[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]