of Paris.
So, I was just curious as to what your thoughts are,
specific as it pertains to China and their good faith as far as
good faith commitments and the level of good faith commitments
to Paris?
Mr. Kerry. Well, let me speak to that this way:
I have said to you I agree that there are big challenges,
there are major issues that we have with China. My focus is,
obviously, to deal with the China crisis and to get us,
hopefully, in a place where it is constructive and we are
moving in the right direction.
So, with respect to that we need, obviously, to get greater
cooperation from China. We are talking about that now. That is
on the table as a critical component.
Now, China believes that they are doing a certain amount. I
know they know that they are seized by the issue of having to
do greater reductions. We are hopeful we can get China in a
place where we respect the common but differentiated, so that
China is doing not exactly what we are doing, but China is
doing enough that it is clear they are seriously reducing, and
they are making their best effort to hold to 1.5 degrees.
And if we can get into a place where that is actually
happening and we have the ability to know it is happening and
trace it, then we will have advanced this ball. We are not
there yet, and we have a lot of work to do to try to get there.
One other thing I will say to you is, one of the new
benefits of technology is that we have an ability through space
and satellite tracking to now measure quite precisely what a
particular company is doing, or whether its food, its supply
chain is behaving the way they promised. And we can look even
at governments and whole countries and have almost realtime
readout on exactly what is happening with respect to their
emissions.
So, the planet will have much greater transparency and
accountability than it has ever had as a result of technology's
assist in here.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. One last question, sir.
What should the consequences be to China if they are
proceeding in bad faith and we determine that to be the case?
Mr. Kerry. Well, I mean, one of them obviously already
raised by several Members is the challenge of the border
adjustment mechanism and the possibility of some kind of
tariff. That is out there.
And, you know, and China is not the only country affected.
By the way, every country would be subject to that. So we, too,
would have to make sure we are in alignment and subject to it.
So, we are examining exactly how it might work, how it
could be fair. For the moment, we would like to not----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
And I will recognize Representative Dean Phillips of
Minnesota for 5 minutes.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And as a Gold Star son who lost his father in Vietnam, I
want to thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your sacrifices there and
for your serVice as a Senator and Secretary of State and, of
course, now in this capacity. And I have to say I am saddened
that some of my colleagues would seemingly put their faith in
the word of the Iranian foreign minister over that of yours. I
am sorry for that. The irony is not lost on me.
My questions are about climate change. And you are aware of
President Biden's interest in what he calls foreign policy for
the middle class. And with that in mind, I would love it if you
would speak for a few moments about how you and the
Administration are approaching decarbonization of our economy
while also mitigating the incremental costs to American
families that might result from that transition?
Mr. Kerry. That is a great question, Congressman. And thank
you for your personal comments. I appreciate it. And, you know,
obviously wish life had been otherwise for you.
With respect to decarbonization and the foreign policy for
families, the President--and I think this is where this gets
exciting``is convinced, as I am, that the opportunities here
are so much greater than any deficit in this transformation. We
have transitioned historically many times. The industrial
revolution was a transition. When the steam engine came along,
and the cotton gin, and life changed and great communities were
built.
Bill Keating, Representative Keating and I understand how
Massachusetts was changed by that, and Rhode Island, and other
States, the textile industry, the shoe industry. So, and then
it moved. But other things came and replaced it. Our economy
still remains strong in America, despite these transitions. And
we grow stronger, and we build out a larger middle class.
I think that is going to happen here in amazing ways. I
mean, already it seems there is a prediction by the Labor
Bureau statistics that there are three jobs that are going to
grow more than 50 percent this next year. One, the No. 1 is
wind turbine technician. That is at 62 percent growth.
The second job is nurse practitioner. And we all know why
that is growing, unfortunately.
The third is solar panel installer, which is going to grow
at about 51 percent.
