[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RESTORATION OF THE TRANSATLANTIC
DIALOGUE: THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPE, ENERGY, THE ENVIRONMENT AND CYBER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
April 20, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-38
__________
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
44-547PDF 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 SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts DARRELL ISSA, California
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
AMI BERA, California LEE ZELDIN, New York
JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas ANN WAGNER, Missouri
DINA TITUS, Nevada BRIAN MAST, Florida
TED LIEU, California BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania KEN BUCK, Colorado
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee
ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota MARK GREEN, Tennessee
COLIN ALLRED, Texas ANDY BARR, Kentucky
ANDY LEVIN, Michigan GREG STEUBE, Florida
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey PETER MEIJER, Michigan
ANDY KIM, New Jersey NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
SARA JACOBS, California RONNY JACKSON, Texas
KATHY MANNING, North Carolina YOUNG KIM, California
JIM COSTA, California MARIA ELVIRA SALAZAR, Florida
JUAN VARGAS, California JOE WILSON, South Carolina
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas RON WRIGHT, Texas
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
Jason Steinbaum, Staff Director
Brendan Shields, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment and Cyber
WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts, Chairman
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania,
ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia Ranking Member
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey ANN WAGNER, Missouri
THEODORE DEUTCH, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois,
DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island BRIAN MAST, Florida
DINA TITUS, Nevada DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas
JIM COSTA, California NICOLE MALLIOTAKIS, New York
VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas PETER MEIJER, Michigan
BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
Leah Nodvin, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Espinosa, The Honorable Patricia, Executive Secretary, United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change................. 9
Timmermans, The Honorable Frans, Executive Vice-President for the
European Green Deal, European Commission....................... 15
Kyte, Ms. Rachel, CMG Dean, The Fletcher School, Tufts University 28
Loris, Mr. Nicolas, Deputy Director, Thomas A. Roe Institute for
Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in
Energy and Environmental Policy, The Heritage Foundation....... 38
APPENDIX
Hearing Notice................................................... 71
Hearing Minutes.................................................. 72
Hearing Attendance............................................... 73
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record.................. 74
RESTORATION OF THE TRANSATLANTIC DIALOGUE: THE GLOBAL FIGHT AGAINST
CLIMATE CHANGE
Tuesday, April 20, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Europe, Energy, the Environment,
and Cyber,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m., via
Webex, Hon. William R. Keating (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Mr. Keating. The House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee 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 materials, and
questions for the record subject to the length and limitation
in the rules. To insert something into the record, please have
your staff email the previously mentioned address or contact
full committee staff.
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, and please remember to mute
yourself after you are finished speaking. Consistent with House
Res. 965 and the accompanying regulation, staff will only mute
members and witnesses as appropriate when they are not under
recognition to eliminate background noise.
We anticipate that there will be roll calls during this
hearing. We intend to continue the hearing and ask members to
come back after voting as quickly as possible, and we will
reenter you into the queue where it is appropriate for you when
that is done.
I see that we do have a quorum present, and I will now
recognize myself for an opening statement.
Pursuant to notice, we are holding a hearing today
entitled, ``Restoration of the Transatlantic Dialogue: The
Global Fight Against Climate Change.'' I will now recognize
myself for opening remarks.
The results of climate change are varied, intertwined, and
compounding, but together these consequences pose an
existential threat to our very human community. As a result of
climate change, already vulnerable communities have been
subjected to increasing dangers and natural disasters,
including intensifying droughts, heat waves, and as a result,
fires. And at the same time, the melting of our polar ice caps
have contributed to sea level rising, putting communities
living close to the shorelines at increasing risk. Further,
deforestation and unsafe city planning, coupled with climate
change, contributed to the spread of vector-borne diseases.
And at home, Americans were already economically and
physically vulnerable and faced especially devastating setbacks
and difficulties caused by fire, floods, and air pollution.
These trends are just a snapshot in the landscape of
consequences caused by climate change.
All that being said, I cannot underscore the following
three tenets enough: First, urgency. Climate change is an
existential global threat, and its negative impacts will only
increase exponentially if we do not act now.
Interdependency. Climate change is also a challenge that no
one nation can fight alone. We can only succeed if the global
community is united in our efforts to combat its damaging
consequences.
Third one is domestically. As one of the top contributors
of carbon dioxide emissions in the world and as a Nation that
continues to suffer from the grave impacts of climate change
that threatens our health, prosperity, and national security,
the United States must step up and act now.
For these reasons, I am proud that the Biden Administration
has made climate change a top priority in both our domestic and
international efforts that thoughtfully ensure that their
policies always include a climate lens by installing
experienced individuals in decisionmaking positions.
Specifically, I commend the Biden Administration for choosing
Melanie Nakagawa as the Nation's--as the national security
director for climate and Secretary John Kerry as the United
States first Presidential envoy for climate.
In addition, I am pleased to see the Biden Administration
is committed to including investments in clean energy
technologies and jobs.
[Audio malfunction.]
The Clerk. To subcommittee staff, did we lose Congressman
Keating?
Voice. I am going to go into the other room. I think he
might have--we might have lost him. I am so sorry, the
bandwidth is being very----
Mr. Sires. Yes, I cannot hear him.
Voice. Okay. Hold on.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Leah, I am prepared to go if you need me
to fill in, otherwise we will wait for him.
The Clerk. Yes, you can go ahead, Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Wait, I think we got him back here.
Mr. Keating. Am I back?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. You are back, sir.
Mr. Keating. Can you hear me?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yep, we can hear you.
Mr. Keating. Where did you lose me, if you were paying
attention?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Just about 20 seconds ago.
Mr. Keating. All right.
Mr. Loris. Clean jobs.
Mr. Keating. Look, I will just go where I think.
I was praising the Biden Administration and their work in
selecting people like Melanie Nakagawa and Secretary Kerry to
these important positions they have been assigned to. And I am
pleased that the administration is committed to include
investments in clean energy, technology, jobs, in their efforts
to revitalize America's infrastructure.
These decisions, coupled with the immediate announcement to
rejoin the Paris climate agreement, have signaled a serious
dedication to climate action. However, U.S. engagement in
climate will only succeed if we craft these efforts in concert
with our transatlantic allies. That is why I am proud to hold
the hearing with testimony from high-level witnesses, including
executive vice president for the European Green Deal, Mr. Frans
Timmermans.
Cooperation on climate change, particularly through the
transatlantic partnership, is essential to achieving meaningful
and long-lasting results. The Transatlantic Alliance is
critical as a foundation on which our collective security and
our shared prosperity must be built.
Together, we have to harness the power of our transatlantic
dialog to further climate initiatives among communities, and we
must realize too the Transatlantic Alliances must also harness
the power of combined efforts and contribute to the global
fight against climate change as an entity.
That is why I am proud at this hearing we are also joined
by Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. With her participation
in this hearing, she will also serve as a look-ahead that we
will all be having the opportunity to hear about with the 26
United Nations Climate Change Conference, commonly known as
COP26.
At COP26, world leaders will gather in Glasgow and recommit
to and buildupon strategies to combat the impacts of climate
change. Thus, COP26 will be a pivotal moment bringing parties
together to accelerate action toward the goals of the Paris
climate agreement.
Finally, as Members of the U.S. Congress, we must also
ensure that U.S. engagement on climate change begins here at
home. For the past several years, we in Congress have done just
that, and continue the efforts to combat climate change. We
have hosted in this committee prominent activists, generational
activists, like Greta Thunberg and other witnesses that were so
critical.
We are pleased to be joined from my home State, The
Fletcher School at Tufts, Dean Rachel Kyte, who has been a
world leader in organizations as well as a Climate Action Now
CEO.
We are working hard to bring the funding back home, support
local efforts to mitigate the effects of global warming and sea
level rise, and I am planning on introducing climate-related
legislation in the coming weeks that will help prevent crises
and disasters exacerbated by climate change by enhancing the
United States Government's capacity to prevent, mitigate, and
respond to such crisis and disasters.
I know in my own district, that is a coastal district, the
effects of climate change, and we also sponsor the country's
largest offshore wind farm that is moving ahead expeditiously.
In summary, it is our responsibility as Members of Congress
to take action on climate change, showcase and assist those
working to advance these mitigation efforts, and to engage our
global alliances to collaborate on core climate goals. That is
why myself and my colleagues in Congress are honored to be
joined today by experts that will highlight key challenges in
global climate change, and they will be able to identify
opportunities for cooperation with all our transatlantic
partners.
My colleagues, the United States must stand with the
European Union and the United Nations to achieve impactful
climate goals that will protect future generations around the
globe, and I am comforted that we have a Presidential
administration doing just that.
President Biden said it himself during his remarks at the
Munich Security Conference earlier this year: America is back.
The Transatlantic Alliance is back. And we are not looking
backward; we are looking forward together.
With that, I will recognize Ranking Member Mr. Fitzpatrick
for his opening remarks.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Good afternoon, and thank you, Chairman
Keating. And thank you all, especially our esteemed witnesses,
as we examine the climate agenda for the United States and its
effect on our transatlantic partners.
The United States and our allies across Europe have
benefited greatly over the years through mutually promoting
free and open societies and pursuing policies that take the
economy, the environment, and----
Mr. Keating. Mr. Fitzpatrick?
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keating. We will take a brief recess and pause the
committee hearing until we have all our technical issues worked
out with.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Yes, sir.
[Audio malfunction.]
Mr. Keating. I move we come back into the committee
hearing. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have
it. The chair recognizes Mr. Fitzpatrick for his opening
remarks.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you again, Chairman Keating.
Thank you all. Thank you, again, to our panel of witnesses
in analyzing the climate agenda, not just for us in the United
States, but our transatlantic partners.
And, as we all know, the United States, not just the U.S.,
our allies across Europe, we have all benefited over the years
mutually promoting free and open societies, pursuing policies
that take our economy, the environment, and national security
into consideration.
In the leadup to the 26 Conference of the Parties to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the
United States had the opportunity to lead in global effort
toward multilateral cooperation. And as was stated in President
Biden's executive order, while tackling the climate crisis at
home and abroad, climate considerations shall be an essential
element of the United States foreign policy and national
security.
