[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHALLENGES 
                           AND OPPORTUNITIES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE 
                             CLIMATE CRISIS
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD
                            OCTOBER 28, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-10
                           
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                         

                            www.govinfo.gov
   Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
   
                              __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-351                      WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
  
                 SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
                    One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

                      KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
JULIA BROWNLEY, California             Ranking Member
JARED HUFFMAN, California            GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California               CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas              ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
                                 ------                                
                Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
                  Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
                        climatecrisis.house.gov


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                   STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

                                                                   Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
    Opening Statement............................................     1
    Prepared Statement...........................................     3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the 
  Climate Crisis:
    Opening Statement............................................     4

                               WITNESSES

Taryn Fransen, Senior Fellow, World Resources Institute
    Oral Statement...............................................     6
    Prepared Statement...........................................     8
Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, Chief Executive Officer, Mercy Corps
    Oral Statement...............................................    16
    Prepared Statement...........................................    18
Charles Henrick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens 
  for Responsible Energy Solutions
    Oral Statement...............................................    19
    Prepared Statement...........................................    21
Alden Meyer, Senior Associate, E3G, Inc.
    Oral Statement...............................................    26
    Prepared Statement...........................................    28

                       SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article from Wall Street Journal, ``Solar and Wind Force Poverty 
  on Africa,'' submitted for the record by Mrs. Miller...........    36
Report from the World Resources Institute, State of Climate 
  Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to Limit Global 
  Warming to 1.5 deg.C, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor...    50
Executive Summary of a report from the United Nations Environment 
  Program, The Heat Is On: A World of Climate Promises Not Yet 
  Delivered, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor..............    50
Report from the OECD, Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by 
  Developed Countries, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor....    51
Letter from ICEA to Secretary Granholm regarding requiring LNG 
  terminals to reduce export rates to fill winter natural gas 
  storage, establish LNG export volume limits, and put public 
  interest safeguards in place, submitted for the record by Ms. 
  Castor.........................................................    51

                                APPENDIX

Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Taryn Fransen.    51
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Tjada D'Oyen 
  McKenna........................................................    61
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Alden Meyer...    66

 
                   INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHALLENGES 
                           AND OPPORTUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
                    Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room 
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor 
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley, 
Casten, Graves, Palmer, Carter, Miller, Crenshaw, and Gonzalez.
    Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    As a reminder, members participating in a hearing remotely 
should be visible on camera throughout the hearing. As with in-
person meetings, members are responsible for controlling their 
own microphones. Members can be muted by staff only to avoid 
inadvertent background noise.
    And I would like to remind members that, per the guidance 
of the Attending Physician, members, staff, and all members 
physically present, including in this hearing room, are 
required to wear masks unless seeking or under recognition by 
the chair.
    In addition, statements, documents, or motions must be 
submitted to the electronic repository, 
[email protected].
    Finally, members and witnesses experiencing technical 
problems should inform committee staff immediately.
    Well, good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining this 
hybrid hearing on the international climate challenges and 
opportunities.
    Today, we will hear about the challenges and opportunities 
for international climate action as we prepare for the COP, the 
Conference of Parties 26, about to commence in Glasgow, 
Scotland.
    And I will now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening 
statement.
    First of all, thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We 
are at a very exciting inflection point for our country and for 
the planet. We now know that we are on the cusp of the most 
historic investment in clean energy and climate action that has 
ever been part of U.S. politics. Our economy is going to move 
forward through creating jobs, providing opportunities, but 
also addressing the very costly impacts of the climate crisis.
    It appears now that we are poised to vote on a Build Back 
Better plan that will help us combat climate change for all 
American families. And just as a summary, President Biden just 
left a meeting

[[Page 2]]

of the Democratic Caucus where he outlined a lot of what is in 
that framework.
    What we know now is that that framework will cut greenhouse 
gas pollution by well over 1 gigaton by 2030, reduce consumer 
energy costs, give our kids cleaner air and water, create 
hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs, and advance 
environmental justice by investing in a 21st century clean 
energy economy. From buildings to transportation, to industry, 
to electricity, and agriculture--agricultural smart practices 
all across this country, it will help restore America's 
leadership role in the world.
    But we have a lot to do heading into Glasgow. Climate 
change is a global crisis. According to a recent study, the 
climate crisis impacts more than 85 percent of the world's 
population. And although every country is impacted differently, 
it is clear we have got to work together to solve it.
    We have to choose a path forward. One path is paved with 
inadequate action, which will lead to continued destruction as 
we kick the can down the road. But we are not going to do that. 
There is a brighter path, and it is paved with generational 
investments in renewable energy, electric vehicles, 
environmental justice, and climate resilience, and it leads us 
to a net-zero-emissions world, one in which future generations 
will thrive.
    We have a moral obligation to our kids and future 
generations to do this now, and the United States has a special 
responsibility to lead the world down this path through our 
example.
    See, and this chart tells a story. The United States has 
emitted more CO2 than any other country in history, 
and we are also going to lead the world in the solutions and 
the answers. The upcoming COP26 will serve as a vital test. 
When global leaders meet in Glasgow next week, almost every 
nation around the world, including big polluters like China, 
will be challenged to increase their climate ambitions.
    President Biden is on his way there, he just told us, to 
help lead the world on those solutions. This year, the 
President has already pledged to slash America's greenhouse gas 
emissions in half by 2030. And as COP26 starts next week, it is 
up to us in Congress to help achieve that goal.
    In this committee, we have focused on the solutions. We 
have talked about the opportunity to create millions of good-
paying jobs, to protect the health of our children, and 
safeguard our economy, and of our imperative to ensure 
environmental justice for communities of color and Tribes.
    And, today, we are going to focus on those international 
benefits that come with solving the climate crisis, because not 
only will reducing pollution make life better for families here 
in America, it will also strengthen our partnerships abroad as 
we work with other nations to do the same.
    But there are major challenges to international 
cooperation. The overarching one is straightforward. How do we 
keep global temperatures from continuing to rise? We can start 
by making those generational investments in clean energy, 
powering our homes with renewables, and expanding our use of 
zero-emissions technologies. But we know we cannot do this 
alone.

[[Page 3]]

    Another challenge is the need to invest in adaptation, 
because, while cutting carbon pollution is critical, we must 
also focus on helping communities adapt to climate impacts that 
are already here. Without expanded adaptation and resilience, 
we will continue to see suffering, not only in America, but 
across the globe, especially in low- and moderate-income 
communities. That is why we must invest in measures that will 
help families prepare today while also reducing the risk of 
broader instability.
    Climate action gives us an opportunity to transform our 
world for the better. The upcoming climate conference reminds 
us all that we are all fighting the same fight. By the power of 
America's example, we will lead the world and rise to this 
challenge. We simply don't have another choice.
    [The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]

                Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor

   Hearing on ``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities''

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                            October 28, 2021

                        As prepared for delivery

    Over the past several decades, climate change has fueled 
increasingly destructive weather events around the globe. Last year, 
Australia faced its costliest disaster in history, as massive fires 
burned across their country. In Germany and Belgium, towns were 
recently hit with two months' worth of rain in only two days, leading 
to deadly floods. In Central America, climate-fueled droughts and 
floods are killing crops, devastating economies, and driving migration. 
And in India and Pakistan, families are suffering through longer and 
hotter heat waves.
    Climate change is a global crisis. According to a recent study, the 
climate crisis impacts more than 85% of the world's population. 
Although each nation is impacted differently, it's clear we must work 
together to solve it. We have to choose a path forward. One path is 
paved with inadequate action, which will lead to continued destruction, 
as we continue to kick the can down the road. But there is a brighter 
path. It is paved with generational investments in renewable energy and 
electric vehicles, in environmental justice and climate resilience. And 
it leads us to a net zero emissions world, one in which future 
generations can thrive.
    The United States has the responsibility to lead the world down 
this path through our example. The upcoming COP26 will serve as a vital 
test. When global leaders meet in Glasgow next week, almost every 
nation around the world--including big polluters like China--will be 
challenged to increase their climate ambitions. President Biden has 
already signaled his willingness to lead in that regard. This year, the 
President pledged to slash America's greenhouse gas emissions in half 
by 2030. And as COP26 starts next week, it's up to us in Congress to 
help achieve that goal.
    In this committee, we've focused on how solving the climate crisis 
will bring incredible benefits in America. We've talked about the 
opportunity to create millions of good-paying jobs; of the need to 
protect the health of our children and safeguard our economy; and of 
our imperative to ensure justice for communities of color and tribes. 
Today, we're going to focus on the international benefits that come 
with solving the climate crisis. Because not only will reducing 
pollution make life better for families here; it will also strengthen 
our partnerships abroad, as we work with other nations to do the same.
    But there are major challenges facing international cooperation on 
dealing with this crisis. The overarching one is straightforward: how 
do we keep global temperature from continuing to rise? We can start by 
making generational investments in clean energy, powering our homes 
with renewables, and expanding our use of zero emissions technologies. 
But we know we cannot do it alone.
    The second big challenge is financial. Historically, some of the 
world's least developed countries have been the most affected by 
climate impacts, including sea level rise, floods, and droughts while 
being the least responsible for climate-fueling pollu

[[Page 4]]

tion. Solving the climate crisis will require us to use international 
climate financing to partner with countries to develop their economies 
in climate-smart ways. In fact, President Biden has already called on 
Congress to double our pledge for international climate financing by 
2024. He understands that, by helping developing countries reduce their 
pollution and build resilience, the United States can help billions 
across the world not only survive, but thrive.
    Finally, another major challenge is the need to invest in 
adaptation. While cutting carbon pollution is critical, we must also 
focus on helping communities adapt to climate impacts that are already 
here. Without expanded adaptation and resilience support, we'll 
continue to see suffering across the globe, especially in low- and 
moderate-income communities. That's why we must invest in measures that 
will help families prepare today, while also reducing the risk of 
broader instability.
    Climate action gives us an opportunity to transform our world for 
the better. The upcoming climate conference reminds us that we're all 
fighting the same fight. By the power of our example, we will lead the 
world and rise to the challenge. We simply have no other choice.

    At this time, I will recognize Ranking Member Graves for a 
5-minute opening statement.
    Mr. Graves. Hey, thanks, Madam Chair. Appreciate the 
hearing today. And I want to thank our witnesses for joining 
us.
    I share the Chair's objective of moving in a direction of 
even lower emissions and clean energy transition. But, 
unfortunately, as I sit here and listen to the opening 
statement, I have got to tell you, I feel that that might be 
about where our views--our common views end, unfortunately.
    Madam Chair, I feel that we have got to be a bit more 
candid about reality. We have got to be a bit more candid about 
what is going on in the world today, what has gone on in the 
world in recent years in regard to strategies that have worked 
and strategies that haven't.
    Madam Chair, we are seeing right now record energy prices, 
escalation in prices in energy that is affecting every single 
American. It is costing people more to fuel their cars. It is 
costing people more to heat and cool their homes. And let's be 
really clear. This is absolutely, positively the result of 
actions and inactions of this administration.
    I can't even begin to explain to people at home, nor should 
I even try to, how in the world it can be that our 
administration, our White House in America, the leaders of this 
country, are out there facilitating projects like the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline; facilitating Russian dirtier energy into the 
European Union; and at the same time, shutting down the exact 
same types of projects in the United States, where this 
administration leading this American country, the leaders of 
our 330-plus million citizens, are out there saying, You can't 
produce domestic energy and conventional fuels, yet going in 
the same breath to Russia, to Saudi Arabia, to Venezuela, to 
Nigeria, to Iran and saying, we would like for you to increase 
the production of the very resources we are preventing from 
being produced in the United States.
    Madam Chair, I want to see our President treat Americans 
the same way that he is generously treating citizens of other 
countries. I don't get it. It doesn't make sense, and American 
citizens are paying the price today.
    And as every hearing as we sit here and listen to folks 
demonize the United States, this is the 26th COP--the 26th COP, 
and you know what? Global emissions are still going up. If 
people in our office failed 26 times, they would be having--
they would have had a pink slip long ago.

[[Page 5]]

    It is not okay for us to be out there in this global stage 
talking about all of these commitments that disproportionately 
penalize the United States economy, that are extraordinary 
deviations from the very strategies that have resulted in the 
United States being the global leader in reducing emissions.
    And sitting there, as we have in testimony today, propping 
up countries like China--and it is fascinating to me seeing 
letters written by environmental communities saying things 
like, ``we are deeply troubled by the growing Cold War 
mentality driving the United States' approach to China--an 
antagonistic posture that risks undermining much-needed climate 
cooperation.''
    Let me ask you how we are supposed to act whenever you have 
a country that lies about what is going on with a global 
pandemic; that in the same breath, they are telling the World 
Health Organization nothing is going on; that they are buying 
billions of pieces of masks and gloves that were manufactured 
in China and previously sold to other countries and buying it 
back into China so their citizens have protection, and so they 
can then price gouge the rest of the world on the same PPE.
    How are we supposed to treat a country that has gone out 
there and stolen, through cyber attacks, intellectual property, 
innovation of Americans?
    How are we supposed to treat a country that has gone out 
there and, in illegal trade practices, dumping products on the 
U.S. economy, killing jobs, affecting millions and millions of 
jobs in the United States? Are we supposed to be nice to these 
folks? The country that is increasing emissions four times for 
every--four tons for every one ton we are reducing in the 
United States?
    Madam Chair, as the United States has led the world in 
reducing emissions, the global community has increased tenfold 
for every ton we have reduced.
    Let me say it again. You can look at the strategies--and 
Europe is a great example for us. California is a great example 
for us. We can either follow strategies that work or we can 
continue to do what you all are trying to do right now, 
manipulating technologies, taking options away from innovators 
and, at the end of the day, resulting in higher emissions, 
resulting in higher prices. It is a flawed approach, and we 
have the evidence to prove it. It is irresponsible for us to 
continue in this direction.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Without objection, members who wish to enter 
opening statements into the record have 5 business days to do 
so.
    Now I would like to welcome our witnesses. We will hear 
from experts on the challenges and opportunities for 
international climate action as world leaders prepare to gather 
in Glasgow for COP26.
    First, Taryn Fransen is a Senior Fellow at the World 
Resources Institute Global Climate Program, where she focuses 
on long-term climate strategies and nationally determined 
contributions, with a view of leveraging these and other policy 
instruments in support of rapid decarbonization.
    In 2018, Taryn served as a Senior Policy Advisor on the 
Global Climate Action Summit for the Office of the Governor of 
California.

[[Page 6]]

And prior to that, she led WRI's Open Climate Network, a 
coalition focusing on countries' commitments under the Paris 
Agreement.
    The chair now recognizes Representative Bonamici to 
introduce Tjada D'Oyen McKenna.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Castor.
    It is my pleasure to introduce Ms. Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, 
Chief Executive Officer of Mercy Corps, which is headquartered 
in Portland, Oregon, just a few blocks from the congressional 
district I represent.
    Ms. McKenna leads a global team of more than 5,400 
humanitarians who provide immediate relief to save lives and 
livelihoods in more than 40 countries, reaching 37 million 
people. Previously, she served as Chief Operating Officer of 
CARE, where she oversaw the organization's programming and 
global operations.
    I want to thank Ms. McKenna for spending time with the 
committee this morning and for providing her organization's 
important perspective. I look forward to hearing more about the 
important work Mercy Corps is doing, in particular, its efforts 
to increase climate and disaster resilience in vulnerable 
communities around the world.
    Thank you, Chair Castor, and I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Next is Charles Hernick. He is the Vice 
President of Policy and Advocacy at Citizens for Responsible 
Energy Solutions Forum, where he leads policy work and executes 
strategies to advance clean energy solutions and innovative 
approaches to reducing carbon emissions.
    Charles has decades of experience working in economic 
development, energy, and natural resource management across the 
United States and on the ground in dozens of countries.
    Next, Alden Meyer is a Senior Associate at E3G, working on 
United States and international climate policy and politics. He 
is a Principal at Performance Partners, which provides a range 
of consulting services to clients in government, business, and 
the nonprofit sector. Alden has more than four decades of 
experience on environmental and energy issues and is an expert 
on the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change, 
the Paris Agreement, and other aspects of international climate 
policy.
    Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will 
be made part of the record.
    With that, Ms. Fransen, you are now recognized to give a 5-
minute presentation of your testimony. Welcome.

  STATEMENTS OF TARYN FRANSEN, SENIOR FELLOW, WORLD RESOURCES 
INSTITUTE; TJADA D'OYEN MCKENNA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MERCY 
CORPS; CHARLES HERNICK, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY AND ADVOCACY, 
  CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS FORUM; AND ALDEN 
               MEYER, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, E3G, INC.

                   STATEMENT OF TARYN FRANSEN

    Ms. Fransen. Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and 
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify. 
My name is Taryn Fransen, and I am a Senior Fellow in the 
Climate Program at the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit, 
nonpartisan

[[Page 7]]

environmental think tank. My work focuses on greenhouse gas 
pathways and targets.
    You asked me to testify regarding how we can get on track 
to limit climate change to less dangerous levels. Before I do 
that, I want you to know where I am coming from.
    On Sunday, I sat in the dark to write this testimony, as an 
atmospheric river knocked out power to my house. Two months 
ago, on the day my nephew was supposed to start kindergarten in 
South Lake Tahoe, he was instead in a car heading north to flee 
the Caldor fire. We watched the fire perimeter hour by hour to 
see whether he would have a home to return to.
    These are climate impacts. They are hurting Americans 
today, and they pale in comparison to what less-fortunate 
communities face. We are out of time for excuses.
    So, there are three points I hope you will take from my 
testimony. First, policies being implemented by countries 
around the world today put us on track for warming of 2.8 
degrees Celsius, or 5 degrees Fahrenheit. That is too high. It 
is dangerous.
    Second, to change that trajectory, we need to cut emissions 
in half by 2030. That means rapidly transforming the systems 
that propel our economy, like power generation, industry, 
transport, and agriculture. We know what changes we need to 
make, and we stand to benefit from those changes.
    Third, this Congress is facing a once-in-a-generation 
opportunity to change the course of history by passing strong 
climate investments as part of the Build Back Better Act and 
the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
    Let's look at where we are headed today. Global greenhouse 
gas emissions grew 1.3 percent per year over the last decade to 
reach a record high in 2019. While the recent downturn shaved a 
few percentage points off 2020 emissions, they are already 
bouncing back, and this year's emissions are expected to match 
prepandemic levels. But to get on the least cost pathway to 
limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to cut emissions 
in half over the next 9 years.
    Under current policies, we are on track to experience 
warming of around 2.8 degrees Celsius, or 5 degrees Fahrenheit. 
If we factor in the additional targets that countries are 
setting for 2030 under the Paris Agreement, which aren't yet 
backed up by policies, we will do a little better.
    And if countries like the U.S. and China that have set net-
zero-emissions targets manage to meet them, we will be on track 
for 2 degrees Celsius, or 4 degrees Fahrenheit. But even that 
is too much.
    Temperatures to date have risen less than half that amount, 
and scientists say that warming was responsible for the 
devastating heat wave that killed hundreds in the Pacific 
Northwest this summer. It also increased the likelihood of 
storms like Hurricane Ida by two to three times, taking lives 
and causing billions in damage.
    We know what we need to do to get on a different path. A 
report launched today by WRI and its partners identifies 40 key 
benchmarks that we need to meet over the next decade in order 
to avoid the worst climate impacts. To name just a few, by 
2030, we need to increase the share of electric vehicles in 
light-duty vehicle sales

[[Page 8]]

to between 75 and 95 percent, phase out public financing for 
fossil fuels, and increase crop yields by 18 percent.
    We are not starting from a standstill. We are moving in the 
right direction, but too slowly, and we need to accelerate 
dramatically. As the world's largest economy, the United States 
has the ability to do just that. And because we have emitted 
more carbon than any other country, we have the obligation to 
do so.
    We took a strong step by committing to cut emissions in 
half by 2030. This target is ambitious and achievable, but it 
will not implement itself. Congress should do three things to 
help.
    First, Congress should pass ambitious legislation to cut 
emissions in line with our commitment.
    Second, Congress should position the U.S. to help drive 
emission reductions globally. One important avenue is to ramp 
up bipartisan support for international funding for clean 
energy, forest protection, and resilience.
    Finally, further innovation can broaden our options for 
driving net emissions down to zero. Therefore, Congress should 
ramp up RD&D funding for clean technologies. We can't pick and 
choose among these steps. We need to do them all, and, 
fortunately, they will benefit Americans.
    Reducing emissions means advancing clean, efficient energy 
and ecosystem restoration, which create more U.S. jobs per 
dollar invested than the fossil fuel sector. Supporting climate 
finance abroad improves our national security and helps U.S. 
business benefit from the $23 trillion low-carbon investment 
opportunity in emerging markets.
    We have a long way to go to address this crisis. A wide 
range of policies can help us get there, but we need ambitious 
legislation, and we don't have time to waste.
    Ultimately, Congress will be judged not on the specific 
measures it deploys, but on the extent to which it acts quickly 
to place the country on a just and equitable path to meet its 
climate targets.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Fransen follows:]

                       Testimony of Taryn Fransen

    Senior Fellow, Global Climate Program, World Resources Institute

  U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

     Hearing on International Climate Challenges and Opportunities

                            October 28, 2021

Introduction
    My name is Taryn Fransen and I am a Senior Fellow in the Global 
Climate Program at the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI is a non-
profit, non-partisan environmental think tank that goes beyond research 
to provide practical solutions to the world's most urgent environment 
and development challenges. My work at WRI focuses on national and 
global greenhouse gas emissions pathways and policies; greenhouse gas 
accounting, monitoring, reporting, and verification; climate change 
policy in major economies; and the international climate change 
negotiations. I have been a lead author of the UNEP Emissions Gap 
Report since its third edition in 2012.
    I have been invited to testify today on the state of global climate 
action: Where greenhouse gas emissions are today, where they are headed 
under our current policies and pledges under the Paris Agreement, and 
what more is needed to ensure we deliver on our pledges and keep 
ramping up action to limit warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F).

[[Page 9]]

    I will focus my testimony on three main points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-----------------
Summary
 
(1)               The domestic policies that countries around the world
                   have adopted to date put the planet on track to warm
                   by 2.8C (5.0F). The latest international commitments
                   for 2030 under the Paris Agreement go a bit further,
                   limiting warming to 2.7C (4.9F). And if countries
                   achieve their pledges to drive net emissions to zero
                   by mid-century, warming could be limited to 2.2C
                   (4.0F).\1\
(2)               These figures are a remarkable improvement from where
                   we were before the Paris Agreement, when warming was
                   estimated in the range of 4C (7.2F),\2\ but even a
                   2.2C (4.0F) future represents a grave threat to
                   Americans' health and economic well-being. Changing
                   that future requires us to rapidly transform the
                   systems that propel our global economy, including
                   power generation, buildings, industry, transport,
                   land-use, and agriculture.
(3)               Congress is currently facing a unique, once-in-a-
                   generation opportunity to pass strong climate policy
                   and investments as part of the Build Back Better Act
                   and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
                   Act, positioning the United States to deliver on its
                   commitments under the Paris Agreement. Congress must
                   seize this moment and do its part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are global greenhouse gas emissions today, and where are they 
        headed under current policies?
    Global greenhouse gas emissions grew on average 1.3 per cent per 
year over the last decade to reach a record high of 58.1 
GtCO2e in 2019.\3\ While the COVID-19 pandemic led to an 
unprecedented drop in emissions during 2020, in the range of 5.8 to 6.3 
percent, this decline stemmed from a temporary economic slow-down, and 
emissions are on the rise again. This year (2021), emissions are 
expected to roughly match pre-pandemic levels.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021''
    \2\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2014''
    \3\ 2019 emissions were 58.1 GtCO2e including land use, 
land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) and 51.5 GtCO2e 
excluding LULUCF.
    \4\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Countries are increasingly putting in place policies to change this 
trend. At last count, 3 out of 4 countries had framework climate 
legislation in place, and the number of climate policies in action 
throughout the world had risen to around 1,800.\5\ The expansion of 
climate policies over the past decade has reduced projected 2030 
emissions by about 14 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Eskander and Fankhauser, ``Reduction in greenhouse gas 
emissions from national climate legislation''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current policies are likely to limit warming to 2.8+C (5.0+F). 
While this is a remarkable improvement relative to the 4+C (7.2+F) 
estimated prior to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the 
consequences for Americans will still be serious. To date, average 
annual temperatures have risen by just 1+C (1.8+F) across the 
contiguous United States, and already, the average heat wave season in 
many cities is now 40 days longer than it was 50 years ago, heavy 
precipitation events have become more frequent and intense across most 
of the country, and drier conditions have combined with warming to 
contribute to an increase in large forest fires in the West and 
Alaska.\6\ These and other impacts will become more severe with every 
additional fraction of a degree of warming, potentially to the tune of 
3.6-4.2 percent of GDP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Reidmiller et al, ``Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the 
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment''
    \7\ Hsiang et al, ``Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change 
in the United States''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much progress are we making under the Paris Agreement?
    Under the Paris Agreement, countries must commit to deeper 
emissions reductions at least every five years. The second round of 
pledges--following the first round that took place when the Agreement 
was adopted in 2015--is now ongoing in the lead-up to COP26 in Glasgow. 
So far, 145 countries have submitted new or updated emissions-reduction 
pledges for 2030.\8\ These pledges, together with further reductions 
that countries have announced informally, would reduce emissions by 
around 4 gigatons CO2-equivalent relative to the first 
round,\9\ more than the total

[[Page 10]]

annual emissions of India.\10\ That more than doubles the impact of 
2030 pledges compared to the first round, and would limit warming to 
2.7+C (4.9+F). However, we still need to reduce 2030 emissions by 7 
times more in order to match the least-cost pathway to 1.5+C (2.2+F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Climate Watch, ``2020 NDC Enhancements Tracker'' (as of October 
25, 2021)
    \9\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021''
    \10\ Climate Watch, ``Historical GHG Emissions''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to these 2030 pledges, countries are also increasingly 
recognizing the need to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century--that 
is, to reduce emissions as far as possible, and then ensure that any 
remaining emissions are counter-balanced by carbon removals, for 
example, via forests or technological carbon dioxide removal. It is 
critical to understand that if we do not reach net-zero emissions, 
warming will not stop--at any level. Sixty-five countries to date, 
including both the United States and China, have made net-zero 
pledges.\11\ Germany and Sweden aim to reach net-zero by 2045, Iceland 
by 2040, and Finland by 2035--5, 10, and 15 years earlier than the 
United States, respectively. If these pledges are delivered, we could 
limit warming to around 2.2+C (4.0+F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Climate Watch, ``Net-Zero Tracker'' (as of October 25, 2021)

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
How much more do global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced to 
        avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change?
    Projected emissions in 2030 under current pledges are one-third 
higher than the median in scenarios consistent with limiting warming to 
2+C (3.6+F), and more than double the median in scenarios consistent 
with limiting warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F) (Table 1). To match the least-
cost pathway consistent with limiting warming to 2+C (3.6+F), we would 
need to reduce emissions by 4.7 percent per year from 2019 to 2030, and 
to 1.5+C (2.7+F), 12.4 percent per year. If we had begun reducing 
emissions a decade ago, we could have pursued this transition somewhat 
more gradually, but now we have given ourselves no choice other than 
fast, steep reductions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ If global emissions had begun to fall a decade ago, they would 
need to fall 1.7 per cent per year to limit warming to 2+ C (3.6+F) and 
3.3 per cent per year to limit warming to 1.5+ C (2.7+F).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11]]

    Table 1 | Projected Emissions and Size of Emissions Gap in 
2030 (GtCO2e, median, 10th percentile and 90th percentile)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ The Gap Report estimates global emissions under unconditional 
NDCs, which are the commitments countries pledge to achieve 
unilaterally, and under conditional NDCs, which are typically more 
ambitious pledges contingent on certain conditions, such as 
international financial support.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          2030 Emissions Gap
           Scenario               2030 Emissions    ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Gap to below 2C (3.6F)        Gap to below 1.5C (2.7F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current policy                 55 (52-58)            15 (12-18)                    30 (28-33)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UnconditionalNDCs\13\          52 (49-55)            13 (10-16)                    28 (25-30)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditional NDCs               50 (46-52)            11 (7-13)                     25 (22-28)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Below 2C (3.6F)                  39 (33-49)
---------------------------------------------------------
Below 1.5C (2.7F)                25 (17-33)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021.''

