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


                      FUELING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
                      EXAMINING BIG OIL'S CLIMATE
                                PLEDGES

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                          OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 8, 2022

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-63

                               __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
      
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]      


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-902 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                            
                   COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM

                CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman

Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of   James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking 
    Columbia                             Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts      Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee                Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia         Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois        Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland               Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California                Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland               Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York   Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan              Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California             Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri                  Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio               Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois             Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida    Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont                 Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,      Pat Fallon, Texas
    Georgia                          Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland           Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California            Vacancy
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts

                      Russ Anello, Staff Director
                 Greta Gao, Chief Investigative Counsel
                       Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051

                  Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
                              
                              ------                                
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on February 8, 2022.................................     1

                               Witnesses

Dr. Michael E. Mann, Professor of Atmospheric Science, 
  Pennsylvania State University
    Oral Statement...............................................     7
Mr. Mark van Baal, Founder, Follow This
    Oral Statement...............................................     9
Ms. Tracey Lewis, Policy Counsel, Public Citizen
    Oral Statement...............................................    11
Katie Tubb, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation
    Oral Statement...............................................    12

 Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses 
  are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository 
  at: docs.house.gov.

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.

  * Letter to Secretary Granholm dated February 8, 2022; 
  submitted by Rep. Comer.

  * Washington Post, Op-Ed, ``Science the GOP Can't Wish Away''; 
  submitted by Rep. Raskin.

  * Financial Post, article, ``Debunking Climate and Other Forms 
  of Alarmism''; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Fox Business, article on oil reserves; submitted by Rep. 
  Biggs.

  * Patrick Moore, PhD Testimony; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * New York Post, article on OPEC oil production; submitted by 
  Rep. Biggs.

  * Washington Examiner, article on Greenpeace co-founder; 
  submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Washington Times, article on Former Greenpeace Insider 
  Patrick Moore; submitted by Rep. Biggs.

  * Joint Economic Committee Republican Report on Combatting 
  Rising Energy Prices; submitted by Rep. Keller.

  * Statement for the Record; submitted by Rep. Connolly.

  * Letter for the Record, written statement of Andrew Logan, 
  Senior Director of Oil and Gas, Ceres.


 
                      FUELING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
                      EXAMINING BIG OIL'S CLIMATE
                                PLEDGES

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, February 8, 2022

                  House of Representatives,
                 Committee on Oversight and Reform,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn Maloney 
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Connolly, 
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, 
Porter, Bush, Brown, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, 
Sarbanes, Kelly, DeSaulnier, Gomez, Pressley, Comer, Jordan, 
Foxx, Hice, Grothman, Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Norman, Sessions, 
Keller, Biggs, Fallon, Herrell, and Donalds.
    Also present: Representative Graves.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the committee at any time.
    I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    We are here today to uncover the facts behind the promises 
and pledges the fossil fuel industry makes about addressing 
climate change. Last October, we held a hearing to expose Big 
Oil's decades-long disinformation campaign to deny climate 
change. We learned that Exxon scientists warned about the 
danger of burning fossil fuel and its link to global warming in 
1978, more than four decades ago. Rather than fix the problem, 
Exxon kept this research secret. For decades, the fossil fuel 
industry waged a multimillion-dollar disinformation campaign to 
cast doubt on the science and prevent action to reduce 
emissions, all to protect its bottom line.
    Over the last half-century, the top oil and gas companies 
have generated more than one-third of the emissions that have 
warmed our planet. They also made trillions in profits. In the 
meantime, the world has already grown more than one degree 
Celsius warmer than pre-industrial times. At our October 
hearing, fossil-fuel executives admitted for the first time to 
Congress that climate change is real, it is happening now, and 
burning fossil fuels is the primary cause, four decades after 
they first learned the truth. Because of their lies, humanity 
lost four decades. We are now on the brink of a climate 
catastrophe.
    Climate change is already having a profound effect on 
Americans, from record hurricanes to year-round wildfires, to 
historic floods in our coastal cities and river communities. If 
current trends continue, global warming will likely exceed 1.5 
degrees before the mid-century, which is the point many 
scientists say will lead to irreversible damage to our planet. 
To avert this disaster, in 2015, nearly 200 countries united 
behind the Paris Climate Agreement and pledged to reduce 
emissions by 2030, with a goal of limiting global warming to 
below 1.5 degrees Celsius.
    The leading oil companies--Chevron, Exxon, BP, and Shell--
now want the public to believe they support the Paris 
Agreement. They have made their own climate pledges and claim 
they will reach net zero emissions by 2050. They have spent 
millions to advertise these plans and greenwash their images. 
We called today's hearing to evaluate these pledges, but when 
the committee invited board members of these companies to come 
in today and explain their pledges, they declined to appear on 
the date we requested. None of them showed up today. Not a 
single one. So today, we will hear from experts who will reveal 
Big Oil's climate pledges for what they are--empty promises.
    Scientists have found that the reduction in emissions under 
these pledges is far short of what is needed to avert disaster 
under the Paris Agreement. These pledges rely on unproven 
technology, and they ignore the vast majority of greenhouse gas 
emissions created by fossil fuels. Moreover, the industry 
continues to pour money into new oil and gas fields with no 
plans to stop extracting. At our committee's October hearing, I 
asked fossil fuel executives if they would pledge to stop 
spending money to oppose efforts to reduce emissions and 
address climate change. They refused to make that pledge. Many 
investors have been asking oil and gas companies to make a 
similar pledge by passing shareholder resolutions that commit 
these companies to actions consistent with the goals of the 
Paris Agreement. These companies have refused. In fact, they 
have consistently recommended that their shareholders vote 
against those resolutions.
    The message is clear: Big Oil intends to continue its 
playbook from the past four decades, fighting meaningful action 
to prevent climate change while engaging in a PR campaign to 
deceive the public. This committee will not stand for it. We 
launched this investigation to get to the bottom of Big Oil's 
role in contributing to climate change, and we will get to the 
truth about these pledges. We intend to hold another hearing 
with board members in March to answer questions about the 
pledges. If they do not agree to appear, the committee will use 
every tool at its disposal to get the information we need. The 
American public and all generations to come deserve 
accountability.
    I now recognize the distinguished ranking member, Mr. 
Comer, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Comer. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and I want to 
thank the witnesses for their willingness to testify before the 
committee today. It is, however, unfortunate that my good 
friend, Chairwoman Maloney, refuses to hold a hearing on the 
skyrocketing energy prices impacting every American. In 
November, we wrote the chairwoman requesting a hearing with the 
Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to discuss 
these issues, but we still haven't gotten a response. Instead, 
here we are again so Democrats can attack an industry that 
provides good-paying jobs and energy for all Americans.
    The Oversight Committee should focus on rooting out waste, 
fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the Federal Government, not 
investigating the implementation of pledges made by private 
companies that don't even go into effect for almost 30 years. 
We should conduct real oversight of the Biden Administration's 
disastrous policies that have led to surging gas prices and 
inflation. However, Democrats are not interested. Last month, 
Committee Republicans hosted a joint forum with the 
congressional Western Caucus to discuss the impacts of the 
Biden Administration's energy policies that have failed the 
American people. We spent a good deal of time talking about 
solutions to these problems, and I hope my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are able to see how their radical Green 
New Deal policies are hurting all Americans.
    The hearing today is now a two-part hearing. The first 
panel will be comprised of so-called experts who have studied 
the climate change pledges proposed by oil and gas companies 
and their impact on climate change. The second panel will be 
board members from the four companies who appeared before this 
committee on October 28 of last year. I have two questions. At 
what point will Democrats support energy independence for our 
country, and second, at what point will Democrats stop 
attacking an American industry?
    Committee Democrats claim these companies are not complying 
with the committee's investigation, but that simply is not 
true. The companies, along with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 
and the American Petroleum Institute, have provided over 
400,000 pages of documents thus far and their leadership 
answered questions for six hours in the last hearing, but 
apparently that is not good enough. Even after producing 
hundreds of thousands of documents and answering questions all 
day, Democrats issued subpoenas after the prior hearing. Why 
did they do this? Because their investigation hasn't turned up 
anything, no smoking gun because there isn't one. No matter 
what these companies do, it will never be enough to please the 
Democrats. The sole focus of this investigation is to put these 
companies out of business.
    Today, I look forward to speaking with the minority 
witnesses, Katie Tubb from The Heritage Foundation, about the 
consequences of the Biden Administration's failed energy 
policies. This Administration is clearly not committed to 
promoting an expansive energy solution in America when 
President Biden says he has no immediate plan to address rising 
gasoline prices. President Biden single-handedly shut down the 
critically important Keystone XL pipeline, placed a moratorium 
on oil and gas production on Federal lands, and enacted 
policies that increased individual energy costs for American 
citizens. Simply put, President Biden's policies raise 
electricity costs for the American people and put American 
energy companies at a competitive disadvantage with the rest of 
the world. Just a few years ago, the United States was 
experiencing a boom in domestic energy production. We even 
became a strong exporter of oil and natural gas, which allowed 
us to compete on the global stage. Unfortunately, President 
Biden's policies threaten the jobs and investment that 
hardworking Americans spent so long creating.
    It is critical that this committee examines the more 
pressing concerns of the American people, concerns about 
inflation rising to a 40-year high, gas prices costing a dollar 
more per gallon than last year, and heating bills rising 54 
percent this winter. The Biden Administration is leading us 
down a dangerous path at a time when our energy independence is 
more crucial than ever. I hope that we can move on from the 
demonization of private companies and instead focus on the 
committee's intention of combatting the ever-increasing number 
of crises the Biden Administration has created.
    I want to again thank the witnesses for being here, but 
before I yield back, Madam Chair, you have not responded to our 
November 18 letter requesting that Secretary Kerry appear 
before the committee at a hearing. So I would like to enter 
into the record this invitation that we plan to send Secretary 
Granholm inviting her to participate in part two of this 
hearing on March 8. We feel that it is vital to hear from Biden 
Administration officials on their plans to combat rising energy 
prices, and I hope that the Secretary will participate in this 
hearing.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Comer. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    Let me briefly address the concerns that have been raised 
about gas prices. First, rising gas prices are a global issue 
caused by the behavior of Russia and other factors. Here at 
home, President Biden has taken aggressive steps to address 
this issue, including releasing millions of barrels of oil from 
the strategic oil reserve and seeking to crack down on 
anticompetitive behavior. Second, prices have not gone up 
because of climate policies. The head of the International 
Energy Agency recently debunked this claim, writing, and I 
quote, ``Unfortunately, we are once again seeing claims that 
volatility in gas and electricity markets is the result of the 
clean energy transition. These assertions are misleading to say 
the least.'' Third, fossil fuel companies are raking in record 
profits while consumers are hurting at the pump. Exxon made 
almost $9 billion last quarter and Chevron made more than $5 
billion.
    The bottom line is that as long as we are dependent on 
fossil fuels, we will be at the mercy of fluctuating gas 
prices. That is why it is so crucial that we invest now in 
transitioning to clean energy alternatives.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
    Chairwoman Maloney. With that, I recognize Mr. Rho Khanna, 
who is the chairman of the Environment Subcommittee, for his 
opening statement for this important hearing. Mr. Rho Khanna.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, thank you, 
Ranking Member Comer, and the witnesses here today. I am very 
thankful for our staff--Katie, Kevin, Arya, as well as Russ and 
Greta from the full committee--who have been doing exceptional 
work.
    Today's hearing isn't about partisanship. It is about 
getting at the truth. And let me be clear: the purpose of this 
investigation isn't to embarrass anyone, and it is certainly 
not put any company out of business. Our purpose is to get the 
fossil fuel companies to live up to their own pledges, to the 
goals that they say they believe in, the goals that they have 
told the American public and their consumers that they are 
committed to. And it is certainly an appropriate function of 
the Oversight Committee to make sure that a company is living 
up to the public statements that they make.
    Now, the good news, at least some good news, is that since 
the historic hearing, since we had all of the oil executives in 
this committee, they have all announced new plans. Exxon, 
Chevron, Shell, and BP all have made climate pledges. These 
pledges don't go far enough in terms of the Paris Accords and 
their own commitments, but at least they are taking some steps. 
ExxonMobil, in fact, announced three new pledges since this 
committee's hearings. Just a few weeks ago, Chevron announced a 
new net zero aspiration.
    Here is the reality. The European companies--Shell and BP--
actually have pledges that say they are going to be 50 percent 
reduced or totally by 2050, net zero on all the emissions. The 
challenge I have with the Exxon pledges and the Chevron pledges 
is they are saying that it only applies to Scope 1 and Scope 2. 
Now, what does that mean? That means it only applies to the 
emissions of their actual drilling and their actual production 
of oil, not to all of the oil they sell. Well, that would be 
like an automaker pledging to eliminate emissions from their 
manufacturing but doing nothing to improve their cars' fuel 
efficiency.
    I hope that Exxon and Chevron will see what BP and Shell 
are doing and that our American companies will make the same 
commitment--2050, a reduction on Scope 1, Scope 2, and Scope 
3--and there is still opportunity for them to do that. They 
have taken an initial step. Let's make sure they finish the 
job.
    I just want to echo what Chairwoman Maloney said. I support 
President Biden who has taken decisive action to help lower gas 
prices. President Biden is calling on OPEC to boost production. 
He is calling on all of the companies, all the oil companies, 
to temporarily increase production. I agree with President 
Biden. We need a strong supply of oil and gas in the short term 
to lower prices at the pump and the price of heat in their 
homes. But let me be clear: that is not a long-term solution. I 
wish we had diversified our energy sources 10 years ago so we 
wouldn't have this price volatility. I wish we had invested in 
electric vehicles. I wish we had invested in renewables. That 
is the long-term solution to help American consumers to lower 
the price at the pump, to lower the heating bills, and that is 
what we are doing now.
    We are not asking these companies to hurt their bottom 
line. We are saying be strategic, be long term, be honest, 
start diversifying energy sources so we can help American 
consumers lower the price at the pump and also address climate 
change and live up to your goals. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    I now recognize Mr. Norman, who is the ranking member of 
the Environmental Subcommittee, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Norman. Thank you, Mrs. Maloney. You know, well, well, 
well, here we go again. With all due respect, Mrs. Maloney, for 
you to say that gas prices are a global crisis and 
Congresswoman Rho Khanna to say that, you know, we are asking 
OPEC to graciously lower prices, I really cannot believe what I 
am hearing. The reason the gas prices are where they are is 
because this President has canceled the Keystone pipeline. We 
were energy independent instead of energy dependent, and we are 
buying it from countries that make up OPEC that don't like us: 
Venezuela, Iraq, Iran.
    Why are our cities on fire now? Why are our borders 
completely open with being run by the drug cartels and being 
run by groups that are feeding fentanyl to our young people? 
Why is there a movement to defund the police of all things? Why 
are 13 dead Americans left in Afghanistan along with many other 
Americans? And the list goes on and on. I will tell you why. 
This Administration. They are clueless. You have got the leader 
of the free world in Mr. Biden. He doesn't know what month it 
is. You all know it. You have heard him. Any of his underlings 
will not answer letters, and it is extremely frustrating.
    But as Congressman Comer said, you know, the goal of this 
hearing is to put oil and gas companies out of business 
forever. Well, good luck on getting on an airplane powered by 
batteries. Let's see how that works. At a time when we should 
be using the abundant natural resources that we have to advance 
America's interests, the Biden Administration wants to bankrupt 
the very companies who are working to provide energy and 
security to all Americans. This Administration's out-of-control 
spending is causing inflation to skyrocket. Gas is $1 more 
expensive than it was last year. As a result, Americans are now 
paying more for goods and services while taking home less money 
in their paychecks.
    The Department of Labor recently stated that over the last 
12 months, inflation has increased by seven percent. Meanwhile, 
China and other countries around the world continue to pollute 
at record levels while the United States continues to reduce 
emissions, and I guess the answer that the left uses is, let's 
just ask China to be nice. It doesn't work that way. Do 
Democrats really believe that putting the oil and gas industry 
out of business will suddenly make China less a polluter? If 
that is the case, I have got some land that is underwater I 
would love to sell you for high-rise condos. I am afraid 
extreme proposals by Democrats will do nothing but destroy 
good-paying American jobs and ruin our economy, which it is 
doing today. In fact, it has already happened. At our prior 
hearing, we heard from an unemployed Keystone pipeline worker, 
out of a job, does not have a paycheck.
    As the ranking member mentioned in his opening statement, 
we held a very informative roundtable with the Western Caucus a 
few weeks ago to discuss solutions to the ever-growing energy 
crisis America is facing. In that roundtable, we heard from a 
variety of industry experts working to ensure that Americans 
have access to reliable and affordable energy. These energy 
experts all want Americans to have the opportunity to heat 
their homes and fuel their cars at affordable energy, not 
buying energy from countries that aim to destroy us. But today, 
during this investigation, Democrats have done nothing but 
undermine the efforts of the energy industry. As a result, we 
see the consequences everywhere.
    According to a study performed by the United States Census 
Bureau, nearly 28 percent of Americans had to forego expenses 
for basic necessities, such as medicine or food and money to 
pay for an energy bill, for the last 12 months. This is a 
frightening statistic that bears repeating. In the past year, 
over one-quarter of American citizens had to forego purchasing 
medicine to pay a home heating bill. Get that. I don't know 
what you are thinking, but all this is doing is undermining 
America.
    Every day this Administration seems to create a new 
problem. We are dealing with increasing gas prices, record high 
inflation, and the Democrats' only solution is to hold hearings 
like this to attack the industry striving to find actual energy 
solutions. Today is yet another example of the Democrats 
refusing to conduct meaningful oversight of this 
Administration's glaring failed policies. All the Democrats 
seem to care about is distracting us from the fact that they 
have no plan to recoup our energy work force or our energy 
independence like we had under President Trump. This committee 
should start focusing on the issues that are impacting ordinary 
Americans because America should not have to bear the 
consequences of an unrealistic Biden climate agenda.
    I want to thank the witnesses for their participation 
today, and all I can say is God bless this country with what we 
are having to go through. I yield back.
    Mrs. Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    I would now like to focus on the purpose of this hearing. I 
would like to introduce our witnesses.
    Our first witness today is Dr. Michael Mann, who is a 
professor of atmospheric science at Penn State University. Then 
we will hear from Mark van Baal, who is the founder of Follow 
This, a group of 8,000 green shareholders in oil companies. 
Next, we will hear from Tracey Lewis, who is policy counsel at 
Public Citizen. Finally, we will hear from Katie Tubb, who is a 
senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
    The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in. 
Please raise your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to 
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    [A chorus of ayes.]
    Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses 
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
    And without objection, your written statements will be made 
part of the record.
    With that, Dr. Mann, you are now recognized for your 
testimony.

