[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FUELING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
EXAMINING BIG OIL'S PRICES,
PROFITS, AND PLEDGES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 15, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-102
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-612 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Jim Jordan, Ohio
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Michael Cloud, Texas
Ro Khanna, California Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Clay Higgins, Louisiana
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Pete Sessions, Texas
Katie Porter, California Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Cori Bush, Missouri Andy Biggs, Arizona
Shontel M. Brown, Ohio Andrew Clyde, Georgia
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Nancy Mace, South Carolina
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Scott Franklin, Florida
Peter Welch, Vermont Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Pat Fallon, Texas
Georgia Yvette Herrell, New Mexico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Byron Donalds, Florida
Jackie Speier, California Mike Flood, Nebraska
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan
Mark DeSaulnier, California
Jimmy Gomez, California
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Russ Anello, Staff Director
Greta Gao, Chief Oversight Counsel
Katie Thomas, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Environment
Elisa LaNier, Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Mark Marin, Minority Staff Director
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 15, 2022............................... 1
Witnesses
Panel 1
Kara Boyd, Bakersville, Virginia
Oral Statement............................................... 8
Thomas Joseph, Hoopa Valley Tribe, California
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Roishetta Ozane, Sulphur, Louisiana
Oral Statement............................................... 11
Mary Cromer, Whitesburg, Kentucky
Oral Statement............................................... 12
Jasmin Sanchez, Baruch Houses, New York
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Panel 2
Isabella M. Weber, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Economics,
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Raya Salter, Esq., Founder and Executive Director, Energy Justice
Law and Policy CenterMember, New York State Climate Action
Council
Oral Statement............................................... 18
J. Mijin Cha, Ph.D., J.D., Associate Professor of Urban and
Environmental Policy, Occidental CollegeFellow, Cornell
University Worker Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Michael Shellenberger (Minority Witness), Founder and President,
Environmental Progress
Oral Statement............................................... 21
Opening statements and the prepared statements for the witnesses
are available in the U.S. House of Representatives Repository
at: docs.house.gov.
INDEX OF DOCUMENTS
----------
The documents listed below are available at: docs.house.gov.
* Gimodo.com, article on Oil Company Advertising; submitted by
Rep. Ocasio-Cortez.
* National Review, article; submitted by Rep. Clyde.
FUELING THE CLIMATE CRISIS:
EXAMINING BIG OIL'S PRICES,
PROFITS, AND PLEDGES
----------
Thursday, September 15, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carolyn Maloney
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Maloney, Norton, Lynch, Connolly,
Krishnamoorthi, Raskin, Khanna, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib, Porter,
Bush, Brown, Wasserman Schultz, Welch, Johnson, Sarbanes,
Kelly, DeSaulnier, Pressley, Comer, Jordan, Hice, Grothman,
Cloud, Gibbs, Higgins, Sessions, Keller, Biggs, Clyde,
LaTurner, Herrell, Donalds, and Flood.
Also present: Representatives Casten and Graves.
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order.
And without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Today, we are holding our third hearing in the committee's
investigation into the fossil fuel industry's decades-long
climate disinformation and greenwashing campaigns. At our first
hearing last October, Big Oil executives admitted for the very
first time to Congress that climate change is real and that
burning fossil fuels is a primary cause, and that this is an
existential threat to our planet. But these executives refused
to commit to real changes, to keep warming within acceptable
levels. Instead, they repeated their company's misleading
climate pledges and described their ``aspiration'' to reduce
emissions decades in the future.
In February, we held a second hearing. We brought in
climate experts and investors to evaluate these pledges. Their
testimony was clear. Not only are Big Oil's climate pledges
misleading and insufficient to curb warming, but none of the
companies is even on track to meet these pledges. Not a single
one is going to meet the pledges or on track to do so.
Since that hearing and following Russia's invasion of
Ukraine, the fossil fuel industry has reaped record profits
while people around the world paid more at the pump. Exxon made
$17.9 billion in their most recent quarter, and it is the
largest ever quarterly profit, and BP recently posted its
highest quarterly profit in 14 years--and we see these
astonishing numbers here--$8.5 billion; Chevron, $11.6 billion;
Shell, $11.5 billion, Exxon, the largest quarter ever at $17
billion. But these companies used this windfall profit to
enrich investors and boost salaries of top executives. Their
clean energy investments, however, were a drop in the bucket.
Today, our committee is releasing new documents from our
investigation that shed light on how the fossil fuel industry
misled the public about their climate goals, their actions, and
their investments. For example, documents show that even as
Shell Oil promoted an economy-wide path to net zero emissions,
an employee admitted in private that this scenario had
``absolutely nothing to do with our business plans.'' And while
BP touted carbon capture as key to its transition to cleaner
fuel, the company privately hoped this approach would ``enable
the full use of fossil fuels across the energy transition and
beyond.''
We also found that Exxon spent nearly $70 million to
advertise its research in algae-based biofuels, but company
documents reveal that technology is ``still decades away from
the scale we need. We probably won't see it.'' We probably
won't see it in our lifetime, and yet they were promoting it.
And the documents show that both Exxon and Chevron fought hard
to avoid making any real commitments to advocate for the
policies they claimed to support. That is why I love documents.
Documents don't lie. Put simply, these documents show that Big
Oil is still not taking its responsibility to curb emissions
seriously, and while the fossil fuel industry fiddles, our
planet is burning.
This summer we have seen extreme weather that would have
been unthinkable just a few years ago. Heat waves and drought
are drying up entire rivers in the American West. Record floods
are devastating communities in Kentucky, Missouri, and Texas.
As climate change intensifies, these disasters will become more
frequent, more expensive, and more deadly.
Today, we will hear from survivors of extreme weather from
across the country. These men and women have suffered
heartbreak and devastating loss, and they are joining us today
to urge the fossil fuel industry to finally take real action to
address its central role in the climate crisis. We will also
hear today from experts, who will speak to the harm that
burning fossil fuels has inflicted on our economy and our
communities, even as it fattens the pockets of Big Oil
executives.
Finally, we invited board members from Exxon, Chevron,
Shell, and BP to testify today. We wanted them to answer for
the record profits their companies are raking in, while
fleecing consumers at the pump and refusing to take meaningful
action on climate change. Unfortunately, none of these fossil
fuel directors bothered to show up. These four companies have
also taken other steps to obstruct this committee's
investigation. After I issued subpoenas last November, the
companies withheld documents at the heart of our investigation,
including from their boards of directors, while flooding the
committee with thousands of press clippings and other
materials. Today, I am renewing my call for these companies to
comply with these subpoenas. I want to be clear that our
investigation goes on and that we will not stop until the
American people get the truth about the fossil fuel industry's
role in our climate crisis.
Before I close, I want to briefly address claims that we
should not be pressing Big Oil to clean up its act because this
will raise energy costs on consumers. The truth is that
Americans are suffering from high energy costs in large part
because of Big Oil, which is making record profits, the highest
they have ever made, while charging high prices at the pump.
Fossil fuel companies could lower prices. They could lower them
dramatically and still have billions left over to invest in
transition to a cleaner and, ultimately, cheaper fuels.
Unlike the oil companies, Democrats in Congress are taking
action. President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which we
passed last month, provides nearly $370 billion to cut
emissions, promote clean energy, advance environmental justice,
and this law is estimated to cut energy costs for the average
American family by $500 a year. So Democrats are showing it can
be done. We can bring down inflation, reduce energy costs for
Americans, and solve the climate crisis. Big Oil needs to do
its part. They must end their greenwashing and finally take
climate change seriously before more Americans and communities
are harmed.
I now invite my distinguished colleague, Ranking Member
Comer, to give an opening statement, and again, publicly thank
him for attending the ceremony for our late distinguished chair
of this committee, Elijah Cummings. Your presence really meant
a great deal, and many Democrats expressed to me how much they
appreciated your taking part in it, including the family, so
thank you.
Mr. Comer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was honored to be a
part of the ceremony, and I know Jason Chaffetz was as well. So
we both enjoyed seeing everyone, and we both shared a high
level of respect for Former Chairman Cummings, so, again, thank
you for the invitation to be there.
And I want to thank our witnesses for being here today and
your willingness to testify before the committee. Republicans
on this committee have been forced to question the motivation
and legitimacy of the Democrats' investigation of the oil and
gas companies. This investigation is part of the Democrats' war
on America's energy producers, an industry that creates good-
paying jobs and provides access to reliable, affordable energy
for Americans.
Instead of conducting oversight of government waste, fraud,
and abuse, Democrats continue to encourage and enable the Biden
administration to enact radical climate policies that have led
to our Nation's energy crisis. This hearing is apparently the
grand finale after issuing unnecessary subpoenas, demanding
information protected by the First Amendment, requesting that
board members' spouses' phone numbers and names be unredacted
in document production, and continuing to claim companies are
not cooperating, despite providing over a million pages of
documents, over a million pages.
After issuing a press release on February 3 demanding board
members appear at a hearing on March 8, Democrats decided to
cancel the meeting. According to media reports, a committee
staffer said the hearing was postponed to focus on oversight of
the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and that it would be
rescheduled as soon as possible. But it has been five months,
and we are still waiting for a full committee hearing on Russia
invading Ukraine. Instead, we have had a full committee hearing
on the work environment at the Washington Commanders, and
Democrats also found time to release a staff report after
conducting a hard-hitting investigation into pet flea and tick
collars.
And we still haven't heard from a Biden administration
Cabinet official. Not a single Cabinet official from the Biden
administration has been before this committee. It is clear that
Democrats paused this partisan show hearing for five months
because publicly attacking America's energy producers would
have been embarrassing when the Biden administration's war on
domestic energy production resulted in record high gas prices
for Americans.
During a hearing with oil and gas executives in October,
Democrats on this committee advocated for the companies to
decrease production. It is a good thing they didn't listen. The
world is on notice of the importance of domestic energy
production. Russia's leverage over Europe's energy supply makes
the point yet again that energy security is critical to
national security. Despite global upheaval, record high gas
prices, and skyrocketing inflation, Democrats continue pushing
Green New Deal initiatives that make Americans dependent on
hostile nations for oil. President Biden went around the world
begging and fist bumping directors for oil instead of
unleashing American energy production. Meanwhile, Democrats
refused to hold a hearing about energy policy with any Biden
administration official. Why haven't we had a hearing on gas
going over $5 a gallon in every state for the first time in
American history? Why haven't we had a hearing on depleting the
Strategic Petroleum Reserves? Why haven't we had a hearing on
inflation that is at a 40-year high?
During the past 12 months alone, the price of gas is up
over 25 percent, the cost of natural gas is up 33 percent, and
the cost of electricity is up over 15 percent. Yet here we are
again to talk about climate pledges made by private companies
and profits made by private companies. Congress must conduct an
oversight of President Biden's disastrous policies that are
causing Americans' energy and grocery bills to skyrocket and
jeopardize our national security. In March, President Biden
made the decision to release 1 million barrels of oil per day
over six months from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a
decision Republicans quickly pointed out as national security
concern. SPR inventories have recently sat at their lowest
level since 1984, and the United States domestic energy
production is threatened. President Biden singlehandedly shut
down the critically important Keystone Pipeline, placed a
moratorium on oil and gas production on Federal lands, which
caused gas prices to reach historic highs.
Under the Biden administration, the household price of
electricity is increasing, and it is expected to increase again
next year. So many households will struggle under these high
energy prices, particularly this winter. In another example of
failing Biden administration policy, U.S. household goods could
see a 30 to 40 percent hike in energy prices this year. On
multiple occasions, we have written, Chairwoman Maloney, to
request a hearing with the Department of Energy Secretary,
Jennifer Granholm, to discuss these issues, but these requests
have been ignored.
As I have stated in the past, no matter what these
companies do, it will never be enough to please the Democrats.
The sole focus of this investigation is to put these companies
out of business. That would be disastrous for the American
people. Just look at California. I look forward to speaking
with the minority witness, Michael Shellenberger, about the
consequences of the Biden administration's failed energy
policies, and I look forward to setting the table for a real
oversight of our government. I want to thank the witnesses
again for being here, and I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. I now yield
to Representative Khanna, the chair of the Environmental
Subcommittee, for an opening statement.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Madam Chair Maloney, and thank you
for your leadership in these hearings. Congress is holding a
series of hearings this week on Big Oil's role in denying
climate change and in profiteering. It is important to hold
this industry accountable.
We had the CEOs here in our committee about a year ago, and
they all said that they were committed to tackling climate
change, that they were committed to meeting the Paris Accords.
And yet this committee just today released explosive documents
that have been detailed in The New York Times, where we have
oil executives taking shots at the kids who are out there
fighting for climate change. I mean, they are wishing that kids
in the Sunrise Movement have bed bugs. I was appalled. I mean,
who wishes that on people? The Wall Street banks never wished
on the protesters that they have bed bugs in their beds as they
are just exercising their First Amendment right.
And then to have emails making fun of climate change. I was
offended as someone who is in California with 110, 120 degrees,
and you have these oil executives saying, ``Let's drink hot
toddies,'' and, ``Why don't the American people toughen up,''
and denying in 2022 climate. The problem is not the policies.
The problem is the culture.
I urge every American to read these documents. I have never
seen companies attack kids. I've never seen it. They disagree
with them, but wishing them bed bugs? It was just shocking. And
then you have the greenwashing, where these companies come,
they put almost as much money into television saying that they
are committed to climate as they do in the climate investments.
We released documents saying that Exxon, the green algae
program, I said, great, they are doing green algae. Guess how
much they are putting in it? 300 million dollars. Guess how
much their investment is in coal, and fuel oil, and gas? About
$200 billion. So they are putting less than 0.1 percent in
green algae, and yet they are putting almost $68 million in
advertising that they are clean. Who do they think they are
fooling? Who do they think they are fooling with this stuff? I
mean, be honest. I mean, go up with an ad saying we are putting
less than 0.1 percent into clean technology. Don't tell the
American public that you somehow are going to be a clean
technology company and you are committed to the Paris Accords
when you are putting in less than 0.1 percent, when you are
spending a similar amount on just advertising, money you should
be spending in clean technology.
And then the lobbying, the dark money behind the scenes. I
mean, these documents show they are lobbying, the industries,
to say don't commit to the Paris Accords, don't commit to
anything, don't put it in our business plans, while they are
parading up for the American public that they are committed to
a clean policy. Let me tell these companies something. The
American people are not dumb. We are much smarter than they
think they are, and they are walking a very fine line by
continuing to mislead this public. And that is what this
hearing is about, is to hold them accountable and to get them
to start telling the truth. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Maloney. I now yield to Representative Herrell,
the ranking member of the Environment Subcommittee, for an
opening statement.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. And I am the only Republican
that represents the congressional district from New Mexico, and
when I won, I pledged to fight for my constituents and protect
the industries and jobs that are vital to their livelihoods.
Over 100,000 people in my district and around the state are
employed by the oil and gas industry, the largest single
industry in our state. New Mexico is the third largest oil
producer in the country and a world leader in natural gas
production. I represent a district that is home to the prolific
Permian Basin, and my constituents know firsthand the value of
American-produced oil and gas. We live in a Nation that
produces oil and gas cleaner than any other country in the
world, driven by innovation and new technologies.
In my role as ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Environment, I have called on the chairman to issue subpoenas
to the Biden administration officials to compel their
testimony. The American people deserve to hear from senior-
level Biden administration witnesses on their solutions to the
energy crisis we face today. Their refusal to come and testify
indicates one thing: they don't have solutions. That is why I
will spend the remainder of my time doing the Biden
administration's work for them and offering real solutions to
address the current energy crisis.
First off, President Biden should reform the permitting
process and remove obstacles from constructing modern energy
infrastructure so that working families in New Mexico and
around the Nation don't have to live in fear of blackouts and
brownouts. President Biden should reinstitute important reforms
to the National Environmental Policy so that Americans can
actually build things again. I mean, we can't go on with these
policies that are detrimental to the one industry that poses so
much opportunity for the American people.
We need to reclarify the definitions of Waters of the
United States, the rule that was working, but now it is not
because of this Administration. And we need to modernize the
Endangered Species Act so the Federal Government stops
threatening the livelihoods of my constituents in rural New
Mexico. We need to increase oil and gas production on Federal
lands so that New Mexico schoolchildren have the funding they
need for excellent educational opportunities for decades to
come, encourage new offshore and onshore drilling so that our
Nation can once again be energy secure.
We need to reduce the regulatory uncertainty that prevents
construction of new oil and gas infrastructure, including
pipelines and LNG export terminals. And stop robbing the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve of vital resources for pre-election
gimmicks and putting our national security at risk. End our own
reliance on Chinese rare earth and critical mineral production
by encouraging investment in a strong domestic alternative by
reversing the decision to stop Twin Metals and the Resolution
Copper mine. End the practice of sue and settle and hiding
settlements from the American people.
The time has come to provide American people with a
comprehensive strategy to solve our energy and cost of living
crisis. You see, in a couple of months, America will get to
make a decision on which path we go down. Are we going to go
down the path of American energy innovation, independence, and
excellence, or will we see a pathway of summer blackouts and
winter price hikes? Democrats have doubled down on failed
policies, while Republicans have brought real solutions to the
table. It is time we start taking a look at these real
solutions and put our energy sector first and foremost and
regain our energy independence in this Nation. And with that,
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Comer
is recognized.
Mr. Comer. Madam Chair, I would like to ask for unanimous
consent for Representative Garret Graves of Louisiana to waive
on the committee today.
Chairwoman Maloney. So ordered, and I also ask unanimous
consent that Representative Casten be allowed to participate in
today's hearing. And without objection, it is so ordered.
I did want to respond to the chairman's statements on
documents. We are still waiting for documents that we have
requested. And it is true we have gotten millions of documents,
but a lot of it is just press clippings or things that really
are not relevant to what we are looking at and what we want to
know. And we have had specific documents that we have
subpoenaed, and we are going to continue working hard to get
those documents.
Now I will introduce our first panel, which will not be
taking questions. First, we will hear from Kara Boyd of
Bakersville, Virginia. Then we will hear from Thomas Joseph of
Hoopa Valley Tribe in California. Then we will hear from
Roishetta Ozane of Sulphur, Louisiana. Then we will hear from
Mary Cromer of Whitesburg, Kentucky. And finally, we will hear
from Jasmin Sanchez from Baruch Houses, New York.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
And without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record.
And with that, Ms. Boyd, you are now recognized for your
testimony. Ms. Boyd.
STATEMENT OF KARA BREWER BOYD, BAKERSVILLE, VIRGINIA
Ms. Boyd. Dear honorable Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney,
Chairman Ro Khanna, Subcommittee on the Environment, ranking
members and committee members. Thank you for the invitation. It
is truly an honor to address your committee. I am Kara Brewer
Boyd, founder and president of the Association of American
Indian Farmers. The AAIF has over 3,500 members across the
United States. Our membership consists of full-time, part-time
farmers, ranchers, landowners, timber owners, and many
concerned citizens. I am a regenerative farmer and rancher,
maintaining about 1,500 acres, along with my husband, John
Boyd, founder and president of the National Black Farmers
Association in Southside Virginia, where we grow corn, wheat,
soybeans, and hemp along with summer vegetables. Our livestock
operation consists of beef cattle, dairy and meat goats, and
hogs. Aquaculture and poultry are also integrated into our farm
operation.
This hearing is titled, ``Fueling the Climate Crisis:
Examining Big Oil's Prices, Profits, and Pledges.'' We know
that by practicing regenerative agriculture, we can use
nature's proven, time-tested principles to not just take
massive amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere, but we can
also use it to build back our soils for farms, families, and
futures.
Due to increasing extreme weather, the COVID-19 pandemic,
and the war in Ukraine, we are currently in a farm crisis,
which may lead to a food crisis in the very near future.
Farmers already bear the brunt of land degradation and extreme
weather events brought on by climate change. The 40-year record
high cost of agriculture inputs along with the devastating
economic impacts of the pandemic and war have put additional
burdens on America's farmers, ranchers, and food supply as we
are facing farm foreclosures, significant crop damages, and
livestock losses due to excessive drought and heat.
Being an indigenous person here in North America, I highly
value food security and resilience as we have always grown and
produced food to feed our families, tribal communities, and
others. Indigenous agricultural practices help to reduce the
burning of fossil fuels as well as conserve natural resources,
which include no-till, companion planting, composting,
livestock integration, crop rotations, and pollinating buffer
strips. Indigenous people rely on predictable weather patterns
and planting seasons to dictate to when we plant and harvest
our crops, as well as breeding, buying, and selling livestock
for pasture and grassland management. Being a good steward of
the land includes making decisions with foresight and
forethought of the next 7 generations. Remember to take some,
leave some, and there will always be some for future
generations.
Most agricultural technologies and models have been
developed under an assumption of a stable climate. However,
current climate change data affirms and poses severe challenges
to our national security, livelihood, and survival. We can
restore the water cycle and replenish underground clean water
sources, making droughts less frequent. We can infiltrate water
more quickly and hold more water, thus alleviating flooding. We
can hold nutrients on the landscape, thus preventing nitrates
and phosphates from entering our watersheds. We can make
farming and ranching profitable again by reducing inputs and
stacking enterprises. We can revitalize our rural communities
by diversifying local and regional farm production. We can
produce food that is higher in nutrient density, thus
significantly lowering healthcare costs. We can regenerate
America.