What specific changes are needed to limit warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F)?
    The latest climate science makes clear that decision-makers must 
accelerate transformations toward a net-zero carbon emissions future at 
a far faster pace than recent trends to keep the window open to achieve 
the 1.5+C (2.7+F) goal.\14\ These rapid, far-reaching transformations 
must occur across every sector--shifting how we power our homes and 
businesses, transport people and goods, grow our food, construct 
buildings, protect our forests and much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Boehm et al, ``State of Climate Action 2021: Systems 
Transformations Required to Limit Global Warming to 1.5+C''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a report launched earlier this morning, my colleagues translate 
these transformations required to avoid the worst climate impacts into 
40 key indicators, or benchmarks for 2030 and 2050. The report assesses 
recent global progress towards these benchmarks and identifies how much 
work remains to be done to deliver a zero-carbon world in time.
    Important progress toward meeting some of these benchmarks, 
particularly in the transport sector, is already well underway here in 
the United States, as well as in key U.S. allies and competitors. For 
example, McKinsey estimates that if U.S. electric vehicle (EV) adoption 
continues to accelerate, EVs will make up half of U.S. passenger car 
sales by 2030.\15\ Incentives and significant investment in EV 
infrastructure under consideration by Congress could further that 
acceleration. And the United States is not alone. Having announced its 
intent to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles,\16\ China is 
aiming for 20 percent of sales to be EVs by 2025, equivalent to 7 
million vehicles.\17\ The city of Shenzhen (population 12.5 million) 
has already switched to 100 percent electric buses \18\ and is in the 
process of electrifying its taxi fleet. While we are not yet on track 
to achieve the benchmark of 75 to 95 percent of sales by 2030, this 
does represent meaningful progress by two of the world's largest 
economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Fischer et al, ``A Turning Point for US Auto Dealers: The 
Unstoppable Electric Car''
    \16\ McDonald, ``China to Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars, State Media 
Reports''
    \17\ Reuters Staff, ``China Targets 35 Million Vehicle Sales by 
2025, NEVs to Make up One-Fifth''
    \18\ Lu, Xue, and Zhou, ``How Did Shenzhen, China Build World's 
Largest Electric Bus Fleet?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the power front, we know that we must increase the share of 
renewables in electricity generation to 55 to 90 percent by 2030 and 98 
to 100 percent by 2050 to keep 1.5+C in sight. Here too, there has been 
progress both at home and abroad: The United States has committed to 
reaching 100 percent clean electricity by 
2035, installing 35 gigawatts of new renewable generating capacity in 
2020 alone by the end of January 2021, the United States had 169 
gigawatts of wind and solar capacity.\19\ China, meanwhile, committed 
$818 billion to renewable energy capacity from 2010-2019--more than 
double the U.S. sum of $392 billion.\20\ India is also pursuing an 
ambitious clean energy future, aiming to quintuple its renewable 
capacity

[[Page 12]]

to 450 gigawatts by 2030,\21\ even as it endeavors to bring reliable 
electricity to 30 million people who do not yet have it.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ McLaughlin and Bird, ``The U.S. Set a Record for Renewables in 
2020, but More Is Needed''
    \20\ Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre and BNEF, ``Global Trends in 
Renewable Energy Investment 2020.''
    \21\ ``PM's Remarks at Climate Action Summit 2019 during 74th 
Session of UNGA,'' Narendra Modi
    \22\ IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, and WHO, ``Tracking SDG 7: The Energy 
Progress Report 2021.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    But it is not enough only to invest more in clean technology--we 
must also eliminate emissions from dirty technologies and put a stop to 
the activities that cause climate change. For instance, to meet 2030 
objectives, the world must phase out unabated coal electricity 
generation five times faster than current trends. Eliminating subsidies 
to fossil fuels would be a good place to start--the United States has 
committed nearly three times as much support to fossil fuels as to 
clean energy since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.\23\ Likewise, we 
must also cut the rate of deforestation by 70 percent (relative to 
2018), requiring a total U-turn in our current practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Energy Policy Tracker, ``United States''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ultimately, none of the 40 key indicators assessed in the new 
report are yet on track to reach their benchmarks (Figure 2). But as we 
look to change this picture, we are not starting from a standstill--25 
of the 40 indicators are already moving in the right direction, albeit 
too slowly. The right policies and investments in the United States can 
do a lot to accelerate progress.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    The good news is that we have a clear understanding of the puzzle 
pieces that must be put together to catalyze and sustain the 
transformational change that is required. Indeed, for each of the 40 
indicators assessed, the report also outlines the required shifts in 
supportive policies, innovations, strong institutions, leadership, and 
social norms that are needed to unlock further progress. To build and 
nurture these enabling environments, governments must work proactively 
alongside the private sector, civil society, and citizens to ensure 
that the necessary levers and drivers are in place.
    We also know definitively that the economic and social co-benefits 
that will accompany these transformations are enormous. Indeed, 
transitioning to the economy that we know we need to close the 
emissions gap will greatly improve human health, create more jobs, 
boost growth and competitiveness, preserve biodiversity, and more.
The imperative of U.S. leadership
    As the world's largest economy, responsible for more cumulative 
carbon emissions than any other country,\24\ the United States has both 
the obligation and the ability not only to decarbonize its own economy, 
but also to influence other countries to do the same. The Biden 
Administration took a strong first step by committing the

[[Page 13]]

United States to reduce emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels 
by 2030. This target is both ambitious and achievable, but it will not 
implement itself. There are three things that Congress can do to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Warming is a function of cumulative carbon emissions. Since 
1850, the United States has produced far more cumulative emissions than 
any other Party to the Paris Agreement--55 percent more than the 
European Union, and nearly twice as much as China (ClimateWatch 2021). 
This means that the United States bears proportionately more 
responsibility for warming to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    First, Congress should pass ambitious legislation to cut greenhouse 
gas emissions and deliver on our pledge to halve emissions by 2030. The 
good news is that recent analysis by the University of Maryland, RMI, 
and WRI for America Is All In shows that an ``all-in'' policy package 
that leverages state and local leadership combined with ambitious 
federal action can cut U.S. emissions by 52 percent by 2030.\25\ 
Achieving these reductions would entail decarbonizing the electricity 
sector; electrifying and improving the efficiency of buildings, 
transport, and industry; and enhancing the carbon storage potential of 
forests, farms, and coastal wetlands. A similar analysis by the Rhodium 
Group found that an extensive, but non-exhaustive, set of policies 
could cut emissions by 45 to 51 percent.\26\ Key components of an 
ambitious climate package--like long-term and enhanced clean energy tax 
credits and investments in transportation electrification, natural 
climate solutions, the equitable deployment of low- and zero-emission 
technologies, the electric grid, efficient and climate smart buildings, 
and more--are included in legislation Congress is considering right 
now, with relevant provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act and the Build Back Better Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Kennedy et al, ``Blueprint 2030: An All-In Climate Strategy 
for Faster, More Durable Emissions Reduction''
    \26\ Larsen et al, ``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 
2030 US Climate Target''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, Congress should position the United States to engage 
effectively in international climate diplomacy and play a strong role 
in driving the Paris Agreement forward. One important avenue is for 
Congress to build on its successful bipartisan efforts to maintain 
international funding for clean energy, forest protection, and 
resilience.\27\ Funding like this supports national security \28\ and 
can help U.S. businesses \29\ to benefit from an estimated $23 trillion 
in low-carbon investment opportunities in emerging markets,\30\ in 
addition to ensuring that the United States fulfills longstanding 
international commitments. The Biden Administration has committed to 
provide $11.4 billion a year by 2024 in public finance to developing 
countries to support climate action,\31\ and Congress should 
appropriate funding to help deliver on that commitment and ideally go 
beyond it. Even with the new pledge, the United States still lags its 
peers: European Union countries are already delivering more than double 
the amount of international climate finance as the United States has 
pledged to provide by 2024, even with a combined economy three-quarters 
the size.\32\ Such funding is a strategic investment that pays 
dividends by reducing the severity and costs of climate impacts at home 
and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Thwaites, ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden 
Administration''
    \28\ Thwaites, ``US Climate Finance: A Great Deal for the Nation 
and the World''
    \29\ U.S. business can benefit from, and contribute to, climate 
action, but their political actions and the actions of their trade 
associations does not always reflect this reality. Meyer and Menninger, 
``6 Ways to Prevent Greenwashing and Risks from Trade Associations''
    \30\ IFC, ``Climate Investment Opportunities in Emerging Markets: 
An IFC Analysis.''
    \31\ Mountford, ``STATEMENT: US Announces New Finance Pledge for 
Developing Country Climate Action''
    \32\ €21.9 billion ($25.4 billion) in 2019. Council of the EU 
and European Council, ``Climate Finance: EU and Member States' 
Contributions Continued to Increase in 2019''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, while ambitious near-term actions are possible with 
existing technologies, further innovation in clean technology can 
broaden our options for ultimately driving net global emissions down to 
zero, which we must achieve around mid-century to limit warming to 
1.5+C (2.7+F). Innovation can also reduce costs and improve the 
competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Therefore, Congress should ramp up 
research and development funding across the power, transport, 
buildings, industry, and land sectors, as well as technology-based 
carbon removal.\33\ Investments in these priorities are also a part of 
the Infrastructure and Build Back Better legislation currently moving 
through Congress, which include important provisions on direct air 
capture, industrial decarbonization, clean hydrogen, addressing 
aviation emissions, and research and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Mulligan, Amador, and Deich, ``Wanted: $325 Million for 
Federal R&D to Jumpstart Carbon Removal''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. economy will benefit from bold climate action. Many 
studies have found that strong U.S. climate action is consistent with 
long-term economic growth and a healthy job market.\34\ Forty-one U.S. 
States grew their economies while reducing energy-related 
CO2 emissions from 2005-2017. This includes states in all 
parts of the country, including Maryland and Maine in the Northeast, 
Alabama and Georgia in the South, Indiana and Ohio in the Midwest, and 
Alaska and Nevada in the

[[Page 14]]

West.\35\ In 2020, renewable electricity employed 517,000 Americans and 
an additional 2.1 million Americans worked in energy efficiency 
jobs.\36\ Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and ecosystem 
restoration create multiple times as many jobs as the fossil fuel 
sector per each $1 million invested in the United States.\37\ Other 
low-carbon sectors are job creators, too. For example, investments in 
public transit, walking, and cycling create more jobs than investments 
in highways. New renewable energy power is increasingly cheaper than 
existing fossil fuels. Eighty-six percent of U.S. coal-fired power 
plants in 2021 are more expensive to keep operating than it would be to 
build new renewables,\38\ and even nearly a third of U.S. gas-fired 
power plants units are lossmaking.\39\ High fuel prices mean even more 
may become uneconomical. Further, through intentional policy design and 
targeted investments, benefits of climate action can contribute to an 
equitable clean energy transition that builds prosperity across 
society, by guiding funding to communities that are historically and 
currently marginalized, discriminated against, or disadvantaged. This 
is already a priority being implemented by President Biden's 
administration through the Justice40 Initiative and their commitment to 
40 percent of the overall benefits from federal climate investments 
flowing to disadvantaged communities.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Saha and Jaeger, ``America's New Climate Economy: A 
Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the 
United States''
    \35\ Saha and Jaeger, ``Ranking 41 US States Decoupling Emissions 
and GDP Growth''
    \36\ DOE, NASEO, EFI, and BW, ``United States Energy & Employment 
Report 2021''
    \37\ Jaeger et al, ``The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-Friendly 
Investments Are Better Job Creators''
    \38\ Ray et al, ``Do Not Revive Coal: Planned Asia Coal Plants a 
Danger to Paris''
    \39\ Sims et al, ``Put Gas on Standby.''
    \40\ The White House, ``Executive Order on Tackling the Climate 
Crisis at Home and Abroad''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
    Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to start delivering 
on these needs now, by realizing the Biden Administration's Build Back 
Better Agenda and passing into law both the climate-smart spending in 
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the essential climate 
investments under consideration in the Build Back Better Act. Further, 
establishing a well-designed carbon price could drive additional, long-
term emissions reductions economy-wide and demonstrate the U.S. 
commitment to climate action. A range of policies, as well as 
legislative and administrative levers, can drive both domestic 
emissions reductions and international ambition. Ultimately, the 
legislation will be assessed not based on the specific policy 
instruments it deploys, but on the extent to which it places the 
country firmly on a just and equitable track to meet its climate 
targets.
Sources
    Boehm, S., K. Lebling, K. Levin, H. Fekete, J. Jaeger, R. Waite, A. 
Nilsson, J. Thwaites, R. Wilson, A. Geiges, C. Schumer, M. Dennis, K. 
Ross, S. Castellanos, R. Shrestha, N. Singh, M. Weiss, L. Lazer, L. 
Jeffery, L. Freehafer, E. Gray, L. Zhou, M. Gidden, and M. Gavin. 
``State of Climate Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to 
Limit Global Warming to 1.5+C.'' Washington, DC: World Resources 
Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-
2021.
    Climate Watch. ``2020 NDC Enhancements Tracker.'' World Resources 
Institute. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/
2020-ndc-tracker.
    Climate Watch. ``Historical GHG Emissions.'' World Resources 
Institute. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/
ghg-emissions.
    Climate Watch. ``Net-Zero Tracker.'' World Resources Institute. 
Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/net-zero-
tracker.
    Council of the EU and European Council. ``Climate Finance: EU and 
Member States' Contributions Continued to Increase in 2019.'' 2020. 
Council of the EU and European Council.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/10/29/
climate-finance-eu-and-member-states-contributions-continued-to-
increase-in-2019/.
    DOE, NASEO, EFI, and BW (U.S. Department of Energy, National 
Association of State Energy Officials, Energy Futures Initiative, and 
BW Research Partnership, Inc). ``United States Energy & Employment 
Report 2021.'' U.S. Department of Energy, 2021. https://www.energy.gov/
us-energy-employment-jobs-report-useer.
    Energy Policy Tracker. ``United States.'' International Institute 
for Sustainable Development. Accessed October 25, 2021.
https://www.energypolicytracker.org/country/united-states/.
    Eskander, Shaikh M. S. U., and Sam Fankhauser. ``Reduction in 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from National Climate Legislation.'' Nature 
Climate Change 10, no. 8 (August 2020): 750-56. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41558-020-0831-z.

[[Page 15]]

    Fischer, Maximilian, Nicolaas Kramer, Inga Maurer, and Rachel 
Mickelson. ``A Turning Point for US Auto Dealers: The Unstoppable 
Electric Car.'' McKinsey & Company, 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/
industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/a-turning-point-for-us-
auto-dealers-the-unstoppable-electric-car.
    Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre and BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy 
Finance). ``Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2020.'' 
Frankfurt: Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre, 2020.
https://www.fs-unep-centre.org/global-trends-in-renewable-energy-
investment-2020/.
    Hsiang, Solomon, Robert Kopp, Amir Jina, James Rising, Michael 
Delgado, Shashank Mohan, D. J. Rasmussen, et al. ``Estimating Economic 
Damage from Climate Change in the United States.'' Science 356, no. 
6345 (June 30, 2017): 1362-69. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4369.
    IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, and WHO (International Energy Agency, 
International Renewable Energy Agency, United Nations Statistics 
Division, World Bank, World Health Organization). ``Tracking SDG 7: The 
Energy Progress Report 2021.'' Washington, DC: World Bank, 2021.
https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Tracking-SDG-7-2021.
    IFC (International Finance Corporation). ``Climate Investment 
Opportunities in Emerging Markets: An IFC Analysis.'' Washington, DC: 
International Finance Corporation, 2016. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/
connect/59260145-ec2e-40de-97e6-3aa78b82b3c9/3503-IFC-
Climate_Investment_Opportunity-Report-Dec-
FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lBLd6Xq.
    Jaeger, Joel, Ginette Walls, Ella Clarke, Juan-Carlos Altamirano, 
Arya Harsono, Helen Mountford, Sharan Burrow, Samantha Smith, and 
Alison Tate. ``The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-Friendly 
Investments Are Better Job Creators.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. 
https://www.wri.org/research/green-jobs-advantage-how-climate-friendly-
investments-are-better-job-creators.
    Kennedy, K., W. Jaglom, N. Hultman, E. Bridgwater, R. Mendell, H. 
Leslie-Bole, L. Rowland, E. McGlynn, T. Massey-Green, T. Cyrs, L. 
Clarke, H. McJeon, A. Zhao, J. O'Neill, R. Gasper, J. Feldmann, K. 
O'Keefe, S. Kennedy, J. Zhao, and H. Kazanecki. ``Blueprint 2030: An 
All-In Climate Strategy for Faster, More Durable Emissions 
Reductions.'' America Is All In, 2021.
https://www.americaisallin.com/blueprint-2030.
    Larsen, John, Ben King, Emily Wimberger, Hannah Pitt, Hannah Kolus, 
Alfredo Rivera, Naveen Dasari, Claire Jahns, Kate Larsen, and Whitney 
Herndon. ``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 US 
Climate Target.'' Rhodium Group, 2021. https://rhg.com/research/us-
climate-policy-2030/.
    Lu, Lu, Lulu Xue, and Weimin Zhou. ``How Did Shenzhen, China Build 
World's Largest Electric Bus Fleet?'' World Resources Institute, 2018.
https://www.wri.org/insights/how-did-shenzhen-china-build-worlds-
largest-electric-bus-fleet.
    McDonald, J. ``China to Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars, State Media 
Reports.'' The Independent, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
world/asia/china-petrol-diesel-car-ban-gasoline-production-sales-
electric-cabinet-official-state-media-a7938726.html.
    McLaughlin, Katrina, and Lori Bird. ``The US Set a Record for 
Renewables in 2020, but More Is Needed,'' World Resources Institute, 
2021.
https://www.wri.org/insights/renewable-energy-2020-record-us.
    Meyer, Amy, and Leo Menninger. ``6 Ways 
to Prevent Greenwashing and Risks from Trade Associations.'' World 
Resources Institute, 2021. https://
www.wri.org/insights/how-businesses-mitigate-risk-greenwashing-trade-
associations-us.
    Mountford, Helen. ``STATEMENT: US Announces New Finance Pledge for 
Developing Country Climate Action.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. 
https://www.wri.org/news/statement-us-announces-new-finance-pledge-
developing-country-climate-action.
    Mulligan, James, Giana Amador, and Noah Deich. 2018. ``Wanted: $325 
Million for Federal R&D to Jumpstart Carbon Removal.'' World Resources 
Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/wanted-325-million-federal-rd-
jumpstart-carbon-removal.
    ``PM's Remarks at Climate Action Summit 2019 during 74th Session of 
UNGA.'' Narendra Modi, 2019. https://www.narendramodi.in/pm-modi-s-
remarks-at-summit-on-climate-change-546575.
    Ray, Lee, Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, Durand D'souza, 
Valeria Ehrenheim, Lily Chau, Nicolas Gonzalez, Lorenzo Sani, and 
Aurore Le Galiot. ``Do Not Revive Coal: Planned Asia Coal Plants a 
Danger to Paris.'' Carbon Tracker, 2021. https://carbontracker.org/
reports/do-not-revive-coal/.
    Reidmiller, David R., Christopher W. Avery, David R. Easterling, 
Kenneth E. Kunkel, Kristin L.M. Lewis, Thomas K. Maycock, and Brooke C. 
Stewart. ``Impacts,

[[Page 16]]

Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: The Fourth National Climate 
Assessment, Volume II.'' U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.
    Reuters Staff. ``China Targets 35 Million Vehicle Sales by 2025, 
NEVs to Make up One-Fifth.'' Reuters, 2017.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-electric-idUSKBN17R086.
    Saha, Devashree, and Joel Jaeger. ``America's New Climate Economy: 
A Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the 
United States.'' World Resource Institute, 2020. https://www.wri.org/
research/americas-new-climate-economy-comprehensive-guide-economic-
benefits-climate-policy-united.
    Saha, Devashree, and Joel Jaeger. ``Ranking 41 US States Decoupling 
Emissions and GDP Growth,'' World Resources Institute, 2020.
https://www.wri.org/insights/ranking-41-us-states-decoupling-emissions-
and-gdp-growth.
    Sims, Jonathan, Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, Durand 
D'souza, Lily Chau, Nicolas Gonzalez-Jimenez, and Lorenzo Sani. ``Put 
Gas on Standby.'' Carbon Tracker, 2021. https://carbontracker.org/
reports/put-gas-on-standby/.
    Thwaites, Joe. ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden 
Administration.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/
insights/4-climate-finance-priorities-biden-administration.
    Thwaites, Joe. ``US Climate Finance: A Great Deal for the Nation 
and the World.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/
insights/us-climate-finance-great-deal-nation-and-world.
    UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). ``Emissions Gap Report 
2014.'' Nairobi: UNEP, 2014. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-
gap-report-2014.
    UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). ``Emissions Gap Report 
2021.'' Nairobi: UNEP, 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-
gap-report-2021.
    The White House. ``Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis 
at Home and Abroad.'' The White House, 2021.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/
27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/.

    Ms. Castor. Thank you, Ms. Fransen.
    Ms. McKenna, you are recognized for 5 minutes to provide 
your testimony.

               STATEMENT OF TJADA D'OYEN MCKENNA

    Ms. McKenna. Thank you.
    Good morning, and thank you, committee Chair Castor, 
Ranking Member Graves, and members of the House Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis.
    My name is Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, and I am the Chief 
Executive Officer of Mercy Corps, an international humanitarian 
and development organization.
    As was mentioned earlier, our global team of 5,400 
humanitarians operates in 40 countries where our work supports 
more than 37 million people, including to adapt to a change in 
climate.
    One of our flagship programs is providing services and 
products by mobile phone to 3 million farmers across seven 
countries to help them improve climate-informed agriculture 
practices, from planting drought-resistant seeds to accessing 
innovative financial services.
    While climate change affects every country on every 
continent, its effects are not shared equally. People already 
burdened by poverty, violence, and hunger suffer the harshest 
consequences while having the least ability to cope.
    Climate change is one of the main drivers of the global 
hunger crisis. Global hunger has been dramatically rising over 
the past 5 years and today, roughly 155 million people are 
experiencing acute food insecurity.
    Extreme weather events are reducing harvests, raising food 
prices, driving migration, and generating new conflicts, 
contrib

[[Page 17]]

uting to the reversal of years of gains in income growth and 
food security.
    We have effective tools for solving hunger, but we now need 
to build climate change adaptation into that equation. For 
example, in Guatemala, where rising temperatures have 
contributed to long periods of drought, crop loss, and low food 
production, Mercy Corps has partnered with Colorado State 
University to leverage its predictive weather modeling 
expertise to help farmers make more informed decisions about 
planting, harvesting, and storing.
    And in Nepal, where changing weather has led to severe crop 
losses, we have helped farmers increase their yields by 61 
percent through new climate-smart agriculture practices.
    Climate change is a threat multiplier, sparking violence 
and conflict. Our teams see firsthand how interconnected 
conflict and climate change are. For instance, in the eastern 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, while climate change affects 
every country on every continent, its affects are not shared 
equally.
    In the Democratic Republic of Congo, our FARM Program 
provided community members with negotiations and dispute 
resolution training, empowering them to work with local 
authorities to establish a new land access and leasing program 
for thousands of small-scale farmers.
    Unfortunately, the communities that need the most help are 
being left behind as the most fragile countries are passed over 
for safer options. Only 25 percent of bilateral climate 
financing and less than 50 percent of major multilateral 
funding targets countries most vulnerable to climate change. 
And, in 2019, less than 1 percent of climate adaptation funding 
went to the 10 most fragile states.
    It is possible to reverse the trend. Mercy Corps has helped 
millions of people worldwide adapt to a changing climate, 
sowing drought-resistant crops in Ethiopia, using state-of-the-
art technology to cope with flooding in Nepal, and distributing 
drought-resistant seeds to boost harvests in Haiti. But we need 
the help of donors, including the U.S. Government.
    First, it is vital to recognize that communities urgently 
need help to adapt to the changing climate. It is too late to 
focus solely on reducing emissions. The U.S. Government can 
demonstrate leadership by increasing resources dedicated to its 
climate adaptation accounts, particularly for the U.S. Agency 
for International Development.
    I was pleased to see the increase for climate adaptation 
funding in the pending Fiscal Year 2022 State and Foreign Ops 
appropriation bills, and I hope the House of Representatives 
will match the Senate's more generous proposal. I also urge the 
United States to galvanize private sector investment and 
sustainable climate finance.
    Second, the U.S. Government must ensure that its assistance 
is going to the most climate-vulnerable places, and 
particularly to those that are conflict affected. Adaptation 
efforts should be locally led, include a strong investment in 
digital infrastructure, and have a special focus on small 
holder farmers, especially women and young people.

[[Page 18]]

    Lastly, U.S. climate adaptation assistance should build on 
and reinforce our other development assistance to prevent 
conflict, hunger, and poverty.
    I thank this Select Committee for its commitment to helping 
vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, and I look 
forward to questions later.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. McKenna follows:]

               Written Testimony of Tjada D'Oyen McKenna,

                  Chief Executive Officer, Mercy Corps

              House Select Committee On The Climate Crisis

     Hearing on International Climate Challenges and Opportunities

                Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:30 AM EST

                           Written Testimony

    Good morning, and thank you Committee Chair Castor, Ranking Member 
Graves, and members of the House Select Committee on the Climate 
Crisis.
    My name is Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, and I am the Chief Executive 
Officer of Mercy Corps, an international humanitarian and development 
organization. Our global team of 5,600 humanitarians operates in 40 
countries, where our work supports more than 37 million people, 
including to adapt to a changing climate. One of our flagship programs 
is providing services and products by mobile phone to 3 million farmers 
across seven countries to help them improve climate-informed 
agriculture practices--from planting drought resistant seeds to 
accessing innovative financial services.
    While climate change affects every country on every continent, its 
effects are not shared equally. People already burdened by poverty, 
violence, and hunger suffer the harshest consequences, while having the 
least ability to cope.
    Climate change is one of the main drivers of the global hunger 
crisis. Global hunger has been dramatically rising over the past 5 
years, and today roughly 155 million people are experiencing acute food 
insecurity. Extreme weather events are reducing harvests, raising food 
prices, driving migration, and generating new conflicts, contributing 
to the reversal of years of gains in income growth and food security.
    We have effective tools for solving hunger, but we now need to 
build climate change adaptation into the equation. For example, in 
Guatemala, where rising temperatures have contributed to long periods 
of drought, crop loss, and low food production, Mercy Corps has 
partnered with Colorado State University to leverage its predictive 
weather modeling expertise to help farmers make more informed decisions 
about planting, harvesting, and storing. And in Nepal, where changing 
weather has led to severe crop losses, we have helped farmers increase 
their yields by 61% through new climate smart agriculture practices.
    Climate change is a threat multiplier, sparking violence and 
conflict. Our teams see firsthand how interconnected conflict and 
climate change are. For instance, in eastern Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, where tensions were exacerbated by land disputes and natural 
resource scarcity, our FARM program provided community members with 
negotiation and dispute resolution training, empowering them to work 
with local authorities to establish a new land access and leasing 
program for thousands of small-scale farmers.
    Unfortunately, the communities that need help the most are being 
left behind as the most fragile countries are passed over for `safer' 
options. Only 25% of bilateral climate financing and less than 50% of 
major multilateral funding targets countries most vulnerable to climate 
change. And, in 2019, less than 1% of climate adaptation funding went 
to the 10 most fragile states.
    It is possible to reverse the trend. Mercy Corps has helped 
millions of people worldwide adapt to a changing climate: sowing 
drought-resistant crops in Ethiopia, using state of the art technology 
to cope with flooding in Nepal and distributing drought-resistant seeds 
to boost harvests in Haiti. But we need the help of donors, including 
the U.S. government.
    First, it is vital to recognize that communities urgently need help 
to adapt to the changing climate. It is too late to focus solely on 
reducing emissions. The U.S. government can demonstrate leadership by 
increasing resources dedicated to its climate

[[Page 19]]

adaptation accounts, particularly for the U.S. Agency for International 
Development. I was pleased to see the increase for climate adaptation 
funding in the pending Fiscal Year 2022 State and Foreign Operations 
Appropriations Bills, and I hope the House of Representatives will 
match the Senate's more generous proposal. I also urge the United 
States to galvanize private sector investment and sustainable climate 
finance.
    Second, the U.S. government must ensure that its assistance is 
going to the most climate vulnerable places, and particularly to those 
that are conflict-affected. Adaptation efforts should be locally led, 
include a strong investment in digital infrastructure and have a 
special focus on smallholder farmers, especially women and young 
people.
    Lastly, U.S. climate adaptation assistance should build on and 
reinforce our other development assistance to prevent conflict, hunger, 
and poverty.
    I thank the Select Committee for its commitment to helping 
vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, and I look forward to 
your questions.

    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Hernick, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.