 STATEMENT OF MICHAEL E. MANN, PH.D., PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC 
           SCIENCE, THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY

    Mr. Mann. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Maloney and 
members of the committee, my name is Michael Mann. I am 
distinguished professor of atmospheric science and director of 
the Earth System Science Center at Penn State. My research 
focuses on earth's climate system and assessing climate change 
impacts and mitigation strategies. I have published more than 
200 scientific articles, numerous commentaries, and five books 
about the basic science impacts and policy implications of 
climate change. My most recent book, The New Climate War, 
details the efforts by fossil fuel interests and their enablers 
to block meaningful climate action.
    Among other honors, I have received the Early Career Award 
for Public Engagement with Science from the American 
Association for the Advancement of Science and the Tyler Prize 
for Environmental Achievement. In 2020, I was elected to the 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. I am perhaps best known for 
my paleo-climate research two decades ago that produced the 
iconic hockey stick curve demonstrating the unprecedented 
nature of human-caused warming. My research in recent years has 
focused on other topics, including the increased coastal risk 
from sea level rise and intensified hurricanes, and the impacts 
of climate change on extreme weather events.
    My objective today is to review the basic scientific 
framework for assessing and mitigating human-caused climate 
change and its impacts. And I will begin by discussing climate 
projections that were made nearly four decades ago, not by NASA 
or other climate modeling groups, but by none other than 
ExxonMobil, the world's largest publicly traded fossil fuel 
company.
    ExxonMobil's own scientists in a secret 1982 report made 
remarkably accurate predictions of both the rise that we would 
see in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and the warming it 
would cause given business-as-usual extraction and burning of 
fossil fuels. See this graphic.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Mann. They even used the word ``catastrophic'' to 
describe the potential impacts of that warming, but rather than 
come forward with what their own scientists had concluded, they 
engaged in a campaign of denial and delay, which continues on 
today. We are now paying the cost of that delay in the form of 
extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change: the 
apocalyptic wildfires that once again ravaged California in the 
West this summer, a heat dome over the Pacific Northwest that 
made parts of Canada feel like Phoenix on the 4th of July, and 
the devastating floods in my state of Pennsylvania as the 
remnants of climate-change-fueled Hurricane Ida dumped months' 
worth of rainfall in a few hours. Dangerous climate change is 
now upon us, and it is costing the U.S. hundreds of billions of 
dollars. The toll in dollars and human lives will continue to 
increase in the absence of concerted action.
    Much of that damage could have been avoided had we acted 
decades ago when the scientific community and, indeed, 
ExxonMobil's own scientists recognized we had a problem. See 
the graphic.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Mann. Because of the delay that resulted from the 
public disinformation campaign funded by ExxonMobil and other 
fossil fuel companies, it is now a far greater challenge to 
limit warming below 30 degrees Fahrenheit, a level beyond which 
we will see the worst potentially irreversible impacts of 
climate change. The good news is that climate models show that 
warming is likely to stabilize rather quickly within a few 
years once net carbon emissions reach zero. So there is a 
direct and immediate response to our efforts to reduce global 
carbon emissions.
    We can still prevent surface warming from crossing the 
dangerous three-degree Fahrenheit warming threshold through 
aggressive efforts to decarbonize the global economy. We must 
reduce net carbon emissions by 50 percent this decade as well 
as bring them down to zero by mid-century. The IPCC's 2018 
special Report--see the graphic--demonstrates possible 
pathways.
    [Chart.]
    Mr. Mann. Some impacts, such as ice sheet collapse and sea 
level rise, may continue to worsen even after emissions reach 
zero owing to the longtime scale responses of ice sheet 
dynamics and possible tipping-point behavior. Collapsing ice 
sheets, for example, may lock in not just feet, but meters, of 
sea level rise.
    In the words of former Presidential Science Advisor John 
Holdren, any comprehensive climate action will consist of three 
components: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. That is to 
say, we must prevent any additional warming that we can, enact 
policies to increase our resilience and adaptive capacity in 
the face of those impacts that are now locked in, and provide 
assistance to those who have had the least role in creating 
this problem and have the least adaptive capacity. This latter 
imperative speaks to issues of environmental and climate 
justice.
    If we are to meet this monumental challenge, we will need 
all hands on deck. We cannot have industry and their PR firms 
working at cross purposes. That means holding fossil fuel 
interests accountable for the damage they have already caused 
and prevent them from doing more damage through delay tactics, 
such as deferred carbon reduction pledges, and empty promises 
of offsets, and unproven carbon capture technology. It means 
incentivizing the energy industry to move toward clean and 
renewable energy today rather than kicking the can down the 
road. Congress has a central role in facilitating all of these 
actions.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. van Baal, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.

        STATEMENT OF MARK VAN BAAL, FOUNDER, FOLLOW THIS

    Mr. van Baal. Thank you. Chairwoman Maloney, Chairman 
Khanna, Ranking Members Comer and Norman, and other members of 
the committee, today is an important day, not just for Big Oil, 
not even for the environment, not for the U.S. economy, but for 
the world at large. Failing to avert catastrophic climate 
change will disrupt the world economy because of sea level 
rises, extreme weather, and wildfires.
    If you were to believe the advertisement of Big Oil and 
what their executives told you last October, you would think 
they are taking adequate action to fight the climate crisis. In 
reality, they are not. On the contrary, they are still 
exacerbating the climate prices by increasing their CO2 
emissions. How do we know? Every year we formally request them 
to reduce emissions at their shareholders meetings. We so by 
filing shareholder proposals. These climate proposals formally 
request them to set company-wide emission reduction targets. 
Every year the board of these companies advise their 
shareholders to vote against these climate proposals, and, by 
extension, against emissions reductions.
    Follow This was founded in 2015 with the conviction that we 
need Big Oil and that Big Oil has the range and the billions to 
rapidly scale the energy transition to renewables. Big Oil will 
make or break the Paris Climate Accords, and we use shareholder 
democracy to show that their investors, their rightful owners, 
want them to change. They want them to change course, and, 
indeed, they have. In 2021, our climate proposals at Chevron, 
ConocoPhillips, and Phillips 66 each received a majority of the 
vote. In doing so, shareholders sent an unequivocal message to 
these oil companies: cut your emissions. However, Shell, BP, 
Chevron, and Exxon still intend to grow their total CO2 
emissions this decade, and they have no intention to change 
that. Instead, they talked about reducing emissions from 
operations--Scope 1 and 2--carbon intensity, or their 
preference: talk about 2050.
    Well, the climate crisis is happening now. As Dr. Mann has 
reminded us many times, the Paris Climate Agreement calls for a 
decrease in total greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 50 
percent by 2030. So not in 2050. 2030. And this is what Big 
Oil's current strategies lead to. BP expects, and I quote, 
``absolute level of emissions associated with our marketed 
products to grow out to 2030.'' Shell's total emissions will 
increase by four percent by 2030, according to the Australian 
Research Institute of Global Climate Insights.
    Chevron, in a press release on January 28, boasted that it 
grew production to a record of 3.1 million barrels per day. And 
ExxonMobil CEO, Darren Woods, told the Financial Times on 
January 18 that Exxon could expand its oil and gas production 
and still meet emissions reduction goals of their operations. 
With such goals, ExxonMobil is really like a tobacco company 
which pledges to prohibit smoking in their factories in 2015 
while continuing to produce and sell cigarettes. So for all 
these four companies, they all intend to grow emissions and 
have no intentions to cut these emissions. In their notice of 
the shareholder meetings, the boards of BP, Shell, and Chevron 
recommended shareholders to vote against following this climate 
proposal by stating, for example, I quote, ``Chevron's actions 
are appropriate.''
    To conclude, science asks us to cut emissions 50 percent by 
2030. These companies intend to grow emissions up to 2030 and 
reject shareholder support to shift investments to renewables 
and make the necessary emissions reductions. Therefore, the key 
question to the executives on March 8 is, how deep will you cut 
your emissions by 2030, not your operational emissions, not 
your carbon intensity, not in 2015, but the total emissions 
from your operations and your products? We believe Big Oil can 
and thrive in the energy transition. We, therefore, support 
these companies who set Paris-consistent targets to meet an 
increasing demand for energy while reducing CO2 emissions, to 
shift the billions that are spent today in oil and gas to 
exploring new business models in renewable energy.
    In May, our resolutions will again come to vote at the 
shareholders meeting of these four companies. We will continue 
to use shareholder democracy to support Big Oil to change, and 
we trust Congress to legislate to support Big Oil to change. 
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Lewis, you are now 
recognized for your testimony.

   STATEMENT OF TRACEY LEWIS, POLICY COUNSEL, PUBLIC CITIZEN

    Ms. Lewis. Good morning, Chair Maloney, Chair Khanna, and 
Ranking Members Comer and Norman. Thank you so much for holding 
these hearings and for the work you do, you and the other 
committee members and your staff have done, to reveal the inner 
workings of how the fossil fuel industry has actively misled 
the public about the climate crisis. It is an honor to be here 
today. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
    Public Citizen is a nonprofit organization with more than 
500,000 members and supporters nationwide. We represent the 
public interest through legislative and administrative 
advocacy, litigation, research, and public education on a broad 
range of issues. My name is Tracey Lewis, and I am the climate 
and energy policy counsel at Public Citizen and also a fellow 
at the Climate and Community Project, which works to connect 
the climate justice movement and the policy development 
process. Today I would like to discuss the human impacts of 
climate disinformation, particularly on low-wealth communities 
and communities of color, and some proposals for how we address 
these problems.
    At least 45 years ago, oil industry scientists privately 
warned their own company executives that their products would 
spell doom for the planet. They warned executives that 
continued burning of fossil fuels would lead to possible 
catastrophe from the greenhouse effects. At that 1977 meeting, 
those Exxon scientists laid out a doomsday scenario where the 
average global temperatures would increase between 2 and three 
degrees Celsius. Weather patterns would be altered, increasing 
rain in some places and turning other places into deserts. Yet 
instead of taking action, the fossil fuel industry has used its 
political power and public messaging capabilities to undercut 
climate policymaking and climate action, misleading the public 
about its products and, therefore, causing well-documented 
harms.
    What is becoming clear is that disinformation is a key tool 
in maintaining the status quo. For example, the 2009 email 
hacking scandal disrupted the Copenhagen COP, which really 
could have been a pivotal moment of international progress on 
climate that would have put us years ahead of where we are now. 
So in witnessing a disinformation campaign, like BP's promise 
to go beyond petroleum, years later, after no serious moves 
toward that goal, the company's Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, 
killing 11 rig workers and countless wildlife due to the 130 
million gallons of oil spilled into the Gulf. Now, over 10 
years later, the Gulf is still in recovery, and the people who 
worked at the cleanup report a host of health problems.
    Faced with incontrovertible evidence of a warming planet, 
oil companies are now changing their public messages about 
climate change, moving away from outright denial of climate 
change, and asserting they seek to be part of the solution. 
Even ExxonMobil, long the most aggressive promoter of climate 
denial, has pivoted to claiming that it cares about climate 
change. The company made this shift amid intense pressure from 
shareholders, who recently unseated company board members on 
the basis that the companies' near exclusive focus on oil and 
gas is a poor long-term business choice. So really, quite 
simply, what we are seeing is that industry climate pledges are 
just climate just disinformation and greenwashing.
    According to #ExxonKnew, there are four ways to evaluate 
how fossil fuel companies use climate pledges to greenwash 
their actions. One, they exclude most of their total emissions 
and shift responsibility to consumers. Two, they rely on false 
solutions, like carbon capture and carbon sequestration. Three, 
their targets cover only a portion of their business 
operations. Fourth, they promise to become more efficient 
polluters. This latest industry tactic is to emphasize a carbon 
capture storage scheme, an expensive, and energy-intensive, and 
unproven technology that has repeatedly failed to deliver 
despite substantial government support. Although carbon capture 
has a record of near complete failure, Congress has been 
debating whether or not to increase Federal tax credits 
designed to support this technology. And the bipartisan 
infrastructure bill passed by Congress last year included more 
than $12 billion for carbon capture technology and $9 billion 
for hydrogen hubs that would largely benefit incumbent fossil 
fuel companies while doing little to produce clean energy.
    So there are consequences for failing to take meaningful 
action, and they are giving the fossil fuel industry a pass for 
its continued climate disinformation and the harms that go well 
beyond escalating the climate crisis. Air pollution from 
burning fossil fuels harms people's respiratory, 
cardiovascular, reproductive, and neurological health. Living 
within 10 miles of a refinery increases risk of all cancers. 
Here in the United States, the deadly health impacts from 
fossil fuels fall principally on black, brown, indigenous, and 
frontline communities, and we simply must do better.
    Thank you.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much. Ms. Tubb, you are 
now recognized for your testimony.

