[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NOW OR NEVER: THE URGENT NEED
FOR AMBITIOUS CLIMATE ACTION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 28, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-493 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
CHARLIE CRIST, Florida CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois JAY OBERNOLTE, California
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania PETER MEIJER, Michigan
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin MIKE CAREY, OHIO
DAN KILDEE, Michigan
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
C O N T E N T S
April 28, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Witnesses:
Ms. Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC); NOAA Senior Advisor for Climate
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
Mr. Jeremy Harrell, Chief Strategy Officer, ClearPath
Oral Statement............................................... 25
Written Statement............................................ 27
Dr. Dominique M. David-Chavez, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of
Indigenous Natural Resource Stewardship, Colorado State
University
Oral Statement............................................... 40
Written Statement............................................ 42
Ms. Daniella Levine Cava, Mayor, Miami-Dade County, Florida
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Discussion....................................................... 60
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Ms. Ko Barrett, Vice-Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC); NOAA Senior Advisor for Climate................. 102
Mr. Jeremy Harrell, Chief Strategy Officer, ClearPath............ 109
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Report submitted by Representative Don Beyer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives
``The Cost of Inaction on Climate Change,'' U.S. Congress
Joint Economic Committee, Majority Staff................... 116
NOW OR NEVER: THE URGENT NEED
FOR AMBITIOUS CLIMATE ACTION
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 28, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Good morning. This hearing will come to
order, and without objection, the Chair is authorized to
declare recess at any time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually,
and I want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members
about the conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff who
are attending in person may choose to be masked. It is not a
requirement. However, any individual with symptoms, a positive
test, or exposure--so sorry. Any individual with symptoms or
positive test or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear
a mask while present.
Members who are attending virtual should keep their video
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing, and Members
are responsible for their own microphones. Please also keep
your microphones muted unless you are speaking. And finally, if
Members have documents they wish to submit for the record,
please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose email address
has been circulated.
And thank you all for joining our hearing on the findings
of the latest working group reports from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I also want to thank our expert
witnesses for being with us today. The reality of the latest
IPCC reports cannot be ignored. Global emissions must peak
within the next 3 years to ensure we stay below 1.5 degrees
Celsius of global warming in the next century. But we must also
move swiftly to adapt to our climate future alongside our
efforts to cut carbon emissions.
I attended the 26th U.N. Conference of Parties, or the
COP26, last November in Glasgow with Speaker Pelosi and a
number of my colleagues. Throughout COP26, the need to keep
within 1.5 degrees of warming while making global efforts to
support community adaption was a recurring theme.
The Science, Space, and Technology Committee has been
working to pass legislation needed to curb the worst climate
impacts. Even with current efforts to curb carbon emissions,
climate change has already permanently altered the lives of
most Americans. Whether it is flooding, drought, or extreme
weather, the impacts of climate change are being felt by all of
our constituents. There are many climate impacts that are
already baked in and will occur regardless of how quickly we
cut emissions. This means we must move forward with robust
climate adaptation approaches alongside emissions mitigation.
Many adaptive solutions are already available and have been
outlined in the IPCC's latest report. Many of our Federal
science agencies have conducted research to collect the data
needed to plan for adaptation. This research includes data on
climate, how crop yields will shift in time, and how rising sea
levels will impact communities. Utilizing this data for
ambitious and impactful climate action is necessary.
However, it is also imperative that in finding solutions,
the voices of communities most at risk are not left out of this
discussion. Local community leaders see much of the firsthand
impacts of climate change, and indigenous communities hold
generational knowledge that focuses on adaptation and
resiliency. Indigenous and local knowledge is beginning to be
recognized in broader adaptation methods, although more work is
needed. We must ensure that this knowledge is not only
considered in climate adaptation efforts at all levels of
government but is done equitably.
As I said at COP26, we deal with science and facts on the
Science Committee. And we know it's time for us to take action
on climate backed up by good science policy. The science of
climate change has been clear for many years now. It is up to
us in Congress to begin implementing the innovative
technologies and policies that are already available to us to
address climate change. This effort needs to include robust
bipartisan legislation to support our Federal science agencies
as they work to address the climate crisis. The next few years
will be critical in determining the U.S. response to climate
change.
We already have much of the expertise and knowledge of
researchers and community members to guide us toward an
adaptive and equitable future. I am pleased to have such an
esteemed panel of witnesses to discuss these issues at today's
hearing. Translating recommendations from IPCC reports is
necessary for the U.S. climate science enterprise to take
actionable steps to combat the climate crisis. Today's hearing
will play an important role in providing further insight on how
Congress can support these efforts.
And with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning. Thank you all for joining our hearing on the
findings of the latest working group reports from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I also want to thank
our expert witnesses for being here today. The reality of the
latest IPCC reports cannot be ignored. Global emissions must
peak within the next three years to ensure we stay below 1.5
degrees Celsius of global warming in the next century. But we
must also move swiftly to adapt to our climate future alongside
our efforts to cut carbon emissions.
I attended the 26th UN Conference of Parties, or COP 26,
last November in Glasgow with Speaker Pelosi and a number of my
colleagues. Throughout COP26, the need to keep within 1.5
degrees of warming while making global efforts to support
community adaption was a recurring theme. The Science, Space,
and Technology Committee has been working to pass legislation
needed to curb the worst climate impacts.
Even with current efforts to curb carbon emissions, climate
change has already permanently altered the lives of most
Americans. Whether it is flooding, drought, or extreme weather,
the impacts of climate change are being felt by all our
constituents. There are many climate impacts that are already
``baked in,'' and will occur regardless of how quickly we cut
emissions. This means we must move forward with robust climate
adaptation approaches alongside emissions mitigation. Many
adaptive solutions are already available and have been outlined
in the IPCC's latest report. Many of our Federal science
agencies have conducted research to collect the data needed to
plan for adaptation. This research includes data on climate,
how crop yields will shift with time, and how rising sea levels
will impact communities.
Utilizing this data for ambitious and impactful climate
action is necessary. However, it is also imperative that in
finding solutions, the voices of communities most at risk are
not left out of the discussion. Local community leaders see
much of the first-hand impacts of climate change, and
Indigenous communities hold generational knowledge that focuses
on adaptation and resiliency. Indigenous and local knowledge is
beginning to be recognized in broader adaptation methods,
although more work is needed. We must ensure that this
knowledge is not only considered in climate adaptation efforts
at all levels of government but is done so equitably.
As I said at COP26, we deal with science and facts on the
Science Committee. And we know it is time for us to act on
climate backed up by good science policy. The science of
climate change has been clear for many years now. It is up to
us in Congress to begin implementing the innovative
technologies and policies that are already available to us to
address climate change. This effort needs to include robust
bipartisan legislation to support our Federal science agencies
as they work to address the climate crisis.
The next few years will be critical in determining the US
response to climate change. We already have much of the
expertise and knowledge of researchers and community members to
guide us toward an adaptive and equitable future. I am pleased
to have such an esteemed panel of witnesses to discuss these
issues at today's hearing. Translating recommendations from the
IPCC reports is necessary for the US climate science enterprise
to take actionable steps to combat the climate crisis. Today's
hearing will play an important role in providing further
insight on how Congress can support these efforts. With that I
yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes Ranking Member
Lucas for an opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson.
We're here to discuss another angle of climate change in a
continuation of previous hearings we've had on this subject. My
hope is that, today, we can focus on the most significant
action our Committee can take to address this challenge:
supporting breakthrough energy technologies. In the past 15
years, the United States has decreased its total emissions by
21 percent, which puts us on track to meet the Obama
Administration's goal of reducing emissions by 26 percent by
2025. That's significant progress and an achievement we should
be proud of. How did we get there? Through breakthrough
technologies.
In 1990, more than 1/2 of our electricity was generated by
coal. Today, that's down to 20 percent. In that same time
period, wind, solar, and natural gas energy ballooned.
Together, they now account for 50 percent of our electricity
generation. We've also made coal cleaner since the 1990's,
reducing emissions in the process. We couldn't have made this
clean energy progress without new discoveries. We needed the
new drill-bit technologies developed at our national labs, for
instance, to power the natural gas revolution.
All this is to say that we've proven that new technologies
are critical in emissions reductions. Investing in technology--
technological development through R&D (research and
development) is what I see as the carrot approach to addressing
climate change. The flip side of that is the stick approach.
That's what we've seen in Europe with mandates and strict
limits on certain kinds of energy. The result of the stick
approach is a cautionary tale. Prices have gone up, emissions
reductions haven't matched ours, and now, with Russia's war
against Ukraine, Europe is facing energy shortages.
That's why it's so important for us to take an all-of-the-
above approach to clean energy development. Now more than ever
we can appreciate the value of American energy independence. We
can't afford to shut off valuable energy sources in a misguided
attempt to reduce emissions. Instead, we need to focus on the
science and technologies of tomorrow.
I'm very proud of the work we did on the Energy Act of 2020
to do just that. It invested in fundamental research and
development in high-risk, high-reward next-generation energy
technologies. It also took a broad approach to clean energy
that included a wide range of renewable resources, as well as
essential technologies like advanced nuclear, energy storage,
carbon capture, and research into cleaner and more efficient
use of fossil fuels. It supports innovation with an approach
that keeps American energy competitive and prices low for
consumers and businesses. And it did all of that without a
single mandate, goal, or regulation related to emissions.
The natural follow-on for the Energy Act is the DOE Science
for the Future Act, which is part of a dozen bipartisan bills
that the Science Committee passed in an effort to make the
United States more competitive and to put our technological
development into overdrive. The DOE Science for the Future Act
will significantly increase our funding for basic research at
the Department of Energy (DOE), focusing on transformative
technology. As we begin conferencing this legislation, which
will be shoehorned into the larger COMPETES Act, my priority
will be to focus the final package on the smart bipartisan
legislation we crafted together and to reduce the amount of
superfluous policies tacked on at the last minute.
I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the global
implications of our fight to address climate change. This is,
after all, a global problem. When we take unrealistic
approaches to addressing climate change, what we do is empower
our adversaries. Punitive measures that make fossil fuel
production too expensive or simply prohibited gives Russia a
corner on the market for natural gas. That money then funds
Putin's war against free people in Ukraine. The cherry on top
is that reducing our own production of natural gas actually
hurts our emission goals because Russian natural gas has higher
emissions over its lifetime. So cutting back on our domestic
production might pay lip service to climate change goals, but
in reality, it does more harm than good.
Another way we are empowering our adversaries is through
the proposals in the COMPETES Act to send money to the U.N.
climate fund. This sets up a pipeline, the wrong kind. It's a
pipeline of U.S. taxpayer dollars to communist leadership in
China. The Chinese Communist Party is a dishonest partner in
the effort to cut emissions. Despite their pledges to the Paris
Agreement, China's emissions have continued to grow. Even
worse, it was found that the Chinese significantly
underreported its emissions in the lead-up to the agreement
taking effect, making it hard to trust their current reports.
If we implement reckless mandates to cut emissions, we'll drive
up prices for American businesses and make it more difficult
for us to compete with China on the global stage. We simply
cannot afford that.
So today, I'm hopeful that we can focus on solutions that
will keep American energy affordable and accessible while also
helping us to reduce emissions.
Mr. Harrell, I'd like to thank you for attending and for
joining us in person. I'm interested in hearing your
perspective on market-friendly climate change efforts.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson. We're here to discuss
another angle on climate change, in a continuation of previous
hearings we've had on this subject. My hope is that today, we
can focus on the most significant action our committee can take
to address this challenge: supporting breakthrough energy
technologies.
In the past 15 years, the United States has decreased our
total emissions by 21%, which puts us on track to meet the
Obama Administration's goal of reducing emissions by 26% by
2025. That's significant progress, and an achievement we should
be proud of. How did we get here? Through breakthrough
technologies.
In 1990, more than half of our electricity was generated by
coal. Today that's down to 20%. In that same time period, wind,
solar, and natural gas energy ballooned. Together, they now
account for 50% of our electricity generation. We've also made
coal cleaner since the 90s, reducing emissions in the process.
We couldn't have made this clean energy progress without new
discoveries. We needed the new drill-bit technologies developed
at our National Labs, for instance, to power the natural gas
revolution.
All this is to say that we've proven that new technologies
are critical to emissions reductions. Investing in
technological development through R&D is what I see as the
carrot approach to addressing climate change.
The flip side of that is the stick approach. That's what
we've seen in Europe with mandates and strict limits on certain
kinds of energy. The result of the stick approach is a
cautionary tale--prices have gone up, emissions reductions
haven't matched ours, and now, with Russia's war against
Ukraine, Europe is facing energy shortages.
That's why it's so important for us to take an all-of-the-
above approach to clean energy development. Now, more than
ever, we can appreciate the value of American energy
independence. We can't afford to shut off valuable energy
sources in a misguided attempt to reduce emissions.
Instead, we need to focus on the science and technologies
of tomorrow.
I'm very proud of the work we did on the Energy Act of 2020
to do just that. It invested in fundamental research and
development in high-risk, high-reward next-generation energy
technologies. It also took a broad approach to clean energy
that included a wide range of renewable sources as well as
essential technologies like advanced nuclear, energy storage,
carbon capture, and research into cleaner and more efficient
use of fossil fuels. It supports innovation with an approach
that keeps American energy competitive and prices low for
consumers and businesses. And it did all of that without a
single mandate, goal, or regulation related to emissions.
The natural follow-on for the Energy Act is the DOE Science
for the Future Act, which is part of a dozen bipartisan bills
the Science Committee passed in an effort to make the U.S. more
competitive and put our technological development into
overdrive. The DOE Science for the Future Act will
significantly increase our funding for basic research at the
Department of Energy, focusing on transformative technology. As
we begin conferencing this legislation, which was shoehorned
into the larger COMPETES Act, my priority will be to focus the
final package on the smart bipartisan legislation we crafted
together, and to reduce the amount of superfluous policies
tacked on at the last minute.
I'd be remiss if I didn't talk about the global
implications of our fight to address climate change. This is,
after all, a global problem. When we take unrealistic
approaches to addressing climate change, what we do is empower
our adversaries. Punitive measures that make fossil fuel
production too expensive or simply prohibited gives Russia a
corner on the market for natural gas. That money then funds
Putin's war against free people in Ukraine.
The cherry on top is that reducing our own production of
natural gas actually hurts our emissions goals, because Russian
natural gas has higher emissions over its lifetime. So cutting
back on our domestic production might pay lip service to
climate change goals, but in reality it does more harm than
good.
Another way we are empowering our adversaries is through
proposals in the COMPETES Act to send money to the UN climate
fund. This sets up a pipeline--the wrong kind. It's a pipeline
of U.S. taxpayer dollars to communist leadership in China. The
Chinese Communist Party is a dishonest partner in the effort to
cut emissions.
Despite their pledges to the Paris Agreement, China's
emissions have continued to grow. Even worse, it was found that
China significantly underreported its emissions in the lead-up
to the agreement taking effect, making it hard to trust its
current reports.
If we implement reckless mandates to cut emissions, we'll
drive up prices for American businesses and make it even more
difficult for us to compete with China on the global stage. We
simply cannot afford that. So today I'm hopeful that we can
focus on solutions that keep American energy affordable and
accessible while also helping us to reduce emissions.
Mr. Harrell, I'd like to thank you for attending and for
joining us in person. I'm interested in hearing your
perspective on market-friendly climate change efforts.
With that, Madame Chair, I yield the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Lucas.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. After I
introduce the witnesses, I will hand the gavel off to our
Research and Technology Chairwoman Ms. Stevens.
First, Ms. Ko Barrett. Ko Barrett is a Vice-Chair of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. She is
one of the first women elected to serve as Vice-Chair. In this
role, she provides broad leadership on the scientific and
technical aspects of IPCC assessments and manages strategic
initiatives. She also serves as the Senior Advisor for Climate
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Within NOAA, she is responsible for providing strategic advice
and direction. This enables the agency to align, integrate, and
extend its capabilities to best provide the climate services
needed to address the climate challenge.
Next, Mr. Jeremy Harrell, Mr. Harrell is the Chief Strategy
Officer (CSO) at ClearPath. This research and advocacy
organization focuses on policies to accelerate breakthrough
innovations. These innovations reduce emissions in the energy
and industrial sectors. As CSO, he leads the development,
management, and execution of the organization's strategic plan.