                  STATEMENT OF CHARLES HERNICK

    Mr. Hernick. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member 
Graves, and members of the committee. I appreciate the 
opportunity to testify today.
    My name is Charles Hernick. I am Vice President of Policy 
and Advocacy with an organization called Citizens for 
Responsible Energy Solutions. My testimony today is shaped not 
just by my experience here in the United States, but on the 
ground in over a dozen countries in Africa and Latin America.
    I hope you remember three points from my testimony today. 
The first is that there is no substitute for U.S. leadership in 
innovation. The second is that trade and aid must drive 
economic growth and opportunity, not just on the ground in the 
countries we are assisting, but here in the United States. And, 
finally, and in the spirit of Halloween, to remember that 
greenhouse gases are the bogeyman, not fossil fuels.
    With respect to innovation, low-cost, low-emission 
technologies and goods will be successful to climate policy. 
Anything short of widespread adoption will fail to address the 
global issue. American innovations will be a key driver, and 
people all around the world are looking for the next 3M or 
General Mills, the next Ford or Tesla, the next IBM or Apple, 
to develop and deploy quality consumer products around the 
world.
    In our climate-conscious era, quality means low-carbon, 
zero-carbon, or net-negative emissions technologies. That is 
why the most important role for the United States Government is 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making strategic 
investments in innovation, research and development, such as 
those included in the Energy Act of 2020, which serves as a 
strong foundation for an all-of-the-above approach, focusing on 
renewables, nuclear, fossil fuel--fuel and energy efficiency, 
hydrogen, electrification, and carbon capture utilization and 
storage. All of these options must be on the table.
    With respect to trade and aid, the United States leads the 
world in development assistance. We should be proud of that 
fact and continue our global commitments. But more important 
than the dollars of the direct aid is America's role in 
cultivating the right outcome: economic growth, a low-carbon 
future, and strong ties with our democratic allies around the 
world. That means also as

[[Page 20]]

suring that U.S. solutions are brought to the world through 
international trade policy at a cost that the developing 
nations are able and willing to pay.
    U.S. Government must harness the power of free markets and 
be champions of free markets as we reexamine our regulations, 
trade, and intellectual property protections. That means 
avoiding mandates and subsidies. We live in an era where, even 
in the depths of a pandemic, companies large and small have 
voluntarily committed to carbon neutrality by mid-century. 
Government should empower companies to achieve their self-set 
goals, not pursue heavy-handed, top-down mandates that drive up 
costs and reduce options, not just here in the U.S. but around 
the world.
    With respect to greenhouse gases, we need to remember that 
the data matters. Coal, oil, and natural gas are indispensable 
to the global energy system and the global economy. In 1971, 
coal, oil, and natural gas fueled 86 percent of the global 
energy supply. In 2019, this decreased only slightly to 81 
percent.
    I am a champion of renewables, and I am very proud of the 
fact that renewables have been able to grow in the United 
States at over 11 percent last year in the depths of a 
pandemic. But when you look at the globe, the energy mix is 
pretty stable. Dramatic reengineering of the global energy 
system hasn't happened, and while it is possible, it is not 
likely to happen in the next decade.
    That is why we need to acknowledge that U.S. oil and gas is 
far cleaner than equivalent fuels from anywhere else in the 
world. For example, Russian-produced natural gas shipped by 
pipeline to Europe has about 41 percent higher life cycle 
emissions than U.S. liquefied natural gas shipped to the same 
destination. Russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline 
to China has 47 percent higher life cycle emissions than U.S. 
LNG.
    When a resource is taken off the table, innovation in that 
area will grind to a halt. That is why Congress should continue 
to support carbon capture utilization and storage.
    Government does not need to mandate that these technologies 
be adopted. Companies are doing it on their own. Completely 
cutting out fossil fuels in the short-term is simply not 
realistic. And given the high percentage of the energy mix that 
they still provide, we need to keep all options on the table.
    Finally, there is a significant security concern with 
targeting U.S. fuels in our current global marketplace. America 
calling on OPEC to increase production undercuts our economic 
and national security objectives. Policies that restrict U.S. 
fossil fuel production, transportation, and exports in the name 
of climate change actually have the opposite effect; they 
contribute more to global emissions, not less, at a significant 
cost to America's reputation, security, and economic outlook.
    Thank you for your time, and I look forward to questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Hernick follows:]

[[Page 21]]

  Testimony of Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy,

         Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) Forum

                 To the U.S. House of Representatives,

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

 For the Hearing ``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities''

                 Thursday, October 28, at 10:30 AM EDT

                    210 Cannon House Office Building

    Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 
``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities.''
    My name is Charles Hernick, and I am the Vice President of Policy 
and Advocacy for Citizens for Responsible Energy Solution (CRES) Forum. 
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit that educates the public and influences 
the national conversation around clean energy and climate solutions 
that are actionable, market-friendly, and responsible. My testimony is 
shaped by my experience not just here in the U.S. but on the ground in 
over a dozen countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean 
working to advance American interests abroad as a consultant to U.S. 
Agency for International Development.
    In April, during ``Earth Week,'' our executive director testified 
before this committee on ways that climate-focused goals could also 
create new jobs and catalyze economic growth. Although much has 
happened in a short period of time since that testimony, we continue to 
focus on three guiding principles for judging climate policy from a 
conservative perspective:

      Cut energy prices, not energy choices
      Export American Innovation, not American jobs
      Reduce global emissions, not America's economy

    Nowhere do these principles matter more than in international 
climate negotiations, which are designed to advance common solutions to 
a truly global problem. To that end, I hope you will remember three 
points from my testimony:
    First, there is no substitute for U.S. leadership in innovation. 
Low-cost, low-emissions technologies and goods will be critical to 
successful climate policy.\1\ Anything short of widespread adoption 
will fail to address this global issue, and American innovation will be 
the key driver. People in every country look to the U.S. for the next 
Ford or Tesla, IBM or Apple, 3M or General Mills to develop and deploy 
quality consumer products around the world. In our climate conscious 
era: quality means low-carbon, net-zero, or negative emissions 
technologies. Innovative and low-cost climate solutions are needed for 
global uptake in developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and 
Asia, where too many people still lack basic services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See more about CRES Forum's Climate Policy Directives at: 
https://cresforum.org/climate-policy-directives/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most important role for the U.S. government in reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions around the world is to make strategic 
investments in research and development (R&D), such as those included 
in the Energy Act of 2020, which serves as a strong foundation to an 
all-of-the-above approach: renewables, nuclear, fuel and energy 
efficiency, hydrogen, electrification (i.e., electric vehicles), and 
carbon capture utilization and storage must all on the table. And it 
must not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
    Second, aid and trade should drive economic growth and opportunity. 
The U.S. leads the world in aid and development assistance.\2\ We 
should be proud of that fact--and continue our global commitments. But 
more important than the amount of dollars of direct aid is America's 
role cultivating the right outcome: economic growth, a low carbon 
future, and strong ties with our democratic allies. That means also 
assuring that U.S. solutions are brought to the world through 
international trade policy, at a cost that developing nations are able 
and willing to pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ OECD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/45472e20-en/index.html?itemId=/
content/component/5e331623-
en&_csp_=b14d4f60505d057b456dd1730d8fcea3&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=c
hapter
    To make a dent in global emissions, climate solutions must be as 
accessible and locally appropriate. This means driving down the cost of 
innovation as quickly as possible by eliminating unnecessary regulatory 
barriers, forcefully protecting the intellectual property of our 
homegrown innovations, and enabling the right market conditions for our 
companies to scale up manufacturing and distribution without delay.

[[Page 22]]

    Trade policy should reward American companies with high 
environmental performance and assure they will not be undercut by 
countries and foreign businesses lagging in the race to reduce 
emissions.\3\ Our geopolitical adversaries are willing to undercut 
American interests no matter what the implications are for climate 
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Based on https://cresforum.org/climate-policy-directives/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The U.S. government must lead the world to harness the power of 
free markets as we reexamine regulation, trade, and intellectual 
property protection. That means avoiding mandates and subsidies. We 
live in an era where even in the depths of a pandemic, companies large 
and small have voluntarily committed to carbon neutrality by definitive 
dates. Government should empower companies to achieve their self-set 
goals, not pursue heavy-handed, top-down mandates that drive up costs 
or reduce options in the U.S. and around the world.
    Third, greenhouse gas emissions are the bogeyman! Not fossil fuels. 
Coal and oil and natural gas are indispensable to the global energy 
system. In 1971, coal, oil, and natural gas fueled around 86 percent of 
the global energy supply; and in 2019, this decreased only slightly to 
81 percent.\4\ While I am a champion of renewables--and very proud that 
solar and wind have taken off in the U.S. growing at 11 percent last 
year--when you look at the globe (total primary energy supply), the mix 
is about the same as it has ever been. A dramatic reengineering of the 
global energy system has not happened since President George H.W. Bush 
brough the U.S into the United Nations Climate Framework in 1992. It is 
possible, but unlikely that such dramatic change will happen in the 
next decade. While renewables will--and must--grow to tackle climate 
change, Congress can take pride in the fact that for a world dependent 
upon fossil fuels for the near future, U.S oil and gas is far cleaner 
than the equivalent fuels from anywhere else in the world. For example, 
Russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline to Europe has 
approximately 41 percent higher life-cycle emissions (carbon dioxide 
(CO2) equivalent) than U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG) 
shipped to the same destination.\5\ Russian-produced natural gas 
shipped by pipeline to China has 47 percent higher life-cycle emissions 
than U.S. LNG exported to China.\6\ In addition, heavy oil produced in 
Venezuela has 50 percent higher life-cycle emissions than light oil 
produced in Wyoming.\7\ Of course, having the whole world consume U.S. 
oil and gas is not realistic or possible, but if we are serious about 
reducing emissions we cannot afford to take American oil and gas off 
the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Balances,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Selina Roman-White et al., ``Life Cycle GHG Perspective on 
Exporting LNG From the U.S. 2019 Update,'' National Energy Technology 
Laboratory, (September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/2019%20NETL%20LCA-
GHG%20Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Ibid.
    \7\ Deborah Gordon et al., ``Know Your Oil: Creating a Global Oil-
Climate Index,'' Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (March 
2015). http://oci.carnegieendowment.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When a resource is taken off of the table, innovation in that area 
grinds to a halt. That is why Congress should continue its support of 
carbon capture utilization and storage. Government does not need to 
mandate the adoption of these technologies and practices; companies are 
adopting it themselves to meet consumer demand. Low-carbon fossil fuels 
must be an important tool for climate policy as we transition to 
cleaner energy sources, not just in the U.S. but because the rest of 
the world also uses fossil fuels. Completely cutting out all fossil 
fuels in the short term is simply not realistic, given the high 
percentage of the energy mix they still provide, the reliability they 
ensure, as well as the increasing number of options that are available 
to reduce the carbon footprint of these fuels. Turning our back on the 
opportunities for innovation that can ensure that fossil energy emits 
significantly lower emissions would also be harmful for U.S. 
competitiveness.
    Finally, there's a significant security concern with targeting U.S. 
fossil fuels in the current global marketplace. America calling on OPEC 
to increase production undercuts our economic and national security 
objectives. Policies that restrict U.S. fossil fuel production, 
transportation, and exports in the name of climate change in fact have 
the opposite effect. They contribute to more global emissions, not 
less, at a significant cost to America's reputation, security, and 
economic outlook.
Good policy, not good rhetoric is needed to solve the climate problem
    With the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26) 
starting in a few days, it is important to be realistic about the 2030 
target that the Biden Administration has embraced and how it is related 
to U.S. credibility in international climate politics.

[[Page 23]]

    I am concerned that many of the policies implied to meet that 
target would threaten economic growth because they put government in 
the position to pick winners and losers and measure success in terms of 
dollars spent, irrespective of real inflation and deficit concerns. We 
need a suite of policies cutting across the major sectors, along with 
the necessary modernization in permitting that would enable the 
deployment of the clean energy infrastructure that we need. The Biden 
pledge under the Paris Agreement--a 50 percent to 52 percent reduction 
by 2030, compared to 2005--does not include specifics on how the US 
will meet this goal and eliminate 3 gigatons from our carbon balance 
sheet. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), while 
CO2 emissions fell by 11 percent in 2020,\8\ they are 
expected to grow roughly 8 percent this year.\9\ Next year, EIA expects 
no change in CO2 emissions.\10\ Thus, America would need to 
reduce emissions by about 2 gigatons by the end of 2030--roughly one 
quarter of a gigaton a year. Since 1990, we have only reduced emissions 
by that amount twice: as a result of the financial crisis in 2008-2009 
and COVID in 2020. The economic hardship from these crises should not 
be part of our climate plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ ``U.S. energy-related Dec. 16, 2021 emissions declined by 11% 
in 2020,'' U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 12 April 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ ``U.S. Economic Assumptions and Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide 
Emissions,'' EIA, 13 October 2021, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
report/renew_co2.php.
    \10\ ``Short-term energy outlook,'' EIA, 13 October 2021, https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effective climate policy will rely on the power of free markets. 
Big government mandates favor incumbent technologies and large 
companies and are blind to what the free market can do. Additional 
bureaucracy is disproportionately threatening to small businesses and 
start-ups. Appetite for clean energy--by people and companies--has been 
growing steadily for decades and as a result, the private sector and 
effective state-level policies have achieved the goals of President 
Obama's Clean Power Plan carbon reductions 10 years ahead of time.\11\ 
Indeed, it is a favorable American business environment that gives 
space for a record number of companies to put themselves on a path to 
net zero and differentiate themselves on ``clean.'' Congress should 
encourage more of that race to the top, and successful climate policy 
can be measured based on whether the free market is incentivizing 
behavior and activities that support our climate goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Bloomberg NEF and Business Council for Sustainable Energy 
(BCSE). Sustainable Energy in America 2021. Factbook. https://bcse.org/
factbook/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    And finally, America's interests and American jobs should be our 
number one priority when developing climate policy. The U.S. is more 
energy independent than we have been in decades and we should not lose 
that in the race to reduce emissions. This means that we need to 
address the entire supply chain of materials and technologies. It is 
encouraging that companies like Ford, General Motors, Tesla, and 
Volkswagen are building electric vehicles and battery plants in the 
U.S. to align supply chains with emerging markets. Domestically sourced 
critical minerals and metals utilized by domestic manufacturing 
facilities could supply the development of a clean energy 
transportation sector at home and abroad--but closing off areas for 
mining here in the U.S is problematic. For example, the Biden 
Administration's ordering of a study that could lead to a 20-year ban 
on mining upstream from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness poses 
challenges to companies like Twin Metals Mining that are aiming to use 
environmental best practices to safely mine minerals critical to clean 
energy technology. Steps like this risk hemorrhaging more domestic jobs 
along the full clean energy and technology supply chain overseas. We 
must directly measure the effectiveness of our climate policy in our 
greenhouse gas emissions, job numbers, manufacturing metrics, the 
security of our supply chain, and our Gross Domestic Product.
1. Innovation
    U.S. leadership in advancing global action to address climate 
change is indispensable. However, we need to get away from a 1990's 
climate policy conversation (a U.S.-centric view of the world) when the 
United States was a quarter of global emissions and the rest of the 
developed world was another 25 percent. When we could pursue unilateral 
policy--perhaps in coordination with a few other economies--that could 
make a major dent in global emissions. But we are not there anymore.
    Today, more than 85 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions 
occur outside U.S. borders--a share that will increase to over 90 
percent by the end of the next decade. Worldwide emissions are 
increasing, as global energy demand is rising. The primary driver of 
this demand is developing economies as they increase their energy use 
and living standards rise. As a group, they are estimated to account 
for over 100 percent of the anticipated increase in global emissions 
through 2050.

[[Page 24]]

    Accordingly, we need to figure out how to best leverage U.S. 
climate and energy policy to innovate and develop commercialization 
pathways that work in India, Nigeria, and Indonesia. We need to be 
clear headed about what poor countries can and will do.

    Recommendation: Make strategic investments in research and 
development (R&D).

    At the close of 2020, the COVID relief and year-end omnibus also 
included a broad modernization of our nation's energy policies. The 
Energy Act of 2020 was the culmination of many years of significant 
bipartisan effort and marks the first comprehensive energy legislation 
passed in over a decade. It combined several bipartisan provisions and 
reflects the priorities of many members of Congress to accelerate the 
development of technologies needed to meet our environmental and 
economic challenges. The Act provides a timely and critical investment 
in the advancements in energy efficiency, energy storage, advanced 
nuclear, carbon capture, carbon removal, renewable energy, and other 
approaches needed to decarbonize our economy. Importantly, it brought 
bipartisan compromise on the phaseout of hydrofluorocarbons, which are 
greenhouse gases with extremely high warming potential.
    The bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 was an important down payment on 
energy innovation, but affordability also matters here at home. The 
impacts of the pandemic-induced recession have not been evenly 
distributed across America, nor are historic environmental burdens or 
the likely economic and health impacts of effects of climate change. 
Price increases make life even harder for these Americans. We can 
measure the success of our climate policy based on the availability of 
new energy innovations and whether they are priced for easy and 
widespread adoption.
    As COVID-19 has been brought under control, the economy has 
recovered faster than many expected. The case for additional stimulus 
is limited, and overspending risks overheating the economy and further 
stoking the fires of inflation. Congress should fully fund Energy Act 
of 2020.
2. Aid and trade should drive economic growth and opportunity.
    When history books are written about how we solved the climate 
problem, these years of the global COVID-19 pandemic will be a 
surprising turning point. There is a new, encouraging baseline. 
Companies across the U.S. economy voluntarily committed to renewable 
energy, as evidenced by more than 10.6 GW of corporate renewable energy 
purchases occurring in 2020, according to the Renewable Energy Buyers 
Alliance.\12\ Companies across retail, big tech, and hospitality, among 
other sectors, have stepped up and made voluntary commitments to 
decarbonize their operations. That is why multi-billion or trillion-
dollar pledges will not be a sign of success. Capital markets--driven 
by large investors and common stockholders alike--are focused on 
delivering a low-carbon future. Investors like Wells Fargo, Goldman 
Sachs, Bank of America, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, and Barclays have all 
committed to net-zero portfolios by mid-century.\13\ More investors are 
factoring climate change into their portfolios, and it is easier than 
ever for Americans to align their 401(k) plans with a carbon-free 
future. There is no shortage of finance for mature clean energy 
technologies. Trillions in scattershot spending--in the U.S. and 
abroad--could crowd-out private sector investment. First and foremost, 
we should measure the success of our climate policy based on how well 
it encourages, not competes, with investment from America's financial 
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Ben German. ``Ranking 2020's corporate clean energy deals.'' 
Axios, February 11, 2020. https://www.axios.com/renewable-energy-
companies-amazon-google-18db639c-e1e5-416f-8887-848e601131c6.html.
    \13\ American University. Carbon Removal Corporate Action Tracker. 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vf-
uXsf6fo7MuNpPya2Kz82Dxte0hHgtOXimgpRA3c/edit#gid=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This new baseline needs to be kept in mind as we revisit 
regulation, trade, and intellectual property protection. Frequently, 
policy that is ostensibly designed to address global climate change 
does not achieve the goals we seek. Entrepreneurs are rewarded with 
sales as customers seek suppliers that best fulfill their demands.
    Mandates and subsidies, however, actively undermine this dynamic--
by shifting costs from one party onto another. For their part, 
subsidies harm competition by alleviating inefficient producers of the 
need to cut costs to increase revenues, while unsubsidized competitors, 
which may be more efficient, are forced out of the market.
    Studies by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation 
(ITIF) have confirmed that such governmental policies harm innovation. 
In comparing subsidized Chinese solar module producers to U.S. 
manufacturers, for example, American companies invested less in 
innovation as they struggled to raise revenue in the face of 
competitors that were buoyed by Chinese governmental support. Our 
failure in solar manufacturing is a case study worthy of consideration. 
Solar was invented in the United States and then stolen by China, which 
has used predatory trade

[[Page 25]]

practices and nearly destroyed our related manufacturing. The story is 
similar for manufacturing of solar cells and modules. Imports of those 
products supplied 88 percent of U.S. domestic demand in 2017.

    Recommendation: Normalizing transparency and reporting for 
sustainability markets such as voluntary carbon trading will help drive 
competition and investment.

    America's private and public sectors have made great strides in 
deploying clean energy and reducing emissions, but there is currently 
no way for these accomplishments to be documented and organized so that 
their collective impact can be better understood by investors and 
consumers.
    Normalizing systems for carbon reporting will increase transparency 
and accountability, increase investment in clean energy and offsets, 
and further decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without imposing 
unnecessary mandates, costs, or bureaucracy.
    This type of limited federal effort could help protect investors 
and maintain fair and orderly functioning of voluntary carbon markets. 
State compliance markets would still need their own enforcement 
mechanisms. But for private actors in the voluntary carbon space, 
following federal transparency and reporting guidance could crowd-in 
investment the way that Energy Star mainstreamed energy efficiency in 
the early 1990s through a voluntary program. Perhaps most importantly, 
government can facilitate certainty and trust in voluntary, industry-
established greenhouse gas emissions registries and bring greater 
definition to tradable carbon offsets without inventing a new federal 
system that attempts to supersede state progress.
    In addition to helping industry meet climate change goals, this 
framework for carbon transparency would help U.S. companies outcompete 
foreign rivals, particularly Chinese companies that depend on high-
carbon sources of energy for industry. Indeed, our polling shows that 
72 percent of all voters, and 61 percent of Republicans, support 
requiring both foreign and domestic companies to label their products 
based on the type of energy used in production, and equal numbers 
support requiring government contractors to disclose carbon emissions 
in the production of their goods and materials.\14\ Consumers want to 
know that their hard-earned dollars support companies that do not harm 
the planet. Providing easy access to that information will drive 
business back to American industry, boosting American jobs, our 
economy, and our national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). Poll: 
Republican, Democratic Voters Support Commonsense, ``All-of-the-Above'' 
Climate Solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://citizensfor.com/pressreleases/poll-republican-democratic-
voters-support-commonsense-all-of-the-above-climate-solutions/.
3. Keep the focus on greenhouse gas emissions
    Here in the United States, there's a lot of talk about 
transitioning away from fossil fuels--but you don't have that 
conversation in the developing world. While there is strong support for 
low carbon technologies in those countries, they all support 
traditional fossil fuel energy as well.
    Consequently, we should develop a climate strategy anchored in the 
real world of today. The United States needs to leverage its policies 
to accelerate the overseas deployment of low carbon technologies to 
reduce or avoid increases in global emissions. Poor countries are 
unwilling to pay the green premium that we're willing to pay--they're 
focused on poverty eradication and energy access. Many of them also 
have fossil fuels, particularly coal, and there will be a strong 
incentive to tap those indigenous resources to enhance their own energy 
security, create jobs, and improve their balance of payments. Because 
developing countries are going to reject increasing the costs of 
conventional fuels, we must focus on driving down the cost of low 
carbon technologies to create a commercialization strategy that works 
for their market--and not just for ours.
    Here in the United States there's a strong push to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions by blocking fossil fuel infrastructure, 
including pipelines and terminals that would ultimately result in 
exporting that energy overseas. This is a misguided approach and 
detrimental to efforts to reduce global emissions. While it is 
important to push other countries to deploy low carbon technologies and 
systems, we must recognize that countries, even those in the European 
Union, will continue to use fossil fuels.
    In reducing global emissions, the use of U.S. natural resources is 
key. As stated previously, the greenhouse gas life-cycle emissions of 
fossil fuels vary by supplier--often significantly. The potential 
emissions reductions from intra-fuel switching are significant. For 
example, if the European Union (EU) replaced its Russian natural gas 
for electricity production with U.S. natural gas, the associated global 
emissions

[[Page 26]]

would fall approximately 72 million metric tons annually.\15\ For 
comparison, the EU estimates that it needs to reduce its emissions by 
78 million metric tons each year to reach its 2030 targets.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Assuming 35 percent of EU electricity generated from natural 
gas is sourced from Russia (244 million megawatt hours) and 297 
kgCO2e lower life-cycle emissions per megawatt hour from 
U.S. supply.
    \16\ ``Gas 2019,'' International Energy Agency, (2019). https://
www.iea.org/reports/market-report-series-gas-2019

    Recommendation: Welcome approaches that decarbonize oil and gas and 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coal, specifically carbon capture utilization and storage.

    With current technologies, it is possible to reduce, and perhaps 
someday fully decarbonize, the oil and gas sector. Oil and gas 
companies are focused on reducing upstream emissions, as well as 
sequestering and offsetting carbon. Despite incredible economic 
challenges this past year, oil and gas majors Total and Royal Dutch 
Shell announced ambitious plans to reach net zero greenhouse gas 
emissions by 2050, echoing similar announcements made by BP and Repsol 
in 2019. Total, for example, aims to achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2 
emissions by 2050 and it is targeting carbon neutrality for all its 
Scope 3 production and energy products sold in Europe by 2050.\17\ Oxy 
Low Carbon Ventures, a subsidiary of Houston based Occidental 
Petroleum, delivered its first batch of ``carbon-neutral oil'' this 
past January.\18\ Fueling up with carbon-neutral gasoline can only be 
part of the future through an all-of-the-above approach that is open to 
innovation in all sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Francois De Beaupuy. ``Oil Giant Total Targets Carbon 
Neutrality in 2050.'' Bloomberg Green, May 5, 2020. https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-05/total-targets-carbon-
neutrality-in-2050-as-profit-plunges-
35?cmpid=BBD051220_GREENDAILY&utm_medium=email 
&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=200512&utm_campaign=greendaily
    \18\ Eklavya Gupte and Paula VanLaningham. ``US' Occidental 
supplies first cargo of `carbon-neutral crude' to India's Reliance.'' 
S&P Global, January 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/
012921-us-occidental-supplies-first-cargo-of-carbon-neutral-crude-to-
indias-reliance.
    Government does not need to mandate this behavior; companies are 
adopting it themselves to meet consumer demand. Zero-emission fossil 
fuels can be an important tool for climate policy as we transition to 
cleaner energy sources, but only if we make it possible for oil and gas 
companies to deliver on those promises. Government can do that by 
removing barriers that currently inhibit transparency, certainty, and 
trust in carbon offset markets.
Conclusion
    Over the past decade, America has reduced its carbon emissions more 
than any other country. This was achieved through an all-of-the-above 
energy policy combined with public and private sector investments in 
American innovation. There is no need to reinvent this wheel.
    U.S. government efforts related to international climate policy can 
build upon our past success by maintaining American leadership through 
strategic R&D and innovation investments; harnessing instead of 
hampering the power of free markets; and focusing on reducing emissions 
from fossil fuels--not they are the most glamourous climate solutions--
but because we must take a realistic view of energy supply and demand 
here in the U.S. and in the developing world.

    Ms. Castor. Thank you.
    Mr. Meyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.