 STATEMENT OF KATIE TUBB, SENIOR POLICY ANALYST, THE HERITAGE 
                           FOUNDATION

    Ms. Tubb. Good morning, and thank you all for the 
opportunity to speak before you today. While the title of 
today's hearing refers to the voluntary commitments made by a 
handful of private companies to reduce their greenhouse gas 
emissions, I would like to use this occasion to zoom out and 
offer broader context to the discussion.
    A realistic view of global warming must acknowledge that 
the commitments of these several companies will have no impact 
on global temperatures by the end of the century, whether they 
achieve them or not. Regardless of one's opinions on global 
warming science or policy, the ongoing energy crisis has 
sharply brought to the fore why these conversations about 
energy policy and climate policy matter. Energy is essential to 
America's economic opportunity and our ability to live 
healthier, safer, and more productive lives. Rather than 
interrogate these companies engaged in the yet legal activities 
of producing and selling oil to American and global customers, 
Congress should be seeking to understand the ongoing energy 
price crisis, finding the vulnerabilities it has exposed, and 
examining policy tools to eliminate barriers for the efficient 
functioning of energy markets.
    Coal, oil, and natural gas met 79 percent of Americans' 
total energy needs in 2020, the remaining coming from nuclear 
at nine percent and renewables at 12 percent. Petroleum met 90 
percent of Americans' transportation fuel needs. According to 
the EIA, Americans' average total energy costs fell five 
percent from 2018 to 2019, and per capita energy costs 
decreased in every state except California. Today, energy 
prices are a significant driver of the inflation Americans are 
facing. Estimates from Penn Wharton's Budget Model and the 
Joint Economic Committee expect that average American 
households we will pay over $1,200 more for energy in 2021.
    There are also broader economic consequences of high energy 
costs as thousands of products are made with oil, coal, and 
natural gas' feedstocks, and energy is essential to countless 
economic interactions. The Heritage Foundation is currently 
completing our own modeling to understand some of these 
relationships by modeling President Biden's commitment under 
the Paris Agreement. These costs are in the trillions of 
dollars and millions of jobs. Americans' representatives in 
government must be honest with them about the benefits and 
costs of such a policy objective.
    Undoubtedly, a recovery of demand coming out of the 
pandemic has contributed to energy price increases, but to pin 
all of this on economic recovery would be mistaken. The way out 
of high demand and accompanying high prices is increased 
supply. However, this is precisely what the Biden 
Administration's energy and climate policies are trying to 
prevent by hampering production markets' delivery and future 
consumption of the coal, oil, and natural gas, which supply 
American's energy for power, heat, and transportation. Less 
obvious to the average American are the scores of regulations 
that will increase the cost of energy-consuming products they 
use every day: cars, kitchen ranges and ovens, washing machines 
and dryers, water heaters, light bulbs, ceiling fans, 
dehumidifiers, dishwashers, and I could go on. If that is the 
future this Administration is working toward, it is no wonder 
that American energy companies are hesitant to invest hundreds 
of thousands to billions of dollars in exploration equipment 
and employees.
    Regardless of the Administration's aspirations, EIA's 
international energy outlook projects no scenario in which 
global demand for oil and natural gas do not increase through 
2050. It also expects coal use to decline but persist as an 
important source of energy globally. Two-thirds of greenhouse 
gas emissions come from developing nations, some of which still 
do not have access to electricity or enjoy anything near the 
standards of living that affordable, reliable energy has 
enabled in the United States. These countries cannot afford 
costly energy policies, and as countries like India and others 
have shown, they do not intend to follow the expensive policy 
model proposed by the Biden Administration.
    Frankly, the political cart has got out before the horse in 
our zeal for net zero greenhouse gas emissions policies and 
irresponsible slogans for a certain type of energy by a certain 
date. Particularly in the electricity sector, this is causing 
grid monitors to have concerns that they have been raising for 
years now, and policymakers need to listen. We should recommit 
to energy policy informed by principles of reliability, 
affordability, open competition, and consumer protection, then 
step back and allow engineers and entrepreneurs to lead the 
way.
    Thank you very much for your time, and I look forward to 
your questions.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
myself for five minutes for questions.
    Experts agree that if we allow the world to warm up beyond 
1.5 degrees Celsius, severe weather events will become even 
more frequent and more destructive than they are today. Dr. 
Mann, based on your research, is the world currently on a path 
to warm beyond 1.5 degrees Celsius in the next two decades?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Thanks, Chairwoman. We are currently on a 
path to warm well over three degrees Celsius, somewhere between 
three and four degrees Celsius. That is, you know, six degrees, 
seven degrees Fahrenheit, well, beyond the level of dangerous 
interference with the climate. And as you note, the extreme 
weather events that we are seeing have been exacerbated by 
climate change. This is the veritable tip of the iceberg 
because we know that these events, these wildfires, and floods, 
and heatwaves, and superstorms, and droughts, will just 
continue to get worse. We sometimes hear people describe this 
as a new normal, that we are entering into a new normal. That 
implies that we have some new sort of, you know, climate that 
we just have to adjust to, but it is much worse than that. 
These events continue to get more intense.
    And here is a dirty secret. You know, a lot of the critics 
love to attack climate modelers and climate scientists, our 
model projections, and they like to talk about uncertainty. 
Well, uncertainty isn't our friend here because one of the 
things my own research has demonstrated in recent years is that 
the climate models are actually underestimating the impact that 
climate change is having on these unprecedented extreme weather 
events, and it is underestimating the extent to which they will 
get even worse in the future.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, can I ask how much time do we 
have in order to act to prevent a climate catastrophe?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Well, in a sense, we have zero time. We have 
to get going now, but the number that we have heard quoted here 
is accurate. We need to reduce carbon emissions globally by 50 
percent within this decade to remain on a path that keeps 
warming below that catastrophic three degrees Fahrenheit. It 
can be done. There is research that demonstrates that we have 
the solutions, we have the technology today to decarbonize our 
economy. What we are lacking is the political willpower and the 
incentives to make it happen.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, your testimony is truly 
frightening. Since the world came together in Paris to commit 
to net zero emissions by 2050, fossil fuel companies have made 
their own pledges to reach these goals, but these pledges are 
very misleading. Just last month, Exxon announced an 
``aspiration'' to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, but it 
turns out that this pledge covers only Exxon's own production 
and operations. It ignores a whopping 90 percent of Exxon's 
emissions which come from burning the oil and gas that Exxon 
pumps out of the ground and sells, yet Exxon doesn't plan to 
reduce oil production by a single drop.
    Ms. Lewis, is Exxon's emission pledge sufficient to reach 
the goals of the Paris Agreement?
    Ms. Lewis. Thank you so much for your question. I think, as 
I shared in my testimony, that it is pretty clear that the 
fossil fuel industry is currently using its climate pledges as 
a new form of climate disinfo and greenwashing, allowing them 
to continue oil exploration, allowing them to continue 
increasing their outputs overall, while simultaneously claiming 
that they are not. So really, I think one of the only solutions 
here today is to ask Congress to do something about it. To do 
something about it is you have the power where you can create, 
draft legislation that holds the fossil fuel industry 
accountable and punishes them when they deviate and don't 
follow the law.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. What is Exxon currently 
doing to invest in proven and financially viable clean energy, 
Ms. Lewis?
    Ms. Lewis. I am so sorry. Could you repeat the question?
    Chairwoman Maloney. Do you know what Exxon is doing now 
currently to invest in proven and financially viable clean 
energy? Are they investing in clean energy, to your knowledge, 
in any way?
    Ms. Lewis. I know that they are claiming that they are, but 
we certainly would be interested in seeing actual proof of 
that.
    Chairwoman Maloney. So Chevron has also set an ``ambition'' 
to reduce emissions from its own operations by 2050, but like 
Exxon, Chevron's pledge ignores 91 percent of the company's 
emissions, which come from burning the oil and gas that Chevron 
sells. And rather than reduce oil production over time, Chevron 
plans to increase production of oil by more than 17 percent by 
2025. Dr. Mann, are Exxon and Chevron's actions consistent with 
curbing emissions to stay below 1.5 degrees Celsius, which is 
our goal?
    Mr. Mann. No. As we have already heard, they are not even 
close to doing that. They have focused largely on Scope 1 and 
Scope 2 emissions, but 90 percent of the carbon pollution that 
they produce is in the form of these Scope 3 emissions. The 
fact is that their product--fossil fuels--is burned and creates 
carbon pollution that warms up the planet. Now, one of the 
things that has already been mentioned here is that they love 
to talk about how they are going to decrease the carbon 
intensity of their fossil fuels. That is sort of like, you 
know, your doctor telling you that you need to cut the fat from 
your diet, and so you switch to 40-percent reduced fat potato 
chips, but you eat twice as many of them. That doesn't help. 
The net amount of fat that you are taking in actually 
increases, and that is effectively what fossil fuel interests 
are doing here.
    That is the sort of shell game, if you will forgive the 
pun, that they are playing here, and we have heard of some of 
the other tactics that they are using to make it sound like 
they are far more committed to reducing their carbon emissions 
than they actually are.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Well, thank you. I am way over time. I 
have many, many more questions, but I am closing. At our 
October hearing, the Big Oil CEOs admitted for the first time 
that climate change is an existential threat to our planet and 
is caused by burning fossil fuels, but it is clear that these 
companies are still not taking this threat seriously. Next 
month, we will hear from members of the boards of directors of 
these companies, and I hope we can convince them to take 
meaningful action before it is too late.
    I now recognize my good friend and colleague, Dr. Foxx. 
Representative Foxx.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 
your recognizing me. My question is for Ms. Tubb. What steps 
can be taken by the United States to achieve energy 
independence again?
    Ms. Tubb. I think I would reframe it just a little bit to 
say energy freedom, and I say that because we have excellent 
partners in Canada, Mexico, and around the world, and I think 
that is an important part of a robust and resilient energy 
sector. I think the answer is simple but not easy. I think it 
is a total about-face on the Administration's posture toward 
energy and the regulatory onslaught that we have seen over the 
last year. And I think it also entails looking at legacy 
policies, like the Renewable Fuel Standard, which put an 
additional burden on refineries, them being a chokepoint for 
energy products. The Jones Act, I think, is another great 
example of a policy that should go that affects both 
conventional energy resources and renewables. So I think there 
is a lot we can do to have a more robust energy sector.
    Ms. Foxx. Thank you. Another question, Ms. Tubb. President 
Biden canceled the Keystone XL pipeline but has allowed the 
Nord Stream 2 pipeline to proceed. These decisions favor our 
adversaries, especially Russia, while handicapping American 
energy production. And by the way, I love the word ``freedom.'' 
That is what we are losing in our country and what we have to 
focus on, so thank you for saying that. Can you discuss the 
impact of these decisions and how they undermine our security 
and energy freedom?
    Ms. Tubb. Certainly. You know, I think it was very 
confusing for many Americans to see their President reject a 
pipeline that has passed all kinds of environmental tests and 
analysis, and it certainly confused our neighbors to the North, 
and then for the President to then tacitly support a 
problematic pipeline in Europe. So at a minimum, it caused a 
crisis of confidence, I think, amongst Americans. And I 
recently got back from a business trip to Eastern Europe, and I 
saw firsthand the implications of an unsecure energy sector. 
And I think that is what many Americans are fearing we are 
going toward as we narrow our options in the energy space to 
politically correct resources. And I think what we need to be 
striving for to both achieve affordability and reliability, but 
also political independence, is to have a diversity of routes 
and resources in our energy sector. I saw the converse of that 
in Eastern Europe, and I hope very much that that is not the 
direction the United States goes.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, you know, I think high school students 
ought to understand the importance of energy freedom and how it 
impacts the United States' ability to compete against our 
adversaries, again, especially Russia and China. I think most 
Americans understand that. As I said, I think high school 
students would understand that, but do you have anything else 
that you would like to say about that?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes. You know, I think in the United States, we 
are blessed to have abundant energy. Not many of us wonder if 
the lights will turn on when we come down to the kitchen, you 
know, and prepare breakfast. We don't think about the energy 
that is required to have meetings like this. I am currently 
wearing contact lenses that are made with fossil fuel products. 
I am very thankful for that. It has improved the well-being 
and, you know, productivity of my life. And I think the more we 
can understand the benefits of energy, I think the more 
realistic our energy policies will be.
    Ms. Foxx. Well, I want to thank you for that. As someone 
who grew up in a house with no electricity or running water, 
let me tell you, I tell everybody when I get up in the morning 
and I am able to turn on a light in my house and go to a 
bathroom inside, I am extremely grateful for that. And I think 
most people in the world who don't have those would be very, 
very grateful for those. And growing up, again, we didn't own 
an automobile much of the time, and we walked everywhere we 
went. I would love to see these people who decry the use of 
fossil fuels and all these other wonderful conveniences that we 
have start to live like that, but of course they don't. We have 
the left, such hypocrites because they fly in private airplanes 
all over the country and they are very wasteful. Because I grew 
up without those things, I am extraordinary frugal about them, 
and I think what we have to learn to be is smart about how we 
use all the resources that God has given us, and I think in 
America, we have been.
    With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back.
    The gentlewoman the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton, is 
recognized.
    Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important 
hearing.
    Dr. Mann, I was struck by something you included in your 
written testimony. You showed how accurate Exxon's climate 
projections from 1982 actually were and that, in turn, shows 
how much time we have lost.
    I think you testified that Exxon calculated that the global 
temperature would increase by three degrees Celsius if we 
doubled the amount of fossil fuel we burn.
    Now, that turned out to be accurate. Isn't that true?
    Mr. Mann. Thanks, Congresswoman. In a sense. ExxonMobil's 
calculations predicted four decades of warming that actually 
align almost perfectly with the projections of standard climate 
models that are run by scientific groups around the world.
    Those same models project more than three or, potentially, 
four degrees Celsius, 6, 7, 8, 9 degrees Fahrenheit warming of 
the planet relative to pre-industrial if we continue with 
business as usual through the end of this century.
    And so, essentially, what ExxonMobil's calculations did was 
to validate the very climate models that their PRX--their PR 
folks were attacking. The same time they were attacking 
independent scientists, their own scientists were getting 
exactly the same answer.
    Ms. Norton. Oh, my.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Norton. Everybody knew. They knew, and they could have 
helped us all.
    Ms. Lewis, what do you think would have happened if fossil 
fuel companies had been required to be more transparent with 
their shareholders about what they knew?
    Ms. Lewis?
    Ms. Lewis. Oh. Thank you so much for your question, 
Congresswoman.
    I think it is pretty clear what would have happened. In the 
past year or so we have seen a really increased amount of 
shareholder activism toward adhering to science and pushing 
toward rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, all those things.
    So I, certainly, imagine that same level that we are seeing 
today, had people--investors--had the same information 40 years 
ago, they would have made similar pushes to a more sustainable 
economy--more sustainable energy sources.
    So it is really troubling, obviously, to know that Exxon 
knew and all of the other fossil fuel companies had vast 
amounts of scientific information that has been borne true over 
the past four decades, yet they persisted in this time to try 
and mislead us at every point to make us think that the only 
way, for example, that we could affect this is through our own 
personal change.
    Well, actually, the onus falls on the industry to make 
these great changes. Our individual contributions to this are 
substantial but nothing in comparison to what the industry has 
contributed to climate change.
    Ms. Norton. Dr. Mann, here we found ourselves, you know, 
where the United Nations Climate Assessment tells us that 
climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying. The 
report says that many of the changes already have been set in 
motion, such as continued sea level rise. These are 
irreversible over hundreds of thousands of years.
    So, Dr. Mann--excuse me, Dr. Mann, from the vantage point 
of 40 years ago, was climate warming inevitable and what must 
be happen--what must happen to--no, was it inevitable and is a 
hotter future now, essentially, locked in?
    Mr. Mann. Yes, thanks. Great questions. It wasn't 
inevitable, and I showed that animation earlier of what our 
emissions reductions would have looked like back in 2000 if we 
had acted then.
    My good friend and colleague, Susan Joy Hassol, likens it 
to the difference between a bunny slope and a black double 
diamond slope, for those of you who are watching the Olympic 
skiing events right now.
    If we had acted two decades ago we could have followed this 
gentle bunny slope down the hill in terms of bringing our 
carbon emissions down gradually. Now, because of decades of 
inaction, thanks in part to the disinformation promoted by 
ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel interest groups and those 
promoting their agenda--thanks to that inaction, we now have 
that black double diamond slope. We have got to come down half 
the way from the top of the mountain to the flat land in--you 
know, in 10 years--in less than 10 years.
    The good news that I alluded to, climate modeling does have 
a bit of good news. As we sort of have become more elaborate in 
the way that we model the different components of the climate 
system including the ocean and its ability to absorb carbon, 
what we find is that the ocean will take some of that carbon 
out of the atmosphere and the net effect is that if we stop 
burning fossil fuels right now, if we bring those emissions to 
zero, the planet stops warming up.
    So yes, we are stuck with some impacts that are now baked 
in and we need to--you know, we need to be more resilient and 
we need to provide resources to people and to--you know, to 
various nations to adapt to those changes that are now 
inevitable.
    But we can prevent it from getting worse if we act now. 
That is why it is so important to have policies now that 
incentivize the--you know, the fossil fuel energy to move in 
the direction of renewable energy.
    And, you know, this isn't about individual behavior. As Dr. 
Lewis said before, this is an old tactic that has been used by 
the tobacco industry, it was used by the beverage industry, to 
distract us to make us think that we don't need policies. We 
just need individuals to change their behavior.
    Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, we are long over time.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you.
    Ms. Tubb, I have a few questions for you. First, I want to 
followup on Ms. Foxx's question.
    You know, she talked a little bit about pipelines and, of 
course, it is the clear goal of this administration to shut 
down pipelines in the United States. Obviously, the Nord Stream 
pipeline is going ahead.
    Is there a difference in safety or possible pollution 
concerns between the American pipeline that the Biden 
administration wants to shut down and the European pipeline 
that they apparently are fine going ahead with?
    Ms. Tubb. I am less familiar with the European or the Nord 
Stream 2 pipeline you are referring to as far as safety and 
environmental consequences there. I am very confident in the 
pipeline infrastructure in the United States and in our 
environmental standards and labor standards.
    So I can, at least, speak to that, that I have confidence 
there.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. I will give you another question. As far 
as energy production in India and China, which, to a certain 
extent, will go up and down with their manufacturing, as I 
understand it, China is building a lot of new electrical 
plants. So is India.
    Do you want to--would you be comfortable commenting on the 
difference in pollution as to whether or not electricity for 
future manufacturing is done in American plants as opposed to 
Chinese or Indian plants?
    Ms. Tubb. Certainly. You know, I think history has shown us 
that China has not been honest about their pollution problems 
and I think that is something we need to keep in mind, going 
forward.
    Just with traditional pollution, like particulate matter, 
but also greenhouse gas emissions--that there is some amount 
there, and I think it, again, is a great contrast point to what 
we have in the United States that, you know, over the last--I 
would say, 1980, our air pollution has fallen over 70 percent 
and I think that is a record to be very proud of.
    And I guess the last point is that the pollution problems 
in India and China speak all the more robustly for the United 
States to export affordable, reliable, clean energy to these 
countries because they desperately need it.
    Mr. Grothman. OK. Could you give us just a broad feeling? 
As I understand it, there are dozens of coal-fired plants being 
built in China right now. Could you elaborate on the effect of 
the environment as far as having future electricity for 
manufacturing come from coal-fired plants in China as opposed 
to the United States?
    Ms. Tubb. I can say that their air quality is much, much 
worse than our own. China is building more coal. Their coal 
fleet grew by 30 gigawatts in 2020. They are commissioning 
another 30 to 70 gigawatts more. So I can at least speak to the 
trajectory of where they are going and I think the----
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. I guess what I am looking for is insofar 
as we are going to have to produce more electricity in this 
world and our goal is or if we feel there is global warming 
going on because of what is happening in the environment, would 
it be better if that additional energy for manufacturing would 
be produced in China or the U.S.A.?
    Ms. Tubb. I think what I would say is we need clean, 
affordable energy both in the United States and China.
    Mr. Grothman. Is that what we are going to get or is there 
a difference? Is one cleaner than the other, given the current 
policy of the governments?
    Ms. Tubb. Certainly, the system in the United States is 
much cleaner.
    Mr. Grothman. Much cleaner. So if your number-one goal was 
to reduce pollutants you would want future energy built in 
American plants rather than Chinese or Indian plants?
    Ms. Tubb. I think a realistic approach to both the energy 
growth that is projected to happen and whatever concerns people 
do or don't have about global warming is to get clean energy 
technologies around the world, and I think the United States is 
a leader in that category. So I think one very pragmatic 
climate policy is to have freer and more open trade to get 
these technologies around the world.
    Mr. Grothman. There is current climate alarmism that is 
being pushed on children, sometimes very young children, 
causing them to be very concerned, I think, about the future of 
the world.
    Could you comment on what I will refer to as the climate 
alarmism being pushed at our young people today?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes. I think the climate issue is very much about 
media literacy and understanding context.
    Certainly, I am the outlier of the panel here, but I do 