As such, both sides of the Atlantic must realize that an
emphasis on accountability must be applied to any conversation
on international environmental policy. President Biden's
reentry into the Paris Agreement demonstrates the United
States' willingness to make changes, but the larger
international community must be willing to make changes as well
and address those actors doing the most environmental harm.
For example, significant consideration must be applied to
the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, China, that makes
up nearly a third of the world's CO2 emissions. China has
previously been accused of underreporting and misrepresenting
its emission outputs to international organizations, according
to reporting by The Guardian and The New York Times.
The Convention should consider how to hold nations
accountable who have established themselves with a poor
reputation for reporting energy and environmental data after
decades of inconsistencies. The United States must also pursue
a strategy that acknowledges and deters foreign malign
influences targeting energy markets against our allies.
For example, Russia has a history of weaponizing their
energy resources against neighboring States by leveraging
dependencies to expand its influence and undermine regional
security. President Biden has cited the Nord Stream 2 pipeline
as a, quote/unquote, bad deal for Europe during his time as
Vice President. Secretary Blinken has emphasized that the Biden
Administration is, quote, determined to do whatever we can to
prevent, end quote, the completion of this project.
Following recent escalations of Russian aggression against
our ally Ukraine, the Biden Administration imposed sanctions
against Russia that unfortunately were missing considerations
of Nord Stream 2. It is my hope that the administration takes
the next logical step in defending our allies and partners by
fully implementing the bipartisan Nord Stream 2 sanctions as
required by law.
Considering that 40 percent of European natural gas imports
already come from Russia, an operation on Nord Stream 2
solidifies Europe's reliance on natural gas from Russia and
undercuts an entire region of allies. The United States must
remain committed to strong transatlantic partnerships, and in
pursuing collaborative environmental strategies, we must not
forget the geopolitical implications of those we are entering
into agreements with.
With that, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the panelists, the
esteemed panelists we have here and look forward to the
conversation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Keating. Vice Chair Spanberger----
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Chairman Keating, I yield back.
Mr. Keating. All right. Thanks.
I will now introduce our witnesses, and I want to thank
them all for being here. Executive Secretary Patricia Espinosa
is the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Having served in that position
since 2016, previously serving as the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Mexico, she brings more than 30 years of experience
at the highest levels in international relations specialized in
climate change, global governance, sustainable development,
gender equality, and protection of human rights.
Executive Vice President Frans Timmermans, a grandfather
and a Red Sox fan, and he is also leading the European
Commission's work on the European Green Deal and its first
European climate law to enshrine the 2050 climate neutrality
target in EU law. He has previously served as first vice
president of the EU Commission in charge of better regulation,
international institution relations, the rule of law, and the
charter of fundamental rights, and as a Netherlands minister on
foreign affairs.
Dean Rachel Kyte is the dean of The Fletcher School at
Tufts University. Prior to joining Fletcher, Kyte served as the
special representative of the United Nations Secretary-General
and chief executive of the Sustainable Energy for All. She
previously was the World Bank Group vice president and special
envoy for climate change in the run-up to the Paris Agreement.
And, finally, Mr. Nicolas Loris is the deputy director of
the Thomas A. Roe Institute of Economic Policy, Studies, and
Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in Energy and Environmental
Policy at the Heritage Foundation.
I will now recognize the witnesses for 5 minutes each. And
without objection, your prepared written statement will be made
part of the record.
Executive Secretary Espinosa, you are now recognized for
your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE PATRICIA ESPINOSA, EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE
CHANGE
Ms. Espinosa. Thank you, Chairman Keating, and thanks to
the members of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Europe, Energy, the Environment, and Cyber for this invitation.
My remarks are accompanied by a written statement that has been
submitted.
I was pleased to recently join U.S. Special Presidential
Envoy for Climate John Kerry and welcome the return of the
United States to the Paris Agreement. I repeat what I said
then: We look forward to the resumption of America's leadership
role in efforts to address global climate change.
Members, the Paris Agreement is a covenant of hope with the
people of the world backed by a global plan of action. It
represents the value and necessity of multilateralism when the
world needs it most. Through multilateralism, the world has
dramatically reduced extreme poverty, eradicated major
diseases, vaccinated against many others, and begun to repair
the ozone layer.
The United States, through various administrations, has
been instrumental in each of these efforts. Multilateralism at
its core is recognition that international and domestic
concerns are often intertwined. While COVID-19 is the most
recent example, nothing exemplifies this dynamic more than our
existential climate change crisis.
Climate change recognizes no borders, reflects no political
parties, and respects no ideologies. It is coming regardless.
As we increasingly see in the United States and elsewhere, it
is already here. The science is clear.
According to data compiled by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's National Centers for Environmental
Information, the United States has experienced 291 weather and
climate disasters since 1980. The total cost in this time
period exceeded $1.9 trillion, a number that continues to grow.
In 2020 alone, there were $22 billion disasters, the most on
record.
What science does not measure misery does. In the last 5
years, there have been 3,969 climate disaster-related deaths in
the United States and more than 15,000 between 1980 and 2020.
This is devastating for so many in the United States and
throughout the world, especially the most vulnerable. Over the
long term, climate change is a threat to humanity's very
existence on this planet.
Despite this, nations have not yet moved the Paris
Agreement from adoption to implementation, nor have they
fulfilled its commitments. The recent NDC Synthesis Report,
which covers national climate action plan submitted by December
2020, reveals that we are far away from meeting the goal of the
Paris Agreement to limit global temperature to 1.5 degrees by
the end of the century.
The report shows that at the current rate, nations will
achieve only less than a 1 percent reduction in emissions by
2030 compared to 2010 levels, and the IPCC calls for that
reduction to be 45 percent lower. To say current levels are
insufficient is actually an understatement. We need stronger,
more robust national climate action plans in 2021, and we need
them as soon as possible, including from the United States.
Members, we recognize that 2021 is a year of tough
decisions, but making the tough decisions, the right decisions
could result in a dramatic turning point in human history.
Tough decisions require leadership, courage, and determination.
The responsibility for making them are not America's alone, but
by leading the transformation to what is an unprecedented era
of growth, prosperity, and hope, America will benefit and
thrive.
This transformation can only happen if nations build
forward from COVID-19 by structuring resilient, sustainable,
and green post-recovery economies that are aligned with the
Paris Agreement, and it must carry through to the milestone
event of COP26 in November. While always important, these
negotiations are now crucial.
COP26 represents nothing less than a credibility test for
our collective efforts to address climate change, implement the
Paris Agreement, and continue building climate ambition.
Progress will not be easy. To achieve good outcomes, we need a
good negotiations process and that depends on trust,
leadership, and inclusivity.
We look to nations such as the United States to provide
both, signal and example. In addition to submitting a strong
NDC, nothing would signal this leadership more than ensuring
developed nations fulfill their Paris Agreement pledge to
mobilize $100 billion annually in funding for developing
countries to support their action on mitigation and adaptation.
If the finance commitment is not fulfilled, the credibility
of the entire process will be undermined. This should not be
seen as an act of generosity but rather as an investment for
the benefit of recipient and donors alike.
Chairman Keating and subcommittee members, for all parties
at COP26, the message is clear: This is the time to find the
balances and compromises that can allow us all to strengthen
our common efforts against the climate emergency and to unleash
the full potential of the Paris Agreement. We look forward to
the U.S. being a valuable leader throughout those discussions
and as we work collaboratively, multilaterally to build a
clean, green, sustainable, and prosperous future.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Espinosa follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
Voice. Mr. Chairman, you are on mute.
Mr. Keating. I know. I have had some technical problems.
Thank you, Representative.
I will now recognize Executive Vice President Timmermans
for his opening statement. Thank you for joining us.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FRANS TIMMERMANS, EXECUTIVE VICE-
PRESIDENT FOR THE EUROPEAN GREEN DEAL, EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Mr. Timmermans. It is a great pleasure. It is great to see
you, Chairman Keating, Ranking Member Fitzpatrick,
distinguished members of the subcommittee. And I want to start
by thanking you, Chairman Keating, for mentioning the Red Sox.
I almost started singing ``Sweet Caroline'' here online, but I
will not.
It is really a great honor and a pleasure to offer you a
written statement and an oral testimony as a Dutchman and a
European who believes in the enduring strength of our
transatlantic partnership.
As we are still in the midst of the fight against COVID-19,
we are also challenged by other crises, the climate and
biodiversity crises. Both of them are closely linked and
mutually reinforce each other, and COVID is also a clear result
of our failure to rebalance our relationship with our natural
environment.
The costs of non-action are increasing by the day. Freak
storms, erratic weather patterns, floods, wildfires, and the
astonishing and swift loss of species on which we are reliant
for the crops that feed us. And, unfortunately, there is a
strong nexus between these crises and security as we will face
conflicts over water and arable lands in certain parts of the
world. And, yes, I am a grandfather, and the risk of our
grandchildren going to war over water and food is something we
really need to avoid and avert.
The European Green Deal is our answer, a modern growth
strategy encompassing everything from our mobility, our built
environment, our energy production and consumption, our
agriculture, our international trade, and our taxonomy. We
pledged to become climate neutral by 2050, and in December
2020, European leaders committed to a new 2030 target of at
least 55 percent emissions reductions compared to 1990.
In the near term, approximately $800 billion of recovery
and resilience facility is Europe's medium-term answer to the
COVID-19 crisis. And the centerpiece of the next generation EU,
which is our EU recovery fund, 30 percent of the approximately
$2 trillion of the EU budget for the next 7 years ought to be
earmarked for climate action. And 100 percent of our budget
should do no significant harm, should never go in a different
direction. A comprehensive legislative package will be proposed
in June to meet this enhanced goal.
In short, there are 12 proposals in the pipeline to bolster
existing policies and regulations, strengthen targets, and
shift incentives toward sustainable practices, in particular
with regard to our emissions cap and trade system, with regard
to increasing our natural carbon sinks by protecting and
restoring our forests--our forests are in really bad shape--to
our energy production in terms of more renewables and
differentiated energy taxation and with regard to even higher
emissions standards for our cars and vans and an extended
charging infrastructure across the European continent.
While we green and decarbonize our economy, we also have to
ensure that we prevent so-called carbon leakage. That is why we
are drafting a carbon border adjustment mechanism designed to
address the risk, which, if unchecked, could lead to an
increase of emissions globally. Ideally and preferably, if
every country would fulfill its Paris commitments, it would
never have to be used.