While many of these regenerative agriculture concepts are
rooted in indigenous knowledge, they are being re-learned and
shaped by our current context, and new data emerges that
further explains how and why these systems work to regenerate
land and sequester carbon. We are living in a time like no
other and we need science, technology, indigenous wisdom, and
historic thinking working together to move us toward saving our
planet, so affectionately known as Mother Earth.
Building back healthy soil is the most cost-effective
regional, state, and national investment to address soil
degradation, which is directly impacted by Big Oil's extractive
practices and the burning of fossil fuels. Indigenous people
the world over are disproportionately impacted by resource
extraction. We feel that it is absolutely vital that the
indigenous voices from the communities most affected
communities that have undergone forced relocation and cultural
genocide, like the Big Mountain Black Mesa Dine people that are
standing as the very blockade to continued mining, and my
relatives, the Saponi, Lumbee, and Tuscarora, and other East
Coast natives, who are resisting the installation of additional
pipelines. We ask for you to continue to listen to the
indigenous voices. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Joseph, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS JOSEPH, HOOPA VALLEY TRIBE, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Joseph. Good morning. I would like to recognize the
lands of Piscataway and Nacotchtank that we reside on
currently, and may our Nation not repeat its past. Greetings.
My name is Thomas Joseph. I am a Hoopa Valley tribal member, a
descendant of the Lone Pine Paiute Shoshone tribe, and the
climate change education organizer of the Indigenous
Environmental Network, and it is an honor to be invited to
speak here today.
Since time immemorial, my people have called California
home. I come from the village of Tsewenaldin and Me'dil ding of
the Hoopa people along the Trinity River, which can be
identified today as the Six Rivers National Forest, and my
father's place, Payahuundau of the Paiute Shoshone, which is
often miscalled Owens Valley. The Hoopa people reside on their
ancestral territories, which is the largest federally
recognized reservation in California, with those lands mostly
being forested. Our relationship with our lands have always
been and will always be a reciprocal relationship.
I have witnessed firsthand the effects of climate change.
The past few weeks, our community has been inundated with
forest fire smoke from multiple forest fires across our
ancestral lands. This heavy smoke, increasing year after year,
is a health risk, an economic strain on our tribal government
and people. We only prosper and thrive when our lands and
rivers are healthy, and the vital importance of treating our
lands with compassion and respect lays the foundation on how we
treat each other. Our cultural and our ways of being are
directly tied to our relationship with our Mother Earth. Our
ceremonies, which teach us our ways of being, which teach us
fundamental practices of caring for our Mother Earth, come from
the knowledge-based structure that outdates any university or
Western science-based system.
I don't say this to undermine or belittle, but to
demonstrate the vast amount of knowledge our education system
holds when it comes to the management of lands, which we would
characterize of not as management of lands, but relationship
with lands. Our ceremonies are directly tied to the lands and
waters, and without this connection to place, this vast
knowledge structure would be a great loss, not just for our
tribe, but for all humans as these teachings help humans
rebalance an imbalance the Earth is currently experiencing and
gives segue toward real climate solutions.
As forest dwelling indigenous people, we understand the
vital importance of traditional knowledge that our people have
practiced for thousands of years. We acknowledge that when our
rivers and forests are sick, so are the people. I believe the
current pandemic of COVID-19 is a perfect example of just that.
Our planet is sick, and humanity is reflecting that. We are
currently witnessing an extinction of numerous lives on earth
from our winged, four-legged, and finned relations. Salmon are
under great threat. Salmon is a staple part of our diet and
plays a vital role in our ecosystems and ceremonies. Earlier
this summer, a mudslide caused by ongoing drought and
wildfires, this mudslide caused a huge amount of debris and
dirt to flow into the Klamath River, which choked out the
oxygen in the river, causing a mass salmon kill. The drought
and high temperatures in California have caused our forests to
become extremely vulnerable to raging wildfires and weather you
can read about in my written submission.
Our forests are becoming so dry that our old-growth trees
can't even handle a significant amount of snowfall. This last
winter, our old-growth trees were snapping during the snowfall,
which puts our forest even at further risk of dangerous
wildfires. These wildfires threaten wildlife, waterways, even
human life. Our tribal community has spent numerous dollars on
fighting these fires, on evacuations, humanitarian aid, safety
zones, air quality locations, sending the elders to the coast.
This list can go on and on. This list also includes the
spending of the tribal governments as well as its citizens.
The threat of our tribal nation being burnt out by a
wildfire is extremely high. This loss, this break of reciprocal
relationship with our Mother Earth is something our people have
never faced. Just to name a few things, surviving settler
invasion, surviving the 49er gold rush, surviving forced
assimilation, including boarding schools, the Hoopa people are
still here, still carrying on the traditional indigenous and
ecological knowledge of our ancestors through ceremony, through
our ways of being, through our reciprocal relationship with our
Mother Earth and this relationship to place. This threat is a
threat of genocide, and climate change is to blame as well as
the corporates of climate change.
We know man has caused climate change. Our people have
never been at war with this government. We are not in
opposition of you. We are with you as we are people who have
laid our lives down to defend and protect this country at
greater percentage than any other. It is our duty to protect
these lands, and we side with you in this endeavor. But we must
be clear in our task at hand. There is no time to waver. A
great genocide is upon our tribe and your people, and families
are next. I am not here to ask, but to demand that we do all we
can to protect and defend our lands, our people, our ways of
being, for our very existence depends upon it.
We must hold fossil fuel companies accountable for the
atrocities they have caused. We must move forward by ending the
fossil fuel industry and keeping fossil fuel underground. We
must reject the loopholes that pay off continual business as
usual for the fossil fuel industry like carbon markets, carbon
capture and storage and net zero pledges. These schemes will
not work and will only continue to give fossil fuel
corporations permission to harm and destroy our Mother Earth,
all sentient beings and non-indigenous human race. Thank you,
Chairwoman Maloney.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Ms. Ozane, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROISHETTA OZANE, SULPHUR, LOUISIANA
Ms. Ozane. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Maloney and
committee. Also, thank you for being here, Mr. Higgins. We were
here last week meeting with your office, so it is a pleasure to
see you here this morning. I am Roishetta Ozane. I am the
founder, director, and CEO of the Vessel Project of Louisiana,
which is a mutual aid organization that I founded after
Hurricane Laura, Hurricane Delta, Winter Storm Uri, the great
flood in May 2021, and the tornadoes that hit in 2021 in Lake
Charles.
In August 2021, as a single mom of six, working as a
paraprofessional for the local school board, I was devastated
to hear the local weather channel saying that we were going to
have to evacuate for a hurricane. We have heard evacuation, you
know, before, so it wasn't anything new to us, but when we hear
that we have to evacuate, a lot of times we don't take it
serious because we have heard it so much. When our local
weatherman said that he was going to evacuate, we knew it was
serious. We all packed up and we headed away from home.
That night we watched as our home was destroyed by
Hurricane Laura. When we were finally given the OK to come back
home, me and my six children, as we drove west heading back
into Louisiana, as soon as we hit Southwest Louisiana, we could
see the devastation. Everything was destroyed. Everything had
been touched by Hurricane Laura. As I made it into Lake
Charles, the tallest building in Lake Charles, which used to be
called the Capital One Tower, all the glass was gone. It was
very visible the destruction of Hurricane Laura.
We continued to travel west. And as we looked on both sides
of the I-10 bridge, it was more destruction. Once we got into
the peak of the bridge, all we saw were the lights from
industry. No other lights working in the city, but industry was
up and running. When I got to my home in Westlake, a tree was
on the roof, debris everywhere, and we had to quickly leave
because it was getting dark. There were no lights. There was no
gas for cars, no water. So we had to continue to travel west to
go to Texas because we couldn't stay at home, so we briefly saw
our destroyed home.
We finally were given the OK to go home, and cleanup, and
try to get back to normal, and a few weeks later, there was
another evacuation order for Hurricane Delta. What wasn't
destroyed in Hurricane Laura was destroyed in Hurricane Delta.
Again, we had to pick up and leave our home. Folks who had a
small opportunity to stay in their homes for a few weeks in
between the hurricane could no longer come back to their homes
after Delta because now their homes were gone. Me and my six
children stayed in a hotel from the time Laura hit until
November 2021. And I decided that I could no longer commute
back and forth, and so we came back. We finally were approved
to live in a FEMA trailer. Imagine living in a FEMA trailer
with six children in a three-bedroom FEMA trailer.
So even if we don't agree on the causes of the hurricanes,
even if we don't agree on climate change, we have to agree that
something caused so many detrimental storms in one area in such
a small amount of time. And the only factor, the only thing
that has changed is the amount of oil and gas industry that we
have in Southwest Louisiana. And right now, we have more than
24 proposed projects along the Gulf Coast.
We can't take any more. We simply cannot take any more
extractive industry. It extracts our fossil fuel. It extracts
our homes. It extracts lives. A common factor in what is going
on in communities across the United States and the world is the
fossil fuel industries. And that is why each of these frontline
folks are here today, because they have all been affected by
climate change, and that one common thing is the fossil fuel
industries in our communities. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you. Thank you for your very
moving testimony. And next, Ms. Cromer, you are now recognized
for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MARY CROMER, WHITESBURG, KENTUCKY
Ms. Cromer. Thank you, Chairpersons Maloney and Khanna,
Ranking Members Comer and Herrell, and all of the members for
the opportunity to testify today about the impacts of the
recent flooding in Eastern Kentucky. My name is Mary Varson
Cromer. I am deputy director of Appalachian Citizens' Law
Center, a small nonprofit law and policy organization in
Whitesburg, Kentucky. I have led ACLC's environmental justice
program for 15 years. I have been invited to testify about the
floods that devastated Kentucky at the end of July.
For five days in late July, rain fell hard and fast, the
heaviest rain occurred in the early morning hours of July 27.
But despite flash flood warnings, many people say that the
first indication they had of any danger was that they woke up
to the sound of rushing water. It is important to understand
that in our part of Appalachia, there are no broad valleys. The
land is a plateau that is deeply furrowed by creeks and rivers.
The only flat land for development is along those creeks and
rivers. Our communities, our towns are built in those
floodplains. That is why this flood was so devastating and so
deadly. Forty people have died so far. Two are still missing.
Some areas like Troublesome Creek were particularly hit hard.
There, miles of houses along the creek were simply washed away.
Search and rescue efforts continued for more than a week. Half
of the people who died in the Kentucky floods lived along
Troublesome Creek. Whitesburg, where our office is, is a small
river town that was badly impacted by the flood.
According to recent FEMA data, 588 houses in our town of
only about 2,000 people have been inspected and determined to
need habitability repairs. I have been in some of those houses.
Habitability repairs require days of hard work: mucking,
tearing out walls, drying, and spraying for mold. We have had a
lot of really good charitable disaster relief organizations
helping with this work, but there is still so much need. There
are many in our area, especially those who are elderly and
disabled, who have not been able to do that work so far. And
because it is a race against the clock to do the work before
the mold is out of control, we know that many of our houses
will have to be torn down.
Nearly 44 percent of the households applying for FEMA aid
in Whitesburg have incomes below $30,000. Nearly 72 percent of
the applicants are homeowners. Less than five percent have
flood insurance. From that data, we can discern that if you are
poor in Whitesburg, you may have been lucky enough to be a
homeowner, but your house was much more likely to have been
damaged or destroyed by this flood, and you are not likely to
be insured against that catastrophe. For those who already have
so little, losing a house is not just about losing what little
wealth one has accumulated. That loss will cause further
instabilities that will ripple out through their lives, through
future generations, and throughout our community.
Even those in our communities who don't associate this
flood with climate change know that floods like this will
happen again. Everyone knows the dangers of living near our
creeks and rivers. ``We just have to get these people out of
the floodplains.'' That is the refrain we hear again and again,
but no one seems to know how to do that. The resources needed
to make that move, the money, the land, those are beyond the
reach of the majority of the people who have been impacted. We
know that this event was made much more likely because of
climate change. All projections show a warmer and wetter
climate in Kentucky with more frequent and severe rain events
and increased stream flows. As Bill Haneberg, the state
geologist of Kentucky, said on August 2, ``It may be impossible
to say that last week's events occurred solely because of
climate change, but they are consistent with our expectations.
It is likely that in the coming weeks and months, it will be
possible to confidently say how much climate change increase
their likelihood.''
We also know that a century of coal mining practices in our
area makes the impacts of these rain events in some areas so
much worse. Mountaintop removal impacts are particularly
pronounced. With this form of radical strip mining, after the
mountaintop is removed and the overburden is placed in valley
fields, the cheapest and fastest way to stabilize and reclaim
the land is to compact the soil and plant grass. Where you once
had diverse forested hillsides with the capacity to soak up
rainfall, you now have heavily compacted land. It is like
pouring water on a tabletop. And not all of our mountaintop
removal sites have been reclaimed. As the coal market
fluctuates, coal companies skirt regulatory reclamation
requirements. In Breathitt County, 59 residents have sued a
coal company alleging that the company's failures to follow
regulations severely exacerbated the flooding there. They
allege that the company failed to reclaim this mountaintop
removal site as it was mining, leaving large areas of eroding,
blasting, and disturbed land that went into the creeks below.
Our area of Central Appalachia has been at the frontlines
of environmental devastation caused by coal mining for decades.
We now find ourselves at the front line of flooding disasters
caused by climate change. We have so much rebuilding to do.
Somehow we must find a way to build back with resilience
against future floods because we know flooding like this will
happen again. Thank you for this opportunity.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your heartfelt testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Sanchez. You are now recognized for your
testimony, Ms. Sanchez.
STATEMENT OF JASMIN SANCHEZ, BARUCH HOUSES, NEW YORK
Ms. Sanchez. Distinguished Members of Congress and staff, I
would like to thank Chairs Representative Maloney and
Representative Khanna for the invitation, and acknowledge
Ranking Members Representative Herrell and Representative
Comer. Thank you for the opportunity to speak my truth. My name
is Jasmin Sanchez, and I am a lifelong resident of Baruch
Houses, the New York City Housing Authority's largest public
housing development in Manhattan with over 10,000 residents.
I start by saying this because this was one of the
developments that was affected by Superstorm Sandy on October
29, 2012. The day Sandy hit my community, I was sent home early
from work. I worked as a babysitter in Park Slope in Brooklyn.
Unlike the families I worked for, I did not have the luxury of
leaving my apartment to seek refuge in a safe place. There was
nowhere else I can go, but back to my apartment.
At 8:26 p.m., I saw a green spark in the sky and everything
went dark. It was then that I saw the East River rising and
flooding my community. When we lost power, I had no idea it was
because the Con Edison plant exploded. The Con Edison plant is
a six-minute walk from my development. This was the light that
I saw at 8:26 p.m. Within the next few minutes, I saw cars,
jeeps, and wagons floating down what would normally be busy
streets. I also saw some cars remain in place, but submerged. I
waded through the freezing water to find that I was unable to
open the lobby door because of the force of the water. When I
was finally able to get into the building, the water was above
my knees.
Climate justice is a racial justice issue. Sandy showed the
inequities in our city. If you didn't have a car, you couldn't
leave. If you didn't have financial means, you couldn't
relocate. If you weren't financially stable, you still had to
work. And if you didn't have cash on hand, you could not buy
the basic necessities. I, along with many of my neighbors, were
in survival mode. My community and communities that look like
mine feel the ramification of climate change more harshly.
After Sandy, I felt compelled to learn about why this happened.
This was when I started to learn about the fossil fuels. New
York City operates on fossil fuels. Frontline communities in
New York City that have historically borne the brunt of
pollution are usually Black, and brown, and other low-income
communities. We see heat waves, poor air quality, and extreme
weather, and climate events ravage through poor communities
without a second look.
I live on the FDR Drive. I live by the Con Edison plant. I
live by the Williamsburg Bridge, and I live by the holding
station for buses. All of this within a four-block radius. The
fossil fuel sector is literally choking us to death with no
regard to how they contribute to the exacerbation of other
conditions in my community. There is a racist placement of
power plants in New York City. I have lived by the Con Edison
plant my entire life. My mother, father, and sister have lived
across from the Ravenswood Power Plant in Astoria for 25 years.
The fact that these facilities are located in Black and brown
communities is not an accident. It is by design. It stems from
decades of racist policies, and it severely affects the quality
of life for individuals in these communities.
New York City is facing warming temperatures and more
intense and frequent heat waves as the climate changes. Higher
temperatures lead to more deaths and illness. I am asthmatic
and diabetic. Heat stress can exacerbate heart disease and
diabetes, and warming temperatures result in more pollen and
smog, which can worsen asthma and COPD. I barely go outside in
the summer months because of the heat, not only because of my
asthma and diabetes, but because I get heat rashes that spread
throughout my body and lasts for days.
In my community, residents who don't have access to cooling
centers and don't have the money to purchase an air conditioner
for their apartment are particularly susceptible to the effects
of increased heat. In addition, low-income areas in cities have
been found to be 5 to 12 degrees hotter than higher-income
neighborhoods because they have fewer trees and parks and more
asphalt that retains heat. When Sandy hit my development, we
saw 250 trees being removed from my complex. Seven years later,
the FEMA funds came in and we are seeing all our lawns being
converted to asphalt.
As we approach the 10-year anniversary of Sandy, I feel
scared about where we are. I feel that the fossil fuel industry
is willingly sacrificing my community and communities like mine
for the sake of profit. While we associate fossil fuel costs
with our utility bills, people that look like me pay for fossil
fuels with our health, our safety, our democracy, and our
children's right to a clean and healthy future.
[Speaking foreign language], and I will translate that for
those who did not understand. I will be remiss if I did not
mention Hurricane Maria. Burning fossil fuels not only harms
our community stateside, but also our islands as well as the
world. As we approach the five-year anniversary of this
devastating hurricane, the people on my island have yet to
recover. So I think about how we as humans could decide not to
fulfill our global responsibility to care for our brothers and
sisters and continue to fuel the climate crisis by giving
profits to the fossil fuel companies. Thank you for the
opportunity.
Chairwoman Maloney. I want to thank all of the witnesses
today for your very moving and personal stories. They all come
from different areas of our country. They all have compelling
stories of what they personally suffered. I do want to mention
that Ms. Sanchez lives on the Island of Manhattan where I live.
She is not in my district, but she very accurately described
the horror of seeing lower Manhattan underwater--underwater--
and we are trying to figure out how we can help people when the
next storm comes and the suffering that she had. They all
talked about the wildfires, the heat waves, the floods, and
other extreme weather, show that climate change is already
having a terrible impact across the United States. I want to
thank all of you for sharing your story.
There will be no questions. You are now excused. And we
have a second panel coming, and we will have a brief recess
while the second panel comes.
Again, I can't thank you enough for sharing your story and
being with us today, and we will work to help you. Thank you.
[Pause.]
Chairwoman Maloney. The committee will come to order, and
we will now introduce our second panel. First, we will hear
from Dr. Isabella M. Weber, assistant professor of economics at
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Then we will hear from
Raya Salter, founder and executive director of the Energy
Justice Law and Policy Center and a member of the New York
State Climate Action Council. Then we will hear from Dr. J.
Mijin Cha, associate professor of urban and environmental
policy at Occidental College and a fellow at the Cornell
University Worker Institute. Finally, we will hear from Michael
Shellenberger, founder and president of Environmental Progress.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
[A chorus of ayes.]
Chairwoman Maloney. Let the record show that the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you.
And without objection, your written statements will be part
of the record.
And with that, Dr. Weber, well, you are recognized for your
testimony, and thank you all for being here today.
STATEMENT OF DR. ISABELLA WEBER, PH.D., ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF
ECONOMICS, UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS-AMHERST
Ms. Weber. Chairwoman Maloney, Chairman Khanna, Ranking
Member Cromer, Ranking Member Herrell, members of the committee
and subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to testify. My
name is Isabella Weber. I am assistant professor of economics
at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. My research focuses
on the economic management of rapid structural shifts. I lead a
research project on inflation funded by the Groundwork
Collaborative, and I am a Berggruen fellow.
We have witnessed a profit and price explosion in the
fossil fuel industry. This has led to a redistribution of
incomes from the bottom to the top of the wealth brackets.
Energy price hikes present a major risk for economic stability
and can undermine efforts to mitigate climate change. To set an
end to the price and profit hikes, I recommend policies for
direct price stabilization. These points are developed in my
written statement.
Oil corporations have reaped record profits, while the war
in Ukraine created global turmoil on commodity markets. Our
research shows that U.S. companies have made an estimated $84.5
billion in fossil fuel profits in the 2d quarter of 2022 alone.
This is a net increase of 155 percent. The two largest oil
firms, Exxon Mobil and Chevron, have reported the highest
profits in their long history.
Profits are high not only because prices are up, but also
because costs are down. Higher cost oil rigs were shut down
during the pandemic and have not been fully reopened. While
there are technical challenges, there are no strong incentives
for oil corporations to fully reopen if they can generate
unprecedented profits with lower output volumes. This is a low
production, high profit model according to a private equity
expert.