think that the Earth has warmed but I don't think we are headed 
for catastrophe and I think when we talk about one minute to 
midnight type scenarios it really hampers both the scientific 
and policy discussion and, unfortunately, children have fewer 
resources to navigate that very complex conversation.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Connolly?
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you 
for having this hearing.
    Dr. Mann, I assume that BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, are all 
cutting back on the development of new oil and gas fields, 
shifting from fossil fuel to more sustainable energies, right?
    Mr. Mann. Thanks, Congressman. Unfortunately, you would be 
wrong.
    My understanding is that they actually plan to continue to 
expand fossil fuel exploration in the years ahead and that is 
actually fundamentally inconsistent with what the International 
Energy Agency, a pretty conservative body, has said, that if we 
are to stabilize warming below catastrophic levels there can be 
no new fossil fuel infrastructure, and they are continuing with 
new fossil fuel infrastructure.
    Mr. Connolly. So in sort of the context of mixed messaging, 
if we look at the screen, BP's websites touts five different 
times that it intends to get to net zero by 2050 in terms of 
emissions. ExxonMobil's energy factor website states it 
commends President Biden's decision to rejoin the Paris 
Agreement. Chevron, similarly, has a public website supporting 
climate change policy.
    Dr. Mann, is increasing the supply of new oil and gas 
through new development consistent with reaching those goals of 
the Paris Climate Agreement?
    Mr. Mann. No, it isn't. Again, it is like, you know, with 
these promises of decreasing their carbon intensity that is 
really sort of a bait and switch, if you will, because we are 
not talking about carbon intensity. We are talking about 
decreasing carbon emissions.
    It is like, you know, if you double the amount of potato 
chips you eat it doesn't matter if they are slightly reduced in 
their fat content. That is, essentially, what they are doing.
    So it is a bait and switch, and no, they are going in the 
opposite direction of what we need to be doing under Paris. We 
need to bring those total carbon emissions down by 50 percent 
within the next decade.
    They are not even touching the main source of their fossil 
fuel contributions, which is their scope three emissions. They 
are mostly just talking about scope one and scope two. And so 
they are nowhere near to meeting their obligations under Paris.
    Mr. Connolly. You know, I had a friend of mine who was a 
humorist and an author, and he had a wonderful expression--if 
you are going to be a phony at least be sincere about it, and 
that is what this reminds me of.
    We are touting our commitment to the Paris Climate Accord 
and zero emissions by 2050 but, meanwhile, in fact, we are 
expanding exploration and development of new oil and gas fields 
and that is, clearly, inconsistent with what we are trying to 
achieve through the Paris Climate Accord.
    Mr. Mann. Congressman, you know, there is another 
expression. They are talking the talk but they are not walking 
the walk.
    Mr. Connolly. Yes. I prefer my expression.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Connolly. Ms. Lewis, you work to push oil and gas 
companies to become more transparent and truthful about how the 
environment and climate friendly they really are. In your 
opinion, do any of these companies and public websites that 
paint rosy pictures of their work come close to being 
transparent about their actual efforts to curb warming?
    Ms. Lewis. Well, thank you so much for that question, 
Congressman.
    Climate disinformation--what is it? We literally see it 
every day and the websites that you refer to are really a huge 
part of that disinformation process.
    Because the average person wants to see our planet survive. 
We want to see--we want to see humanity exist.
    So when you see those certain buzzwords--climate policy, 
Paris Agreement--it leads an average person to believe that is 
what they are now trying to do after over 40 years of 
promulgating dangerous misinformation.
    But as, you know, has been pointed out earlier, it is the 
same as with big tobacco. The goal here is to cause people to 
believe one thing while the company is doing the exact 
opposite.
    So we are all aware that all the major fossil fuel 
companies are increasing their exploration, increasing output 
while the IEA report said that by 2022 we need to cease 
additional exploration. That is not happening.
    So you cannot say, on one hand, we are moving toward net 
zero--well, they won't say fossil-free future, but moving 
toward net zero while increasing output in every conceivable 
way. So it is really important to them to put that opaque face 
onto their very dangerous actions.
    Mr. Connolly. Thank you so much. My time is up. Thank you, 
Madam Chairwoman.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    And the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs, is now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    It is amazing to me in just one year the Biden 
administration has done everything they can to shut down the 
American energy industry and raised gas prices by more than a 
dollar and home heating prices increasing significantly in all 
products and we see record inflation we haven't seen since the 
1970's.
    At the same time, President Biden has done everything to 
shut down the American energy industry. He is begging--
basically, begging OPEC and Russia to produce more to help 
lower the prices because more production would lower the 
prices.
    And the irony of that is, I believe, that their production 
over there is less clean than American production, and then by 
the time you ship it over--ship oil over to the United States 
you have more carbon emissions and so on. So it makes 
absolutely no sense.
    And I would also argue that slowing down our economy by 
raising our energy prices, unlike China, who is increasing 
their production and their energy, it limits the resources we 
have available to do research and development, to develop new 
technologies, to be innovative, and help our energy producers 
come up with the new technologies to get to carbon-free energy.
    Ms. Tubb, we saw in 2020 when the economy--world economy 
was pretty much locked down we are just seeing a slight impact 
in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere decrease. 
What does that tell us about the real effects that expensive 
climate change proposals will actually have?
    Ms. Tubb. I would say minimal, and Special Climate Envoy 
John Kerry has said as much himself.
    Mr. Gibbs. So we are not seeing China and India--that they 
are not reducing their emissions and, basically, China, even in 
the Paris Agreement, was, basically, given a waiver to not even 
start until 2030 and they set their own benchmarks.
    You know, it is just unbelievable to me that, you know, if 
the United States was just to shut down--you know, just 
hypothetically speaking, if we just shut down completely, what 
would that do to global emissions?
    Ms. Tubb. It would reduce global emissions but it would 
have no impact on global temperatures by the end of the 
century, again, because emissions growth is coming from the 
developing world.
    Mr. Gibbs. OK. That is--I thought so. The irony here is 
just--really just unbelievable.
    I want to talk about natural gas. I think we have--the 
United States has decreased in the last decade or so our carbon 
emissions and I believe--tell me if I am wrong--I believe that 
all the rest of the developing world their emissions have 
actually gone up and ours has decreased. Is that true?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes.
    Mr. Gibbs. So we are touching on something right now. I 
think a lot of that can be attributed to natural gas. We are 
producing natural gas cleaner than we ever have before, and I 
think it is a good clean energy for this century to transition 
to new technologies that we probably don't even know about--new 
energy technologies that will come after my lifetime, probably, 
but a good way to get there.
    So is natural gas abundant in this country?
    Ms. Tubb. Absolutely.
    Mr. Gibbs. And it is cheaper to produce than other forms of 
energy, overall?
    Ms. Tubb. Currently, and I think that has a lot to do with 
the innovation you mentioned just a moment ago, that previously 
we looked at--we were looking at high energy prices and 
innovation, thanks to affordable hydraulic fracturing, opened 
up all kinds of energy resources, including natural gas.
    Mr. Gibbs. I agree and so, you know
    [inaudible] correct?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, that is right.
    Mr. Gibbs. So shutting down our American natural gas 
industry, by making it harder to build pipelines to transport 
it, just adds to energy costs and we are seeing less investment 
in this country because this administration has been so, you 
know, attacking the industry and this--of course, this 
committee has done a pretty good job of that, too, instead of 
trying to help put policies in place to where they can produce 
clean natural gas at cleaner levels, produce less carbon, and 
transport it.
    You know, we have seen pipelines be shut down and that is 
the safest way to transport natural gas and moves us to--back 
to, as you like to say, energy freedom. And so I think it is 
good policy and it is too bad we are not going that way in this 
administration.
    So if the United States, Ms. Tubb, went totally green 
tomorrow, let me--I guess I already kind of asked that 
question--the impact it would have on our economy, you know, 
cost of living, what would happen if we took--adopted the Green 
New Deal overnight?
    Ms. Tubb. Well, I think we are seeing a bit of a taste of 
it now. But I think people need to remember that energy isn't 
just our household energy needs. It impacts all kinds of goods 
and services, whether we are talking about the cost of running 
a business, transporting goods, even food prices. So I think 
the impacts are throughout the economy.
    One thing you mentioned about pipelines that I want to just 
highlight is the EIA has noted how pipeline infrastructure has 
given Americans in Texas and Appalachia access to more energy 
and more affordable energy and I think we are seeing the 
converse of that in California, where they have limited 
pipeline infrastructure and have to rely on Jones Act vessels 
to transmit energy and, again, in the Northeast, where capacity 
is not keeping up with demand, and they are paying higher 
energy prices because of it.
    Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. I am out of time. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time expires.
    The gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    You know, denial is not just a river in Egypt. For some of 
our colleagues it is a way of life. The same people who deny 
that Joe Biden beat Donald Trump by more than 7 million votes 
and just censured Liz Cheney for telling the truth about the 
election, the same people who denied the reality of COVID-19 
and attacked our scientists and sold quack medical cures as the 
disease killed hundreds of thousands of our people, the same 
people who called the deadly insurrection on January 6 
legitimate political discourse, are now, again, denying the 
existence of climate change and this is their most dangerous 
lie of all.
    Climate change is a global catastrophe that has come to our 
door. Across the country we have seen record forest fires in 
the West, record drought in the Midwest, record flooding in the 
East, hurricanes of record velocity in the South.
    Last year, we had 20 severe climate events that killed 688 
Americans and cost us more than $145 billion. But all our 
colleagues can think about is the profits of their buddies in 
big oil. Made nearly $9 billion in profits last quarter. 
Chevron made more than $5 billion.
    But they can't imagine a renewable energy future as 
something that would benefit everyone in America. They see it 
only as a threat to the power of the carbon kings.
    Joe Biden and his administration have created more jobs 
than any Presidential administration in our lifetimes, while 
their dubious hero destroyed more jobs than any president in 
our lifetime.
    So I would like to ask the question of Mr. van Baal. In 
your view, is the ideological denial of climate change by a 
major political party a global phenomenon? Do we see it in 
every country or is it something that is distinctively 
American?
    Mr. van Baal. I think it is--these are global companies so 
this is a global issue and the denial also has been global. 
Here in Europe, the denial has been as strong as in the U.S.
    I think that has almost ended. The risk is that these 
companies now moved directly from denial to delay, which they 
are doing right now.
    Mr. Raskin. Dr. Mann, can you please explain why the goal 
of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius is so 
important?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Thanks, Congressman. Thanks, by the way, for 
all you do, including your efforts to preserve our democracy. I 
just wanted to say that.
    You know, we, you know, are already experiencing the--you 
know, people ask, what is dangerous climate change? Is it one 
and a half degrees Celsius? Three degrees Fahrenheit? Is it 
four degrees Fahrenheit?
    Dangerous climate change is here. If you are Puerto Rico, 
if you are California, if you are Australia, if you are my home 
state of Pennsylvania that saw that record flooding with 
Hurricane Ida, we are already seeing devastating consequences 
of climate change and it will simply get worse and worse.
    The real danger is that we start to cross certain tipping 
points where the damage that we do is irreversible on human 
timescales, on historical timescales. We are starting to see 
the warming of the ocean.
    And by the way, my colleagues and I published an article 
just weeks ago showing that the oceans were at record levels of 
warmth this last year. That warmth is eroding the ice shelves 
that help prop up the west Antarctic Ice Sheet. If that ice 
sheet collapses, we don't get feet--we get meters of sea level 
rising.
    Historically, our projections have always been 
conservative. Some scientists say that could take a century or 
more to happen. Others say it could happen more rapidly than 
that.
    So all of this underscores the importance of acting now. 
The cost of inaction is so far greater than the cost of taking 
action.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
    Ms. Lewis, can we make the changes we need to make to 
address the calamitous consequences of climate change while 
still allowing Exxon and Mobil and other big energy companies 
to thrive and survive?
    Or, as our colleagues suggest, does it mean putting them 
out of business?
    Ms. Lewis. Congressman Raskin, thank you so much for your 
question, and as a resident of your district, I, too, thank you 
for all that you do.
    Your question, of course, indicates that we all know the 
answer. We simply cannot maintain the status quo and expect to 
have change. Those two ideas cannot be held simultaneously.
    So the cognitive dissonance within that, which is what the 
fossil fuel industry wants us to believe is possible and as our 
scientific research shows over and over again, it cannot be. We 
must make these changes. Congress has power. It can exercise 
it, and I am hopeful that you are able to continue to convince 
them to do the right thing.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, thank you.
    Madam Chair, I know my time is up. I would like to seek 
unanimous consent to enter into the record a great op-ed by 
former Republican House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood 
Boehlert, who wrote a powerful column in the Washington Post 
challenging his fellow Republicans in Congress to open their 
minds and to accept and embrace the science of climate change.
    He also defended against the climate deniers many 
scientists, including today's witness, Dr. Mann. Former 
Chairman Boehlert, alas, passed away in September of last year. 
But we all remember him fondly for being willing to buck 
ideological discipline and tell the truth based on science.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Biggs. I thank the chair. Thank you for recognizing me 
and appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate the witnesses 
being here.
    This hearing is another example of Democrats attacking 
American workers and the private sector to further their 
socialist agenda while advocating for policies that will lead 
to higher energy policy--higher energy costs and will harm 
working Americans.
    This hearing is meant to advance the Democrats' radical 
agenda to destroy the oil and gas industry. According to 
reports, the oil and gas industry supports nearly 10 million 
jobs.
    Yet, Democrats in Congress want to eliminate these jobs in 
the name of green energy. The Green New Deal would radically 
alter America's economy and do little to fight climate change.
    Our chairwoman said today that while we see rising gas 
prices the Biden Administration released oil from the Strategic 
Oil Reserve. Indeed, he did. He released 50 million barrels and 
just a week or so ago he released an additional 13.5 million 
barrels.
    That is about two days' worth of consumption. So that 
didn't do much, and the first 50 million had 18 million of it 
going to China and India.
    My friend from California said we must force them, meaning 
the oil companies, to live up to their own public statements.
    That is not Congress' job. That is not our role to make 
sure that people live up to statements they make publicly. If 
that were the case, we would take away the private airplanes 
that flood Davos every year from people who profess to be 
global environmentalists.
    Scarcity and demand--that is what is driving oil prices 
higher. What we saw was an immediate cancellation of the 
Keystone pipeline by this administration, coupled with 
draconian regulations that curb exploration, development, 
production, refinement, and distribution, and that has resulted 
in places like in southern Arizona where natural gas now is up 
over, in some cases, 125 percent just over a year ago.
    And this committee is so out of touch even with the Biden 
administration. The Biden administration's Secretary Blinken 
said just yesterday, ``We are working together right now to 
protect Europe's energy supply against supply shocks, including 
those that could result from further Russia aggression against 
Ukraine. Energy security is tied directly to national security, 
regional security, and global security. Europe needs reliable 
and affordable energy, especially in the winter months.''
    By the way, we average over 600,000 barrels a day of oil 
imported from Russia. So when Secretary Blinken said what he is 
talking about is working with governments and major producers 
around the world about surging their production and 
distribution capacity.
    Secretary Blinken was not saying, hey, let us increase 
solar, let us increase wind or even nuclear. No, he is talking 
about fossil fuel production that he wants surging. And that 
reminds me that it was not too long ago that our own president 
was asking OPEC and its allies to increase their oil 
production.
    That is how out of step and out of whack this committee is 
and this hearing with even the Biden administration and with 
what Secretary Blinken said as recently as yesterday.
    Ms. Tubb, if the Green New Deal was enacted would it be 
able to replace the jobs that are lost in the oil and gas 
industry, and how long would it take to do so?
    Ms. Tubb. I don't believe it would and I think we have 
experience of that with the American Recovery Act and how the 
green jobs program was a general failure in reemploying people.
    Mr. Biggs. The constant assault on the oil and gas industry 
has been led by this administration and his allies in Congress. 
Democrats in Congress claim that the Green New Deal would 
reduce energy prices and would help working class Americans.
    However, we have seen skyrocketing energy prices over the 
last year--as I mentioned, natural gas prices in southern 
Arizona as well as the price of a gallon gas at the pump more 
than a dollar.
    Ms. Tubb, what effect do policies like the Green New Deal 
have on the U.S. economy and energy prices?
    Ms. Tubb. Well, I think you alluded to it in that when you 
artificially eliminate resources you are going to increase 
costs. There is no way around that.
    But, again, as you increase the cost of energy you increase 
costs throughout the economy. The Heritage Foundation has 
modeled this before and, again, we came out with trillions of 
dollars in costs and lost millions of--millions of jobs lost. 
So I don't think it is promising future, in part because I 
think it is unrealistic.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    Madam Chair, I have a number of articles I would like to 
submit to the record.
    I have--and I would like to comment on mine just like Mr. 
Raskin commented on his and you indulged him.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
    So, first of all, from the Washington Examiner a piece 
entitled ``Greenpeace co-founder joins climate change 
skeptics,'' where he says that, as a philosophical level, 
Greenpeace had started with a strong humanitarian orientation 
to save human civilization from nuclear war and then it 
gradually turned left, and that is from Patrick Moore, one of 
the founders of Greenpeace.
    I also want to submit his testimony from February 25, 2014, 
that--when he testified before the U.S. Senate.
    Also, Patrick Moore debunking climate and other varieties 
of alarmism from the Financial Post.
    Also, former Greenpeace insider Patrick Moore who questions 
climate change, says he can stand the heat--from the Washington 
Times.
    Also, ``Biden demands OPEC boost oil production amid rising 
gas prices'' from New York Post. Also, the petroleum and--U.S. 
Energy Information Administration's tracking of the import of 
Russian oil by the United States as well, as a piece entitled, 
``Oil reserves released by Biden expected to primarily go to 
China and India.''
    And I thank the madam chair.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Without objection.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentleman from California, Mr. Ro Khanna, is recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    What is impressive to me is that a 1977 Exxon report said 
there is, quote, ``general scientific agreement that the most 
likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global 
climate is through carbon dioxide released from the burning of 
fossil fuels.''
    That was in 1977. That means that as early as the 1970's 
Exxon knew not only that climate change is real but that its 
products--Exxon's products--were contributing to the climate 
crisis.
    In 2002, former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said he does not 
believe, and I quote, ``that the science establishes the 
linkage between fossil fuels and warming.''
    Dr. Mann, you are a distinguished climate scientist at 
Pennsylvania State University in our heartland. Do you think 
that Lee Raymond's statement that science had not established a 
link between fossil fuels and climate change in 2002 was 
accurate?
    Mr. Mann. No, it was thoroughly inaccurate. Even ExxonMobil 
at that point knew how inaccurate that statement would be.
    Mr. Khanna. Do you think it is fair to say that his 
statement was not consistent with the science as Exxon 
understood it at the time?
    Mr. Mann. That is right, and I would just add that the 
subsequent CEO of ExxonMobil, Rex Tillerson, who went on to 
become Donald Trump's Secretary of State, has evolved from 
denial of the science to insistence that we can just use 
technology like geo-engineering to solve the problem.
    So there is an evolution there. But even now, we still have 
a CEO of ExxonMobil denying the importance of meaningful 
climate action.
    Mr. Khanna. Well, I guess, you know, in front of this 
hearing, Darren Woods--and, you know, my interest is actually 
not to embarrass him--he told us that, quote, ``I think Mr. 
Raymond's statement was consistent with the science at the 
time.''
    Do you think at the very least he should retract that or 
correct the record? I mean, is there any plausibility for that 
statement?
    Mr. Mann. The statement is inconsistent with internal 
reports from ExxonMobil's own scientists in 1977 and 1982.
    Mr. Khanna. I will just say that I really urge Mr. Woods to 
clarify the record or to explain why Dr. Mann is incorrect.
    But I just--you see no way that Exxon today could maintain 
that the statements by Lee Raymond were consistent with Exxon's 
understanding at the time that Lee Raymond made those 
statements. Is that correct?
    Mr. Mann. Yes, not in good faith.
    Mr. Khanna. The other thing that Mr. Woods said and, you 
know, he said that increased gas--greenhouse gases can 
contribute to the effects of climate change.
    You know, I would have thought he would have said that they 
do contribute. The word ``can'' tells me that it is possible 
that it won't. It is pretty apparent today, right, that 
increased greenhouse gases will contribute to climate change, 
that there should not be any ambiguity on this point?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. His statement is sort of like saying gravity 
can contribute to an object falling. It is basic physics that 
has been known for the better part of two centuries that 
greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere, they warm up the planet, 
and carbon dioxide being a principle one.
    Mr. Khanna. Dr. Mann, also in Exxon's pledges where they 
say, OK, scope one and scope two, we are going to cut emissions 
or get to net zero but we are not going to do it for scope 
three for the actual oil we sell, what do you think of that?
    Mr. Mann. Well, I would use the analogy it is like 
rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. It is not addressing 
the gorilla in the room. Ninety percent of the carbon emissions 
are from scope three--the fact that their business model 
involves the extraction and sale of fossil fuels, which, when 
burned, warm up the planet and create climate change.
    Mr. Khanna. Dr. Mann, when the chairwoman and I and many of 
the members conceived of having these hearings, our purpose, 