                    STATEMENT OF ALDEN MEYER

    Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, 
and members of the Select Committee. My name is Alden Meyer, 
and I am a Senior Associate with E3G, Third Generation 
Environmentalism. I very much appreciate the opportunity to 
testify before you today.
    I have been asked to discuss what needs to be accomplished 
at the COP26 summit in Glasgow that starts on Sunday, and what 
are the prospects for success.
    As you just heard from Ms. Fransen, we already know that we 
will leave Glasgow with a huge gap between the collective level 
of ambition in the commitments countries have put forward under 
the Paris Agreement and what is required to keep 1.5 degrees 
alive

[[Page 27]]

and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. In Glasgow, 
countries must acknowledge the need to increase ambition over 
the remainder of this decade and set out a process and deadline 
to make that happen.
    On climate finance, it is good that developed countries 
have finally shown how they intend to meet their commitment to 
mobilize $100 billion annually in finance for mitigation and 
adaptation activities in developing countries out to 2025. But 
more work is needed to scale up finance for adaptation and to 
improve access to finance for smaller, vulnerable countries.
    Countries also must agree at COP26 on the process and 
timeline for negotiating the goal for mobilizing even more 
climate finance after 2025. We already know that sums much 
greater than $100 billion a year are required to help 
developing countries such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa 
make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy 
resources.
    If the U.S. and other G7 countries are able to show how the 
Build Back Better for the World Initiative launched at their G7 
summit in June will deliver clean infrastructure investments at 
the scale needed, it would help persuade some of the major 
developing countries to support the ambition accelerator 
language that we need in the final COP decision.
    As Ms. McKenna just told you, many countries and 
communities are suffering from a range of devastating climate-
related impacts, which will continue to mount over the next 
several decades even if we succeed in meeting the Paris 
Agreement temperature limitation goals.
    Vulnerable countries are calling for much faster progress 
on mobilizing financial resources to help address the economic 
losses and the severe damage to lives and livelihoods that 
their citizens are experiencing as a result of climate impacts. 
How far we can get towards agreement in Glasgow that start to 
meet these needs remains to be seen.
    Agreement on the rules for market mechanisms under Article 
VI of the Paris Agreement is an important objective for COP26, 
as is ensuring transparency on how well countries are doing in 
meeting their Paris commitments, both on constraining domestic 
emissions and on providing finance for developing country 
action.
    Bringing China and other major developing countries closer 
to parity with developing nations on a robust reporting regime 
has been an objective of both Democratic and Republican U.S. 
administrations throughout the history of the climate 
negotiations.
    Climate change and health issues are the driving themes for 
the G20 Leaders Summit that will take place in Rome this 
Saturday and Sunday. Italy's Prime Minister Mario Draghi will 
be pressing other leaders to agree on the need for more 
ambitious action between now and 2030 and for commitments to 
phase down coal consumption and to eliminate subsidies for 
fossil fuel production and use. If he can forge consensus on 
these issues, it will provide important impetus for progress in 
Glasgow.
    Let me conclude by discussing three possible scenarios for 
the outcomes of COP26. A good outcome would see agreement on 
the need for more action to close the ambition gaps on reducing 
emissions, on increasing climate finance for both mitigation 
and adapta

[[Page 28]]

tion, and finance to address loss and damage. Environmental 
integrity would be prioritized in the Article VI rules, and a 
strong transparency framework would be agreed upon.
    The slew of announcements made in Glasgow by governments, 
companies, and investors on sectoral initiatives to cut 
emissions would send strong signals on the irreversibility of 
the shift from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy.
    A disappointing outcome would see no agreement on ways to 
close these ambition gaps. The rules on Article VI and 
transparency would be agreed, but with major compromises that 
weaken their effectiveness and raise concerns about 
environmental integrity.
    An ugly outcome would see no agreement on the remaining 
elements of the Paris rule book and no real engagement at all 
on ways to close the ambition gap, with sharp divisions and 
finger-pointing between countries over who needs to do more to 
address the climate crisis.
    Thank you again for this opportunity to share my thoughts 
with you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]

                        Testimony of Alden Meyer

        Senior Associate, E3G--Third Generation Environmentalism

  U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

     Hearing on International Climate Challenges and Opportunities

                            October 28, 2021

Introduction
    My name is Alden Meyer and I am a Senior Associate with E3G--Third 
Generation Environmentalism. E3G is an independent climate change think 
tank headquartered in London that operates with a global outlook. We 
work on the frontier of the climate landscape tackling the barriers and 
advancing the solutions to a safe climate. Our goal is to translate 
climate politics, economics and policies into action. Prior to joining 
E3G last December, I worked for 31 years for the Union of Concerned 
Scientists, concluding my tenure as its Director of Strategy and Policy 
and co-director of its Washington office. I have attended the climate 
negotiations since they first started in 1991 and have served as an 
informal adviser to numerous United Nations Framework Convention on 
Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties presidencies.
    I have been invited to testify today on the outlook for the 26th 
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC that will open 
this Sunday in Glasgow, as well as the summit of G20 leaders that will 
be held this weekend in Rome. I will discuss why these meetings are 
important, the geopolitical context in which they are taking place, 
what needs to be accomplished at each of them, and what the prospects 
are for success.
    First let me provide some context. As this committee knows well, 
the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries on December 12, 2015, 
sets out a goal of ``holding the increase in the global average 
temperature to well below 2+C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing 
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5+C above pre-industrial 
levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and 
impacts of climate change.'' \1\ But in releasing its most recent 
Synthesis Report on Nationally-Determined Contributions under the Paris 
Agreement, the UNFCCC Secretariat noted that ``The available NDCs of 
all 191 Parties taken together imply a sizable increase in global GHG 
emissions in 2030 compared to 2010, of about 16%. According to the 
latest IPCC findings, such an increase, unless actions are taken 
immediately, may lead to a temperature rise of about 2.7C by the end of 
the century.'' \2\ Along similar lines, the 2021 Production Gap report 
produced by the United Nations Environment Program together with four 
research and policy organizations

[[Page 29]]

including E3G found that ``Governments plan to produce more than twice 
the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with 
limiting global warming to 1.5+C.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/
english_paris_agreement.pdf
    \2\ https://unfccc.int/news/full-ndc-synthesis-report-some-
progress-but-still-a-big-concern
    \3\ https://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
PGR2021_web_rev.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clearly, the challenge we face in reversing these trends in less 
than a decade is a daunting one. COP26 will serve as a litmus test of 
whether countries are serious about delivering on the temperature 
limitation goals they set under the Paris Agreement, accelerating 
adaptation to climate change, and mobilizing support for climate action 
including on loss and damage. This COP represents a pivot point from a 
system that for the last 30 years has been primarily focused on 
negotiation of treaties, protocols, agreements, and rules to one 
focused on the implementation of existing commitments and the need to 
ratchet them up quickly. National leaders, ministers, and negotiators 
coming to Glasgow will need to take a page from the growing number of 
governors, mayors, business leaders, investors, universities, and 
others who have taken bold action on climate change in recent years and 
are creating a culture of true collaboration and learning by doing. In 
a process that needs to focus on generating results on the ground, 
these ``non-state actors'' should be seen as active partners, rather 
than as mere observers.
    This COP faces several challenges:

      --  while the recent joint US-EU commitment to vaccinate 70% of 
the globe by September 2022 signals progress, developing countries and 
NGOs continue to express frustration that wealthier nations are still 
not taking sufficient action to address issues of vaccine inequity and 
enhance global recovery through the G7, G20 and other multilateral 
spaces.
      --  the current global energy crisis which has seen sharp spikes 
in energy prices worldwide represents a potential wildcard for COP26 
that as has been reported \4\, could either make long-term decisions on 
climate action more difficult or instead could reinforce the narrative 
around the benefits of a diversified energy portfolio for building 
economic resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/08/global-energy-
crisis-cop26/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --  geopolitical tensions--especially between the US and China--
are inevitably spilling over into multilateral spaces like the climate 
summit; we can see this dynamic at play in recent comments from Chinese 
officials reacting to calls for China to increase its domestic climate 
ambition by calling into question the ability of countries like the 
United States to fully implement their 2030 and 2050 commitments.
      --  increased public awareness of climate impacts is increasing 
expectations for action, and all the major powers say they want a 
successful outcome in Glasgow; but different perceptions of what 
``good'' looks like could still derail negotiations while at the same 
time the fossil fuel industry and other incumbents continue to hold 
political sway in all too many capitals and many of them are using that 
influence to frustrate bold action.
Benchmarks for Success
    Raising Mitigation Ambition: In the run-up to COP21 in Paris in 
2015, countries put forward the emissions limitation objectives that 
they proposed to meet in the five- or ten-year period after 2020; these 
were referred to as ``intended nationally determined contributions,'' 
or INDCs. It was clear at the time that these INDCs were collectively 
insufficient to meet the Agreement's temperature limitation goals; the 
decision adopting the Paris Agreement noted that ``much greater 
emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with 
the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the 
increase in the global average temperature to below 2+C above pre-
industrial levels.'' \5\ That decision requested countries to 
``communicate or update'' their final Nationally Determined 
Contributions by late 2020 (when COP26 was originally scheduled to be 
held), in hopes that many countries would use that five year period to 
identify ways to raise the ambition of their initial Paris pledges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/
cop21/eng/10a01.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While quite a few countries--including the United States--have put 
forward substantially enhanced NDCs, several of the largest emitting 
countries have yet to do so, and it's clear that we will leave Glasgow 
with a huge gap between the collective level of effort put forward by 
countries and the level required to meet the UK's declared goal of 
``keeping 1.5 alive.'' There needs to be language in the final COP26 
decision acknowledging the need for additional efforts to raise 
ambition over the remainder of this decade and setting out a process to 
help make that happen. If we wait for 2025, when the next round of NDCs 
for 2035 or 2040 are scheduled to be

[[Page 30]]

put forward, it will be too late--we will have blown past the 1.5+C 
limit and condemned future generations to ever more devastating climate 
impacts.
    The 48 nations that are part of the Climate Vulnerable Forum have 
called for ``annual ambition raising platforms'' at each COP through 
2025 where countries can come forward with increased ambition on both 
mitigation and adaptation.\6\ There have also been suggestions that 
COP28 in 2023 should be positioned as the next big political moment for 
countries to put forward more ambitious NDCs and finance commitments, 
as that is when we will see the culmination of the first Global 
Stocktake \7\ mandated by the Paris Agreement, which will assess 
collective progress on climate mitigation, adaptation and finance flows 
and means of implementation and support. As we can already anticipate 
that the results of this stocktaking process will demonstrate a huge 
continuing gap in ambition, it should not only be used for its original 
purpose of informing the post-2030 NDCs that countries are expected to 
submit by 2025, but to also drive additional improvements to their 
existing Paris pledges out to 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ https://thecvf.org/our-voice/news/press-releases/climate-
vulnerable-nations-lay-out-expectations-for-glasgow-cop26/
    \7\ https://unfccc.int/topics/global-stocktake
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The question, of course, is whether the UK can produce an agreement 
on such ``ambition accelerator'' language as part of the final COP26 
political package; while such an agreement would be consistent with the 
spirit of the Paris Agreement, it would clearly be a deviation from the 
letter of the decision adopting it in 2015, which envisioned just one 
such revision deadline in 2020. The UK presidency has indicated it will 
conduct intensive consultations on this issue--which is not part of the 
formal negotiating agenda--over the two weeks in Glasgow.
    At what the UK is touting as the ``ambition COP,'' national 
governments, states, cities, companies, investors, and others are 
expected to sign up to a range of significant `sector deals' on energy, 
nature and land, transport, adaptation, finance, innovation, industry, 
and other sectors, aimed at signaling an acceleration of the transition 
to a 1.5+C pathway. Deals will be announced to phase down coal 
consumption, cut methane emissions, fund clean power, further constrain 
fossil fuel finance, restore nature and protect biodiversity, boost 
uptake of zero emission vehicles, and grow high ambition alliances like 
the Race to Zero campaign \8\ launched by the UNFCCC Climate Champions 
from Chile and the UK. It is critical that these pledges are backed by 
real and urgent implementation actions which are transparent and 
independently verifiable, so we know how much these initiatives really 
add up to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ https://unfccc.int/climate-action/race-to-zero-campaign
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ramping Up Finance for Climate Action: This past Monday, Canada's 
Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and Germany's State Secretary 
Jochen Flasbarth released a Delivery Plan \9\ intended to provide 
confidence to developing countries that developed countries will meet 
the commitment they made in Paris to mobilize $100 billion annually in 
public and private climate finance for mitigation and adaptation 
activities over 2020 to 2025. This $100 billion commitment has taken on 
iconic status in the climate negotiations process since it was first 
made in Copenhagen in 2009 and then reiterated in Paris in 2015, and 
the failure to meet this goal has been a barrier to building trust and 
confidence between developed and developing countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Climate-Finance-
Delivery-Plan-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Whereas OECD data shows that climate finance only reached $80 
billion in 2019--$20 billion below the 2020 target--the delivery plan 
shows that the gap will be bridged by 2023, after being nearly attained 
in 2022, and would be surpassed thereafter. Using conservative 
assumptions for mobilization of private finance, the Plan estimates 
that developed countries' collective mobilization of climate finance 
could reach almost $120 billion by 2025.
    While the Plan is a step towards restoring trust, more actions will 
be required to meet developing country expectations around scaling up 
the quantity and quality of predictable adaptation finance (which 
represents less than a third of total climate finance to date, despite 
the Paris Agreement calling for a balance with finance for mitigation), 
as well as improving access to finance, particularly amongst smaller 
vulnerable countries.
    The UK presidency needs to broker agreement by the end of the COP 
on the terms of reference, process and timeline for negotiations on the 
post-2025 finance goal that countries in Paris agreed should be 
established. While there is broad agreement that the goal needs to be 
greater than the $100 billion developed countries committed to mobilize 
annually starting in 2020, there isn't consensus on just how much 
greater the target should be, and there is resistance to the 
proposition

[[Page 31]]

advanced by the US and other developed countries that the base of 
donors needs to be expanded to include China, some of the OPEC 
countries, and developing country members of the OECD. This is likely 
to be one of the crunch issues occupying ministers in the final hours 
of the COP.
    Of course, sums much greater than $100 billion a year are required 
to help developing countries such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa 
make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy resources. A 
report released in June by the International Energy Agency, the World 
Economic Forum, and the World Bank finds that ``clean energy investment 
in emerging and developing economies declined by 8% to less than USD 
150 billion in 2020, with only a slight rebound expected in 2021. By 
the end of the 2020s, annual capital spending on clean energy in these 
economies needs to expand by more than seven times, to above USD 1 
trillion, in order to put the world on track to reach net-zero 
emissions by 2050.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/6756ccd2-0772-4ffd-
85e4-b73428ff9c72/FinancingCleanEnergyTransitionsinEMDEs--
WorldEnergyInvestment2021SpecialReport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unlocking this nearly order of magnitude higher level of climate 
finance for the decarbonization of developing country economies is not 
on the formal negotiating agenda in Glasgow, but it has been the focus 
of discussions that developed country officials--including Special 
Presidential Climate Envoy John Kerry and others from the United 
States--have been having in recent months with investors, developing 
country leaders and ministers, and others. The ability of the US and 
other G7 countries to increase confidence that the Build Back Better 
for the World (B3W) initiative \11\ launched at their leaders' summit 
in Cornwall last June will deliver clean infrastructure investments at 
the scale needed could go a long way to persuading some of the major 
developing countries to support the ``ambition accelerator'' language 
that is needed in the COP26 decision. Beyond Glasgow, further efforts 
to scale up the share of the portfolios of the World Bank and other 
multilateral development banks going towards climate-friendly 
investments could also make a major contribution towards this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/06/12/fact-sheet-president-biden-and-g7-leaders-launch-build-back-
better-world-b3w-partnership
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Loss and Damage: This term refers to the now-unavoidable impacts 
that many countries and communities are experiencing as a result of 
climate change, both extreme events such as hurricanes and typhoons, 
torrential floods, and out-of-control wildfires, and so-called slow 
onset impacts such as desertification, droughts, and sea level rise. 
These consequences will continue to mount as a result of past and 
ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases, even if we succeed in meeting 
the Paris Agreement temperature limitation goals.
    Vulnerable countries and NGOs such as the Climate Action Network 
are pushing for loss and damage to become a standing agenda item on COP 
agendas in order to create a political space to address the fact that 
seven years after creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism on 
Loss and Damage, there has been little progress made on mobilizing 
financial resources to help address the economic losses and the severe 
damage that all too many people are now experiencing as a result of 
climate impacts. They also want the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage 
agreed to at COP25 to be operationalized at COP26 and to go far beyond 
being merely an informational website, with adequate funding for a 
secretariat and activities of the Network. Finally, they want a process 
coming out of Glasgow that will tee up real deliverables at COP27 in 
Africa late next year on finance for loss and damage, above and beyond 
the current flows for adaptation and resilience.
    These are tough issues (they almost led to the collapse of 
negotiations at the end of COP18 in Doha), and the UK presidency has 
been slower to take them up than would have been desired; but reports 
out of the pre-COP ministerial consultations in Milan two weeks ago 
indicate that they are now clearly on the political radar screen. 
Discussions with the US and other developed countries also show they 
recognize the need to take a more constructive stance in their 
engagement with vulnerable countries on loss and damage, which in the 
past has been too often polarized by developed countries' concern about 
creating open-ended liability for their past emissions. But how far we 
can get towards agreements in Glasgow that meet the legitimate needs of 
the vulnerable countries on the loss and damage issue remains to be 
seen.
    Completion of the Paris rulebook: while COP26 does represent a 
pivot from negotiations to implementation, there are still some 
unfinished pieces of business on the Paris rulebook, including 
agreement on the rules for market mechanisms under Article 6 and 
finalization of the transparency guidelines and tables for reporting on 
progress towards each country's nationally-determined contributions 
under the Paris Agreement.

[[Page 32]]

    On Article 6, this will be negotiators' third swing at resolving 
the sharp differences that blocked agreement at COP24 in Katowice, 
Poland and at COP25 in Madrid. Major issues include how to avoid double 
counting of emissions reductions by countries engaging in such market 
transactions, whether some portion of the credits generated by the 
emissions trading mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol--particularly its 
Clean Development Mechanism--can be carried forward into the Paris 
Agreement regime and sold in the market, and whether a share of the 
proceeds generated by such market transactions should be dedicated to 
funding adaptation activities in developing countries. In the run-up to 
COP25, a group of 32 countries put forward the San Jose Principles for 
High Ambition and Integrity in International Carbon Markets,\12\ which 
are supported by most international NGOs and set the high bar for an 
acceptable outcome. While there are reports \13\ that Brazil, which has 
been one of the main obstacles to reaching agreement on an 
environmentally robust set of Article 6 rules, may be softening its 
stance, a lot of work remains to get this issue over the finish line in 
Glasgow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/press-release-leading-countries-
set-benchmark-for-carbon-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
markets-with-san-jose-principles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-23/brazil-
opens-door-to-carbon-market-deal-at-cop26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ensuring transparency on how well countries do in meeting their 
commitments under Paris--both on constraining domestic emissions and on 
providing finance and other means of support for developing country 
action--was a centerpiece of the agreement in Paris, and bringing China 
and other major developing countries closer to parity on the frequency 
and robustness of reporting on emissions inventories and domestic 
actions has been an objective of both Democratic and Republican US 
administrations throughout the history of the climate negotiations. The 
detailed reporting guidelines and tables to operationalize the Paris 
transparency rules are supposed to be finalized in Glasgow, but China 
and some other developing countries are pushing for more flexibility in 
how they are to be applied than the US and other developed countries 
are willing to accept. Given that this issue is both technical and 
intensely political, I expect it to be resolved only in the final hours 
of COP26.
The G20 Leaders' Summit
    The G20 Leaders' Summit will take place in Rome this Saturday and 
Sunday. The leaders of China, Russia and Japan are expected to 
participate virtually, while President Biden and the other leaders will 
attend in person. Climate and health are the driving themes of the 
Summit and Italian Prime Minister Draghi will be chairing the meeting 
and pressing for agreement on the need for more rapid decarbonization 
to get the world on a pathway that limits the rise in global 
temperature to 1.5+C through a commitment to global net-zero greenhouse 
gas emissions by 2050 and increasing the ambition of their 2030 
Nationally-Determined Contributions in the early 2020s; these proposals 
build on the communique \14\ issued by G20 Climate and Energy ministers 
at their meeting in Naples in July. Prime Minister Draghi will also be 
pushing for commitments to phase down coal consumption and finance as 
well as to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production and use, both 
issues that ministers were unable to resolve in July. It is expected 
that the G20 Sherpas will be unable to resolve these issues in their 
meetings today and tomorrow in Rome, and that it will be left to the 
leaders' discussion of climate and energy issues on Sunday morning for 
the disagreements to be hammered out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ https://www.g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021_G20-
Energy-Climate-joint-Ministerial-Communique.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The G20 leaders who are in Rome will then go to Glasgow to join 
leaders from over 100 other countries for the ``World Leaders Summit'' 
component of COP26 on November 1st and 2nd. The UK presidency has 
called on leaders, ``alongside heads of international organizations, 
civil society and business leaders, to show that they are serious about 
working together to tackle climate change . . . and to set out the 
ambitious actions that they are taking to reduce emissions, scale-up 
adaptation and mobilize finance, and to collectively signal their 
commitment to ensuring that COP26 keeps 1.5+C in reach.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Presidency-
Programme-COP26.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The outcome of the G20 leaders' summit is important to success in 
Glasgow. If Prime Minister Draghi can forge consensus on tough issues 
such as ramping up climate action in this decade to keep 1.5+C alive 
and constraining use of unabated coal, it will provide important 
impetus for agreement on ambition accelerator language in the COP26 
final decision. Conversely, if Italy's proposed language for the G20 
leaders' communique on these issues is blocked by leaders from China, 
India, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other countries, it will make the UK 
COP26 presidency's work on this front much more difficult.

[[Page 33]]

    There are also several finance issues in the purview of the G20 
that are essential to make the progress we need in the real economy, 
including use of a portion of the new general Special Drawing Rights 
allocation implemented by the International Monetary Fund in August to 
help vulnerable developing countries deal with the risks to their 
financial stability posed by both the COVID19 pandemic and climate 
change, further development of international standards for what 
qualifies as sustainable finance, and policies on corporate risk 
disclosure, stress testing of financial institutions and other ways of 
addressing climate-related risks to the global financial system. Some 
progress was made on these issues at the meeting of G20 finance 
ministers in Washington earlier this month,\16\ but much more work 
remains to be done, including by the German and Indonesian incoming 
presidencies of the G7 and G20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ https://www.g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/G20-FMCBG-
Communique%CC%81-Fourth-G20-FMCBG-meeting-13-October-2021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenarios for COP26 outcomes
    As the renowned Danish physicist Niels Bohr is reported to have 
said, ``Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the 
future.'' But I will nonetheless attempt to lay out a few possible 
scenarios for the outcomes of COP26.
    A good outcome would see the final COP26 decision laying out 
pathways over the next several years to close the gaps on the emissions 
reductions needed to secure 1.5+C (via more ambitious NDCs and side 
agreements on key sectors), increasing climate finance (via near-term 
action to mobilize resources well above the annual $100 billion pledged 
by developed countries as well as a robust start to the post-2025 
finance goal negotiations), and adaptation (via a mandate on further 
development of the global goal on adaptation), along with a mandate to 
pursue new sources of finance to address loss and damage.
    This outcome would see environmental integrity prioritized in the 
agreement on the Article 6 rules and agreement of a transparency 
framework that will enhance understanding of how well countries are 
doing in carrying out their commitments on both climate action and 
support. The slew of announcements and progress reports in Glasgow on 
sectoral initiatives to cut emissions would send strong signals to 
investors, companies, and the public on the irreversibility of the 
shift from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy.
    A disappointing outcome would see no consensus for political 
agreements on ways to close the ambition gaps, with only small groups 
of countries agreeing side deals on key sectors and a subset of high 
ambition countries committing to enhance their NDCs before 2023. While 
mandates would be secured for additional diplomacy in the run-up to 
COP27 diplomacy to address the gaps on finance, adaptation and loss & 
damage, there would be little confidence that they would lead to the 
results needed.
    The Paris rules on Article 6 and transparency would be agreed, but 
with compromises made that raise concerns about generating real 
benefits to the atmosphere (on Article 6) and providing the full level 
of information needed on country progress (on transparency).
    An ugly outcome would see COP26 ending without agreement on the 
remaining elements of the Paris rulebook and no real engagement on ways 
to close the ambition gaps on 1.5+C, finance, and impacts, with sharp 
divisions and finger-pointing between countries over who needs to do 
more on each of these fronts. A lack of progress on climate finance, 
adaptation, and loss and damage issues would be used by some developing 
countries as justification for their resistance to doing more to 
decarbonize their economies, and the serious doubts that some are 
already expressing about the ability of the multilateral climate regime 
to come to grips with the climate crisis would gain traction.
    Over the course of the next few weeks, we are likely to see 
competing narratives at play: one narrative will emphasize the 
successful progress made since Paris, the rapidly falling prices of 
clean technologies, and the growing number of both countries and non-
state actors making transformational climate commitments; the other 
narrative will focus on the failure to get even close to where science 
requires us to be to secure a tolerable future for current and future 
generations, and the lack of a meaningful response to the increasingly 
devastating impact of climate change on vulnerable countries and 
communities. The paradox is that each narrative contains elements of 
truth, and it is certainly possible to embrace both of them 
simultaneously; what is needed in this moment is a mix of equanimity, 
realism, and respect for expressions of both grief and hope.
    Regardless of the outcome at the end of COP26, 2021 has unlocked a 
new level of integration on climate action and positioned climate 
change as a top-tier geo

[[Page 34]]

political issue for world leaders, which provides a foundation for 
further progress in 2022. Unlocking much greater investment in 
accelerating climate implementation must be a key focus of the German 
and Indonesian G7 and G20 Presidencies, while progress on the issues of 
adaptation, resilience and loss and damage--which have received 
insufficient attention throughout 2021--can hopefully be made under the 
likely Egyptian COP27 Presidency. Of course, both goals will be more 
attainable if we come out of COP26 with a positive outcome.

    Ms. Castor. Well, thank you very much to our witnesses for 
your very insightful testimony.
    And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
    It was refreshing to hear a united panel, a message from 
this panel that the world needs American leadership when it 
comes to climate. For the Congress, the best way to demonstrate 
that leadership is to pass the Build Back Better, 
Infrastructure, and clean energy package, and we are on the 
cusp of doing that, so that is good news. It is also good news, 
in a selfish way, for American consumers, because we know 
investing in clean energy over time is going to lower costs for 
them.
    But there is a bigger picture here as we all march to 
Glasgow. We are marching together with American businesses, 
states and local communities, scientists, innovators, farmers, 
churches, and the faith community. And I think the message is 
partly to keep the pressure on China and India and other large 
emitters to help them raise their level of ambition, and that 
has got to be part of the equation here.
    So, Ms. Fransen, what risks do you see for America if we do 
not assume that leadership role and follow through? And then 
talk to us about the opportunities for America that renewed 
leadership would bring.
    Ms. Fransen. Thank you. I will start with opportunities, 
actually, because there are many.
    Assuming a leadership role on the climate crisis, it not 
only saves money for American households and businesses, as you 
noted, which currently spend a trillion dollars per year on 
fossil fuels, but it reduces costs in healthcare too. In one 
scenario for halving emissions developed by WRI and others, it 
was found that these actions would provide health benefits and 
avoid health costs to the tune of somewhere between $26 billion 
and $58 billion by 2030, not to mention the lives saved.
    We also can benefit from increased competitiveness. As 
demand for clean technologies rises, focusing on low-carbon or 
zero-carbon manufacturing rather than doubling down on 
yesterday's industries is what is going to give the U.S. the 
advantage. So just, for example, the global lithium-ion battery 
market is projected to be $105 billion by 2025 as EVs gain 
traction. And as I noted, by 2030, there will be a $23 trillion 
climate-related market in emerging markets. And so if we don't 
pursue these clean technologies domestically and maintain and 
gain our competitive edge, we are going to be losing out on 
those opportunities.
    I also want to mention the job potential. In the United 
States, investing in renewables and energy efficiency creates 
more than 2.5 times as many jobs as fossil fuels per dollar 
invested, and investing in ecosystem restoration creates 3.7 
times as many jobs per dollar invested. So that is another 
opportunity that we are risking losing out on if we don't take 
action here.

[[Page 35]]

    Finally, I think this provides an important opportunity for 
rural America as well, and that is in terms of economic 
diversification. So wind companies are already paying farmers 
and other rural landowners something on the order of $220 
million a year to host wind turbines, and this also generates 
tax revenue and other income down the value chain. And we can 
build on that by creating more opportunities in forest 
restoration, agroforestry, and regenerative agriculture.
    So those are the opportunities. The risk if we don't take 
advantage of those is that we just lose out on all of that, and 
we lose out to countries that are acting faster. China is 
investing more than twice as much as we are in renewable 
energy. I don't know why we wouldn't want to take advantage of 
that for ourselves.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Castor. And thank you.
    And, Mr. Meyer, the science tells us we don't have time to 
waste, why we were focused years ago on the goal of net-zero by 
2050, but the latest IPCC report was a code red, and it said 
you better get going this decade. Talk to us about that, how 
important that is going into Glasgow.
    Mr. Meyer. Yes. Thank you, Chair Castor.
    The report issued just yesterday by the United Nations 
Environment Programme showed that we are on track for a 2.7-
degree world, almost twice what we need to be aiming for, and 
emissions are going to increase by 16 percent by 2030 if we 
stay on the path we are on and countries don't take more 
action.
    By contrast, we need to cut emissions almost in half over 
that period to have a 66 percent chance of keeping below 1.5 
degrees. So it is code red. We have to dramatically scale up 
and accelerate the transition to a clean energy future, and 
that is the challenge for Glasgow.
    Can we do it? I think that is the biggest question that 
will be before leaders and ministers when they gather next week 
in Scotland.
    Ms. Castor. Well, hopefully the Congress will pass a good 
clean energy and infrastructure package to demonstrate we--
America is taking a leadership role there and we are serious 
about acting this decade, right away. Thank you.
    And I will yield now to Mr. Graves for 5 minutes for his 
questions.
    Oh, excuse me. Ms.--we will go to Mrs. Miller first. You 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member 
Graves. And thank you all for being here today.
    Out-of-control gas prices have risen over $3 in every state 
at this point. Natural gas prices are surging as Europe fails 
to meet its own energy demands, and Russia, shockingly, holds 
the lever of power over our allies, after our President gifted 
Putin a pipeline instead of promoting cleaner, safer, American-
made energy.
    President Obama was after coal during his Presidency, but 
now President Biden is here to finish the job, and it is not 
just coal that they are after. They are declaring war on 
American prosperity, a war on American energy independence, and 
a war on American working class, who will bear the greatest 
brunt of this burden, los

[[Page 36]]

ing their jobs, paying more for the lifestyle that Americans 
today have become accustomed to, like having electricity in 
their homes instead of candles, or taking a hot shower instead 
of dumping a bucket of cold water on their head. And this isn't 
just in America.
    Chair Castor, I would like to submit to you for the record 
an op-ed from the President of Uganda, published in The Wall 
Street Journal just this past week, titled, ``Solar and Wind 
Force Poverty in Africa.''

                       Submission for the Record

                      Representative Carol Miller

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                            October 28, 2021

ATTACHMENT: Museveni, Y. (2021, October 24). ``Solar and Wind Force 
Poverty
        on Africa.'' Wall Street Journal.

The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
        https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-wind-force-poverty-on-
        africa-climate-change-uganda-11635092219

    President Museveni writes that focusing on renewable energy 
projects in Africa earns praise in the U.S. and Europe, but 
leaves many Africans with unreliable and expensive electricity. 
While our global elite are trying to rewrite the rules for the 
entire world, they are subjugating developing countries to 
destitute destinies.
    Affordable energy and capitalism have lifted more out of 
poverty than anything else. Allowing developing nations access 
to these resources is not only good policy, but it is also the 
morally right thing to do. Forcing Africa to live in poverty 
and darkness so that John Kerry can feel accomplished on his 
private jet is not only arrogant, but it is inexcusable.
    I am not opposed to forms of renewable energy, but we must 
do it the right way. An all-of-the-above energy policy which 
complements our energy producing communities instead of 
destroying them, and it will build a stronger energy grid, more 
resilient communities, and a more united country.
    Innovation in carbon capture technologies will mitigate the 
impacts of traditional energy sources without giving up 
American energy independence. This committee and this President 
must use science and technology and commit to commonsense 
energy policies, not radical progressive idealism.
    Mr. Hernick, in your testimony, you explained how U.S. 
natural gas is much cleaner than natural gas from other foreign 
countries. Can you explain why U.S. gas is cleaner and how 
exporting more U.S. energy would actually lower global 
emissions?
    Mr. Hernick. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller, for the 
question.
    And, in your statement, you bring up some of the--the real 
moral issue that is associated with tackling the climate 
problem. And I agree with you completely. And part of what we 
need to rely on is better data. I think a major challenge when 
you look at the U.S. oil and gas sector and what is produced, 
these are commodities, and historically we haven't done a good 
job of distinguishing what is the difference between U.S. oil 
and natural gas or petroleum products from other countries.