Asset management companies on Wall Street have gained by
intermediating the profit flow. The most important ultimate
beneficiaries of the profit explosion are the richest
households: 53.7 percent of the total domestic fossil fuel
profits go to the top one percent. This reduced their inflation
burden by about half, but most Americans cannot compensate
rising prices for energy with income from profit flows and are
squeezed. Fossil fuel profits impact consumer inflation both
directly as well as indirectly as all goods that rely on fossil
fuel inputs become more expensive.
The same communities that are hit hardest by climate change
suffer most under fossil fuel inflation. Household energy
burdens are disproportionately higher for low-income Black,
Hispanic, Native-American, and older adult households. Many
Americans are at a tipping point into energy insecurity and
poverty. The budgets of state and local governments, too, are
burdened by rising energy prices. The decline in purchasing
power, as explained by 10 out of 12 recessions in post-war
America, were preceded by large oil price increases. Large
employers, like the retail giant, Walmart, are faced with high
fuel costs, while their customers have less money to absorb
further price increases. This can threaten jobs. Firms, whose
customers are less squeezed, continue to pass on costs or even
increase prices beyond costs. This renders profits across the
economy arbitrarily.
Oil price explosions also make climate change mitigation
more expensive as they drive up the costs for green
infrastructure and renewable energy facilities. The value of
fossil fuel assets that will need to be taken offline for green
transition increases as profits soar, heightening financial
risks. Fossil fuel dependence is a systemic inflation risk. The
foremost task is to increase the supply in renewable energies
as quickly as possible. In the interim, the toolbox of price
stabilization has to expand beyond interest rate hikes as the
Emergency Price Stabilization Act emphasizes. Taxing windfall
profits can play a positive role in correcting the
redistribution. Energy insecure households can be supported
with a price cap on basic energy needs, a policy I have
designed for Germany that could be adapted to the U.S.
This testimony has illustrated the wide-ranging
implications of the present fossil fuel price and profit shock.
Policies are needed that prevent such shocks from shaking the
foundations of the economy. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your testimony, and Ms.
Salter, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RAYA SALTER, ESQ., FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
ENERGY JUSTICE LAW AND POLICY CENTER, AND MEMBER, NEW YORK
STATE CLIMATE ACTION COUNCIL
Ms. Salter. Thank you so much. Dear distinguished members,
my name is Raya Salter. I am an energy attorney and the founder
and executive director of the Energy Justice Law and Policy
Center based in New Rochelle, New York, with offices in
Birmingham, Alabama. The Energy Justice Law and Policy Center
is an energy justice think tank and the Nation's first
grassroots public interest law firm dedicated to energy
justice. I am also a member of the New York State Climate
Action Council, the body tasked with developing the scoping
plan for New York to achieve its statewide greenhouse gas
emissions reduction goals. I am an adjunct professor of law at
Cardozo Law School, and my book, Energy Justice, was published
in 2018.
This may well be the most important inquiry of our
lifetimes. Last year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change report was a code red for humanity. Human-induced
climate change is widespread, rapid, and intensifying, and some
trends are now irreversible. Greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuels are choking our planet. The scientists of the
world have told us we have 10 years to act, yet progress is
stalled at all levels. How can this be? I will tell you why.
The climate crisis is an unprecedented global crime, and
the smoking gun lies in the hands of Big Oil and Gas. They have
known with precision for over 40 years that they were doing no
less than creating a mass extinction event. As over 20 pending
lawsuits by U.S. States and cities now attest, the response
from the oil and gas industry was to hide the truth in a
coordinated and well-financed Big Tobacco-style misinformation
campaign. All the while, the emissions during the last decade
have been higher than at any time in human history.
The only way to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement
and limit global warming to 1.5 degrees-C is to reign in Big
Oil and Gas. On this, we are falling short. According to the
United Nations, the combined 2020 nationally determined
contributions or the countries' plans for climate action are
not sufficient to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement. Last
year at COP26 in Glasgow, the oil and gas industry had the
largest delegation to COP than any single country. Put plainly,
the world has failed to act on climate because it has failed to
take on the fossil fuel industry and lobby.
Big Oil uses its vast marketing muscle to increase
production while promising emissions reductions. In truth,
their promises are nowhere near close to meeting Paris targets.
Take, for example, the 2022 Exxon-Mobil announcement of its
ambition to reach net zero by 2050. The commitment covers
operational emissions known as Scope 1 and 2. They leave out
Scope 3, the massive amount of emissions that actually result
from the fossil fuels they sell. This ambition is false on its
face.
While Big Oil reaps profit and avoids accountability, it
spreads environmental injustice in the United States and
throughout the world. The extraction, processing,
transportation, refining, and combustion of fossil fuels places
disproportionate environmental burdens on Black, brown,
indigenous, and poor communities, as you heard this morning.
Those impacts include exposure to significant health hazards;
eviction from and desecration of ancestral lands, including my
own family in Alabama; fires; explosions; industrial accidents;
and loss of subsistence fishing and human rights. This is
systemic fossil fuel racism. Its causes include segregation,
unequal housing, and redlining.
Climate, environmental, and energy justice are interlinked,
and inequality and injustice lie at the heart of the climate
crisis. There is only one way out: we must phaseout fossil
fuels. This is the most decisive decade in human history.
Absolutely everything depends on curtailing greenhouse gas
emissions from Big Oil. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your very clear and
passionate testimony. Dr. Cha, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF J. MIJIN CHA, PH.D., J.D., ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF
URBAN AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE, AND FELLOW,
CORNELL UNIVERSITY WORKER INSTITUTE
Ms. Cha. Thank you, Chairman Maloney, Chairman Khanna,
ranking members, members of the House Committee on Oversight,
and members of the Subcommittee on Environment. Thank you for
inviting me to testify here today. My name is Mijin Cha. I am
an associate professor of urban environmental policy at
Occidental College and a fellow at the Worker Institute at
Cornell University. My research focuses on the intersection of
climate change and inequality, and my most recent research is
on how to advance a just energy transition.
I join you today from Sacramento, California, where we have
just endured over a week of unrelenting heat that shattered
daily heat records and the record for most days over 100
degrees in a year. The heat was not limited to the daytime. We
also shattered record nighttime temperatures. Higher nighttime
temperatures are another consequence of the climate crisis and
do not allow any reprieve from the unrelenting heat. At the
same time, we are on the border of the Mosquito fire, one of
several massive wildfires that are currently burning. There is
no doubt that the climate crisis exacerbated both the heat wave
and the intensity of the wildfire.
Climate change is no longer a concern for the future. We
are in a climate crisis now. Yet, despite the urgency of the
moment, action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions has been
limited at the Federal level until the recently signed
Inflation Reduction Act. No doubt the IRA is the most
significant investment in climate action to date, but we must
see the IRA as only a down payment on what is needed, not the
end-all/be-all of meaningful climate action.
But we also cannot overlook the role that Big Oil and other
fossil fuel companies have played in obstructing climate action
through their lobbying and extensive misinformation campaigns.
Recently, their new form of climate denialism is to shift the
responsibility for emissions reductions onto the consumer to
deflect away from their own culpability, while also spending
millions on public relations campaigns to tout their efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions while doing little to nothing
to meet these pledges.
This year, a comprehensive peer-reviewed study of 12 years
of data on the four largest oil companies--British Petroleum,
Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell--found that while there was a
noticeable increase in discourse related to climate change and
clean energy, there was little to no effort to actually shift
away from producing oil and gas. The authors state, ``We
conclude that accusations of greenwashing by oil majors are
well founded.'' Other research analyzing the Paris Agreement
targets found that not one major oil company was reducing
emissions in line for what is called for in the agreement. The
major oil companies are not even meeting their own stated
emissions reductions goals. Researchers specifically noted that
ExxonMobil and Chevron were grossly insufficient in reducing
emissions.
But greenwashing is not the only deception that fossil fuel
companies engage in. Fossil fuel companies are also equity
washing by messaging concern for communities of colors and
workers while engaging in activities that actively harm the
same interests. The Chevron refinery in Richmond, California,
illustrates just how fossil fuel activity harms these
communities. The refinery is located in a majority-people-of-
color community with a poverty rate higher than the national
average. The refinery releases substantial amounts of
greenhouse gases and air pollution in the normal course of
business. It also regularly has flaring events, where
additional toxic gases are burned and then released into the
air. While the negative health impacts of the refinery are well
established, the economic benefits are limited. Workers at the
refinery also face difficult conditions. Earlier this year, the
refinery workers went on strike for two months over unfair
labor practices. In the two months of the strike, Chevron
experienced nine flare events, an average of more than one a
week.
A just transition is possible, but not by relying on Big
Oil to lead the way. We must enact transition policies now so
that when fossil fuel production meaningfully declines, plans
are already in place to support workers and communities. In
recent peer-reviewed research, colleagues and I analyzed
transition cases across the country and across the world to see
what a just transition requires. We determined that four
pillars are crucial: strong governmental support, dedicated
funding streams, economic diversification, and strong and
diverse coalitions. A more complete discussion of these pillars
is presented in my written testimony.
I conclude by noting that as you have heard today, the oil
and gas industry is extremely profitable, yet continues to
receive billions in government aid and support while posting
record profits. A portion of these profits should go toward
advancing a just energy transition for workers and communities.
Moreover, in line with the polluter pays principle, the oil and
gas industry should be required to finance efforts to address
the climate crisis it is primarily responsible for creating.
While time is running out, we can still act to curb
emissions and protect our planet. We must show the fossil fuel
industry that people matter over profits and enact a truly just
transition. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you for your research and very
factual presentation. We really appreciate it. And Mr.
Shellenberger, you are now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER, FOUNDER AND PRESIDENT,
ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you. Good morning, Chairwoman
Maloney----
Chairwoman Maloney. Can you turn on your mic? I can't hear
you.
Mr. Shellenberger. Good morning, Chairwoman Maloney,
Environment Subcommittee Chairman Khanna, and Ranking Member
Comer, and members of the committee. I am grateful to you for
inviting my testimony. I share this committee's concern with
climate change and misinformation. It is for that reason that I
have, for more than 20 years, conducted energy analysis, worked
as a journalist, and advocated for renewables, coal-to-natural-
gas switching, and nuclear power to reduce carbon emissions.
At the same time, I am deeply troubled by the way the
concern over climate change is being used to repress domestic
energy production. The U.S. is failing to produce sufficient
quantities of natural gas and oil for ourselves and our allies.
The result is the worst energy crisis in 50 years, continuing
inflation, and harm to workers and consumers in the U.S. and
the Western world. Energy shortages are already resulting in
rising social disorder and the toppling of governments, and
they are about to get much worse. We should do more to address
climate change, but in a framework that prioritizes energy
abundance, reliability, and security.
Climate change is real and we should seek to reduce carbon
emissions, but it is also the case that U.S. carbon emissions
declined 22 percent between 2005 and 2020, exceeding our Paris
climate agreements, by the way, by nearly five percent. Global
emissions were flat over the last decade and weather-related
disasters have declined since the beginning of the century.
There is no scientific scenario for mass death from climate
change.
A far more immediate and dangerous threat is insufficient
energy supplies due to U.S. Government policies and actions
aimed at reducing oil and gas production. The Biden
administration claims to be doing all it can to increase oil
and gas production, but it is not. It has issued fewer leases
for oil and gas production on Federal lands than any other
administration since World War II. It blocked the expansion of
oil refining. It is using environmental regulations to reduce
liquefied natural gas, or LNG, production and exports. It has
encouraged greater production by Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and
other OPEC nations rather than by the United States. And its
representatives continue to emphasize that their goal is to end
the use of fossil fuels, including the cleanest one, natural
gas, thereby undermining private sector investment.
If this committee is truly concerned about corporate
profits and misinformation, then it must approach this issue
fairly. The Big Tech companies make much larger profits than
Big Oil, but have for some reason not been called to account
for this, nor has there been any acknowledgement that the U.S.
oil and gas industry effectively subsidized American consumers
to the tune of $100 billion per year for most of the last 12
years, resulting in many bankruptcies and financial losses. As
for misinformation about climate change and energy, it is rife
on all sides, and I question whether the demands for censorship
by Big Tech firms are being made in good faith or are
consistent with the rights protected by the First Amendment.
Efforts by the Biden administration and Congress to
increase reliance on weather-dependent renewable energies and
electric vehicles risk undermining American industries and
helping China, our greatest geopolitical rival. China has more
global market share of the production of renewables, EVs, and
their material components than OPEC has over global oil
production. It would be a grave error for the U.S. to sacrifice
its hard-won energy security for dependence on China for
energy. While I support the repatriation of those industries to
the U.S., doing so will take decades, not years.
Increased costs tied to higher U.S. labor and environmental
standards could further impede their development. There are
also significant underlying physical problems with renewables
stemming from their energy dilute, material intensive nature
that may not be surmountable. Already we have seen that weather
dependence, large land use requirements, and large material
throughput result in renewables, making electricity
significantly more expensive everywhere they are deployed at
scale. The right path forward would increase oil and natural
gas production in the short and medium terms in the United
States and increase nuclear energy production in the medium to
long terms. The U.S. Government is, by extending and expanding
heavy subsidies for renewables through the Inflation Reduction
Act, expanding control significantly over domestic energy
markets without a clear vision for the role of oil, gas and
nuclear.
We should seek a significant expansion of natural gas and
oil production, pipelines and refineries to provide greater
energy security for ourselves and to produce, in sufficient
quantities, for our increasingly desperate allies in Europe, in
particular. We should seek a significant expansion of nuclear
power to increase energy abundance and security, produce
hydrogen, and, one day, phaseout all the use of fossil fuels.
While the latter shouldn't be our main focus particularly now,
radical decarbonization can and should be a medium-to long-term
objective within the context of creating abundant, secure, and
low-cost energy supplies to power our remarkable Nation and
civilization. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Maloney. Thank you so much for your testimony. I
want to thank all the panelists for your commitment and your
hard work, and for being with us today on this extremely
important issue. I now recognize myself for questions.
On our first panel, we heard from Americans across our
country, different areas who are suffering from the terrible
consequences of a climate crisis caused by our dependence on
fossil fuels. And while these Americans and millions more are
suffering, the Big Oil companies are making record profits.
Look at these numbers--$17 billion, the largest profit they
have ever had, $11 billion, $8.5 billion, $11.5 billion--and
they are not investing in renewable energy. They are just
taking the profits. They are not investing in helping people or
helping our country, and they are getting rich selling the
fossil fuels that are causing the problem.
So I would like to first begin with Dr. Weber. Do you agree
that Big Oil is benefiting from our continued dependence on oil
and gas, and how so? Could you elaborate?
Ms. Weber. I do agree with that sentiment. We have
conducted research where we have analyzed using input-output
methods, which sectors present the greatest inflation risk for
the American economy, and we have found that petroleum and coal
products are by far the sector that presents the greatest
inflation risk. This inflation risk is immediately linked to
the profit explosions that we have seen, where low production
has been used to hike up prices.
Chairwoman Maloney. So these companies that are hiking up
the prices claim that they support the Paris Agreement
``aspirations'' to reduce emissions in the future, but internal
documents that the committee obtained in response to my
subpoena tell a very different story. We obtained an internal
memo prepared for the CEO of Exxon, Darren Woods, in 2019. And
this memo shows how Exxon and Chevron worked behind the scenes
to drastically reduce and weaken climate pledges made by an
industry called the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. The memo
shows the two companies wanted to remove any commitment for oil
companies to ``align their advocacy with their climate-related
positions''.
So Ms. Salter, in layman's terms, why wouldn't these fossil
fuel companies want to advocate for climate positions that they
claim to support?
Ms. Salter. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel company
commitments are just, frankly, disingenuous. As you mentioned,
the fossil fuel lobby combats climate action on every single
level--global, national, state and regional--and that includes
New York state, where API is putting the fossil fuel playbook
into practice to undermine our ability to reach our transition
away from fossil fuel.
Chairwoman Maloney. Now, this same internal memo to Exxon's
CEO calls for removing any language that commits Big Oil to
``enhance climate-related governance, strategy, risk
management, and performance metrics and targets''. So, Dr.
Weber, is it fair to say that these elements, including
governance, strategy, risk management, and performance metrics,
are key parts of a business plan?
Ms. Weber. That seems right to me. I think we have seen in
the present crisis that profits are the ultimate and only goal
of Big Oil corporations.
Chairwoman Maloney. And does it concern you that Exxon and
Chevron did not want to commit to incorporating climate change
into key parts of their business plan? Ms. Salter, does that
upset you?
Ms. Salter. It is disturbing on many levels. It is
disturbing on just a human level, but also, as many
jurisdictions have said in court, it is a fraud to the
investors in these very companies. They are hiding the truth at
what climate change is going to mean for their business. The
information that they get, the truth that they know about the
threat of the climate crisis, internally they use that to
protect their infrastructure and understand where they are
going to find opportunities. And externally, they play it down
and play down the impacts of the climate crisis on the business
in a way that many jurisdictions believe is fraud.
Chairwoman Maloney. So Exxon and Chevron claim they support
the Paris Agreement, but they won't commit to advocating for it
or working for it. They claim they will reduce emissions, but
won't commit to coming up with a business plan to do so. In
other words, they are all talk and absolutely no action. While
Big Oil stalls, Democrats have taken real meaningful steps to
address climate change and cut Americans' energy costs by
passing the inflation Reduction Act. And it is long past due
for Big Oil to end its deception and commit to real action to
reduce its emissions.
And with that, I now recognize the gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Hice, for five minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I hope you will be
gracious with the time on our end as well. It is a shame that
once again, both the chairwoman and committee Democrats are
wasting our valuable time here, deviating from the jurisdiction
that this committee has in order to attack American private
enterprise and score some cheap political points with the
radical left.
This hearing is just about Democrats searching for a
scapegoat for their own failed energy policies, quite frankly.
President Biden and the Democrats think that making oil and gas
energy-producing companies their scapegoat will somehow solve
rising energy costs, but, quite frankly, Americans are not
buying it. Americans know who to blame every time they go to
the pump to put gas in their cars. In fact, right now, the
stock market is lower than it was when President Biden took
office, and you add to that inflation that is crippling
Americans and businesses. Americans know exactly where the
blame lies.
Democrats' energy policies are such a failure that they
can't even power the core pillar of their green energy
initiative, that being electric cars. It is absolutely
embarrassing that we live in one of the most prosperous
countries in the world, and yet we have a state, California,
that is now telling their residents to ration energy, power,
and telling them not to charge their expensive electric cars
that they were told to buy all in order to save our
environment. Democrats' Green New Deal policies, quite frankly,
are destroying our country's energy production and making us
more reliant upon foreign-sourced energy. And these actions
are, quite frankly, a threat not only to our economy, but our
national security.
This committee's jurisdiction is oversight of the Federal
Government, not the profits and practices of private sector
businesses and companies. So I respectfully ask the chairwoman
to stop using this committee to search for a scapegoat to blame
for Biden's and Democrats' failed policies. For the security of
our Nation and stability of our economy, we must seek for
energy independence. And that is the only logical conclusion.
Mr. Shellenberger, let me ask you this. Frankly, this
question is a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Do you believe that our
Nation's domestic energy policy is a national security issue?
Mr. Shellenberger. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Hice. Well, can you explain the importance of domestic
energy independence in America and, really, how Europe's
reliance on energy, particularly Russia, has failed?
Mr. Shellenberger. Absolutely. What we have seen in Europe
and Russia is that Europe became grossly dependent on Russia
for its domestic energy production. Europe was actually
producing more natural gas than Russia was exporting just 15
years ago, and many people warned Europe, including myself,
that it was becoming overly dependent on Russia. By doing so,
Europe was unable to deter a Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Putin calculated, and he may have miscalculated, but
nonetheless calculated that he would not suffer the
consequences of energy embargoes or energy restrictions as
retaliation for an invasion of Ukraine, and that gave him the
sense that he would be able to invade. And so, whatever happens
in that country, we can see the destruction is a result of
basically enabling his aggression through European
overdependence on Russia.
It would be insane, in my view, for the United States to
trade this remarkable security we have achieved, thanks to
abundant natural gas and nuclear, for a dependence on the
Chinese for solar panels that are just unboxed by American
workers, not manufactured here. As I mentioned in my testimony,
China dominates the production of not just renewables, but
electric vehicles. There is a desire to repatriate those
industries. We should do that, but we should not be shifting
our energy production to China. That would be absolutely
insane, particularly given this harsh lesson that Europe has
just learned.
Mr. Hice. In the last 30 seconds or so that I have, can you
explain how Biden and Democrat energy policies have contributed
to our own energy crisis?
Mr. Shellenberger. Absolutely. The Biden administration has
made far fewer acres of Federal lands and offshore water
available for oil and gas production. The result is that we do
not have enough oil and gas production for ourselves and to
provide for our allies in Europe. Biden has repeatedly
misstated, by the way, his own policies on this. The Biden
administration obviously canceled the Keystone Pipeline right
away when he came into office. We also saw them shutting down
an important refinery in the U.S. Virgin Islands that could
have been retrofitted to be much cleaner than it was. And we
have seen incredible hostility in general, including Treasury
Secretary Yellen just last week saying that she was going to
phaseout the use of fossil fuels. That has had a chilling
effect on private sector investment in oil and gas and
significantly undermined U.S. national security as well as the
security of Western Europe.