Before joining ClearPath, Mr. Harrell advised congressional
leaders across multiple roles in the House and Senate. He
advised on energy, environmental, natural resources, tax, and
transportation policy for a decade.
Our third witness today is Dr. Dominique David-Chavez. Dr.
David-Chavez is an Assistant Professor of Indigenous and
Natural Resource Stewardship working with Colorado State
University's Department of Forest and Rangeland Stewardship.
She additionally works with the Native--Nation's Institute at
the Udall Center for Studies and Public Policy at the
University of Arizona. Dr. David-Chavez draws from her
experiences to lead research at the Indigenous Land and Data
Stewards Interdisciplinary Lab. Dr. David-Chavez focuses on
research and governance and environmental policy and
decisionmaking, community-based climate research and resilience
in the Caribbean Islands and the Southwest. She supports
pathways for decolonizing through indigenous regeneration and
research and teaching in natural resource sciences.
Our final witness this morning is Miami-Dade County Mayor
Daniella Levine Cava. Mayor Levine Cava was elected as Miami-
Dade County's first female Mayor in November 2020 following a
forty-year career as a social worker, lawyer, and advocate for
south Florida families. Mayor Levine Cava was elected to the
county commission for the first time in 2014 and served six
years before being elected as Mayor. She has empowered small
businesses, increased community policies, policing in
underserved areas, and improved transit options and housing
affordability. She has also protected the environment and
addressed climate change. She oversees more than 28,000
employees, serves nearly three million residents, and manages a
$9 billion annual budget.
As our witnesses should know, you will have five minutes
for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will be
included in the record for the hearing. When you have all
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with questions.
Each Member will have five minutes to question the panel. We
will now start with Ms. Barrett.
TESTIMONY OF MS. KO BARRETT, VICE-CHAIR,
INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE (IPCC);
NOAA SENIOR ADVISOR FOR CLIMATE
Ms. Barrett. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I'm here today on behalf of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, for which I serve as Vice-
Chair. I concurrently hold the role of Senior Advisor for
Climate at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
or NOAA. While these are separate roles, they do have
commonalities in that NOAA's climate research contributes to
the scientific basis for IPCC reports, and in turn, NOAA uses
IPCC information as a basis from which we provide climate
services to the Nation. In fact, the recent IPCC reports affirm
the importance of the work NOAA does every day and the urgency
with which we are working to expand our delivery of climate
services so that we can build a climate-ready nation.
The IPCC, which is the world's foremost authority on
climate science, recently released three reports. The first
report, the physical science basis, provided the scientific
foundation about past, present, and future changes to the
Earth's climate system. The second report on impacts,
adaptation, and vulnerability provided an updated assessment of
observed and projected risks from climate change, our
vulnerabilities to it, and options to build resilience and the
capacity to adapt. Finally, the mitigation report released most
recently provided an updated assessment of methods for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and removing them from the atmosphere.
Today, I'd like to highlight some of the key findings from this
suite of reports.
The IPCC found that recent changes in the climate system
are widespread, rapid, and intensifying, and some changes are
unprecedented. More specifically, the IPCC found the Earth has
already warmed about 1.1 degrees Celsius above preindustrial
times, with every decade bringing more record-breaking
temperature. Further, it's indisputable that human activities
are causing climate change. Human influence is making climate
extreme events including heat waves, heavy rainfall, and
droughts more frequent and severe. For example, hot extremes
have become more frequent and intense since the 1950's, and
some would have been extremely unlikely without human influence
on the climate system. This has meaningful implications for us
in North America where high temperatures and extreme events
have cost American lives and disrupted economic activities.
While climate change has already adversely affected
billions of people around the world, the impacts and risks are
not distributed equally. Some populations are more vulnerable
than others. For instance, some climate impacts are magnified
in cities where heat waves can combine with urban heat island
effect and air pollution to make the effects of climate change
worse. Furthermore, climate change can exacerbate other
challenges such as poverty and food insecurity, which often
impact the most marginalized communities.
These findings are concerning, but the report also offers
glimmers of hope because there is increasing evidence of
progress. We've seen that adaptation efforts are effective for
reducing risks, and they can protect people and ecosystems from
the worst impacts of climate change. At the same time, there
are options available now in all sectors that can more than
halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. For example, an
increasing range of policies and innovative technologies have
enhanced energy efficiency, reduced rates of deforestation, and
accelerated the deployment of renewable energy, which has
resulted in avoided and reduced emissions.
So we already have many of the tools we need to address
climate change. We just need to deploy them rapidly and across
all walks of life. Everyone has a role to play. Global and
national leadership is required to transform and decarbonize
society, but cities and communities, businesses, Indigenous
Peoples, citizens groups, and public-private entities are
playing a growing role in the global effort to address climate
change. Inclusive and meaningful participation can build
support for the transformational changes that are urgently
needed to forestall the worst impacts.
There's no doubt that climate change is a global challenge,
but the potential solutions exist at all scales from
international commitments to actions in our local communities.
Each of the IPCC reports reinforces the refrain that every
fraction of a degree of warming matters, so every action to
prevent warming can make a difference. The climate we and
future generations experience depends on our actions now. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barrett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Next up, we will hear from Mr.
Harrell.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JEREMY HARRELL,
CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, CLEARPATH
Mr. Harrell. Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking
Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee. My name is Jeremy
Harrell, and I'm the Chief Strategy Officer at ClearPath.
ClearPath advances policies that reduce emissions in the
industrial and energy sectors, an important note, we're funded
by philanthropy, not by industry. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify today.
Climate change is an urgent challenge that merits
significant action across the public and private sectors. The
recent IPCC report underscores that the world is not deploying
existing clean energy technologies fast enough and is not
investing enough into the technologies needed to achieve net
zero.
Fortunately, the United States is in a position to
accelerate global emissions reductions while creating new jobs,
increasing manufacturing competitiveness, and reasserting
global leadership over Russia and China. The ongoing aggression
by Russia underscores the need for the United States and our
allies to be energy independent, and energy security and
climate action do not have to be mutually exclusive.
U.S. LNG (liquefied natural gas) can be up to 30 percent
cleaner than Russian gas. American steel has the second lowest
carbon intensity, while China, the world's largest steel
exporter, is the third dirtiest. In sum, American manufactured
products are over 40 percent more carbon efficient than the
global average, yet it's clear the world does not have the
technologies it needs to realistically and affordably achieve
net zero emissions. The IEA (International Energy Agency)
estimates only 2 of 46 technologies needed are on track. The
United States should mobilize to innovate, to develop, and to
demonstrate those technologies here and sell them around the
world. We have a record of success. Solar, wind, natural gas
and battery growth over the last decade have driven us forward,
and all are cost-effective globally in part due to investments
made here in the United States.
I'd like to underscore four key points today. First,
innovation is essential to achieving global emissions
reductions. The previous IPCC analysis conducted a decade ago
found that extremely high levels of temperature rise could be
possible by 2100. The most recent reports conclude those
consequences are no longer likely thanks to innovation in clean
energy technologies. No doubt more work must be done, and it's
also clear that policies that make clean energy more affordable
and abundant are how the United States can help accelerate
global progress. This Committee's recent work on the innovation
agenda, including your landmark bipartisan Energy Act of 2020,
should be commended, and the Members should double down on it.
Second, the big demonstration programs authorized by the
Energy Act and funded by the bipartisan infrastructure bill are
a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Nuclear, CCUS (carbon
capture, utilization, and storage), direct or capture, energy
storage, enhanced geothermal, and hydrogen are all among the
technologies that IPCC, the IEA, and others all forecast as
essential to meeting climate goals, and they were all focuses
of those recent bills.
The DOE's efforts like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration
Program, the CCUS Technology Program, the Energy Storage Grand
Challenge, and the hydrogen hubs can all accelerate
technological innovation. This Committee's oversight of those
efforts over the next 18 months is paramount to ensuring these
taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and are successful in
commercializing new technologies to combat climate.
Third, difficult-to-decarbonize sectors merit increased
attention. For example, in 2020 emissions from industrial
facilities accounted for 24 percent of all U.S. emissions. By
2030, industrial facilities are expected to be the top source
of U.S. emissions, exceeding those from both power plants and
vehicles. While the Energy Act included great policies like the
bipartisan Clean Industrial Technologies Act, a greater focus
on subsectors like steel and cement remain significant
opportunities. Fortunately, this Committee has already taken
action on steel by the bipartisan SUPER Act, which is now part
of the larger America COMPETES USICA conference negotiations.
The steel sector is well-positioned given that American steel
is among the world's cleanest.
And even if all those efforts are successful on the
innovation side, nearly all projections rely on some degree of
carbon dioxide removal to offset residual emissions. And it's
highly likely carbon dioxide removal will be needed to bring
total emissions to net negative. Congress should build off
previous legislative wins and support innovation in key areas
like steel, cement, chemicals, carbon removal, and low carbon
fuels.
And last but certainly not least, the U.S. mission must be
build cleaner faster, not duplicate and litigate. It is
abundantly clear that clean energy is not deploying fast
enough. The United States should rapidly build what's available
today while demonstrating new technologies in the pipeline as
soon as possible. It does not matter how much money the public
or private sector invests in climate if it continues to take 10
years to permit an offshore wind farm, 5 years to certify a new
advanced nuclear reactor design, or 6 years to issue a class VI
permit necessary to store billions of metric tons of captured
CO2.
The United States will simply not meet its emission
reduction targets under the status quo regulatory environment.
Congress should set bold goals to build projects in less than 2
years by modernizing permitting, reducing frivolous legal
challenges, and prioritizing approvals of low emission
projects. This can all be done without compromising
environmental stewardship or the public's opportunity to be
involved. This Committee is uniquely positioned to drive new
clean energy technology forward through investments in American
ingenuity and research. And your success is essential to
accelerating global emissions reductions while growing American
competitiveness.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Harrell. And, Dr. David-Chavez,
you are next.
TESTIMONY OF DR. DOMINIQUE M. DAVID-CHAVEZ, PH.D.,
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF INDIGENOUS NATURAL
RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. David-Chavez. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas,
and distinguished Members of the Committee, in our indigenous
language [speaking Native language]. I welcome and greet you as
extended relatives and give thanks for this opportunity to
share in this important discussion. This is the original
language of the Taino or Arawakan peoples in my maternal
homeland of Boriken, also known as the U.S. territory of Puerto
Rico, a place where indigenous peoples have observed and
adapted to extreme climate events for centuries.
Our indigenous and local knowledge and value system,
including the language I'm sharing with you, continue to serve
as resources for enhancing climate resilience. In this
testimony, I draw from my experiences as an indigenous
community member and as a scientist carrying a decade of
experience working on community-based climate and environmental
research with indigenous and rural communities and as a co-
author for the Fifth National Climate Assessment currently
underway.
Scientists now understand with the substantial evidence the
potential of indigenous and local knowledges for guiding us
through this difficult time in our human history. Amidst the
challenges and crises that we now face, we also face unique
opportunities for systemic change and innovation in policy and
research design. This hearing and body of evidence before us
mark a transitional time of reconciliation both in terms of
reconciling historic legacies of oppression toward Black,
African-American, indigenous, and other marginalized
communities, and in terms of reconciling our relationships and
responsibilities as human beings with the natural resources and
lifeways that sustain us.
This brings me to my key take-home message. Mobilizing
indigenous and local knowledge systems for climate resilience
can only be achieved through reconciling historic systems of
oppression to enable the leadership of community members who
steward these knowledges. The IPCC working group 2 report
determines with the highest statistical level of confidence
disproportionate climate-related impacts and harms for
indigenous peoples' livelihood and economies, as well as
threats to knowledge transmission and cultural continuity and
harmful impacts on health and well-being.
Community members retaining ties to the land are our first
scientists and monitors of change, farmers, fisherfolk, those
who continue traditional harvesting practices and hold
knowledge of seasonal cycles, including ecological and
atmospheric indicators of change. These indigenous knowledge
systems, place-based collective bodies of knowledge formed over
generations of observation of Earth's physical processes
reflect high-level Earth system science, understandings, and
blueprints for sustainable planning and development.
[Witness presents visual aid.]
Yet numerous barriers remain for inclusion of indigenous
rights-holders and local stakeholders in development and
research. Analysis findings of 20 years of climate studies
accessing indigenous knowledges reveal 80 percent of studies
practiced extractive methods in which indigenous community
knowledge-holders and decisionmakers held little to no
authority regarding research questions asked, data gathered, or
whether data is shared back to their communities. Likewise, the
IPCC report notes with high confidence a lack of recognition of
indigenous sovereignty and exclusion of indigenous peoples from
decisionmaking institutions as structural barriers constraining
adaptation.
Our Federal Government and resources hold a critical role
in supporting community-based climate research to enable
climate resilience, adaptation, and mitigation. While policies
supporting reconciliation and diverse knowledge exchange are in
effect globally, the United States remains without a national
policy regarding indigenous rights and ethics in research. With
support from you, our leadership, we can immediately channel
resources for community-led efforts for achieving near- and
long-term climate resilience goals.
Key strategies include, No. 1, pathways for
intergenerational knowledge transmission through funded
community-engaged internships and work force training
connecting youth with community knowledge-holders, scientists,
and mentors; No. 2, upholding indigenous data sovereignty
through agencywide policies such as the CARE Principles for
Indigenous Data Governance now being operationalized for
environmental data repositories here in the United States,
scaling up and standardizing mechanisms for accountability to
tribes and communities; No. 3, promoting equitable partnerships
through funded leadership roles for indigenous and local
community knowledge-holders and decisionmakers to guide
research design, proposal review, and policy development; and
No. 4, streamlining flexible Federal funding sources for tribes
of indigenous community organizations that unburdened unique
challenges through adaptive timelines, zero cost share, and
equitable funding allocated to community partners; No. 5,
applying protocols for consultation and consent that align with
indigenous and human rights frameworks set by indigenous
governing bodies for all development and decisionmaking
impacting indigenous peoples, territories, and resources.
These actions support our future generations who need all
the tools and insights available to address the complex
challenges before us. Let us ensure the time-tested wisdom of
our ancestors is there to guide them to allow for the
innovation and problem-solving potential needed for the benefit
of all who share these territories, for our shared lifeways and
our shared futures.
[Speaking Native language.] Thank you for this opportunity
to speak with you today. I look forward to our discussion.
[The prepared statement of Dr. David-Chavez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Dr. David-Chavez. And finally, we
will hear from Mayor Levine Cava. You may begin.
TESTIMONY OF MS. DANIELLA LEVINE CAVA,
MAYOR, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ms. Levine Cava. Thank you very, very much. I'm Daniella
Levine Cava, Mayor of Miami-Dade County, and I have the great
privilege to represent a growing, vibrant, and diverse
community of almost 3 million residents and a quarter-million
businesses, more than 20 million visitors annually to our
beautiful beaches, thriving economy, and cultural offerings.
I want to thank our entire Florida congressional
delegation, Bill Posey, Michael Waltz, Daniel Webster, Charlie
Crist, and our own Carlos Gimenez and Maria Elvira Salazar,
Carlos Gimenez, my predecessor, who also championed our
environment, demonstrating the bipartisan imperative of climate
change.
In Miami-Dade, our environment is our economy. It's what
attracts our visitors, appeals our prosperity, and truthfully,
we are the canary in the coal mine for climate change. But we
also live in perilous proximity to rising seas and stronger
storms with significant exposure to our heating climate. We
know that we must transform our business-as-usual attitude in
order to protect life on our planet and our coastal cities.
Last year, extreme weather cost our world hundreds of billions
of dollars, and this will dramatically grow, we know. It does
not even include the additional socioeconomic effects of
ecosystem degradation disruption of our global food and water
supplies, increases in vector-borne diseases and mass
displacement following floods and wildfires, something we're
very attuned to in Miami-Dade, hurricanes.
So in south Florida we've already seen 10 inches of sea-
level rise over the last century. But unlike other types of
flooding, long-term sea-level rise does not recede. We are
expecting between 21 and 54 inches of sea-level rise in the
next 50 years. So no longer can we afford to only rely on
mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions, we're taking bold
actions there, but we must also focus on immediate adaptation
to thrive in this new reality.
The IPCC report is clear. We must take these steps now to
transition away from our dependence on fossil fuels toward
renewable energy, but we must also take into account how we
build our future infrastructure. We must integrate equity into
our adaptation plans to ensure that we can adapt as a community
together and without leaving anyone behind.