really, was not to stick it to big oil. It was, really, to have 
them come clean and say how they are going to make changes, 
going forward.
    If you were talking to Mr. Woods, what would your advice be 
that they can do in terms of the past misstatements and in 
terms of future action?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. I mean, we believe in redemption in this 
country, and I would encourage them to become part of the 
solution. It is not too late for them to embrace the need to 
address the climate crisis and to become heroes by helping us 
steer quickly away from fossil fuels. There is still time for 
them to have that be their legacy.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized for 
five minutes.
    Mr. Cloud?
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Chairwoman. I wanted to take some 
time and bring a little context to this discussion. Last week, 
Russia and China announced a strategic partnership against the 
United States.
    Ms. Tubb, is the world a better place with the United 
States as a premier influence, or China or Russia?
    Ms. Tubb. I think the United States stands for ideals of 
freedom for everyone, and so I would definitely prefer the 
United States in that leadership role.
    Mr. Cloud. Of the top oil and gas nations in the world--
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Qatar, China, United States--
which nation produces energy more responsibly?
    Ms. Tubb. Well, the United States is the number-one 
producer of both oil and natural gas and I believe we are the 
second in the world for coal, and I think our environmental 
record stands as a sterling example to the rest of the world.
    Mr. Cloud. So we are leading in the world. So the greater 
portion of the world's supply that the U.S. production takes up 
the better it is for the world environment. Is that a fair 
statement to say?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, and I think it is better for freedom as 
well. I think when countries import American energy they are 
working with private companies. They are not working with an 
outgrowth of a government.
    And so there is political freedom there to engage in free 
market exchange of energy. That is not true for, I think, other 
major energy-producing countries.
    Mr. Cloud. And so right now what we see happening on the 
world stage with Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, when the U.S. 
reduces production, do we see them going green or do we see 
them looking for other production in other parts of the world?
    Ms. Tubb. Other production. You know, as I mentioned in my 
testimony, world demand for energy is not decreasing. And so if 
the U.S. pulls out of the game that space will be filled by 
other players.
    Mr. Cloud. Indeed, we have actually seen this happen, for 
example, with Qatar recently striking up a new relationship 
with China for China to buy energy from them and for them to 
buy ships from China. That was new.
    Is a pipeline built in Russia inherently greener for the 
global environment than one built in the United States?
    Ms. Tubb. I don't believe so. I would have to get some 
numbers on that for you to be confident in that answer. But I 
am very confident in the environmental standards in the United 
States.
    Mr. Cloud. Right. OK. Is war good for the environment?
    Ms. Tubb. No.
    Mr. Cloud. OK.
    Ms. Tubb. Not good for the environment or for people.
    Mr. Cloud. OK. So in the last administration we saw the 
American energy dominance lead to historic peace deals in the 
Middle East. We saw stability around the world. With the Biden 
administration, we saw the waiving of sanctions on Nord Stream 
2. We saw restrictions placed on production here in the United 
States, and now we find ourselves on the brink of war, where, 
literally, thousands of lives hang in the balance because of 
climate hysteria of what is going on
    Meanwhile, at the same time, tens of thousands of people 
are dying in the United States because of fentanyl and this 
committee continues to not focus on these issues.
    Last term we had I don't know how many hearings on the 
border and we haven't had any this time. We have all these 
issues that Americans are facing on a daily basis and still 
this committee will not address them, and we keep coming back 
to these issues time and time. We should have had this hearing 
last week on Ground Hog Day.
    Ms. Tubb, I also serve on the Agriculture Committee. Right 
now, when Americans go to the grocery store, we see empty--we 
see empty shelves. We are seeing higher food prices.
    On the Ag Committee, I can tell you farmers and ranchers 
are really concerned, farmers especially, who are seeing 
fertilizer prices go up. We are seeing pesticides go down. Both 
of those are byproducts of the oil and gas industry.
    And if we think that food prices are higher now, a year 
from now when we have reduced yields because of the reduction 
or the restrictions placed on oil and gas production we will 
have a troubling time a year from now when it comes to high 
prices.
    But this is on top of gas prices already that the American 
consumer is seeing. Can you speak to the burden that the 
American family is seeing with high oil and gas production?
    Ms. Tubb. Sure. You know, I think there is a reason that 
energy is one of the major----
    Mr. Cloud. I should say high cost. My apologies.
    Ms. Tubb. No worries.
    Mr. Cloud. Reduce production, higher costs.
    Ms. Tubb. Yes. I think there is a reason that energy is one 
of the major drivers of inflation and it is because it impacts 
so many sectors of our economy.
    Agriculture is a very good example where--energy prices 
both in the production but also in byproducts or secondary 
products of energy--you mentioned fertilizer as a good 
example--are impacted by high energy prices.
    I think another thing that you highlighted that is 
important to the conversation is these longer-term effects, 
that when we scale back production or when we make production 
of energy difficult there are long-term impacts throughout the 
economy of that posture.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you. My time is up. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back.
    The gentlelady from Ohio, Ms. Brown, is now recognized for 
her questions for five minutes.
    Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, for putting forth 
to this hearing this morning, and I also want to thank the 
witnesses for joining us.
    Fossil fuel companies such as Exxon, Chevron, and BP and 
Shell all have publicly supported the Paris Climate Agreement 
and have pledges that they would be consistent with this 
agreement.
    I would like to focus on another aspect of the questions 
that have been addressed. Natural gas is a fossil fuel that 
emits greenhouse gases at all phases of its lifecycle and it is 
primarily composed of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that can 
warm the planet more than 80 times as much as the amounts of 
carbon dioxide.
    Yet, fossil fuel companies are touting natural gas as the 
clean solution to climate change and they publicly support the 
Paris Climate Agreement.
    Dr. Mann, why is natural gas not a viable alternative for 
the future?
    Mr. Mann. For two reasons. Natural gas is a fossil fuel. 
When you burn it, it generates carbon pollution. Maybe somewhat 
less than when you burn coal, but at the same time, the process 
of extracting natural gas from the ground, fracking--hydraulic 
fracturing or fracking--releases what we call fugitive methane. 
Natural gas is mostly methane. Releases that into the 
atmosphere, and methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas 
than carbon dioxide on the relevant timescales of, you know, 
one or two decades.
    And so there is no reason to believe that natural gas is 
any more climate friendly than other fossil fuels, and 
investing in natural gas is crowding out investment in true 
clean renewable energy that can help us decarbonize our economy 
and address the climate crisis.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you. So when Chevron and Exxon say they 
are working to reach the Paris Agreement, they are not being 
straight with their shareholders, their investors, and the 
American public.
    So, Ms. Lewis, what do these misleading pledges mean for 
the communities that live near dirty refineries and power 
plants?
    Ms. Lewis. Thank you so much, Congresswoman, for your 
question. Simply what it means is having these fossil fuel 
facilities in frontline communities, low wealth communities, 
and communities of color, which often intersect, it means 
increased death.
    It means poor health outcomes. It means cancer. It means 
all types of diseases. It means people who are unable to work. 
It means that they are more likely to have to rely on external 
moneys to--just to survive. And, of course, you know, we can 
get into all the issues around access to medical care, which we 
know that communities of color are often not able to.
    So what we are talking about is increased death and 
morbidity, and if that is what we want for our fellow humans 
then we should continue on the path that the fossil fuel 
industry is laying out.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much.
    Dr. Mann, do you have anything you would like to add?
    Mr. Mann. Yes, I just wanted to address--there have been 
some myths that we have heard, for example, you know, that 
investing in renewable energy is going to destroy the economy, 
it is going to, you know, hurt efforts to create jobs.
    It is just the opposite. If you look at Lazar Investment 
Firm, their analysis of the levelized cost of different energy 
sources, renewable energy outcompetes fossil fuel energy in the 
market today.
    The problem is we have all these subsidies for the fossil 
fuel industry that make them artificially more competitive than 
they should be. And so we are providing incentives for energy 
that is actually hurting the planet rather than for energy that 
can help save it.
    Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. So, basically, the poor and 
marginalized communities are bearing the brunt of the pollution 
and health hazards and it is unacceptable. Everyone in America 
should have the right to clean air and clean water.
    So thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. And the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Higgins, is now recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Higgins?
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope that America is 
paying close attention here because we are going to--we are 
going to drill down pretty hard.
    Leftist elites in America don't really care about global 
pollution and ecology because if they did they would support 
the American energy industry. It is very clear.
    We are a representative republic. Every colleague sitting 
in this committee has been elected by American citizens to 
represent America's interest. And yet, we have hearing after 
hearing after hearing just smashing American industry and 
placing the burden of the world's climate upon the American 
conscience, although it is the American energy industry that is 
driving the reduction of carbon emissions worldwide.
    The Paris Climate Accords have been referred to by my 
colleagues several times today. It is a terrible deal for 
America. It is a big gift to Russia and China. Every reasonable 
man supports an all-of-the-above energy policy. All of us 
support a gradual increase in technological processes for the 
research and development, extraction, refining, and delivery, 
transport, of fossil fuels and gradually growing greener and 
cleaner.
    This is industry driven, not government driven. Industry 
has learned great lessons across the span of the 20th century 
that cleaner, more efficient production is good business.
    We have an American energy industry that is leading the 
world in reducing carbon emissions and, yet, we have American 
representatives here in the people's House allegedly 
representing the best interests of American citizens--is 
smashing that very American industry, pushing the industry 
overseas into nation states that have horrible ecological 
records, and employs slavery, by the way, to produce dirty 
energy.
    The Democrats' agenda could be summarized in two words, 
government control, is a quote, one of hundreds, from left-
leaning writ over the last couple of decades--nationalization 
is the best shot the world has got to decommission a 
recalcitrant industry in time to stave off climate disaster and 
it is an opportunity to build something better in its place. 
The nationalization of America's oil and gas--that is what the 
left really wants. They want us to join the ranks of Venezuela, 
Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, China, Nigeria, Libya, Kuwait. The 
list goes on.
    So I am going to ask our panelists, everyone yes or no. You 
have an opportunity to participate in something called truth.
    Yes or no, Dr. Mann?
    Mr. Mann. Sorry. What is the question?
    Mr. Higgins. Do you believe that America's energy industry 
should be nationalized?
    Mr. Mann. That is not a matter for me to decide. That is a 
matter for Congress to decide.
    Mr. Higgins. I will take that as a yes.
    Mr. Mann. No. No, that is not a yes.
    Mr. Higgins. Mr. Mark van Baal?
    Mr. Mann. That is not a yes. It is an irrelevant comment. 
It is an irrelevant question for me.
    Mr. Higgins. You see--you see, Mr. Mann, you are referred 
to as a distinguished. I would say that if it were up to you, 
because you are quite an arrogant fellow, in my opinion, you 
would add revered and heralded to your title. You know you 
support the nationalization of American oil.
    I will move to Mr. Mark van Baal. Do you have the courage 
to answer that question, sir?
    Mr. van Baal. Yes, Congressman. Thank you for your 
question.
    Of course, the American industry doesn't need to be 
nationalized. We need them to thrive in the energy transition. 
We need them to provide America with clean energy, replace 
fossil fuels by renewables.
    Mr. Higgins. It is the cleanest--it is the cleanest in the 
world. And yet----
    Mr. van Baal. It is not clean enough.
    Mr. Higgins [continuing]. And yet they are being smashed 
today.
    Mr. van Baal. Sorry to interrupt you. It is not clean 
enough to fight the climate crisis.
    Mr. Higgins. Is it the cleanest in the world?
    Mr. van Baal. No, it is not the cleanest in the world.
    Mr. Higgins. It is not the cleanest in the world. That is 
what you are saying. Where? Give us the example.
    Mr. van Baal. Solar panels, wind turbines, you name it.
    Mr. Higgins. No. No. No. You are talking--we are talking 
about actual energy in the really real world, sir. The clothing 
that you wear, everything in your office there, your 
television, your iPhone--everything you have got is petroleum 
based. We are talking about the really real world. Does the 
American energy industry deliver----
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman's time has expired but 
the gentleman may answer his question.
    The gentleman's time has expired but the gentleman my 
answer his question.
    Mr. van Baal. Do you allow me to answer?
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam.
    Chairwoman Maloney. OK.
    Mr. Higgins. Madam Chair, I yield. Thank you very much.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you.
    The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson, is now recognized 
for five minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding 
this very important and timely hearing and also thank you to 
the witnesses for their testimony.
    Climate change denial is live and in living color today and 
so is deception. Deception is not uncharacteristic of big oil, 
which has downplayed and denied the imminent climate crisis for 
decades.
    One of their newer methods of dishonesty is publicly 
touting goals of, quote, ``net zero emissions'', end quote, and 
clean energy while privately continuing, if not increasing, 
fossil fuel production.
    As habitats crumble from warming oceans and communities 
suffer from unpredictable weather, big oil continues to mislead 
and profit at the world's expense.
    Ms. Lewis, a disclaimer in Shell's 2020 sustainability 
report states precisely that, quote, ``Shell's operating plans, 
outlooks budgets, and pricing assumptions do not reflect our 
net zero emissions target,'' end quote, and that they expect 
Shell's operating plans to move toward net zero emissions as 
society moves toward it.
    How can we take Shell's climate mitigation goals seriously 
when they do not even consider these goals in their current 
budgets, outlooks, and prices?
    Ms. Lewis. Congressman, thank you for your most excellent 
question.
    It is pretty clear that we can't take that seriously. Once 
again, we see the cognitive dissonance between stating the goal 
to move toward net zero while within its own prospectus, its 
websites, that it is not even incorporating that.
    So, you know, there is, certainly, power within Congress to 
hold companies like Shell accountable for that--those 
misleading statements.
    Mr. Johnson. In what ways can Congress mitigate insidious 
maneuvers such as this one to ensure that big oil, in fact, 
implements the changes that it purports to support?
    Ms. Lewis. Oh. Thank you again.
    Well, most certainly, Congress has the power through a 
variety of means. Actually, for example, last year you took a 
great step with passing the Fossil Free Fuel Act. That was one 
method focusing on the Federal Reserve and its mandate.
    Another method, obviously, would be to simply state, you 
can no longer falsely advertise your net zero goals, and if you 
do that you are misleading the public, the same way that 
Congress did with tobacco, held Big Tobacco accountable for 
telling the public that it was safe to smoke and there was no 
connection between that and cancer and other diseases.
    Mr. Johnson. Dr. Mann, net zero pledges are baseless and 
riddled with contradictions. For example, Shell recently began 
drilling off the coast of Namibia and plans to continue to 
search for new drill sites in that area until 2025, thus 
continuing the exploitation of resources from Africa.
    In addition to the impacts of carbon emissions, can you 
speak on how new drill sites can destabilize ocean habitats and 
also destabilize the lives of the people who live in under-and 
undeveloped nations that are exploited for oil?
    Mr. Mann. Sure. You know, it is not my area of expertise 
but certainly extraction of fossil fuels has this hidden cost 
in terms of the damage it does to our environment, whether 
those are marine environments, whether those are mountain 
environments here in the United States, where mountaintop coal 
removal does tremendous damage to streams, to those forests.
    So there is this additional cost that we don't often even 
talk about, which is the damage done to the environment by 
extracting dirty sources of energy.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you. My time is about to expire so I 
will yield the balance.
    Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. The gentleman yields. The 
gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, is recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Hice. Again, here we are, instead of conducting real 
oversight, this committee continues to attack American 
businesses. And, you know, I mean, we are dealing with issues 
that the American businesses are already addressing, but we are 
having this type hearing yet again. October of last year we had 
a committee hearing with CEO participation, from ExxonMobil, 
BP, Chevron, Shell, American Petroleum Institute. And how did 
that hearing end? Well, it concluded with a subpoena.
    Let's get the fact straight yet again. And here are the 
facts. From 2005 to 2019, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 
decreased by 12 percent. From 1990 to 2019, methane emissions 
from coal mines, natural gas production, et cetera, decreased 
15 percent. All the while, Russia's territorial carbon dioxide 
emissions per capita grew by 14.5 percent between 2000 and 
2018.
    China produced 27 percent of the world's greenhouses gases 
in 2019. That is according to research by the Rhodium Group. 
And by the way, the issues, the figures I mentioned of the U.S. 
decrease of greenhouse gas emissions and methane are from the 
EPA, their report of April of last year. China's emissions 
exceed all developed nations combined. China's emissions more 
than tripled over the previous three decades. China has vowed 
now to reach zero emissions by 2060. How nice is that? They vow 
to have a peak no later than 2030.
    From 2006 to 2019, ExxonMobil's global gas greenhouse 
emissions had decreased 13 percent.
    So those are some of the facts, and yet what has been the 
response, the current state of affairs if you will, with our 
current Administration? Well, the Biden administration cancels 
Keystone Pipeline in January of last year. The Biden 
administration shut down oil and gas lease cells from the 
Nation's vast public lands and waters in the first days of his 
office, stopping drilling on about 23 million acres previously 
that were being leased to energy companies.
    And what was the result of all of that? Well now we have 
energy prices going through the roof. The national average of 
gasoline now nearing $3.50, up $1-plus from this time last 
year. Energy costs, like heating your home, which is pretty 
essential at this time of the year, it has risen 29 percent.
    And yet the reaction of the Biden administration is now, 
let's solve the problem by pushing OPEC to increase their oil 
production, dirty oil, while the U.S. is leading the way in 
much, much, much cleaner oil, and yet the Biden administration 
now is pushing, calling, begging OPEC to increase their oil 
production instead of domestic oil production right here in the 
U.S. And we all remember the Biden administration approving 
Russia's Nord Stream 2 pipeline. I still scratch my head over 
that decision. The pipeline alone is projected to emit over 100 
million metric tons of CO2 per year. And now the world is 
watching. We are all watching Putin make his move, because we 
have given him such an incredible gift.
    Now, now, now is the time to encourage the sale of 
domestically produced gas--freedom gas, as it has been called--
freedom gas, to the world. But again, the Biden administration 
is looking overseas to OPEC and other countries to address this 
looming crisis of Russia and their invasion of Ukraine.
    These policies are ridiculous. They are hurting America. 
They are hurting our constituents. They are hurting their 
wallets.
    Ms. Tubb, do you believe that the U.S. is making great 
strides toward lowering emissions compared to the world's 
largest emitters of pollutions, specifically China?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, and I think data bears out that freer 
economies are environmentally cleaner, in the past, and I 
expect that to be in the future.
    Mr. Hice. Thank you very much. I see my time has expired. I 
yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields. The gentlewoman 
from Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for five minutes. Ms. 
Kelly.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    At the last hearing, I asked the president of Shell about 
their energy transition strategy. Now that we have climate 
experts I would like to examine Shell's plan to become a net 
zero energy company by 2050. At first glance, Shell's plan seem 
more ambitious than some of the other companies we are 
discussing today. For example, Shell is one of the only 
companies that plans to reduce its scope for the emissions, 
which include those that come from the supply chain or from 
consumers using a product as intended.
    To offset its goal through emissions Shell proposes 
something it describes as nature-based solutions, which include 
purchasing credits to offset its emissions.
    Dr. Mann, are you familiar with Shell's nature-based 
solutions plan, and if you are, what is it?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. So this is a common sort of pledge that you 
hear from fossil fuel producers, and again it is a bit of a 
shell game because the idea is that we can offset these fossil 
fuels that are carbon that has been buried beneath the surface 
of the planet for millions of years, that we can somehow offset 
that by planting trees, whose lifetime may be decades or at 
most centuries.
    And if you actually look at the residence time of that 
carbon, it is not equivalent. You can't make up for the carbon 
pollution we are extracting from the earth by just simply 
expanding forests. And, in fact, in recent years, we have seen 
that it can work in just the opposite direction, because we are 
seeing worse drought and worse wildfires. And so we are seeing 
much of that carbon that is stored in forests increasingly 
burning and putting that carbon back into the atmosphere.
    So it is not a viable, you know, strategy for really 
reducing carbon emissions, but it does give fossil fuel 
interests a convenient talking point.
    Ms. Kelly. And I understand the company's plans to reforest 
land, equal in size to the entire state of Wyoming. In your 
view, how feasible are Shell's reforestation plans?
    Mr. Mann. It is not feasible, right. I mean, there is no, 
you know, proof of concept. There is no indication that this 
sort of project can occur at the scale that would be necessary 
to substantially offset emissions, and even if it did we have 
already talked about the problems, that carbon isn't locked up 
for the long term and it can easily escape back into the 
atmosphere.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Shell also plans to offer consumers 
the opportunity to pay more at the gas pump to purchase 
reforestation credit to offset emissions. Shell estimates that 
this will offset about 120 million tons per year of emissions 
from using its oil and gas products by 2030. That is equal to 
taking 25 million cars off the road. Shell plans to pass these 
costs directly onto their customers.
    Ms. Lewis, how likely is it that consumers would choose to 
pay more at the pump to support Shell's reforestation plans?
    Ms. Lewis. Excellent question, Congresswoman. And it is 
incredibly saddening to hear that a multi-billion-dollar, 
global corporation is going to pass on the cost of what they 
have incurred, the damages that they are imposing on American 
people and people worldwide when they could easily do that 
themselves, No. 1.