Mr. Hice. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. Let me
briefly address some of the concerns raised by my good friend
and colleague, Mr. Hice. First, high gas prices are a global
problem caused by many factors, including the behavior of
Russia. And while I agree that gas prices are still too high
for many Americans, the fact is that gas prices have declined
every day for the past 93 days.
Now, my Republican colleagues say they are concerned about
energy prices, but Democrats and Congress are actually doing
something about it. The Inflation Reduction Act is estimated to
save an average family $500 per year on energy costs, and every
single Republican voted against it. Instead, they are defending
the oil companies that are making record profits on the backs
of American consumers. They could lower their costs at the gas
pump. They could invest in renewable energy.
And with that, I recognize the distinguished and great
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Ms. Norton. You are
now recognized for five minutes, Mrs. Norton.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Madam Chair, for this important
hearing. Fossil fuel companies----
Chairwoman Maloney. Can you speak up and pull your mic to
you? It is a little hard to hear you.
Ms. Norton. Can you hear me better now? Can you hear me
better now?
Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Norton. OK. Fossil fuel companies are constantly
pitching gas as the lesser evil to coal, essential, of course,
to modern life. We understand coal is the most carbon-intensive
method of energy production. Currently, coal-fired power plants
account for a majority of the electricity production in several
Asian countries, including China and India. But according to
the International Energy Agency, renewable energy sources are
actually the most cost effective for electricity production in
most of these markets. Professor Weber, are economies that are
reliant on coal like China locked into oil and gas to satisfy
their energy needs?
Ms. Weber. Coal is certainly the more dirty fossil fuel, so
locking into coal is an even more devastating choice than being
locked into gas and oil, but we should really overcome fossil
fuel dependence altogether.
Ms. Norton. Well, Big Oil would like us to believe that
they must choose between the comforts of modern life and
reducing greenhouse gases. Ms. Salter, would eliminating
American reliance on oil and gas decrease our standard of
living?
Ms. Salter. So the answer is no. For example, in New York,
we have come up with a plan to reach net zero by 2050, and our
state analysis shows that the technology is there. Our cost
benefit analysis shows that the benefits of climate action far
outweigh the costs that we need to invest in. So the answer is
no.
Ms. Norton. Thank you for that response. Finally, my
colleagues across the aisle love to tout the fact that the
fossil fuel industry creates jobs for U.S. workers in oil and
gas, and that, of course, is true. They say particularly in low
income communities and communities of color, but in reality,
the industry took billions of dollars in tax refunds and COVID
relief funds even as it laid off thousands of workers. Then as
profits rebounded in 2021, companies continued to prioritize
CEO compensation and shareholder profits over investments in
their work force. Professor Cha, how does our reliance on
fossil fuels for jobs and economic advancement threaten the
long-term economic stability and healthcare of these workers?
Ms. Cha. You are absolutely right that the fossil fuel
industry has not recovered their work force. They are not at
the level of pre-pandemic levels, nor are the wages at pre-
pandemic levels. And most of the profits that they have made
have not gone to the work force, which is why the workers at
Chevron went on strike.
The truth is that one of the benefits of the renewable
energy economy is that it largely remains to be built, so there
is tremendous opportunity for work force and for workers. We
have to remind ourselves that the fossil fuels are a finite
resource. We can drill all we want, and then they will run out.
And we have to think about what will happen to workers and
communities if we don't plan for this transition, let alone
what will happen to the planet if we burn all of that oil and
gas. The truth is that the fossil fuel industry is good for
workers only because of workers' struggle. There is nothing
inherently just about the industry, and, in fact, the best
thing for workers is for us to transition to a renewable energy
future.
Ms. Norton. My time has expired. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentlelady yields back. The
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. I would like to give Mr.
Shellenberger there a couple of questions. First of all, when
we talk about natural gas in general, could you comment on how
clean America is compared to other countries?
Mr. Shellenberger. The United States, we reduced our carbon
emissions more than any other country in history between 2005
and 2020. We reduced our carbon emissions by 21.5 percent, if
you round it up, up to 22 percent. I recall that under the
proposed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, which failed
in the Senate in 2010, it was to reduce our carbon emissions by
17 percent. Our Paris Climate Agreement was to reduce our
emissions by 17 percent. So we reduced our carbon emissions by
nearly five percentage points more than we had intended to
under cap-and-trade or Paris. Meanwhile, of that reduction, 61
percent of that reduction was due to the switch from coal to
natural gas. The remaining 39 percent, which was from wind and
solar, were enabled by natural gas, since both of them being
unreliable, weather-dependent energy sources required gas to
ramp up and down. So gas has been a huge driver.
But if you look at other air pollution metrics, the United
States has led the world in reducing air pollution from lead,
carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and other air pollutants over
the last half century.
Mr. Grothman. For whatever psychological reason, and it
can't be a factual reason, for whatever psychological reason, a
lot of people like to run down America compared to the rest of
the world. So what you are telling me is, say, compared to
other large economies around the world, both European economies
and China, India, we are actually doing much better than these
other countries?
Mr. Shellenberger. Absolutely. The United States is leading
the world in terms of environmental progress. And not only
that, sir, but I would also point out that the United States
invented all of the major clean energy technologies upon which
we rely. That includes nuclear power plants. That includes
combined-cycle natural gas power plants. That includes high-
temperature, super critical coal plants. That includes even
solar panels. The main solar panel design that China has
reduced the price of in recent years, thanks in part to
incarcerated Uyghur Muslim labor and the use of coal, was
invented by Bell Labs, of course. So it is not just that we are
the leaders on environmental progress. We are also the leaders
of technological innovation of virtually every major clean
energy technology.
Mr. Grothman. It makes you proud to be an American. OK.
Now, it sounds like natural gas is even more of a step in the
right direction. What are the barriers preventing us from
increasing the supply of natural gas to the rest of the world?
Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, the main barrier to the
expansion of natural gas in the United States both for domestic
production and export is the war on natural gas. That war on
natural gas is taking place at every level of our society.
President Biden is waging war on natural gas by refusing to
allow expanded gas production on Federal lands and offshore.
His appointees at FERC are blocking the expansion of natural
gas pipelines as well as LNG export terminals.
We have been in this energy crisis for a year now. I was
writing about the impacts in Europe a year ago. We should have
been acting then to be expanding gas production to save our
allies in Europe, where we are going to have rationing and
industrial collapse this winter. It is occurring through the
war on gas in Congress. It is occurring in the courts. It is
occurring at every level of our society, and it is putting our
basic civilization and Western security at grave risk.
Mr. Grothman. What real or psychological reasons do they
have for disliking natural gas?
Mr. Shellenberger. The war on cheap and reliable energy has
been going on since World War II. It has been motivated by an
anti-human, anti-civilization, Malthusian mentality in the
tradition of the British economist, Robert Thomas Malthus. It
is a very dark view of the human species. It is a view of
humans as a blight on the planet. It is a view of modern
Western industrial civilization as bad for the environment. It
does not----
Mr. Grothman. OK. I think I got----
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Grothman. It is more of a psychological thing than it
is a----
Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, look, I think when you look at
what is driving this, it is acting as a kind of substitute
religion, complete with a new form of guilt, a new vision of
apocalypse, a kind of fall from, frankly, a state of nature
that never existed. This has been well studied by scholars over
30 years that this is acting as a substitute apocalyptic
religion.
Mr. Grothman. I will give you another quick question.
Nuclear energy, and I have a nuclear power plant in my
district. I was trying to explain to my staff that maybe one of
the reasons for the war on nuclear energy was a Hollywood movie
around in the 1970's. But can you tell me, is there any basis,
in fact, for this dislike of nuclear energy?
Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, nuclear is the cleanest form of
energy by far. It has the smallest environmental impact because
the energy density is so high. The power densities are so high.
Tiny quantities of land and material throughput are required in
order to generate significant quantities of energy, and so the
war on nuclear has been a war on having abundant energy to
power a society. It is a Malthusian pro-scarcity drive.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I kind of wondered if it was driven by a
Jane Fonda movie, but OK. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you
for having this hearing. Ms. Salter, I want to give you an
opportunity to respond to what we just heard. There is a war on
gas. There is a dehumanizing, almost religious aspect to the
environmental movement that is antithetical to human interest,
dystopian, and distorts, frankly, all of human history in terms
of its impact on the environment. And by the way, this war on
natural gas is irrational and hurting our ability both to be
energy independent and to help the environment. What is your
sense about those arguments?
Ms. Salter. It is incredibly disturbing. This is a new
level of climate denialism. You know, it is irrefutable climate
change is real, and that folks are still saying that somehow
the climate crisis is not happening and opening a new level
kind of argument that actual, legitimate warnings about the
climate crisis are instead a cruel dystopia is beyond
ridiculous and almost doesn't dignify a response. We need to
move away from fossil fuels, and that absolutely includes gas,
and that is why I am very glad that New York state is doing
exactly that.
Mr. Connolly. So I guess I would infer from your remarks in
rejecting what we just heard, you know, it is almost like a bad
religion to be concerned the way we are concerned, is that
actually, if we don't take action, what is going to hurt
humanity isn't the environmental movement. It is the
consequences of greenhouse gas emissions, global climate
change, rising ocean levels, and the like. Is that your
argument?
Ms. Salter. That is exactly right. And what we are seeing
is the shifting of blame from the climate crisis to
individuals, consumers, the environmental movement instead of
fixating it where it needs to be, which is squarely on the
fossil fuel industry.
Mr. Connolly. And we have been hearing a lot--maybe I will
turn to Ms. Salter--about the energy crisis, as if, Mr. Hice
would have you believe, somehow Democrats created a worldwide
energy crisis. Do you know, Ms. Salter, who the, say, 2d
largest oil and gas producer in the world is?
Ms. Salter. Well, yes. The super majors include Exxon,
Chevron----
Mr. Connolly. No, no, not companies. Countries.
Ms. Salter. Yes. Well, yes. That includes the United
States, in addition to Asian countries, the Arab countries as
well.
Mr. Connolly. No, but yes, but I think the world's No. 2
producer is Russia.
Ms. Salter. Russia is an important producer as well.
Mr. Connolly. I think it is No. 2. Is there something going
on with Russia that might affect their exports of energy?
Ms. Salter. This is one of the most disingenuous arguments
that you are hearing here today, is that energy security
depends on locking in our dependence on fossil fuels. We need
to move away from fossil fuels so that we are not dependent on
geopolitical forces completely beyond our control, including
what you were referring to, is this terrible unjust war in
Ukraine that was started by Russia.
Mr. Connolly. But the fact of the matter is, Russia as a
result, holding in abeyance your argument, which I certainly
agree with about moving away from fossil fuels. But before we
even get there, Russia being No. 2, given the war in Ukraine
and the sanctions that were imposed, their energy exports
become problematic. Markets have been cutoff to them. A price
cap has been discussed among allies to limit the revenue they
can generate. They have lost customers so they have to kind of
go to places like China and India to try to sell their oil at a
lower price, all of which means that there is an energy crisis
in terms of absolute supply given the importance of Russia in
the market. Would that be a fair statement?
Ms. Salter. Yes.
Mr. Connolly. Would it also be fair, and I know I am
sucking you into a political argument, but Mr. Hice made it, so
it needs to be refuted. So Democrats didn't cause that energy
crisis? Russia did in invading Ukraine?
Ms. Salter. That is absolutely right, and the refusal to
act on clean energy at home is exacerbating it and has been
exacerbating it for many years.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Another myth debunked. I rest my case,
and I yield back. Thank you.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Cloud, is recognized for five
minutes.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you, Madam Chair. There is so much to
cover and so little time. It is easy to draw the line between
the war in Russia and Ukraine to Biden's energy policies. It
was predictable. It was predicted. As a matter of fact, under
the Obama Administration, we saw the same thing. So the United
States' authority and power in energy is what led to stability
in the world, is what led to Middle East peace agreements that
were historic, and to discount that is absolutely ridiculous.
What is happening right now is leftist energy policies or
stupid energy policies are literally killing people. We have
people in Europe now burning wood to stay warm, which is, by
the way, not as clean as natural gas.
We have a war in the Ukraine and you want to talk about
carbon footprint. I think rebuilding a country after it has
been destroyed is a pretty big carbon impact. I don't know how
many electric vehicles we have to put in the car on the road to
cover that kind of damage, but I imagine it is pretty crazy.
And then, China is, as you mentioned, building our solar
panels. They are powering their industry by building dozens of
new coal plants because we are ceding our authority and giving
our strategic oil reserves to China. It is absolutely
ridiculous. And this is simply round three of the blame
shifting that needs to happen when every American knows what is
really happening.
Now, recently, I heard a minister say that ``It is not the
lies the devil tells, it is really the half-truths that really
kill you.'' And there is a whole lot of virtue signaling when
it comes to the Green New Deal and all the efforts that go
along with that and so much of it is not based on science. And
so, I thought in some of our time today we would uncover some
of the other half truths. You mentioned it already, Mr.
Shellenberger. Who controls most of the rare earth minerals and
green new energy.
Mr. Shellenberger. China.
Mr. Cloud. China by far. And one of the greatest drivers in
the reduction of carbon emissions was the transition to natural
gas?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Cloud. So this committee has been set up to demonize
the companies that produce natural gas. Here is the other side.
Here is the face of the Green New Deal. You mentioned work
force conditions in the oil and gas industry here in the United
States. This is a rare earth mine. Here is an article from The
New Yorker magazine. It says, ``Children as young as three
learn to pick out the purest ore from rock slabs. Children who
work in the mines are often drugged in order to suppress
hunger. If the kids don't make enough money, they have no food
for the day. Some children we interviewed did not remember the
last time they had a meal. Near large mines, prostitution of
women and young girls is pervasive. Other women wash raw mining
minerals, which is full of toxic metals and, in some cases,
mildly reactive. If a pregnant woman works with such heavy
metal cobalt, it can increase her chances of having stillbirth
or child with birth defects.
In a recent study, women in the Southern Congo had metal
concentrations that are among the highest reported for women.
The study also found a strong link between fathers who worked
with mining chemicals and fetal abnormalities in their
children. The kids, if they do work, they get some pay. But if
they sold their minerals, when they had the money, there are
street gangs, thugs who could stop you on the roads and snatch
your money. To safely pass, you had to pay so you can get safe
passage or they will beat you.'' These are the work conditions,
part of the picture that doesn't ever get told about rare earth
minerals. This is the Green New Deal, the face of it and the
work conditions.
Now, you say that renewable energy is infinite and natural
energy or normal oil and gas is somehow this finite resource.
And there is this messaging, like, clean energy, green energy,
renewable energy, which most people now I think could call
intermittent energy, is somehow, like, forever. Mr.
Shellenberger, are rare earth minerals a finite resource on
Earth?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, I mean, all resources are finite.
Mr. Cloud. Yes.
Mr. Shellenberger. But no, I mean, high-material
intensities are required for renewables because they are so
energy dilute. This is just basic physics. You need more land
and more material throughput when you are relying on the
sunlight and the wind because they are not energy dense. That
is the difference. You go up the energy ladder. This is just
basic physics. Wood to coal, to oil, to natural gas, to
uranium, you are going up the energy ladder toward higher
energy densities, toward lower environmental impact because you
are literally using less of the natural environment. This is
not controversial. This is basic energy science, basic physics.
So that is what you are doing. If you are moving down the
energy ladder back toward resources that depend on the sunlight
and the wind, you are going to use much more natural resource.
That is why you have those devastating impacts. And it is in
Congo, where I have certainly been and visited, but it is also
in Myanmar. Associated Press just did a big investigation which
found the devastating impact of rare earth mining in Myanmar.
Mr. Cloud. And you mentioned the Uyghurs as well?
Mr. Shellenberger. And that is another issue, is the
incarceration of Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps where
they produce solar panels. I find it unconscionable. I can't
believe that we are still importing those solar panels from
China. I just find it shocking to me, honestly, that that is
still happening.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin, is recognized for five
minutes. Mr. Raskin?
Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Madam Chair, for calling this
important hearing. I remember when I first got to Congress, our
colleagues across the aisle denying the existence of climate
change and questioning and undermining the science. And today,
with record forest fires in the West and wildfires out of
control in Europe, with entire islands being engulfed, with
record droughts in the Midwest and flooding in the East, they
are no longer denying climate change, but it looks like they
have some fancy new theories about how this is all a hangover
of Malthusian psychological dysfunction from the post-World War
II period, if I understand it correctly. But in the meantime,
back on the planet Earth we are dealing with a real crisis.
There is no longer any valid scientific dispute about whether
the climate has been destabilized. It has been, and we have to
confront the reality of this civilizational crisis.
The biggest fossil fuel companies--Exxon, Chevron, BP and
Shell--have made net zero emission pledges that they claim are
in accordance with the Paris Agreement's goal of limiting
global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius, but experts tell us
that all four of these pledges fall dramatically short of
meeting the Paris Agreement goal. MSCI, a prominent investment
firm, projected how much our planet would warm if the future
world economy reflects the pledges of these companies. For
example, Exxon and Chevron's pledges would leave us on track
for global warming of more than 4 degrees Celsius by 2100 if
all we do is what they are proposing to do.
Dr. Cha, could you describe for us what an average global
warming of four degrees Celsius would mean for our environment
and for the habitability of our communities both in North
America and in other parts of the world?
Ms. Cha. I mean, the damage that we are seeing now, we are
just over 1 degree Celsius warming. So at 4 degrees, we can
anticipate that every system will be disrupted to the extent
that it is quite possible that the conditions that exist will
not be consistent with humanity surviving.
Mr. Raskin. Well, could you draw in more detail what that
means? Are we talking about more dramatic levels of ocean rise
flooding, engulfing of entire islands, countries? Are we
talking about much greater climate migration, millions of
climate refugees? I mean, what are we looking at if we just do
what the big oil companies are telling us to do?
Ms. Cha. Yes, we will see all of that. We can think about
the damage that Hurricane Sandy did in New York City, and that
was just a few inches of water rise. You know, it is not just
that the seas will rise, but that when we think about these big
events, those big ocean currents that come will devastate
coastal communities. We can imagine that most small island
nations will also disappear, and our agricultural systems will
be completely disrupted because there are very small
temperature windows in which agriculture can grow. So, 4
degrees would mean that our entire food systems would be
completely disrupted. We are already seeing climate refugees,
so we can expect that that that will become much more intense.
And also, all of the weather patterns that we are seeing now
with these really destructive tornadoes, these really
disruptive hurricanes, those will all intensify both in terms
of their strength, but also their frequency.
Mr. Raskin. Ms. Salter, we know that for decades, the
carbon industry has worked to suppress the reality of climate
change and to conceal from the public the dramatic changes in
the climate that have been taking place. Now they are offering
some rhetorical commitment to the most minimal kinds of changes
in their conduct. If we continue to follow the lead of Big Oil
and the carbon barons, will we be able to make the changes we
need to make in order to preserve habitable life on our planet
for our people?
Ms. Salter. Absolutely not. The only way out of the climate
crisis is to reign in Big Oil and gas, the only way out.
Mr. Raskin. I read a book by Jared Diamond called Collapse,
and it is about how civilizations have collapsed throughout
human history. And the common theme seems to be that a minority
of the population gets control of a disproportionate amount of
the wealth and the power, and then runs off on an agenda that
is to the detriment of everybody else. And so I want to thank
the witnesses for their testimony because we need a
democratically determined policy in order to rescue ourselves
from an absolute climate collapse. I yield back.
Chairwoman Maloney. The gentleman yields back. The
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Higgins, is recognized for five
minutes. And I regretfully have to go to the floor to manage a
bill, so it will be chaired by Mr. Ro Khanna until 12:30 and
then Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez from 12:30 until I return.
Thank you.
Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. Americans are watching
this hearing today, and I am glad we are having it because this
is some of the most outlandish testimony I have witnessed yet
in six years in this Oversight Committee room. It is stunning.
I mean, with all due respect to our panelists today, I am not
quite sure some of you are connected to reality. So I'm going
to Ms. Salter. Ma'am, good lady, please prepare your mind
because I am asking you three questions. I am going to give you
most of my time. I think it is good that America hears what you
have to say.
If you had control of the of the world, ma'am, if you did,
I mean, you are presenting these grand ideas about eliminating
fossil fuel and the horrors of the oil and gas industry, and
the energy that we consume to run the world and uplift the
economic potential and prosperity of the world, which is the
single most significant factor that connects the prosperity of
our citizenry worldwide is economic opportunity. And energy
drives that, but here you go. Let me just ask you. I have three
questions, so try and keep your answers within 30 or 40
seconds, please.
What would you do with petrochemical products? OK.
Everything you have--your clothes, your glasses, the car you
got here on, your phone, the table you are sitting at, the
chair, the carpet under your feet--everything you have got is
petrochemical products. What would you do with that? Tell the
world.