Here, we are already exposed to the most assets at risk of
any place on the planet, and the immediate effects have become
very, very clear and we need to seriously reimagine every
aspect of our local government and respond decisively. Because
we live at sea level, we must prepare for coastal property
damage. Because our water supply comes from our underground
aquifer, we must address saltwater intrusion. And because of
the intersectional challenge of poverty, we are exposed to
greater health risks. Our children, our elderly, and other
vulnerable residents suffer more sickness when pollution leads
to an increase in asthma and heart disease. Our poor and less
protected suffer heatstroke if left without the protection of
air-conditioning. And many private insurers are already pulling
out of our market, leaving residents to assume climate risk on
their own.
Last Thursday, I announced our commitment, along with 45
other governments, to our international race to zero. We're on
a unique path to net zero carbon emissions. We also are
transitioning our public transit, our county vehicle fleet,
advancing conservation and preparation efforts in our bay and
across the Everglades, and this is all part of our response.
We're building mobility systems to reduce carbon. We're
expanding our green and blue spaces and more trees to populate
our tree canopy.
We recently released our landmark Climate Action Strategy.
We believe it's a model, and we ask the Federal Government to
consider requiring all communities to produce such plans. We
joined with ICLEI, Local Governments for Sustainability, at
COP26, and we stood together for those goals. And we have a
regional climate change compact. It's a model with over 100
local governments, 6 million people, 15 million visitors, and
our nongovernmental and private partners all coming together
working on sea-level rise projections every 5 years.
I'm a founding member of the International Heat Alliance,
and we appointed the first-ever Chief Heat Officer in the
world, and it's now being replicated in cities around the
globe.
So we're accelerating adaptation. We're integrating sea-
level rise into our design guidelines and our growth master
plans, but mitigation is no longer enough, and we must
implement bold adaptation measures. We have a sea-level rise
strategy released in 2021 that prioritizes our septic-to-sewer
transfer protecting the health of our bay. We're expanding our
purchase of environmentally endangered lands. And we cannot do
this only at the local level. We must collaborate across our
State and national boundaries, and we need more transparency,
greater understanding, and real efforts to bridge divides
across our diverse constituencies, all of which will need to be
invested in our fight against climate change.
So we call upon the Federal Government to provide crucial
funding for research on the cutting edge. We need to scale up
our efforts, and we'll need Federal support to do so. And we
need the Federal Government to continue holding these sorts of
high-level meetings to shed light on the vital issue to
coordinate our State, local, and Federal responses. And we must
do it equitably. So here, every $1 invested saves us $4 in
disaster recovery later.
Thank you very much to you for your leadership, and we look
forward to working with you toward the solutions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Levine Cava follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Stevens. Great. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you to all
of our witnesses.
And at this point we're going to begin our first round of
questions, and the Chair is going to recognize herself for five
minutes.
We have seen the IPCC reports before. We've seen the Paris
Climate Accord. We've seen our Chairwoman go off to COP26.
We've heard an incredible articulation of the problem. And we
can hone in on that, you know, at what cost if we don't do
anything, what's the result of that? What's at stake if we
don't take immediate action? But more importantly, I think the
question I want to ask of our witnesses is why, why we haven't
been taking action or how we have been taking action in small
ways.
And I'd like to start with Ms. Barrett because I was really
struck by the articulation in your testimony. On page three you
talked about levels of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere,
the root cause of human-induced climate change, current
CO2 concentrations, the highest that they have been
in two million years. You also went on to talk about the report
confirming global warming at 1 degree Celsius has already
adversely impacted billions of people around the world,
especially in marginalized communities, something that we have
heard from our panelists here. But then you go on in your
testimony and you talk about resiliency and adaptability and
some of the actions that we're taking. So, Ms. Barrett, could
you talk to us about the how we are taking actions and the why
we aren't maybe moving as fast as we could be?
Ms. Barrett. Sure. Thank you for your question. I mean, I
think many of us on this panel have already identified that
this is a dire situation, but we are making progress.
Emissions--the rate of emissions in the United States is
declining, not quickly enough and not across the board. And
adaptation actions are beginning to have affect.
But it's interesting to look at some of the research on
what drives action and to see that for many Americans there is
a recognition of the problem, there's even, you know, a
recognition that in their own lives they're experiencing
extreme events. I think the research shows that about 1 in 3
Americans has experienced negative impacts from extremes. But,
you know, we are in some sense buffered a little bit by our
wealth. And I'm not--I don't see the urgency of the issue
really taking hold in all aspects of society.
I also think, as the Mayor mentioned in her testimony, that
we need to be providing support at the local level where people
are on the frontlines of feeling the effects of climate change.
So this really is an all-hands-on-deck problem that we have to
marshal across, you know, every sector of society.
Ms. Stevens. Yes, and maybe we can hear from our Mayor for
a minute because you absolutely are on the frontlines. And
certainly as we think about climate change and this, you know,
rising call to humanity right now to address what stands before
us, you're doing this on the local level and you're seeing
successes, starts and stops. What's working, what isn't, what
else do we need to know?
Ms. Levine Cava. So I'm hopeful that the market does also
help us not only because there are technological advances,
certainly ways to reduce our carbon in vehicles in buildings
and we have very aggressive strategies to incentivize those
things, but also because the private sector is building higher,
pumping, things that help us live with the rising seas, and
more electric vehicles as we build more capacity, and so on. We
just had the Governor veto a bill that would have made it more
expensive for people to install residential solar, so he did it
in light of the high cost of living. So it's--I think that
there is progress being made as we're no longer debating
whether there is climate change. You know, maybe not everybody
agrees on the causes, but we all agree on what we see.
And I'll say that when you have an extreme weather event
like we had a couple of years ago with Hurricane Irma and the
streets were flooded, that gives people religion. And that was
the year that the city of Miami past a major bond referendum to
pay for----
Ms. Stevens. Well, we are very excited about electric
vehicles in Michigan particularly, our original equipment
manufacturers, the big three that are proliferating that
technology. It's certainly trying to achieve the goals of
carbon neutrality.
And, Mr. Harrell, I'm running out of time, but I just
wanted to give you a quick note that I appreciated the
practical reason in the work that you're doing, the practical
reason that you brought to your testimony. And I think the
theme here is, yes, we have these reports, yes, we've
identified that we have challenges, but there is so much hope
and opportunity. There's things happening at the startup level,
there's things happening in the classroom, there's things
happening in our indigenous communities, at the research level,
and on.
So with that, nice kickoff to this incredible hearing that
we're going to--that we're having right now. And with that, I'd
like to pass it over to our Ranking Member Mr. Lucas for five
minutes of questioning.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and continuing on the
perspective of hope, and Mr. Harrell, as you pointed out,
natural gas, solar, wind, and energy efficiency technologies
have led to a 40 percent reduction in power sector emissions in
the United States in the last 15 years, while GDP (gross
domestic product) has grown by more than 60 percent. If we
continue this trend toward cleaner energy and a stronger
economy, what's the single most effective action we in
government can take?
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Mr. Lucas, for the question, and
really, thank you for your bipartisan leadership of this
Committee and the immense successes that they've had over
recent years. You underscore a key point that we've seen
emissions go down as GDP growth has gone up, and I think that's
an important lesson over the last decade, that that is a recipe
of success. And it's a big part because we've made clean tech
more affordable and more abundant, and so we need to double
down on the innovation agenda to make more clean tech more
abundant.
Mr. Lucas. Continuing with you, Mr. Harrell, for years this
side of the aisle has stressed the need for the United States
to be energy independent. And for a long time it was felt that
many of us were concerned literally that it was falling on deaf
ears. But Russian aggression in the Ukraine and the resulting
desire to shift away from their energy supply has created a
vacuum for natural gas in Europe and made U.S. energy
independence attractive to everyone.
My question to you is what benefits, including consumer
costs, global environmental effects, and security, does a U.S.
energy independence and resulting LNG exports have not only for
U.S. citizens but for the entire world?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. Energy security and climate
action do not have to be mutually exclusive. They can go hand-
in-hand. We're seeing firsthand in Europe in particular that
complicated our reaction to the Russian aggression, and so
needing to be able to increase domestic LNG production, which
underscored is 30 percent cleaner than Russian gas is a
significant part of filling that gap. And we're seeing the
Europeans interested in a wide suite of U.S. technologies,
including nuclear as well. I think it's an important area to
increase energy security across the globe.
Mr. Lucas. And continuing in that vein, how can just a
little bit of innovation in a related field like hydrogen
completely shift the conversation around future energy imports
and supply gaps?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, we're extremely excited about the
hydrogen opportunity in this country. The United States has
both a cost and a security advantage relative to Russian,
Middle Eastern, and Australian competitors in hydrogen. And so
investments like the $8 billion Hydrogen Hub program at DOE
that I think this Committee really should focus on on the
oversight of the implementation of that could drive down the
cost, in addition to policies like the 45Q tax credit really
gives us an advantage to be a global supplier of hydrogen in
the future. And hydrogen is a kind of Swiss Army Knife clean
energy tool.
Mr. Lucas. Mr. Harrell, I think I can speak for both
Chairwoman Johnson and myself when I say we greatly appreciate
your kind words about the Energy Act of 2020 and what it has
meant for energy policy and the conversation around climate
change in this country. The Energy Act was a great achievement,
and now we're working on the next step, a comprehensive
authorization of basic research at DOE and the Office of
Science. As I'm sure you've seen, we're in the process of
reconciling differences with the Senate through the conference
process, and given your familiarity with DOE and the national
labs, how important is it that the inclusion of a detailed
Office of Science authorization to the next generation of clean
energy?
Mr. Harrell. It's extremely important. The innovation
agenda goes from basic research and catalyzing technologies to
the applied work that we're now seeing DOE launch and try to
demonstrate these new technologies, and so I think it makes a
lot of sense and really commend the Committee's leadership on
that bill so that we can continue to push for the innovation
agenda in the long term because this is a long-term problem,
and we need to drive forward.
Mr. Lucas. So it does complement the Energy Act.
Mr. Harrell. It does, absolutely.
Mr. Lucas. And surprisingly, Madam Chair, with that, I'll
yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. Stevens. Well, how about that. And with that, we will
hear from the Congresswoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Stevens. Thanks to Chair
Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas as well for holding this
important hearing, and especially thank you to all the
witnesses.
We understand now that climate change is caused by human
activity and that it exacerbates extreme weather events and
natural disasters, sea-level rise, as we heard today, glacier
retreat, and more. In the Pacific Northwest we feel these
affects acutely. Last summer, northwest Oregon experienced a
deadly 1-in-1,000-year extreme heat event. Mayor Cava, needless
to say, my ears perked up when I heard you talk about the--and
I saw in your testimony the Chief Heat Officer. We've also had
exceptionally damaging fire seasons we've suffered through the
last couple of years. And just earlier this year, Warrenton, a
coastal town in northwest Oregon, declared a state of emergency
because of extreme flooding.
The IPCC's Sixth Assessment has made clear, and as does the
title of this hearing, we have no time to stall on climate
action. We must implement sweeping adaptation measures and also
decarbonize as rapidly as possible. So, Ms. Barrett, thank you
for leadership at NOAA and as Vice-Chair of the IPCC.
Scientists predict that there is a thirty-seven percent chance
of an earthquake along the Cascadia Subduction Zone in the next
fifty years. This is likely to cause a tsunami. The NOAA
Science Board recently released a report outlining the urgent
need to upgrade our tsunami warning system. Strengthening that
warning system is especially urgent because of the changing
climate, which can increase the intensity of tsunami events.
So, Ms. Barrett, I'm working with the Committee on a
reauthorization to the Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research
Act to address these important recommendations. So what ongoing
steps is NOAA taking under its existing authorization to
improve the effectiveness of our tsunami warning systems?
Ms. Barrett. Congresswoman Bonamici, thank you so much for
that question and also for the support that you've shown to
NOAA for many important climate-related initiatives, be it
ocean acidification, coastal protection, et cetera. I am not
fully aware of our tsunami activities. It's not a part of my
core portfolio, although I was a part of the research arm of
NOAA when we deployed for the first time our DART (Deep-ocean
Assessment and Reporting of Tsunamis) buoys that were--you
know, provide an essential component of our early warning
systems for tsunamis. But I'd be happy to bring back your
question to those in my organization who can fully answer that.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Ms. Barrett. And I know
that Dr. Spinrad will be very familiar with the issue, being an
Oregonian himself.
Also, Ms. Barrett, offshore wind has the potential to
create thousands of high-quality jobs and decarbonize our
electricity sector. Yesterday, BOEM, the Bureau of Offshore
Energy Management, identified two prospective areas off the
coast of southern Oregon where it hopes to eventually hold
offshore wind lease options. So, Ms. Barrett, what is NOAA's
engagement in the BOEM offshore wind permitting process, and
how has interagency collaboration changed in light of the
interagency memorandum of understanding signed earlier this
year that seeks to further the ambitious offshore wind energy
goals of advancing wind energy responsibly but also while
protecting biodiversity and promoting cooperative ocean use?
Ms. Barrett. Thank you for that question. I mean, I know,
you know, in working with Dr. Spinrad, the blue economy is one
of his three priorities for NOAA, along with climate and
injecting equity concerns across all of our mission space.
Offshore wind is a key component of the way that we approach
the blue economy, and I know that we have aspects of our
fisheries service who are engaged in the permitting and have
been working very closely with interagency partners across the
board on the coordination for what we hope to be about 30
gigatons of energy production from offshore wind. I'd be happy
to bring back your question to the experts who really dig into
these issues in NOAA and get back to you on that.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. I would appreciate that. It is a
new concept in Oregon, but we are one of the leaders in the
study of wave energy, and I'm very proud of the work that
PacWave is doing off the Oregon coast. Unlike wind, which can
stop blowing and sun that doesn't always shine, the waves and
the currents are always in motion, so we're very much wanting
the potential for marine energy.
And also thank you, Ms. Barrett, for mentioning the blue
economy and the importance of the blue economy. I invite all of
my colleagues on this Committee, as well as in Congress if they
are not already cosponsors, to cosponsor my bipartisan Blue
Carbon for Our Planet Act, which will do a lot to restore
coastal communities while also with the sea grasses and
mangrove and kelp and other plants that are included in the
restoration effort will act as a tremendous carbon sink. So I
invite everyone to sign onto the Blue Carbon for Our Planet
Act. And I am out of time and yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will pass it over
to Mr. Posey for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens, and thank the
panelists for appearing here today. I've got the same two
questions for each of you, and you can answer them in the order
you were introduced if you don't mind.
A recent poll by Morning Consultants found that 90 percent
of Americans think the United States should manufacture
renewable energy domestically, and 70 percent think we should
not be dependent on the Chinese-controlled factories in
Southeast Asia for solar imports. The COVID pandemic, supply
chain disruptions, and the invasion of Ukraine have reminded us
of the importance of energy independence. Today, most of the
solar production is of course dependent on China.
What--question one is what is being done to build rather
than undermine our domestic solar capacity? And two, what can
Congress do to protect American manufacturers from China, which
uses slave labor to make their solar products?
Ms. Barrett. Thank you, Congressman. I'll start with the
answer. I will say from an IPCC perspective, scaling up
production of renewables wherever we can do that is incredibly
important and a key piece of the solution because decarbonizing
society is kind of at the core of all solutions to solve the
problem.
With regard to the barriers that may be standing in our way
to do that and our reliance on China and other places, I'm not
really very well-positioned to answer that question, but I do
have access to many experts both in the IPCC world and across
the interagency who could get back to you with a specific
answer to your questions.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Congressman Posey, for the
question, and thank you for your strong support of critical
minerals legislation and the SUPER Act, for example, that kind
of gets right at this issue. It's a really important issue as
we look at the innovation agenda moving forward. I think solar
is unfortunately a warning sign of we had--the U.S. policy had
a significant role in driving down the cost of it, and then we
ultimately lost solar supply chains to China. And so as we look
across technologies and investing in innovation, we need to be
looking at how we build out U.S. supply chains, how do we
source domestic resources needed to construct those
technologies here at home and in an environmentally sound way,
and really look at supporting and increasing U.S. American
competitiveness. So I think that needs to be layered kind of
across the innovation policies that this Committee takes up.