I have laid out this ``Fit for 55'' package in more detail
in my written testimony, and I am happy to exchange views with
you today. This transition will be just, or there just will be
no transition. This must be our guiding principle. That is why
distributional issues will play a central role in the design of
our policies, and I see this is also well understood on the
other side of the Atlantic.
We are not telling people to go live in cold caves and
munch on grass. Ours is a positive proposition, one of cleaner
air and water, lower energy bills, and food with less
pesticides, a proposition of a more resilient and inclusive
economy for all, with local jobs that are not immediately
outsourced, like the installation of homes and the installation
of solar panels.
COP15 on Biodiversity in Kunming, China, this October, and
COP26 on Climate Change in Glasgow, U.K., this November, will
tell us whether the world will finally show its determination
and commitment to do what is necessary. We are more hopeful and
optimistic of our success now that America is back. The
appointment of Secretary Kerry as the President's Special
Climate Envoy is the best sign that the U.S. means business.
And what John has been doing in the last couple months is
amazing and really gives us all a lot of hope.
We are looking forward to working together with the Biden
Administration as well as with all of you in Congress. Our
objective is nothing less than the health and well-being of our
people, of our kids, and our grandkids.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Timmermans follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
And both to Ms. Espinosa and to you, Mr. Timmermans, I
spoke with Secretary Kerry just an hour ago and told him of
this hearing, and he wanted me to personally extend his best
wishes and his thankfulness for your cooperation.
Now, it is my pleasure to recognize Dean Kyte for her
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL KYTE CMG, DEAN, THE FLETCHER SCHOOL, TUFTS
UNIVERSITY
Ms. Kyte. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Congressman Keating, to ranking minority member and members
of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify
today on the restoration of the transatlantic dialog in what is
a critical year for the world and for climate-related
diplomacy.
I have provided a written testimony and would like to make
two key points in this oral statement. First, that the United
States and Europe should jointly develop the new norms for the
deep decarbonization of the economic system through
manipulation of the financial and economic rules that we have
lived under for the last few years to make it fit for purpose
for this decarbonization; second, that the United States and
Europe should deepen their cooperation to support others to
make the transformation necessary to achieve zero-net carbon
and to build more inclusive economies.
However, as a preamble to both of these two points, we
should all be clear, and I think we are, that the United States
and the European Union must lead by example. The United States,
with the European Union, must work vigorously together to
ensure that they are driving their own economies toward the
rapid emissions cuts we need this decade and drive toward zero-
net emissions by 2050.
The Paris climate goal of limiting global warming to well
below 2 degrees and striving for 1.5 degrees is unobtainable
without this joint leadership. So to my first point, that the
United States and Europe should jointly develop the new norms
for the financial and economic system as we deeply decarbonize
the global economy.
As partners in creating the original rules-based
international order and to ensure everyone wins in this race to
net zero, the United States and Europe now need to commit to
developing new rules for an era of deep decarbonization,
adaptation, and investment in resilience. They may invite
others to join them in creating these new norms, building upon
the desire for cooperation on climate change despite growing
tensions on issues of technology, security, human rights, or
trade with other partners.
Discussions between China and Europe on aligning taxonomies
and the recent communique between Secretary Kerry and the
Chinese team on cooperation to address the climate crisis are
welcome signs that this kind of modus operandi is possible.
Specifically, the combined economic power of the United States
and the European Union with newly established norms for
economic governance, for the financial industry, and for
carbon-intensive industries will act as a magnet for third
countries and will spur their increased ambition.
April 22 this week offers an opportunity for the United
States and the European Union to signal that they are prepared
to lead a net-zero carbon club and that they will align
taxonomists for sustainable finance mechanisms for the
effective pricing of carbon, work together on carbon border
adjustment mechanisms, set standards for carbon-intensive
industries, and standards for new and emerging clean solutions,
including, for example, those which will be job rich on both
sides of the Atlantic, including green hydrogen. Intensive work
between now and the finance summit of the G20 in Venice in July
could have a catalytic effect.
The United States and Europe should also indicate that they
will work to common standards for transparency in the carbon
content of products and services and jointly problem solve.
Joint outreach to the WTO can ensure that these norms and
standards work as incentives and pulls on the international
system for the benefit of low-and middle-income countries as
well and not act as barriers to trade finance and technology
transfer.
Second, the United States and Europe should deepen their
cooperation to support others to make the transformation
necessary. Cooperation between the United States, the European
Union, and the United Kingdom will be essential to develop the
finance packages needed to spur mitigation and adaptation and
resilience.
This year, financing climate action involves squaring away
the unmet promises of the pre-Paris climate agreement,
specifically providing $100 billion a year by 2020. A promise
made should be a promise kept. But there needs to be creative
cooperation to provide substantial resources for adaptation and
resilience and to leverage its scale investment into clean
infrastructure for developing countries.
China, through its Belt and Road Initiative, has been a
partner for many countries in building out energy
infrastructure in recent years. China is under pressure
domestically and internationally to green its investments. But
at the same time, the United States and Europe need to come
forward with plans and packages of financial system
instruments, investment, and know-how that provide a
commensurate or a more comprehensive offer of support for
countries that need to transition too.
These are countries that did little to cause the crisis
that we are all enduring but are suffering perhaps most of all,
and they are living in an unprecedented era of liquidity and
debt crisis as a result of COVID-19. This is a critical element
of leadership from the U.K., the EU, and the U.S. for the G7
this year.
To that extent, the U.S. and Europe together should use
their full voice and vote to insist the international financial
institutions support transitions in all countries. Recent
cooperation at the meetings of the IMF showed that this is
possible, and there is much more to be done.
In conclusion, all eyes are on the United States this week.
Can the United States right size its climate ambition in deeds
as well as words? Can the United States together with Europe
develop the rules and set the norms for managing climate risk
in financial and economic systems but also in so doing drive
opportunity? And can the U.S. and the EU enhance their
cooperation for their own mutual benefit so that it benefits
the rest of the world? For all our sakes, I hope that we do.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kyte follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
And the chair recognizes Mr. Loris for your opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF NICOLAS LORIS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, THOMAS A. ROE
INSTITUTE FOR ECONOMIC POLICY STUDIES AND HERBERT AND JOYCE
MORGAN FELLOW IN ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Mr. Loris. Well, thank you, Chairman. And I should first
note that although I grew up in Representative Fitzpatrick's
district, I am actually a Red Sox fan myself, and I do not know
if that makes me more enemies or friends in this hearing, but I
thought I would make note of it. It could not be left unsaid.
So it is great to see the Sox in first and the Yanks in last
right now.
Voice. You are pandering to the chair.
Mr. Loris. I am. I have to. These opportunities do not come
that frequently to do so.
Mr. Keating. So much for cooperation.
Mr. Loris. Well, Chairman Keating and Ranking Member
Fitzpatrick and distinguished members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to discuss restoring the
transatlantic dialog in the fight against global climate
change.
My name is Nick Loris, and I am the deputy director and
Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow at the Heritage Foundation. And
the views I express in this testimony are my own and should not
be construed as representing any official position of the
Heritage Foundation.
A strong transatlantic relationship generates many
important benefits for Americans and Europeans alike. A healthy
partnership helps to raise standards of living and address
common security threats. In the context of climate change and
the environment, cooperation will drive innovation, reduce
emissions, and help regions better adapt to a changing climate.
As President Biden submits America's new nationally
determined contribution for America's reentry into the Paris
climate agreement, I would like to make three brief
observations on where the U.S. policymakers should focus a
dialog.
The first is on transparency and accountability,
particularly with respect to China, the world's largest
greenhouse gas emitter. China has previously underreported its
coal use and thus underreported its CO2 emissions. In fact, the
amount of coal generation China has planned or in development
is about six times the amount of Germany's entire coal use, and
last year, their mining output was the highest it has been in 5
years. Ramping up accountability and at the very least ensuring
their data is objective and accurate should be a priority for
any transatlantic discussion on climate.
A second area of focus for dialog is reducing barriers to
the deployment of low-carbon and emissions-free technologies.
The reality is 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions growth is
set to come from countries outside the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development. Consequently, to achieve
any meaningful emissions reductions, policy reforms must
unleash free enterprise so that it will be in these countries'
self-interest to pursue such technologies to meet their growing
energy and economic needs. Reforms should focus on eliminating
obstacles to investment, providing timely or permitting for new
cleaner energy projects, and reducing trade restrictions that
stunt the adoption of more efficient technologies.
For instance, policymakers in the U.S. and Europe can
expand market-driven peaceful uses of emissions-free nuclear
power. Coordination on the domestic and international
regulations means companies in the U.S. and elsewhere will not
have to navigate through a complicated patchwork of
requirements to build new reactors.
A strong transatlantic partnership on nuclear will also
help developing countries build out their commercial programs.
Americans and Europeans can offer technical expertise, and
government officials can work to ensure that nuclear programs
are secure, meet nonproliferation objectives, and are not
subject to the influence of hostile actors.
A greener economic recovery should also cut red tape to
expand renewable energy deployment and rely on market forces to
address supply chain concerns. Wind, solar, and transmission
developers in the U.S. and Europe have both lamented overly
complex and unnecessarily lengthy permitting timelines.
Furthermore, encouraging more environmentally conscious
extraction and processing of rare earths will diverse supply
chains of critical minerals. Open markets are the key to ensure
the pace of innovation, investment, and expansion of rare earth
supplies will withstand any potential market manipulation
attempts from China.
Similarly, the liberalization of energy markets will reduce
Russia's ability to manipulate natural gas supplies for
political purposes as they have done in the past. The U.S. and
European allies stand to receive substantial, long-lasting
economic, environmental, and geopolitical benefits for more
energy choice, whether it be nuclear, renewables, but also
exported liquified natural gas.
U.S. LNG exports provide a stable, affordable energy source
for Europeans but also a more climate friendly one compared to
several alternatives. In fact, a September 2019 study from the
Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory
analyzed the life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. LNG
exports. And in different areas of comparing U.S. LNG ships to
European and Asia markets when compared to coal use or Russian
piped gas, the life-cycle emissions from U.S. LNG exports were
lower.