Ms. Salter. If I had that power in the world, actually, I
don't need that power because what I would do is ask you, sir,
from Louisiana----
Mr. Higgins. I'm giving you the power. It is impossible
what you are talking----
Ms. Salter [continuing]. You, sir, from Louisiana, to
search your heart and understand why the EPA knows that toxic
petrochemical facilities are some of the most----
Mr. Higgins. My good lady, I'm trying to give you the----
Ms. Salter [continuing]. Toxic polluting facilities in the
world and are killing Black people throughout Louisiana. So my
first thing would be----
Mr. Higgins. OK. So what will you do with the products
that----
Ms. Salter [continuing]. You to search your heart and ask
your God what you are doing to the Black and poor people----
Mr. Higgins. It is our God. I make no apologies about that.
Ms. Salter [continuing]. In Louisiana. That would be my
first thing to ask.
Mr. Khanna.
[Presiding.] Let's just have one at a time so that we can--
--
Mr. Higgins. I say it is my time, Mr. Chairman. If I
reclaim my time, I shall. I'm going to give this young lady an
opportunity. You might not like it, but America needs to hear
it. You have got no answer, do you, young lady, about what to
do with petrochemical products, so I will move on. What are you
going to do with ocean-going vessels? What do you do with the
maritime industry?
Ms. Salter. Again, I would ask you to search your heart for
what is happening on the coasts----
Mr. Higgins. You have no answers to this stuff.
Ms. Salter [continuing]. Of Louisiana. Of course, we do. We
need to move away from petrochemicals.
Mr. Higgins. Lady, you stand on these grandiose statements.
Ms. Salter. We need to shut down the petrochemical
facilities in your state and move away from plastic.
Mr. Higgins. The world won't run.
Ms. Salter. We need to move away from it.
Mr. Higgins. The world won't function. You couldn't be
here. It is insane. What would you do with the aviation
industry?
Ms. Salter. The only thing that would not function is the
petrochemical industry in your state, sir.
Mr. Higgins. Do you care about the planet, good lady? Like,
do you have ecological concern for real? Like, from a biblical
perspective, the Lord gave us dominion over the planet and the
creatures thereof. Now, the original translation of
``dominion'' means to care for and nurture, so from a biblical
perspective, I am an environmentalist. I love my planet, and
the people, and the creatures thereof. Do you?
Ms. Salter. Sir, if we are going to talk about----
Mr. Higgins. I'm asking you, do you love your planet?
Ms. Salter. If we are going to talk about the Lord, I ask
that you search your heart again and think about repenting
because you----
Mr. Higgins. I searched my heart. Very quickly, I love the
planet. I'm asking you, do you actually care about the planet?
Ms. Salter. The fossil fuel industry that owns your state
is destroying the earth and the natural world, and that is a
fact, sir.
Mr. Higgins. You know what you got, young lady? You got a
lot of noise, but you got no answers. Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Khanna. I think I just, as chair, want to remind all
the members, witnesses of this committee we have very difficult
debates. And I understand it is a contentious issue, but all of
us should try to show as much respect during the hearing, and I
appreciate everyone doing that. It is actually my turn for my
five minutes.
You know, I mean, we have heard from the other side that
that there is some kind of war on energy. It is kind of hard to
square with the facts. I mean, if there was a war on energy,
how is Exxon, Chevron, BP, and Shell making over 200 percent
profits? I mean, you can't have a war on an industry and then
they are having record profits, more than they have ever had
under the previous President. You know, Mr. Shellenberger said
we lead in clean technology. I agree with that. America leads
in clean technology, many of it in my district. But you know
what we don't lead in? We don't lead in protecting American
consumers while Big Oil is making record profits, and this is
something I want to emphasize.
In Europe, they say let's have a windfall profits tax. It
just came out. And they are going to be taxing these big excess
profits and putting the money back in European consumers. And
guess what Big Oil is saying there? Shell quoted today: ``We
think it is appropriate. We think it is necessary because of
the energy crisis, and we want to help support the European
consumer.'' So guess what? They are willing to pay the tax to
help the Europeans. They are not willing to pay the tax to help
Americans. Americans are getting shafted. Big Oil is making
money on the backs of Americans and then going and paying the
tax in Europe, and saying, oh, we are on the side of European
citizens. We want to help European citizens. We just don't want
to help the Americans. That is what is going on.
And for a year we have been proposing in Congress ``tax the
Big Oil profits and help the American citizens.'' Boris Johnson
passed it in England, the Conservative government. The oil
companies are saying do it in Europe, but they want to fleece
the American public. That is what this hearing is about. Ms.
Salter, can you talk about what the impact would be on a
windfall profits tax and how it could help the American public?
Ms. Salter. My answer to that is that we absolutely need to
be looking at all of the significant ways that we can address
inflation, and looking into where profits have been a windfall
and having an honest conversation, and look at how that could
lead to policies that would lead to significant relief and more
equality.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. And, Dr. Cha, the oil companies'
messaging has been on net zero plans that they want to have net
zero. Is that actually consistent with what they are doing and
where they are investing?
Ms. Cha. Absolutely not. They are investing in increasing
oil and gas production. There has been no shift in their
business model away from fossil fuels. And I would also point
out that they have 9,000 unused oil and gas drilling permits,
so it is actually the fossil fuels' desire to protect their
profits that is limiting the production, not any kind of policy
from the Federal Government.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. Dr. Weber, there is a fossil fuel
industry wish list floating around. A copy of this was
watermarked by a leading oil and gas industry trade group. If
that wish list were to pass with frontline communities, could
you and Ms. Slater maybe just share what the impact would be?
Ms. Weber. Sure. I would also like to speak broader about
the implications of the fossil fuel dependence for American
enterprise, which has been one of the important topics that has
been raised. I want to re-emphasize that the largest employer,
Walmart, sees itself being squeezed by the exploding fossil
fuel prices. So fossil fuel price explosions and profit
explosions are putting American jobs at risk. They are also
undermining American external competitiveness since all other
firms in the American economy are facing these exploded risks.
So from that perspective then, fossil fuel dependence is
actually undermining the position of the American economy in
the world economy. If I may, I would also like to----
Mr. Khanna. OK. I want to get Ms. Salter in there. And I do
want to before just going to Ms. Salter recognize the
extraordinary staff here--Greta Gao, Russ Anello, Ethan Van
Ness, Katie Thomas, Kevin Fox, and Aria Kovalovich--in helping
convene this hearing. And Ms. Salter, I want to give you the
last word.
Ms. Salter. Thank you so much. So the same people, the same
frontline communities that are suffering the most health and
other negative impacts from fossil fuels are also the same ones
who are facing extraordinarily high energy burdens, and of
course, struggling with the cost of basic, you know, food and
utilities. So we need to phaseout fossil fuels to alleviate
fossil fuel racism and alleviate the burden on frontline
communities.
Mr. Khanna. All right. I now get to recognize my friend,
debating partner. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Shellenberger, I
think you said earlier the U.S. has reduced carbon emissions
and greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas reduction has happened in
America, right?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jordan. It is significant, right?
Mr. Shellenberger. Massive, the biggest in history.
Mr. Jordan. So the biggest in history, much more than China
or India, some of our bigger competitors economically, more
than the European Union in absolute numbers, right?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. Is there any country in the world that has done
better than the United States?
Mr. Shellenberger. No.
Mr. Jordan. So we are the best?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. The best when it comes to dealing with the
climate?
Mr. Shellenberger. By far.
Mr. Jordan. OK. So in a previous hearing about a year ago,
the chairman asked the CEO of Chevron, ``Are you embarrassed as
an American company that your production is going up?'' That is
a strange question to ask when we are reducing emissions. This
is a critical energy source for our economy, as my friend from
Louisiana said just a few minutes ago, that uplifts people all
over our country, and, frankly, around the world. When the
American economy is strong, I think the world is a safer and
better place. That is kind of a strange question, wouldn't you
agree?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. So the chairman, I think his quote was a ``war
on the oil and gas industry.'' I don't know if it is a war, but
when the chairman of an important committee in Congress tells
the CEO are you embarrassed that you are actually making more
of your product, we don't do that to any other industry, do we?
Mr. Shellenberger. No. I mean, not only that, but Meta,
Facebook, Apple, and Google had profits of $39 billion, $30
billion, and $76 billion last year. And I didn't see this
committee holding hearings on those profits, nor on the huge
losses that the shale frackers had. From 2010 to 2020, U.S.
shale frackers lost $300 billion. That did not happen in the
high-tech industry in Congressman Khanna's district. Those
firms did not suffer. Moreover, the Interior Department
distributed just 200 leases for oil and gas development during
President Biden's first 19 months in office. During Obama and
Trump, there were 10 times as many leases. No President since
Nixon has leased out fewer than 4.4 million acres during his
first 19 months in office.
Now, if I may, Congressman, I'll just add one thing,
because there was a couple of pieces of information that people
stated here that were incorrect. The first is that someone said
that New York is moving away from gas. That is false. Natural
gas and oil went from 77 percent to 89 percent of its
electricity supply between 2020 and 2021 because New York shut
down a perfectly functioning nuclear power plant. So New York
is not moving away from gas. It became more dependent on gas
because of the war on American energy.
There was another statement that was made that hurricanes
will become more frequent in the United States. That is also
not the prediction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. It supports the notion of a substantial
decrease, 25 percent, in the overall number of Atlantic
hurricanes and tropical storms. So in terms of misinformation,
we have seen some here today.
Mr. Jordan. So I think earlier you said that, you know,
when you look at the ladder--I think that is the term you
used--wood, coal, oil, gas, uranium, the energy intensity you
get from those moves up as you go up the ladder. Why does the
left hate so much the two at the top that are clean, right?
They are clean. Gas and uranium, clean.
Mr. Shellenberger. Right.
Mr. Jordan. Why do they hate them so much?
Mr. Shellenberger. Because they provide the most abundant
energy. And if you think that Western civilization is bad, or
if you think that human beings are bad, then you want to move
toward energy dilute fuels, which provide too little energy to
sustain Western civilization.
Mr. Jordan. And that is scary. If that is, in fact, the
case, that is scary. Is there a serious crisis brewing in
Europe this year when it comes to energy and energy needs?
Mr. Shellenberger. We have not begun to come to grips with
how serious this crisis is: 70 percent decline in fertilizer
production. The United Nations Food Program estimates that
hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger-related
diseases or from hunger this year.
Mr. Jordan. And is pressuring American companies in a
congressional hearing where you would say to the CEO of a major
oil and gas company, ``Are you embarrassed about production.''
I remember that hearing. It happened last October where the
chairman went down the line and said will you pledge today to
decrease production. A decrease in production, would that help
or hurt the situation in Europe?
Mr. Shellenberger. It is going to result in more deaths
from cold, pollution, and industrial collapse. It is going to
be devastating.
Mr. Jordan. Yes, I think so, too, and it is scary to think
that politics is driving some of this that is going to harm
families, people, communities in the European Union. And let's
hope that same mentality doesn't catch hold here and do that
kind of harm to the American families we here to represent.
Mr. Shellenberger. Sir, I would just add that the people
that are suffering the most are the poorest countries. It is
countries like Pakistan which are being out bidded for LNG
supplies by Europe that are going to suffer the most. As usual,
it will be the poorest countries in the world that will suffer
the most from the war on natural gas.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms.
Tlaib, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Tlaib. So I want to talk about suffering, human
suffering. I represent the third poorest congressional district
in the country where frontline communities, like the one in
48217 that I know Chairman Khanna visited, where it is a
predominately Black community that is literally housing the
only oil refinery in the state of Michigan, high rates of
asthma, respiratory issues, everything. What has been
detrimental is the pandemic exposed that, one, jobs don't fix
cancer, they don't fix disease, and that corporate greed is
killing communities like the ones that I represent. And more
Black folks during the pandemic in Michigan died of COVID than
any other community because of preexisting condition, because
of environmental racism of having us pay the total of Big Oil
deciding to come in our backyard. Our backyard, not the ones
right now pumping all this. Our backyard.
Even though Black folks made up less than 15 percent of the
total population, they still died at, like, 40 percent rate
than any other community, and so it is important that we as
House Oversight Committee understand our role. We have to
protect the American people. And there are intentional policies
and decisions being made right now around Big Oil that is, you
know, that is killing people, and that corporate greed is also
resulting in pushing people even more into poverty or having
them struggle even more because of the continued price gouging
and so much more.
So I do want to talk to some of the panelists about this
because, you know, one thing that I know is when companies got
permission to expand, you know, for instance, certain plants in
my communities and so forth, even the process of permission to
pollute hasn't resulted in actually protecting the public
health of many of our residents. Again, we don't have universal
healthcare in our country. Most of my frontline communities, so
hardworking folks, are frontline workers that don't have access
to healthcare coverage. They don't have access to a number of
things that, again, help keep them alive and be able to thrive.
And so, you know, I think, Dr. Cha, one of the things that
I have noticed, you know, like, for instance, you know, it is a
true fact that, you know, Black children are 34 percent more
likely to develop asthma, become unhealthy, you know, have
unhealthy air quality and so forth. Do you think, Dr. Cha, that
our communities, frontline communities like Detroit, like my
Wayne County communities which haven't met clean air standard
since 2013, are they paying the price of corporate greed among
fossil fuel industry with their health?
Ms. Cha. Absolutely. Part of the reason why we want to move
away from fossil fuels is the air pollution and the damage to
health that you are seeing from these very dangerous resources.
And despite this very strange theory that you are hearing that
environmentalists hate humanity, the reason why we want to move
away from fossil fuels is because we want to protect people. We
want to make their health better. Fossil fuels are polluting
communities across the country like your own, Representative.
So it is not that environmentalists hate people. It is
actually the very contrary because we want to protect humanity
that we are in this hearing and that we are hoping to reduce
the effect and the power of the fossil fuel industry.
Ms. Tlaib. And, you know, the climate-related disasters
that we are seeing across our country, it is almost like people
are trying to wash it away like it doesn't exist, that we still
have to do all of these things, and not understanding the
reality is that, you know, people are being directly impacted
by us doing nothing, but, again, extracting and creating more
harm to our environment. To me, I think it continues to lead to
permanent displacement and increased poverty, which we are
going to have to deal with in the future.
You know, Ms. Salter, I struggle to what I tell my
residents because they understand the climate issues. They
understand that pollution is harming their communities. What do
you think we can do in Congress to proactively protect these
communities, because we're hearing this economic debate, but
there is this human element of harm that is happening that
keeps getting whitewashed because folks want to continue to
talk about the economics, which I don't understand. We end up
paying the cost of the harm in the future anyways with death
and the illnesses that we continue to see rise, including
cancer, respiratory, asthma.
Ms. Salter. Well, you are absolutely right that people of
color, in particular, Black people, are found to bear a
disproportionately high burden of fossil fuel pollution across
the United States. Black people have 1.54 times more the
exposure to particulate matter compared to the overall
population, and this is environmental racism and fossil fuel
racism. And we need to phaseout fossil fuels, and we also need
to enforce air quality standards and transition away from
fossil fuels.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Gibbs,
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you. Well, the testimony has been
unbelievable. Some people, I think, live in a different world
or a fantasy land. I want to go back to the early 1900's. We
were an agrarian society, and we had the Industrial Revolution,
and we lifted people out of poverty. We improved people's
standard of living, and it was really driven by American
technology, American ingenuity, and innovation, and having an
energy source, and then, you know, we progressed through the
1900's and in the 2000's. And, yes, we had challenges. We
produced more energy and we had challenges. We had some
pollution issues, and we used technology to fix those sulfur
dioxide and all the issues. I can remember driving to my
grandparent's house, riding with my parents when I was a kid
going through Gary, Indiana. I had to hold my breath, you know.
We had all kinds of issues.
And we have made tremendous improvement. The United States
is a leader in the world now in reducing pollution, and we were
the leader in the world of producing good, clean energy. Some
of it is renewable, and a lot of it is from fossil fuels. And
it is really a sad day that nuclear has kind of gone by the
wayside, because probably that, and fuel cell technology, and
some of that technology, hydrogen, makes a lot more sense than
a lot of things.
But we had a lot of discussion here. I heard some
discussion about a windfall profits tax. You know, if you want
to make inflation worse, do a windfall profits tax and make
government bigger and send that money back to the people so you
increase the demand to buy goods and services where this
administration has been limiting demand. You know, the Econ 101
is, what is inflation? Inflation is when you have too many
dollars chasing too few goods. And so what this administration
has done, it has tried to increase demand by throwing all this
currency out in the economy, and it has limited demand,
especially in the energy sector.
And then we talk about national security, talking about
food security. We feed the world, American agriculture. Now,
think about that. How do we do that? We do that because we have
technology. We have fertilizer. We have agronomic. You know, in
1950, the national corn yield was 50 bushels per acre. When I
started farming in 1975, my goal was to have 100 bushels corn
per acre. Now, if you have 150 bushels corn per acre, it is a
disaster. We are having yields exceed 180, exceed 200 bushels
per acre. If we weren't doing that, we would have worst
starvation around the world, and what has caused that? You
know, it is our technology, but it is also our energy sector
that supplies, that adds the feedstock to the fertilizers.
You know, it just amazes me how some people live in this
fantasy that we can wave a magic wand and everything is going
to be OK. We can transition to a different energy source. You
know, I think we ought to do what we can to eliminate our
carbon footprint, but let's do it without putting people in
poverty and ruining standards of living and actually, you know,
probably raising the death rates.
One thing this administration could do, you know, it was
sending the wrong message. You know, our message to the oil
companies, we are not going to give you a pipeline permit. They
are not going to drill if they can't hook the wells up to a
pipeline because you can't move that natural gas, so we are
sending the wrong message. If you want to lower the price of
oil and lower inflation, the President come out and say we are
going to unleash American energy producers. We can do that. We
can do it. We did. You know, remember, before the war in
Ukraine, gas was down around the $2 area, and it went up before
the war in Ukraine because of the policies of canceled
pipelines, incentivizing the energy companies to not do
anything because they demonize them. We are just going wrong
about this. We can transition to a cleaner energy, but we just
can't do it overnight, and we lead with American innovation and
technology.
Mr. Shellenberger, it is a breath of fresh air to hear your
testimony today. You made so many good points. I think we
talked about energy density. I learned something there. It
makes it makes a lot of sense. I hope some of the other
panelists will listen to that.
We just drove through Northern Maine and Northern New
Hampshire a couple of weeks ago. And even my wife noticed this,
and she doesn't notice a whole lot of things when we are
driving because she is usually sleeping. But she noticed
everybody in the rural areas, they got wood piled up around
their houses. At some point, they are going to burn wood. You
know why? Because New England has to have heating oil, because
the state of New York won't let a pipeline to take that
Marcellus and Utica shale from Ohio and Pennsylvania, which is
cleaner than to burn wood. And you are going to see that in
Europe, right? Mr. Shellenberger, the wood consumption is
probably going through the roof, isn't it?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, and they are devastating the native
forest because of it. There is a big New York Times piece about
it, so absolutely. Energy density is the driver of
environmental thought.
Mr. Gibbs. We're lowering our standard of living and we are
also, at the same time, not improving the environment, and it
is, like, America has been a leader in that. And one comment
was made the best we could do is shut down fossil fuels and
shut down the energy companies. The oil companies will fall.
How about China and India? Why did not you mention that, China
and India? Worst polluters everywhere around, all types of
pollution. I'm running out of time. I have to yield back, but
thank you for your testimony, Mr. Shellenberger.
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
from New York, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, for five minutes.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Unfortunately, I wish I could use all my
time on questioning, but I wanted to address Ms. Salter
directly. I just want you to know that in the four years that I
have sat on this committee, I have never seen Members of
Congress, Republican or Democrat, disrespect a witness in the
way that I have seen them disrespect you today. I do not care
what Party they are in. I've never seen anything like that. And
for the gentleman of Louisiana and the comfort that he felt in
yelling at you like that, there is more than one way to get a
point across. And, frankly, men who treat women like that in
public, I fear how they treat them in private. We can be better
than this. We don't have to resort to yelling.
Moving on. I want to tell a story about last year, back in
October 2021, and, you know, I'm going to stop as well. I would
hope that someone would issue you an apology, but because I
don't believe he will, I want to apologize to you about the
conduct of this committee and what we just witnessed. The
people do not deserve to see that, and we deserve to put
forward a better front. So I just want to let you know that,
Ms. Salter.
Ms. Salter. Thank you, ma'am. I just wanted to thank you,
and you've provided so much leadership and courage. They can
come for me all day long.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Well, let's get them today then. Let's
tell a little story about last year, back in October 2021. We
held a hearing with fossil fuel executives, including the CEO
of Exxon-Mobil. And what we found in that investigation is that
Big Oil and Gas had spent nearly $55.6 million on political
lobbying here in Congress throughout the entire year. And last
year, infamously, what was also going on was the development of
the Build Back Better Act, which was supposed to be the largest
climate action in American history. Now, provisions were saved
during the Inflation Reduction Act, but the influence of fossil
fuel lobbying during that time was undeniable. Additionally,
the American Petroleum Institute had spent more than $2 million
in a 7-figure ad by spreading misinformation to kill the Build
Back Better Act.