Particularly on the solar side, one area that I'm
particularly interested in is perovskite solar. It's a
technology that's getting kind of breakthrough at NREL
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory), the national lab in
Colorado. It's thin-film solar. I think it's the next
generation of solar that can be basically printed in rolls. I
think it's an opportunity to invest in the manufacturing here,
and I think we--I don't think we're going to bring back silicon
PV (photovoltaic) from China unfortunately, but I think we can
bolster domestic supply chains on next-generation solar
technologies.
Dr. David-Chavez. I appreciate the question and just the
complexity that it raises in regard to how we're going to
navigate the innovation and technology development we need to
transition to renewable energy. One thing I think that is
helpful to bring in mind is to consider how we're weighing out
the benefits and risks and that we are considering human rights
and moral and ethical obligations to other human beings and to
our land and natural resources. So much of our metrics for
weighing out benefits for successful measures and the risks of
different measures are operating on such small timescales that
really don't reflect the timescales that it takes to remediate
ecological degradation.
So I think as we look at different renewable options,
considering the cost in manufacturing, the cost in disposal,
and what those long-term costs we might be giving to the future
generations and not considering now will be very important in
making the decisions about the concerns that you raised. Thank
you for the question.
Ms. Levine Cava. Congressman, thank you so much. And let me
say thank you to you for the Florida solar center initiative
that you championed. And we would like to be a part of that. So
I understand, you know, through university partnerships maybe
we could expand that to south Florida.
Locally, we certainly have done everything to facilitate
permitting of all of these renewables. That's part of what I
did as a Commissioner before I came on as Mayor. We also have a
blue green tech initiative, and we have even floating solar.
The legislature here just passed a law making it easier to move
forward with floating solar, which we've already pioneered and
I have championed here at the local level.
Mr. Posey. I thank the witnesses, and my time is expired
and I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you to the Congressman from Florida. And
with that, we will turn it over to the Congressman from the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much, and thanks so
much for holding this hearing.
The Joint Economic Committee just released a report on
Earth Day last week called The Cost of Inaction on Climate
Change. We pointed out that economists agree that a 2 degree
warming would lower GDP by one-half percent in a year. When you
figure that we went most of the last decade with one and a
half, one percent, two percent growth, that's a lot. And at
four degrees it cut GDP by two percent annually. Even modest
warming is going to shrink the economy by hundreds of billions
of dollars with higher temperatures raising costs at an
increasing rate.
So, Madam Chair, I ask that this report be submitted for
the record.
Ms. Stevens. So moved.
Mr. Beyer. And then many scientists are worried that when
the second and third IPCC report came out, no one was paying
attention. We were all obsessed with the Ukraine war and
Russia. So I just want to say please don't be worried. We are
paying attention. We recognize and value this--these reports.
They inform our work, and even more so, they give us a sense of
urgency with which Congress needs to act.
So Ms. Barrett, you're Vice-Chair of the IPCC. Can you tell
us why these reports are so valuable to the policymakers?
Ms. Barrett. Thank you for that question, Congressman, and
thank you also for your kind words about the importance of our
reports. I--certainly, the hundreds of scientists from around
the world would very much like to hear your appreciation for
the work that they dedicate about 4 years of their lives to
assess all that we know on the state of the climate.
I think the IPCC reports are unique and important in a
number of ways. First, it is truly a global effort to assess
all that we know about climate change. And by global, I mean we
have scientists from all around the world, from developing
countries, as well as developed countries, who come together to
assess the information. But the kind of unique thing about IPCC
is the way that governments are involved in this process. So
all of our member governments, 195-plus, review the reports,
and we go into a very intense process to agree on the summary
word for word. We did all of that virtually during COVID, which
had its pluses and minuses. On the plus side, it enabled us to
have much more developing country representation in the
approval process, and I think that really helped with making
sure that the results were really important from the
perspective of all who need to take action.
But that consensus, that handshake between scientists and
governments I think gives the information that the IPCC puts
out a certain level of confidence. And I will say that the
government involvement is particularly key in helping
scientists to frame their results, frame their findings in ways
that are accessible and useful for those who need to use the
information.
Mr. Beyer. OK, thank you very much. Mr. Harrell, one of the
things that the IPCC report said is that even the full shift,
even if we get to zero fossil fuel use, we still have to deal
with the billions and billions of tons of carbon dioxide we've
put into the atmosphere in the last couple hundred years. Can
you speak to the role that negative emission technologies, for
example, in Build Back Better we sponsored an amendment for
direct air capture. Talk about what negative emission
technologies can contribute to this.
Mr. Harrell. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman
Beyer, and thank you for your leadership on carbon removal and
hydrogen policies and fusion technology as well.
Carbon removal technologies are going to be essential.
We're going to need gigaton scales of it over--and not only to
help reach net zero by midcentury but likely to go net negative
on emissions in a long period of time. There's a lot of
exciting developments in the direct capture space, so
technological solutions that will do this. I think the
Committee could spend additional time on innovation and kind of
hybrid carbon removal technology solutions as well that
leverage the best of some of our natural solutions, as well as
technological solutions. But it's a technology. It's a suite of
things that we need to invest in now because we know that it's
going to be necessary over the next 50 to 70 years to stabilize
the climate.
Mr. Beyer. And, Mr. Harrell, thank you so much for
mentioning fusion. The more we talk about it, the more we can
begin to pull people in an optimistic direction.
Mayor Cava?
Ms. Levine Cava. Thank you. I just wanted to add that we
have natural carbon sequestration, for example, in the
Everglades. The restoration of our Everglades is a bipartisan
Federal, State, local commitment, and it is having a huge
impact, and it's at risk of the opposite. So we need to
continue that investment of natural as well.
Mr. Beyer. And thank you for bringing up that there are
many, many nature-based solutions, and we need to pursue all of
them. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. And with that, we're going to
pass it over to Congressman Babin for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Ranking
Member Lucas. I appreciate you witnesses as well.
Mr. Harrell, as you mentioned in your testimony, the
Federal permitting process can take years for a project to be
approved and cost millions of dollars along the way. I've seen
firsthand the impact that burdensome and excessive regulations
have had on companies in my district in southeast Texas,
basically nine counties from Houston over to Louisiana and they
have had--the impact they've had on companies that are helping
supply the world with clean energy.
We can only reduce CO2 emissions as fast as we
are able to permit the projects to do so, and yet just last
week the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) rolled back
opportunities to streamline this permitting process. If our own
companies which are making reliable and clean energy cannot
even get the permits necessary to move forward in this process,
how can we expect them to meet the growing demands? And so, Mr.
Harrell, what opportunities do you see to reform this
permitting regime to enable this to be improved?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, thank you for the question, Congressman
Babin. And thank you for your leadership on CCUS issues and
policies here at this Committee, some really exciting stuff
happening in your district in particular in that space.
And so you're exactly right on the permitting side. The--we
need to reduce emissions now, and that means deploying
technologies now. And the current status quo regulatory
environment simply isn't consistent with the scale that we need
to drive technologies forward, and we see it firsthand.
You underscore this issue at CEQ and their reversal. That's
why I firmly believe Congress needs to act on significant
permitting reform to give certainty to the private sector as we
look to develop. We can't go through these ebbs and flows of
where there's a new administrative rule by one Administration,
we have a political turnover, and then now we've completely
reversed it. A lot of these projects take years and millions of
dollars to invest in to get to construction. That uncertainty
dries up private sector investment. And so Congress should act
on aggressive permitting reform and really drive forward, and I
think that can be done while still being good stewards of the
environment and including public comments.
Mr. Babin. Thank you very much. And further, according to
the U.S. Energy Information Administration, no power sector
technology has been responsible for more emission reductions
than natural gas over the past 10 years. We've also moved to
become a top exporter of liquefied natural gas, LNG, allowing
more countries to utilize cleaner fuels, yet time and time
again this Administration continues to criticize this clean
energy, halt pipelines and pipeline construction, and increase
regulations on our own domestic users. How does restricting
fossil fuel development like clean LNG, which is so important
to my district and in my home State, how will this impact
global emission reduction goals?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it's a great question, Congressman, and
we saw this firsthand in Europe as a result of the Russia-
Ukraine crisis.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely.
Mr. Harrell. You know, Europe relies on Russian gas, which
is significantly dirtier than U.S. gas. And the drying up of
those--of that export because of the conflict didn't reduce the
demand on natural gas, right? It meant that they had to look in
other places. And so increasing production here, increasing the
export capability in this country as well not only is good for
energy security across the globe and for our economy but it's
also good for emissions as well because U.S. natural liquefied
natural gas is 30 percent cleaner than, for example, our
Russian competitors.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. I really appreciate you being here,
Mr. Harrell. And with that, I'll yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you so much, and now we will hear
from the Congresswoman from Pennsylvania, Ms. Wild, for five
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Wild. Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I'd like to address the issue that often is paramount in my
district, which is flooding. It's a particular problem in
Pennsylvania's Seventh District, which is the greater Lehigh
Valley of Pennsylvania where residents experience persistent
and severe flooding along the Delaware River due to constant
increased precipitation from climate change. The IPCC
recognizes that historic rainfall is three in ten times more
likely as a result of climate change, and, believe me, people
in my district would absolutely testify to that anecdotally.
And honestly, we lose workdays as people are not able to get to
work and employers have to shut down. We lose--there's a lot of
property damage that results from it. And it's just really a
terrible concern.
So, Ms. Barrett, I'd like to ask you, as we consider near-
term climate adaptation, how is adaptation to inland flooding
included in these methods?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you for that question, and it is
really clear if you just look across the United States in
recent years that flooding is an increasing concern. And I
guess maybe with my NOAA hat on I can say that NOAA is kind of
focusing on getting the best science and information possible
into the hands of decisionmakers to help communities prepare
and adapt to all of the impacts of climate change.
But with respect to inland flooding, that includes better
soil moisture observations, precipitation forecasts, improved
flood inundation mapping, for example. You know, you're
probably aware that NOAA received about $500 million from the
IIJA (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) infrastructure
bill specifically for flood and inundation mapping and
forecasting. So I'd be happy to followup specifically with you
and your office on this effort.
But I also would like to just add, you know, we recognize
the need to update our precipitation estimates. These are the
estimates that are used by Federal, State, and local agencies
to develop regulations related to infrastructure design and
planning. And we provide these for the entire country using the
latest data and using a methodology that considers how these
precipitation patterns are changing.
The current methodology that we use assumes a stationary
climate. And this method is in use everywhere and is peer-
reviewed, but we're now working on the next generation that
will incorporate nonstationary climate, and we hope to get that
out as soon as we can.
Ms. Wild. Thanks so much. And I didn't mention my question
before one of the things that has further exacerbated this in
my district is that we have had a prolific--proliferation, as
many districts have, of warehouses with flat roofs and so
stormwater runoff has really, really contributed to this
problem tremendously and--but that's not just a climate issue,
it's also a planning and infrastructure issue obviously.
I just want to--I have a--almost two minutes left, and I
wanted to bring up the issue of international cooperation. And
I don't need to go through this--what happened with the Paris
agreement. I'm happy that we have rejoined it. But translating
the high-level science at the international level to everyday
individuals is not an easy task. By the way, I'm also, in
addition to being a Member of the Science Committee, a Member
of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Ms. Barrett, in your testimony you mentioned that the
report found that 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in global
hotspots. That's almost half the globe. Can you please explain
to this Committee and the public why we should care so much
about the effects of climate change on populations outside the
United States?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you for that question. And it is
true that, you know, billions of people are affected. You know,
the real answer here is this is a global problem that requires
a global solution, and, you know, the systems are all
interconnected and it's impossible for us to leave anyone
behind as we craft a true and lasting solution to this problem.
So while many of those billions who are most vulnerable
live outside of the bounds of the United States, we also have
people within our own country who are very vulnerable. Often,
these are underserved communities, people of color. And we--you
know, we certainly have a responsibility to them. That can also
set an example for the way that we interact with the rest of
the world.
Ms. Wild. Thank you so much. With that, my time is up and I
yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from
Congressman Garcia for five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks to all of
our guests for today's testimony.
In our mutual goals of reducing emissions and especially
from the Science Committee I think it's important that we
remain goal-oriented. I think we need to remain anchored to
data.
And so, Ms. Barrett, in that regard and especially from an
international perspective, I just had a few questions. One, in
terms of the macro global look, what is the current percentage
of CO2 within our current Earth's atmosphere? You
mentioned in your report that it's the highest concentration in
over 2 million years. What is that concentration?
Ms. Barrett. I'll have to get back to you with the exact
numbers on that. If you'd like the current or are you talking
about in our most recent report? Because there's a bit of a----
Mr. Garcia. Yes, I think it's important for us to have the
perspective over time so we can see rate of change and rate of
change as well.
And then in terms of contributors to this challenge, how
does--which nations are sort of the top three or four
contributors to CO2 emissions?
Ms. Barrett. So if you--if you look kind of at cumulative
emissions, the United States is at the top of that list.
Mr. Garcia. No, I mean today, actual burn rate of
emissions, real-time.
Ms. Barrett. Yes, so for the last decade at the top of that
list has been China.
Mr. Garcia. How do they compare relative to the United
States in terms of either CO2 emissions by ton or I
guess--I guess by ton is probably the right metric, right?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, I don't have those figures just with me
right now, but--and I'd be happy to get it to you, but I can
say that if you look at the trends over the recent decades, the
U.S. trend has been to decrease the rate of growth over these
decades while China is increasing----
Mr. Garcia. Yes, and that's the problem. And actually have
those figures for your reference. China represents about 30
percent of CO2 emissions in the--on the planet,
which is about 10 billion tons, which is about twice as much as
the United States at about five billion tons, five billion with
a B.
And so in your written testimony, you have a statement that
says we have to stay within the 1.5 degrees Celsius warming
trend. If it goes above that, that's effectively a breaking
point. And you said that in order to achieve that, the global
greenhouse gas emissions need to peak before 2025 at the latest
and be reduced in aggregate by 43 percent from 2019 to 2030.
And if what you said is true, which is that China is not
actually decreasing its emissions, we have a bit of a math
problem here. If they're emitting 10 billion tons a year and
we're emitting five billion tons a year, that adds up to 15
billion tons. And a 43 percent reduction would yield about 8.55
billion tons, which means that between the two countries, if we
kept this 2:1 ratio, we would need to be roughly about 3
billion tons of emissions, which is more than our fair share if
China is not reducing.
So my question goes to how do we fix this math problem?
From an international perspective, we have now allocated $8
billion of U.S. taxpayer money to this U.N. climate fund. You
say words like equity and inclusion, but my understanding is
that the money that's going to China through this U.N. climate
fund vehicle is actually going to the Xinjiang province where
we're currently witnessing one of the most brutal genocides in
the history of our planet since World War II with the Uyghur
genocide where we're investing in China or giving money,
American taxpayer dollars to China to build effectively clean
energy. That's the intent. I don't think we have any reporting
mechanisms.
So my question to you from an international perspective and
your position as the Vice Chair of IPCC with the
responsibilities that you have, besides compelling Americans on
how to reduce our emissions, how do we do that for China? And
how do we avoid sending precious American taxpayer dollars to
the Chinese communist government and other bad actors in an
effort to get to lower emissions and ensure that they're
actually spending it on the right projects?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you for that question. I think it's
a good one. But I'll just note, you know, as a science body,
the IPCC doesn't make individual recommendations for any
country, including for the United States. But what we do do is
to highlight that this is a global challenge, as you were
pointing out, and it requires a global solution. The level of
effort that's required to turn the tide on emissions reductions
is heavy. It's big. And all countries will need to do their--to
play their part. I'm certainly--I hope I haven't indicated in
my testimony either oral or written that this is a U.S. problem
to solve. This is a global problem for us to tackle together.
Mr. Garcia. I understand that. I'm out of time, but I'm
just very frustrated that we have no solutions to compel China
besides throwing more taxpayer money at it. I yield back, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Stevens. Great, thank you. And with that, we'll hear
from the Congresswoman from North Carolina for five minutes of
questioning, Congresswoman Ross.
Ms. Ross. Oh, well, thank you so much, Madam Chair, and
thank you to our witnesses for joining us.
Time and again scientists have warned that we're at risk of
doing irreversible damage to our planet. The IPCC's Sixth
Assessment Report does not deviate from this finding in that we
must act now to prevent extreme weather events, protect vital
ecosystems, and reduce emissions to make the world cleaner,
safer, and more livable. If we do nothing to stop the
accelerating pace of climate change, our most vulnerable
communities, as we've heard, including racial and ethnic
minority groups, will shoulder the burdens of these effects.