[[Page 37]]

    But it is time that we do that, and the reason is because, 
as the United States has grown in its economic development, we 
have implemented the highest environmental safeguards anywhere 
in the world.
    When I was working for U.S. Agency for International 
Development, folks looked to the United States for best 
practices on how to protect waterways and keep the air clean. 
We have been doing that. We have been doing that as we extract 
natural resources, as we mine, as we develop oil and natural 
gas. And that means that we have a smaller environmental 
footprint, and we should be very proud of that fact.
    I think it is part of what we need to do, is tell the story 
to the rest of the world that there is a comparative advantage 
that the United States has in cleaner oil and natural gas.
    There is more that can be done, and part of the 
technologies that you talked about with--related to carbon 
capture, utilization, and storage, these are real technologies 
that are being implemented right now. If you are in the 
Washington, D.C. area, there is a plant not too far away from 
here in Maryland that captures carbon dioxide, it is a coal-
fired power plant, it ends up as the fizzy bubbles in a lot of 
drinks.
    Companies are investing in how to develop everything from 
concrete to yoga pants that is using carbon captured from the 
atmosphere and integrated into consumer products. That is a 
great direction to be headed in, and we shouldn't close that 
off.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I yield back my time.
    Ms. Castor. Rep. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chair Castor. And thank 
you to all of our witnesses.
    I want to note that Ranking Member Graves, in his opening 
statement, said we need to be candid and talk about reality. 
Here is candid, and here is reality. Last summer, as Ms. 
Fransen mentioned, there was a heat dome in the Pacific 
Northwest that killed hundreds. Ocean acidification is 
affecting our coastal communities and economies, drought is 
threatening our crops and our farms, and glaciers are melting, 
and the sea level is rising.
    So climate change, as we know, is an existential threat. We 
cannot rely on the free market alone to provide a sufficient 
response to its worst effects. And I do want to say that I 
reject the notion that a fossil fuel is fine if it is so-called 
cleaner than another fossil fuel.
    A whole-of-government approach is necessary to meet the 
challenge domestically, and robust collaboration with the 
international community is necessary to meet that challenge.
    I want to ask you, Ms. Fransen: Would you please discuss 
why relying on the free market and government-supported 
research and development alone is not enough to meet the scale 
of the climate crisis?
    Ms. Fransen. Absolutely. So, to give some context here, 
from 2005 to 2018, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions 
fell 12 percent. Okay? But we need to reduce emissions more 
than four times faster than that over the next decade than we 
did from 2005 to 2018. So we need to be stepping on the 
accelerator here in a dramatic way. We can't just rely on what 
we have been doing in the past.

[[Page 38]]

    And, by the way, I think it is important to note as well 
that the declines in emissions that we have experienced to date 
are not only a result of the free market. We have invested 
significantly in tax credits for renewable energy that are 
responsible for the tremendous growth that we have seen in 
solar and wind. So even some of those gains that we have had so 
far, which are too little and not fast enough, are not solely 
the result of the free market.
    So I don't think that there is any evidence that suggests 
that, if we sit back and do nothing, we will get to where we 
need to go. It is just not happening.
    We know that successful policies can make a difference, 
that well-designed policies and measures like those in the 
Build Back Better Act are a critical part of what is going to 
get us to our emissions goals, which, by the way, are not 
simply to reduce emissions marginally, like the shift from coal 
to natural gas does, but to virtually eliminate emissions. That 
is where we are going. That is what we need to keep our eyes 
on.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much.
    And I want to get another question in to Ms. McKenna, but I 
also want to note the importance in the Build Back Better and 
the policies that we are on the cusp of, as the Chair said, 
passing. These policies will create hundreds if not millions of 
jobs in this country. So I wanted to note that. It is so 
important to make sure that we send the message that people 
will be able to get these great jobs in renewable energy.
    Ms. McKenna, thank you again for being here to discuss the 
work of Mercy Corps. And your testimony highlighted the effects 
of climate change on agriculture, including crop losses and 
food insecurity. So can you please outline the importance of 
U.S. climate leadership to the regions and the 40 countries in 
which Mercy Corps operates and explain how the U.S. should step 
up efforts to address global humanitarian issues that are 
exacerbated by the climate crisis?
    Ms. McKenna. Thank you so much for the question. There are 
a few things and a few reasons why the U.S. should step up, but 
the main one is that it only makes common economic sense, 
particularly on the adaptation front.
    So, the inequality that we are already seeing and 
experiencing and that is being worsened due to COVID will only 
widen and increase without immediate attention on adaptation 
and money from the U.S. Government. Much of that money is 
needed for the least-developed countries. And failing to act on 
this will only result in a huge economic and human toll. It 
will cause increases in poverty, increases in conflict, and 
severely undermines our long-term global prospects. So we are 
all aligned.
    The second place where the U.S. should play a strong role 
with U.S. companies, governments, universities, all of us, is 
in innovation. A lot of the increase in access to energy that 
we have seen in the world has been because of new technologies 
and renewables and other energy things. But the old fossil fuel 
ways of bringing big power in Africa simply have not been able 
to come to fruition in that way.

[[Page 39]]

    So there are a lot of opportunities to keep using those 
technologies and opportunities for American businesses to help 
people to get more sources of renewable and decentralized 
power.
    Finally, in addition to that, we need to be looking at the 
causes of conflict and addressing those as we look at climate 
change. Climate change only exacerbates conflict, and there are 
a lot of ways that we can work with local actors to do that, 
and looking at the root cause of climate is one.
    For example, in northern Uganda, on the border, there are 
pastoral communities that use rivers and other things for their 
livelihood. We have been able to fund work that looks at--helps 
those communities determine land rights--usage rights over that 
water to decrease that tension between those communities and to 
prevent a more costly conflict in those areas.
    So we have a lot to bring to the table. U.S. innovation, 
U.S. leadership is critical for us to be successful.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Ms. McKenna, for your 
testimony and also for the important work of Mercy Corps.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. McKenna. Thank you.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Graves, Ranking Member Graves, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Is he not on the screen? All right. Then we will go to Mr. 
Carter. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    If I could take a moment of personal privilege, I want to 
announce, at 11:09 a.m., at Piedmont Hospital, Mary Emma 
Carter, the first child of my youngest son was born, and my 
sixth grandchild.
    Ms. Castor. Congratulations.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Ms. Castor. That is wonderful.
    Mr. Carter. Thank you.
    Gosh. Let me start off somewhere.
    Ms. McKenna, thank you very much. I found your testimony--I 
read it, and I found it very fascinating. And I want you to 
know that I agree with a lot of it. I think it hits at some of 
the concerns that I have got.
    In your testimony, first of all, you say: ``First, it is 
vital to recognize that communities urgently need help to adapt 
to the changing climate. It is too late to focus solely on 
reducing emissions.''
    And I have to agree with you there. I think that is a great 
point. I have the honor and privilege of representing the 
entire coast of Georgia, over 100 miles of pristine coastline. 
It is where I have lived all my life and where I intend to live 
the rest of my life, and it means a whole lot to me to make 
sure.
    I have always said that we have to do three things. We have 
to practice mitigation, adaptation, and innovation. And I have 
to give credit where credit is due. My good friend from Alabama 
sitting beside me was the first one to say that that I heard it 
from, and I have been saying it ever since. And it is true. It 
is something I believe in.

[[Page 40]]

    You also said that--in your testimony: ``U.S. climate 
adaptation assistance should build on and reinforce our other 
development assistance to prevent conflict, hunger, and 
poverty.'' And I agree with you on that too. I think that is a 
great point.
    My question, though, is--is this: If the developing world 
is forced to use renewable solar and wind energy, would it 
increase prosperity or simply raise costs?
    Ms. McKenna. Wow. Thank you for that question. I actually 
recently moved to the area from Georgia, so I agree with you on 
that pristine coastline, and I miss it.
    As I mentioned earlier, we have seen a steady decrease in 
energy poverty, and it has been mostly due to renewable 
energies and then rapid growth in decentralized energy 
processes. The other, the rapidly declining cost of those has 
also been--enabled those usages of those. And for lower-income 
communities, renewables may be the only real chance to end 
energy poverty.
    So we are continuing to see leapfrogging due to technology. 
We have things like increased financing, further reach, ongoing 
innovation to meet those needs, and improved policies will 
allow communities to make their own choices and to do the most 
cost-effective things.
    Mr. Carter. Would you agree--what about higher energy 
costs? Would that--with higher energy costs, are they going to 
help to prevent conflict and hunger and poverty or do just the 
opposite?
    Ms. McKenna. Yeah. Higher energy costs are not helpful, 
which is why it is important to have multiple sources of energy 
to--
    Mr. Carter. Absolutely. Thank you very much. I appreciate 
that.
    Mr. Hernick, I want to go to you. I want to ask you: As you 
are well aware, as we are all aware, since President Biden has 
taken office, he has done a number of things: canceled the 
Keystone XL Pipeline, rejoined the Paris Agreement, ended 
energy leases on Federal land, removed sanctions on the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline, encouraged OPEC to pump more oil, and we are 
pumping less, encouraging them to pump more. I mean, it baffles 
me. He has proposed taxing natural gas, penalizing the use of 
all fossil fuels through the CEPP Plan and others.
    First of all, I want to ask you: If all of these actions 
stay in place, all of them that he has taken action on so far, 
and the proposed ones are signed into law, will we still meet 
the climate goals set by the Paris Agreement?
    Mr. Hernick. Congressman, to achieve the climate goals set 
in the Paris Agreement, we need to bring the whole world along 
with us, and I think that that is part of the challenge, is 
that we cannot sacrifice the U.S. economy to achieve these 
goals alone. We need to take it with a global view on how we 
can reduce emissions the most, bring people out of poverty, 
meet their energy security needs, and do it while growing jobs 
and economic opportunity here in the United States.
    Some of those proposals that you mentioned will deploy more 
renewables here in the United States. But this morning, I met 
with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and some folks from Twin 
Metals Minnesota that came in, and they are going to be unable 
to produce and open a mine in northern Minnesota that is 
adjacent to the Boundary Waters, a beautiful area that we want 
to preserve

[[Page 41]]

and protect. But if we are not able to mine and develop 
critical minerals and resources in the United States, we are 
going to fail to meet what is an economic growth opportunity 
here too. And so that is where an all-of-the-above approach is 
absolutely necessary.
    Mr. Carter. Great. And how effective has the Paris 
Agreement been on reducing emissions in other countries and 
global emissions as a whole----
    Mr. Hernick. Not at all.
    Mr. Carter [continuing]. Thus far?
    Mr. Hernick. Not at all. Not at all effective. And I think 
that that is an important thing to recognize, is that even 
President Obama's Clean Power Plan that never came into being, 
set a goal, and the United States achieved that goal without 
the mandate 10 years ahead of schedule. And that is because of 
Federal policy as it relates to tax incentives, Federal policy 
as it relates to innovation, a lot of state action, and the 
action of corporate America.
    And that is something I do want to talk a lot about. There 
are many, many companies, electric power utilities that are 
driving emissions down, headed to net zero.
    One statistic that I will leave you all with is that, right 
now, 75 percent of American households are served by an energy 
utility that is on the path to net zero by mid-century. We 
don't need mandates if utilities are interested in heading in 
this direction already. Seventy-five percent of Americans.
    Mr. Carter. Great point. Thank you.
    And I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Meyer, I wanted to ask you--and I apologize if I am 
repeating a question that I didn't hear previously, and I 
apologize for being late. But, in your testimony, you stated, 
you know, geopolitical tensions, especially between the United 
States and China--there is, you know, a dynamic at play 
certainly going on.
    Do you believe there are meaningful areas where the U.S. 
could engage with China related to international climate policy 
where we could find some significant agreement? And, if so, 
which areas would you recommend the administration focus on in 
negotiations?
    Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Representative. Yes, there are some 
areas. It is a very tense relationship. We are not going to 
agree on everything. China absolutely has to do much more if we 
are going to have any chance of staying at 1.5, even below 2 
degrees Celsius.
    We have been collaborating with China in some areas on 
clean energy technology. In the Major Economies Forum process 
over the years, the U.S. and China have been chairing the 
sustainable finance working group in the G20, which recently 
put forward a sustainable finance roadmap, which was adopted by 
finance ministers, including Secretary Yellen, earlier this 
month. So there are areas where we can collaborate.
    We also have to recognize we are competitive rivals for the 
growing markets for clean energy technologies. And as others 
have stated, China is winning that race right now in terms of 
renewable energy, in terms of storage, in terms of electric 
vehicles and other technologies.

[[Page 42]]

    We are going to compete there and we know that, but we can 
play in a world that is dominated by rules and norms and 
standards, that drives innovation and drives technology 
deployment of clean technologies. And if we can reach agreement 
with China on that rather than competing sets of rules and 
norms, we will be ahead of the game.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that. And I wanted to just 
follow up on a line of questioning that has already taken place 
here. But, you know, it is ironic that we are here talking 
about this, and, you know, behind closed doors, we are trying 
to figure out how to get to a--close to $1 trillion worth of 
investment in climate on the U.S.'s part.
    So this is really a question for all of you. So if we can 
reach that agreement--and I believe we will ultimately, but, 
you know, we are not there yet--how does that play? I mean, it 
has got to help. I know that. But, you know, does it help a 
little? Does it help a lot? I am just sort of curious where 
people stand on that relative to COP26 and our leadership and, 
you know, getting the planet to a place where we need to get 
it.
    Mr. Meyer. Let me start because I spoke to that in my 
testimony. I am sure others will chime in. It is essential that 
the U.S. does what it says, that we walk the talk and that we 
show we are going to do everything we can to reach the 50 to 52 
percent reduction target that President Biden announced in 
April at the leaders' summit he hosted.
    That is the most effective strategy, frankly, to put 
pressure on China and other countries who are questioning our 
political will and whether we stand behind what we put forward 
in the global community. So, I certainly hope that we will 
show--be able to show in Glasgow that we are making progress in 
that direction.
    Obviously, what Congress does is essential, but the 
administration has a number of other tools in its toolbox in 
terms of financial standards, regulations, loan guarantees at 
the Department of Energy, working with the growing number of 
states and governors and mayors and business leaders and 
investors who have demonstrated that they really want to take 
the lead in the world economy on clean energy deployment. They 
have set goals of net zero, 100 percent renewables. We can do a 
lot more to collaborate with them and encourage more to join 
them in this drive for climate survival.
    Ms. Brownley. Well, I can assure you that that is exactly 
what the President told us this morning, so you and he are on 
the same page on that.
    Any other comments from the panelists? Ms. McKenna.
    Oh, I apologize, yes, please.
    Ms. Fransen. Was that for me?
    Ms. Brownley. Yes.
    Ms. Fransen. Okay. Thank you. I would echo everything that 
Mr. Meyer just said. I think the international community is 
well aware of the importance of this legislation and the U.S. 
delivering on its commitment to reduce emissions by 50 to 52 
percent.
    And I have heard members of this committee talking about 
whether we can trust China on this issue. I should underscore 
that China is on track to deliver its existing pledges, which 
is not some

[[Page 43]]

thing that the United States can yet say. And moreover, the 
United States has a history of reneging on its international 
climate commitments, unfortunately, having pulled out of the 
Kyoto Protocol and subsequently the Paris Agreement. So we need 
to do a lot to restore trust, and this legislation is a big 
part of that. Thank you.
    Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And with that, Madam Chair, I 
yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Gonzalez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    I want to quickly mention that China has no binding 
commitment to meet any target, so it is easy to meet something 
that you don't have a binding commitment to achieve.
    That said, there is a suggestion today that it is a lack of 
will, or somehow a lack of ambition that prevents climate 
action. My view is it is a lack of realism in many respects 
with respect to the tradeoffs that different countries are 
going to have to make, certainly a lack of global coordination, 
and also a lack of appropriate technology.
    The developed nations, notably Germany, that have moved 
sort of full on into solar and wind, have the highest rates in 
the developed world, certainly in Europe, and have not achieved 
their climate targets. A lot of that has to do with the fact 
they keep shutting down nuclear plants, which makes no sense to 
me, and the backup generation is coal. Another fact or 
projection, roughly 75 percent of all births globally over the 
next 50 years will occur in Africa. Those are fossil-based 
economies today.
    Mr. Hernick, I want to start with you, because I think you 
have the key line in your testimony, which is ``low-cost, low-
emissions technologies and goods will be critical to successful 
climate policy. Anything short of widespread adoption will fail 
to address this global issue.''
    So as you look at a world where 75 percent of births will 
take place in a continent that is largely driven by fossil, how 
do we get to our targets if not through low-cost technologies?
    Mr. Hernick. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And 
in my time in Africa--when I read the editorial, the article, 
from the President of Uganda----
    Mr. Gonzalez. That was powerful.
    Mr. Hernick [continuing]. That Congresswoman Miller 
presented, it is very powerful. And I think that we have to 
remember, and I say this as an environmentalist, that there is 
no greater threat to the environment than poverty. Because if 
folks are in a position where they need to choose for their 
family to heat their home and use a fossil fuel, use 
hydropower, use solar power or go out and cut down a tree and 
deforest, they will go out and cut down the tree and deforest. 
And I think that that is a major challenge that you are seeing 
across the continent, widespread deforestation which makes it 
actually more difficult to adapt to a changing environment.
    So we need all-of-the-above resources available to 
countries, and that will include opportunities to retrofit 
their coal-fired power plants, use not just carbon capture, 
utilization, and storage, but other innovative technologies 
that do allow fuel switching from coal

[[Page 44]]

to--I met with a company called Easy Energy Systems. They are 
based out of Iowa. And they provide a technology where you can 
supplement the fuel that goes into a coal-fired power plant and 
reduce emissions dramatically. That is a cool technology. If we 
are not developing that here, it won't be available in Africa.
    Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
    Ms. Fransen, in your testimony, you advocated for more 
investment in clean technology and a reduction in the rate of 
deforestation by 70 percent. I mentioned in our hearing last 
week that I have significant concerns about biodiversity and 
deforestation associated with solar and wind.
    A study conducted in California that was published in the 
National Academy of Sciences found that the deployment of solar 
panels can exacerbate habitat fragmentation--that is obvious--
result in direct and indirect ecological consequences.
    And another study led by Clark University found that forest 
removal in New England and New York for the construction of 
solar farms has driven up carbon emissions--driven up carbon 
emissions--releasing close to 5 million metric tons of carbon 
annually in recent years.
    These sorts of things are common sense. When you destroy 
forests and natural habitats, you emit carbon, lose carbon 
storage, and disrupt sensitive ecosystems. How do we strike the 
right balance between ecological concerns and climate concerns 
when it comes to massive amount of land needed for solar and 
wind?
    Ms. Fransen. Thank you for the question. Before I address 
it, I want to note that China and the U.S. have exactly the 
same amount of legal bindingness in their targets under the 
Paris Agreement. That is a feature that the U.S. negotiated 
very hard for.
    Moving on to your question, I think fortunately, it is not 
necessary to destroy forests and biodiversity to deploy solar 
and wind energy. I spoke earlier about how farmers are 
benefiting from payments to put wind turbines on their land, 
and that is helping them economically without destroying any 
forests.
    We have many options to deploy solar, for example, on roof 
tops, in urban areas, and in less ecologically sensitive areas. 
So, of course, we need to do it intelligently, and, of course, 
there need to put safeguards in place for biodiversity, but I 
think those two things can easily go hand in hand. Thank you.
    Mr. Gonzalez. If you project how much solar is required to 
hit some of these targets and you just look at how--where you 
will have to deploy it, I think reasonableness would suggest 
that that is not true, but I will yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Next up, Congressman Casten, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    And thank you to our witnesses.
    I want to just make a comment. My friend from Ohio just 
made the point that China has no binding commitments, and it is 
true. None of us do. The way that Paris was structured was to 
have voluntary, non-binding commitments to create a framework 
for all of us to try to build to something more permanent. We 
are uniquely the only country that looked at voluntary 
nonbinding commitments and decided that was too hard, and so 
Trump pulled out.

[[Page 45]]

    Now, I share that because when we were in Madrid, shortly 
after being pulled out, many of us on this committee, one of 
the Europeans pulled me aside and he said, I just want to let 
you know that bad things happen when the United States doesn't 
lead.
    And that is the moment that we are in by conscious choice 
by the former President, and, frankly, by conscious choice of 
40 years of policy where our story to the world has been, let 
me tell you about the complexities of the U.S. Senate. That is 
on all of us.
    For us to lead, we need to have the economic muscle to do 
that; check, we have got it. We need to be the leading advocate 
in the world for equity and equality and democracy; check, we 
have got that box. And then we need to show that we have 
actions to match our words, and we have failed at that for 40 
years.
    Now, I share that background because we have had those two 
of the three. There are other countries in the world that have 
at least one of those and are trying to come up with two, but 
they can't match our commitment to democracy.
    And, Mr. Meyer, you have been at this as long as anybody, 
certainly on the panel, maybe as long as anybody in this room. 
As I look back over history, the last time that the United 
States actually led and had all three of those was when the 
Montreal Protocol was structured, I would point out, under the 
Reagan and first Bush White House.
    I wonder if you could just share your wisdom of what we did 
right when we put that together, and what we are missing in the 
current political zeitgeist in America to do what we did before 
when we did--we did fix a problem, right? What can you share 
with us?
    Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Congressman. Let me first try to 
clarify this issue of bindingness. The Paris Agreement is 
binding on all countries to put forward what are called 
Nationally Determined Contributions, so it is bottom up. Each 
country decides what they can do and they commit to do it. And 
it is binding in every country to report on how well they are 
doing in meeting those commitments.
    It is not binding on all countries to meet those 
commitments because of the United States Senate. Because if the 
agreement had required each country to meet those commitments, 
it would require it submitting it to the Senate for 
ratification and President Obama knew there were not 67 votes 
in the Senate to ratify. So the reason it is not binding to 
meet the commitments is because of the United States.
    On the Montreal Protocol, that is a success story. It 
really has worked very well, and it was driven by science, 
including by Maggie Thatcher, who was the conservative Prime 
Minister of England at the time, the United Kingdom, and she 
persuaded President Reagan to support negotiation of the 
Montreal Protocol.
    That being said, it is a much easier problem to solve 
because it deals with a much smaller set of economic actors, 
and those economic actors realized two things: One, they could 
make a lot of money by producing the alternatives to the 
substances that were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer; 
and two, if their products did destroy the stratospheric ozone 
layer, they could be on the hook for a lot of lawsuits and a 
lot of liability and compensation.

[[Page 46]]

    So we were able to work with business, with other countries 
to get that in place. It is a good model, but it is not 
entirely analogous because of the differences. We have to 
mobilize action across every sector of the economy. Every major 
country needs to participate. And, as we have heard, it is a 
much tougher problem than the ozone layer.
    Mr. Casten. Right. And I am close to time. I guess I would 
just offer that the--and I agree with all those points, but a 
lot of that framework was then adopted into the 1990 amendments 
to the Clean Air Act, which we did for acid rain, which had a 
different set of economics. But we have shown with U.S. 
leadership that we can create a cap-and-trade model to monetize 
the reduction--
    With the time I have got left, Ms. Fransen, committing to 
clean energy is converting to clean--to cheap energy. So much 
of what we are trying to do in the Build Back Better is to make 
sure that we deploy the capital so that people can benefit from 
cheap energy, and whether that is building EV charging stations 
or tax credits, we have at least thought about how to do that 
in the United States.
    If you have a solar panel on your roof, you don't pay for 
electricity anymore. It is pretty awesome. If you have an 
electric vehicle, you don't pay for gasoline anymore. It is 
pretty awesome. Everybody who tells you that we can't afford to 
do this, basically would fail a freshman capital budgeting 
class, but I digress.
    What, Ms. Fransen, should we be thinking about 
internationally to make sure that folks in other countries also 
have access to those capital deployments so that they can 
benefit from cheap, clean energy?
    Ms. Fransen. Thank you. I think, first of all, as has 
already been underscored, the role of the U.S. in leading on 
innovation on these technologies to get them to exist in the 
first place; and second, on deployment, to have economies of 
scale bring cost down is fundamentally critical.
    So I would start there. And beyond that, I think the kind 
of support for countries, especially poor countries, a number 
of folks have experienced in Africa and in much less developed 
countries, support for those countries in the form of climate 
finance is also a critical part of the equation. Thank you.
    Mr. Casten. Thank you.
    And thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to go a little 
over. I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Next up, Representative Palmer, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman and the witnesses for 
being here.
    And I want to thank my colleague from California for 
acknowledging publicly what we have known all along, that this 
legislation is being developed behind closed doors with zero 
input from Republicans, which is hardly the way to address 
major issues.
    I also want to commend Mr. Meyer for the work his 
organization has done in regard to an issue that is kind of the 
ugly truth behind the climate, the push for renewables, and 
that is your organization acknowledged that there is 9,700 
excess deaths in the U.K. because of energy poverty.

[[Page 47]]

    The prices for household energy has gone up so much in the 
U.K. that people can't afford to keep their homes adequately 
heated, and they are dying from cold-related illnesses.
    Same thing is true in Scotland. It is interesting that a 
lot of my colleagues are going to be in Scotland. Maybe they 
should take some warm blankets with them because they are going 
to go through the same thing.
    And if this bill passes, we are already--without this bill 
passing, because of the Biden administration's energy policies 
already, we are anticipating somewhere in the range of a 40 
percent increase in household utility cost. That is going to 
really be problematic for people in some of the states like New 
York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Michigan, and 
particularly problematic for elderly people, because many of 
these people are on fixed incomes. They are going to have to 
make decisions about how much they can spend on their utilities 
to keep their homes adequately warm versus what they can spend 
on their food, which the food prices are going through the 
roof, what they can spend on the medicines that they need.
    And we have already seen Democrat policies in other states 
in regard to the elderly and COVID and the thousands of people 
who have died because of their policies in nursing homes. I 
just think the American people need to wake up and see what is 
happening here.
    I also have some real issues with this discussion about 
China. China said their target is to stop increasing emissions 
by 2030, to stop increasing emissions. They are going to 
continue to increase emissions until 2030, and frankly the 
entire Chinese culture is built on deception, so I don't 
believe for a minute that they are going to stop it, because 
their objective is not to save the planet, it is to rule the 
planet.
    So all of you sitting at that table are living in a strange 
world. I just am taken aback by the science. You keep talking 
about the science and try to say that the science is settled. 
Well, the only science that is settled is the political science 
on your side.
    You talked about 2.7 degree Celsius increase in climate. 
Even your own--the people who talk about greenhouse gases 
increasing the climate admitted that 2.7 degrees will have a 
negligible impact on the planet. It may actually increase 
economic development. It will increase food production.
    And then for those of you who are talking about food, the 
World Bank put out a report when the big push was for biofuels. 
Mr. Hernick, you may recall this. That report was suppressed 
because what they found that it increased food prices globally 
by about 75 percent, and it forced 100 million people into 
poverty, and probably, I want to say, in the 40 million range 
into food poverty, into hunger.
    You have got, I want to say, four, five times the number of 
people living in developing countries as live in developed 
countries. And you want to deny them access to natural 
resources, like natural gas, that could pull those people out 
of poverty. The World Bank has said that there are more people 
dying from indoor pollution than from anything related to the 
climate. So you are condemning people to poverty, you are 
condemning people potentially to shorter

[[Page 48]]

life spans because of these policies. I think you need to think 
about this.
    And you talk about jobs. We had a meeting with the Vice 
President of the European Union who admitted to us that the 
people who lost their jobs in the fossil fuel industry did not 
get new jobs. They are now having to live on their Social 
Security. And there is a Spanish study that showed that for 
every renewable job created, they lost 2.2 jobs. Those are some 
things that I think need to be on the table.
    With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
    Ms. Castor. Next up, Representative Crenshaw, welcome. You 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 
this hearing.
    Thank you, to all the witnesses, for being here.
    Ms. Fransen, I would like to start with you. You pointed to 
China as a leader in renewable energy investment. They have 
also asked that we help fund their transition to green energy. 
My question is, should we do that?
    Ms. Fransen. Thank you. China has been supportive of the 
U.S. providing international climate finance in accordance with 
our commitment under the Paris Agreement. That funding is 
particularly necessary for vulnerable and poor countries, for a 
combination of mitigation and increasingly----
    Mr. Crenshaw. I understand that it may be necessary for a 
combination of poor countries, but would it be necessary for 
China? It is not a trick question.
    Ms. Fransen. Well, we need to continue providing that 
finance and increase that finance in accordance with our 
obligation under the Paris Agreement.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Sure. Well, I hope China is never a recipient 
of that. I mean, you have mentioned them multiple times as a 
leader in renewable energy, saying multiple times that they 
have invested at least double the amount the U.S. has in 
renewable investments. If you are impressed by that, you will 
be very impressed with what they have invested in coal.
    In 2020, China built three times more new coal capacity 
than the entire world combined, that's the equivalent of one 
new large coal plant per week, and that is on top of the 73 
gigawatts of new coal capacity that is planned but not 
completed yet. So they are not going to COP26, and they should 
not be hailed as some leader in climate policy.
    Ms. Fransen, changing the subject, you mentioned in your 
testimony that the United States needs to drastically reduce 
the rate of deforestation. Really no disagreement there. I am 
not so sure that we have a high rate of deforestation. You 
didn't cite where you got that number, but that is not 
important. I think we all want net more trees, so let's agree 
on that.
    But what we might not agree on is who we should be hailing 
as leaders throughout the world. Many of the countries you 
mentioned as leaders in the climate space, they burn trees for 
electricity in order to meet their climate goals.
    The EU uses biofuels for 45 percent of its, quote/unquote, 
``renewable mix.'' Do you think United States should follow 
suit? Do

[[Page 49]]

you think we should be speaking out against these countries 
that use wood burning as a way to make their renewable energy 
mix sound better?
    Ms. Fransen. Yeah. Thank you for raising that. There are 
certainly problematic uses of biofuels throughout the world. 
Not all biofuels are sustainable, and not all forms of biofuels 
can be a robust part of our climate change solution, and that 
is why we need to be investing in other forms of clean 
renewable energy, like wind and solar.
    We also need to bear in mind that biofuel production can 
come into competition with conserving forests for carbon 
sequestration and biodiversity, and that is the form of 
biofuels that we need to avoid. So absolutely, we should call 
that out.
    Mr. Crenshaw. Good. I am glad to hear that. I would also 
note that CO2 emissions for wood burning are two and 
a half times higher than natural gas. We should not be clapping 
our hands for our European partners that like to burn biofuels 
instead of just going to clean natural gas that is produced in 
the U.S.
    I would also note that natural gas produced by the United 
States is 41 percent less emissions on a life cycle basis than 
gas produced in Russia. And yet, our administration plus the 
Europeans are doing everything they can to rely on Russian 
natural gas instead. I find that to be very frustrating.
    Another frustration I might have is--I have many--we have 
countries like Uganda that are begging for more natural gas. 
They are telling the Western world that they won't be trapped 
in this generational poverty because of the left's obsession 
with only solar and wind solutions.
    There is a company in my district that is trying to build 
an LNG import terminal in Vietnam. The LNG terminal would allow 
them to wean off of Chinese coal, which is three times the 
emissions profile of U.S. natural gas. And in Vietnam, their 
population density is 800 people per square mile.
    So a solar farm displaces quite a few people. It is not 
really feasible for them. So they are asking for cleaner energy 
that actually works for them. Wind doesn't work for them 
because offshore is closer to Chinese waters. And yet, the 
Biden administration is refusing to permit this, is refusing to 
allow this because our policy is not to help fund any kind of 
projects, fossil fuel projects, abroad. But, of course, this is 
just going to lead to higher emissions. Much like many of these 
policies will end up net leading to higher emissions.
    It is worth noting that if all OECD countries right now 
stopped burning fossil fuel, stopped emitting any carbon 
dioxide whatsoever, all of them, right now, for the next 100 
years, we would only reduce the temperature by 2100, by 0.8 
degrees Fahrenheit. That is quite a huge cost for almost no 
benefit whatsoever.
    I only point that out to get us back to some kind of 
rational thinking when it comes to a cost-benefit analysis and 
how we might look for better solutions that reduce emissions, 
because I think we all have the same goal there, but do so in a 
more pragmatic way.
    Thank you. I yield back.