Dr. Cha, you mentioned fossil fuel companies, not just
their lobbying activity, but their public relations campaigns.
Now, very quickly, what are some of the platforms and kind of
places that you see some of the PR campaigns placing their
misinformation?
Ms. Cha. I see it everywhere, on Facebook. I just saw on TV
the other day. You know, they always say, carbon dioxide, it is
life. Those kinds of things are the misinformation that they
do.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And so you see them on television,
correct?
Ms. Cha. All the time.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. YouTube pre-roll ads.
Ms. Cha. Print ads.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Print ads, digital media.
Ms. Cha. Billboards.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I want to talk a little bit about
political newsletters because those are very targeted toward
Members of Congress, chiefs of staff, and other policymakers
here on the Hill. A joint investigation from Gizmodo and the
Heated newsletter found--and I would like to submit this to the
congressional record--found that oil company advertising
exploded in Washington, DC, last year in D.C.-based newsletters
in the leadup to the October 21 hearing here in this committee
calling fossil fuel executives to testify. For example, between
October 1 and October 22, 2021, 100 percent of Politico's
Morning Energy newsletters were sponsored and funded by the
fossil fuel industry. This also happened to be when we were in
the thick of negotiating the Build Back Better Act and three
weeks leading up to our hearing on Big Oil's role in promoting
climate misinformation.
From October 1 to October 22, 63 percent of Punchbowl
newsletters were sponsored by fossil fuel companies or interest
groups, and every single one of the Morning Energy newsletters
were sponsored by Big Oil. Sixty-two percent of Axios-generated
newsletters were sponsored by fossil fuel interests. The
Gizmodo investigation points out that these rates are highly
unusual.
I was wondering, Dr. Cha, if you could speak to how those
types of ads influence the negotiating environment and
political and legislative outcomes of what's happening in
Congress.
Ms. Cha. I think they have a direct influence, of course,
because one thing that they do is they mainstream their talking
points, so they become very normal, even though what they are
saying is quite extreme. They regularly do full page ads in New
York Times to make it seem like they are doing what they need
to be doing to meet their climate targets, when, in fact, we
know that it is the exact opposite. They have also done things
like pretended that they are in favor of carbon taxes, even
though they lobby against them and behind the scenes. So what
they are trying to do is mainstream and normalize their
behavior so that people don't think that what they are doing is
so destructive, even though we know that it is so destructive.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Dr. Cha.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. My time has expired.
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Representative Ocasio-Cortez. And
Representative Ocasio-Cortez will be chairing the hearing for
the remainder of the time until Chairwoman Maloney returns. But
before she assumes the chair, I will recognize the gentlewoman
from New Mexico, Ms. Herrell, for five minutes.
Ms. Herrell. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and before I get
started, I do think that Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez needs to
be careful because Representative Krishnamoorthi often
routinely disrespects Republican witnesses like Dr. Scott, Mary
Katherine Ham, and Kerry Lucas. So I think before we start
pointing fingers, we need to be very careful about both sides
of the aisle.
And with that, Mr. Shellenberger, I do have a question
because through this committee hearing, I have heard a number
of comments--``racial, ``climate racism,'' ``health of
populations,''--that are being impacted, but I just want to ask
a question. Looking at research I have done, you know, face
masks, gloves, IV tubes, trays, monitors, ventilators, heart
valve replacement, arms and limbs, legs, all made of petroleum
products. So what is the backup plan? If we go and move so far
away from development of petroleum products, how are we going
to even help these people that need the medical attention that
we are talking about or hearing about in this committee today?
Mr. Shellenberger. Thanks for the question. I think it is
important to put plastics in context. The first plastics were
made out of elephant tusks, sea turtle shells, what we called
tortoise shell glasses. Happily, these are not made from sea
turtles anymore. They are made out of petrochemical byproducts,
so a waste, byproduct. We have a very good solution what to do
with them after you use them, which is to put them in landfills
or incinerate them. The dioxins have now been removed from that
process. When we attempt to recycle plastics, what has occurred
is that they are sent to poor and developing countries that do
not have waste management systems, and then they make their way
into the oceans. So much of the ocean plastic waste problem is
a consequence of our efforts in the rich world to recycle
products that should be disposed of properly in landfills and
incinerators.
Now, an attempt to move from petrochemical plastics back to
so-called natural plastics, bioplastics would have a
devastating impact on the natural environment. We have seen
with biofuels the devastation of orangutan habitat through palm
oil plantations in Southeast Asia. And I know it is a big
bipartisan issue here, but I do not think that biofuels are the
way to go because what they are doing is they are using
landscapes that should be used for critical habitat for
endangered species and conservation.
You are moving down the energy ladder from energy-dense
fuels toward energy dilute fuels, so we need a proper
conversation about what is our strategy here. If we move away
from fossil fuels, for example, to nuclear, you are still going
to use a petrochemical byproduct to make plastics, because the
environmental benefits are so superior to using bioplastics,
which, again, are just as devastating environmentally as
biofuels.
Ms. Herrell. Right, and thank you for that because what is
missing in Congress is a transparent and honest conversation
about putting the cart before the horse or trying to do away
with an industry that is so vital to so many other areas of our
lives. And just to switch gears a little bit, and we heard this
earlier. The American oil refineries are operating at max
capacity and they are producing more, but prices remain high.
Can you explain in a nutshell why is this so people can really
understand both sides, because we are vilifying the producers,
and I don't think that is a fair thing to do. And maybe you can
shed some light on this for----
Mr. Shellenberger. Sure.
Ms. Herrell [continuing]. Anybody that is bored today and
watching CNN.
Mr. Shellenberger. And thank you for the question. And I
think speaking to the issue of misinformation, the Biden
administration repeatedly claimed that the refiners were not
producing all they could when they were at max capacity. In
fact, at such maximum capacity that creates risks of outages
from accidents.
Ms. Herrell. Right.
Mr. Shellenberger. And there was an opportunity for the
Biden administration to retrofit a major refinery in the U.S.
Virgin Islands. It was an older refinery. It was not as clean
as it should have been. There were problems with it, problems
that would have been solved through a $3 billion retrofit that
the Biden administration killed in the midst of the worst
energy crisis in 50 years is completely inexplicable.
So in my view, this is a completely avoidable crisis and
tragedy that we are in. You know, in terms of why do you have
those profits like that, because you are stifling production.
There is such a thing as supply and demand. In my view, you
expand production, you bring down the prices, and you reduce
the profits. That is what this country did from 2010 to 2020.
That is why so many shell frackers lost their businesses or
went bankrupt, a huge benefit to the American consumers even if
it actually had negative consequences on some investors.
Ms. Herrell. Right, and it is sad because this
administration could have reversed many of these policies, like
the executive orders that have now forced the American people
into poverty or into making those tough decisions. Thank you
very much for being here, and to all the witnesses, thank you.
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Ms. Herrell. I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. [Presiding.] The gentlewoman from
Missouri, Ms. Bush, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Bush. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
Chairwoman Maloney for convening this important hearing and
continuing this critical series. And also, thank you to both
panels for your courageous and insightful testimony.
This summer, heat waves wildfires, historic floods have all
devastated our communities. In St. Louis, though, we saw back-
to-back flooding in the same week that was supposed to only
happen once every 1,000 years. It was the highest rainfall in
one day since records began in 1873. In Kentucky, 39 people
died, and more than 600 helicopter rescues were carried out.
Toxic sites were inundated, and many of our neighbors lost
their homes. Many in our community are still recovering from
the devastation. The flooding in St. Louis and elsewhere was
driven by the climate crisis, which we know, and it is
happening as a result of burning fossil fuels. Tragically, the
climate crisis is making these events increasingly common and
severe, so we know that they will be even worse next year, and
the year after that, and the year after that.
The fossil fuel industry is devastating St. Louis and
communities around the country by continuing to burn fossil
fuels. Further, they are taking home extraordinary profits,
causing us to pay more for gas, leaving us less prepared for
extra costs associated with disasters. At the gas pump and
through dangerous emissions, the fossil fuel industry is
threatening us directly, especially our Black communities. In
St. Louis, we have seen devastation. The flooding was worse in
places that already suffer the most at the hands of the climate
crisis, and we were hit the hardest by the pandemic. The
hardships keep piling on to the same people. People lost their
cars. They lost homes. Entire apartment complexes were
condemned, putting hundreds of families on the street. Two
months later, the consequences are still playing out right now.
Ms. Salter, can you say more about the direct impacts of
burning fossil fuels and over charging gas on Black communities
specifically?
Ms. Salter. Absolutely. One thing that I can mention is
that, yes, we know the COVID pandemic has exacerbated the
disproportionate impact of fossil fuel pollution, particularly
on Black people, who have been more likely to die from the
disease. Preliminary science indicates that longstanding
inequalities and exposure to air pollution are an especially
deadly risk factor for COVID-19. Studies also are showing that
there is a relationship between the racist policies of the past
that continue to this day, like redlining, like housing
discrimination, and pollution that lead to the extreme heat,
the asthma and the flooding that, yes, disproportionately
impacts Black people and other people of color, Black people
most significantly, in this country.
Ms. Bush. And it is inhumane. The fossil fuel industry is
profiting off of death and destruction in our communities, and
they have known it for decades. Furthermore, they are making it
unsafe for workers to get to work, creating hazardous
workplaces and disproportionately putting low income people at
risk in their neighborhoods by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Dr. Cha, can you tell us more about how the burning of fossil
fuels is harming workers specifically?
Ms. Cha. Well, the fossil fuel industry, in general, is
very dangerous work. We can think about coal mining, oil and
gas drilling. All those toxics that are needed to release oil
and gas from the ground are then directly inhaled by workers.
Part of the reason why the fossil fuel industry has higher
wages is because it is very dangerous work. So, you know, even
when we burn fossil fuels, it is not just carbon dioxide that
is released, but there are other air pollutants that are
released that are dangerous to communities and to workers. And
to increase profits, fossil fuel companies often cut safety
measures so that they can increase their profits, but all at
the expense of workers.
Ms. Bush. That, again, is inhumane. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Keller, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Chairwoman, Ranking Member Comer and
witnesses for being here today. This Tuesday, the President and
congressional Democrats met on the South Lawn of the White
House to listen to music and celebrate the passage of their
massive $740 billion so-called Inflation Reduction Act. I
actually refer to it as the Income Reduction Act because it is
reducing the income of many hardworking Americans.
While President Biden called the IRA the single-most
important legislation passed in the Congress to combat
inflation, and Speaker Pelosi said it was beautifully named for
all it does, the stock market was free falling to its worst day
in over two years. That morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported an August inflation rate of 8.3 percent. Put
differently, since last August, unchecked Democrat spending,
including the IRA, has taken one month's income from every
American--8.3 percent. So every American just lost one month of
their income. Then, ironically, adding to the very problem it
was named to combat, the Inflation Reduction Act ensures energy
prices will continue to rise.
Mr. Shellenberger, just a couple of questions. It is my
understanding that by 2050, the need for energy around the
globe will increase by about 50 percent. Is that correct?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, sir.
Mr. Keller. And currently, is it correct that we get
roughly 60 percent, or maybe a little bit more, of our energy
from natural gas, oil or coal?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes.
Mr. Keller. OK. So while we need to increase 50 percent,
there are people that want to eliminate 60 percent or a little
bit more of how we currently get our energy?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Keller. I guess it is going to get a lot more hotter in
this building over the upcoming years. We should probably turn
off the air conditioning here first, quite frankly, and lead by
example. Maybe the President should lead by example and
practice mail-in balloting rather than flying Air Force One and
his motorcade to go vote, or plan to do it when he was on one
of his vacation days already in Delaware instead of making a
special trip.
Sorry. I didn't mean to digress. But in light of the
hundreds of billions of dollars invested in the IRA, how viable
is an energy agenda that excludes fossil fuels?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, we are seeing it play out in my
home state of California, where we have done the biggest
investments in renewables by far, and we announced on August 25
that we were going to phaseout internal combustion engines.
August 30th, we asked people not to charge their electric cars
between 4 and 9 p.m. So we are absolutely not prepared. We came
close to blackouts. They have been burning kerosene and diesel.
And by the way, I share the concern with environmental justice
expressed here. The kerosene and diesel that they are burning
in California is because we weren't burning enough natural gas
and because we shut down our nuclear plants.
Mr. Keller. Well, which has more emissions then, the
kerosene and diesel or natural gas?
Mr. Shellenberger. Significantly more emissions from the
kerosene and diesel, sir.
Mr. Keller. Who would have thought that, but----
Mr. Shellenberger. And in terms of the renewables, it is
the problem with the energy density. You know, we know that
solar and wind projects require 300 percent more copper, 700
percent more rare earths. Wind, solar and batteries require
1,000 percent more steel, concrete and glass, 300 percent more
copper. I mentioned 4,200 percent more lithium. We are talking
significant increase of the material intensity of energy. That
is, by definition, going to cause inflation. That is going to
make energy more expensive. The reason renewables make
electricity expensive is for physical reasons that cannot be
overcome by technological innovation.
To give you a sense of it, sir, solar panel efficiencies,
the conversion of sunlight to electricity, improved by two
percent over the last decade. The reason the Chinese were able
to make them so cheap is because they were using basically
slave labor of Uyghur Muslims, coal, and they made huge
subsidies so that they could bankrupt other solar energy firms
around the world. We are headed down an extremely dangerous
path. In Europe and around the world, we are going to have
hundreds of millions of unnecessary additional deaths from
cold, from hunger, and from air pollution because of the war on
gas.
Mr. Keller. Well, to charge the batteries on the electric
cars, we have to burn something or we have to generate the
electricity somehow, and I guess that is why we are having the
problems in California. My concern would be that if I am in
California, and I have gotten home from work, and I can't
charge my car when I get home, and I have a child that maybe
has an emergency and has to go to the hospital, what do I do
when I don't have enough electricity to get him there?
I can tell you a story about that. My son, when he was 3,
had a head injury, and we took him to the doctor and drove him
to the hospital. If I would have run out of gas, he would have
died. I think we really need to think about the policies that
we are forcing on the Americans, and if Americans want electric
vehicles, or they want green energy, or if they want to do this
stuff, it should be up to them.
I see the chart here behind Ms. Cortez about the profits.
You know, who owns those companies? Pension systems, Americans
who have 401(k)'s through a savings plan. A lot of government
employees are invested in those companies too. And, again, I
don't think anybody should be price gouging. We call it price
gouging, or they try to attempt to call it that. How come we
don't call it price gouging when they raise taxes to send
87,000 IRS agents out to comb through the finances of
hardworking Americans? There was an amendment that said they
couldn't use it for that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Keller. They want me to expire because they don't want
to hear the truth. But the truth of the matter is----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. It has expired. It is 50 seconds over
your limit, sir. Thank you. I apologize. Well, actually I
don't. That is the rules. And for the record, my last name is
Ocasio-Cortez. The gentleman from Vermont, Mr. Welch, is
recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much. You know, the question is
no longer whether climate change is real. The question is
whether the fossil fuel companies are going to help us make
that transition to clean energy. And many of my colleagues in
pointing out some of the challenges, ``those are real.'' But
what the Inflation Reduction Act did was, for the first time,
established governmental policies that then can be used by the
private sector, including energy companies, if they take on the
challenge, to start moving us to clean energy and make the
adjustments we have to in order to make it work.
My concern about the energy companies is two things: one,
when we had this spike in prices, they had an option. They
could take advantage of it with their market power because we
are dependent on getting our kids to school. We are dependent
on keeping the lights on. We are in an inflationary
environment, and what they did was stick it to the consumers.
They have the record profits. They would survive quite well if
they were in quarter 2 in 2021 instead of quarter 2022, and use
that for stock buybacks, use that for dividend increases. They
had another option: lighten up on the stock options, lighten up
on the dividends, and try to help the consumers get through
this.
Now, the second thing is greenwashing, which you have
talked about. They know, these companies, that talking clean
energy is appealing to consumers, but clean energy does not
happen because of advertising. It happens because of
investment, and we are going to need these companies to make
investments to help us. And if they make those investments and
we have a grid that can transmit that power that is being
produced by wind in Iowa to a metropolitan area in Illinois,
that is what we are going to need.
Dr. Weber, is there a threat to our well-being if we don't
invest in clean energy and solving the challenges of getting
the clean energy--air, and wind, and solar--to where it is
needed?
Ms. Weber. I think there is an immediate threat, and there
is a threat that also goes through a number of important
economic channels. So first of all, these exploding fossil fuel
prices unsettle the whole of the American economy, landing us
in the kind of inflation crisis that we find ourselves in,
which hits the victims of climate change, Black and brown
communities, first and foremost. Second, it undermines other
industries that would actually make productive investments,
because if profits explode in one sector, it becomes comparably
more attractive to put all the money into the fossil fuel
sector rather than into sectors that we need to buildup a
cleaner economy, to build an economy that actually is
sustainable for the American people.
Mr. Welch. All right. So we have some energy companies in
Vermont that are actually investing in clean energy. They see
their role as making that transition because the impact of
carbon fuels, which is how they power their electricity, are
having an adverse effect. They don't deny it, they acknowledge
it, and they are helping homeowners retrofit their homes. They
are helping them install heat pumps. They are helping them do
practical things that can bring their bills down and give them
reliable energy. Is that a viable approach or a decision for
some of these major energy companies to take as opposed to
doing the greenwashing as opposed to spending so much time in
the propaganda that climate change doesn't exist, Dr. Cha?
Dr. Cha. Yes, absolutely. I think what you detail is a very
good example of what the fossil fuel industry can do to help us
transition to cleaner sources.
Mr. Welch. All right. Ms. Salter?
Ms. Salter. Unfortunately, the fossil fuel industry has
shown that they have absolutely no intention of investing in
clean energy because fossil fuels are their most valuable
asset. This has been at the heart of the deception.
Mr. Welch. So they got assets in the ground. They want to
defend them and keep selling gas for five bucks, or now, I
guess, it is four bucks a gallon.
Ms. Salter. That is correct. They have they have shown
limited willingness to invest, and, yes, they want to protect
their core asset, which is fossil fuels.
Mr. Welch. All right. I yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Clyde,
is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. We are here today
because of Democrats' desire to continue a sham investigation,
which has been ongoing now for over a year. Last year,
Democrats threatened the oil and gas industry with subpoenas
months before even inviting them to a hearing. Despite the
appearance of oil and gas CEOs at a six-hour committee hearing
on October the 28, last year Chairwoman Maloney still
subpoenaed all the hearing witnesses for documents.
Right now, we should be talking about skyrocketing gas and
oil prices and what can be done to help Americans. However,
that is not the purpose of this hearing today, because
Democrats are out of touch with the reality that millions of
Americans are experiencing inflation. But this is not
surprising, because during a hearing last October, Democrats
asked Mike Worth, are you embarrassed as an American company
that your production is going up. Really? Why would he be
embarrassed that production is increasing?
Fossil fuel is an imperative for our country to properly
function, and it is stunning that people in this hearing room
actually think that we can eliminate fossil fuel. Do you know
that everything made from plastics comes from fossil fuels and
the petrochemical industry? Do you drink water from a plastic
bottle? Do you get hand sanitizer from a plastic bottle? Do you
have a laptop computer, a television? How about the glasses
that you wear, or even the easel back there that is holding
that sign has plastic on it. How about the insulation on
electrical wire? Electrical wire of which you could not build
an electric vehicle without insulation on an electric wire, and
that comes from hydrocarbons. All of it comes from
hydrocarbons.
So moving away from plastics made from hydrocarbons is
clearly a recipe for disaster, but if we are going to move away
from it, what are we moving toward? What is the substitute?
There is not one. Not only are Democrats out of touch, but they
are clearly deflecting our attention from the fact that neither
the Democrats in Congress nor the Biden administration have a
plan to address the energy crisis.
One day President Biden commits to cutting gas pollution in
half by 2030, and the next, President Biden attacks the
domestic companies for not producing enough energy. Over the
4th of July weekend this past summer, President Biden stooped
so low as to demand that gas stations abide by his will, asking
small businesses to cut prices across the country as the
solution to his failed anti oil and gas policies.
I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
record this article that was published by the National Review
on July 6, 2022.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Clyde. Thank you. Biden's shameful gas station attack.
Mr. Shellenberger, as you know, Plant Vogtle reactors 3 and 4
in Georgia are the only two nuclear power reactors to be built
in decades in America, and my Georgia constituents will benefit
from it every day with inexpensive and clean energy. And by the
way, thank you for your testimony concerning energy density as
it was very enlightening to see where actually the energy, you
know, of each particular product rests on the ladder of energy
density. I hope every person in this hearing room really takes
that to heart.
So what role do you think nuclear energy should play in
meeting America's current, and, more importantly, future energy
needs?
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you for the question, sir. I mean,
nuclear is the queen of power of all sources of electricity. It
is the most environmentally sound. It is the most secure. And
of course, it has always been a huge priority for every
Presidential administration in the United States because it is
a dual-use technology. It always has been. It is a serious
issue. We need to significantly expand. We need a green nuclear
deal, not a renewables expansion that would increase our
dependence on China. We need to reduce our dependence. Nuclear
is the key to that.