This underscores the urgency with which we must act.
In doing so, we should rely on studies like the IPCC's
assessment in the discussion today to understand what we can
tangibly and realistically do in the short- and long-term to
mitigate harms. And I want to also say as somebody who's
practiced renewable energy law for more than a decade, I share
my colleagues' concerns that we're not developing alternatives
to carbon producing energy more quickly. And I'm all for
figuring out the best way to solve these problems both
behaviorally and technologically.
I represent North Carolina's Research Triangle, and I'm
proud to have excellent research institutions in my district,
including NC State, working on this issue. They're constantly
innovating to produce technology that combats climate crisis.
My biggest question really is a joint question for Ms.
Barrett and for our Mayor because I love working with my local
elected officials. North Carolina, just like Pennsylvania's
Congressman Wild discuss, is no stranger to extreme weather
events. These events are becoming more and more frequent with
climate change. In 2018 the rapid and unexpected
intensification of Hurricane Florence caused over $1 billion in
damage. And we know that Florida is even more victim to these
hurricanes. I would love to hear from both of you and in
particular maybe leading with our Mayor about the importance of
cooperation at different levels of government, whether there
are specific actions that can improve partnerships between
local government and the Federal Government. So let's start
with our Mayor and then maybe, Ms. Barrett, you can tell us how
you can help our local governments.
Ms. Levine Cava. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, for
the question and the observation. And for sure we benefit from
extraordinary levels of cooperation here in south Florida. We
have this climate compact which encompasses all of the counties
in the region, and we've been working together for over a
decade and been noted as a best practice. So we have annual
conferences, we do research projects together, and we
collaboratively set targets around climate issues. So really
it's a best practice think tank.
I also want to mention our emergency management system in
Florida is very robust because of the history with hurricanes
no doubt, and strong State support from our Department of
Emergency Management and then each county with their own. I,
for example, am incident commander for any hurricanes. When the
building fell in Surfside, I was incident commander. And it's
really critical that we have that support all the way up to the
Federal Government setting best practices, and we're going to
be expanding to an all-hazards approach more robustly, and I
recommend that as well.
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you for your question,
Congresswoman, and I have some roots in North Carolina, so nice
to be able to speak with you.
Maybe from--I'll answer your question from a NOAA
perspective. And I can tell you that NOAA utilizes its boots-
on-the-ground activities across the country to kind of provide
trusted and targeted climate information to its users at all
levels and importantly to learn with them and to bring back
improvements into the services and the science that we produce.
And we are very much focused on strengthening these existing
efforts, including through a network that we have across the
country, the RISA network, our Regional Integrated Sciences and
Assessments program. And also in--this year, we are expanding
our existing climate kind of community services through a new
climate smart communities initiative that will work in tandem
with some of our other programs, including the sea grant
program in all coastal States to scale up and accelerate the
pace of community-scale resilience building and to do it
equitably and inclusively across the Nation.
So there are 30,000 communities across this country, all of
whom need information to help them plan. So we will start the
process to recruit, train, and equip these folks to fund a
cohort of adaptation practitioners who can work in communities
and help to build the resilience plan that we heard the Mayor
speak about in her opening testimony.
Also in our Fiscal Year 2023 budget, we're really looking
to build the way--to pave the way for a role in building a
climate-ready nation.
Ms. Stevens. We're going to have to----
Ms. Barrett. Sorry.
Ms. Stevens [continuing]. Move onto the next question, as
much as we----
Ms. Ross. Sorry. Thank you for your indulgence----
Ms. Stevens [continuing]. No, as much as Ms. Barrett and
the Congresswoman from North Carolina are phenomenal, we have
other Members here waiting, and so if you don't mind, we'll
just pass it over, the five minutes of questioning for Ms. Bice
right now.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Many people know Oklahoma as a top oil and gas producer in
the U.S. And while there is a large and proud presence of that
industry in my home State, Oklahoma is also home to the third-
largest wind production in America, accompanied by solar,
hydropower, and biomass. With a diverse energy portfolio,
Oklahoma has a strong energy hub for the country and has high
standards for the impact this energy production has made on the
environment.
But as the country moves toward a larger use of renewable
energy, one thing that I have concerns about is work force.
It's important to consider the impact of these new technologies
in that space. Mr. Harrell, it's estimated by 2050 roughly 60
to 80 percent of all global energy will need to come from
renewables. At the same time, energy storage jobs are projected
to increase over 800 percent, which is a key piece of deploying
renewable energy. Could we be facing a work force problem that
could slow deployment even further after we develop the
technology? And what is the solution to avoiding that?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman Bice, for your
question. I think it's really important issue to take a look at
as we look at the American supply chain, the work force needed
for deploying new energy technologies as a whole. Absolutely,
we need to be looking in areas. I think one area where I'm
particularly excited that has a lot of promise in your State is
in the geothermal space, a lot of crossover between the oil and
gas industry and geothermal from the drilling techniques. I
think geothermal can play a huge role in meeting our zero
emission firm flexible energy needs, and so utilizing the
engineers who have worked in that industry and leveraging them
in new areas I think are going to be important.
I think there's going to be a lot of opportunities across
other industries as well as we look at, you know, staffing new
nuclear deployments and employing engineers. You know, these
new nuclear designs that we plan to deploy in this country have
nuclear islands, right. So one portion of it is purely nuclear
engineering type things, but the using the heat from it to
generate steam and produce electricity is the same for any type
of power plant, and so there's some really interesting
translations for work force going over there.
But, you know, as we look at it, I think it's important
that we invest in the work force and our communities and ensure
that Americans are benefiting from robust supply chains that
are going to support new clean energy deployment.
Mrs. Bice. I think it's a great point. As we invest in
technology, we also have to be thinking about investing in the
work force because without those work force employees, then
we're not going to be able to deploy.
Mr. Harrell, in 2021 we had the largest single increase in
the buildout of global pipelines for carbon capture and storage
in the United States, was home to nearly 1/2 of the new project
announcements. While this is exciting news, Americans are
constantly hearing false narratives from the other side of the
aisle regarding how pipelines aren't part of a responsible
climate approach. I know ClearPath has done some research on
the topic. Could you talk about how carbon capture and storage
facilities benefit more than just oil and gas?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. Carbon capture is an
essential technology and needed for global emissions
reductions. It is something that the IPCC report, the IEA, and
others have all agreed on. And it's particularly important in
the industrial sector whether it's reducing emissions from
steel production, from gas processing, from cement production.
It's one of those kind of unique technologies that have a wide
array of roles. And so for us to really scale that, we're going
to need CO2 pipeline infrastructure. We're going to
need to be able to move the anthropogenic CO2 that
we're capturing from these facilities to storage sites across
the country.
And then, you know, Mr. Beyer earlier was talking about
carbon removal, same situation. We're going to take CO2
out of the air, we're going to need to move that CO2
and store it underground. So the ability to streamline
permitting, to give certainty to industry as we build that
infrastructure is really going to be essential to meeting our
climate goals and deploying that clean energy infrastructure.
Mrs. Bice. And I think just as a followup to that, some
folks back home that I've spoken to that are in the pipeline
business have indicated that permitting has become a real
problem for them. A permit that may have taken 6 months to
obtain a couple of years ago is now taking 12 to 18 months. And
at that point you're not sure of the feasibility of the
project, right? So I think that it's wise for us to think about
if we're going to invest in these types of technologies, we
need to be able to not only launch those products but get it,
you know, fully implemented through the permitting process.
Last question, can you talk a little bit about hydrogen?
That seems to be a big topic of conversation across the
country. And certainly hydrogen hubs are something that we're
hearing quite a bit about.
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. Hydrogen is a really
important tool across sectors of the economy. Hydrogen can be
used to reduce emissions in the power sector, in the industrial
sector, as a low carbon fuel that combusts to get the heat
needed to make products like steel and potentially as a tool in
transportation as well, most likely with the heavy-duty or
maritime, and so there's a huge opportunity here in the United
States. We have, as I mentioned in my testimony, a global
advantage in the production of it, and so I think we should be
focusing a lot on the hydrogen hubs the Department of Energy
are about to deploy here. I know your State is partnering with
Arkansas and others there. I think it's a really exciting
opportunity.
Ms. Stevens. OK----
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. I was just trying to be fair.
And with that, we're turning to Chairman Bowman for five
minutes of questions.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking Member
Lucas, for holding this hearing, and thank you to the witnesses
for being here today.
I want to call attention to the fact that the latest IPCC
report I believe for the first time explicitly calls out
settler colonialism and capitalism as major causes of climate
vulnerability. For example, it says that present development
challenges causing high vulnerability are influenced by
historical and ongoing patterns of inequity such as
colonialism, especially for many indigenous peoples and local
communities. It says that colonialism and capitalism have
dispossessed indigenous peoples and disrupted culturally
significant multi-species relationships.
This question is for Dr. David-Chavez. Thank you so much
for your testimony. How is settler colonialism and capitalism
linked to the current climate emergency that we are all faced
with and dealing with?
Dr. David-Chavez. Thank you so much. I appreciate this
question and this historical context. Here, we're in a young
colonial nation. We all faced the legacy of colonization and
the agendas driven by colonization, how they've impacted our
relationship as land steward. And indigenous peoples over 500
nations, sovereign nations here in the United States and many
more States recognize indigenous communities, including many in
North Carolina, and also non-federally recognized indigenous
communities and the U.S. territories, for example, have been
stewarding and managing the land with a lot of the same
solutions and strategies that we're now finally looking to
today, 5 centuries later, and have been doing so for
generations, centuries and millennia for many communities.
And colonization has really dispossessed indigenous peoples
of their--that land and severed the ability to uphold those
customary responsibilities that many of our governing bodies,
many of our community members take to be their inherent right
and responsibility to take care of those lands.
And so really that's been one of the biggest impacts, but
also the education system pushing us away from these valuable
bodies of knowledge, including scientific ways of knowing that
we're now working to make sure we can reconnect to and that we
can share those with all the newcomers who share these lands
with us now.
There are some really, really great examples, though, that
I want to highlight of how people are addressing those colonial
legacies. We don't have national policy, as I mentioned, as
many other colonial nations do around truth and reconciliation,
and that creates a big barrier for us and having to educate our
colleagues and our peers here in this Nation. But we do have
some great indigenous scientists and leaders that are leading
the way and showing how we can work through those colonial
legacies and challenges to continue to apply some of those
responsibilities, some of those land management techniques that
have helped us for so long today.
And I wanted to highlight from North Carolina also Ryan
Emanuel from Lumbee's work as a leading hydrologist that's
looking at using the best scientific technology available and
indigenous ways of knowing to assess how we can address flood
risks. Dr. Karletta Chief in the Southwest who's leading the
Indigenous Resilience Center, so we have a lot of other
examples of----
Mr. Bowman. I want to try to squeeze in another question.
I'm so sorry. Thank you so much for that.
The IPCC report says that global investment in climate
action is up to six times lower than what is needed by 2030. It
also notes that public and private finance flows for fossil
fuels are still greater than those for adaptation and
mitigation. We are all very familiar with how the fossil fuel
industry has lied to the public over decades and continues to
lobby against climate action and for more fossil fuel growth
even though their existing infrastructure is enough to blow the
world past safe levels of warming.
My question for the panel, why aren't we mobilizing our
society on a wartime footing to deploy renewable energy and
create millions of good union jobs starting in marginalized
communities? Why are we risking the future of humanity to
protect the fossil fuel industry? We can start with Ko Barrett,
please.
Ms. Barrett. Well, thank you for your question. I mean, I
think the--an answer that I'd like to share is that we actually
are setting forward on the path to address this issue. It is
not a question of us, you know, standing still. We have shown
that, you know, if we invest now, we can avoid damages,
especially in adaptation, sooner than later. And it's really
important to do that. It's true that if you look at the
commitments that countries have made to developing countries,
we have not met those commitments.
Mr. Bowman. Thank you. I know I'm out of time. I yield
back.
Ms. Stevens. With the--we're going to hear from Mr.
Obernolte for five minutes of questions.
Mr. Obernolte. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to our
witnesses.
Ms. Barrett, I'd like to have a discussion about some of
the working group reports. The--and frankly, I found them very
discouraging reading. They paint a very bleak picture of where
we're at and where we're going. And the--I'll tell you the
thing that keeps me up at night is thinking about feasibility
because it's clear that--from the reports that the situation is
dire. It's clear from the reports that the longer we wait to
take action, the more catastrophic the problem will become. In
fact, just reading from the working group 3 report here, it
says all global model pathways that limit warming to 1.5
degrees Celsius with no or limited overshoot and those that
limit warming to 2 degrees Celsius involve rapid and deep and
in most cases immediate greenhouse gas emissions reductions in
all sectors. The working group report spends just a little bit
of space at the end talking about feasibility.
But, I mean, here's what keeps me up at night is, you know,
worrying about whether or not--how feasible it is for even--for
us to even get here. I mean, we're the U.S. Congress obviously.
We only have control over one country, the United States of
America, and our country accounts for something like 13 percent
of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. If you look at other
developed countries, and not to pick on a country like India,
but it's a developing country. And I'm only mentioning India
because their population is so large and it makes the math
easier. You know, as those developing populations emerge from
poverty, they're going to consume more energy as their
lifestyle increases. And even if they were to consume energy
with the efficiency of a developed country like Japan, which is
probably the best of the developed world in terms of per capita
consumption, that would still increase global greenhouse gas
emissions by about 25 percent.
So, I mean, this is where we're at, right? The United
States the last few years has been decreasing our global gas--
greenhouse gas emissions. The worldwide greenhouse gas
emissions are going up. And even if we completely eliminate our
greenhouse gas emissions, that would continue to be the case.
So give me some hope here, Ms. Barrett. What--how feasible is a
solution to this problem?
Ms. Barrett. Well, Congressman, I think you have put your
finger on a really big challenge, and that is that things are
still going in the wrong direction. And as many developing
countries look to further develop, the pressure on the climate
system is only going to grow. That's why I think it's really
important to look at some of the options that we have available
in all sectors right now to start to make a difference, to set
an example here in the United States. And in some cases these
developing countries can leapfrog technologies and not
necessarily have to go through all of the stages of development
that are heavy in the fossil fuel use.
But I think it also points to an interesting challenge
because we have at this hearing talked a lot about innovation.
And it's true there are so many possibilities with innovation,
but we're in a race with the risks that we are facing as, you
know, increasing warming faces this planet. So we've really got
to take best advantage of the options we have available to us
now while we also----
Mr. Obernolte. Sure. I mean, I would agree. But
unfortunately, even if a developing economy like India were to,
as you suggest, skip over fossil fuels and go straight to the
best of what we have accomplished in the developed world right
now, it still wouldn't be enough. I mean, it would still--
India's overall greenhouse gas emission would still increase 25
percent if they were at the level of Japan. So, I mean, is
there any hope do you think--well, let me ask the question
differently. What is your confidence level that we can
stabilize worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, I mean, let alone
start reducing them in this century?
Ms. Barrett. I'm fairly confident that we can reduce them
this century, and I think the IPCC reports would support that.
It is a heavy lift. It--there's no getting around that. But,
you know, I think it's also important to look beyond the kind
of international level and to look at the opportunities that
exist at every level of society. And one of the things that I
think the IPCC report on mitigation did quite well was to also
look at subnational actors like Mayor Levine Cava--even
citizens groups are engaging in this topic.
And I personally maintain optimism. I've been working in
this field for 20 years because I think we have no other choice
but to solve this problem.
Mr. Obernolte. Sure. Well, I would agree. It's--I see I'm
out of time, but I would agree with you that we have no choice,
but I don't share your optimism. And unfortunately, the
decisions that we make on mitigation have serious consequences
economically for the same groups that we're trying to protect
because by raising the cost of energy, we lower people's
standard of living. By raising the cost of goods that are
manufactured, we lower their standard of living. So it's a
slippery slope that we're on, and that's why I was looking for
a little bit of hope. You remain an optimist, I remain a
pessimist, but it's a fascinating discussion. I thank you for
the testimony. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stevens. Mr. Obernolte might not have been here for the
first five minutes of questioning, but we did talk about
optimism, hope, and frustration.
So with that, we'll pass it over to the Chairwoman from New
Jersey for five minutes of questioning, Ms. Sherrill.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you so much. And thank you to all our
panelists for being here today and our witnesses.