[[Page 50]]

    Ms. Castor. Well, I want to thank our witnesses for your 
testimony today. Your testimony comes at a vital moment for 
Americans and the human race, frankly.
    Congress is poised to act on the historic Build Back Better 
infrastructure and clean energy package. That is good news for 
American families because it is going to lower costs, provide 
cleaner air, and good-paying jobs across the economy. And we 
know that Americans are awake like never before to the rising 
costs and the impacts of the climate crisis. Just take a look 
at what we are shelling out for catastrophic weather events now 
that are escalating. We have got to get a handle on this.
    Americans want action, and with American leadership will 
come global action that we need desperately before--and we have 
to act before--because temperatures are continuing to rise and 
it is going to get worse unless we all act. So we are going to 
march together to Glasgow, and do everything we can to help 
President Biden achieve our goals and press the rest of the 
world to do so as well.
    So without objection, I would like to enter into the record 
at this time an October 2021 report from the World Resources 
Institute titled, ``The State of Climate 2021''; the executive 
summary of an October 2021 report from the United Nations 
Environment Programme titled, ``The Heat Is On: A World of 
Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered,'' which provides an 
overview of the difference between where greenhouse gas 
emissions are predicted to be in 2030 and where they should be 
to avert the worst impacts of climate change; three, a 
September 2021 report from the Organization for Economic 
Cooperation and Development titled, ``Climate Finance Provided 
and Mobilized by Developed Countries,'' which examines the gap 
between adaptation financing that has been provided and what is 
needed; and, finally, a September 17, 2021, letter from the 
Industrial Energy Consumers of America, because, of course, 
exporting oil and methane has repercussions for the U.S. 
economy.
    So this letter to Department of Energy Secretary Granholm 
asked the DOD to take action to prevent a U.S. methane supply 
crunch that would harm consumers. The letter notes that low-
storage levels are the result of higher-year, over-year 
exports. Without objection, those will be entered into the 
record.
    [The information follows:]

                       Submissions for the Record

                      Representative Kathy Castor

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                            October 28, 2021

ATTACHMENT: Boehm, S., K. Lebling, K. Levin, H. Fekete, J. Jaeger, R. 
Waite,
        A. Nilsson, J. Thwaites, R. Wilson, A. Geiges, C. Schumer, M. 
        Dennis, K. Ross, S. Castellanos, R. Shrestha, N. Singh, M. 
        Weisse, L. Lazer, L. Jeffery, L. Freehafer, E. Gray, L. Zhou, 
        M. Gidden, and M. Gavin. 2021. State of Climate Action 2021: 
        Systems Transformations Required to Limit Global Warming to 
        1.5+C. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
        https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.21.00048

ATTACHMENT: United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Emissions Gap
        Report 2021: The Heat Is On--A World of Climate Promises Not 
        Yet Delivered--Executive Summary. Nairobi.

The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
        https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36991/
        EGR21_ESEN.pdf


[[Page 51]]


ATTACHMENT: OECD (2021), Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by 
Devel-
        oped Countries: Aggregate Trends Updated with 2019 Data, 
        Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal, OECD Publishing, 
        Paris.

The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
        https://doi.org/10.1787/03590fb7-en

ATTACHMENT: Letter to Secretary Granholm from IECA re: ``Requir[ing] 
LNG
        Terminals to Reduce Export Rates to Fill Winter Natural Gas 
        Storage, Establish LNG Export Volume Limits, and Put Public 
        Interest Safeguards in Place.'' (2021, Sept. 17).

The letter is retained in the committee files and available at:
        https://www.ieca-us.com/wp-content/uploads/09.17.21_LNG-Letter-
        to-Secretary-Granholm-
        2.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_ 
        campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

    Ms. Castor. I thank you again for attending our hearing. On 
to Glasgow. The hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                 United States House of Representatives

                 Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

                      Hearing on October 28, 2021

         ``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities''

                        Questions for the Record

                             Taryn Fransen

                             Senior Fellow

                       World Resources Institute

                       the honorable kathy castor
    1. We know that cutting methane emissions is a key way to slow 
global temperature rise and very often a win-win-win for industry, the 
climate, and our health. What specific opportunities does the United 
States have to lead on reducing methane emissions, and how would that 
benefit the climate?

    Methane is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year 
period, so reducing methane is a very powerful tool to reduce near-term 
warming. The major sources of anthropogenic methane emissions are 
agriculture (farming and livestock), the energy sector (emissions from 
the production, transportation, and use natural gas, oil, and coal), 
and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills and 
wastewater handling and treatment facilities. As one of the world's 
largest oil and gas producers, the US has both the responsibility and 
the opportunity to take action on methane.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Ross, Waskow, and Ge, ``How Methane Emissions Contribute to 
Climate Change''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the near term, the US can build on recent progress by addressing 
three critical priorities:
          Implementing the Methane Emissions Reduction Action 
        Plan, including implementing the EPA's proposed rule for oil 
        and gas facilities, addressing emissions from orphan wells and 
        abandoned mines, and reducing emissions from landfills and 
        agriculture
          Passing key provisions in the Build Back Better Act, 
        including a methane fee, funding for methane monitoring and 
        mitigation, and support for agricultural methane management
          Continuing to support global methane reduction 
        efforts under the Global Methane Pledge

    These three priorities would build on recent progress in the 
following areas:

    Global Methane Pledge: Internationally, in September, the US and 
the EU launched the Global Methane Pledge, an international pledge with 
a collective aspiration to cut global methane emissions by 30% by 2030, 
relative to 2020. More than 100 countries have already joined the 
pledge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Climate & Clean Air Coalition Secretariat, ``Global Methane 
Pledge''


[[Page 52]]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan: Domestically, the White 
House released a U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan in 
November, a comprehensive plan to address methane emissions from all 
major sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ White House, ``U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Plan''

    Agriculture: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is working with 
U.S. farmers and ranchers to expand the voluntary adoption of climate-
smart agriculture practices to reduce methane emissions from key 
agriculture sources. These practices include incentivizing the 
deployment of improved manure management systems, anaerobic digesters, 
and new livestock feeds, composting, among others.\4\ The U.S. Congress 
is also considering supplemental funding that would support many of 
these efforts, including agriculture conversation investments in the 
House-passed Build Back Better Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ White House, ``Joint US-EU Press Release on the Global Methane 
Pledge''
    \5\ White House, ``Joint US-EU Press Release on the Global Methane 
Pledge''; Yarmouth, ``H.R._To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to 
Title II of S. Con. Res. 14''

    Waste: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to 
implement stronger pollution standards for landfills, including 
installing systems to capture methane and generate electricity.\6\ 
Under the new U.S Action Plan, the EPA is boosting its voluntary 
landfill methane outreach program to achieve a national goal of 70 
percent methane emissions capture for all landfills around the 
country.\7\ The EPA is also ramping up an initiative to reduce the food 
loss and waste, which is a major contributor to landfill methane 
emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Benefits of Landfill 
Gas Energy Projects''
    \7\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane 
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to 
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''
    \8\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane 
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to 
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''

    Energy: The EPA has proposed a new rule to reduce methane emissions 
from oil and gas production. The proposed rule includes standards for 
performance, standards to eliminate venting, and monitoring to identify 
methane leaks.\9\ The proposal covers not just new but also existing 
operations, which will mean more rapid emission reductions. According 
to the EPA, the proposed regulations will reduce methane emissions from 
sources covered in the proposal by 74 percent by 2030, relative to 2005 
levels.\10\ Further, the Department of Transportation in the process of 
finalizing rules that will extend federal pipeline safety standards and 
requires operators to cut methane leaks.\11\ The Infrastructure 
Investments and Jobs Act significantly increases federal resources to 
address methane emissions from abandoned mines and orphaned oil and gas 
wells.\12\ In addition, the House included a methane fee and funding 
for methane monitoring and mitigation in its passage of the Build Back 
Better Act. If enacted into law, the fee would provide incentives to 
further reduce methane emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``U.S. to Sharply Cut 
Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health''
    \10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``U.S. to Sharply Cut 
Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health''
    \11\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane 
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to 
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''
    \12\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane 
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to 
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan and proposed EPA rules 
are first steps in achieving serious cuts from methane emissions in the 
U.S.
    Further progress is also possible in the following areas:

    A recent study suggests that oil and gas methane emissions can be 
cut even further through more frequent inspections, greatly reduced 
venting and flaring at wellheads, and improvements to oil storage 
tanks, among other measures.\13\ Many of these measures have now been 
put forth in EPA's latest proposed rule for new and existing sources, 
and the administration and congress should continue to support rapid 
and comprehensive reductions through complementary measures such as 
investment in RD&D, regulation of facilities located on federal lands, 
investment in plugging and remediation of abandoned sites, and 
partnership with industry to ensure rapid best practice adoption. New 
sensors and emerging monitoring technologies (for example, plane-
mounted sensors and satellites) will also open up opportunities for 
more advanced leak detection and repair provide granular data to reveal 
the leakiest parts of the oil and gas system, to support quicker seals 
and remedial action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Clean Air Task Force, ``Reducing Methane from Oil and Gas''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53]]

    Further advances can also be made in the agriculture sector. 
Enteric fermentation (cow burps), for example, is one of the largest 
contributors to methane emissions in the U.S. agriculture sector. 
Additional investments in RD&D of feed additives (which help to inhibit 
methane production and improve the productivity of ruminants), are 
important to scale up work in this area, firstly focused on longer-term 
trials and safety tests.\14\ Improved feeding strategies for livestock 
will require coordinated activity, so the U.S. government could partner 
with the private sector to scale up production and distribution of 
better feeds and conduct innovative marketing campaigns.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Searchinger et al., ``Opportunities to Reduce Methane 
Emissions from Global Agriculture''
    \15\ Searchinger et al., ``Opportunities to Reduce Methane 
Emissions from Global Agriculture''

    2. Global accountability and transparency are critical for 
translating climate ambition and pledges into real emissions reductions 
and progress on adaptation and resilience. How do we keep track of real 
climate action around the world and how do we know that countries will 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
deliver on their commitments under the Paris Agreement?

    The Paris Agreement has set out a robust transparency framework for 
the purpose of ``building mutual trust and confidence'' that each 
country is implementing and delivering on their commitments. As part of 
these transparency arrangements, each country will submit a report to 
the global community every two years, detailing their greenhouse gas 
emissions, progress made in implementing and achieving their 
commitments, adaptation efforts and needs, and the financial, 
technological, and capacity building support they have provided and 
mobilized (for developed countries) or support received and needed (for 
developing countries). At COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, the United 
States worked diligently with partners to ensure that the information 
reported under the Paris Agreement would be in presented in a 
standardized manner so that it is possible to transparently and 
consistently track climate action and progress on commitments.
    The Paris Agreement's transparency framework has also built-in 
accountability processes, where technical experts ensure that 
information reported is accurate and follows the latest and best-
available science and where countries can ask questions of each other 
about their progress towards their commitments and to explore the 
opportunities, challenges, and experiences countries face.
    The new rules established under the Paris Agreement, which will 
take effect by 2024, address weaknesses in the pre-Paris accountability 
system, including infrequent reporting by some countries and weaker 
requirements for developing countries than for developed countries. 
Now, under the Paris Agreement, all countries will be required to 
report on their progress every two years and do using the same strong 
standards.
    Processes established under the Paris Agreement are critical for 
the global community to track climate actions, emissions reductions, 
adaptation efforts, and the support provided for and needed by 
developing countries for implementing climate actions. These processes 
will provide regular updates (every two years) on actions in each 
country and serve as the basis upon which we will know how countries 
are delivering on their commitments.

    3. How do you see clean technology deployment and innovation 
benefiting vulnerable communities, and what role do you see for the 
United States in both supporting deployment and innovation and in 
making sure developing countries around the world can access cheap 
clean energy technologies?

    As noted in my testimony, while ambitious near-term actions are 
possible with existing technologies, further innovation in clean 
technology can broaden our options for ultimately driving net global 
emissions down to zero, which we must achieve around mid-century to 
limit warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F).
    Given that climate change disproportionally impacts vulnerable and 
marginalized communities--including the poor, largely in developing 
countries--innovation that helps realize ambitious global emissions 
goals is a critical part of reducing the climate impacts experienced by 
vulnerable communities and developing countries. Further, technological 
innovation is important to defining pathways towards low-emission and 
climate-resilient development throughout the world. Finally, the 
economic competitiveness, growth, and opportunity creation from clean 
technology innovation can be a driver of prosperity for developing 
nations. The deployment of innovative energy solutions can also bring 
clean energy to disadvantaged groups that generally face greater 
barriers to accessing these technologies and the benefits they provide.

[[Page 54]]

    The U.S. has an important role to play in innovation, as a nation 
leading the way on climate-smart technologies the U.S. can support 
innovation in developing countries through technology transfer, 
intentional partnership and collaboration, as well as international 
finance.

    4. What are the critical transitions that we need to make to limit 
warming to 1.5 degrees C, and what are the economic costs and benefits 
of making these transitions?

    To limit global temperature rise to 1.5+C above pre-industrial 
levels, the world must halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 
and reach net zero around mid-century. The sooner these emissions peak 
and the lower they are when they peak, the greater the likelihood of 
reaching net zero in time. The latest climate science from the IPCC 
makes clear that achieving these deep emissions reductions will require 
rapid, far-reaching transitions of unprecedented scale across power, 
transport, buildings, industry, land use, coastal zone management, and 
agriculture--as well as the immediate scale-up of carbon removal to 
compensate for the significant proportion of the carbon budget that we 
have already spent down and residual emissions that will prove 
difficult to eliminate entirely.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ IPCC, ``Global Warming of 1.5+C''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A recent report from WRI translates these global systemwide 
transitions into concrete, actionable targets for 2030 and 2050,\17\ 
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Boehm et al., ``State of Climate Action 2021''

        Power
          Reduce the carbon intensity of electricity generation 
to 50-125 gCO2/kWh by 2030 and to below zero in 2050.
          Increase the share of renewables in electricity 
generation to 55-90% by 2030 and to 98-100% by 2050.
          Lower the share of unabated coal in electricity 
generation to 0-2.5% by 2030 and to 0% by 2050.

        Buildings
          Reduce the carbon intensity of operations in select 
regions by 45-65% in residential buildings and by 65-75% in commercial 
buildings by 2030, relative to 2015; reach near zero carbon intensity 
globally by 2050.
          Decrease the energy intensity of residential building 
operations in key countries and regions by 20-30% by 2030 and by 20-60% 
by 2050, relative to 2015; reduce the energy intensity of commercial 
building operations in key countries and regions by 10-30% by 2030 and 
by 15-50% by 2050, relative to 2015.
          Increase buildings' retrofitting rate to 2.5-3.5% 
annually by 2030 and to 3.5% annually by 2040; ensure that all 
buildings are well insulated and fitted with zero-carbon technologies 
by 2050.

        Industry
          Increase the share of electricity in the industry 
sector's final energy demand to 35% by 2030, 40-45% by 2040, and 50-55% 
by 2050.
          Reduce global cement production's carbon intensity by 
40% by 2030 and by 85-91% by 2050, relative to 2015.
          Reduce global steel production's carbon intensity by 
25-30% by 2030 and by 93-100% by 2050, relative to 2015.
          Build and operate 20 low-carbon commercial steel 
facilities, with each producing at least 1 Mt annually by 2030; ensure 
that all steel facilities are net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.
          Boost green hydrogen production capacity to 0.23-3.5 
Mt (25 GW cumulative electrolyzer capacity) by 2026 and to 500-800 Mt 
(2,630-20,000 GW cumulative electrolyzer capacity) by 2050.

        Transport
          Reduce the percentage of trips made by private LDVs 
to between 4% to 14% below BAU levels by 2030.
          Reduce the carbon intensity of land-based passenger 
transport to 35-60 gCO2/pkm by 2030 and reach near zero by 2050.
          Increase the share of EVs to 75-95% of total annual 
LDV sales by 2030 and to 100% by 2035.
          Expand the share of EVs to account for 20-40% of 
total LDV fleet by 2030 and 85-100% by 2050.

[[Page 55]]

          Boost the share of BEVs and FCEVs to reach 75% of 
annual global bus sales by 2025 and to reach 100% of annual bus sales 
in leading markets by 2030.
          Increase the share of BEVs and FCEVs to 8% of global 
annual MHDV sales by 2025 and to 100% in leading markets by 2040.
          Raise the share of low-emissions fuels in the 
transport sector to 15% by 2030 and to 70-95% by 2050.
          Increase SAF's share of global aviation fuel supply 
to 10% by 2030 and to 100% by 2050.
          Raise ZEF's share of international shipping fuel to 
5% by 2030 and to 100% by 2050.

        Technological Carbon Removal
          Scale up technological carbon removal to 75 MtCO2 
annually by 2030 and to 4.5 GtCO2 annually by 2050.

        Land-Use and Coastal Zone Management
          Reduce the rate of deforestation by 70% by 2030 and 
by 95% by 2050, relative to 2018.
          Reforest 259 Mha of land by 2030 and 678 Mha in total 
by 2050, relative to 2018. WRI
          Remove 3.0 GtCO2 annually through reforestation by 
2030 and 7.8 GtCO2 annually by 2050.
          Reduce the degradation and destruction of peatlands 
by 70% by 2030 and by 95% by 2050, relative to 2018.
          Restore 22 Mha of peatlands by 2030 and 46 Mha in 
total by 2050, relative to 2018.
          Reduce the conversion of coastal wetlands by 70% by 
2030 and by 95% by 2050, relative to 2018.
          Restore 7 Mha of coastal wetlands by 2030 and 29 Mha 
in total by 2050, relative to 2018.

        Agriculture
          Reduce agricultural production emissions by 22% by 
2030 and by 39% by 2050, relative to 2017.
          Increase crop yields by 18% by 2030 and by 45% by 
2050, relative to 2017.
          Increase ruminant meat productivity per hectare by 
27% by 2030 and by 58% by 2050, relative to 2017.
          Reduce share of food loss by 50% by 2030 and maintain 
this reduction through 2050, relative to 2016.
          Reduce per capita food waste by 50% by 2030 and 
maintain this reduction through 2050, relative to 2019.
          Reduce ruminant meat consumption in high-consuming 
regions to 79 kcal/capita/day by 2030 and to 60 kcal/capita/day by 
2050.

    Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of picking and choosing 
among these targets--all must be achieved if we are to avoid the worst 
climate impacts. But the good news is that the benefits of climate 
action are enormous. A 2018 report from the Global Commission on the 
Economy and Climate, for example, estimates that, when compared to a 
business-as-usual scenario, ambitious climate action across these 
systems could generate $26 trillion in direct economic gains through 
2030, as well as create 65 million additional low-carbon jobs in 2030 
(NCE 2018). In the United States alone, Energy Innovation finds that a 
1.5+C pathway could increase national GDP by $489 billion per year in 
2030 and reach $997 billion in 2050 (a 2.6 percent annual GDP 
expansion).\18\ And due to limitations in economic modeling, these 
estimates are likely conservative--they underestimate the benefits of 
climate action. Traditional economic models do not adequately account 
for the damage that climate change risks, which vary significantly in 
scale and nature, can wreak on the economy, nor do they reflect the 
full benefits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, especially those 
related to improved air quality and health (NCE 2018).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Orvis, ``A 1.5 Celsius Pathway to Climate Leadership for The 
United States''
    \19\ Saha and Jaeger, ``America's New Climate Economy: A 
Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the 
United States''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Financing these transitions globally, however, will require up-
front investments that reach $5 trillion per year by 2030, with a 
public climate finance contributing roughly a quarter--or $1.25 
trillion per year--of this total (Boehm et al. 2021). But it's clear 
that that such investments make good economic sense, and the costs of 
inaction are far outweighed by the risk posed by climate change.

[[Page 56]]

    The U.S. is responsible for more cumulative carbon emissions than 
any other country, and it is also the world's largest economy. The U.S. 
can and must invest in transitions at home and abroad. Domestically, 
the U.S. needs live up to its commitment to halve emissions by 2030, 
and that means that congressional action, particularly passing the 
Build Back Better Act, is essential.\20\ However, these required 
transformations are global, and domestic emission reductions along are 
not enough. Congress can enable the U.S. to lead on climate action 
globally by maintaining and increasing international funding for 
climate priorities like clean energy, resilience, and forest 
protection.\21\ Finally, as leader in innovation, with congressional 
support, the U.S. can lead the research and development needed to fully 
decarbonize the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Kennedy et al, ``Blueprint 2030: An All-In Climate Strategy 
for Faster, More Durable Emissions Reduction''; Larsen et al, 
``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 US Climate 
Target''
    \21\ Thwaites, ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden 
Administration''

    5. To what extent have President Biden's policies affected energy 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
prices in global energy markets and here in the United States?

    Fossil fuel prices are volatile by nature. Over the past 15 years, 
we have seen 3 major spikes and 3 troughs in the price of oil--two 
caused by major global economic recessions (in 2008 and 2020), and one 
extended period of volatility from 2014-2017 caused by increased global 
supplies and OPEC production decisions (Figure 1). Price spikes often 
follow price troughs as periods of low prices discourage investment in 
production. Price spikes like the one we have seen in recent months 
have happened before and will happen again until the world transitions 
to clean energy and boosts the resilience of its energy systems.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6351A.003


    Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on domestic oil production 
requires understanding the investment cycles within the industry. In 
the years prior to 2020, low prices led to low investment in the sector 
and hesitancy to underwrite the large amounts of debt that more 
expensive shale production requires, particularly following the 2014-
2017 trough, when the price of oil fell 70% over a year and a half due 
to a supply glut resulting from OPEC attempts to undercut US shale oil 
production.\22\ During 2020, US petroleum demand recorded its largest 
annual decrease as consumption decreased to a 25-year low due to the 
pandemic.\23\ When demand

[[Page 57]]

cratered, wells were shut in, rig counts plummeted, and many operators 
declared bankruptcy.\24\ As demand rebounded strongly in 2021, this 
lower production capacity meant supply has been unable to ramp up again 
as quickly as needed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Stocker, Baffes, And Vorisek, ``What triggered the oil price 
plunge of 2014-2016 and why it failed to deliver an economic impetus in 
eight charts''
    \23\ Energy Information Administration, ``How much oil is consumed 
in the United States?''
    \24\ Cromwick and Myers Jaffe, ``Energy Price Inflation at Our 
Doorstep''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    President Biden's policies, including revoking a cross-border 
permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and temporarily pausing new oil and 
gas leasing, are not responsible for the recent rise in energy prices. 
The Keystone XL pipeline would have transported an estimated 830,000 
barrels of oil per day, compared to US petroleum product consumption of 
approximately 20 million barrels per day.\25\ The Keystone XL pipeline 
was also less than 10% constructed at the time of President Biden's 
order and would not have been completed in time to deliver crude oil 
and affect prices during fall 2021.\26\ The President's order to pause 
new oil and gas leasing was only in effect for 4.5 months, until a 
judge halted it \27\ and more than half of the federal acres already 
leased are non-producing. Given the small share of production on 
federal leases and the substantial lag time involved in developing new 
federal leases into active operating wells, the President's pause on 
new oil and gas leasing did not substantially impact domestic oil 
production. In fact, domestic oil production has remained relatively 
constant since June 2020 \28\ with the two largest disruptions during 
this time coming from extreme weather events, namely the February 2021 
winter freeze and Hurricane Ida in August 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Energy Information Administration, ``4a. U.S. Petroleum and 
Other Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories''
    \26\ Reuters Fact Check, ``Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline 
had secured most of its funding, it was only 8% constructed''
    \27\ U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Report on the Federal Oil 
and Gas Leasing Program''
    \28\ Energy Information Administration, ``4a. U.S. Petroleum and 
Other Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The current mismatch between energy supply and demand does not 
indicate we should slow the low-carbon transition--rather, it 
highlights its urgency. Shifting from gasoline-powered vehicles toward 
electric vehicles, public transit, and other alternative transportation 
modes would reduce oil dependence, protecting American consumers from 
price volatility and reducing reliance on imports. In addition, 
shifting from natural gas heating and new natural gas plants for 
electricity generation would also reduce volatility. The US homes that 
are heated primarily with natural gas are expected to have heating 
bills 30% higher than normal this winter, in contrast to only 6% higher 
for homes heated primarily with electricity.\29\ According to the IEA, 
if the world invests enough in clean energy, average household energy 
bills in developed economies will be lower in 2030 and 2050 than they 
are today.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Energy Information Administration, ``Winter Fuels Outlook, 
October 2021''
    \30\ International Energy Agency. ``Prices and affordability--World 
Energy Outlook 2021''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Policies like the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and 
Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Build Back Better (BBB) legislation currently 
being debated by US Congress would help achieve this transformation. 
The BBB legislation would provide incentives to speed development of 
renewable energy generation, encouraging their development over new 
natural gas plants. Natural gas already accounts for 40% of electricity 
generation nationally and is also used extensively for home heating; 
any increases in reliance on gas would exacerbate future vulnerability 
to price spikes and supply issues. The IIJA includes substantial 
investments in electric vehicles, which would reduce reliance on oil, 
including billions for investments in electric vehicle charging 
infrastructure and electric buses. The BBB legislation would add 
additional incentives for other electric vehicles, further reducing 
reliance on price-volatile oil. Factoring in fuel and maintenance 
savings, an electric vehicle already costs one-sixth the amount of a 
gasoline-powered car.\31\ Federal investments in these transformative 
pieces of legislation will extend the lower costs and clean air 
benefits of electric vehicles to more American households and protect 
consumers from the volatility and geopolitics of global oil markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Gillis, ``Investments in clean energy are the ideal response 
to high fossil fuel costs''

    6. Some Members of Congress have described the anticipated impacts 
of 2.7 degrees C warming as ``negligible.'' Can you describe the range 
of climate impacts the world might experience as a result of 2.7 
degrees C warming due to anthropogenic climate change? Would you 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consider those impacts to be ``negligible''?