My concern, sir, is that we are losing the valuable
intellectual property and skills that were developed among
welders, and pipe fitters, and other workers to build the
Vogtle plants. We need industrial security in the United
States. That is what Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows. And
that means that we need a plan to build out nuclear, take it
from where it is today, 19 percent, to 50 percent of
electricity between now and 2050. We have always had a national
champions model. The right model is two major nuclear plant
building firms. We might have one partnership with the
Japanese, French, or Koreans, but we need to expand nuclear
power. It is a national security imperative at this point, sir.
Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. I certainly agree with you in
that, and it is a shame that we have only seen two nuclear
plants in the last 40 to 50 years come online. I think we need
more too. Thank you for that, and with that, I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Florida,
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Madam Chair. The future
costs and effects of climate change are something that weighs
heavily on both my mind and the minds of so many Americans. But
climate change is already costing taxpayers billions of dollars
from extreme weather events. If fossil fuel companies are left
unchecked, the price tag will be astronomical. This problem is
so apparent that even the Trump Administration admitted that
failing to combat climate change could cost the United States
more than 10 percent of its GDP each year.
Now, we have just heard the stories of some of the victims
and survivors of climate-related disasters earlier today. Last
year, the United States faced 20 separate billion-dollar
weather and climate disasters. In 2020, we faced $22 billion
climate fueled disasters. In my home state of Florida, sunny
day flooding, storm surge, king tides, saltwater intrusions,
they all push our infrastructure to the limit. This water
intrusion exacerbated by climate change is a daily reality for
Floridians. According to NOAA, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, climate and weather disasters have
cost us a trillion dollars over the last six years. We have
been fortunate so far this hurricane season, but the 2020 and
2021 seasons were some of the worst in recorded history.
Dangerous storms, like we have seen, decimate communities in
Florida and Texas and Louisiana, and they are becoming more
frequent and more intense.
Ms. Salter, are the costs of climate disasters expected to
grow this year, and if so, what do you think is causing the
increase?
Ms. Salter. The costs of climate inaction are growing, and
they will continue to grow as we let the fossil fuel industry
go unchecked. And really, the devastating irony is that while
the fossil fuel industry stands to lose profits from climate
action, the rest of us have so much to gain. A recent study
from Deloitte found that inaction on climate change could cost
the world's economy $178 trillion by 2070, but if global
leaders were to act, we could look at gains of $43 trillion by
2070.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you. In fact, as of July 11 of
this year, NOAA estimated that we have experienced over $200
billion in disaster costs this year alone. Since then, flooding
knocked out Jackson, Mississippi's water supply, record heat
has scorched Utah, the Colorado River has dried up, and
California is fighting multiple unprecedented climate crises.
Simply put, it is an economic imperative that we move off of
fossil fuels.
In addition to cost to individuals and taxpayers, our
continued dependence on fossil fuels hurts workers. And I would
like to address the myth perpetuated by Big Oil and my
Republican colleagues that the fossil fuel industry provides
``good stable jobs''. In reality, the fossil fuel industry has
abandoned workers. After fossil fuel companies received
billions of dollars in tax breaks and COVID relief bills, they
laid off tens of thousands of workers. So Dr. Cha, have fossil
fuel companies made a concerted effort to rehire those workers?
Ms. Cha. They have not. The fossil fuel work force has not
rebounded to the size that it was before the pandemic, and
wages are not matched to what they were before the pandemic.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And Dr. Cha, you testified on
``equity washing'', where companies are messaging concern for
communities of color, and workers, and energy transition, while
engaging in activities that actively harm these same interests.
How else has Big Oil's equity washing concealed how it harms
workers?
Ms. Cha. I mean, the first issue is that they claim to be
concerned about climate change, but they have no intention of
moving away from fossil fuels. So the fundamental to a just
transition is a transition, and yet we see these fossil fuel
companies continue to expand their operations. And part of the
reason why they have such high profits is that they are not
paying their workers what they deserve to be paid.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And how can we make sure that the
historic investments in the Inflation Reduction Act usher in a
true and just transition for workers? You know, I am really
tired of the, you know, flapping of lips on environmental
justice from some of these companies and, you know, companies
that supposedly want to help neighborhoods actually get through
a transition, but then they turn around and economically
devastate these communities either through not paying them what
they should be or continuing to expand, not contract, their
fossil fuel investment. So how can we make sure that those
historic investments are actually going to result in a just
transition for workers?
Ms. Cha. I think that there is much more that can be done,
but I think that the fundamental point is that we are investing
in a clean energy transition. And I think it is important also
to point out that, you know, there is a lot of talk about
fossil fuel companies, but the reason why they were able to
expand their production in the first place was because of
government investments and subsidies and research. So the fact
that we are investing in the clean energy transition is the
same as what we did to grow the fossil fuel industry, and, in
that way, as we can transition away from fossil fuels, it is
the best way to protect workers.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I
yield back the balance of time I don't have.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Kansas,
Mr. LaTurner, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Shellenberger,
how are you today?
Mr. Shellenberger. Good, sir. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaTurner. Good. Can you speak at all to the market
influences that contribute to oil companies' profits?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, yes. I mean, essentially, it is
supply and demand, so when there is insufficient supply and
demand rebounds as it has, that is why we have these big
profits.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. In your opinion, where did the
negative misconceptions about fossil fuels originate, and what
has caused people to give credence to them over time?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, the originary concern with fossil
fuels was that they provide for abundant prosperity, and they
are the power of civilization. I mean, I have traced that back
in my book Apocalypse Never. Well before any concerns about
climate change, there was an effort to repress fossil fuel
development, particularly in developing nations like
Bangladesh, because of the concerns of so-called
overpopulation. These were often racist concerns expressed,
Malthusian concerns. That is how it began. Climate change is
just the latest justification for the war on natural gas, for
example.
Mr. LaTurner. Can you talk briefly about the economic
impact of the shale revolution in America?
Mr. Shellenberger. I mean, it was a huge, as I mentioned,
the studies are very clear on this. It was a net benefit to the
consumers at a level of about $100 billion a year in the form
of lower energy prices. That is about a trillion dollars
between 2010 and 2020. That was a period that came at the cost
of many oil and gas companies, which went bankrupt or lost
significant amounts of money. Lots of Wall Street money was
lost in subsidizing cheap energy for American consumers. Maybe
it is one of the greatest technological innovation success
stories in American history.
Mr. LaTurner. Can you explain the environmental tradeoff
that is made when the United States shuts down natural gas
production in a rush to transition to renewable forms of
energy? In other words, will the actions that the
administration has taken to shut down domestic natural gas
production reduce emissions proportionally, or does that
decision come with offsets from other types of energy
production?
Mr. Shellenberger. No, in fact, it is increasing air
pollution. I mentioned the kerosene and diesel that has been
burned disproportionately in neighborhoods of color in
California. This is going to be the biggest year of coal
burning on record even though we had been reducing our
dependence on coal both in the United States and globally
because of cheap and abundant natural gas. Coal use is also
increasing in the United States even though it had been
declining over the last decade. So yes, I mean, the
environmental impacts of the war on natural gas are extremely
serious and severe.
Mr. LaTurner. You spoke to this earlier, but could you
expand on the global humanitarian impacts, particularly for
poor countries, without efficient means of energy production of
cutting domestic LNG production and rushing our transition to
renewable energy?
Mr. Shellenberger. It is devastating. I mentioned before
that Europe has seen its fertilizer production decline by 70
percent. This is bonkers. Of course, there is three forms of
fertilizer, one of which is made from natural gas. Fertilizer
is essential to feeding a world of 8 billion people. We could
only feed half of that number without synthetic fertilizers. I
also mentioned we saw the government of Sri Lanka fall because
of a food and energy crisis.
We are seeing other governments are going to fall or be
destabilized by high energy prices. People will starve. People
will die because of expensive, scarce energy. We are just not
awake to it enough in the United States, in my view. I think we
are being too provincial about this problem. We benefit from
abundant energy more than our European allies do, but they are
in absolute crisis mode right now. They are going to ration
energy this winter.
Mr. LaTurner. I have said in the past that compromising our
energy independence and net exporter status is a national
security threat, and I firmly believe that. Would you agree
with that statement, and what steps do you think can be taken
to avoid compromising ourselves to Venezuela, Saudi Arabia,
Russia, or other nations for energy?
Mr. Shellenberger. Yes. I mean, look, it is just as insane
as it looks for Biden to go and beg the Saudis and beg the
Venezuelans to produce more oil when we could be producing it
here. It is also worse for the environment because you have to
transport it, so that is a huge problem. The other issue is we
need to repatriate solar panel production to the United States
before expanding it. We should not be importing any solar
panels from China. This is a fundamental, categorical, moral
imperative to stop importing solar panels from people that are
making them from effectively slave labor. We say we are
concerned around Muslim rights. Not showing it by importing
solar panels, and much of the Inflation Reduction Act's
expansion of renewables depends on Chinese solar.
So this is a dangerous game that we are playing. These
industries need to be repatriated, but I think longer term, we
need a vision of gas and nuclear and hydrogen. These are
domestic fuels that we can produce in abundance, helping to
achieve both energy security, prosperity, and radical
decarbonization.
Mr. LaTurner. I wish I had more time. You have been an
excellent witness. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you, Congressman.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Georgia,
Mr. Johnson, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. I like listening to the MAGA
Republicans, the witnesses speak about things that need to be
done that Democrats just did in the Inflation Reduction Act. In
mid-June, the national average gas price was about $5, nearly
double the price for the same time last year, and as a result,
Big Oil made record profits while Americans got squeezed and
soaked. You know, Americans are getting tired of the situation,
where no matter what happens, the rich get richer, and the poor
get poorer, and the middle class get squeezed.
And with their billions of dollars in profits, do you think
Big Oil executives will be the ones battered by the hurricanes?
No. They will just pay more for sand on their private beaches,
or they will sell their beach homes and go to some place less
battered. Does anyone think these executives face the same
asthma and cancer rates as the Black and brown communities
which breathe the toxic air caused by the products that they
sell? No. Big Oil companies will enjoy record profits, and Big
Oil executives will enjoy record profits as Black, and brown,
and low-income communities disproportionately experience
disproportionate sickness and death due to their greed. But if
you check any Big Oil companies' website, you will get a
different narrative. These companies tout major pledges to
reduce emissions. And these pledges are false misinformation
because the truth is that Big Oil companies are doing virtually
nothing to help with this crisis that they greatly contribute
to because they are perfectly happy with the status quo.
Recently, Congress acted and passed the Inflation Reduction
Act without a single extremist MAGA Republican vote that would
move the Nation toward decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels.
Big Oil can do what other responsible companies are doing, and
that is leverage the tax credits and other investments in the
IRA along with their gratuitous profits to build clean energy
infrastructure in this country. Failure to act means that they
will be left behind while other companies reap the benefits.
Big Oil companies are well positioned to live up to their
climate pledges, and we can no longer allow their baseless
promises to suffice for inaction on climate change, which is
real and on which we must act with or without MAGA extremist
Republicans.
Dr. Weber, this year, ExxonMobil, the country's largest oil
company, reported its net profit more than doubled to $5.5
billion from a year earlier. The high price of gas this summer
put more money into the pockets of executives and shareholders
at Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP, but left some Americans
straining to make ends meet. As a professor of economics, can
you make the case that oil companies have engaged in
profiteering and price gouging to achieve record profits during
a period of global uncertainty?
Ms. Weber. Thank you, sir. Reading through the earnings
calls of fossil fuel companies, we can see that they very
explicitly have pursued a strategy that they call being
disciplined on investment. In other words, they have very
consciously not increased production in the ways in which they
could have. Now, that should be good for climate change, but it
is, first and foremost, good for their own profits. So the
motivation is----
Mr. Johnson. So they created the supply and demand
situation just so that they could reap the handsome profits?
Ms. Weber. It is a situation where they have higher profits
on lower volumes. Now, if you can produce less and make more
money from it, would you start producing more? That is the
rationale behind what they are doing.
Mr. Johnson. So there is nothing sacrosanct about this law
of supply and demand that a previous witness talked about and
let me move on. Ms. Salter, greenwashing is when an industry
works hard to make their image as clean and allied with those
concerned about climate change as possible. Big Oil spends
millions on their greenwashing campaigns to mislead the public
on their actual carbon emissions and impact on climate change.
BP, for an example, vowed to reduce investments in fossil fuel
extractions, but actually increased them, and Exxon-Mobil has a
goal to reach net zero emissions by 2050, but increased its
production by four percent in the first quarter of 2022. Ms.
Salter, do you believe that Big Oil's pledges are sincere?
Ms. Salter. They are absolutely insincere. They have no
intention of wavering from selling their core product, which is
fossil fuels, be it from carbon capture and sequestration,
which they know will not work, to pushing so-called solutions
like renewable natural gas. Their modus is to continue to
produce throughout whatever transition may happen and continue
to push states like New York that are trying to move away from
fossil fuels to include these false solutions in our energy
plans.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. My time has expired, and I yield
back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Nebraska,
Mr. Flood, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Flood. Thank you, Madam Chair. The past several months
have put the debate over energy into perspective. Russia's
invasion of Ukraine was a global energy supply shock. That
shock has underscored the importance of reliable and affordable
energy. Europe has long been too dependent on Russian oil and
gas. While countries like Germany have aggressively pursued
renewables, they are still dependent on fossil fuels from
Russia to keep their economy running.
Now that their fossil fuel source is restricted, those
countries are now struggling to power their economies. Germany
has mandated a ban on illuminated advertisements and new
nationwide temperature requirements in public buildings to save
fuel. The French president is calling on his countrymen to
reduce energy consumption by 10 percent over the coming weeks.
If people can't hit that energy reduction goal on their own,
the government will start enforcing mandatory energy cuts.
Lest we forget, winter is coming. Our friends in Europe are
sadly going to see a bigger energy crunch when temperatures
drop. I think we need to take this news from Europe as a
cautionary tale. Every economy is dependent on energy. We are
fortunate in the United States because we have plenty of
reliable sources of energy within our boundaries, and I do
support a mix of these energy sources.
But I have a question for Mr. Shellenberger. Can you talk
about the massive renewable energy incentives included in
President Biden's latest IRA bill? Do you think these
incentives will meaningfully increase U.S. energy production
overall?
Mr. Shellenberger. Thank you for the question, sir, and
before I answer, let me just add one thing to that, which is
that the Biden administration and the IRA are basically
pursuing the same strategy that Europe pursued, which is
shutting down domestic natural gas production and increasing
reliance on weather-dependent renewables. That is why Europe
got itself into the trouble it got into and what is happening
here, repeating that error, despite the fact that we can all
see the disastrous consequences of it.
I think there are issues. With renewables, what you get are
two problems. One is that you don't have the power you need,
which is why California, despite having deployed so much solar
panels, ran out of energy when we needed it over the last
couple of weeks when we were near blackouts, but also produces
too much electricity when you don't need it, which is why
California has to pay Arizona to take our excess power from us
during periods of low energy demand and high solar output.
So I am not sure if I am answering your question or not,
sir, but I think for electricity to work well, you need to
match supply and demand at any given moment. Any time you take
energy out of the electrical grid and bring it back on, you are
paying an energy penalty of somewhere between 20 and 40
percent, which increases costs. So any additional unreliability
added into electricity increases the number of people and
machinery required to deliver electricity and, therefore,
increase costs.
Mr. Flood. Real briefly, and I don't have a lot of time,
but I know that you are a proponent of nuclear energy, and I
want to ask you what role do you think nuclear energy plays in
this. And also, could you briefly touch on nuclear
microreactors? I am interested to know what you think.
Mr. Shellenberger. Sure. And let me say, too, on nuclear,
what is important to remember is that if we are not helping our
allies and other nations around the world to build nuclear
power plants, Russia and China will. And because it is a dual-
use technology, we have always recognized what it is. We have
always had a policy in the U.S. Government to be involved in
nuclear power plant construction abroad.
Well, we are not getting those contracts with nations
abroad to build nuclear power plants because we are not
building nuclear power plants at home. We need a strategy to
build nuclear at home so we have the work force that is capable
then of building plants abroad. That is what Korea, Japan, and
France have all been involved with. We have got to get back in
the nuclear game. We have seen that Saudi Arabia has been
working with the Chinese to both do uranium extraction from
seawater, uranium enrichment, and build nuclear power plants. I
think most people on both sides of the aisle in the Congress
recognize the threat that is to national security.
Mr. Flood. Microreactors, talk about that.
Mr. Shellenberger. We have microreactors today. They are in
submarines and aircraft carriers. They have a near flawless
record of operation. The Russians are now using them for
icebreakers. I think they are important, but I think we have to
just keep in mind that the basic physics of energy continue to
apply. Larger reactors require fewer workers and cost per unit
of energy, and so they produce the cheapest form of power. So,
in general, if you are going to significantly expand nuclear,
the main event remains large light water reactors.
Mr. Flood. Thank you, Mr. Shellenberger. What I would like
to say is we need a well-balanced approach to energy.
Renewables can and should be a part of that approach, but this
administration, in my opinion, seems intent to pursue a path
forward with only renewables, and I do not think that is
sustainable. And I think if we want to see what the future is
for America, watch Europe. Watch what happens this winter. It
is dangerous, and it is dangerous for Europe, and it will be
dangerous and is dangerous for America. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentlewoman from
Illinois, Ms. Kelly, is recognized for five minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the
witnesses. Most scientists agree that renewable energy is the
only path to quickly addressing climate change and energy
independence at the same time. We must face the facts. If we go
to Big Oil every time there is an energy crisis, it will keep
giving us self-serving and costly solutions. Big Oil is ill
equipped to address energy crisis, but well equipped to exploit
them.
As long as Russia supplies a substantial amount of oil and
gas on the global market, Putin will have control over us. Big
Oil is only too happy for this outcome. So I agree with U.N.
Secretary General Antonio Gutierrez when he says we need
``urgent action to grab the low-hanging fruit of transforming
energy systems away from the dead end of fossil fuels to
renewable energy.'' Renewable energy technologies provide an
enormous opportunity. That is why the recently passed Inflation
Reduction Act, or IRA, invests hundreds of billions of dollars
in domestic clean energy.
Professor Cha, will the IRA help the United States become
energy independent?
Ms. Cha. Absolutely. The best way for us to become energy
independent is to transition to clean energy, and the IRA is a
significant down payment on that transition.
Ms. Kelly. By investing in clean renewable energy produced
here with prevailing wages, we are becoming energy independent
for the long haul. We will create union jobs at home, become
global technology leaders, and insulate ourselves from global
energy shocks and disruptions. Dr. Weber, is there a lesson we
can learn here from China's reindustrialization that we can
apply in our own renewable energy investments?
Ms. Weber. Absolutely. So China tried to do a policy of
development of shutting its economy out of the world economy
before the late 1970's and was not successful with this
economically. After the late 1970's, China switched to a policy
that used foreign technologies and foreign capacities to
leverage its own economy up. I think there is an important
lesson here for the transition to renewable energies.
Ms. Kelly. And how does fossil fuel dependence help our
global adversaries?
Ms. Weber. I think that fossil fuel dependence makes the
American economy less stable and more volatile because oil
prices are structurally volatile. This is an insight that we
know since the famous economist, Wesley Mitchell, in the early
20th century. So in that sense, it makes the American economy
less stable and more volatile and undermines its position.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you. It is clear with the IRA, the United
States is ready to chart its own course to global leadership,
benefit American families, and transition to reliable clean
energy. This will set up the American economy for a strong and
bright future. I am particularly proud that the IRA includes
this committee's language on cross-cutting environmental,
economic, labor, and equity standards, and the oversight and
implementation of the bill at the Office of Management and
Budget and the Government Accountability Office. I look forward
to working with these two agencies to apply these standards so
that plentiful renewable energy will benefit those hit hardest
by climate change, pollution, and high prices. And with that,
Madam Chair, I yield back. Thank you to the witnesses.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Sessions, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sessions. Thank you very much. I want to thank the
panel for sitting down for a long period of time to engage this
committee, and Madam Chair, thank you. I see that you have
reset the clock. Thank you, and I thank you for this. I think
that there are valuable things we can learn from experts. I
think they are valuable things we can learn from you.
While I deeply disagree with the attack on ``Big Oil,'' I
would like to ask what might be to my left side of the table.
California is in the middle of 25 or 30 years' worth of
preparing for the future. I watched with great discomfort about
where California is now that they have taken the direction they
have for 25 years. I was disappointed to see where Europe is
with the people who produce food, poor people in Europe, to see
the governments attack them off these same issues just like you
attack oil or at least fossil fuels, as you call them here.
Tell me what I don't get about 25 years that California has
been doing this and where they presently are. Any of the three
ladies.
Ms. Weber. Well, maybe I will use this opportunity to speak
to the situation in Europe. You might tell from my accent that
I am from Germany, and I have spent a lot of time talking to
policymakers in Germany in the last months. I think that the
situation in Europe should stand as a warning on the topic of
fossil fuel dependence, because what we see in Europe today are
the consequences of fossil fuel dependence. What we see in
Germany today are the consequences of under investment in
renewable energies instead of pursuing balanced government
budgets in the long run. So what we see in Germany is a
situation of a lack of sufficient investment in renewable
energies that could have forestalled the current crisis.