    And No. 2, you know what? American people are giving and 
thoughtful, and probably, you know, might say, ``Oh, well let 
me do something for the good of our country,'' when the reality 
is this is a corporation that has no business passing on the 
costs of decarbonizing to the American people when they can 
afford it themselves.
    Ms. Kelly. Dr. Mann, do you think offsets should be a part 
of a fossil fuel company's plan to achieve net zero?
    Mr. Mann. No. Again, you know, there is no evidence that 
these sorts of projects can be viable at the scale that is 
necessary to reduce net carbon into the atmosphere. What does 
work is moving away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy.
    And by the way, just to address this comment that was made 
earlier about nationalizing, nobody is talking about doing 
that. What we are talking about is market-driven approaches, 
which would include subsidies, carbon pricing, to move us, to 
move industry in the direction that we know they need to go.
    Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much to the witnesses. It is clear 
the fossil fuel industry has more work ahead to clean up its 
business, and I hope they will achieve these goals with 
practical, realistic steps and realistic timelines instead of 
what seems to be marketing gimmicks.
    Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Fallon, 
is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you, Madam Chair. So I am a bit confused 
and I want to see if some folks can straighten this out for me. 
Mr. Mann, this is an easy question. Is the United States a 
planet?
    Mr. Mann. Sorry?
    Mr. Fallon. Is the United States a planet?
    Mr. Mann. The United States is on a planet.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, exactly, and we share that planet with 
somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 other countries.
    Would you describe, say--I have got limited time here--
Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela, OK, these four countries--
would you describe them as a rule-of-law society?
    Mr. Mann. No. What I would say is that the United States is 
on this planet and has contributed more carbon----
    Mr. Fallon. OK. I just----
    Mr. Mann [continuing]. Any other country.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Sir, sir, I just asked you a simple 
question. Do you believe that Russia, China, Iran, and 
Venezuela are rule-of-law societies?
    Mr. Mann. Rule of what?
    Mr. Fallon. Rule of law, l-a-w. Rule of law. Can you not 
hear me?
    Mr. Mann. I couldn't hear you very clearly, no.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Can you hear me now?
    Mr. Mann. I don't even know what you mean by that.
    Mr. Fallon. You don't know what rule of law? OK.
    Mr. Mann. I don't know what you mean in this case.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. Do you think they have a healthy, 
environmental lobby in those four nations?
    Mr. Mann. A healthy environmental lobby? You are including 
Russia.
    Mr. Fallon. Wow. OK. Do you speak English, sir?
    Mr. Mann. Did you include Russia in that question?
    Mr. Fallon. Yes, I did. Russia, China, Iran, and Venezuela.
    Mr. Mann. Is there a healthy environmental lobby in Russia?
    Mr. Fallon. Do you think they do?
    Mr. Mann. It is an authoritarian government that 
suppresses----
    Mr. Fallon. They all are. Right? They all are.
    Mr. Mann [continuing]. Any such activities.
    Mr. Fallon. None of those countries have an independent 
judiciary either, which means, do you think that when they 
extract their energy that they are doing it in the most 
efficient way with stringent regulation?
    Mr. Mann. They are not extracting energy. They are 
extracting resources do produce energy. And nobody right now, 
including the United States, is doing so as efficiently as we 
could with respect to carbon pollution.
    Mr. Fallon. OK. So you are saying we are on par with those 
dictators, if reducing emissions in China is the greatest 
polluter on the planet.
    Mr. Mann. I didn't say that at all.
    Mr. Fallon. Thank you. Thank you. OK. I reclaim my time.
    So here we go again. We have got--it is like, I think Yogi 
Berra said, de javu all over again." I don't know how many 
times we have had hearings where we are going to demonize this 
industry. I don't know if this is Outrage 3.0 or 4.0 or 5.0, 
because, quite frankly, I have lost track.
    But it is interesting that the people on this panel, the 
people that serve in Congress, we all enjoy the benefits of 
this industry, and those that criticize it and demonize it and 
say it was some person that actually said that she was going to 
have to be forced to live in a future that they are setting on 
fire, well, that is having your cake and eating it too. I don't 
see many folks driving from their district and back in Priuses 
and never getting on an aircraft. I don't see them rowboating 
to Europe. They are enjoying these benefits as well, and then 
ignoring the fact that human existence, human life, has never 
been longer, life expectancy, from 1900--and we are just going 
to use that as a measuring stick--to 2022, life expectancy in 
this country has almost doubled, and for some demographics it 
has doubled. And the quality of that life has improved 
dramatically.
    And sometimes there are issues that we need to deal with, 
and problems, but when the solutions are unrealistic that is 
not going to get us anywhere, and that is where we are again. 
In fact, one of our colleagues said that by 2020, in these 
hyperbolic claims that we all hear, there are issues to be 
addressed. But when you make hyperbolic claims, to just scare 
people, and it is just about fear, that there are going to be 
major crop failures by, I believe it was 2026 or 2028, and that 
large swaths of the United States will be uninhabitable in 
2036, these remind me of Thomas Malthus, these crazy claims. 
But then when 2026 comes and 2038 comes, and none of these 
things has happened, the goalposts are just simply moved again.
    And I hope that we don't have another 15 of these hearings 
that get nothing accomplished. They simply demonize an industry 
to cater to a very narrow political base.
    Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Ms. Tlaib. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields. I recognize 
the gentlewoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, for 
five minutes.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I am 
little bit astonished at how rude the previous questioner was, 
but not surprised, I guess.
    So last month, Exxon announced its aspiration to reach net 
zero operational emissions by 2050, and that sounds great in a 
press release but it takes only a minimal amount of investing 
to see that it is just more corporate greenwashing. Exxon's 
pledge includes Scope 1 and Scope 2 type emissions, which are 
those produced directly by Exxon or from the generated power it 
buys. Scope 3 emissions, which account for 90 percent of the 
company's carbon emissions, are entirely excluded from that 
pledge. These emissions are created by consumers using Exxon's 
product exactly as intended. In other words, Exxon doesn't take 
any responsibility for the emissions created by the millions of 
barrels of oil it sells every single day.
    Dr. Mann, what is the true value of Exxon's net zero 
emissions pledge if it does not address emissions from the 
products they sell?
    Mr. Mann. It is minimal, and, you know, at the same time 
ExxonMobil and these other fossil fuel companies are funding 
organizations and outfits and dark money groups that are trying 
to prevent passage of legislation that would actually move us 
in the direction we need to go. So they claim that they are in 
support while undermining the very policies that would be 
necessary for the United States to make good on its commitment 
under the Paris Agreement.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. Thank you.
    Carbon intensity, for example, has become a go-to phrase 
for Big Oil companies that often amounts to empty promises. Oil 
companies have promised to lower their carbon intensity, which 
is the amount of carbon emitted per unit of energy consumed, 
and that is a crafty way, from what I understand, for fossil 
fuel companies and the banks that finance them to continue to 
find alternatives to promising outright emissions reductions.
    Mr. van Baal, is a promise to lower carbon intensity 
compatible with increased emissions overall?
    Mr. van Baal. If it would lead to a decrease of absolute 
emissions it would be a credible claim, but all these companies 
are promising to lower their intensity and they still will 
increase their absolute emissions.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. OK. And then last I really want to 
ask a question based on Shell's court case. Last year Shell was 
ordered by a Dutch court to slash its emissions footprint by 45 
percent within 10 years. Despite that order, we learned last 
week that Shell struck a major oil deposit in Namibia. Shell is 
drilling, and not just drilling but doing it in a frontier 
region without well-developed infrastructure or oil industry.
    Oil demand is still strong for the near future and we will 
continue to see oil exploration, despite our transition to 
clean energy. This is why we must maintain a Federal moratorium 
on offshore drilling on the coast of my home state of Florida, 
and we also have to find ways outside of market forces to 
reduce total emissions. For example, we have debated 
implementing a clean energy performance program which would 
reward utility companies that switch from burning fossil fuels 
through renewable energy sources and penalizing those that do 
not.
    My last question is, Ms. Lewis, you are our policy expert 
here. What policies should Congress consider to achieve a total 
reduction in emissions in line with the Paris Agreement?
    Ms. Lewis. Congresswoman, thank you so much for your 
question. I think you just spoke to those. It is incentivizing 
better behavior, creating opportunities for the fossil fuel 
industry to step up, and making it really plain also that there 
will be costs and punishment for not doing that. Yes, I could 
go on and on, but think----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You have a little time, so feel 
free.
    Ms. Lewis. Oh yes, I do. OK. Thank you. That timer is a----
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Please answer the question.
    Ms. Lewis. So just very shortly, absolutely Congress has 
the power to incentivize and increase subsidies. It also can 
end certain subsidies like 45Q that has been given to companies 
that have not even created any carbon capture infrastructure, 
$1 billion given away. That could have been given to more 
sustainable things.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. Mr. Mann, you look like 
you are chomping at the bit. Perhaps you could answer that 
question as well.
    Mr. Mann. No, sorry. I agree with everything that Dr. Lewis 
just said there. I mean, we need incentives. We are not talking 
about nationalizing the energy industry. We are talking about 
market-driven solutions like Ronald Reagan and George H. W. 
Bush supported, market-driven solutions for dealing with these 
environmental externalities, for solving environmental problems 
like climate change.
    Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I just 
have to say, it is one thing to be a member who forcefully 
advocates their position. It is another thing to be totally 
rude and insulting to our witnesses. And so I just would hope 
that we would be admonishing our colleagues not to be rude and 
nasty to our witnesses even when we disagree with them.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Tlaib. The gentlewoman yields. Without objection, Mr. 
Graves is authorized to participate in today's hearing. Mr. 
Graves, you are now recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 
witnesses for being here today. I am from south Louisiana, 
where we have lost about 2,000 square miles of our coast as a 
result of many factors including subsidence and sea rise. And 
these are the people that we represent. I have very strong 
concerns about ensuring that my children--we have three kids--
that my children and the children we represent have the same 
opportunity that we have had in our lifetime, and I do have 
some strong concerns about the direction we are going.
    Ms. Lewis, do you believe that the United States should 
follow more of sort of a California model toward energy and 
climate?
    Ms. Lewis. Congressman, thank you for your question. Well, 
certainly I believe that California has been at the forefront 
of addressing the issues of climate change that have impacted 
their state and the residents, and I certainly think there are 
many aspects that can be used elsewhere.
    Mr. Graves. OK. OK. Thank you.
    Dr. Mann, have the performance of emissions reduction, has 
it worked better on an average basis under President Trump or 
under President Biden?
    Mr. Mann. Clearly we are seeing inroads now with the 
policies that the Biden administration----
    Mr. Graves. I am sorry. I am sorry. Trump or Biden--which 
one was that?
    Mr. Mann. Biden is doing better. No question about it.
    Mr. Graves. OK. Thank you. OK. So there we go. There we go. 
Let's get back to reality here. This is fascinating. California 
has resulted in higher prices having a disproportionate impact 
on the poor. They are eighth-worse emissions growth in America, 
the most dependent state on foreign energy, the least reliable 
grid in the Nation, and, according to the latest analysis, the 
most dependent state upon oil coming out of the Amazon 
rainforest. Are these really the statistics we want to follow?
    Dr. Mann, I have been watching you. I have been working 
with your data for decades now, and it is amazing to me to 
think that you would come before this Congress. You have 
crossed so far over from science into political theater, it 
really undermines your credibility.
    Here are the facts. Under President Trump, emissions were 
reduced, on average, 2.5 percent per year. Under President 
Biden, emissions have gone up 6.3 percent. I think you know 
better. I think you do, and I am incredibly disappointed.
    Let's go on and talk more about some of the facts out 
there. I heard talk about the IEA earlier. The IEA said, in a 
February 2020 report, the United States recorded the largest 
emissions decline on a country basis with a reduction of 140 
million tons, down by almost 1 gigaton from their peak. Natural 
gas, at that point, had surpassed coal in terms of producing 
more electricity. Emissions from the energy sector decline. In 
fact, this is--I am sorry, from the energy sector decline to 
levels last seen in the 1980's, when electricity demand was 
one-third of which it was at the time. There has been an 80 
percent growth in emissions during the same period of time from 
Asia and China. Emissions in the United States are down 25 
percent while energy production has increased 29 percent.
    Here is a quote. We are going to talk about the IEA. Here 
is a quote from the executive director: ``In the last 10 years, 
the emissions reduction in the United States has been the 
largest in the history of energy''--in the history of energy--
``coming out of the United States.''
    So all of you are sitting here talking about this. This 
entire hearing has been talking about demonizing the energy 
industry, demonizing the energy industry, when the reality is 
that we have seen, under this Administration's policies, higher 
emissions. We have seen higher prices, disproportionately 
affecting those that can least afford it, the pool. We have 
seen less energy security. We went from energy independence in 
November 2020 to now becoming more dependent upon other 
countries. As a matter of fact, under this Administration, we 
are now paying the Russian government approximately $22 million 
a day for additional oil coming from Russia, $22 million a day 
more we are sending to Russia to use on their aggression in 
Ukraine and other countries. These policies do not make sense.
    So you are there saying, oh, we just need to invest more. 
We need to make more taxpayer investment, which interestingly, 
Ms. Lewis said earlier, that wasn't an obligation for people to 
pay, which I am not sure I understand.
    Let me give you a few facts. In 1983, the American Wind 
Industry Association said that solar and wind would be 
competitive and self-supporting on a national level by the end 
of the decade if assisted by tax credits and augmented by 
federally sponsored R&D. Thirty-eight years ago these comments 
were made. Forty years ago these comments were made, nearly. 
And as a matter of fact, since that point in time, according to 
Stephen Moore, we have invested in excess of $150 billion--
billion dollars--in these sectors, and they are only asking for 
additional renewals, as a matter of fact, in Build Back Better, 
an additional $100 billion in subsidies going. And if you add 
everything up, all of the tax credits that are included, the 
number, according to Stephen Moore, could reach half a trillion 
dollars, and he said, ``No other industry in American history 
has ever received this lucrative of a paycheck.''
    Madam Chair, I am absolutely on board for discussing 
rational strategies, but to listen to people come before this 
committee, suggesting that they are experts in this field, 
focusing myopically on the energy industry that has resulted in 
the greatest reductions in world history is completely flawed, 
and it is disingenuous, and I urge that we stick to the 
science, Dr. Mann.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. [Presiding.] Thank you so much. The gentleman 
from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, is now recognized for five 
minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I am not here 
to demonize the industry. I am just getting really tired of the 
head fake. Oil and gas companies have spent millions of dollars 
on advertising to promote the false message that they are 
already an integral part of the solution to the climate crisis, 
while they are simultaneously spending billions of dollars 
lobbying against meaningful regulation of the pollution that 
causes climate change. That is just the reality of what is 
happening.
    Much of the lobbying has been indirectly done, cleverly, 
skillfully, cynically done by industry trade groups that have 
been formed by these companies, rather by the companies 
themselves. They keep it at arm's length. For example, between 
2003 and 2010, Exxon, Koch Industries, DonorsTrust, and other 
industry groups funded 91 think tanks and advocacy 
organizations designed to downplay the risks of global warming. 
These organizations held themselves out as neutral while 
working to identify, recruit, and pay scientists to publish 
fringe research closely aligned with industry. That is just the 
reality of what has been happening.
    Here is an example. Recently, the American Petroleum 
Institute publicly stated it supports methane regulation. 
Meanwhile, its front group, Energy Citizens--sounds great--
Energy Citizens carried out a seven-figure TV and internet ad 
campaign against the methane fee provisions in the Build Back 
Better act.
    One insidious thing about the work of fossil fuel front 
groups is that it is often very hard to disentangle the web of 
relationships and the sources of funding.
    Mr. van Baal, would average Americans paying into pension 
funds or mutual funds know that their investments in public 
companies are often going to fund these shadow groups' efforts 
to block meaningful climate change?
    Mr. van Baal. No. I don't think everybody is aware that his 
pension money and his savings money is invested in the fossil 
fuel industry, and at the same time the fossil industry is 
threatening all their assets, also their investments in 
whatever other industries that are all going to suffer from 
devastating climate change, if we don't change fast enough.
    So I think the general public should be aware that their 
savings and pensions are in fossil fuel companies and that the 
fossil fuel companies can make or break the Paris Accord, and 
therefore make and break their savings and pensions, in the 
long term.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I think many in the public would be outraged 
if they had any clear understanding that this is where their 
investments are being directed.
    Throughout our process to fortify American democracy and 
ensure that public policy is made for the public, not for 
hidden private interest, we have developed a number of proposed 
to counter the influence of dark money in our elections and 
public life, which includes shining a light on dark money by 
preventing big money contributors and special interest from 
hiding the true sources of their funding and requiring all 
organizations engaged in political activity to disclose their 
large donors.
    Further, we must reaffirm Congress' authority to regulate 
money and politics after the disastrous decision by the Supreme 
Court in Citizens United.
    Ms. Lewis, do you agree that there should be greater 
transparency and disclosure requirements for public companies 
that work with front groups so that, again, the average 
investor understands what they are in, in fact, supporting?
    Ms. Lewis. Absolutely, Congressman. It is of the utmost 
importance.
    Mr. Sarbanes. I appreciate that. And we are going to 
continue our efforts, and I want to thank the chairwoman for 
convening this hearing today, to get to the bottom of all of 
this. Because as I said at the outset, there is a giant head 
fake, a collective head fake going on by the fossil fuel 
industry. Hopefully we can get more representatives from that 
industry and those companies to come before this committee and 
play it straight.
    But on the one hand they are acting like they are going 
along with these important climate change objectives that we 
have set forth and that most Americans support in a significant 
way. On the other hand, they are standing up these front groups 
to basically message in a way that is completely counter to 
that. And that disconnect has to be exposed. So bringing more 
transparency to this campaign I think is critical, and I 
appreciate, Madam Chair, your efforts to do that.
    With that I yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Democrats talk 
about climate crisis. My guess is most Americans are more 
concerned right now about the inflation crisis.
    Ms. Tubbs, is the price of gas higher today than it was a 
year ago?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. How about the price of everything? Is the price 
of everything higher today than it was a year ago?
    Ms. Tubb. Generally, yes.
    Mr. Jordan. And when you shut down a pipeline, is that 
probably one of the factors that contributed to the higher cost 
of gas today?
    Ms. Tubb. You know, it is hard for me to make a connection 
from A to B, but it certainly doesn't help. The way to decrease 
prices is to increase supply, and pipelines are an incredibly 
important part of that.
    Mr. Jordan. Is the overall cost of energy higher today than 
it was a little over a year ago?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, significantly.
    Mr. Jordan. And when the price of energy goes up, that 
drives the cost of everything else, because you have got to 
ship it, you have got to make it, it takes energy to make 
things, it takes energy to transport things, it takes energy to 
ship things.
    So when the price of energy goes up it contributes greatly 
to the price of everything else increasing. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, that is correct. I think you could call 
energy the master resource because of its influence throughout 
the economy.
    Mr. Jordan. So it sort of begs the obvious question. Would 
it help if the United States produced more oil and gas and more 
energy here? Would that be helpful?
    Ms. Tubb. Absolutely. Yes, that is basic economics. To 
solve for high prices and high demand you increase supply.
    Mr. Jordan. So basic economics would help with the 
fundamental fact we are dealing with today, which is we have a 
40-year high inflation. It would help if we would increase oil 
and gas production here, right?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes. Absolutely. And I think the resources, the 
policies to be able to do that.
    Mr. Jordan. Well then why would the Democrats want to 
decrease production? I mean, we had a hearing in this very 
room--well, you are not in this room; you are virtual--but we 
are in the room, and we had a hearing in this room a few months 
ago where one of our Democratic colleagues said to the CEO of 
Exxon, ``Mr. Woods, would you commit to reducing the production 
of oil?'' Is that going to help with the 40-year high inflation 
rate and the price of gas and the price of energy, Ms. Tubbs?
    Ms. Tubb. No, and I don't want to guess at people's 
intentions. I think we all strive for the well-being of our 
country. But I think there is a disconnect between aspirations 
and reality, in some cases.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you don't have to question anyone's 
intentions. His intentions were clear because he said to the 
CEO of Chevron, he said, ``Are you embarrassed, as an American 
company, that your production is going up?'' I mean, to me that 
is one of the craziest questions I have ever heard. You ask the 
CEO of a company, ``Are you embarrassed that you are making 
more of your product and selling more of your product?'' I 
thought that is what you are supposed to do.
    So I do not think it is a question of intention. Their 
intentions are clear. They want to destroy the oil and gas 
industry in this country, and they want to continue to drive up 
the cost of energy, drive up the cost of goods and services. 
And they must like this 40-year high inflation. Is there any 
other conclusion that a rational person could reach, Ms. Tubbs?
    Ms. Tubb. I don't think so, and sir, to your point just 
now, I think one of the more troubling things about this 
conversation is that policymakers should not be telling a 
company what they ought to produce and what kind of company 
they ought to be.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, someone needs to tell that to the 
Democrats because that is all they want to do.
    Is it better to produce energy in the United States of 
America to help our economy or would it be better to bring it 
in from overseas?
    Ms. Tubb. I think we have a lot of resources here in the 
United States to provide affordable, reliable energy. I think 