    To date, global average surface temperature has risen 1.1+C (2.0+F) 
relative to pre-industrial levels. Current policies are expected to 
result in warming in the range of 2.7+C (4.9+F) by 2100. The projected 
impacts under this level of warming are significant, according to the 
IPCC AR6 WGI report released in August. The report as

[[Page 58]]

sessed five scenarios for future warming, including one (SSP2-4.5) 
projected to result in 2.7+C by 2100. The impacts on the water, ocean, 
and cryosphere system of that scenario include: \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ IPCC, ``AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis,'' 
direct quotes

        The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) will 
        very likely decline over the 21st century. . . . There is 
        medium confidence that the decline will not involve an abrupt 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        collapse before 2100.

        The Arctic Ocean will likely become practically sea ice-free 
        during the seasonal sea ice minimum for the first time before 
        2050.

        Both the Greenland Ice Sheet (virtually certain) and the 
        Antarctic Ice Sheet (likely) will continue to lose mass 
        throughout this century. . . . The related contribution to 
        global mean sea level rise until 2100 from the Greenland Ice 
        Sheet will likely be . . . 0.04-0.13 m . . . while the 
        Antarctic Ice Sheet will likely contribute . . . 0.03-0.29 m.

        Glaciers lost 6200 [4600-7800] Gt of mass (17.1 [12.7-21.5] mm 
        global mean sea level equivalent) over 46 the period 1993 to 
        2019 and will continue losing mass . . . (very high 
        confidence).

        It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will 
        continue to rise through 2100, because all assessed 
        contributors to global mean sea level are likely to virtually 
        certain to continue contributing throughout this century.

        At sustained warming levels between 2+C and 3+C, the Arctic 
        Ocean will be practically sea ice-free throughout September in 
        most years (medium confidence); there is limited evidence that 
        the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets will be lost almost 
        completely and irreversibly over multiple millennia; both the 
        probability of their complete loss and the rate of mass loss 
        will increase with higher temperatures (high confidence); about 
        50-60% of current glacier mass outside Antarctica will be lost 
        (low confidence); Northern hemisphere spring snow cover extent 
        will decrease by up to 30% relative to 1995-2014 (medium 
        confidence); permafrost volume in the top 3 m will decrease by 
        up to 75% relative to 1995-2014 (medium confidence). Committed 
        GMSL rise over 2000 years will be about 4-10 m with 3+C of peak 
        warming (medium agreement, limited evidence).

    A forthcoming (February 2022) IPCC report will provide further 
detail on the impacts of a 2.7+C future on ecosystems, water, food 
production, cities and infrastructure, health, poverty, and 
livelihoods. In the meantime, it is instructive to 
review the projected impacts of 1.5+C and 2+C of warming as a benchmark 
for 2.7+C 
(Figure 2).


[[Page 59]]

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                               References

    Boehm, S., K. Lebling, K. Levin, H. Fekete, J. Jaeger, R. Waite, A. 
Nilsson, J. Thwaites, R. Wilson, A. Geiges, C. Schumer, M. Dennis, K. 
Ross, S. Castellanos, R. Shrestha, N. Singh, M. Weiss, L. Lazer, L. 
Jeffery, L. Freehafer, E. Gray, L. Zhou, M. Gidden, and M. Gavin. 
``State of Climate Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to 
Limit Global Warming to 1.5+C.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. 
https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2021.
    Clean Air Task Force. ``Reducing Methane from Oil and Gas.'' Clean 
Air Task Force, 2021.
https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/21092556/
Path_to_65pc_OG_reduction- Dec2020_update.pdf
    Climate & Clean Air Coalition Secretariat. ``Global Methane 
Pledge.'' Climate & Clean Air Coalition Secretariat. Accessed December 
8, 2021.
https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/.
    Energy Information Administration. ``4a. U.S. Petroleum and Other 
Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories.'' Energy Information 
Administration. Accessed December 8, 2021. https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/
?v=9&f=M&s=0&ctype=linechart&maptype=0.
    Energy Information Administration. ``How much oil is consumed in 
the United States?'' Energy Information Administration. Accessed 
December 8, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6.
    Energy Information Administration. ``U.S. Crude Oil Composite 
Acquisition Cost by Refiners (Dollars per Barrel).'' Energy Information 
Administration. Accessed December 8, 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=R0000____3&f=M.
    Energy Information Administration. ``Winter Fuels Outlook, October 
2021.'' Energy Information Administration. Accessed December 8, 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/winterfuels.php.
    Gillis, Jack. ``Investments in clean energy are the ideal response 
to high fossil fuel costs.'' The Hill, 2021.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/584708-investments-in-
clean-energy-are-the-ideal-response-to-high-fossil.
    Hughes-Cromwick, Ellen and Amy Myers Jaffe. ``Energy Price 
Inflation at Our Doorstep.'' Third Way, 2021. https://www.thirdway.org/
blog/energy-price-inflation-at-our-doorstep.

[[Page 60]]

    International Energy Agency. ``Prices and Affordability--World 
Energy Outlook 2021.'' International Energy Agency, 2021. https://
www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021/prices-and-affordability.
    IPCC. ``AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.'' 
IPCC, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
    IPCC. ``Global Warming of 1.5+C. An IPCC Special Report on the 
Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5+C above Pre-industrial Levels and 
Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of 
Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, 
Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.'' IPCC, 
2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
    Kennedy, K., W. Jaglom, N. Hultman, E. Bridgwater, R. Mendell, H. 
Leslie-Bole, L. Rowland, E. McGlynn, T. Massey-Green, T. Cyrs, L. 
Clarke, H. McJeon, A. Zhao, J. O'Neill, R. Gasper, J. Feldmann, K. 
O'Keefe, S. Kennedy, J. Zhao, and H. Kazanecki. ``Blueprint 2030: An 
All-In Climate Strategy for Faster, More Durable Emissions 
Reductions.'' America Is All In, 2021.
https://www.americaisallin.com/blueprint-2030.
    Larsen, John, Ben King, Emily Wimberger, Hannah Pitt, Hannah Kolus, 
Alfredo Rivera, Naveen Damari, Claire Jahns, Kate Larsen, and Whitney 
Herndon. ``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 US 
Climate Target.'' Rhodium Group, 2021. https://rhg.com/research/us-
climate-policy-2030/.
    The New Climate Economy. ``Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of 
the 21st Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times.'' The 
New Climate Economy, 2018. https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018.
    Orvis, Robbie. ``A 1.5 Celsius Pathway to Climate Leadership for 
The United States.'' Energy Innovation, 2021. https://
energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/A-1.5-C-Pathway-to-
Climate-Leadership-for-The-United-States.pdf.
    Reuters Fact Check. ``Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline Had 
Secured 
Most of Its Funding, It Was Only 8% Constructed.'' Reuters, 2021. 
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-keystonepipelinexl-
builtandpai-idUSL1N2LA2SQ.
    Ross, Katie, David Waskow and Mengpin Ge. ``How Methane Emissions 
Contribute to Climate Change,'' World Resources Institute, 2021.
https://www.wri.org/insights/methane-gas-emissions-climate-change.
    Saha, Devashree, and Joel Jaeger. ``America's New Climate Economy: 
A Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the 
United States.'' World Resource Institute, 2020. https://www.wri.org/
research/americas-new-climate-economy-comprehensive-guide-economic-
benefits-climate-policy-united.
    Searchinger, Tim, Mario Herrero, Xiaoyuan Yan, Jinyang Wang, 
Patrice Dumas, Karen Beauchemin and Ermias Kebreab. ``Opportunities to 
Reduce Methane Emissions from Global Agriculture.'' Princeton 
University, Cornell University, 2021.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/
methane_discussion_paper_nov_2021.pdf.
    Stocker, Marc, John Baffes and Dana Vorisek. ``What triggered the 
oil price plunge of 2014-2016 and why it failed to deliver an economic 
impetus in 
eight charts.'' World Bank, 2018. https://blogs.worldbank.org/
developmenttalk/what-triggered-oil-price-plunge-2014-2016-and-why-it-
failed-deliver-economic-impetus-eight-charts.
    Thwaites, Joe. ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden 
Administration.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/
insights/4-climate-finance-priorities-biden-administration.
    U.S. Department of the Interior. ``Report on the Federal Oil and 
Gas Leasing Program.'' Department of the Interior, 2021.
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-on-the-federal-oil-and-
gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf?source=email.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Benefits of Landfill Gas 
Energy Projects.'' Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Accessed November 
22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits-landfill-gas-energy-
projects.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``U.S. to Sharply Cut Methane 
Pollution That Threatens the Climate and Public Health.'' EPA Press 
Office, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-sharply-cut-methane-
pollution-threatens-climate-and-public-health.
    The White House. ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane 
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to 
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs.'' The White House, 2021. 
https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/02/fact-
sheet-president-biden-tackles-methane-emissions-spurs-innovations-and-
supports-sustainable-agriculture-to-build-a-clean-energy-economy-and-
create-jobs/.

[[Page 61]]

    The White House. ``Joint US-EU Press Release on the Global Methane 
Pledge.'' The White House, 2021.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/
18/joint-us-eu-press-release-on-the-global-methane-pledge/.
    The White House. ``U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Plan.'' The 
White House, 2021. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/US-Methane-Emissions-
Reduction-Action-Plan-1.pdf.
    Yarmuth, John. H.R._To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title 
II of S. Con. Res. 14, 2021. https://rules.house.gov/sites/
democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-18.pdf.

                        Questions for the Record

                          Tjada D'Oyen McKenna

                        Chief Executive Officer

                              Mercy Corps

                       the honorable kathy castor
    1. You testified that it is very important that the United States 
meet our international climate finance commitments. How does U.S. 
climate finance aid help to meet development and humanitarian needs in 
vulnerable communities, support adaptation, and advance our own 
national interests?

    The climate crisis is one of the biggest threats facing humanity 
and jeopardizes the development gains the world has worked so hard for. 
Confronting climate change is the most pressing issue of our time, and 
action on global climate adaptation now will drive global climate 
resilience in the future. U.S. International Climate Finance is crucial 
to helping meet escalating development and humanitarian needs in 
vulnerable communities. The climate crisis disproportionately affects 
the communities Mercy Corps works with: vulnerable communities facing 
poverty, fragility, conflict and already suffering the devastating 
impacts of continued environmental degradation. As the largest 
bilateral assistance donor, the U.S.'s continued commitments to global 
climate finance will help countries adapt to the devastating impacts of 
climate change already being felt, like food insecurity, poverty, and 
drought, and help countries pursue low carbon development pathways to 
overcome their development challenges.
    We are already experiencing the devastating impacts that climate 
change has on almost every aspect of life--from food and water 
insecurity to infrastructure and public health. Our research has found 
that a vast majority of the most climate-vulnerable countries received 
less than $20 per person per year in climate change adaptation 
financing from 2010-2017.\1\ Through our programming, we have seen how 
important adapting to climate variability is and how investments in 
crop and livelihood diversification, seasonal climate forecasting, 
community-based disaster risk reduction, famine early warning systems, 
insurance, water storage, supplementary irrigation can mean the 
difference between success and failure for those dependent on these 
means to survive. And this crisis is exacerbating inequalities that 
intersect with gender, race, ethnicity, and economic security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. 2020. At What Cost: How 
chronic gaps in adaptation finance expose the world's poorest people to 
climate chaos. http://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.floodresilience.net/resources/item/at-what-cost-how-chronic-gaps-
in-adaptation-finance-expose-the-world-s-poorest-people-to-climate-
chaos/
    Climate risks, like climate change, are felt in hyper local 
contexts and amplified at the global level. According to the October 
2021 Climate Risk Analysis by the U.S. Department of Defense, Climate 
change is ``reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical 
environments with significant implications for U.S. national security 
and defense. [With the] increasing temperatures; changing precipitation 
patterns; and more frequent, intense, and unpredictable extreme weather 
conditions caused by climate change [we have found climate change a 
force] exacerbating existing

[[Page 62]]

risks and creating new security challenges for U.S. interests.'' \2\ 
Climate change threatens military installations around the world, 
increases the number and frequency of missions undertaken at the DoD, 
compounds the challenges and drivers of climate migration, and exposes 
U.S. defensive vulnerabilities--all of which could be exploited by and 
embolden malign actors. It is in America's best interest to avoid the 
destabilizing effects of climate change and assume the risks associated 
with increasing climate variability unleashed at home and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary for Policy 
(Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities). 2021. Department of Defense 
Climate Risk Analysis. Report Submitted to the National Security 
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Through the President's Emergency Plan for Adaptation and 
Resilience (PREPARE), the U.S. intends on adopting a whole-of-
government approach to supporting developing countries and communities 
in vulnerable situations around the world adapt to and manage the 
impacts of climate change. This response also stresses the importance 
of centering local communities and empowering local leaders with the 
power and resources to build resilience to climate change. This 
initiative also underscores the importance of multi-sectoral adaptation 
efforts, collaborative action and the need for smart investment that 
avoids duplication, enhances efficiency, and galvanizes good practice 
to combat climate change. Mobilized in this manner, U.S. climate 
finance and the U.S. commitment to supporting developing countries will 
help to speed up the delivery of global emissions cuts--ultimately 
leading to less damages, destruction, and destabilization of 
communities around the globe. The PREPARE Initiative also mobilizes 
finance and private capital to bridge the global climate financing gap. 
It aims to accelerate financing of adaptation measures by: contributing 
to and shaping new and existing multilateral and bilateral adaptation 
funds, supporting multiple climate risk finance strategies, 
strengthening capacity to access finance for adaptation and develop 
bankable investments, and striving to leverage both public finance and 
private capital.

    2. In your statement, you called for the U.S. government to work 
with the private sector to support climate adaptation. What can the 
private sector do to support climate adaptation and resilience in 
vulnerable communities?

    The standard humanitarian and development tools deployed by wealthy 
governments and development finance institutions--largely sovereign 
loans and project contracts or grants--are insufficient in scope and 
scale to meet the climate change challenge. To reach the level of 
funding required, it is essential to unlock far greater amounts of 
private capital and to encourage investments in higher risk 
environments. Today, private sources represent more than 90 percent of 
financial flows into emerging markets, and it has been estimated the 
annual need to respond to the scale and severity of the climate crisis, 
in green infrastructure and other adaptation and mitigation efforts, is 
around $5 trillion USD.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.wri.org/insights/low-carbon-growth-26-trillion-opportunity-here-
are-4-ways-seize-it
    Inclusive growth can only be achieved with the private sector to 
spur greater development and humanitarian impact. There are 
opportunities for the private sector to invest in adaptation as part of 
a global green economy. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to help 
communities cope with the impact of climate change. They now need 
capital and support to bring their offerings to scale.
    Development and business leaders alike recognize that by 
collaborating and leveraging each other's unique resources, assets, and 
skill set, we can tackle problems together that neither of us could 
address alone. There is a $23 trillion global market for climate-smart 
investments in emerging markets \4\ that needs to be utilized to reach 
our collective climate adaptation and resilience goals. Markets offer 
vital channels for advancing access to climate-smart and risk-reduction 
products and services, particularly in contexts with weak public sector 
services or protracted crises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ International Finance Corporation. (2016). Climate Investment 
Opportunities in Emerging Markets: An IFC Analysis. Retrieved from 
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/59260145-ec2e-40de-97e6-
3aa78b82b3c9/3503-IFC-Climate_Investment_Opportunity-Report-Dec-
FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lBLd6Xq
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Governments can assist with mainstreaming and integrating climate 
change adaptation into national, sub-national and sector planning and 
budgeting. This mainstreaming goes hand in hand with financial 
instruments, procurement policy and access to flexible funding 
streams--all of which can continue to ensure effective and efficient 
use of public dollars in assistance. During the annual U.S. Federal 
budget and appropriations process, for example, Congress can allow for 
more flexibility in funding within the assistance budget, to allow 
local actors and development

[[Page 63]]

agencies to rapidly overcome emerging issues, overcome barriers to 
entry, de-risk investment and be more adaptive in planning and 
implementation. Doing this will enable more effective co-creation, 
innovative financing, and partnerships with a diverse array of actors. 
This nimbleness can mobilize private businesses around the world to 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
advance our core priorities.

    3. In your testimony you described climate as a threat multiplier. 
What types of assistance can address this climate-conflict nexus and 
how the United States could demonstrate leadership here?

    The relationship between climate-related risks and conflict is 
complex and often intersects with political, social, economic, and 
demographic factors, amplifying and compounding threats and stressors. 
Despite the urgent need for more effective responses, funding for 
climate adaptation rarely makes it outside of capitals, with only 
approximately 10% of climate finance reaching local levels. Climate 
change will have the most pronounced consequences in fragile states 
because those with weak institutions and a history of conflict are ill 
equipped to effectively respond to the challenge and, ostensibly 
dealing with compounding crises, they are often passed over for 
``stabler'' places for investment. It is estimated nearly a third of 
conflicts from 1980-2016 were preceded by climate-related disasters. 
Research suggests climate-related disasters increase the risk of armed 
conflict, showing that states with large populations, political 
exclusion and low levels of human development are particularly 
vulnerable. Governance challenges in these countries often amplify 
the negative effects of climate change by undermining institutional 
capacity, damaging public trust and the strength of social contract, 
and sustainable development broadly.
    As such, strengthening local and state capacity to create an 
enabling environment for peace and stability and supporting climate 
resilience is critical. A recent study produced by Mercy Corps implies 
that the capacity of states to prevent, mitigate and respond 
effectively to the social and economic challenges brought about by 
climate change, may determine, in large part, whether violence 
occurs.\5\ U.S. programming should prioritize efforts to identify the 
knowledge and technical gaps of formal and informal institutions and 
build capacity to manage natural resources, address tensions and 
disputes, and respond to disasters effectively. Important to this work 
will also be establishing or strengthening conflict early warning 
systems as well as climate and weather information systems (weather, 
seasonal forecasts, early warning systems) to inform timely and 
effective local investments,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Jene, Lisa and Beza Tesfaye (2020). Addressing the Climate-
Conflict Nexus in Fragile States: Understanding the Role of Governance. 
Mercy Corps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Addressing-the-
Climate-Conflict-Nexus_Full-Report_11.6.pdf
    Relatedly, programming should prioritize helping local government 
actors and civil society organizations manage use of and competition 
over natural resources. Developing resource sharing agreements and 
joint management across administrative boundaries can improve 
coordination and use, build trust through information sharing, and 
ultimately reduce resource tensions. Further, working with communities, 
especially youth, to identify and support alternative economic 
opportunities can diversify sources of employment. Strengthening and 
diversifying natural resource-based livelihoods can lower the risk of 
conflict between groups and allow communities to better cope with 
climate shocks and stresses, improving food security. Assessing 
vulnerabilities and risks of food systems and facilitating access to 
improved technologies, including information services, can help reduce 
crop loss and improve yields, while facilitating market linkages can 
increase household income.

    4. How have you seen climate change undermine vulnerable 
populations, especially with respect to women and girls? How can the 
United States demonstrate greater leadership to address these impacts 
and ensure that assistance reaches vulnerable women and girls?

    Women and men are experiencing climate change differently, as 
gender inequalities persist around the world, affecting the ability of 
individuals and communities to adapt. It is crucial that our aid 
recognize and amplify the important contributions of women as decision 
makers, stakeholders, educators, carers and experts across sectors and 
underscore the importance, at all levels, of integrating gender 
concerns and gender equity in policies and programming to ensure 
successful, long-term solutions to climate change.
    We have identified three critical areas for women's participation 
in building resilience: (1) household decision-making, (2) meaningful 
participation in community groups, and (3) access to market linkages. 
Gender inequality, specifically in these

[[Page 64]]

areas, undermine and limit women's ability to prepare for, respond to 
and recover from shocks. Mercy Corps' resilience programs, globally 
programmed in diverse contexts like Nepal, Niger, and Indonesia, are 
invested in generating knowledge around the intersection of gender and 
resilience in practice. Advancing women's participation in household 
decision-making, community organizations, and markets is critical to 
strengthening their individual resilience and that of their families 
and communities. Designing programs that effectively reach women and 
strengthen their resilience capacities requires an in-depth 
understanding of key gender dynamics in the program setting.
    There are three ways the United States can demonstrate leadership 
in addressing the effects of climate change on women and girls. First, 
the U.S. can continue to integrate gender into all of the Agency's 
climate change and development strategies. Second, it can support the 
advancement of research to increase knowledge around the intersection 
of gender and climate change. In doing so it should highlight the need 
to address gender and social nuances in climate change vulnerability 
assessments, develop related guidance, and create opportunities for 
women and girls directly affected by climate change to contribute to 
identifying sustainable solutions. Third, the United States can 
continue to expand on the development of Climate Change Gender Action 
Plans (ccGAPs), as piloted by USAID in Peru and Namibia, mainstreaming 
ccGAPs within all of USAID's Country Development Cooperation Strategies 
and identifying a climate change policy or strategy guided by gender-
specific issues in each priority sector.

    5. Why is it so important to support local actors, local solutions, 
and the localization of aid when it comes to adaptation and building 
climate resilience?

    Climate change is both a global and a hyper-local issue. The causes 
impact everyone at a global level, however efforts and responses are 
coordinated at and informed by the local level. To tailor climate 
financing and climate resilient projects in a bespoke way, we must 
ensure that local leaders and communities are engaged deeply in the 
design and implementation of climate adaptation plans.
    Local communities are on the frontlines of climate change impacts, 
yet rarely do they and other local actors have a voice in the decisions 
that most affect them. Their engagement is central to ensuring that 
climate adaptation efforts are effective. Subnational governments and 
local stakeholders are key implementers of national policies. Local 
governments are often the first to respond to localized climate change 
impacts, and their strong connections to the community and local 
knowledge mean they are often best placed to recognize the need for 
adaptation at a local scale. The United States can demonstrate 
leadership by ensuring that local organizations in developing countries 
have a seat at the decision-making table and designated leadership 
roles in U.S. government programs seeking to respond to climate change. 
Funding to build capacity and transparency can also contribute to 
enhancing and promoting country ownership and increase 
sustainability.\6\ Reaffirming the USG's commitment to locally owned, 
locally led, and locally sustained will make assistance better tailored 
to local political realities, power dynamics and incentive structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Somanathan E., T. Sterner, T. Sugiyama, D. Chimanikire, N.K. 
Dubash, J. Essandoh-Yeddu, S. Fifita, L. Goulder, A. Jaffe, X. 
Labandeira, S. Managi, C. Mitchell, J.P. Montero, F. Teng, and T. 
Zylicz, 2014: National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions. In: 
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of 
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-
Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. 
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. 
Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge 
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Multiple U.S. government instruments--including Fixed Amount 
Reimbursement Agreements (FARA), Public Financial Management Risk 
Assessment Framework (PFMRAF), and Political Economy Analysis (PEA)--
exist to enable the U.S. to invest in accountable local systems, in 
government, and in civil society while protecting U.S. taxpayer dollars 
from unnecessary risk.\7\ The United States can help to, as USAID 
Administrator Power mentioned in her ``New Vision for Global 
Development'' speech, shift the status quo and center of gravity that 
seeks to maintain the present development and humanitarian apparatus, 
and lead the way to help identify new partners, strengthen the pathways 
for true capacity sharing and establish genuine partnership with local 
actors. The traditional power dynamics of donor-driven development (and 
the systemic inequities in place within it) undermine sustainable 
development. By the United States, the world's largest donor, 
amplifying

[[Page 65]]

the local voices of those who too often are left out of decision making 
and ensuring they have the technical support to co-design, set 
priorities, drive implementation and evaluate the impact of the 
programs and define success, the world can unlock untapped potential of 
millions and fight corruption, strengthen governance and bolster 
accountability--all of which accelerate and enable effective climate 
change action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ T. S. Ahmad. (2015). To Fight Corruption, Localize Aid: How US 
Foreign Assistance Can Support a Locally Driven Fight Against 
Corruption. Washington DC: Oxfam America. From https://
s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/CorruptionFINAL-
small.pdf

    6. Clean renewable energy (solar, wind, and small-scale hydropower) 
is often the cheapest source of electricity for vulnerable communities 
in African countries. A recent Brookings analysis finds that African 
countries are leading the world in expanding access to electricity via 
off-grid solar and storage technologies. Could you please explain how 
renewable energy provides cleaner and more cost-efficient solutions for 
vulnerable people and communities in different countries across Africa? 
Are there examples of communities bypassing polluting fossil fuels 
altogether and deploying clean and renewable strategies to meet their 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
energy needs?

    Renewable energy and energy efficiency are key to sustainable 
development, enabling energy access, spurring economic growth, creating 
employment, and improving health. Today, more than 800 million people 
lack access to energy globally, 8 in 10 of whom live in ``fragile'' 
states where communities also face a myriad of complex challenges 
related to conflict, weak governance and insecurity, as well as the 
growing impacts of climate change. Advancements in clean energy 
generation and storage technologies, plus innovations in off-grid 
business models have enabled decentralized energy services to leapfrog 
fossil fuel-based solutions for a growing number of households and 
communities, particularly in East Africa.\8\ Centralized energy sources 
and usually fossil fuel based energy systems have failed to serve these 
communities for decades. This leapfrogging has spurred investment in 
many new companies and can allow for individual households, buildings, 
and businesses to manage their own energy production and consumption 
and overcome affordability obstacles for poorer households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Cilliers J. (2021) Technological Innovation and the Power of 
Leapfrogging. In: The Future of Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46590-2_10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As well as being more effective in reaching these underserved 
communities, renewable energy solutions have also proved to be more 
cost effective. Of the wind, solar and other renewables that came on 
line in 2020, nearly two-thirds--62%--were cheaper than the least 
expensive new fossil fuel,\9\ according to the International Renewable 
Energy Agency (IRENA). According to a IRENA 2020 report, ``Renewable 
Power Generation Costs in 2020 shows that costs for renewable 
technologies continued to fall significantly year-on-year. 
Concentrating solar power fell by 16 per cent, onshore wind by 13 per 
cent, offshore wind by 9 per cent and solar by 7 per cent. With costs 
at low levels, renewables increasingly undercut existing fossil fuel-
based generation and distribution costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ IRENA (2021), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020, 
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To connect the poorest and hardest to reach households, off-grid 
solutions, including solar lighting, solar home systems, and 
increasingly mini grids, will be crucial. At Mercy Corps, through our 
recent merger with Energy for Impact (E4I), we will be able to create 
and bolster opportunities to increase energy access and use for the 
communities that need them most, integrate energy into sectors such as 
agricultural development, economic growth, youth employment, 
humanitarian recovery and climate resilience and push the frontier on 
research, development and design.
    The U.S.'s Power Africa Initiative, which provides technical 
support for clean energy procurement and helps mobilize private capital 
for clean energy projects, should serve as a model for U.S. leadership 
in the clean energy space and in programming focused on developing 
clean and renewable strategies to meet energy needs. Through the Power 
Africa initiative, and others modeled like it, the United States has 
the comparative advantage of leveraging its convening power to inspire 
technology-rich, multi-sectoral, multi-regional and cost-optimal global 
energy transition pathways. Power Africa's enterprise driven approach 
has motivated the private sector to invest in power generation 
projects, developed transmission and distribution resources, improved 
government capacities to manage their power sectors, and ultimately, 
leveled the playing field for competitive investment.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ USAID, 2018. Power Africa 2018: Annual Report. [Online] 
Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/
2018-Annual_Report1015_508.pdf. ZLM Project Engineering, The Case for 
Offshore Energy in KwaZulu-Natal, 26 April 2019, 2018 Draft IRP 
released by the South African Department of Energy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66]]

                        Questions for the Record

                              Alden Meyer

                            Senior Associate

                                  E3G

                       the honorable kathy castor
    1. What does the United States need to do to take a more 
constructive stance in our engagement with vulnerable communities, 
particularly those experiencing severe economic losses and 
environmental damage due to climate impacts?