A third area of continued and expanded collaboration is on
research and development. Knowledge sharing, scientific
inquiry, and entrepreneurial drive are fundamental to solving
the wide range of environmental challenges we face. A
collaborative effort that harnesses the value of human
ingenuity, our State-of-the-art research facilities, top-tier
universities, and a permissionless innovation culture will help
identify challenges and cost effectively solve them.
Ongoing cooperative efforts like ITER for fusion technology
could help unlock groundbreaking zero-emissions fuel sources.
Developing pathways to further engage the private sector to
commercialize these technologies will help bring more
transformative inventions from the lab to the market.
In conclusion, a strong transatlantic relationship is
critical to economic national security and environmental
progress. Dialogue that bolsters accountability and consumer-
centric policy reforms will best drive an economic recovery and
response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and, importantly, it will be
the most effective path to driving down emissions.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Loris follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Keating. Thank you very much.
We will now go to the question period. Because of the
scheduling conflicts that we all are going through, I am going
to first recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes for his
questions, then go to myself and the vice chair of the
committee, and then go in the regular pattern back and forth.
So I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Fitzpatrick, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding. I
appreciate it.
Two questions, both to--directed to Mr. Loris. Mr. Loris,
welcome. Good to see you. I have one question regarding China
and the second regarding Nord Stream 2.
Pertaining to China, just looking to get your perspective
on why it is so vital that we ensure that there are effective
accountability mechanisms in place to certify that countries
like the People's Republic of China are following through on
their climate commitments.
Mr. Loris. Yep. With any verification for what China is
doing or not doing, really a lot of the climate goals will not
be met. In fact, Secretary Mnuchin a few years ago when he was
first negotiating the Paris climate agreement and effectively
said that even if everyone in the developed world, you know,
biked to work and stopped emitting all greenhouse gas
emissions, all of the policies, whether they be free market or
more on the mandate, subsidies, and regulations sides would be
climatically meaningless because the growth of emissions from
China is going to continue to develop.
And even though they have paid some lip service to peaking
their
[inaudible] 2030 and trying to achieve net zero by 2060,
you know, actions speak louder than words. And given the fact
that they have underreported a lot of their environmental
problems, not just CO2 related but as it pertains to air and
water quality and soil degradation from some of their poor
practices, it is fundamental to hold them accountable.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Loris.
Second, Nord Stream 2. Obviously, China and Nord Stream 2
are two of, you know, my big priorities on the subcommittee,
hopefully the subcommittees in whole. Regarding Nord Stream 2,
why do you believe it is--if you do--believe that it is vital
for the Biden Administration to fully implement congressionally
mandated sanctions applicable to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline?
And, second, do you believe these sanctions could have any
decarbonization byproducts?
Mr. Loris. Yes. Thank you for the question. Yes, certainly,
the amount of opposition to the project, you know, whether it
be in the United States from, you know, a bipartisan group of
policymakers, but also overseas there is, you know, recent
opposition in a Politico op-ed from foreign ministers from the
Ukraine and Poland, even coalitions within Germany and Austria
and the Netherlands have opposed the pipeline.
And my fear is that it continues to allow Russia to
manipulate energy markets for political gain. And the fact that
Russia accounted for 45 percent of the EU's natural gas imports
is a lot, and it will only continue that dependence. And I do
believe that it prevents opportunities for more emissions-free
technology to replace those energy needs.
Again, that could be U.S. LNG exported, as the Department
of Energy study mentioned, but it also could be expanded
nuclear or renewables. So I do believe in the sanctions. I do
believe that the bipartisan opposition to Nord Stream 2 should
pressure the Biden Administration to use its pull as best as
possible to prevent the finalization of this project.
Mr. Fitzpatrick. I appreciate your response, Mr. Loris.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and thank you for
accommodating.
Mr. Keating. I would like to thank the ranking member and
recognize myself for a few questions.
First, you know, one of the complicating factors and one of
the consequences, tragic consequences of climate change will be
the proliferation of airborne diseases and the complications
that are there. We are seeing living proof of that with the
COVID-19 pandemic.
With that in mind and the ambitious plan laid out by the EU
in this respect, I would like to ask Vice President Timmermans,
how has the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic effects hindered
at all your efforts? And if you can manage to get through, you
know, complications like that, you can do anything, I think,
but how is it complicating matters?
Mr. Timmermans. Well, in fact, it has helped us increase a
sense of urgency that we need to change because, you know, we
have not mentioned yet that we are also in the middle of an
industrial revolution, so investments will be necessary. Now
that we are mobilizing all this public and private finance to
invest in restoring our economic strength, we better spend that
on the economy of the future, not of the past.
And that is the essence of the European Green Deal. It is
not just about addressing the climate crisis. It is also about
resetting our economy and putting it on a sustainable footing.
So paradoxically, the COVID crisis has helped us because it has
helped Europe overcome some of its inhibitions in terms of
investments and loans. There is going to be green bonds now.
There is going to be European-level bonds. This was, for many
countries like my own, in Germany, anathema for many years, and
the crisis has brought home the point that we now really need
to invest.
But we also know that if we do not invest in the right way,
this money will be lost and then our children will be burdened
with a debt they cannot sustain. If we do it in the right way,
the debt can be sustained. If we do it in the wrong way, we
just increase our trouble, and that is why the Green Deal is
seen, by and large, by all European nations as the way out of
the crisis.
Mr. Keating. It is interesting, too, the Biden
Administration's jobs bill. Our infrastructure bill is
recognizing the same opportunity. We have an infrastructure
that is aged, and this is an opportunity as an economic
recovery from COVID to go forward and complement that with our
green initiatives.
You know, there is going to be a lot of discussion about
finger-pointing one country and another country and who is
doing more. I am reminded last year when we had Greta Thunberg
here as a witness, she was asked a question about China and,
you know, their responsibilities and their pollution and how
she could, you know, comprehend them continuing to do that when
other nations might do more.
And it was interesting with her response. She said that she
would like to offer another perspective. She said, I am from
Sweden, a small country, and they have the same argument there.
Why should they as a small country do anything? Just look at
the U.S., they say. So there is this finger-pointing that goes
on about where we go. And I do agree with Mr. Loris in terms of
the private sector having a major role in this, but I also know
we have to get beyond this as well.
So I would like to ask, Ms. Espinosa, you know, from the
U.N.'s perspective, how can we get beyond these kind of finger-
pointing and get us all moving in the same direction? It is an
issue. You will hear it today in the hearing. What can we do--
other than recognize that we have self-interests abounding in
this issue, what can we do to help facilitate that cooperation
rather than just a race to the bottom, pointing fingers at
people that may not be meeting their requirements?
Ms. Espinosa. Chairman Keating, thank you. Thank you for
this question. I think it really addresses the central issue
about multilateralism, which is to recognize that self-
interest, national interest are so closely interlinked with
international issues, with global issues. And in this case, the
pandemic but also the climate emergency are very clear
examples.
There is no way--nobody will escape of the climate crisis
unless we really all together address it. And I think this has
to do with the way that the world has developed. It is true,
when the multilateral system was established and when we built
all those international legal frameworks, the world was
completely different. And I think there was this sense that we
in some place of the world could be better off than the others,
that whatever happened in that other part of the world would
not affect us.
Well, that is not the reality now. And I think this has
to--needs to be fully acknowledged, needs to be translated into
policies that really take this into account. So leading a
process of transformation that is global is not in somebody
else's interest. It is in my own interest. And that really does
not--there it does not matter whether you are a big country,
you are a small country.
Of course, in this case, regarding the climate emergency
and regarding the contribution to emissions that the different
countries have, there are diverse levels of responsibility and
there are different ways to contribute. But the main point to
overcome, as you say, this finger-pointing, which at the end
does not allow us to move forward, is to really understand
this. It is not about the others. It is about us, our own
national and self-interest.
Mr. Keating. Yes. It is not about finger-pointing. It is
about a circular firing squad, given the effects of climate
change. And also, Ms. Kyte's distinction with emerging
countries and what she said was important as well.
I would like to now recognize the vice chair of the
committee, Representative Spanberger, for her 5 minutes of
questioning. Then we will go to Mr. Mast in order.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am really appreciative of our witnesses for being here
today. I thank you for joining the subcommittee hearing. It is
important to engage in discussions on multinational approaches
to addressing the climate crisis, which, as has been mentioned,
represents a significant economic and security threat.
So I have a couple questions that I would like to begin
with. In addition to serving on the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, I serve on the House Agriculture Committee and I
chair the Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry. So I have
been particularly focused in that role on bringing farmers and
producers to the table and expanding efforts to mitigate and
adapt to climate change via agriculture through voluntary
incentive-based programs that ultimately do help improve
resiliency and profits for our farmers and producers while also
combatting climate change.
So my first question I would like to direct to you,
Executive Vice President Timmermans. I am curious, what lessons
have the European Commission and EU member countries learned in
their work in the area of sustainable agriculture? And have any
particular policies or initiatives been particularly successful
in improving climate and economic outcomes? And if so, could
you speak a little bit to those programs?
Mr. Timmermans. Well, I have to admit that this is one of
the areas where the challenge might be the biggest, because
like in the U.S., our farming communities are very often set in
their ways and fear change because they feel that change would
lead to less incomes or less future prospects for their kids.
But since we now come to understand that although
agriculture is not really responsible for a lot of emissions,
slightly over 10 percent, it is responsible for an incredible
amount of loss of biodiversity, and we need to address that.
And we also need to make sure that there is a benefit in being
carbon farmers as well.
So we need--75 percent of our forests are in bad shape in
Europe, so what we need to do is increase the health of our
forests. We need to engage with the agricultural community so
that we diminish very quickly the use of pesticides, the use of
fertilizers, the use of medication in animal husbandry.
We have presented a number of plans for that. A
biodiversity strategy encompasses some of those plans. And then
we have also launched a plan that we call From Farm to Fork,
where we address the whole food chain, not just the ones
producing the food, but also the ones buying the food and
everyone in between, so that we create more fair pricing for
the food, that we inform citizens better on what the quality of
the food is they buy, that we try and create new markets and
increase the levels of production of bio foods and sustainable
food.