the goal is to have free flow of energy and free trade of 
energy, because there are efficiencies to be gained there that 
help consumers.
    Mr. Jordan. OK. And let me just ask you this too, because, 
you know, we now have the spectacle of the President of the 
United States begging OPEC to increase production. Does the 
President of the United States asking and begging OPEC to 
increase production, will that help with climate change and the 
climate crisis that the Democrats talk about so much?
    Ms. Tubb. No, and I think the reason I am struggling with 
some of this conversation is, you know, President Biden's 
administration has admitted that the U.S. could shut off their 
emissions, if that were possible, tomorrow, and it would have 
no impact on global temperatures by the end of the century. So 
what this amounts to is wanting to release the political 
pressure for high energy prices, pursue a political agenda for 
certain energy technologies, and I think in some cases----
    Mr. Jordan. So, Ms. Tubb, if I could just interject. You 
said something important there. So the position of this 
Administration is they want America to go to zero emissions, 
which will not change what is happening relative to the climate 
around the world because all these other countries pollute so 
badly. But at the same time they are doing that they are 
actually beginning foreigners, OPEC, to increase production and 
send it in, which will exacerbate the very problem you just 
cited. Is that accurate?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, and I think it is a disconnect between 
wanting to release short-term political pressure and 
understanding that the energy resources we need take time and 
investments. And so you can't solve these problems by looking 
for short-term fixes or easy ways out. You have to have an open 
market that allows people to invest in this country.
    Mr. Gomez. Time has expired.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you. I recognize myself for five minutes.
    I actually served on both Oversight and Natural Resources 
when I first got to Congress, and everybody said that Oversight 
was the more rough-and-tumble committee. And what I learned 
quickly is the more rough-and-tumble committee was Natural 
Resources because there seems to be any kind of commonality 
when it comes to an overlap, when it comes to dealing with 
climate change, the climate crisis, recognizing that climate 
change is real between the parties. And it is very common that 
we have the gentleman from Illinois come and speak here, 
because his attacks have always been the same attacks, which is 
attack California, attack California, attack California.
    But I always like to remind my Republican colleagues that 
California is one of the economic engines of this country. 
Without California's GDP, where I am from, this country would 
be worse off. I am not saying that we do not want other parts 
of this country within our country. We do. But to always bash 
on California as a cheap political stunt is just that. It 
doesn't solve the problem.
    We have offered the gentleman from Louisiana help. Let us 
help with what you need, because we recognize Louisiana as 
being devastated by climate change. The coast is eroding, the 
hurricanes batter it, and there are not enough resources to 
adapt to that changing environment.
    And, at the same time, people like to bash California when 
it comes to the electrical grid. But people forget, on the 
Republican side, about Texas that just suffered some of the 
worst power shortages and shutdowns, where people died and 
froze to death, devastating their homes because the grid hasn't 
been updated. And they are going to say it is because wind 
turbines and so forth, but 60 percent of the energy loss that 
occurred, occurred from gas-and coal-fired plants.
    So if we are going to make real progress we have to have 
some common understanding of this problem. And I know that 
talking about climate change for Republicans is like talking 
about January 6. You know, deny, deny, deny. But we are not 
going to resolve the issue that way.
    And who hurts? Who suffers? Low-income communities suffer. 
Low-income communities in California, Texas, Illinois, 
Louisiana, no matter where you are from it is always the 
working class that suffers, because the rich have the 
resources. And we need to figure out how to get beyond that and 
work on real solutions for working people.
    I know that we have had disinformation campaigns going on. 
We still see it. You know, one of the things, you can say all 
sorts of stuff on the fly in a committee, and I can almost tell 
you 60 percent of all statistics quoted in a committee are 
probably made up on the spot. So we should always take what 
people say with a little bit of a grain of salt.
    Mr. Mann, in your prepared testimony you described net zero 
pledges and other such promises as a continuation of the energy 
industry's effort to delay action on climate change. Can you 
elaborate on why these climate promises cannot be taken at face 
value, or should be taken with a grain of salt?
    Mr. Mann. Yes, because they are kicking the can down the 
road. What we need right now is a reduction of carbon emissions 
by 50 percent this decade. So that means we need incentives 
right now. And also I found it ironic that the Congressman from 
Louisiana, whose people are facing the brunt of the impacts of 
climate change, would be so dismissive of that and would try to 
point blame at California, which is actually growing their 
economy and reducing carbon emissions at the same time. It is a 
model for what the rest of the states, including Louisiana, 
should try to do.
    So it just doesn't make sense. There is no way to 
understand this irrational, you know, unwillingness to confront 
the climate crisis.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. And being from California, 
having worked on cap in trade, also greenhouse gas reduction 
target bill that said 35 percent of the resources to combat 
climate change must go to disadvantaged communities, we can do 
it at the Federal level. And most of that money won't 
necessarily go to blue states. It will go to the areas that are 
disproportionately impacted by climate change. Louisiana, 
Texas, Florida, states that are Republican states. And we care 
about them as much as we care about any other state.
    So with that I will end my testimony and I will recognize 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Keller, for five minutes.
    Mr. Keller. Thank you, and I also thank the witnesses for 
taking time to be here today with us.
    While today's hearing seemingly attempts to hold the 
American energy industry accountable to carbon emission 
standards, with timelines expiring 30 years in the future, it 
would be nice to see the Democrats hold the Biden 
administration accountable for the energy crisis happening 
right now.
    In October 2021, committee Republicans joined me in sending 
a letter to Energy Secretary Granholm expressing concerns that 
President Biden's policies would exacerbate the skyrocketing 
price of fuel and ultimately hit fixed-and low-income Americans 
the hardest, making America more reliant on nations that don't 
produce energy as cleanly as we do here in the United States.
    Now is not the time to penalize American energy producers 
who have the capability to provide the entire world with 
cleaner energy in the midst of an energy crisis.
    A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee confirmed 
committee Republicans' fears, reporting that American 
households spent $1,200 more on energy costs in 2021, and I ask 
unanimous consent to submit the report for the record.
    Mr. Gomez. Without objection.
    Mr. Keller. So when we look at what we are seeing happen 
here, Ms. Tubb, it is good to see you again. In 2019, the U.S. 
was energy independent, and we heard references to that. I 
believe we can all agree on that. How much energy is the U.S. 
importing currently?
    Ms. Tubb. I don't know offhand and I can give you those 
numbers. I think what is distinctly different between then and 
now is that America's energy costs saw a five percent reduction 
between 2018 and 2019, and in 2021, as you just referenced, 
they are seeing increases.
    Mr. Keller. OK.
    Ms. Tubb. The lowest quintile saw increases of 11 percent. 
I am sorry. Energy consumed 11 percent of their budget this 
year, as opposed to eight percent, and I think that is where 
the conversation is quite important to be talking about now.
    Mr. Keller. So how much of the energy that we are 
importing, or maybe you don't know, but we are importing energy 
from Russia?
    Ms. Tubb. Absolutely. Particularly in the Northeast. But 
energy imports, generally speaking, are part of a healthy 
system, because of the flow of energy between refineries and 
ways to make energy a usable product. Where it is problematic 
is when we have abundant resources here in the United States 
and we shut down access to them, and therefore offshore our 
political independence.
    Mr. Keller. Well, I guess I would just ask a question. The 
President recently said that if Russia invaded in Ukraine that 
we would supply Europe with energy. Did the President make that 
statement? Do you recall that?
    Ms. Tubb. I know he has been speaking with companies in the 
U.S. and abroad for how to deal with the energy supply problems 
there.
    Mr. Keller. I just wondered what the Administration's plan 
is. If we are not energy independent where are we going to get 
the energy to send to Europe?
    Ms. Tubb. I think that is a great question.
    Mr. Keller. Well, I mean, I have been reading the stuff. 
The Washington Post, the Washington Times have articles about 
the President talking tough, but I am just wondering what their 
plan is, and if they have one I hope it is a lot better than 
the one that they had with Afghanistan.
    What is happening is, while supporting our European allies 
and preventing Russia from weaponizing its natural gas supply 
is a worthy goal. I mean, we should do that. But that effort 
must go hand-in-hand with strengthening American energy and 
supporting domestic oil and gas production.
    Ms. Tubb, what has the Biden administration done to prepare 
these two essential goals together?
    Ms. Tubb. You know, the Administration, I think, has done 
everything to communicate both informally and through action by 
way of regulation, but it does not see a future for coal, oil, 
and natural gas in the United States. And I think our allies 
are noticing that and are quite concerned.
    I recently returned from a trip to Eastern Europe and they 
are particularly concerned about the Administration's posture 
toward natural gas and providing technical expertise on natural 
gas infrastructure, but I think the same could be said about 
oil and coal. And when the Administration is telling Americans 
there is no future for these resources in the United States, it 
certainly has implications abroad.
    Mr. Keller. Well, how did we anticipate to generate 
electricity to energize all these electric vehicles that the 
Administration is proposing the Federal Government buy in the 
legislation they passed, if we don't have fuel to generate the 
electricity?
    Ms. Tubb. I think that is a very important question. There 
is no perfect energy resource, renewables amongst them. They 
bring interesting things to the table but they also bring 
liabilities. And I think throughout the country grid monitors 
have been shooting off warning shots at this point about grid 
reliability, whether we are talking about California, Texas, 
New England, or----
    Mr. Keller. Well, I would just say that--I thank you for 
that--I would just say that I think the Administration should 
rethink what it has been doing and start putting America first 
with strong energy policy.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. The gentleman from Illinois, 
Mr. Krishnamoorthi, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to 
the witnesses for coming in today.
    Ms. Tubb, you are a Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and 
Environmental Issues at The Heritage Foundation. Correct?
    Ms. Tubb. That is correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you frequently write about climate 
science, interpreting and translating dense scientific reports 
for non-experts. In fact, you frequently criticize politicians, 
media, and others for misinterpreting these reports. And I 
suppose you must be highly qualified to make those assertions. 
In fact, The Heritage Foundation proudly lists your 
qualifications on their website. It says here you were, quote, 
``previously an intern in the office of then Representative 
Mike Pence'' and you, quote/unquote, ``hold a bachelor's degree 
in history.''
    Ma'am, you don't have an advanced degree in physics or 
geophysics. Correct?
    Ms. Tubb. No, and I don't pretend to.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you don't have a degree in 
atmospheric science or meteorology. Correct?
    Ms. Tubb. No, sir.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Engineering?
    Ms. Tubb. No.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Math?
    Ms. Tubb. No.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Complexity science or systems modeling?
    Ms. Tubb. History, sir.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, you do not have an advanced 
degree in anything. Correct?
    Ms. Tubb. That is correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you are not a climate scientist, 
are you?
    Ms. Tubb. No.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Neither am I. But in 2015, you wrote 
for The Heritage Foundation the following. You said, quote, 
``There is little agreement as to how much global warming is 
attributable to human activity or even if warming is harmful.'' 
Isn't that what you wrote?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, and I stand by----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you stand by that statement, right?
    Ms. Tubb. I do.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And, you know, Mr. Mann, is there 
little agreement as to how much warming is attributable to 
human activity?
    Mr. Mann. No. There is----
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, let me just go through your 
credentials, just so that we know exactly on what basis you are 
making that particular statement. You are a professor of 
atmospheric science. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Mann. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have a degree in physics.
    Mr. Mann. I do.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have a degree in applied math.
    Mr. Mann. I do.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have an M.S. in physics.
    Mr. Mann. I do.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You have a Ph.D. in geology.
    Mr. Mann. I do.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. A Ph.D. in geophysics.
    Mr. Mann. Geology and geophysics.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you are a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences. Isn't that right?
    Mr. Mann. That is correct.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am not a member of the National 
Academy of Sciences. Ms. Tubb, you are not a member of the 
National Academy of Sciences, are you?
    Ms. Tubb. No.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In fact, Mr. Mann, I think in the IPCC 
report it said, quote, ``It is unequivocal that human influence 
has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land.'' Isn't that right?
    Mr. Mann. That is right.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you believe that to be the case. 
Isn't that so?
    Mr. Mann. The world's scientists believe that to be the 
case, and I am one of them.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And in December 2021, Ms. Tubb, this is 
what you wrote. ``What is the nature of global warming? Is it a 
net positive change, a negative, or some mix in between?'' 
Isn't that what you wrote?
    Ms. Tubb. Yes, and I stand by it.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes, I bet you do.
    Now Mr. Mann, how about you? What is the nature of global 
warming? Is it a net positive change, a negative, or somewhere 
in between?''
    Mr. Mann. Natural factors have probably offset some of the 
warming. More than 100 percent of the warming is due to 
increased greenhouse gas concentrations because temporary 
natural factors actually offset some of that warming. All of 
the warming is due to our activity.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And is the nature of global warming, is 
that a net positive change, a negative, or somewhere in 
between, for the planet?
    Mr. Mann. The impacts are quite negative and they are 
getting worse over time.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now with regard to there, quote/
unquote, being ``little agreement,'' according to Ms. Tubb, as 
to how much warming is attributable to human activity, that 
IPCC report, Mr. Mann, that I just referenced, it was written 
by more than 200 scientists, drawing on more than 14,000 
individual studies, and it was endorsed and approved by the 
governments of 195 countries. You don't disagree with that, 
right?
    Mr. Mann. No. Not at all.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. How about you, Mr. van Baal? Mr. Van 
Baal, can you hear us?
    Mr. van Baal. I fully agree with Dr. Mann here.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now let me just ask you something, Mr. 
Mann. What does it mean when we have people--what is the impact 
of people denying climate science and saying there is little 
agreement as to how much warming is attributable to human 
activity?
    Mr. Mann. Well, it provides an excuse for the forces of 
inaction, and we have already heard about the dark money groups 
and their relationship with the fossil fuel industry. Look, 
they understand that if we address this crisis it is going to 
hurt their economic bottom line, and they have fought tooth and 
nail to prevent action for decades. That is the harm. It 
continues this lie that climate change isn't real and it is not 
human caused, and it is not having detrimental impacts.
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you and I yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you. The gentleman from Florida, Mr. 
Donalds, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Donalds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, this 
hearing is a complete and utter waste of time. I mean, this 
thing is ridiculous. I thought we had wasted a lot of time here 
in Congress, and fortunately for the American people we do, and 
this hearing adds to that. We are examining Big Oil's climate 
pledges. These are multinational companies, and you are trying 
to get them--you are trying to force them to adhere to pledges 
that the majority party wants them to make about climate 
change.
    I fail to see how that is the responsibility for the 
Oversight Committee, to enforce pledges that they choose or 
choose not to make. That is not our purview. That is not our 
job. I think so much of what we should be doing here is focused 
on what we can actually control.
    Let's talk about the genesis of these pledges, the actual 
Paris Climate Accords, which, by the way, are not a treaty, 
because the President of the United States has not brought it 
to the Senate to be ratified. So if it is not a treaty of the 
United States, these climate accords, how then do we have the 
legal authority to try to hold multinational companies, some of 
which headquarter themselves in the United States?
    Can somebody explain that to me, where this body, the House 
of Representatives, has the ability to literally bully 
companies into adhering to a climate pledge based upon a 
climate accord which is not even a treaty of the United States, 
because Joe Biden won't take it to the Senate, because the 
Senate will not ratify said treaty? None of this makes sense.
    But let's go on to other things that don't make sense. The 
price of oil is now $90 a barrel, give or take. Instead of 
allowing producers in the United States to actually go and 
drill for this oil, mind you, in a much more environmentally 
friendly way, Joe Biden doesn't want our domestic producers to 
go get the oil. He wants to go ask OPEC to go get oil. And then 
he wants to go ask Russia for oil, because yes, we are 
importing oil from Russia, you know, that country that is now 
looking at Ukraine. And so he is trying to tell the Russians, 
``We are going to cutoff Nord Stream 2 if you go into 
Ukraine,'' but at the same time we are importing oil from 
Russia. Again, none of this makes any sense. But we are going 
to hold the oil companies accountable for not holding to their 
climate goals.
    You know what the funny thing is? Joe Biden and the 
Democrats are doing the same, exact thing that the oil 
companies are doing. You see, the Democrats are running around 
talking about how, ``Oh, we are going to cut carbon emissions 
by 2030. We are going to be tied to the Paris Climate Accords. 
This is what we are going to do. It is going to be great for 
our environment.'' But in the same breath we are relying on 
countries in other parts of the world to drill the oil that we 
need to keep the lights on, to drill that oil that, you know, 
for Dr. Mann, he needs to power Penn State.
    Dr. Mann, at Penn State are you guys, are you at zero 
emissions at Penn State right now?
    Mr. Mann. I don't control Penn State's emissions, but I----
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Mann----
    Mr. Mann [continuing]. For my own power it comes entirely 
from renewable energy.
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Mann, I am talking right now. Dr. Mann, 
does Penn State even have the ability to be zero emissions?
    Mr. Mann. They have a goal to do that, but I don't set 
their standards.
    Mr. Donalds. Dr. Mann, if Penn State went to zero emissions 
today would you freeze in your office and would your students 
freeze in their classrooms and their dorms?
    Mr. Mann. That is the silliest question I have heard today.
    Mr. Donalds. It is not a silly question.
    Mr. Mann. I mean, that isn't a scenario.
    Mr. Donalds. That is actually the one question that makes 
sense. If you cutoff energy, people will freeze.
    Mr. Mann. Nobody is talking about cutting off energy, are 
they?
    Mr. Donalds. If you cutoff energy, economies cannot thrive. 
If you cutoff energy, then what we are arguing about right now, 
with respect to what the Big Oil's climate pledges, will not 
matter because every Member of Congress, every member of the 
Senate will have constituents who will be furious because they 
simply cannot heat their homes at a time where, yes, it is cold 
outside. And anybody in D.C. knows right now it is cold.
    Like I said, this is a ridiculous hearing. We should be 
focused on so many other things, like why is it that a barrel 
of oil is going to $90 a barrel right now, and will probably go 
higher, and what that means for people who live in the northern 
states in the United States when it comes to heating their 
homes. Why have their heating costs doubled in the last year? 
Why have they gone up? It is because of bad economic policy 
coming out of the White House. And considering all the 
decisionmaking that this White House is engaged in, it is no 
wonder that they are wrong again.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. Tlaib, is 
recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Tlaib. That was something. I just want you all to know, 
Ms. Lewis, Mr. van Baal, Dr. Mann, like thank you for speaking 
truth, because I know in this hearing it doesn't feel like it, 
but my residents are in some of the most polluted ZIP codes in 
the Nation. They are not talking about Russia and China. They 
are not talking about that. Do you know what they are talking 
about is their kids getting asthma, is the fact that they are 
getting preexisting conditions that are worsening their public 
health, and many of them are dying at a higher rate of COVID 
because of the environmental racism, because in their back yard 
they literally have over 200 to 300 air permits.
    You know, I have got BP up here lying to inventing the 
carbon footprint to blame consumers for climate change. Exxon 
has all of us all convinced that renewable and natural gas go 
together, like peanut butter and jelly.
    In my district, Marathon Petroleum had made themselves out 
to be some indispensable company in my district. They destroy 
our air and water, PFAS contamination, you name it. Yet they 
still expect us to thank them in return because they pass out 
backpacks to the kids in my community, with their logo on it. 
And the funny thing is they change it spell out ``murder.''
    These companies are skilled at deceiving our country, 
deceiving our residents, the people we fight for, that their 
fossil products are good for the people and the planet. That is 
the truth. Now they are telling us that they are, quote, 
``energy companies'' rather than oil companies, signaling a 
shift away from oil. In 2021, BP announced its net zero 
strategy. Part of the strategy was pivoting from international 
oil company to integrated energy company. But BP spent 4.3 
percent only of its capital expenditures on clean energy in 
2021.
    So Mr. van Baal, I mean, do you think spending four percent 
of the company's investment on clean energy makes it an 
integrated energy company?
    Mr. van Baal. Absolutely not, Congresswoman. If you claim 
to be in an energy transition, if you claim to pivot to other 
sorts of energy, which would be great, by the way, then you 
would at least spend 50 percent of your investments in this new 
business model.
    Ms. Tlaib. Absolutely.
    Mr. van Baal. These companies with these small amounts, 
which, by the way, most of them are smaller than their 
marketing amounts, risk being the Kodaks of the 21st century.
    Ms. Tlaib. You know, Ms. Lewis, I am trying to gentle here, 
Ms. Lewis, because, I mean, they are lying, but I am just going 
to ask you. Would you describe this branding exercise as 
misleading or deceptive?
    Ms. Lewis. Congresswoman, I appreciate your passion and 
pursuit of truth, and yes, it is exactly meant to mislead the 
American public on what their true intents are.
    Ms. Tlaib. You know, in a 2020 interview with Bloomberg, 
Shell CEO--you guys probably, I don't know if everybody talked 
about it or not--the Shell CEO said, and I quote, ``The very 
fact that in this interview you referred to us an oil company 