Now, what we see is, and in vehicles, I just talked the
other day with the Senator from South Carolina, we were talking
about the transition in South Carolina and how, you know, folks
who are making the internal combustion engine car now are going
to not only be making an electric vehicle, but they are going
to be growing, the number of plants that are there and the job
opportunities are going to grow.
I think if you look at what is already happening in the
early clean tech markets of solar wind, battery, there are
dozens of emerging clean tech markets here in the United States
that are going to enlarge economic opportunities for people.
And people are earning, without a high school degree, in some
of these early jobs, 24 bucks an hour which, as we know, is
more than double the minimum wage, so.
Mr. Phillips. Yes. Sir, and I would like to reclaim some
time. I just want to, I do want to call attention to those
effects and ensure that we do look after those who will suffer
from incremental costs.
I want to talk about pipelines, too. As you well know, the
State Department manages Presidential permits for cross-border
pipelines. In my home State of Minnesota, Enbridge is currently
replacing over 330 miles of its Line 3 crude oil pipeline that
runs from Alberta across the border all the way to Wisconsin.
It is a pipeline that is older than me, first used in 1968
before the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted in
1970.
So, there are serious concerns about the lack of
environmental reviews on the project. In fact, when Enbridge
sought to replace Line 3 in 2014, the State Department
determined that it did not require a new permit, as you are
probably aware.
So, how are you and the Biden Administration approaching
decisions on cross-border pipeline construction, replacement,
and upgrades? And have you spoken with Minister----
Mr. Kerry. I confess to you I have not had that
conversation at this point in time.
Mr. Phillips. Okay.
Mr. Kerry. And so I would rather get you an answer but have
it be informed.
Mr. Phillips. All right. Well, I see my time is
unfortunately----
Mr. Kerry. What we will do is we will come back to you with
that.
Mr. Phillips. I welcome that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Kerry. All right.
Mr. Phillips. Thank you.
Chairman Meeks. The last questions will be from
Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before we go into this I wanted to ask, call your attention
to some legislation. My colleague Bruce Westerman from
Arkansas--he is an Ivy Leaguer like you, but he sounds more
country than me; he is from Arkansas--he has some legislation
called The Trillion Trees Initiative. And that is the ultimate
sequester of carbon. And I would appreciate you looking at that
after you finish with your notes. I would appreciate that,
brother, if you would, if you could have one of your staffers
if they would, it is truly a good piece of legislation.
How do we trust the Chinese Communist Party to do anything
they say they are going to do with their increased coal power
capacity and everything else that they are doing, and their
violations of human rights in the world?
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, we will take a look at that
legislation.
And, second, as I have said several times here, it is not a
matter of taking things by trust. We have to have a mechanism
where we are both measuring, where we are accountable to each
other, where we are actually able to know what is happening.
And it would be stupid and malpractice if we just sort of set
up a China trust thing.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. I know that we did that, you know, we
did that with Iran. And I do not want to dig you, but it seems
like we kind of got it handed to us on that deal. And I would
just hope that we could follow through with that. Also----
Mr. Kerry. Well, even, in all fairness, we did not pull out
of that deal. I mean----
Mr. Burchett. I mean, you cannot trust them to do anything.
They are the leading proponents of terrorism in the world.
Mr. Kerry. No, and we, by the way----
Mr. Burchett. I mean, they got more American blood on their
hands than anybody in the last 20 years probably.
Mr. Kerry. I understand all of that. Which is why we put in
place the most severe, most extensive, singularly most
accountable verification system ever put into any nuclear
agreement.
Mr. Burchett. Okay.
Mr. Kerry. And that was there until the former President
pulled out.
Mr. Burchett. And I appreciate that. I am not trying to dig
you, but I want to know a straight answer.
Mr. Kerry. Yes.
Mr. Burchett. Why does your office position even exist,
given that the State Department already has an entire bureau
devoted to oceans, and international environment, and
scientific affairs; another devoted to energy resources, and
that has ensured that the climate policy will be a priority in
every bureau, office, and post?