This is what we are doing. You know, the problem with our
common agriculture policy, as I said, was set in its ways, but
today, 80 percent of the money goes to 20 percent of the farms,
and that is just not right. Too many of our farming communities
are struggling and not getting the support they need. We need
to refocus on supporting especially the people working on the
farms and not the big land owners and not the agro-industry.
So that is the change we are proposing. I have to admit, it
is not going as fast as I would like. There is a lot of
resistance, as you can understand, and you know that from your
own country as well, but I think we are moving in the right
direction, although it could be at a higher speed, if you would
ask me.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you for that. And I am curious, for
Executive Secretary Espinosa, the UNFCCC has also helped
facilitate corporations focused on the intersections of
agriculture and climate change. So I am curious if there is any
lessons to share from these efforts, if there is any place
where the international community can really improve
cooperation on these issues to benefit farmers and producers
and create real economic opportunity, address food insecurity,
improve resiliency and sustainability.
Ms. Espinosa. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, I have
to say that in our process, we have been focusing much more in
the development of the general framework, you know, the general
guidelines on what countries should be doing. It took us a long
time until we really got a work program on agriculture, on
smart agriculture.
That is the Koronivia framework on agriculture that we have
just approved 3 years ago. So there, the intention is precisely
to be able to have a forum where people can exchange views, and
how here I would like to also underline that for us, what is
very important is that agriculture is included also in the
nationally determined contribution, in the national climate
plans as a whole, as part of that very deep transformation that
needs to happen.
But we do understand, and here, of course, we have been
focusing on the reality in the U.S., the reality in Europe. But
imagine then when we go to countries like Africa, Asia, Latin
America, so it is really very, very diverse.
But I think that the important point is that I would say
that in our conversation, agriculture and the use of soil has
become one of the issues where people understand there are a
lot of opportunities and a lot of challenges.
In my view, we need to take bold decisions with
determination, try to help people overcome the fear to change,
and, of course, yes, ensure that we do a just transition. We
also recognize that this transition is not going to happen from
1 day to the next, that it will take some time, but what is
important is that we put in place and we take the decisions and
put in place the measures to start it.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much. Across my district in
central Virginia, we see a lot of enthusiasm for these
voluntary programs that really do benefit the farmers, but also
our climate.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Keating. Thank you.
The chair recognizes Representative Mast for 5 minutes.
Representative Mast?
Mr. Mast. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time.
Thank you to our witnesses for your testimony. I enjoyed
hearing them and reading them as well.
Ms. Espinosa, this really goes to a question of protocol
and getting to the right place for the United States of America
through the right protocol in order to be a good partner in the
world of climate.
Just out of curiosity, do you know right off the bat what
the UNFCCC's website, do you know how you would describe the
Paris climate accord? Do you know what the first sentence says
offhand?
Ms. Espinosa. I am afraid I cannot tell it to you by heart,
but if you help me.
Mr. Mast. I am happy to. It says this--it begins, this is
the first sentence: The Paris Agreement is a legally binding
international treaty on climate change.
Ms. Espinosa. Correct.
Mr. Mast. And I would just like to have your opinion about
whether you believe the U.S. Senate should seek to ratify this
as we do treaties as our Constitution calls for here in the
United States.
Ms. Espinosa. Well, first of all, as you may imagine, as a
U.N. official, it is really not my role to make any opinions on
internal procedures that pertain to one particular member
State. What I would like to say is that in this almost 200
members of the Paris Agreement and of the Convention and
before, the Kyoto protocol, there are many different procedures
to become a party to it. And so this is really an area that
lies within the national authorities in each of those
countries.
Mr. Mast. Yes, ma'am. And I can respect your not wanting to
weigh in to the domestic policies of each and every nation, but
certainly as your role within the UNFCCC, you would acknowledge
your procedures should be followed, correct? Not to put words
[inaudible] Procedures?
Ms. Espinosa. On our side--I missed you a little bit
because the communication was a bit cut out, but let me----
Mr. Mast. It is simply to say, ma'am, it is important that
we follow our own procedures. You follow your procedures within
the U.N.; it is important that we follow our procedures within
the U.S. We can agree on that first? Yes, ma'am? I know we are
having bad connectivity issues on this particular hearing, but
you would agree?
Ms. Espinosa. Yes, I think everyone has to follow the
procedures that are established.
Mr. Mast. Thank you, ma'am. That is really--I think there
is a lot to talk about in this and there has been since it was
undertaken by President Obama, since it was withdrawn by
President Trump, and since reentered by President Biden, and it
is exactly for that reason that I believe it is important for
us as a Nation to go through our proper channels for something
so weighty as this particular treaty, again, as specifically
outlined in video and on the very first sentence of your
website: The Paris Agreement is a legally binding,
international treaty on climate change.
And I appreciate your respect of the fact that we should be
following our procedures as you should be following yours.
And in that, I will yield back.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
The chair recognizes Representative Cicilline for 5
minutes.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Chairman Keating and Ranking
Member Fitzpatrick, for having this really important hearing.
And thank you to our witnesses for your really important
testimony.
I want to just start with Ms. Kyte. You know, it is very
exciting to have a President and administration that is not
only serious about taking on this urgent existential threat of
climate change, but re-engaging with the international
community in this critical work. And the Biden Administration
has obviously announced plans and rejoined, of course,
immediately the Paris climate agreement, but also released
framework of an infrastructure plan that has a particularly
green focus to it. And the goal of net-zero emissions by over
4/2050 is an objective that the administration has adopted.
And I am wondering whether you have a view as to whether or
not what is contained in the administration's early description
of the investments in the American Jobs Plan and the
infrastructure bill are sufficient to get us to that goal? And
if not, what additional measures you think we should be
thinking about in order to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050?
Ms. Kyte. Well, thank you very much for the question. I
mean, obviously, how it all adds up to being on the trajectory
for net-zero emissions is something that I expect that we will
see much more of in the plans we release later this week. But
everything is pushing in the right direction, and I think there
was widespread view that there was extremely--the
infrastructure plan, the jobs plan are extremely comprehensive.
And so I think the question is, this is really as the front
page of Time magazine this week says, you know, climate change
is everything. So every piece of this system needs to be
refurbished or reinvented. So this means the--so not only
developing the cars, the trucks, the buses that will run on
zero-emissions fuels, but then the infrastructure that needs--
that we need in order for those to be accessible to everybody.
The deep refurbishments of the built environment that then also
obviously new building methods, new materials, new tools. The
energy infrastructure, which you have worked so hard on and
others, not only building out offshore wind, but then building
the capacity to develop green hydrogen, green ammonia, then
using that for shipping and for transportation.
And so you start to see that this builds. And I think what
is also clear then is in the work of Secretary Yellen, the work
of the FCC, and the work of the Federal Reserve linking up to
international efforts to look at how the financial sector can
spur this even faster that that is when you start to get
exponential progress.
So it is one thing for the United States to pursue its
plan, it is another thing for European Union and Europe to
pursue its plans and other parts of the world, but can we find
a way to really drive this so that we pick up a lot of pace and
momentum?
And I think that that is where the setting of the
standards, agreeing what is green hydrogen so that those funds
and traders across the Atlantic have an understanding that what
is considered green in the United States is also considered
green in Europe. This will allow things to go faster. And so I
think that that standard setting----
Mr. Cicilline. I am going to try to get in one more
question. Sorry. Thank you. I think that is particularly
helpful.
Executive Vice President Timmermans, you know, one of the
issues that I think is particularly important to many of us is
this importance of achieving equity and inclusion as we think
about our work in this space. And I am wondering if you can
speak to kind of what the European Union has done in this
regard, what we might learn, particularly if you would speak a
little bit about the transition farm, but also how we can work
in this Transatlantic Alliance to be sure that we are getting
this work done, but that we are being very sensitive to those
other objectives of doing it in an equitable way and in an
inclusive way, particularly when you think about the impact of
climate change, you know, particularly hard hit communities,
communities of color, et cetera.
Mr. Timmermans. Well, you know, it is give if you combine
the challenge of climate change with the industrial revolution.
If you do not steer that, if you do not control that, if you do
not mitigate that, if you do not organize just transition, you
will have a small group of extremely successful people and a
large group of people who will lose out.
And if people think they will be losing out, they will stop
the whole process. So if we want this transformational era to
be successful, it has to be successful for everyone. To do
that, we have to have special plans, for instance, to
restructure 30 coal mining regions we still have in the
European Union.
So we have to make sure that--because coal has no future
whatsoever, that when you stop mining coal there, then make
sure there are alternatives. I am from a coal mining region
myself. The last coal mine that was closed in my region is half
a century ago, and still my hometown suffering, half a century
later, because we made mistakes in the policies to restructure
these economic monocultures, but we have a huge opportunity
now.
Hydrogen was mentioned. There are other industrial
constructions that could really profit from the infrastructure
already present in coal mining regions was mentioned. But then
for people to take these jobs, you need to re-skill them. You
need to bring new skills. You need to have the right social
policies so that they do not fall into a poverty trap.
You have to make sure that there is no energy poverty. You
have to make sure that they can find affordable housing. These
are the big things we have to put in place, not just because it
is just, also because if you do not make it just, it will just
not happen. Because then people will just stop it from
happening because they only fear loss and they do not see the
opportunity.
That is why what I see as an outsider as a core element of
what President Biden is doing, he is giving opportunity to
millions and millions of Americans who didn't see the
opportunity before.
Mr. Cicilline. Thank you so much.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
The chair recognizes Representative Pfluger for 5 minutes.
Representative Pfluger.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
panelists.
You know, when I think about security, national security,
what comes to mind is energy security. And I think Mr.
Timmermans just said it correctly, is that we have to make sure
that there is no energy poverty in this world and it is
exceedingly important that we take advantage of affordable
reliable energy. And affordable reliable energy over the past
decade, 10 years, has raised a billion people out of poverty
across the globe.
Many of these have never experienced energy from clean
burning sources like liquid natural gas before. It is something
that their quality of life has been raised because of the
revolution that we have in this country right here.
And so I would like to ask a couple of questions. It was
said--you just mentioned that coal has no future, and I would
have to ask you, Mr. Timmermans, how many plants, how many coal
plants is China building right now, currently?