While Federal action is critical, local governments are on
the frontlines of the climate crisis in New Jersey. And IPCC
provides critical insights for policymakers at all levels of
government. But local leaders of smaller cities and towns don't
necessarily have the resources to integrate this and take this
vital information and put it into their local planning.
So, Ms. Barrett, NOAA and other Federal agencies have a
wealth of information about climate and weather hazards, as
well as many different programs housed in different offices
that could help local communities make climate-smart decisions
to protect themselves from extreme weather. How can local
leaders, especially in smaller towns with few resources like a
small town mayor in my New Jersey district, integrate
information and tools from all the different agencies'
websites, platforms, and data sources? Would a single-stop
planning tool that pools information and solutions from all
agencies be better for communities than having to go to each
agency's different climate platform?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, and thank you for that question, and I
think you are really putting your finger on something we hear
again and again from local communities across the country
because requests for climate information and support come into
many Federal agencies through their specific clientele. You can
take, for example, farmers who may be interested in the
seasons' possible threats. They may come directly to NOAA to
ask for information on those hazards, or they may run through
USDA (United States Department of Agriculture), which is a
primary source of support for them. And ideally, we would have
an interwoven Federal information system that connects all
portals to the information folks are looking for.
I will say to this end NOAA is utilizing some of our
infrastructure funding to work with USGS (United States
Geological Survey) and other Federal agencies on what we're
calling a climate resilience information system to bring
together this information to do exactly what you are pointing
as a need so that we can build the information from across the
Federal Government and make it more easily accessible to those
who need it.
Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you. I applaud your focus on that
because I know it would be something we would really find
helpful in New Jersey.
I'd also like to ask about, you know, education because
educating the next generation of climate professionals is
really a critical part of our preparedness. And there are
several provisions in the America COMPETES Act which focused on
the development of a climate-ready next-generation work force.
So Mayor or any of our witnesses, what kind of professional
training is currently offered at State and local levels?
Ms. Levine Cava. Thank you so very much, Congresswoman. And
I would like to also say that I totally agree with you that
that's a critical concern that was raised earlier. We are
working very aggressively with our work force board to totally
revamp our job training. That would be through high school,
second--you know, and postsecondary as well to address the new
jobs, the new economy, so much so that we're looking at
spending money on apprenticeship exactly to start people in
jobs, try to make sure that we can match the talent pipeline
with the existing new jobs because we know for the industry
everybody's looking. They don't always find people with the
requisite skills, and so we're aggressively partnering to make
that happen.
Ms. Sherrill. Mayor, who are you looking to to do that? Are
you looking at your community colleges? Are you looking at your
State's--like how are you--are you even going back to high
school? Like how are you creating those programs? Where are you
looking to fund apprenticeships or where are you looking to put
resources?
Ms. Levine Cava. Well, the county actually put $5 million
of the American Rescue Plan into a pipeline training at our
community college matched by the Knight Foundation, a locally
headquartered national foundation, and other dollars were put
into our other--well, our other universities so that we could
create a continuum.
And to get to the point about collaboration, I'm--my middle
name is collaboration. I do everything that way. And so not
only do we have all the universities come together around a
pipeline initiative, they actually have a place where they set
an agenda and work together on this. We also have the cities
within my county of 3 million. There are 20--34 cities, and we
regularly convene all of them, provide technical assistance,
share resource information. We're looking together at grant
applications around this whole field because what benefits one
city benefits the other, et cetera.
Ms. Sherrill. Well, thank you. Some great ideas to take
back. And my time has expired. Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. And who would have guessed that Ms. Sherrill
and my middle name are also collaboration.
With that, we'll hear from Mr. Feenstra for five minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens and Ranking
Member Lucas. I want to thank all the experts on the panel for
sharing their expertise and experience on these issues today.
Mr. Harrell, thank you for being here in person. I really
appreciate that. I've got a question. There have been
significant investments being made by the DOE, as well as
incentives like 45Q tax credit that has spurred on a lot of
private industry. In your mind, have those been successful in
incentivizing the private sector to invest in these
innovations?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, I think 45Q is the most robust tool
frankly in the world to catalyze the deployment of CCUS, and we
saw that firsthand last year. The largest influx of CCUS
projects in the global pipeline and over half of them are in
the United States, a good chunk of them in the Midwest because
of some significant opportunities, particularly in the ethanol
space in CCUS, so I think that's exciting. And I think it's
important that the credit had some long-term certainty, right?
The most recent reform that was enacted gives some certainty
into the later 2020's, and so it's driving private-sector
investment into this sector.
Mr. Feenstra. Do you see anything now--I mean, we have 45Q.
It's a great tax credit. I firmly agree with you. Is there
anything else that we can do on the research side to further
innovation like this? I mean, we're looking at it from the tax
side now with 45Q, but is there anything else that we can think
outside the box and say, hey, this might further private
incentivization?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it's a great question, Congressman. An
idea that's out there that has strong bipartisan support is the
energy sector innovation credit, and so it gets to a tax policy
that really gets at the crux of catalyzing new innovative
technologies. It's what we're seeing in 45Q. It's catalyzing
the first wave of projects, so the energy sector innovation
credit is most robust when a technology is nascent, so the
first few projects and then naturally wanes down as the
technology becomes more commercially viable and is stronger--or
shown its commercial viability. And so a policy like that could
help drive investments into new technologies, give confidence
to investors to deploy these kind of first-of-the-kind type
things, and then get out of the way once it's proved itself
commercially viable.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, well, I thank you for that. I think it's
very important.
One of my colleagues, Congresswoman Bice, noted that energy
storage jobs are projected to increase by over 800 percent over
the next several years. I want to come at it from a different
angle because I've heard from Congresswoman Sherrill also
talking about jobs and stuff. But how can NSF (National Science
Foundation) play a role in terms of student development and how
we can use NSF in a way that's meaningful in this job creation?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. I think it's an important
Federal organization that can help bolster STEM (science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics) education in this
country, involving more folks to go into this industry and want
to innovate to find new ways to do storage that doesn't require
these minerals that we have to be reliant on from China, and so
using kind of the strong science institutions in this country
to bolster a U.S. supply--U.S. work force I think is really
important.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, yes. And finally--sorry to keep picking
on you----
Mr. Harrell. Yes.
Mr. Feenstra [continuing]. But I'm one of the largest ag
industries in the country, my district is, and obviously
there's a lot of concern about a lot of regulatory issues
coming down the pipe. We've talked already about the NEPA
(National Environmental Policy Act). My farmers are really
concerned about this. And I just want to know what your
thoughts are. Is this something I should worry about, they
should worry about? Is it detrimental? And I look at it from my
ag industry that they're volunteers and they do a great job of,
you know, volunteering to do better for their soils and
conservation and all these things. And I just wondered what
your thoughts are when we further down the path to restore the
NEPA in 2023?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, I absolutely agree. I think we should be
looking for ways the Federal Government can partner with the ag
producers to deploy technologies that do more sustainable ag
practices, for example, things along those lines. You know, if
we're truly going to deal with emissions related to
agricultural activities, we need to be innovative, we need to
be nimble, we need to try new things and drive new technologies
forward. I think that's an important piece of the puzzle.
Mr. Feenstra. And saying that, how do you do that with the
family farm, right? Do we incentivize them? How do we create
the carrot? Do you have any ideas on the carrot of how we do
this?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it's a great question. Yes, I think there
are incentives that could be utilized, especially, you know,
next Congress we're going to be looking at a farm bill
reauthorization, so looking at some of the USDA programs the
partner with family farmers that can help them pilot new
techniques, things along those lines because those are the
folks with low margins who really can't take that financial
risk. And I think that is where the role of government makes
sense, right, and helping partner and drive forward solutions.
Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you for your comments, and I
yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Always a delight to hear about tax incentives.
And with that, we're going to hear from Mr.--Dr. Foster for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Chair Stevens, Ranking Member Lucas,
and the witnesses for joining us here today.
Developing energy storage technology will be critical as
greener but more intermittent sources like wind and solar
become a larger part of our generation mix. Because of this,
last Congress I introduced the Better Energy Storage, or BEST
Act, along with my colleague from this Committee Representative
Sean Casten. The legislation directs the Secretary of Energy to
establish aggressive goals to develop improved capacity at
targeting lower cost for grid scale storage. I'm proud that the
BEST Act became law in 2020. It was a step in the right
direction, but we need to do more and use all of the tools that
we have available to us scientifically and legislatively.
The Department of Energy recently announced long-duration
storage Earthshot initiatives to accelerate breakthroughs in
this area. This is a great first step, but the primary focus of
DOE's initiative is on storage systems that deliver on the time
scale of ten hours of energy storage. What is missing here is a
focus on the energy storage that addresses the summer-winter
problem and not the--just the day-night problem or the weekly
fluctuation problem.
And so, Mr. Harrell, what--how can Congress implement
policies that will continue to incentivize advancements of
these much more challenging long-term seasonal-level storage
technologies, you know, especially since recovering the capital
cost of these investments is really tough for our energy system
that's only charged and discharged, you know, once a year?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, that's a great question, Congressman. And
thank you for your leadership on these issues. Obviously,
catalyzing new storage technologies is really essential to
bringing technologies to market and decarbonizing the power
sector. I think there is a huge opportunity here, so the
Department of Energy has roughly half a billion dollars to
invest in new energy storage cost shares over the next five
years and important authorizations directing them to do that in
the next--very soon through the legislation that you enacted.
We need to ensure there's a diversity of technologies that
they invest in there, long duration, that kind of ten-hour
stuff is important, but the seasonal issues are extremely
important as well. And so I'm really encouraged by the private
sector investment in the storage space, and I think there's a
bunch of really nascent venture companies coming forward. But
we need, you know, that type of partnership to deploy the
first-of-a-kind technologies and so ensuring that there is
technological diversity, and that's particularly been a problem
in the storage space.
We were doing some analysis on Office of Electricity spend
recently and see that storage--those offices haven't done, you
know, competitive cost shares to deploy new grid scale
technologies, and I think it's why legislation like yours is so
important.
Mr. Foster. Yes, but there's still--you know, there's a
difference in how you incentivize it if it is the summer-winter
problem because it's just really tough to--you know, you have
to have some understanding of what the summer-winter cost
difference will be for marginal electricity. You have to
understand what the cost of the alternative, which is to
demand, you know, management and just say, OK, some industries
are going to go offline and handle it that way, just say we'll
make steel when we have extra electricity and we won't when we
won't, you know, this sort of approach. And so how is that
modeled, and how is that--you know, how do we understand
whether the incentives that we're putting in place will really
model the way the economy will work when everything gets built?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it really underscores the need to
modernize our systems as a whole here in the United States, the
electricity system, our grid management, making things more
cohesive so we can make those strategic decisions to balance
energy demands where they're needed, whether it's due to, you
know, seasonal needs from just, you know, needing more heat in
the winter, things along those lines or, you know, dealing
with, you know, heavy manufacturing, things along those lines.
And so I think investments across grid management and
partnering with, you know, our utility sector and heavy
industrial users to make those strategic decisions is going to
be really important.
Mr. Foster. But, yes, the toughest thing is we have to
know--we have to understand what the cost arbitrage
possibilities are for this is that how much is someone really
going to pay you for storing--you know, storing energy when
it's cheap and giving it back to you when it's somewhat more
expensive.
Anyway, so when you figure that out, let me know. There's a
need for Federal action here.
Mr. Harrell. Fortunately, you know, PGM--that covers your
State in the Midwest--do have these kind of multifaceted
markets to try to value storage and assets along those lines.
We don't have this type of structures, you know, in other parts
of the country as well.
Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. My time is up, and I yield
back.
Ms. Stevens. Great. And with that, we will hear from Mr.
LaTurner for five minutes of questioning.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it.
My questions are for Mr. Harrell.
Climate change is certainly a serious issue, and I think
evidence shows that the United States has taken it seriously.
Without sweeping social legislation or economic restructuring,
our Nation's greenhouse gas emissions have declined 21 percent
since 2005. I believe this Committee models how it is possible
to work together in a bipartisan way to discuss legislative
incentives for emissions reduction. However, I'm concerned that
many of the current Administration's actions are focused more
on sending a message to their progressive base than actually
producing reductions in global emissions.
Unfortunately, this has often led to decisions that come
with a huge economic and minimal emissions reductions. For
example, the Wyoming Energy Authority estimated that the ban on
Federal land oil and gas leases would cost the United States
$33.5 billion in GDP and $8.3 billion in State tax revenues.
The cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline instantly
eliminated 1,000 jobs and materials that would have been
transported via pipeline and now will require higher carbon-
emitting forms of transportation.
Instead of American energy, countries are forced to depend
more heavily on volatile nations like Russia whose natural gas
exports to Europe have 41 percent higher lifecycle emissions
than ours. Rather than cutting back American energy production
during a period of domestic inflation and an energy crisis in
Eastern Europe, are there any cost-effective ways to deploy
clean energy solutions right now?
Mr. Harrell. Congressman, thank you for the question, and
thank you for your leadership of this Committee on important
bills like the SUPER Act that was approved earlier last year on
a bipartisan basis. It's a really important question as we move
forward here.
I think there's three things that we--that would make sense
for this Committee to move forward on. One, continuing to
double down on driving down the cost of clean energy here.
Making clean energy cheaper and more affordable is important to
both not only meeting our energy needs but also, you know,
seizing, you know, export opportunities or filling important
energy security opportunities. We saw this, as you mentioned,
you know, firsthand in Europe as their reliance on Russian gas
was particularly troublesome and limited, frankly, the West's
ability to respond to a Russian aggression.
We need to streamline permitting here in this country so
that we can deploy technologies faster, so that's an increase
in clean energy generation in this country, demonstrating new
technologies that we can then market to the world, and
increasing production of clean resources. So, you know, for
example, we think hydrogen is a huge opportunity, given that we
have a competitive advantage there and we can produce low
intensity carbon intensity hydrogen, for example. And so I
think those type of measures take a lot of sense as we look to
drive down the cost of clean energy and increase our energy
independence and security.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you for that answer. I'm going to stick
with you. The United States has some of the most affordable
energy in the world. Electricity prices here are three times
lower than in many European countries. Do you know of any
country that is currently reducing emissions in a more cost-
effective way than the United States? And if you do, how can we
model that behavior?
Mr. Harrell. I mean, as I mentioned in my testimony today,
I think that the United States' role is this very issue. There
is no one better at innovating and creating new cost-effective
clean energy technologies. The major global gains that we've
received--seen over the last decade that have helped reduce the
forecast that the IPCC has made, for example, on climate
impacts is a result of the buildout of solar, wind, natural
gas, and battery technologies that U.S. investments played a
major part in making cost-effective. We need to do more of that
across clean technology, across sectors of the economy. That's
why think we need to spend more time on innovation in the
industrial sector, for example, because I think we can be a
global producer that provides low carbon materials to the world
as we look to support growth in countries and support American
competitiveness and American supply chains.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you for that. Nuclear power is a
relatively clean form of energy when stacked up against
traditional fuels like coal or natural gas. Even so, the State
of New York shut down multiple reactors, citing environmental
concerns. When they couldn't completely fill the energy void
with other forms of renewable technology, they had to
supplement their energy production with gas-fired generators,
and their emissions actually rose in the long run. My own
district in Kansas is home to the Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating
Station, which generates enough electricity to power more than
800,000 homes, a perfect example of the efficacy of
nontraditional forms of energy production. Can you expand on
the importance of the current nuclear system in meeting climate
goals and speak to the market potential of American investment
in advanced nuclear power?
Mr. Harrell. Absolutely.
Mr. LaTurner. And do it quickly. I'm out of time.
Mr. Harrell. Existing nuclear is essential to preserve. We
need to grow our share of nuclear power in this country, zero
emission electricity, and so preserving the existing fleet
while deploying this new wave of technologies is essential to
meeting our climate goals and is a huge opportunity abroad as
well. The global nuclear demand market is over $1 trillion, and
so we need to seize it.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Thanks
for the indulgence.
Ms. Stevens. No, that's great. That's great. Anything for
the gentleman from Kansas.
With that, we will hear now from a wonderful mathematician,
the Congressman from California.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairlady for that
introduction, and I thank the witnesses for appearing and
testifying today.
My first few questions are going to go to Ms. Barrett. NOAA
is doing critical work within the Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research to improve our observation of aerosols and
our understanding of their impact on Earth's radiation budget.