Mr. Kerry. That is a very fair question. And the answer is
because we are in such a crisis globally, and because President
Biden wanted to find somebody who was experienced and had
credibility within this arena to try to raise the profile of
his efforts and accelerate movement.
We, President Biden came in on January 20th. We have
probably one of the most important negotiations we have ever
engaged in globally on November 1st of this year.
Mr. Burchett. Okay. Thank you, brother.
Mr. Kerry. And we wanted to accelerate it.
Mr. Burchett. And I want to appreciate you on your Purple
Heart. My dad said that is the only medal he was glad he never
got in the Pacific. So, thank you, brother.
And I want to yield 2 minutes to my good friend Andy Barr,
if that is possible, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman yields.
Mr. Burchett. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Barr. I thank my friend from Tennessee.
Envoy Kerry, in your current role you said that your goal
is to ``change the allocation of capital with respect to fossil
energy.'' Press reports suggest you pressured major U.S.
financial institutions to align their lending practices with
the Administration's climate goals.
In your response to my letter on this issue you said there
was no pressure.
I am the Ranking Member of the Financial SerVices oversight
and Investigations Subcommittee. The CEOs of the six largest
U.S. banks will be testifying in my committee on May 27th. I
plan to ask them about this. Of those six banks, my
understanding is that three have joined your efforts, and three
did not.
Did any of these bank CEOs or their representatives receive
a term sheet for the commitments required to be part of the
Net-Zero Banking Alliance? And did you provide them with a term
sheet?
Mr. Kerry. I did not. I did not create the Net-Zero
Alliance. That was created----
Mr. Burchett. No, I understand. But the press report----
Mr. Kerry. So I do not know what their--that is Mark
Carney, who is a former Governor of the Bank of England. And
he, he has put the Alliance together, together with some other
people.
These other banks joined it.
Mr. Burchett. Yes.
Mr. Kerry. They joined it without any discussion.
Mr. Burchett. Reclaiming my time, though. After the
Alliance, and regardless of what the Bank of England did, your
office, either you or any representative of your office, did
you in your efforts to promote the climate finance agenda of
the Administration provide a term sheet to any of the banks?
Mr. Kerry. No.
Mr. Burchett. If not, if the banks are changing their
allocational--allocation of capital on a voluntary basis, why
are you even engaging with these institutions?
Mr. Kerry. Well, we were--what happened is, just to get at
it directly, one of the banks actually reached out to me. They
came to me and said, we believe it would be a great public
thing if we were to allocate a certain amount of funding--and
they had a very significant amount--to climate-related
investment.
And I said, whoa, that is fantastic. I think it is great.
And other banks who I knew were already engaged in some of
this----
Mr. Burchett. My time has expired. But the fact is simply--
--
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Burchett [continuing]. If they have felt pressure from
your office.
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kerry. All we did, all we did----
Chairman Meeks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Let me thank all. That concludes all of the questioning for
today as we hit our stopping point.
Mr. Steube. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kerry. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to take some questions
for the record if people wanted to put some in. I could do
that.
Mr. Steube. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary
inquiry.
Chairman Meeks. Go ahead.
Mr. Steube. We have a 5-minute rule on this committee and
in Congress. And Mr. Levin, Ms. Houlahan, Mr. Malinowski, Ms.
Jacobs, Manning, Costa, Vargas are all Democrats who were
denied their ability under the 5-minute rule to ask questions
today.
On the Republic side, Mr. Green, Mr. Barr got yielded time
but did not get his full 5 minutes, myself, Mr. Meuser, Ms.
Tenney, Mr. Pfluger got yielded a minute but was denied
otherwise his 5 minutes, Ms. Malliotakis, Mrs. Meijer--Mr.
Meijer, Jackson and Kim were all denied their ability under the
5-minute rule to question former Secretary, the Envoy.