Mr. Timmermans. I know that China is still massively
investing in coal, but indications are that Chinese policy,
especially in terms of investment in coal capacity outside of
China, is changing. That would be a momentous change if Xi
Jinping could come to the world and say, we are no longer going
to invest in coal, but now they are massively still investing
in coal because of the----
Mr. Pfluger. I am going to reclaim just a little bit of
time because it was a very pointed question. They are building
300 coal plants right now. And I would like to ask the question
to Ms. Kyte or to anyone on the panel, is China joining the
Paris climate accords?
Ms. Kyte. So the question of China's coal capacity is
that----
Mr. Pfluger. Ms. Kyte, is China going to join the Paris
climate accords?
Ms. Kyte. China is a party to the Paris climate accords,
and in its nationally determined contribution and in its 14th
5-year plan, it indicates that it wishes to try to reach net-
zero emissions by 2060. And I think that all of the diplomacy
and the conversation between the EU and China, between the
United States and China is about when emissions will peak and
exactly when coal will be exited both overseas and at home.
I think the question is, there are enormous numbers of coal
in the pipeline and the IEA report from this morning shows
that, in fact, emissions have risen and a large part of that is
coal emissions from China. And so this is absolutely essential.
I think the real question is the financeability of some of
these coal----
Mr. Pfluger. I am going to go ahead and reclaim some of my
time. I appreciate the----
Ms. Kyte. Certainly. Certainly, sir.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you.
The most important thing that we as a country can look at
is, over the last two decades, we have lowered our emissions in
this country to record levels, something that the Paris climate
accords could never have actually gotten to without the private
industries help in more efficient engines and better ways of
producing energy and affordable, reliable clean energy like LNG
and other forms.
As we look at the demand for electricity around the world
increasing by 50 percent over the next 15 years, I am going to
ask where is that electricity going to come from? Because in my
district, we have more wind energy than the entire State of
California. That is one congressional district. However, it is
not reliable. It does not do what we need it to do at the times
that you need it the most when the wind does not blow, and we
just saw that in the middle of a very severe winter storm.
Today, I am introducing the LNG Expansion Act, which seeks
to allow the United States to continue to export liquid natural
gas around the world to get it to places who need it the most,
who have not had access to forms of fuel that are affordable
and reliable.
The No. 1 question I get from Ambassadors around the world
that are looking for energy security to overcome energy poverty
is how can we get more LNG. How can we get more reliable energy
from the United States? And so I would ask as we look at this,
where is the electricity going to come from to power our
electric cars? Is it going to be 100 percent wind?
And the answer to that is no, it's not. It is going to come
from affordable reliable energy sources that we have proven
over time meet demand. It is an all-of-the-above approach. It
is wind, it is solar, it is LNG, it is fossil fuels. And China,
the biggest criminal of all on harmful emissions in this world,
should not be given a free pass while we tie ourselves to some
unattainable goal that we have already, by the way, met and
done a world of difference on in meeting those reduced emission
standards.
So I would ask everyone on the call to look at what we are
doing and what we have done as an industry to provide that
affordable reliable energy and to raise a billion people out of
poverty.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
The chair recognizes Representative Titus for 5 minutes.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to go back to Mr. Timmermans' comments when
talking about the opportunity that Joe Biden's administration
and energy plans offer to people. As we begin to reengage with
the rest of the world on these issues, whether it is the Paris
Accord or going to Scotland, I just wonder if the last 4 years
of negligence and insult and rolling back of things has made
the world skeptical of what the United States is really willing
to do.
Is there some background work that we can do to bring them
over again for when the Biden Administration puts these plans
forth so they will trust us after the way they have been
treated and the way we viewed this issue under the Trump
administration?
Mr. Timmermans. Well, we have had some rough patches over
the last 4 years in our transatlantic relations, but there is
no relationship that is stronger anywhere in the world than the
transatlantic relationship, and that hasn't fundamentally
changed over the last 4 years. We had some disagreements,
sometimes even strong disagreements, but the basics have not
changed.
And now with the administration committing to some of the
things that we hold dear and also such a clear commitment also
to NATO and the Transatlantic Alliance, everybody is happy in
Europe. Everybody welcomes this in Europe. So there is no hard
feelings.
And, by the way, on the climate issue, even though at the
Federal level the United States was sort of rogue or absent in
the last 4 years, on the State level, especially private
business, so much was happening that the U.S. didn't really
lose pace internally and that, of course, helps to create a
positive momentum also internationally, because in this area,
in this field, the only credibility you have is based on what
you are doing at home.
Whatever nice speeches you do abroad, whatever nice
commitments you enter into, you will be held accountable for
what you are doing at home. And in that sense, you know,
because of what States have been doing, cities have been doing,
or what the private sector has been doing, includingthe energy
sector, the United States has not really lost a lot of distance
vis--vis other parts of the world.
Ms. Titus. Well, that is reassuring. I am glad some people
in the States were able to make up for the lack of leadership
at the Federal level. So moving forward, things should be
working nicely under this new administration. So thank you for
saying that.
I would like to ask Secretary Espinosa a question. In your
testimony, you talk about the number of climate disaster
related deaths. You say that there were 4,000 in the last 5
years, and that is over a thousand more than in the entire
1980's. I suspect if you included famine and disasters beyond
just immediate kinds of experiences or incidences, that number
would even be higher. And it seems that the most vulnerable are
the ones who are suffering the most, like intense storms, for
example.
I wonder if you would talk about how the U.S. and the EU
can assist those who are the most vulnerable, and if climate
change's impact on human rights, is it a basic issue that we
should be concerned about? What can we do to hold those
accountable who aren't recognizing that fact?
Ms. Espinosa. First of all, regarding how countries, those
more vulnerable can be helped, I think the point about
investing and financing of adaptation and resilience building
is very critical. And this is--because this is also the area
where we see lack of financial flows precisely for those
countries that are more vulnerable.
We have within the Green Climate Fund, for example, we have
established a goal of 50 percent adaptation finance. That is
not being fulfilled right now. Just a few days ago or maybe a
couple of weeks ago, Secretary-General Guterres was saying that
of all climate finance, only 20 percent is going to adaptation.
So I think this is a very, very important area that needs
to be addressed, and I think these should be addressed also in
the framework of what Rachel Kyte was saying about the need to
really look at the whole international financial infrastructure
to align it to these sustainability goals that we have and net-
zero low emissions economy.
Regarding human rights, we have--within our process, we
have, for the time being, focused much more on women. Women are
particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. As we
know, women are in so many places the providers of food, the
providers of water for the family. So if there is a drought
that means women really enduring long, long distances to get
water, to try to produce some food.
And also in terms of health. Health-related issues that are
also closely related to climate change.
So, yes, one of the things that we are now trying to do is
encouraging countries to include these issues within their
national climate plans and policies, so that they are really
imbedded. Not like a side issue that is addressed somehow, but
really as part of the overall plan. I think this is a way to do
it and there, of course, many countries have very little
capacity to put those national climate plans in place.
And then we have, of course, the challenge of financing the
implementation of those national climate plans.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is helpful.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
The chair now recognizes Representative Meijer for 5
minutes.
Mr. Meijer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to our
experts today for joining us.
I want to go back to some remarks that the ranking member
made, and specifically he had some questions that were
addressed to Mr. Loris around Nord Stream 2, around the
diversification of the European Union's energy sources and
concerns about Russia. I want to touch on that, but I will be
directing my questions toward Mr. Timmermans.
But I am mindful of the fact that the United States has
seen double-digit declines over the past two decades in our
carbon emissions largely driven by a coal-to-gas switch in our
energy generation. I know in some corners it is popular to
attack fracking, despite the fact that natural gas has been
very beneficial in being a strong transition energy source for
the U.S. and potentially a long-term on-demand baseload
generating source that is lower emissions than some of its
alternatives such as coal.
But I am also mindful that as we look to Nord Stream 2
coming online and the significant increase that it would
represent in EU natural gas imports, I think it is already
Russia accounting for over 40 percent, and that figure will
undoubtedly go much higher. At a time when Alexei Navalny is
dying in, essentially a Gulag in Siberia, where--and Czechia
just earlier this week, Russian intelligence agents were held
responsible for a 2014 destruction of an ammunition depot that
killed two citizens, where their maligned activities throughout
the European Union, including poisoning and killing with
chemical weapons, not only dissidents, but also European Union
citizens, at a time when we are seeing that level of aggression
where Russian troops are massing on Ukraine's border, despite
their increasing destabilization of the Donbas and their
refusal to acknowledge or heed international calls around the
annexation of Crimea, you know, at this point in that tension,
we have been talking a lot about diversification of energy
production and sources.
And I am a strong proponent of renewable energy. I wish
there was a greater acknowledgement of nuclear's productive
capabilities and how it can feed into a low carbon or no
carbon, all-of-the-above energy strategy, but I want to focus
this question with Mr. Timmermans.
How do you mitigate the concerns of not the diversification
of production type, but that strong concentration of origin of
that natural gas from Russia and what that may do to just give
Vladimir Putin a tremendous leverage over the European Union?
Mr. Timmermans. Well, first of all, specifically on Nord
Stream 2, the European Commission has this position that we do
not need Nord Stream 2 for our energy security in the European
Union. So let me be very clear on that. It was a commercial
decision. It was a political decision made in Germany, but as
far as we are concerned, it was not a necessary addition for
our energy.
Second, we have been diversifying our energy resourcing
tremendously and massively investing in renewable energy. So we
will be using in certain member States where coal is still
predominant and wood is burnt for heating, we will be using
natural gas as a transitional energy carrier, but that will
disappear in the future.
Green hydrogen will play an incredibly important role.
Generated offshore wind is taking off at a rate that is
incredible. It is becoming cheaper and cheaper, and it really
is an investment opportunity. We do not need any subsidies for
that anymore. Solar is going in the same direction.
Having said all that, our relationship with Russia is
extremely complicated, and Russia--I served in Russia for quite
some years. I speak Russian. I was trained to understand the
country as a soldier, and I was foreign minister of my country
when MA.17 was shot down. So I have some experience with
dealing with that very complicated country, and I have no
illusions about it. No illusions whatsoever.