Measuring aerosols in Earth's radiation budget is essential to
determining emissions levels and pathways. Working group one
details this extensively. Ms. Barrett, can you speak to the
importance of this research and what gaps still exist in our
understanding?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you, Congressman McNerney, for your
question, good to see you.
As you point out, that research is really essential. Some
of the largest gaps in our understanding of the climate system
have to do with aerosols, and so we're very proud to be
engaging in that research and including expanding our
observations into the stratosphere, which is very under-
sampled.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. What resources does NOAA
need to improve our understanding of aerosols, cloud aerosol
interactions, and atmospheric chemistry?
Ms. Barrett. I don't have a figure for you off the top of
my head, but I can say that we very much appreciate the
approximate $10 million we get a year to advance the modeling
we have in the observations that are underway. That--you know,
clouds are so hard to model, and they are yet so important to
getting the projections right. So, yes, we're just very
grateful to have that--the support to, you know, make sure that
we're getting ahead on this important question.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the Committee generously gave me an
extra minute or so, so I'm going to take advantage of that.
Are there any existing efforts to work with non-Federal
partners in partnerships to improve this data and fill the gaps
in?
Ms. Barrett. I'll have to get back to you on that. I'm sure
there are, but I just don't have that at the ready. Sorry,
Congressman.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. On biodiversity, working group
two report details how climate change poses risks for
biodiversity loss across multiple ecosystems, including
forests, kelp, seagrass, coral reefs, and terrestrial systems.
I just saw a pretty devastating article in the New York Times
lately as well. Ms. Barrett, to your knowledge is NOAA or any
other Federal agency doing any work to quantify biodiversity
loss?
Ms. Barrett. I will have to check with the folks in my
agency and across the Federal Government. You know, it is--you
have pointed out that the issue of biodiversity loss and
climate change together is kind of a compounding effect, and
our working group two report really did spend quite a bit of
time assessing the information and the way these two work
together. In fact, our IPCC report had a whole section on
biodiversity hotspots across the world. And I'm sure that there
are folks in NOAA who are engaged in this, and I'd be happy to
get back with some specific information.
Mr. McNerney. Well, good. I mean, there's no quantitative
way to do this that I know of, and I think it's going to be
really important for holding corporations accountable for some
of the stuff they do.
On drought adaptation, the working group 2 report focuses
on adaptation and vulnerabilities. One of the major impacts of
climate change in my district is the drought conditions. The
American West is now in the worst drought period of over 1,000
years, which means that decisionmakers are more reliant than
ever on high-quality data to inform adaptation strategies. Ms.
Barrett, how has technology for addressing drought and
freshwater evolved over time? And can it be improved to help
communities adapt to a future with more severe water shortages?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thanks for that question. As you're
aware, you know, at NOAA we lead the National Integrated
Drought Information System, which is coordinated across Federal
agencies and with municipalities and localities who are in the
midst of what you rightly have identified as a mega drought
unlike what we've seen for a long, long time.
I believe that the technologies for soil moisture
measurement and forecasting have advanced. I'd be happy to get
back to you with more specific information on the ways that
that is evolving.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Can aerial detection be as good as in
situ measurements?
Ms. Barrett. I don't know the answer to that question. My
gut is that you always need in situ measurements in order to do
the ground truthing, but I hesitate to say that with
definitive, you know, statement.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I didn't mean to stump you with
all these hard questions.
The next question----
Ms. Stevens. And stretch the time.
Mr. McNerney. If you want to gavel me down, go ahead.
Ms. Stevens. Please proceed.
Mr. McNerney. My next question goes to Mayor Levine Cava.
The IPCC report states that in order to limit warming to 1.5
degrees Celsius, we have to hit peak global missions by 2025.
Geez, that's kind of short. How would you incorporate findings
from the IPCC report in your local level decisionmaking around
mitigation and adaptation strategies?
Ms. Levine Cava. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
We have set a goal to reduce emissions by 1/2 by 2030 and fully
by 2050. Now, I have pushed my team to revisit those and see
how we could do better. Of course, there's only so much that I
can control as the Mayor of the county. We have to work with
our partners, our utilities, our private sector. And one of our
most successful approaches is working with private property
owners to reduce emissions in buildings, which are the second-
largest producer of carbon. And our Building Efficiency 305 has
been a great success.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, and I yield.
Ms. Stevens. And with that, we will hear from the
Congressman from Ohio for several minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. Since the purpose of
today's hearing is to establish the need for climate action, I
want to spend some time focusing on a couple of important
realities in the critical mineral space that have significant
implications for the energy transition.
First, I believe it's indisputable that a low carbon future
will be very mineral-intensive. World Bank projects the
production of graphite, lithium, and cobalt will need to
significantly be ramped up by more than 450 percent by 2050,
supply of other minerals such as nickel 200 to 600 percent. To
put that in perspective, the compounding annual growth rate of
nickel, which is not a rare material, is anywhere from zero to
five percent. So to respond to a rapid demand, researchers at
MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) suggest we need to
hit 10 percent. So these are big changes.
Second, I believe it's equally indisputable that our supply
chain here in the United States is far too reliant on imports
from Russia and China, which currently controls over 40 percent
of nickel production, 60 percent of cobalt and lithium
production, and 90 percent of global rare earth production.
Final point which I--maybe is in dispute but I believe it,
is that the next decade with respect to both Russia and China
is likely to see more conflict, not less than the previous
decade. So all of that points toward the need to secure our
supply chains, which means promoting domestic production and
processing, cooperating with allies, and finding ways to
diversify away from China and Russia.
Mr. Harrell, two things seem straightforward to me. One, as
I said, reducing supply chain reliance on China and Russia is
good; and second, reducing our dependence lowers global
emissions since we know China's grid relies heavily upon oil
and--or, I'm sorry, upon coal. So my question is you mention
permitting being an important tool for accelerating domestic
production of critical minerals. Can you just drill down on
that specifically with respect to the minerals that are needed
to help us in the energy transition?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. Thank you, Congressman, for
the question, and thank you for your leadership on legislation
like the SUPER Act and the BEST Act that we were discussing
earlier on storage technologies. It's really important.
Yes, as you know, the United States is import-reliant on 30
of 35 critical minerals and has zero production capacity of 14
of those. That's a huge problem. We're going to need those
minerals for deploying a wide array of energy technologies, and
it's nearly impossible to permit these big projects. You know,
I did a lot of work in the Nevada delegation, home to many of
our hard rock minerals in this country, and I saw firsthand
project after project how difficult it was to get through the
permitting process. There's a lithium project that just got
cleared about 2 months ago that I was working on almost a
decade ago. And there are really no major dynamics around that
project that has changed other than it just took them forever
to move forward. And we know how important lithium is in
particular.
I think 10 years is probably the extreme, but it's
certainly taking 5, 6, 7 years. And as we look at some of these
important timelines of deploying these technologies in securing
American supply chains, you know, 2030, 2040 is not far--not
that far away, especially if we're talking about 5-, 6-year
chunks to permit these projects.
Mr. Gonzalez. So you said 10 years. So an IEA analysis of
major mines they came online over the last decade shows that it
takes a little over 16 years to develop projects from discovery
to first production. On average, it takes more than 12 years to
complete exploration and feasibility studies, 4 to 5 years for
the construction phase. This obviously raises significant
questions about the ability to ramp up production quickly to
meet the growing demand. What role can this Committee play
specifically? Like how--what--if you were advocating for a
piece of legislation, how can we speed this up so that we can
actually hit targets and not be so reliant on Russia and China
for what is essentially going to be our energy raw materials?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it's an important question. I mean, I
think we need to set big, bold goals in this country on
permitting, and I think that's both project deployment and its
supply chain-related cues. And so setting key targets, trying
to set deadlines on the Federal agencies, trying to make sure
that we're looking at these issues, you know, with diligence
but, you know, getting to a record of decision and moving
forward. And I think that's something that we absolutely could
do here. I think we need to be investing in new types of
technologies that make it easier and more cost-effective to
extract these minerals to reduce the environmental impact of
those minerals, and I think that's the bread-and-butter of this
Committee, right, the Science and Technology Committee and the
research that we could be doing on enhancing U.S. supply
chains.
Mr. Gonzalez. Yes, thank you. With my last 10 seconds I
guess I would just repeat the point we're going to need a lot
of critical minerals. We produce very few of them in this
country. And if COVID and Ukraine have taught us anything, it's
that supply chains can be weaponized and they will be
weaponized in the future if we aren't careful. So with that, I
yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Hear, hear for supply chains.
And with that, we will hear from Congresswoman Fletcher for
five minutes of questioning.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Chairwoman Stevens. I
always enjoy hearing the questions from my friend from Ohio,
Mr. Gonzalez, and I'm glad to follow some really interesting
questions, many of which I have but I have many more, and so I
have missed a few from the hearing. I hope I'm not repeating
for any of our witnesses, but I want to thank you for
everything I've heard from you today. I know it is so helpful
to me and to the Committee as we do our work. Your insights are
incredibly valuable. And I want to ask a little bit about how
we in the Federal Government can build on what we're learning
here today.
In my hometown of Houston, which for more than a century
has been the epicenter of U.S. energy system and which is today
the energy capital of the world, as my colleagues are so used
to hearing me say. We know and understand the many challenges
that we face in this moment from meeting the growing demand for
lower emission, cleaner, lower carbon energy to responding to
the effects of climate change that we are already seeing in our
community. We've seen it in historic storms and rain events
that have devastated our community year after year after year.
And what we know for sure is that we need smart policies to
address the reality and the urgency of climate change, the
concerns for our environment, and the impacts of these
challenges on our communities. And what we know is that we need
people to come together as advocates and neighbors to be a part
of the solution.
I want to note that Houston has an energy transition
strategy that represents a real effort to bring people together
around this challenge that we're talking about today. It
complements a range of other initiatives in our community,
including our city of Houston's climate action plan and local
initiatives around hydrogen and carbon capture, really taking
on serious questions about how we develop and scale the right
technologies, how we create in-service markets, what the energy
mix looks like and the sources of energy into the future, and
really investing in the right priorities and making those
investments. It's a challenge that I think we are uniquely and
also determined to lead from Houston.
And I think there's also a really important role that we've
been discussing today and that we all know for the Federal
Government to play in this process in bringing people together
from across the country and leading people around the world.
And so we know the Federal Government has many programs to
assist decisionmakers like us as we develop and enact plans,
you know, between NOAA and all of its work and the other
programs that fall whether it's the Geological Survey, the
Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, other
agencies. There are a lot of things that the Federal Government
is and can do.
And what I'd like to ask all of you is sort of one general
question with the opportunity to add to it in written testimony
because we've got about 2 minutes left, so maybe 30 seconds for
our witnesses about which Federal climate programs are
practices you think are working and which ones you think are
not working well, Federal capabilities that should or could be
altered or ramped up to expedite climate action, given the
urgency of the moment.
So with that, maybe I'll start with Ms. Barrett and then go
to each of you.
Ms. Barrett. Thank you for that question, and I'll just try
to answer very quickly. I think there are a number of Federal
programs that are working quite well across the Nation and
specifically at the local level. Within NOAA, we have our
Regional Integrated Science and Assessments program that works
quite well with the hubs and other agencies, and there's just a
tremendous amount of on-the-ground work that needs to be done
that needs to be linked to the extensive resources we have in
the Federal Government that we need to get into the hands of
decisionmakers.
Mrs. Fletcher. Terrific. Thank you so much. And I would say
for everyone, if you have specific suggestions, that would be
great to get in the written testimony as well.
I'll go next to Ms. David-Chavez.
Dr. David-Chavez. Yes, thank you for the question. And I'll
just bring to the Congress the attention of the USGS Climate
Adaptation Science Centers, the regional science centers, as
effective hubs and resources, and appreciate the recent request
for proposals that are considering the end users that need that
data, bringing them in and bringing in community partners to
lead in the research and to inform the design and what
questions we're asking, what data we're gathering.
Mrs. Fletcher. Great. Thanks so much. And, Mayor Cava?
Ms. Levine Cava. Thank you. I want to underscore that NOAA
has been incredibly valuable to us and is locally present in a
number of ways, and the Army Corps because we have a serious
need for infrastructure support, and we want them to be more
flexible in how they use those dollars, and we've been working
with them to try to make that so. Also flexible funding like
what happened with COVID was extremely valuable to us at the
local level, but we do think that there should be guardrails
about guidance for communities and how they interpret building
resiliently and the adaptation and mitigation strategies. But
more flexibility locally not just going through the States.
Thank you very much.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much. And, Chairwoman Stevens,
I see I've gone over my time. I haven't gotten to Mr. Harrell.
Maybe, Mr. Harrell, if you could submit that for the record, I
would be very interested in your response as well. And I thank
all of you so much for your time today. And Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentlelady yields back. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Gimenez for five minutes, please.
If we don't have--OK, we evidently don't have Mr. Gimenez,
so we'll go to Representative Baird, please, for five minutes.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank our witnesses
for being here today.
You know, one of the things that I think we need to talk
about and the Committee has a history of working with the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), especially when it comes
to advanced reactor licensing. And at that point should the NRC
or at what point really should the NRC be involved in the
research and development process like the Advanced Reactor
Demonstration Program or one of the test reactor facilities?
And then if you respond to that, just how critical is their
flexibility to be the ultimate commercialization of advanced
reactors and clean energy? Mr. Harrell?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, Congressman, thank you for the question,
and thank you for your strong leadership on innovation here at
this Committee. It's a great question, and the answer is the
NRC needs to be working now with all these innovators. So we
know firsthand there's an array of startup nuclear technologies
in this country that are racing toward commercialization. The
NRC is likely going to get at least 6 applications over the
next 36 months for projects that want to deploy over the next 6
or 7 years. They need to be working proactively now in pre-
application process, getting ready, partnering with the
Department of Energy so they've got a good grasp of the
technological things. It's going to be a challenge because it's
going to be the first time that they are licensing non-light
water designs in many cases. And in the case of small modular
reactors, the first time that they're looking at the true risk
of what is a significantly smaller reactor that doesn't have--
need big security zones, for example.
So we need to modernize the NRC's regulations to
accommodate the true risk profile of these designs, which is
significantly less, though our existing fleet is very, very
safe, and ultimately be a nimble regulator so we can seize the
international market. I mean, we're seeing firsthand--you know,
I've heard from a variety of these U.S. developers. They are
hearing from Europeans now who desperately want these designs
as they're looking to increase their energy security as they've
seen the ramifications of the reliance on Russian gas, for
example.
Mr. Baird. Very interesting. And as a followup question to
that, you know, Russia currently accounts for about 2/3 of the
reactor exports worldwide. Advanced nuclear power is a
potential, say, approximately $360 billion a year market
opportunity. So how do we take back this share of the market
and position the United States to lead in advanced nuclear
exports? And I think that's important to us on this Committee
as we look to how we fund basic research in the national
laboratories. So, Mr. Harrell, if you wouldn't mind.
Mr. Harrell. Absolutely. We need to demonstrate the
technologies. We need to show that they are commercially
viable. And so things like the Advanced Reactor Demonstration
Program, ensuring that it's successful is a really important
piece of that. We'll build those first designs and show that we
can export it and deploy them and seize that, as you mentioned,
over $300 billion annual market opportunity there.
And then, you know, we need to be focused on domestic fuel
supplies, for example. I think the Russian crisis has also
showed us that we need to be--have a more secure nuclear fuel
cycle, for example, and so investing in the U.S. capacity to
produce high assay and low enriched uranium, which is the
advanced fuel needed for many of these advanced reactors is a
really important measure and an opportunity here to grow U.S.
supply chains, meet and improve our fuel security, and
ultimately provide, you know, zero emission electricity both to
our grid and to the globe.
Mr. Baird. So thank you for that. And you have answered
several questions, so I do have a little bit of time left, and
so I would open it up to any other witnesses who would like to
make a comment about that question.
If not, I yield back my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Congresswoman Stansbury for five
minutes, please.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you all for joining our panel today.
Today's hearing could not possibly be more timely or more
important and on a topic that is of such consequence to our
communities and to our planet. Across my home State of New
Mexico, our communities are experiencing a devastating drought,
in fact, the worst drought in over a millennia, and
unprecedented wildfires, including over a dozen wildfires
across our State months before fire season. The science is
clear. Climate action cannot wait, and we must take decisive
action now to address both the causes of climate change and its
impacts while investing in the sustainability and the
resilience of our communities. This means making bold
investments in diversifying our economy, addressing our carbon
footprint, and investing in our infrastructure, our natural
resources management, and our clean energy future, while
ensuring that our communities have the tools and resources they
need and a seat at the table to meet the moment.