is symptomatic of the problems that we are facing. We are a 
much more sophisticated, integrated energy player and we are 
trying to grow our non-oil part much faster than the oil 
part.''
    So, Mr. van Baal, do you agree with Mr.--is it van 
Beurden--that Shell is no longer an oil company?
    Mr. van Baal. Not at all. They are still an oil company, 
and this year they are going to spend around 12 percent on 
renewable energy. So absolutely not.
    Ms. Tlaib. You know what is so disgusting is how they 
think, like us Americans, like we are dumb. Like of course we 
know that they are. Like stop treating us like we are dumb.
    Mr. van Baal. Yes. There was a Dutch----
    Ms. Tlaib. So, Doctor--no, I am sorry, Mr. van Baal--but 
Dr. Mann, because I only have a few minutes, is Shell acting 
with the speed and ambition necessary and consistent with the 
Paris Climate Agreement? I think you have said, yes, they are 
not, right? Is that a no?
    Mr. Mann. No. That is a firm no.
    Ms. Tlaib. So fossil fuel companies are saying all the 
right things in public. I mean, they have the best press 
conferences. My kids are on YouTube seeing their beautiful 
commercials and stuff, and I am out here saying, you know, 
those are the people poisoning us. Be careful. I mean, 
literally, this is so incredibly dangerous.
    If we only listen to their speeches and advertisement you 
might be fooled into thinking we are on track for a safe 
climate and a sustainable future, but they are not doing what 
they say they are doing.
    And so I intend to work, as vice chair of the Environmental 
Justice Subcommittee on this House Oversight Committee, I 
intend to work with my colleagues, because, you know, the 
American people deserve better than this. I am tired of it. I 
am tired of--I mean, four times I saw basements flooded in just 
one home. Homes, tons of homes in my community, and all of it 
again is direct impact. They are not saying what my colleagues 
are talking about. They are saying we are literally getting 
sick, and it is hard to live with this climate crisis right 
now. It shouldn't be this hard.
    So I thank you, and again I yield.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you. The gentleman from California, Mr. 
DeSaulnier, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Mr. Gomez, and I want to 
associate myself with the passion of the previous speaker, my 
friend from Michigan.
    In 2016, Representative and I, Ted Lieu, from Torrance, 
myself from Contra Costa in the Bay Area, two of the most 
intense fossil fuel footprint areas on the West Coast, led an 
effort after the L.A. Times had reported a terrific 
investigatory series in partnership with Climate Action on what 
Exxon had done to obfuscate its role and its knowledge. We 
asked for information--that was in 2016, through this 
committee--and we are still waiting for much of that response.
    As somebody who represents a very fossil fuel-dependent 
area--we have four refineries in the county I represent; 
Chevron has its headquarters here--I just want to--and Dr. Mann 
and Ms. Lewis, really I have a couple of questions for you, 
some quotes. BP says it ``aims to be a very different kind of 
energy company by 2030, as we scale up investment in low-carbon 
energy.'' Chevron says, ``Leadership and innovation to advance 
a lower-carbon future.'' Exxon, ``Committed to helping 
transform our energy systems and working to reduce emissions in 
the short time while also working on advancing decarbonization 
solutions.''
    Contrast that with their financial reports. Between 2010 
and 2018, out of total capital expenditures, BP spent 2.3 
percent on low-carbon investments, Shell spent 1.3 percent on 
low-carbon investments, Chevron less than one percent, 0.23 
percent--Chevron, a California company. ExxonMobil spent 0.22 
percent on low-carbon investments.
    So, in addition, according to the Carbon Disclosure 
Project, the 24 largest publicly owned oil companies spent less 
than one percent of their budgets on low-carbon investments 
between 2010 and 2017.
    So my colleagues brought this up before, on the other side 
of the aisle. Part of this is the moral problem, but it also is 
identifying where we are in the global environment that is 
quickly changing, and the money is definitely moving that way. 
All major car companies and heavy-duty manufacturers are moving 
to alternative fuels. The Chinese are adding 100,000 charging 
stations a month. We have 42,000 in the entire United States. 
They have almost 1.5 million now.
    So we are in a race to be globally competitive to 
transition. I am very involved with trying to transition these 
refineries in the Bay Area and California off of their current 
position. Municipal government is very dependent on the 
property tax, particularly school districts in California, as 
is Los Angeles, as is Puget Sound on the West Coast. It has 
limited deep water ports so they are valuable.
    So, Dr. Mann, why should we trust them when they come in 
and say they are going to transition and work with us? And then 
second, Ms. Lewis, shouldn't they be accountable legally for 
the delay they have caused in us being competitive and also 
meeting our targets in terms of reducing carbon? First, Dr. 
Mann.
    Mr. Mann. Yes. They are not going to do this voluntarily. 
You know, what more evidence do we need for that? So that is 
why we need incentives. That is why we need policy that makes 
it necessary for them to move in the direction that we know 
they have to go.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Ms. Lewis, why shouldn't they be held 
accountable? We have got the same problem. Dr. Mann mentioned 
this is the legacy of caveat emptor, buyer beware in contract 
law, from my perspective. The pharmaceutical industry, the 
tobacco industry, so many examples of these large industries, 
and now the oil industry, why shouldn't they be held 
accountable for their short-term investments and their 
misleading the public when it comes to public health and our 
natural economy? Why shouldn't they be held accountable, 
according to law, both personally and as corporate entities?
    Ms. Lewis. Congressman that is an excellent question, and 
it is very clear that they can be held accountable. Congress 
has done it before. Again, we refer to the tobacco settlements. 
It has been done--mortgage crisis, done before, so it can be 
done again.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. So that begs the question, we know this is 
a pattern of human experience. I don't understand why, when we 
look at this--and Dr. Mann, you said this in your comments 
earlier--this is the same business model, but we all end up 
paying for it. The shareholders and the investors and the 
corporate officers leave with tons of money, yet it happens 
again and again, and the energy industry is just another 
example. In my area, the local editorial board once said we are 
addicted to this product. We are like we are dealing with a 
drug dealer here, where we are trying to extract ourselves from 
a relationship.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. The gentleman from Vermont, 
Mr. Welch, is recognized for five minutes.
    Mr. Welch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to followup on 
my colleague, Mr. DeSaulnier, in his line of questioning. No. 
1, fossil fuels have been with us for a long time. The energy 
companies became aware, a long time ago, about the impact on 
the environment and the effect of the pollutants and its 
contribution to climate change. It concealed that information 
and, in fact, advocated for, in effect, fake science to try to 
dispute it.
    Times have changed, where we are well aware of the fact 
that the planet is in peril. The Paris Agreement was an 
indication of countries coming together to at least acknowledge 
that.
    The major oil companies, in my view, have to be an 
important part of the solution. The oil companies have said 
that they intend to be part of that solution and they embrace 
the Paris Accords and they claim even, in many cases, to favor 
a tax on carbon.
    But let me ask you, Mr. Mann, is what they have done with 
their capital expenditures in line with what their public 
statements are about wanting to go to clean energy? Dr. 
DeSaulnier went through what their profits were. He left out, I 
think, how much they spent on stock buybacks, but he documented 
how little they spend on clean energy. Can you go through this, 
because we have to make decisions as to whether we can trust 
what they say they want to do versus what they are actually 
doing with investors dollars.
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Well, there is no question that I think all 
of them have said that they continue to continue with fossil 
fuel exploration. They plan to continue to increase their 
fossil fuel reserves. And so that is going in exactly the 
opposite direction of the Paris Agreement and our commitment to 
lower carbon emissions by 50 percent within this decade. There 
is no way we can do that if we have energy companies that are 
still seeing themselves as fossil fuel companies and continuing 
to move in the wrong direction, maybe a little more slowly in 
the wrong direction but they are still moving in the wrong 
direction.
    Mr. Welch. Mr. Donalds asked, I think, a fair question 
about the jobs that are associated with this industry, and that 
is of concern to me. Any time that one of our citizens has a 
job, we have to take that very seriously. But I will ask Tracey 
Lewis, if, in fact, a company is looking over the horizon and 
seeing where the opportunity lay, what Mr. DeSaulnier again 
laid out was how many of our competitors including China, are 
going all in on electric and they are making investments 
accordingly, and is there an economic danger that threatens our 
job stability if we are behind the curve when it comes to 
moving into clean energy technology, electric vehicle 
technology?
    Ms. Lewis, do you want to respond to that?
    Ms. Lewis. I am very happy to, and as a proud alumni of 
Vermont Law School I am glad to answer.
    It is very clear that we cannot fall behind. We have got to 
ensure that folks who are involved in fossil fuel industries, 
those workers who put their lives at risk, are able to 
transition to good-paying jobs. We also need to ensure that 
there are more employment opportunities in green jobs. That is 
what the future is going to bring. So it is within the purview 
of Congress to also help make that happen.
    Mr. Welch. And on this question again of responsibility, we 
have had industries where they peddle tobacco, denying the 
health consequences, or in some cases pharmaceuticals that have 
had very adverse health outcomes. Is there any question about 
the health hazard of continuing to load carbon emissions into 
our atmosphere? And I will ask Ms. Tubb if you want to answer 
that.
    Ms. Tubb. I think the market will determine if these 
products are valuable, and currently 80 percent of Americans' 
energy needs are met by coal, oil, and natural gas. And to me 
that tells me that Americans want to continue using these 
resources, and until Congress tells these companies otherwise, 
by way of law, which is the transparent and accountable means 
of communicating change, these companies, I think, have every 
right to continue providing their shareholders with value.
    Mr. Welch. Well, you know, you are talking about the 
market. You are talking about individual choice. But if the 
only thing you can afford is a combustion engine car--there are 
no incentives, and then there is no investment by companies--
individuals do not have a choice. Do you think most individuals 
would prefer to have a car that can end the climate change and 
these wild storms and wildfires out in California?
    Ms. Tubb. Sir, it is not my place to tell people what to 
buy.
    Mr. Gomez. Time has expired.
    Mr. Welch. I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. Votes have been called, but 
we only have two more members. We will get through the two more 
members and then we will adjourn after those two members go.
    The gentlewoman from Missouri, Ms. Bush, who has been 
patiently waiting, is recognized for five minutes.
    We can't hear you, Ms. Bush.
    Yes, we can hear you now.
    Ms. Bush. All right. Thank you so much. And I thank 
Chairwoman Maloney and Chairman Khanna for convening this 
important hearing.
    When fossil fuel companies produce massive greenhouse gas 
emissions, St. Louis heats up. When St. Louis heats up, more 
bullets fly and more kidneys fail, lives are lost, and in St. 
Louis it is the lives of Black people that are 
disproportionately lost as a result of this hearing.
    Dr. Mann, St. Louis has 11 more 90-degree days per year 
today than when I was born. How will a community like ours 
continue to change in the next 10 years?
    Mr. Mann. That is right. We are seeing a huge increase in 
the frequency of these extremely hot spells, temperatures above 
90 degrees Fahrenheit, 100 degrees Fahrenheit. And if we 
continue on the course that we are on right now, if we continue 
with business as usual burning of fossil fuels, by the middle 
of the century most of summer will feel like the hottest day 
that you experienced in your life. So that is the sort of 
future that we face if we fail to act now, and it will only get 
that much worse, and as you allude to, the problem is worse, 
for example, in urban environments that tend to be heavy 
minority populations, where, you know, there are studies that 
showed that they live in the most susceptible places, the 
hottest places, the places most susceptible to flooding.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. And all the while the fossil fuel 
industry spends huge sums on misleading advertising, pretending 
that they are part of the solution.
    We are here today talking about how fossil fuel industry 
needs to dramatically reduce emissions, but they are not. They 
will not. They are admitting they are not. You know, these 
intentional and misleading pledges are evidence enough that 
their decades of climate denial continue.
    I am a black Congresswoman with asthma, asthma made worse 
by being hit and sprayed with tear gas and pepper spray. My 
asthma is not a coincidence, though. A 2021 EPA analysis found 
that black communities are 34 percent more likely to have 
increased childhood asthma diagnoses due to climate change. It 
is in communities like mine that fossil fuel companies' 
emissions put our health at risk first. Fossil fuel facilities 
are typically located in our communities, predominantly black 
and brown communities, where they compound toxic pollution to 
exacerbate underlying health conditions.
    So Ms. Lewis, please describe how Big Oil's pledges reveal 
they are planning to continue building factors and refineries 
in communities of color.
    Ms. Lewis. Thank you so much, Congressman Bush.
    It is very, very clear that despite the pledges, the march 
toward increased fossil fuel infrastructure is planned, 
particularly around carbon capture and carbon sequestration, 
underground sequestration. Those plants will never be built in 
the center of town. They will never be built in wealthy 
neighbors like Baden University in St. Louis. That won't 
happen. They are going to be in the underserved communities 
where black, brown people live, in urban areas where indigenous 
people live, and impact their health. So we have to deal with 
this, and the way that we can stop it is by stopping funding 
them with taxpayer dollars for subsidies for multibillion 
dollar companies.
    Ms. Bush. You got right to it, Ms. Lewis, because I was 
going to ask you, because we know that these companies aren't 
going to reduce the emissions themselves, what do you 
specifically think Congress must do to intervene? Do you have 
anything else on that point?
    Ms. Lewis. Oh yes, happy to add here. You know, one, keep 
holding hearings like this holding companies' feet to the fire. 
Also, I think that you have the capacity to speed up our 
transition toward a future of renewable energy, and that is 
really key to protecting these communities that are directly 
impacted by the harms of the fossil fuel industry.
    Ms. Bush. Yes, thank you. We know that black folks are 40 
percent more likely than other groups to live in areas where 
extreme temperatures driven by climate change will result in 
higher mortality rates. Structural inequity, environmental 
racism, and climate change have made our communities lethal 
environments. Communities like mine are suffering from the 
climate crisis right now. We will not wait around for the 
fossil fuel industry to intervene to stop their own 
environmental bias and racism that has continued for decades. 
Big Oil will continue to prioritize profits over black lives 
until we intervene ourselves, which that is what we are doing. 
This investigation that the committee is undergoing right now, 
it is essential to the work to save lives. Thank you, and I 
yield back.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. The gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As we just heard from 
really all of our colleagues, the climate crisis is not a 
theoretical problem for the future. It is an imminent problem 
and crisis right now. From coastal flooding to the urban heat 
islands threatening communities like Chelsea and East Boston in 
my district, the Massachusetts 7, it is real and it is here. In 
order to confront it, we need real solutions that are proven to 
work and to keep our planet safe. Fossil fuel companies like to 
point to carbon capture and sequestration, also known as CCS 
technology, as a way to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, 
while allowing them to continue producing a toxic product at 
the same level, but there is little evidence that the 
technology actually works.
    Former CEO of Exxon, Lee Raymond, spoke at the 2007 
National Petroleum Council Conference about the future of 
carbon capture. He said CCS technology ``has never been 
demonstrated at scale. It is a huge, huge undertaking. People 
just assume that it can happen. You can't assume that is going 
to happen.'' Yet Big Oil continues to endorse carbon capture. 
Dr. Mann, have there been advancements in CCS technology that 
make you believe it will perform as advertised by fossil fuel 
companies?
    Mr. Mann. No, I don't see any evidence at this point. There 
hasn't been a proof of concept that shows that you can use CCS 
and produce energy without producing carbon pollution. And as 
long as there is no proof of concept for that, then obviously 
it is not a meaningful climate solution, and it displaces 
meaningful climate solutions, like clean energy and renewable 
energy.
    Ms. Pressley. Thank you. I wholeheartedly agree. Carbon 
capture is not proven and its risks are catastrophically 
dangerous. In 2020, a CO2 pipeline ruptured and burst in Yazoo 
County, Mississippi, a low-income and majority black 
population, and because of the rupture of high pressure gases, 
a noxious green fog seeped out, spread through the area, 
leaving residents convulsing, foaming at the mouth, and even 
unconscious. As we approach the two-year anniversary of the 
Yazoo County pipeline explosion, we must recognize this carbon 
capture explosion is just another example of the toxic legacy 
of environmental racism that has plagued our Nation for far too 
long.
    Ms. Lewis, what can the Federal Government do to limit 
existing and future harms to frontline and vulnerable 
communities, which are disproportionately black and brown 
folks, from these toxic pipelines?
    Ms. Lewis. Thank you so much for that incredibly important 
question. It is heartbreaking to even hear those effects of 
that pipeline burst. So clearly, the industries will not build 
if they are not siphoning American taxpayer dollars to 
subsidize their so-called carbon capture, so let's just end it. 
Let's be done with it. Let's end 45Q that gives tax breaks to 
companies that say they are going to build yet haven't, and 
they have already cashed the checks. Let's continue to push. 
Let's continue to highlight the harmful effects on our most 
vulnerable communities, and I think we can start to make some 
real impacts there.
    Ms. Pressley. Right, so-called CCS, you know, more through 
the propaganda here. So Big Oil touts CCS and other improvement 
technology because they want to keep producing fossil fuels 
rather than doing what is really necessary, reducing extraction 
and production of oil and gas. Let's recognize carbon capture 
for what it is. As you just so eloquently pointed out, Ms. 
Lewis, it is a delay tactic and a distraction. And I yield 
back.
    Mr. Gomez. The gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Ocasio-
Cortez, is recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I thank the chair and Chairwoman Maloney 
for convening the hearing, and I thank Congressman Pressley as 
well as Bush for highlighting two very important topics, but 
especially debunking the myths of CCS as some sort of proven or 
effective method of drawdown.
    You know, know Exxon, Chevron, and BP, and Shell all say 
that they support the Paris Agreement, and all four companies 
have made public pledges which they claim are consistent with 
the Paris Agreement goal of keeping warming below 1.5 degrees 
Celsius. But virtually every credible scientific study we have 
has found, or rather, has concluded that all four companies' 
pledges fall terribly short of this goal. MSCI, a prominent 
investment research firm, has estimated how much the planet 
would warm if the future economy reflected the climate pledges 
of each of these fossil fuel companies. So if we start with 
Shell and BP, these pledges may be more ambitious than other 
U.S. companies. But MSCI says that if the world economy 
reflected Shell's pledge, the world would warm to 2.7 degrees, 
far higher than the 1.5 of Paris. If it reflected BP's, we 
would have 3.1 degree Celsius.
    Now, Dr. Mann, I think sometimes what gets lost in public 
imagination is that the actual number--1.5, 2.7, 3 degrees 
Celsius--may seem quite small to a layperson. Maybe perhaps not 
a big deal. And so I kind of want to go a little bit back on 
the record because in many of our hearings, we haven't really 
had witnesses be able to actually articulate what this means 
for humanity. So let's get a better sense of what that would 
look like and for the world. In images, in experiences, what 
would global warming of about three degrees look like for the 
planet and for everyday people? What are their experiences? 
What are we seeing, et cetera?
    Mr. Mann. Yes. Well, I mean, again, if you look at the 
worst events that we are now dealing with--the superstorms, the 
wildfires--some of this stuff feels almost dystopian. It feels 
like it is a view into a future apocalypse, but it is now, so 
imagine it getting that much worse. Imagine that we have twice 
as much area burned each summer in the western United States. 
Imagine that the floods grow, you know, a foot or more greater 
than what we have seen so far. Imagine sea level rise combined 
with more intense hurricanes that makes a Superstorm Sandy 
event, like you folks experienced in New York, rather than 
being a 1 in 100 or 1 in 30-year event, that sort of event 
happens typically every other year. That is a possible future. 
We have even done some research that bear out those numbers.
    So, you know, you don't have to use your imagination. That 
is what is so unfortunate. You can see these impacts now 
playing out, and they will just get that much worse if we don't 
act.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Now, Ms. Lewis, are any of these 
companies, fossil fuel companies, in your view, currently 
making the investments necessary to reach a 1.5 degrees Celsius 
goal?
    Ms. Lewis. No, there are not.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And do any of these companies' financial 
plans for future investments put them on a path consistent with 
the Paris Climate Agreement either?
    Ms. Lewis. Sadly, they do not.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, you know, they are publicly saying 
that they believe in the Paris Agreement, but all of their 
actions pretty much indicate that is a lie. Do you think it 
would be fair to say that Ms. Lewis?
    Ms. Lewis. Well, Congresswoman, I would call it a 
falsehood, yes.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Yes.
    Ms. Lewis. Your term is very----
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I appreciate your diplomacy. 
And perhaps, you know, I think that may be because the profits 
are too good to let go. You know, not only is it the fossil 
fuel business model, but also they received millions of dollars 
in government subsidies, including the 45Q tax credit, which 
provides companies with a rate of $50 per metric ton of carbon 
capture that Congressman Pressley had mentioned just 
immediately previously. So, Ms. Lewis, what kinds of perverse 
incentives do tax credits like 45Q set up for Big Oil 
companies? And, you know, I know Mr. van Baal seemed to have 
his hand raised, and I would like to give him an opportunity to 
speak as well.
    Ms. Lewis. Sure. I will just say that Congress could pass 
EPWA, the End Polluter Welfare Act, to address some of those 
concerns, and I will defer to Mark.
    Mr. van Baal. Yes, the remark I would like to make about 
all these pledges of these, they all pledge to be net zero 
emissions in 2050, and they don't take necessary action in the 
next 10 years. In the next 10 years, we will win or lose the 
fight against climate change. We have to make very bold and 
brave decisions in coming years to reduce emissions by 50 
percent in 2030, so talking about 2050 is pointless if you 
don't have targets to reduce your emissions in the next decade. 
And none of these Big Oil companies have, although their 
shareholders want them to do that because their shareholders 
see that all their assets are at risk.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Mm-hmm. Thank you very much, and I yield 
back to the chair.
    Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much. Any other members? Nope.
    Seeing none, in closing, I want to thank our panelists for 
their remarks, and I want to commend my colleagues for 
participating in this important conversation.
    With that, without objection, all members will have five 
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials 
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to 
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their 
response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as 
you are able.
    Mr. Gomez. This hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                        [all]