But if you look at the interest of the Transatlantic
Alliance, unstable Russia is a bigger threat to us than a
slightly more stable Russia. And for the foreseeable future,
they will depend on their energy exports. They will depend on
us more than we will depend on them. So I would like to invite
you to think about this relationship as it develops that I
think the dependency of the Russians on us will increase
because they will need to sell us their gas because they do not
want to depend on China. That is the last thing they want. And
then at the same time, we will be decarbonizing our energy
resourcing.
So, yes, I see the problem you are addressing today. I also
see the vulnerabilities because of different opinions within
the European Union about our relationship with Russia. Some are
very, very cozy with the Russians in the European Union, I have
to admit that, but I also see that in the longer term, the
bigger problem will be in Russia because their economy, which
is completely based on the extraction of natural resources and
selling that abroad, will have to undergo a fundamental
transformation if they want to address the challenges that we
are facing also in the industrial revolution and with the
climate crisis.
Mr. Meijer. [Speaking foreign language.] Timmermans.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Timmermans. I saw your name and I know we share a
legacy.
Mr. Meijer. Thank you.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
The chair now recognizes Representative Costa for 5
minutes.
I think you are on mute, Representative. See if you are on
audio now.
Mr. Costa. How about now?
Mr. Keating. Okay. Yes. Representative Costa.
Mr. Costa. We are down to 15 percent, so it wouldn't let me
unmute. I will be quick.
Anyway, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this important
hearing, and for our panel.
I want to followup on some of the questions that have been
touched upon. But when we talk about the similarities and the
challenges facing the European Union and the United States in
seeking production of greenhouse gas emissions, what do you
think are some of the key differences, since both of you have a
perspective of both the U.S. and the EU, in your view, and what
do you think is the greatest opportunity for a more robust
cooperation between the EU and the United States?
Mr. Timmermans. Are you asking me that question, because I
didn't--I suppose you are asking me the question?
Mr. Costa. Certainly.
Mr. Timmermans. What I would see as the biggest similarity,
actually, is the values we share. Because the way our people
want to live is so much more comparable if we look at a
transatlantic relationship than with any other part of the
world, I would argue. Dissimilarities are, of course, that the
United States is an energy producing and exporting country,
fossil fuel energy producing and exporting country, which comes
with other challenges than a continent like Europe, where we
are mainly importers of energy, especially when coal is
disappearing, we are becoming increasingly importers of energy.
That is a different starting position, but that does not mean
we cannot create synergies from these different starting
positions. I think some of the choices we will be making in the
future are absolutely comparable.
If I see what is happening on green hydrogen in the U.S.,
if I see what is happening on offshore wind in the U.S., if I
see what is happening on creating a circle economy in the U.S.,
the developmentsacross the Atlantic are very much comparable
and we could really create synergies that would be compelling
on other parts of the world to go into the same direction. That
is why it is so important that the Federal Government is on the
same page with us now.
Mr. Costa. And I agree. And you did mention, but it is
obvious that we both subscribe to a rules-based economy which
allows you to use incentives in ways that could promote good
best management practices.
In addition to that, the EU and the United States still
comprise about half the world's economy, which allows us to, I
think, set the rules.
I also want to followup on my colleague Congresswoman
Spanberger's comment about we both serve on the Ag Committee,
and I chair the Transatlantic Legislators' Dialogue. But you
noted the farm to fork policy in reducing greenhouse gases and
agricultural practices in the United States.
We have done a great deal--I am from California--in terms
of the last 10 years, but in all things ag related between the
EU and the United States, there seems to be a disconnect, and I
think it is politics primarily, and you note it in terms of
your own comments about the fear. Fear of change. I am a third-
generation farmer. I understand the fear of change. I do not
farm the same way my parents farmed for a lot of reasons.
But I always thought if you could get the policy committees
within the EU parliament together with our policy committees
here in the Congress, maybe we might get past the politics that
we all reflect and represent in terms of meaningful ways to
overcome them as it relates to this farm to fork policy. I
would like your thoughts.
Mr. Timmermans. Well, I think, you know, if you go back to
basics, we will have to feed about 10 billion people in the
future, and we will have to feed them within planetary
boundaries with limited resources, with a huge threat to our
bio-diversity, with a lack of water in many places. We have to
rethink the way we produce our food on a global scale, and I do
not see why we could not do this together with the United
States.
Our subsidy system is different, and because it is
different, it has caused conflicts between us. But if you look
beyond the subsidy system and what is essential for the future
of agriculture, we should have a meeting of minds.
Mr. Costa. And food is a national security issue, whether
it be in Europe or whether it be in the United States. And the
planet had a billion-seven 200 years ago. We have over 7
billion people today. By the middle of the century, we are
going to have 9 billion, close to the 10 you noted. And so
sustainability is, I think, the central focus of this effort in
light of climate change. And we have water problems in
California all the time and it is only going to make the
challenge more severe.
My timehas run out, but this is something I would like to
continue to have a conversation with you as we work with our
European allies and the parliament.
Mr. Timmermans. Great.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative. And it certainly is
something worthy of dialog in the Transatlantic Legislators'
Dialogue that you chair. So thank you for your work there. And
thank you, Representative.
Now, I recognize Representative Tenney for 5 minutes.
Ms. Tenney. Thank you, Chairman Keating. And I want to say
thank you also to Ranking Member Brian Fitzpatrick for
convening this hearing, and for our witnesses andthe
comprehensive testimoneys that we are hearing today. And I
think it is an important issue and we need to continue to work
with our transatlantic partners on the resilience and the
impacts of climate.
In doing so, I think that we also have to have a realistic
approach backed by results and show that, you know, open and
free markets can well lead to innovation and increase
prosperity, lesser emissions, and also more security for our
energy sources. And I think--and I look back just in my own
district as we look to tackling some of the climate issues, we
have to ensure that we have a level playing field that benefits
and protects U.S. interests and also my district in New York
State.
I want to ask my first question to Mr. Loris, and I just
really need to--I would love to just get your view on--the
Chinese Communist Party dominates a significant portion of our
critical mineral supply chain. What are the implications for
renewable energy technologies if access to these critical
minerals becomes limited? And what steps maybe would you
suggest that we need to take to ensure that the United States
actually retains access to those critical minerals,
domestically and aboard and, even in some cases, some of the
rare earth metals that are processed--found in the United
States, processed in China, and brought back here?
Mr. Loris. Well, thank you for the question. It is
certainly an important one. And the diversification of those
markets is vitally important for the future of renewables, the
future of battery technologies, and consequently electric
vehicles.
You know, we saw China attempt to manipulate markets
against the Japanese in 2010, and when prices rise, markets
diversified. And that is what happens when you have price
signals, you are going to have a response from the private
sector.
We need to make sure that we have the right environmental
reviews and permanent processes in place so when the market
does want to diversify, whether that is through the extraction
and processing of rare earth minerals, that they can build
these plants in a timely manner. And, fortunately, we are
seeing some of that investment already in the United States,
and that is great.
And so I think it is important for two critical reasons.
One is so that China cannot attempt to manipulate markets as
they have done in the past, but, two, thinking through the
climate benefits of these technologies, we really need to have
a full understanding of what the life-cycle emissions looks
like. So it is important to think about where the mining and
extraction of some of these minerals come from now, like the
Democratic Republic of Congo. So when we are thinking through
what are the emissions benefits of these technologies, the full
process matters and the full life cycle of greenhouse gas
emissions matters, and the more that we can have those
processes from a mining standpoint, but also from a processing
standpoint in countries that have human health and public
safety standards and environmental standards that are more like
the United States and European countries, the better off we are
going to be both economically and environmentally.
Ms. Tenney. Excellent. I think that we also look at those
things. I mean, often we forget that we do actually have rules
and standards here. So I appreciate your comment on that.
One other issue I wanted to ask you about is the Biden
Administration canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline, you know,
which obviously we know, we have heard about creates jobs for
Americans, but it has refused to implement the full sanctions
on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline to prevent its completion.
Can you give us a comment about that and what your
expertise on that is?
Mr. Loris. Yes. I would largely just say that it is
frustrating, both from an economy and an environment
standpoint. This is a pipeline that could efficiently carry up
to 830,000 barrels of oil per day, the Keystone XL Pipeline
that is, and even President Obama's State Department, back when
they were first reviewing the pipeline, said that it would not
meaningfully contribute to climate change. And the reality is
that oil is going to come out of the ground regardless of
whether the pipeline is built or not, and now that oil is going
to be transported by rail or by truck, which are much more
inefficient economically and environmentally for North America.
And so that is problematic.
And in the meantime, you have
[inaudible] Nord Stream 2, with dirtier Russian gas that
has geopolitical implications as well.
So, hopefully, the Biden Administration holds true to
calling it the bad deal that President Biden did back in 2016,
because we need energy infrastructure. We are going to need
pipelines, natural gas pipelines, transmission lines for
expanded renewable energy, and we need those projects in a
timely, efficient manner or else a lot of these targets are
just going to fall by the wayside because they are going to be
stuck in zoning problems or lengthy environmental reviews or
lawsuits by NIMBYist activists, and that does not get more
efficient technologies built.
Ms. Tenney. Well, I appreciate the answers. And, actually,
we would love to have some natural gas in New York that is not
going to be spilled by truck or by rail, because we do not
really have a whole lot of rail. But we definitely think that
the pipelines could be, ironically, the more environmentally
friendly way to go with our abundant natural gas resources that
we have in New York, which have actually brought our emissions
down and New York City has become more reliant on natural gas,
which is, you know, not the--it is not the emission-free
standard, but it is certainly better than some of the resources
we have used in the past.
But I really appreciate it. I think my time is running out.
I cannot see it on there, but----
Mr. Loris. If I can just add, it is not just been natural
gas too. I mean, in Pennsylvania where I grew up, my parents
finally
[inaudible] Their home heating oil with natural gas, and
there has been frustrations from the Canadians trying to build
clean transmission lines for their excess hydropower, which is
an emissions-free source of energy as well.
And so it is not just natural gas that can help deliver
more affordable reliable energy up to the northeast, but also
cleaner, affordable hydro.
Ms. Tenney. Right. Well, we have Niagara Falls obviously,
which is a cleaner State, so we are grateful for that and love
having the emission free there. But, you know, we do need
energy resources, and it is always a struggle to get those
resources in as environmentally friendly way as we can, you
know, from all the way to one end of New York State down
through Canada all the way down to the Fraser site and down to
New York City, which requires--where the largest population is.