The IPCC reports that we're discussing today, as we've
heard this morning, outline the consequences of inaction and
the worsening impacts, especially to our water resources and
especially across the Western United States. In New Mexico we
have a saying that ``agua es vida,'' water is life because it
is the vital resource in the arid Southwest upon which
everything else depends.
Our communities are aware of the impacts of climate change
because they are already experiencing them right now this year
with this drought. And, as a Member of this Committee, as well
as the Natural Resources Committee, we are working very hard to
try to address these issues on the ground but have not even
begun to scratch the surface because our communities do not
have the basic information and tools that they need to make
decisions every day to respond to this crisis as it is
unfolding across our communities and make long-term plans. We
need those resources to safeguard our communities.
As a water resources professional, I've worked in water
resources science most of my career and a proud water nerd, as
I often say, I know through my decades of work on this issue
that we have to provide the best data and tools to our
communities and to collaborate and use community-based
processes to tackle these challenges. That's why I am proud
that over the coming weeks we will be introducing two bills to
help address these issues in New Mexico and across the country,
including the Rio Grande Basin bill, which will help to address
the long-term resilience of the Rio Grande River and a National
Water Data Act in order to address critical issues around water
data and information.
And with that, I would love to ask our panelists a few
questions specifically about the implications of these IPCC
reports for our water resources. So, Ms. Barrett, as the Vice-
Chair who's been serving in this role and is here to help us
understand and unpack these reports and translate that science
into meaningful action on the ground, I wonder if you could
please take a moment to explain the implications of these
latest reports for our water supplies, particularly in the
Western United States, and what we can expect over the coming
decades.
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you for that question,
Congresswoman. I think across our reports there's strong
evidence both globally but, you know, specifically in the
Western United States of the increasing risk that we're seeing
from the depletion of water resources with the reductions in
snowpack that many communities depend on. And, you know,
there's information about adapting to some of these
limitations, but quite frankly in this case there are severe
limitations to the way that we can adapt to the severe
reduction in water resources we're seeing.
You mentioned the wildfires that are occurring and, you
know, in our recent report we actually evaluated the wildfires
in the Western United States and confirmed that this problem is
getting worse. Higher temperatures from climate change have
doubled the area burned in the West from 1984 to 2015, and the
additional burned area is greater than the size of Switzerland,
so this is very much connected to drought and the lack of water
resources and is a very challenging problem.
Ms. Stansbury. Thank you, Ms. Barrett. And I think it's
important to emphasize that in New Mexico and other areas of
the Southwest we've been seeing a drying trend over the last
several decades, which we now understand, because of the
science that has been compiled by the IPCC and others, that
this is in fact the signature of climate change. So this is not
something that's happening in the future. Climate change is
already here, it's already on the ground, it's already
impacting our communities. And as we think about our
communities that have lived in these fragile landscapes for
thousands and hundreds and decades of years, we have to invest
in their well-being, in their resilience and make sure that
they can adapt to the change that's already here and we know
will be worsening over the coming decades.
So I deeply appreciate the work that went into these
reports and all of the scientists and policymakers who've
contributed to them. And, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the
Committee for taking the time to give space to have this
conversation. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Kim for five minutes, please.
Mrs. Kim. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank all of our
witnesses joining us virtually and Mr. Harrell for joining us
in person today.
We all agree that we need an all-of-the-above energy
approach to climate change, and we need to secure America's
energy independence. If anything, Russia's invasion of Ukraine
has shown us how critical our energy independence is. So we
need practical, responsible energy solutions that will help us
expand and diversify domestic energy supply chains, reduce
carbon emissions, and lower energy costs for my constituents.
So to that end, Mr. Harrell, I have a question for you.
Russian natural gas exports to Europe have 41 percent higher
lifecycle emissions than United States liquefied natural gas
exports. And even worse, Russian exports to China have 47
percent higher lifecycle emissions. So at the end of the day
greenhouse gases don't care about the borders. So can you give
us a sense of why U.S. natural gas and renewable energy
innovation is essential to the global effort in reducing
emissions?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question,
ma'am, and thank you for your leadership here on this Committee
on some key bills that have been moving over the last year.
As I mentioned earlier, energy security and climate action
are not mutually exclusive. We need to drive down the cost of
cheaper energy and make it more affordable and more abundant.
And so, you know, we have a strategic advantage in U.S. gas,
for example, and you underscore some of the emissions footprint
there. And then CCUS is a big piece of that puzzle as well. We
need to commercialize more CCUS technologies that play a role
in gas processing, in the utilization of gas, for example, in
gas generation. You know, it's the largest power source here in
this country for electricity. Deploying gas CCUS is going to be
critical to driving down our emissions. And so we can lead
there. We are leading there. You know, over 1/2 of the global
projects in the project pipeline are in this country, and so
it's an exciting opportunity to both utilize U.S. resources in
an environmentally responsible way and ultimately reduce global
emissions.
Mrs. Kim. Thank you. And I would like to talk about China's
coal fleet. That has grown fivefold over the last 20 years to
reach nearly 1/2 of the global total of gigawatt power in this
sector. Meanwhile, the U.S. coal users in 2030 is now projected
to be around 1/3 of what models predicted back in 2010. So it's
clear that we have made changes in our energy mix and actually
followed through with our emissions pledges. But are there any
signs that show China is acting on their net zero commitment,
and how can we hold them accountable to that commitment?
Mr. Harrell. Yes, it's why U.S. international leadership is
really important on this issue and why I think that it's
paramount that we lead in technology innovation and and
multilateral climate engagement as a whole. We've seen very
clearly China take opposite actions more or less, and so we've
seen significant increases in their deployment of coal. For
example, another 176 gigawatts of coal is going to be under
construction, and China is driving a lot of that. It's why we
need to innovate on carbon capture utilization storage. They
have a market for that because it's the low-cost option in many
developing countries, right? And so if we can innovate and
drive down the cost of cheaper, cleaner options, then we don't
have this false option, right, of meeting our electricity needs
or taking more expensive clean energy, for example. So drive
down the cost of clean energy options, and there's just a
practical reality. We're deploying gigawatts of--or not me but
the globe is deploying gigawatts of coal technology. We need
coal CCUS to practically remove those point source emissions to
meet any of these midcentury goals that I agree I think are
extremely important.
Mrs. Kim. Sure, thank you. One more. California where I
represent has seen a variety of exciting carbon capture
announcements over the past year, including California
Resources Corporation's Carbon TerraVault project. This
TerraVault will inject CO2 capture from industrial
sources into depleted underground of gas reservoirs for
permanent sequestration. But what role has policy played in
some recent project announcements across the country, and what
do you think is needed going forward?
Mr. Harrell. It's a great question, and it's a huge
opportunity. It's an exciting project in your State, and
California has some immense industrial CCUS opportunities. So
two big things that I think are playing a role in big project
influx. The 45Q tax credit, biggest financial incentive in the
world to drive CCUS deployment. It's a big part of why we're
deploying technologies like this. We should enhance that
incentive and continue to move forward to the good work of this
Committee on demonstrating CCUS technologies. We're going to
have a massive CCUS demonstration program implemented by the
DOE over the next couple years, and this Committee should
exercise strong oversight over that to ensure its successful.
And then three, you point out that they're going to store
this CO2 permanent underground. Something we have to
fix is the class VI permitting regime, which is EPA's rules to
store that CO2. It takes roughly 6 years to permit
that now. We've got to shorten that to increase CO2
storage capacity for both CCUS and carbon removal.
Mrs. Kim. Thank you very much for your thoughtful
responses. And with that, I think my time is up. We went
overboard. I yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Representative Perlmutter, please, for five minutes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Sorry, I thought Mr. Sherman was going
before me, so thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a couple
questions.
First, next week we are having a trip, a science trip out
to Colorado to the national laboratories that we are very
honored to have there and also deal with a lot of climate
change because recently we had that terrible fire that wiped
out 1,000 homes in, you know, no time flat because of how dry
we've had it. So I have a couple questions for all of you. The
first one would be--and I guess I'm more of an optimist and I
share some of the optimism that you all have that Mr. Obernolte
didn't have about what role can our national labs play in
dealing with climate change, dealing with energy efficiency and
renewable energy? And, you know, I'm saying that as the
Congressman that has the National Renewable Energy Lab in his
district. So, Ms. Barrett, let me start with you.
Ms. Barrett. Sure. Thanks for that question. And I'll just
note that, you know, in our NOAA family a number of folks lost
their homes in that fire, so that hits deep for us. And I'm
happy to know that you may be out there visiting our folks. I
know you've been to our Boulder labs in the past.
I think the national laboratories play an essential role in
building the core knowledge base from which we can innovate
and, you know, work with the private sector and localities to
implement really innovative solutions. I know with regard to
NREL our laboratories in Boulder have, you know, worked to
provide some wind mapping and other things. You know, we do a
significant amount of greenhouse gas monitoring as well in our
Boulder labs. So I think that in some cases our observations
are unmatched across the globe, and we have the longest
observational records for some really key climate indicators.
So I just can't say enough about the importance of these
laboratories to incentivizing action.
Mr. Perlmutter. OK. Mr. Harrell?
Mr. Harrell. Absolutely, Congressman. Thank you for your
leadership on these issues. The labs are going to play a huge
part. As I mentioned in my testimony, I think the United
States--the most significant role the United States can play in
tackling global emissions reductions is in--on innovation. In
our world-class national labs, our entrepreneurs, and our
scientific institutions here serve as kind of an innovation
engine that we know can yield big cost declines on cheaper
energy and making it more abundant, and I think we should
double down on that agenda and utilize those unique assets that
we have here to provide clean energy to the world.
Mr. Perlmutter. Well, and I would--we've got examples with
wind and with solar where we've seen the cost of those two
types of power come down dramatically over the course of the
last ten years led a lot by the national labs. Ms. David-
Chavez, do you have any thoughts on this?
Dr. David-Chavez. I do. I think, you know, we need
integrated strategies, and I've heard some really good ones
today. And in terms of thinking also about creating a work
force to address the climate actions that we need, I do
appreciate the opportunities for these early career scholars
and youth through internships at some of the national
laboratories and some of the movement around those internships
in terms of supporting mentorship and support for local and
indigenous community members that have often been excluded from
the STEM work force. For the first time we're really seeing
these type of internships, funded opportunities. And
personally, I would love to see members of the community
monitoring our natural resources and collecting data with the
level of accountability they have knowing their family members
will depend on those water sources, will depend on that soil. I
really appreciate the quality of the scientific data that they
would then produce as they enter the work force.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you. Mayor, I have a different
question for you. So we mentioned, you know, these communities
are just within a mile or two of my house. We were sort of on
pre-evacuation of this fire. And obviously, we've had this
terrible drought. How do you see local communities kind of
working in collaboration with our national labs to prepare
themselves for what we see coming?
Ms. Levine Cava. Yes, thank you. Well, we are working with
a couple of labs. We work with the renewable lab in Boulder
that helped us with our solar placement when we moved
aggressively--I did to put more solar installation on our
facilities. And the National Academy of Science is also helping
us, so at the national level. Locally, we have a very important
couple of research centers at Florida International University
and University of Miami. We have standing contracts with them
to advise us on our work. And as far as working with the
communities, that's really the secret to success is to be
prepared and readily deployed in an emergency to preregister
those who are most vulnerable and to work to engage throughout.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, and Mr. Chairman, I'll yield
back. I just want to invite you and Mr. Sherman and everybody
else, any other Members who remain on this Zoom to come out to
our science trip to Colorado next week where we are going to go
to the National Renewable Energy Lab, where we are going to go
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric agency to visit their
laboratories. So I'll yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back, and we appreciate his
love for Colorado.
Mr. Weber, Representative Weber?
Not hearing from him, let's go to Representative Gimenez?
And not hearing from him, let's--I know we have Mr. Sherman
on our screen, so Representative Sherman, you're recognized for
five minutes, please.
Mr. Perlmutter. I think Mr. Sherman turned off his sound
because, see, I invited him to come to Colorado, and he never
even gave me a thumbs up.
Mr. Tonko. Representative Sherman?
Mr. Perlmutter. Somebody want to text him? Oh, now he's
getting on the phone. Mr. Tonko, why don't I take his time?
Mr. Tonko. No, I--what I'll do is now recognize myself for
five minutes. And let me thank Chairman Stevens and Ranking
Member Lucas for hosting this very important discussion. The
hearing is very essential.
Let's begin with Dr. David-Chavez. Can you describe how
Federal and State researchers and governments are currently
engaging with local and indigenous communities, please?
Dr. David-Chavez. There's some really good examples since
we've been talking about my current home State in Colorado, I
do work at a land-grant institution and I really appreciate the
way our extension programs here across land-grant institutions
work with community members. And they are really re-envisioning
what our responsibilities are as land-grant institutions in
light of the legacy of colonization as well and how we've
inherited this land, really recognizing opportunities now to
engage indigenous communities and build tribal partnerships as
well. But we're definitely in many States in the early stages
of this process.
There are some other really great examples, though. I think
if we look at the Tribal Nations Summit report, there are some
good examples of Federal-tribal partnerships with the National
Climate Assessment. We're now engaging indigenous authorship
and tribal leaders in most of the sector chapters. And, yes,
those are just a few examples.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much. And, Ms.
Barrett, can you describe some of the major takeaways from the
IPCC report related to the environmental justice issue and the
impacts of climate change on our underserved communities,
please?
Ms. Barrett. Yes, thank you for your question. And let me
say that I spend a portion of my year in your district at
Saratoga Lake and at the local performing arts center, so I'm
very, very familiar with your region.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Ms. Barrett. So it's really well-known that the impacts,
vulnerability, and response options to climate change are not
equally distributed across the world, and so in our working
group 2 report we assessed, say, the global data on mortality
due to floods and droughts and storms over the last decade and
found that deaths are 15 times higher per event in the global
hotspots of high human vulnerability compared to regions and
countries with very low vulnerability. And the difference
really cannot be explained by hazard frequency or intensity
alone, the communities that are often unequally impacted by and
vulnerable to natural hazards are worsened by climate change.
And this inequity is created or exacerbated by non-inclusive
processes and has real consequences for the efficacy of future
action.
This cycle of the IPCC drew new definitive connections
between justice and effective adaptation. And in assessing
potential adaptation action, for example, the authors of the
report used three criteria that included justice as one. So
does it work, can we do it, and are we being fair and careful
not to further disadvantage for invulnerable and
underrepresented populations? And I think it's really essential
that we include that information in our assessments.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And Mayor Levine Cava, Miami-Dade
County serves an incredibly diverse community. How can we
increase accessibility to climate adaptation grants and
programs for our underserved communities, and what strategies
have worked in your community?
Ms. Levine Cava. Yes, thank you. So, first of all, we do
have a unique problem here we call climate gentrification
because as the seas rise, the poorer communities have actually
been on higher land. And now there's huge speculation and those
lands are being purchased. And of course it adds to the regular
gentrification. So that's--it's quite a challenge for us.
We have quite a number of community groups, and we partner
with them on community-based education, awareness, and
advocacy, so I think that's critically important, bringing the
message into the neighborhoods and we make it things that
really relate to people that they can see, again, where they're
being left behind or the risks for affordability and pollution
factors.
So it is truly a partnership, and I think we have a number
of model organizations, one of them I founded called Catalyst
Miami that does very robust, resilient education and
engagement. So I would recommend that we work in partnership.
Also, they are creating what they call resilience hubs that are
more neighborhood-based not only through our agencies, our
public sector so that they have more control and access to
resources, and we want to work with them to create that kind of
door-to-door neighborhood-based outreach and engagement.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And with that, my time is
expired, so we'll call upon Representative Sherman, who I
believe is available now for five minutes of questioning,
please.
Mr. Sherman. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding
these hearings. I found them interesting, and I'm going to
shock especially Mr. Perlmutter, who served with me on
Financial Services, and yield back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back. And with that, before
we bring the hearing to a close, I want to thank our witnesses,
each and every one, for testifying before the Committee today.
They provided great information.
And the record will remain open for two weeks for
additional statements from the Members and for any additional
questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
With that, the witnesses are excused, and the hearing is
now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]