    Extreme climate-related impacts are already hitting countries 
earlier and harder than expected, and these will increase significantly 
in years to come, even if current mitigation targets are met. Whichever 
metric is used, costs are already substantial, in both economic and 
human terms, and will only escalate. In 2020 over 30 million people 
were displaced \1\ by weather-related disasters, primarily in Asia, 
Africa and Central America. Climate-related disasters cost the world 
$210 billion in 2020 \2\ and 85 percent of the global population has 
been affected by climate-driven extreme weather events.\3\ The economic 
cost of loss and damage in developing countries is estimated to be 
$290-580 billion by 2030, rising to between $1-1.8 trillion by 2050.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Joint Statement by WMO and UNDRR on the Creation of a Centre of 
Excellence for Climate and Disaster Resilience, October 13, 2021, 
https://www.undrr.org/news/joint-statement-wmo-and-undrr-creation-
centre-excellence-climate-and-disaster-resilience
    \2\ ``Natural disasters cause $210 billion in damage in 2020, 
insurer says,'' Reuters, January 7, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/
business/environment/natural-disasters-cause-210-billion-damage-2020-
insurer-says-2021-01-07/
    \3\ ``At least 85 percent of the world's population has been 
affected by human-induced climate change, new study shows,'' Washington 
Post, October 11, 2021 https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/11/85-percent-
population-climate-impacts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Integrated Assessment for Identifying Climate Finance Needs for 
Loss and Damage: A Critical Review, November 29, 2018 https://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5_14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change already poses a risk to sovereign credit ratings, 
especially in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island 
Developing States (SIDS). While no country is fully prepared or immune, 
the impacts are worst for those countries least responsible for climate 
change and least able to pay for the response. For example, since 2019 
multiple cyclones in Mozambique have helped push government debt to 125 
percent of GDP. As the OECD notes in a recent report, without 
appropriate action climate impacts will undermine their ability to 
adapt to climate change and to achieve sustainable development.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Managing Climate Risks: Facing up to Losses and Damages, OECD, 
November 1, 2021 https://www.oecd.org/environment/managing-climate-
risks-facing-up-to-losses-and-damages-55ea1cc9-en.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The underinvestment in, and lack of resilience of, societies is 
widening the divisions between those most and least capable of dealing 
with these climate, resource and other shocks. While many LDCs have 
shown great ingenuity in their responses, recent extreme weather events 
combined with Covid-19 have overwhelmed disaster response capabilities 
and state and local budgets. The strain on vulnerable countries is 
destroying the economic markets of the future and threatens global 
stability, peace, and prosperity.
    There is an urgent need for developed countries to show leadership 
and offer concrete support to address adaptation and loss and damage. 
As the OECD says: ``Developed countries must scale up both financial 
and technical support to developing countries and make such support 
more accessible and predictable.''
    While loss and damage incurred by developing countries is 
escalating rapidly, there are no dedicated financial or technical 
mechanisms available to address climate impacts. Those designed to 
support adaptation, mitigation, sustainable development and 
humanitarian relief are neither sufficient nor appropriate to address 
the scale and nature of loss and damage, now or in the future. While 
countries at COP26 decided to provide the resources needed to stand up 
the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, it is not yet functioning to 
provide technical support and is not set up to channel finance to 
countries in need. New financial instruments and systems for delivering 
technical support are urgently required to meet the challenge.

[[Page 67]]

    The most climate vulnerable countries (LDCs and SIDS) are showing 
strong appetite to find practical solutions that can be applied now to 
address loss and damage. They are looking for solidarity in tackling 
these challenges and urgently seek practical support that builds upon 
existing financial and technical tools and instruments, while exploring 
appropriate innovative options.
    In Glasgow, countries agreed to ``establish the Glasgow Dialogue 
between Parties, relevant organizations and stakeholders to discuss the 
arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimize and 
address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate 
change, to take place in the first sessional period of each year of the 
Subsidiary Body for Implementation, concluding at its sixtieth session 
(June 2024).'' \6\ At the first session next June in Bonn, Germany, the 
US and other developed countries should demonstrate a new, and public, 
willingness to support the most climate vulnerable and least 
responsible countries to address loss and damage and focus on how they 
can provide vulnerable countries the support they need to address 
climate impacts practically and urgently. These dialogues offer a 
chance to set a new positive agenda for international cooperation that 
yields significant geopolitical benefits. Helping vulnerable countries 
prepare for and manage climate risk is not only a moral imperative, it 
is also imperative for ensuring global stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Glasgow Climate Pact, November 13, 2021 https://unfccc.int/
documents/310497
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Building on the outcomes of COP26, the US should work with other 
countries to:

      Operationalize the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, 
by providing funding for a secretariat under the UNFCCC, human 
resources and administrative systems to facilitate countries to 
identify their technical and financial support needs and to connect 
with the right providers of support, and funding to enable countries to 
access support, including financial support to highly vulnerable 
countries to conduct detailed national Loss and Damage risk and needs 
assessments.

      Mandate an assessment of the resources required to 
address Loss and Damage to feed into the forward-looking assessment 
under the Global Stocktake. This should quantify current expenditure 
being delivered by existing mechanisms, including humanitarian 
assistance, climate finance, development finance, and disaster risk 
reduction and response. It should also identify and quantify the gaps 
in finance currently available to address Loss and Damage, examining 
the quantity of finance available that can be used to address Loss and 
Damage and considering whether existing instruments are appropriate to 
do so effectively.

      Collaborate with finance providers in the design and 
establishment of National Solidarity Funds for Loss and Damage, which 
can be used to channel finance into the different activities needed to 
cope with climate impacts, tackling comprehensively the different forms 
of loss and damage over the range of time frames and contexts in which 
it is experienced, i.e. anticipatory action, humanitarian response, 
recovery and rehabilitation, disaster risk reduction and preparedness, 
social protection and risk avoidance. These funds would aim to support 
activities such as planned relocation, managed migration, migration 
friendly cities, portable social protection or loan repayment holidays 
as well as non-economic loss and damage, for example through 
psychological services, and would incentivise the actors from 
humanitarian, disaster risk reduction, social protection and climate 
change sectors to work together to deliver Loss and Damage finance in 
ways that are accessible, predictable, and flexible. The funding 
disbursed to National Solidarity Funds for Loss and Damage should be 
new and additional finance to existing development, humanitarian and 
climate finance.

      Work with finance providers to develop the mosaic of 
financial instruments required to fund the different activities that 
need to be delivered through national platforms, and to mobilise or 
establish appropriate financial delivery mechanisms to meet the varied 
needs of the most vulnerable countries. This would include disaster 
risk finance, parametric insurance, forecast based finance, 
anticipatory and rapid humanitarian response finance, local finance 
delivery, risk transfer/insurance, highly concessional recovery 
finance, debt restructuring and relief, debt for climate swaps, 
catastrophe bonds, long term investments in risk reduction, disaster 
preparedness, social protection and migration.


[[Page 68]]


      Announce a collective pledge to invest in regional 
disaster protection schemes through the Risk Informed Early Action 
Partnership (REAP) initiative.

      Make new bilateral commitments to support national 
disaster response and preparedness funds.

      Establish an international Climate Risk Observatory, 
responsible for monitoring systemic and compounding risks, making sense 
of them and recommending appropriate policy responses, with a view to 
building a broad consensus on the nature of the risk landscape through 
objective and evidence-based analysis and to directing finance towards 
the most significant risks in the most vulnerable places.

      Support the United Nations in developing a whole-of-
system approach to addressing Loss and Damage. Loss and Damage has 
implications that go well beyond the mandate and scope of the UNFCCC. 
All relevant UN agencies and multilateral institutions must come 
together to agree on how to support LDCs and SIDS to address Loss and 
Damage effectively.

    2. What are your views on the U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration 
on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s? How will U.S. leadership on 
the global stage help to raise China's climate action ambition and work 
to hold China accountable to their commitments?

    The U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate 
Action in the 2020s is an important signal as there is no pathway for 
holding the increase in global temperature to 1.5C without engagement 
on climate between China and the US; the declaration shows that 
cooperation on this issue is possible despite tense relations. In the 
joint declaration, the US and China acknowledge the urgency of the 
climate crisis; they both must now show that they are taking the 
responsibility they promised to prevent dangerous climate change by 
taking bold actions in the 2020s.
    Both President Biden and President Xi face domestic political 
challenges in making the transition from dirty to clean energy 
resources; demonstrations that both sides are taking action can be 
helpful in addressing these challenges. In Glasgow, President Biden and 
his team had to address the difficulties they have been facing in 
getting his climate legislation enacted; making progress on this 
domestic agenda will be critical to the administration's ability to 
encourage other countries to increase the ambition of their Paris 
commitments. While President Xi and other Chinese Communist Party 
leaders aren't exceptionally worried about climate change diplomacy 
right now, they have concerns that a negative public view of China's 
actions on climate could interfere with broader plans for expanding 
China's reach in the longer term and they are frustrated by criticisms 
of China's actions given how much they believe they have done already 
to reduce emissions.
    In the joint declaration, the U.S. and China agreed to make methane 
reduction a principal focus of their individual and joint efforts. 
Because molecule-by-molecule methane is 80 times more potent at warming 
than CO2, and because it dissipates more quickly in the 
atmosphere than CO2, significant methane emissions 
reductions in the 2020s could increase the chances of meeting the Paris 
temperature limitation goal. Progress in developing the methane action 
plan promised by China in advance of COP27 in the declaration will be 
an important test of whether this is a significant step forward in US-
China collaborative action. Other significant aspects of the 
declaration include China's commitment to accelerate the phase-down of 
domestic coal consumption in its 15th Five-Year Plan, and the 
commitment of both countries to ``engage collaboratively in support of 
eliminating global illegal deforestation through effectively enforcing 
their respective laws on banning illegal imports.''
    The first meeting of the US-China ``Working Group on Enhancing 
Climate Action in the 2020s'' launched in the declaration will be held 
this week and may provide signals on how far collaboration can go on 
some of the other specific areas outlined in the declaration.
    In response to your second question, by accepting the mitigation 
elements of the Glasgow Pact, China has acknowledged the gap between 
its current efforts and the 1.5C target, recognized the need to do more 
in this decade and committed to revisit its 2030 climate goal. Beijing 
needs to deliver on the promises made in the Glasgow Climate Pact soon 
with action--through putting an expiry date on domestic coal 
consumption and bringing forward its peaking target to put China in 
line with the 1.5C temperature limitation goal.
    President Xi wants to make China a strong global player that can 
exert political and economic influence; perceptions that China is not 
doing its share to address the

[[Page 69]]

climate crisis could limit China's ability to exert influence and may 
change the CCP's calculations on the pace of decarbonization.
    The US can challenge President Xi's ability to exert influence by 
demonstrating climate leadership at home and abroad. While (fairly) 
immune to diplomatic pressure from the U.S., the CCP's competitive 
nature remains sensitive to action by the U.S. and other developed 
countries.
    Chinese leaders assert that their form of government is superior to 
that of the U.S. and more broadly those of the West; US actions 
demonstrating a commitment to managing climate for the long-term raises 
U.S. credibility internationally and can build pressure on China to 
compete to show that their model of government can also deliver. This 
may be more effective in accelerating the pace of decarbonization in 
China than bilateral diplomacy, which has to date produced limited 
results.
    More broadly, developing countries are looking for sustainable 
growth models. The U.S. can (and should) offer countries a low carbon 
sustainable economic growth model, by providing technology, technical 
and financial assistance, while preserving the countries' agency. This 
can build pressure on China to revise its terms for overseas 
infrastructure finance and technology assistance as well as to reduce 
its own domestic emissions which are putting other developing countries 
at risk for the worst effects of climate change.
    The under delivery of the developed countries' $100 billion climate 
finance commitment and resistance to the loss and damage outcomes 
called for by developing countries at COP26 hindered efforts to build 
trust and cooperation, and reduced pressure on China to raise its own 
ambition. The US should work with other developed countries to identify 
significant sources of funding for loss and damage activities by COP27 
in Egypt, and to ensure that the goal of doubling collective adaptation 
finance by 2025 is met. This will help build solidarity with developing 
countries and take away this excuse for inaction from China.
    One significant announcement in Glasgow was the agreement by the 
US, EU, UK, Germany and France to provide assistance to South Africa in 
making a transition from coal to clean energy resources, which gave 
South Africa the confidence to put forward a more ambitious nationally-
determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. Delivering similar 
energy transition deals in high-emitting developing countries in the 
Indo-Pacific including India, Vietnam, and Indonesia could enable them 
to take steps to phase down coal consumption and would leave China more 
isolated in its resistance to moving more aggressively on this front.

    3. How can the United States play a key role in accelerating global 
ambition on climate action post-COP26, ahead of COP27 in Egypt, and 
over the next several all-important years?

    Far-off net zero targets were not the major theme at COP26; rather, 
closing the gap in near-term action was the strong message from 
Leaders' speeches in the opening high-level segment and this was 
reinforced by India's new pledge to raise its 2030 ambition towards 
meeting its net zero by 2070 emissions goal and by a variety of 
leadership coalitions making economy-shifting commitments on coal, 
methane, elimination of fossil fuel investments, and deforestation.
    The Glasgow Pact \7\ acknowledges that current emissions limitation 
pledges aren't enough to achieve the reductions of 45% needed in global 
emissions by 2030 to ``keep 1.5C alive'' and sets out several requests 
for countries to step up action, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Glasgow Climate Pact, November 13, 2021 https://unfccc.int/
documents/310497

        -- ``to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their 
        nationally determined contributions as necessary to align with 
        the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022;''
        -- for those ``that have not yet done so to communicate . . . 
        long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies 
        towards just transitions to net zero emissions by or around 
        midcentury;''
        -- ``to accelerate the development, deployment and 
        dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to 
        transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by 
        rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and 
        energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts 
        towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of 
        inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted 
        support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with 
        national circumstances and recognizing the need for support 
        towards a just transition;'' and
        -- ``to consider further actions to reduce by 2030 non-carbon 
        dioxide greenhouse gas emissions, including methane.''


[[Page 70]]


    The decision also establishes a work program on cutting emissions 
before 2030 and calls for annual high-level ministerial round tables on 
pre-2030 ambition to be held at each COP meeting, to give the 
acceleration of action more political prominence.
    Delivering on these opportunities by COP27 in Egypt next November 
will require coordinated diplomatic and public campaigning to ensure 
key countries deliver on the promise to raise their 2030 targets and 
policy pathways. As discussed in the response to question 6 below, 
mobilizing finance at scale to support national level just transition 
strategies (along the lines of the South Africa Just Energy Transition 
deal to shift its power system away from coal) will be necessary to 
open the political and fiscal space for more aggressive decarbonization 
commitments by major developing countries. The US should provide 
leadership by ramping up its own bilateral assistance on this front as 
well as by working to leverage private sector clean technology 
investments and pressing the World Bank and other multilateral 
financial institutions to deploy more of their financial firepower to 
this objective.
    As mentioned above, COP26 saw ambitious sectoral pledges on 
methane, forests, coal, clean vehicles, and fossil financing. The US 
and other countries should provide leadership on defining tracking 
metrics and accountability mechanisms to help ensure that these 
sectoral and non-state actor commitments are credible; the expert task 
force created by UN Secretary General Guterres provides one important 
forum for this work.
    With its leadership of the Major Economies Forum, as well as its 
chairmanship of the International Energy Agency's annual ministerial 
meeting in February and of the Clean Energy Ministerial and Mission 
Innovation summits in Pittsburgh next September, the US has 
opportunities to help shape the international collaborative clean 
energy architecture needed to accelerate the development and deployment 
of clean technologies in every sector of the global economy.
    The US should also work with the incoming German G7 and Indonesian 
G20 presidencies to build on the progress made on climate and clean 
energy issues as last June's G7 leaders' summit in Carbis Bay and last 
June's G20 leaders' summit in Rome. This includes further elaboration 
of criteria for sustainable finance investments, strengthening private 
sector risk assessment and disclosure standards, and encouraging 
national efforts to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel production and 
consumption.

    4. As developing countries, including in Africa, develop and expand 
access to electricity, what are the economic and climate considerations 
that drive energy mix choices?

    For many developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, expanding 
access to modern energy services is a high priority. Sustainable Energy 
For All reports that while some progress has been made, much more 
remains to be done on this goal:

          ``Globally, the number of people without access to 
        electricity declined from 1.2 billion in 2010 to 759 million in 
        2019. Electrification through decentralized renewable-based 
        solutions in particular gained momentum. The number of people 
        connected to mini-grids has more than doubled between 2010 and 
        2019, growing from 5 to 11 million people. However, under 
        current and planned policies and further affected by the COVID-
        19 crisis, the 2021 Tracking SDG7 Report estimates 660 million 
        people would still lack access in 2030, most of them in Sub-
        Saharan Africa. At the same time, some 2.6 billion people 
        remained without access to clean cooking in 2019, one third of 
        the global population. Largely stagnant progress since 2010 
        leads to millions of deaths each year from breathing cooking 
        smoke, and without rapid action to scale up clean cooking the 
        world will fall short of its target by 30 percent come 2030.'' 
        \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ SEforAll Analysis of SDG 7 Progress, 2021, Sustainable Energy 
for All, August 11, 2021 https://www.seforall.org/data-stories/
seforall-analysis-of-sdg7-progress-2021

    Expanding public and private sector finance for clean energy 
investments is a key ingredient in closing these energy access gaps. 
But as the World Resources Institute notes in its Investing in 
Sustainable Energy Futures report,\9\ there are several other factors 
hindering progress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Investing in Sustainable Energy Futures, World Resources 
Institute, April 22, 2010 https://www.wri.org/research/investing-
sustainable-energy-futures

          ``Energy prices do not reflect the true costs of fossil-fuel 
        technologies to public health, to the local environment, and to 
        the planet's climate system. Decision making in the electricity 
        sector has tended to be both exclusive

[[Page 71]]

        and opaque, dominated by interests with a stake in ``business 
        as usual'' practices. As the prices of fossil fuels rise along 
        with our understanding of the environmental and social costs of 
        conventional energy, we need new and better ways to meet energy 
        demand and to support long-term development. Standard energy 
        policy and regulatory mechanisms do not support the renewable 
        energy and energy efficiency necessary to reduce emissions from 
        the energy sector. In most countries, policies and regulations 
        tend to emphasize short-term cost and supply considerations 
        rather than the long-term benefits of the enhanced energy 
        security, environmental performance, and cost savings over time 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        offered by clean technologies.''

    Another WRI report \10\ outlines several actions that can provide 
multiple benefits to developing countries, including generating good 
jobs and training opportunities in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency; accelerating energy access for all and providing economic 
and social development in remote areas, particularly with distributed 
renewables; reducing water stress; and improving household resilience:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ NDC Enhancement and COVID-19 Recovery: Building Blocks for a 
Sustainable Future, World Resources Institute, September 23, 2020 
https://www.wri.org/insights/ndc-enhancement-and-covid-19-recovery-
building-blocks-sustainable-future

      Further expanding renewable energy capacity and 
generation, including distributed renewable energy that can broaden 
energy access.
      Grid modernization and improvements in parallel with 
deploying renewables, including increased use of energy storage that 
can bolster the penetration of renewables.
      Actions to boost energy efficiency, particularly in 
buildings.
      Policies that can tap into synergies between the power 
sector and electrification in end uses such as transport and buildings.
      Accelerating the manufacture, purchase and use of a range 
of electric vehicles (EVs), including two-wheel, three-wheel and light-
duty vehicles.
      Developing widespread smart charging infrastructure to 
facilitate the adoption of EVs.
      Boosting public transport as a central part of a 
transport strategy.
      Taking steps in land-use and mobility planning and 
infrastructure that support cycling and walking.
      Addressing freight transport by leveraging new clean 
fuels (including electrification) and information technology.

    There were several encouraging developments at COP26 in Glasgow on 
this front:

    -- UN Secretary-General Guterres released the Global Roadmap for 
Accelerated SDG7 Action,\11\ demonstrating support for clean energy as 
the golden thread tying our collective climate and development goals 
together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ ``UN Secretary-General issues new global roadmap to secure 
clean energy access for all by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050'' 
Sustainable Energy For All, November 3, 2021 https://www.seforall.org/
press-releases/un-secretary-general-issues-new-global-roadmap-to-
secure-clean-energy-access-for-all
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- Several countries made new net-zero commitments, including 
Nigeria, India, Thailand, Nepal and Vietnam; nearly 90 percent of the 
global economy is now covered by net-zero commitments. The Energy 
Transition Council, championed by the COP26 Presidency, announced that 
it will continue at least until COP30 in 2025 to provide a platform for 
the global community to support these and other developing countries in 
meeting these targets and achieving a just energy transition.\12\ It 
highlighted some important country-level milestones that have resulted 
from its work, including Nigeria's Energy Transition Plan; Morocco's 
agreement to phase out coal, and agreement by Indonesia and the 
Philippines to focus on the retirement of coal-fired power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ ``Energy Transition Council unveils strategic priorities 
beyond COP26,'' November 4, 2021 https://www.seforall.org/news/energy-
transition-council-unveils-strategic-priorities-beyond-cop26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    -- More than 40 countries signed up to a political declaration on 
Energy Day to transition away from unabated coal power generation, and 
a group of 25 countries signed a UK-led joint statement committing to 
ending international public financing for the unabated fossil fuel 
energy sector by the end of 2022, prioritizing support for clean energy 
instead.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement, UK COP26 
Presidency, November 4, 2021, https://ukcop26.org/global-coal-to-clean-
power-transition-statement/


[[Page 72]]


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another bright spot is the U.S. Power Africa initiative \14\ which 
aims to bring together nearly two dozen public and private sector 
partners to achieve universal, clean energy generation and access for 
Sub-Saharan Africa by accelerating new distributed renewable energy and 
grid-based solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Power Africa initiative 2020 annual report, USAID, March, 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/annualreport
    But as we work to lift people out of energy poverty, it's important 
to avoid massive new investments in natural gas infrastructure in 
Africa and elsewhere, as unabated use of gas also must be sharply 
curtailed by mid-century to meet the Paris Agreement's temperature 
limitation goals. A case study of Mozambique \15\ just issued by my E3G 
colleague Jonathan Gaventa documents the risks inherent in such gas 
expansion strategies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ The failure of `gas for development'--Mozambique case study, 
Jonathan Gaventa, E3G, December 2, 2021 https://www.e3g.org/
publications/the-failure-of-gas-for-development-mozambique-case-study/

          ``Since natural gas was first discovered off the coast of 
        northern Mozambique a decade ago, it has become central to the 
        country's development strategy. Revenues from gas--it was 
        hoped--would catapult one of the least developed countries in 
        the world to become a middle-income country by the 2040s. Gas 
        production and exports were expected to spur widespread 
        industrialisation, fund public investment and pay down debt. 10 
        years later, this story of `gas for development' is failing. 
        Conflict, corruption and economic distortion have meant that 
        the promised economic benefits have not materialised.\16\ 
        Meanwhile, a global shift in climate and energy policies mean 
        the outlook for future gas demand is shrinking. This increases 
        the downside risks of the gas projects and greatly reduces the 
        potential benefits. In turn, lower revenues will narrow the 
        options for responding to resource curse issues and addressing 
        Mozambique's pressing development needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Mozambique: Cabo Delgado, Nampula & Niassa Humanitarian 
Snapshot--September 2021, UN Office for the Coordination of 
Humanitarian Affairs, November 2, 2021 https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reliefweb.int/report/mozambique/mozambique-cabo-delgado-nampula-niassa-
humanitarian-snapshot-september-2021
          A reset of expectations on the role of gas in Mozambique's 
        development is needed. For the Mozambican government, this 
        means lowering dependence on increasingly uncertain gas 
        revenues, and seeking out alternative pathways to prosperity. 
        For the international partners, donors and financial 
        institutions that enabled and encouraged the gas projects, it 
        means re-evaluating assumptions on the development benefits of 
        gas and redirecting financial support to more inclusive and 
        sustainable economic sectors.''

    5. Is the fact that America's production of fossil fuels has a 
lower carbon intensity than that of other countries a reason for the 
United States to delay or refrain from acting on climate?

    In a word, no. Even a cursory glance at the summary findings of the 
most recent national assessment of climate impacts and risks to the 
United States \17\ demonstrates why moving aggressively to reduce the 
greenhouse gas emissions that are driving rapid human-induced climate 
change must be a national priority:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, Volume II: Impacts, Risks, 
and Adaptation in the United States, US Global Change Research Program, 
2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
        Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates 
existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States, 
presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of 
life, and the rate of economic growth.
        Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and 
regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause 
growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the 
rate of economic growth over this century.
        The quality and quantity of water available for use by 
people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate 
change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production, 
industry, recreation, and the environment.
        Impacts from climate change on extreme weather and 
climate-related events, air quality, and the transmission of disease 
through insects and pests, food, and water increasingly threaten the 
health and well-being of the American people, particularly populations 
that are already vulnerable.

[[Page 73]]

        Climate change increasingly threatens Indigenous 
communities' livelihoods, economies, health, and cultural identities by 
disrupting interconnected social, physical, and ecological systems.
        Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are 
being altered by climate change, and these impacts are projected to 
continue. Without substantial and sustained reductions in global 
greenhouse gas emissions, transformative impacts on some ecosystems 
will occur; some coral reef and sea ice ecosystems are already 
experiencing such transformational changes.
        Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on 
rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt 
agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in 
challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality, 
and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten 
rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.
        Our Nation's aging and deteriorating infrastructure is 
further stressed by increases in heavy precipitation events, coastal 
flooding, heat, wildfires, and other extreme events, as well as changes 
to average precipitation and temperature.
        Coastal communities and the ecosystems that support 
them are increasingly threatened by the impacts of climate change. 
Without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions and 
regional adaptation measures, many coastal regions will be transformed 
by the latter part of this century, with impacts affecting other 
regions and sectors.

    A recent report \18\ in Nature finds that to limit global 
temperature increases to 1.5+C, nearly 60% of global oil and fossil gas 
reserves and almost all the world's coal--90%--will need to remain in 
the ground in 2050; global oil and gas production would need to peak 
immediately and fall by 3% each year until mid-century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5  deg.C world, Nature, 
September 8, 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8
    And there are many other damaging impacts of fossil fuel production 
and use which are imposed on humans and natural ecosystems regardless 
of the carbon intensity of the fuels, including land degradation from 
mining, wells, pipelines and other facilities; water pollution as a 
result of acid runoff from coal mining operations, oil spills and 
leaks, and contamination from the toxic fluids used in oil and gas 
fracking; and air pollution from emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide, 
nitrogen oxide, and particulates.
    Of course, as the US takes actions to reduce the harmful impacts of 
domestic coal, oil, and gas production, it must also move aggressively 
to reduce demand for energy through energy efficiency measures that 
enable provision of energy services with lower energy inputs, and to 
rapidly increase use of solar, wind and other clean energy resources. 
Increasing imports of fossil fuels with a higher carbon intensity of 
production from other countries is not acceptable, as reducing US 
emissions while increasing global emissions is not a solution to the 
climate crisis.

    6. How important is U.S. leadership to the world meeting global 
climate finance targets?

    Keeping 1.5+C alive, protecting against climate impacts, and 
dealing with losses and damages requires mobilizing trillions of 
dollars per year. While COP26 did not deliver the finance required, it 
set up processes to do so in textual decisions on the post-2025 finance 
goal, adaptation finance, and loss and damage. President Biden and 
other leaders must respond to the call for trillions made in Glasgow by 
putting it at the top of an integrated diplomatic agenda which weaves 
across G7, G20, and UN processes.
    It is clear that the speed of the global net zero transition called 
for in Glasgow cannot be realized without an equally ambitious 
implementation agenda. In support of acceleration, President Biden, 
Prime Minister Johnson and European Union President Von der Leyen put 
forward a new paradigm of sustainability finance--spanning both public 
and private investments--to mobilize the trillions needed to keep 1.5 
degrees within reach.\19\ Moving into 2022, the political stage is set 
for changes in the ways clean investment projects in developing 
countries are financed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ ``U.S. President Biden, European Commission President Von Der 
Leyen, And UK Prime Minister Johnson Announce Commitment To Addressing 
Climate Crisis Through Infrastructure Development'' November 2, 2021, 
https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/02/u-s-
president-biden-european-commission-president-von-der-leyen-and-uk-
prime-minister-johnson-announce-commitment-to-addressing-climate-
crisis-through-infrastructure-development/

[[Page 74]]

    Availability and affordability of finance will determine how 
quickly countries deliver the climate transition, particularly as many 
developing countries continue to face a squeeze on their budgets given 
COVID-19. The focus must be on financial diplomacy, including:

        Targeted finance packages for ambition: The model 
demonstrated by UK, US, and European collaboration at COP26 to provide 
South Africa with a comprehensive, $8.5 billion just transition package 
for coal was hailed as a success. Such financial packages for the clean 
transition in India, Indonesia, and other countries could lay credible 
foundations for them to enhance their 2030 NDCs. The US, UK, EU, and 
other countries need to establish the platforms to catalyze such 
investment deals at the pace and scale needed.

        Mobilising the trillions for climate transition: The US 
and other donor countries must drive significant reforms to 
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and national Development Finance 
Institutions (DFIs), including full alignment with Paris Goals and 
scaling-up leverage of private investment.\20\ Increasing MDB capital 
could use Special Drawing Rights in addition to reallocating them to 
the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Sustainability and Resilience 
Trust. This could unlock financial firepower for joint UK, US and EU 
initiatives--Build Back Better World (B3W), the Clean Green Initiative 
and the Global Gateway--which channel increased sustainable 
infrastructure investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ ``Closing the trillion dollar gap to keep 1.5 degrees within 
reach,'' Julian Havers and Frank Schroeder, E3G, October 15, 2021 
https://www.e3g.org/publications/closing-the-trillion-dollar-gap-to-
keep-1-5-degrees-within-reach/

        Finance for solidarity: The Glasgow Climate Pact has 
lined up COP27 to focus on the wide disparity between finance for 
mitigation and the lack thereof for adaptation and loss and damage. The 
US should support the UK COP26 presidency in organizing a second 
Climate and Development Ministerial to provide an early opportunity for 
donors to deliver on their COP26 pledge to double adaptation finance 
from $20 billion to $40 billion annually by 2025. This and other forums 
including the G7 ministerial meetings and the Petersberg Dialogue--both 
being led by Germany--will also be crucial opportunities for political-
level agenda-setting in advance of the first of several loss and damage 
dialogues called for in the Glasgow Pact, to be held in Bonn, Germany 
next June.

                                  [all]