But I really appreciate that reference. Thank you so much.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
The chair now recognizes Representative Schneider for 5
minutes.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman Keating, and thank you
for having this very important hearing. To our four witnesses,
thank you for the work you do and the patience you have shown
today sharing your perspectives and insights with us. It is
very much appreciated.
I do not think there is any question that the impacts of a
changing climate are an existential threat to everything we
hold dear in our society and in our planet, and the need to
take action is clear here. So having this conversation is
obviously very important.
You know, my view is that the United States cannot solve
this problem alone. We have to work with the world. The world
cannot solve the problem without the United States. So it is
important that we build this relationship across the ocean,
across the globe, and work with all nations to try to take
action. I am reminded of President Kennedy's famous line about
talking about going to the Moon: We choose to do these things
not because they are easy, but because they are hard. And there
is nothing more hard, I think, before us than tackling climate
change.
We have, as we have talked about, the need for energy. The
fact that we are having this conversation on our electronic
devices, communicating across pipelines of electrons moving,
but we are able to be together, even though we are in different
places, requires energy, but it also enables us to do great
things. And that will be true in the future as well.
But we talked about the need to address it, the why. It is
an existential threat. We talked about the when. It has to be
now. One of the biggest challenges I see are the what and the
how of how we do this.
And, Mr. Timmermans, you touched on this. I would like to
touch a little bit on your thoughts on the European Green Deal.
In your testimony, you list a number of things that the package
will reflect--carbon pricing mechanisms, energy efficiency,
renewable energy, carbon sinks, sustainable mobility and
transport, and that is not an exhaustive list, but it is a long
list.
If we achieved everything that is envisioned in the
European Green Deal on those items alone, will that solve our
problem or do we still have much more to do?
Mr. Timmermans. Oh, we have so much more to do, I am afraid
to say. But if we implement, if we were to be able to implement
the legislation we will be proposing in the next couple of
months, then I think we can reach, as Europeans, our target of
reducing our emissions with 55 percent until 2030. And that
would put us on a sustainable path to climate neutrality in
2050.
But so much more needs to be done because also we have
moving targets. New technologies are emerging. We do not know
today whether they will be successful or not. CCSU might be a
very successful technology; or it might not be so successful.
We have other ways of capturing and storing CO2 that might be
successful or might not be. So we also have to be light on our
feet in making decisions on where we invest.
But the thing that is helping us in Europe is to have just
a clear plan of how we can get from where we are now to where
we want to be in 2050 and have the intermediate steps in 2030,
2025, 2040, et cetera. That is helping us plan what we need to
do. At the same time, nobody would have thought, for instance,
10 years ago that offshore wind would be such a success as it
is today for Europe. Nobody was talking about green hydrogen 5
years ago.
So, you know, you have to account also for technological
breakthroughs. I mean, human invention is still a huge driving
force here that we need to embrace.
Mr. Schneider. I think it is critical that we rely on that
invention. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the United
States can lead on that. We have the greatest R&D, some of the
best universities and other research institutions, but we do
have to work with the rest of the world as a part of that.
And, Dean Kyte, if I can turn to you, as the dean of The
Fletcher School, understanding the importance of foreign
relations, relations between nations, what more can we do to
help both national leaders across the world, but also their
publics understand that the steps we take are but first steps,
we can get there if we have to get there, and we can do it in a
way that is going to create jobs, lift up economies, not hold
us back, but move us forward?
Ms. Kyte. So I think it is a great question. I think that
there is a steadfastness. This is a sprint and a marathon. And
I think publics want action because they see the climate
impacts all around them from extreme weather events to changes
in the price of food and availability of food, et cetera.
And so I think that the story line of where the new jobs
are, where the very young population of the planet is going to
find employment and well-being, being in the technologies and
in the devices that work in a decarbonized global supply chain.
And I think that is as true for Kampala as it is for Kansas
City. This is true for Oaxaca as it is for Osaka.
And so I think this is what--and people want to see
countries working together. So if you are in a developing
country, you want access to markets. You want access to the
technology. We have amazing technology. Green hydrogen will be
revolutionary for North America and for the European Union. We
need it to be revolutionary for the north coast of Africa as
well.
And so making sure that these things are available in real
time will be very important, but I think that the United States
and Europe are steadfast partners in a sprint and in a marathon
is something which needs to be, I think, developed in terms of
actions, not just words. And here really the financing for the
adaptation and the resilience.
Climate impacts are having a huge impact right now on the
people who are the most vulnerable and the least able to chart
their path forward, and I think there is a sense that there is
some responsibility brought on by the countries that got us to
this point. So finding ways to unleash entrepreneurship and
activity around adaptation and resilience will be very
important.
Mr. Schneider. Thank you. My time is expired, but this is a
big task. We will have many more hearings on this subject, I am
sure.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
And roll calls have been called, but we will be able, I
think, to negotiate around that.
We are joined on the committee by Representative Perry. And
without objection, hearing none, I will recognize
Representative Perry for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the
ranking member for holding this hearing and offer this time to
me.
Secretary Espinosa, I want to read a few quotes from your
testimony, your Twitter account, and recent public statements.
I quote: Climate change is an existential crisis that over the
long term is a threat to humanity's very existence on this
planet, unquote. And then: Climate change is an emergency that
could eventually end human life on this planet. Despite every
study, every report, and the clear warnings from scientists
throughout the world, many nations are sticking to their
business-as-usual approach.
Now, you retweeted U.N. Secretary-General Guterres'
authoritarian demands to subvert representative democracy
across the globe when he said, I call on leaders worldwide to
declare a State of climate emergency in their countries until
carbon neutrality is reached, unquote.
You retweeted the UNFCCC's tweet: @U.N. Chief Antonio
Guterres today called for an end to the war against nature and
an increased ambition and commitment from governments to tackle
#climatechange, unquote.
Ma'am, these are hyperbolic statements not based on science
and actually do not reflect reality. Instead, they are intended
to inspire fear of impending doom and instill blind compliance
with U.N. edicts through implied threats of coercion and for
those who dissent.
Unfortunately, this is just the latest example in the
U.N.'s long history now of doomsday profiteering over the
climate that precedes the UNFCCC's existence.
In reality, this kind of rhetoric precedes every U.N.
climate summit as UNFCCC leaders try to justify its continued
existence despite decades of failure and attempt to coerce
politicians into selling out their prosperity, liberty, and
freedom of their constituents in return for a system of
socialism and oppression run by the U.N. central planners.
This historical context creates a credibility crisis for
the UNFCCC, one that cannot nearly be overcome by stating the
science is clear. That is not enough.
Given this credibility crisis, I am actually disheartened
by the fact that you are now demanding we impose significant
economic harm on our constituents and send hundreds of billions
of their hard-earned taxpayer money overseas without
acknowledging, what I consider to be the elephant in the room,
and that is that China's massive build-out of coal power plants
and intent to continue this practice for at least the next 5
years is somehow in compliance with their NDC that allows for a
30 percent absolute carbon emission increase.
You know that if the U.S. were to reach net-zero today,
China's emissions would completely replace them in 3 weeks.
That means that all the economic harm imposed on our
constituents would result in no, in zero climate benefits even
under the most alarmists assumptions.
I got to say that your silence on this matter is indicative
of a larger concern about the Communist Chinese Party's
influence over the U.N. and the U.N.'s hostility to America's
interests.
Ma'am, is it the UNFCCC's position that the United States
should sacrifice its economy to pick up the slack of the rogue
genocidal CCP regime?
Ms. Espinosa. Representative Perry, of course, I have taken
note of your statement and of your opinions.
Regarding your question, it is the role of the UNFCCC as
the treaty body created by the first to serve the convention
and now to serve the Paris Agreement to concentrate on helping
countries in abiding to the commitments that they have made
under those international instruments.
Mr. Perry. I understand that, ma'am. I have got 30 seconds.
But you understand that what you are talking about is the
United States sacrificing its economy while the Chinese
Communist Party just continues to emit 30 percent absolute
carbon emission increase over the same period of time.
Let me just say this. The U.S. withdraw from the UNFCCC is,
in my opinion, long overdue. It is not about science. It is
about politics. It is about socialism. I intend to introduce
legislation to do so this week.
I appreciate everybody's time.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance.
Mr. Keating. Thank you, Representative.
And I want to thank our witnesses, if I can. Take a few
moments for some closing remarks of my own. We have an
extraordinary witness panel here today, among the world
leaders, people that would be making great decision, shaping
great decisions from so many perspectives.
You know, Mr. Loris from the private side, which is, the
private side will have a major role going forward.
Dean Kyte, your points on emerging nations and the
importance of financial markets and other countries moving
together and the opportunities that that presents beyond just
the climate issues were really quite appreciated.
And Executive Vice President Timmermans, you know, just
coming from your own background, representing a coal area where
your family was involved, the farming area where you are
involved, and recognizing the economic opportunities that exist
and the jobs that exist and the future jobs moving our
countries forward, truly appreciated.
And, clearly, I just want to thank Executive Secretary
Espinosa for your remarks, your work. I think I would take a
little different approach, not saying they are hyperbole, but
reality. That is what we are dealing with here, reality, and
urgency. And I am so pleased to represent in this committee, in
the Foreign Affairs Committee, that our witnesses took the time
to be part of this very important discussion.
I do not think there will be a more important discussion
than we have all year, and to have the caliber of witnesses
that we have is truly appreciated. And I hope we can move
forward and work together in the future with any suggestions
you might have as to how we could better address this
existential issue that is in front of us.
It is also an important week. I think it is very likely
there will be a major announcement coming from the White House
this week, from the President this week on this matter. So I do
believe it is not only important in terms of the global clock,
but it is very relevant in terms of the decisionmaking and
where we are moving in the United States as well.
So I will just deal with some housekeeping, other than my
profound thank you for investing the time here with us and the
time you spend when you are not here with us dealing with these
issues. And I hope we do as well in this effort as the Boston
Red Sox are doing in the American League right now.
So, if I could, I will just read some closing housekeeping
things I have to do.
Members of the committee will have 5 days to submit
statements, extraneous materials, and questions for the record
subject to the length and limitation of the rules.
Again, I want to thank extraordinary panel for their time
and their knowledge.
With that, I will declare the hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]