Also, we were also cutoff under Secretary Blinken. By the
time they got to me we only had 3 minutes. This committee has
subpoena authority. So, my question and my inquiry would be
when we are bringing Members from the Administration, all of
those Members that I just named all got denied their ability to
represent their districts and ask Mr. Kerry questions because
he has to leave and do other things.
So, I do not understand why Members of the Administration
do not feel like it is appropriate to schedule their time when
they request--you have requested them to come, and come to this
hearing and give opportunity to only, I do not know what the
number is, but half of the Members of this committee to ask
questions.
What I would ask moving forward, is it the Chair's
intention to, one, when we bring Members of the Administration
here that they are going to be here for ample time, to not be
denied the 5-minute rule under the rules of this committee and
this Congress to have their ability to ask questions.
Chairman Meeks. Yes. It has been the tradition of this
committee, and we will continue. We have this Administration
here, under any Administration, whether it was this
Administration, the prior Administration, since the time that I
have been here that Members from the Administration come and
give us and accept the time limits which we have, generally we
have. Sometimes there is unlimited time. Other times, as today,
we knew that there was a hard stop at 12:30.
Mr. Steube. Was that----
Chairman Meeks. Part of the reasons why I was strict with
the time was to get as many Members to testify, to ask their
questions as possible.
Mr. Steube. Well, we weren't told, as a member of this
committee we weren't told ahead of time that he was leaving at
12:30.
Chairman Meeks. Well, it had to be. It happened with past
Administrations.
Mr. Kerry. Congressman, I will be happy to make an
appointment with you to come up and have a chat with you for
more than 5 minutes. If you want to have a talk, I am happy to
do it.
Mr. Steube. Well, I think it is important to do it in front
of the American people so that they get to hear your responses
to the questions made.
Chairman Meeks. And let me just to that, and I am sure that
the Secretary will have ample opportunity to come back at a
time, and maybe we will start then from the bottom of the row
and come up. So, and trying to be in all fairness for another
time.
So, I understand your frustration, particularly all of us
used to be down at the bottom of the line at one point. That is
now taking place, so that is the tradition that is happening in
the U.S. House of Representatives.
Thirty seconds to close. I know he has got to go.
Go ahead.
Mr. McCaul. Well, Secretary, thanks for being here. And
just let me say I think, Chairman, we heard from my side and
your side that China is going to be paramount in the success of
your negotiations.
And good luck catching your flight, sir.
Chairman Meeks. Let me thank the witness. I know he has to
catch a commercial flight headed over to Europe.
But I want to close the record by saying that climate
change is no longer a crisis on the horizon, it is an
existential threat that will displace populations, imperil
economies, fuel conflict, and forever change our planet.
America cannot singlehandedly overcome climate change alone,
but we can, however, lead the international community into
collective action.
My first trip as a Member of Congress 23 years ago was not
anywhere abroad, but far away to Alaska. And me, a boy from
Queens more accustomed to riding the subways of New York, took
three flights on even smaller planes to learn about the
environment, energy, the Arctic, and our beautiful country. It
changed my life and connected issues in Queens to Anchorage
while showing me what that will cost our children and our
grandchildren--and I have two--if we do not act.
We have a duty to be responsible stewards of our
environment and which is God's gift to us. And I say this as
Chairman of this committee, I am immensely proud of the
seriousness with which the new Administration has approached
this challenge.
And I want to thank Special Envoy Kerry for his expert
testimony today on the path ahead. We are in good hands with
his leadership and the leadership of President Joe Biden.
And I also want to thank Ranking Member McCaul for his
partnership with me, as always, on conducting in the manner we
have moved this hearing and this committee together. I really
thank you and appreciate you for your serVice, sir.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you very much.
Chairman Meeks. I want to thank all of the Members of the
Foreign Affairs Committee for their participation today.
And with that, this hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:39 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE CONNOLLY
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]