Mr. Sessions. Well, but you have seen in the United States
for probably 10 or 12 years we have been putting $18 billion
worth of subsidies to the industry to build things that come
out of China, not just golf carts and not just wind turbines,
but a whole bunch of things, but let's go directly. Who is
willing to tell me how successful it is and whether this was
the plan in California?
Ms. Cha. I can speak to California since I live there, and
I think it is also important to remember that California is
also an oil and gas state. We are the fifth largest producer of
oil and gas in the country. So we also suffer from the
consequences of the power of the oil industry. You have heard
that about the grid, but, in fact, in our last extreme weather
event, the grid did not fail. There was an adequate demand
response that made sure that the grid didn't fail and that
electricity was provided to all the residents in California.
Mr. Sessions. Well, that may be true, but there was a vast
outreach to please, don't use the power supply.
Ms. Cha. Only at the peak moments of demand, and most
electric vehicles charge overnight. And the grid, again, did
not fail.
Mr. Sessions. Peak demands were all day, as I recall, don't
use your car.
Ms. Cha. Actually, I live in California, and the notice
that we got was that you should cool your house during the day,
and then around from 4 to 9 try not to use household
appliances.
Mr. Sessions. OK. So why would that be? After 25 years'
worth of building in a future for green energy, why are we
doing this?
Ms. Cha. Again, California is also an oil and gas State, so
they have not made as much advancements in renewable energy as
they could have. And also, again, we had 10 days in a row of
120 degree temperatures, so we had a demand on the grid that
was much larger than usual, and, again, the grid did not fail.
Mr. Sessions. And I agree with that also.
Ms. Salter. There has been a chronic underinvestment in the
electric grid for a generation or more in the United States.
Mr. Sessions. How about California?
Ms. Salter. Something that is important to note is that the
status quo is not OK. This volatility of oil that has been
brought up makes us fundamentally insecure. I mean, as you know
in Texas with the failure of natural gas that caused many
deaths due to freezing, we need to invest in our grid, but we
need to make it cleaner. We need to make it more resilient. We
need to lower its carbon impact in California and elsewhere.
Mr. Sessions. Sure. As you know, Texas has 18 percent of
wind, probably the largest advantage across the country.
Eighteen percent of the grid comes from wind turbines. So I
think what I am about here, and I have got about 10 seconds, is
I sure would like to see us become more working with each other
and find the mid-ground, and I think that is all of the above,
and that does include the $18 billion subsidies. But
Republicans are not against any of the things that they have
been accused of today. We are for all of the above. Madam
Chairman, thank you very much.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Of course. Thank you. The gentlewoman
from Massachusetts, Ms. Pressley, is recognized for five
minutes.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Madam Chair. We are wasting time.
Climate change is real, full stop, and while we do still have
colleagues that choose deflection, and distraction, and denial
in the face of reality, Congress has got to confront the
climate crisis head on. I certainly didn't run for office to
speak to all the things that we can't or won't do. I am here to
change and save lives, and we must. This is a threat to our
planet, to all lives. And with every minute that passes, the
planet is getting sicker, and so do our people, especially in
frontline communities like the ones that I represent.
If we do nothing, economists have estimated the
catastrophic consequences of global warming will cost our
economy $178 trillion from 2021 to 2070. That is trillion with
a ``T,'' 178, but the truth is that it will cost us our planet.
It is the only earth we have, so we have to act with urgency to
protect it, and that includes ending the harms of fossil fuels.
Our continued reliance on fossil fuels is bad for the planet,
bad for the economy, and it is bad for working class folks who
need stable and healthy jobs to provide for their families.
So Dr. Weber, again, I represent the Massachusetts 7th
congressional District, one of those frontline communities.
Could you just speak to the reliance on fossil fuels and how
that is affecting low income households? I think it bears
repeating for the record.
Ms. Weber. Yes. So low-income households are clearly the
ones that are hit hardest by the energy price explosion. They
are the ones that have least means to weatherize their homes.
Black and brown community face, on top of this, discrimination
in the housing market, which means that they typically end up
living in homes that are less well insulated or less energy
efficient. These also tend to be the communities that are
spending very large shares of their income on food, housing,
and fuel, which means that if prices go up for these three
items, as they have been--and food, by the way, is in some
sense linked to energy--this is an enormous burden on these
households, a burden that they can barely carry. And that is
pushing millions of households in these communities over the
tipping point into energy insecurity, or, for those that were
already energy insecure before the crisis, into straight-out
poverty.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you, Doctor, and globally, certainly,
there is recognition that we must stop relying on fossil fuels.
That is why I partnered with Congressman Jones and
Congresswoman Tlaib to introduce the Fossil Free Finance Act.
Now, this is legislation that would require the Federal Reserve
to mandate that major banks and other financial institutions
reduce and stop the financing of projects and activities that
emit greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to climate change.
So instead of bank rolling fossil fuels, we must invest in
renewable energy and clean energy that offer job opportunities
with significant future growth just like the investments made
in the Inflation Reduction Act as an example, the law that
Democrats passed that will create 9 million jobs. Renewable
energy has become cheaper than fossil fuels.
Dr. Weber, how do investments in renewable energy lower
energy prices for working families?
Ms. Weber. So already now, renewable energies are cheaper
than fossil fuel energy. So if we were to rely more on sources
of renewable energy, that would actually lower the bill for
ordinary Americans in terms of the cost that they have to pay.
I think it is important that you bring up the point of
responsible investing. The trouble with these profit numbers
that we have seen here is that they make initiatives to funnel
financial flows out of fossil fuel industries even more hard
than they already were before these profit explosions.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. And, Dr. Cha, how will a just
transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy
improve our economy and create jobs?
Ms. Cha. I think the most important point is that, again,
the renewable energy economy still has to be built, so the
potential for jobs is tremendous. Ensuring that they are good
jobs, that there are union jobs that makes our economy stronger
is because unions have built the middle class. So the more that
we can increase union jobs in renewable energy, the stronger
our economy will become.
Ms. Pressley. Thank you. You know, I met with some young
people recently and asked them about their aspirations. And
they were quite fatalistic in saying that they are afraid to
have dreams because they are not confident that they will even
have a planet. We need to legislate as if lives depend on it,
because they do. Thank you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentlewoman from Ohio,
Ms. Brown, is now recognized for questioning.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
Chairwoman Maloney for holding this hearing today, and thank
you to all the witnesses for joining today. The climate change
is fueling extreme weather events, which can have devastating
effects on urban communities like mine. I want to thank Ms.
Sanchez for sharing her story of the impact that climate crisis
is already having in urban communities, highlighting an
important, but often forgotten, perspective.
Like Ms. Sanchez's community, we are already seeing heavier
rainfalls which drain our aging sewer system in Ohio's 11th
congressional District. An increase in lake effect snow due to
a warmer Lake Erie is causing more sporadic, but also heavier
snow, which can shut down our cities. And extreme heat, which
is climate's No. 1 killer in this country, continues unabated,
particularly in the poorest neighborhoods with the least
canopy. Dr. Cha, how is the climate crisis leading to extreme
weather events in urban environments, like Ohio's 11th
congressional District where I represent, especially given that
we are situated along Lake Erie?
Ms. Cha. You know, we often think of flooding as only
affecting coastal communities, but, in fact, flooding will
affect communities wherever they are close to water, such as
your community. And also, if we think about the urban heat
effect, you know, cities tend to be warmer because of a variety
of factors, but that will become even worse as the climate
crisis intensifies and we see heating increase.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. Ms. Salter, I want to ask you how
does the climate crisis contribute to the rising cost of
everyday life in an urban setting?
Ms. Salter. Everything about the climate crisis makes it
harder for those who are poor and least resilient to live a
daily life. New York is the genesis of the Federal Justice40,
and we have looked at indicators of what causes climate
vulnerability and who is experiencing environmental burden. And
we have done a detailed analysis, and we have looked at things
like access to healthcare, race, and income. And what we see
are these indicators, you know, overlap, so that if you are low
income, if you are a person of color, you both live nearest to
a climate impact zone and you have lower access to healthcare.
So these various indicators certainly inter lap.
But also, I want to say that there is an opportunity here
to make things better. You know, if we move away from fossil
fuels, the evidence shows that, you know, communities can
become healthier. After a series of coal and oil power plants
were closed across California in early 2000's, researchers
found a significant decline in preterm births of women who were
living in those communities. So there is an opportunity to make
our communities healthier and more prosperous.
Ms. Brown. Thank you, and I see that opportunity as well.
While the prices are too high for too many Americans, oil
companies continue to contribute in more ways than one to these
very problems, raising gas prices for record profits while the
climate crisis they helped to create leads to things like you
talked about: higher housing, higher food, higher travel costs.
It is simply not a way of the future. And so with that, Madam
Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Maryland,
Mr. Sarbanes, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity. I want to thank our witnesses for being here.
Obviously, this situation with Russia's invasion of Ukraine has
put tremendous pressure on energy markets, supply chains, and
so forth. And we know that that had an impact on Americans in
terms of gas prices, you know, the cost of getting to work,
taking your kids to school, et cetera. But all through this,
like from beginning to end and even before that, which is what
I like to talk about, the oil companies have been raking in
these obscene record-breaking profits.
Dr. Weber, you have spoken about how oil companies have
exploited the war in Ukraine for profits, dramatically raising
the price of gas, and, obviously, our constituents have felt
the effects of this firsthand. We saw gas prices getting up to
$5 or $6 per gallon over the summer. Explain to the committee
how fossil fuel companies were raising gas prices on consumers
to boost their profits even before the Ukraine crisis because I
think we have to put all of this in context.
Ms. Weber. Thank you. Yes, that is a great question. It is
important to notice that the energy crisis long preceded the
war in Ukraine. In fact, there are, of course, laws of supply
and demand in the global energy market, and prices in fossil
fuels are, at the end of the day, international prices. But
what we have seen is that these prices have been going up as
the imbalance in the international market has been building up.
At the same time, the American oil companies have basically
chosen a strategy of, what they call, discipline investment,
which means that they have neither invested in renewables nor
in fossil fuel production, which means that they are in a
position where they are now basically only having the most
profitable oil wells going, those with the lowest cost, while
prices have gone up dramatically, which means that, at the end
of the day, they are reaping much higher profit.
To give you an illustration, if the price per barrel of
crude oil is around $100 and ExxonMobil is reporting that their
price is around $40, this means that on each $100 barrel sold,
they are basically making $60 in profits. That is a 60-percent
kind of profit.
Mr. Sarbanes. Yes. I mean, I think what is happening is the
oil industry has found a way to make these exorbitant profits
just as a kind of general operating procedure. And, you know,
it can be sometimes difficult to chase down what the actual
market conditions are. So they take advantage of that overall
kind of confusion to hide the ball on how they do pricing.
And now when a crisis comes along, it gives them a terrific
excuse to go pursue even higher profits, which I think is what
we have seen happen here. The profits in this second fiscal
quarter are really mind boggling. Exxon, as we have heard, made
a profit of nearly $18 billion, its highest quarterly profit
ever. And if you combine that with what it did in the first
quarter, it has made over $23 billion in profits so far this
year. I mean, it is unbelievable.
Chevron made a profit of almost $18 billion in the first
six months of 2022, BP, $15.5 billion, Shell, $20 billion in
profit by just the end of the 2d quarter of the year. I mean,
you got to be kidding me. When the average consumer, their
customer, by the way, is still taking it on the chin across the
country, these corporate citizens are abdicating their
responsibility to step up and do the patriotic thing.
Here is my dream. If you look at these profits,--maybe one
enlightened CEO of one of these companies one day soon will
realize that they can take their company and leap forward into
a clean green energy space and exercise leadership. They have
the capacity to do it if they would get their heads out of the
sand and decide to be leaders, world leaders, global leaders. I
mean, let's make that the challenge to them. Take your fossil
fuel companies and turn them into clean energy companies, and
instead of being dragged into this clean future, help pave the
way and pull the rest of us with you. So with that, Madam
Chair, I will yield back. Thank you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from
California, Mr. DeSaulnier, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. To Dr. Weber and
Dr. Cha, just a little background. I represent a community in
the East Bay of the Bay Area that has five oil refineries and
the headquarters of Chevron. In 30 years of representing this
area in state, local, and Federal level and having been an air
regulator, I have had a close relationship in terms of knowing
them, the fossil fuel industry. I have lost constituents, one
of whom, Michael Glanzman, lost his life because the company
was appealing a Cal/OSHA order to replace a walkie-talkie. When
he went out to look at temperature spikes on a hydrocracker
because they were ignoring written safety protocols, he was
eviscerated when it exploded.
A year later, I lost four constituents when they mis-
trained people on a [inaudible] unit. Four people burned to
death. We shut them down. We have what is called a full
facility audit. Shut them down for a year, and the report came
back and said it was the corporate culture that created this.
It is, in my view, the priority of return on investment to
investors rather than the community and their work force.
So in that context, Dr. Weber and Dr. Cha, how can we trust
them? And secondarily, given the dynamics, it seems to me that
they have assets, whether it is Putin or American oil
companies, that are changing dramatically with the movement,
particularly in China, and in places like California and EU, to
renewables and alternative fuels. Their futures trading is not
what they expected it to do, so it is sort of like they have
got to get as much money as they can and get out. So the two
questions are, how do you trust somebody without a firm
framework of regulatory oversight? And then what about the
pressure of how the world is changing more dramatically than
they anticipated, I think, given they are trying to create
friction to this change from fossil fuels to renewables and how
they are trying to maximize their profits and get out? Dr.
Weber?
Ms. Weber. My impression is, from following these hearings
today, that we cannot entrust the future of our humanity to
these companies. The trouble is that as these profits explode,
their assets become more valuable. Already before the profit
explosion, researchers estimated that more than $1 trillion in
fossil fuel assets would need to be written off globally to
implement the Paris Agreement.
Now, the trouble is that if these assets become ever more
valuable and ever more profitable, the challenge of writing off
these assets, and, thereby, overcoming fossil fuel dependence
becomes even more insurmountable. So reining into the price and
profit hikes is really an urgent necessity.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Professor Cha?
Ms. Cha. I would just add that I think Professor Weber is
absolutely right that we cannot rely on voluntary commitments
or voluntary agreements, that we need a strong regulatory
framework that also has meaningful and robust enforcement. The
story that you told of Richmond could be replicated in oil
refineries across the country. It is a dangerous industry. And
for several reasons, for the health and safety of our
communities and workers, we need to transition away from fossil
fuels.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Dr. Cha, because of those two incidents, we
passed in the county that I was on the board of supervisors for
and I authored, the industrial safety ordinance. In the 22
years since we have had that, we have never had another
fatality or an emergency room, but they fought that. I was at
the negotiating table with them. They fought it, and now 22
years later, because of the performance standards, we look back
at how well governance, regulatory, oversight has served the
community, the workers, and them. They now take credit for it,
which I find also indicative of the culture.
One last thing, the dynamic with the renewables. We have
transition fuels that we are arguing about now, biofuels, but
we want to get to zero as soon as possible here in the Bay Area
in California. Can you speak to the pressure that that creates
around fossil fuel companies when they talk about transition
fuels?
Ms. Cha. I think that there is broad consensus that we need
to fight the climate crisis. Particularly, in California, we
are seeing, you know, these massive heat waves, these massive
wildfires. It is clear the climate crisis is now. So I think
that is one reason why oil companies engage in so much
greenwashing, to make it seem like their operations are more
palatable, when, in reality, we know that they are doing the
exact opposite.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Illinois,
Mr. Casten, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank to you our
witnesses and for allowing me to waive on here today. I would
like to focus on numbers, if I can. We have talked a lot about
these numbers on the back wall about the volume of profits in
the oil industry. What is not shown there, and I wish it was,
is how many of those dollars are direct wealth transfers from
U.S. taxpayers. The U.S. tax breaks, discounted royalty fees,
and direct Federal funding to the fossil fuel sector add to $20
billion a year. Now, that is just the direct money. The
International Monetary Fund has calculated that, including the
indirect costs, which are transferred from the taxpayers and
Americans on to those shareholders, works out to $662 billion a
year. That is more than we spend on Medicaid, almost as much as
we spend on national defense. The only country that subsidizes
their fossil fuel sector more than the United States is China.
Many of my colleagues believe that we should be No. 1. I do not
want to win that race, and I hope that my free market advocates
would support that.
Dr. Weber, as a reigning economist here, are there any good
economic reasons for us to preserve those market-distorting
subsidies?
Ms. Weber. I should not think so, especially not in the
light of the kind of profit explosions that we have observed.
And while we are at numbers, just to put things in perspective,
our research shows that $93.3 billion have flown from the
global fossil fuel industry into U.S. financial institutions
and persons. Only in the second quarter, this is about 50
percent more than the Federal Government is spending on natural
resources and the environment for all of 2022.
Mr. Casten. I am glad to hear it. I introduced, with Earl
Blumenauer and Don McEachin, the People Over Petroleum Act that
would take just the $6 billion of the most egregious tax
subsidies, eliminate them today, and give every American a $500
check. That is only one percent of the subsidy. So my friends
in the fossil fuel sector who struggled to compete in the
rough-and-tumble world of free market capitalism can rest
assured they are still pretty well protected. I hope my
colleagues across the aisle will join me the name of
capitalism.
I want to share some other numbers with the time I have.
Investors make decisions every day about how to allocate their
wealth. The price earnings ratio is a measure of how much would
you pay for the right to own a share in a company, a right to
their profits. Exxon and Chevron are both trading at a price
earnings ratio about $10 right now. Shell is at $6. NextEra, a
leading renewable energy developer, is trading at $68; First
Solar, $75. Tesla is trading at $100.
I would submit to you that a part of the reason why the
fossil industry is not investing in wells is because capital
markets do not trust them with their money. They do not want
liquidity. They want to strip cash. In spite of that, many of
my colleagues across the aisle are suggesting that when capital
markets are saying, I want to move my capital to more
productive assets that are cleaner, that are cheaper, where
people are investing in the future, my colleagues across the
aisle are saying, you know what we should do? We should block
those companies from divesting out of fossil fuels.
Dr. Weber, I would ask you again. Are there any principles
of efficient market theories that would suggest that the best
mode of government in this time is to block capital markets
from moving to more productive investments?
Ms. Weber. I should not think so. And while we are at
economic theory, Malthus has been invoked several times during
this hearing. Obviously, Malthus had a great debate with David
Ricardo, the founder of liberal economics in the 19th century.
Ricardo was worried that landlords would eventually suck out so
much resources of the economy that the British economy would
grind to a halt. I think that the fossil fuel industries today
are increasingly taking on a similar kind of economic function
as landlords did in the 19th century Britain.
Mr. Casten. And the last question for you. Can you think of
any good reason why an industry that is receiving $600 billion
a year of subsidies and is struggling to attract capital. that
the best policy solution would be to throw them more subsidies?
Ms. Weber. I should not think so. And we also have to keep
in mind that in addition to the direct subsidies, the exploding
fossil fuel prices also hurt the budgets of Federal and state
governments, which are the second most important users of
petroleum and coal products after the petroleum and coal
products industry itself. This means that taxpayers are picking
up again the bill for this.
Mr. Casten. Well, thank you very much. I thank you for your
thoughtfulness. This has been an excellent panel, and I wish it
was not so partisan. Every time I see Mr. Shellenberger, I am
reminded of that quote from Billy Madison, ``We are all dumber
for having listened to you today, and may God have mercy on
your soul.'' I yield back.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. The gentleman from Louisiana,
Mr. Graves, is recognized for five minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, this
hearing today is interesting in that we are talking about
record profits of energy companies, and we are watching folks
sitting here demonizing those companies. Madam Chair, the Biden
administration has projected that global energy demand is going
to increase by 50 percent over the next 28 years, a 50-percent
growth in global energy demand.
If we look specifically at developing countries, we are
probably looking, on the high end according to the Biden
administration, about an 80-percent increase in natural gas
demand, in developed countries, up to a 58-percent increase in
natural gas demand. So that is in the next 28 years, natural
gas Biden administration projections. And let me say it again,
50-percent increase in global energy demand over the next 28
years alone. We need wind and solar. We need geothermal, wave,
nuclear, hydro, and according to the Biden administration and
everybody else, we need oil and gas as well.
So rather than looking at these very projections and
saying, OK, what are we going to do to prepare for that, how
are we going to develop an energy strategy that achieves
reliability, affordability, cleanliness in terms of emissions
reduction, exportable technologies and a secure supply chain,
what we are seeing, rather than preparation for that scenario
is we see the complete opposite.
[Chart.]
Mr. Graves. What this shows is this shows the acres of
energy of lands that were produced under the various
administrations. It doesn't even go back this far, but if you
look at all the data, you would have to go back to the Truman
administration to find an administration that has leased fewer
acres of land for oil and gas production. You would have to go
back to the Truman administration in the 1940's when the
technology really didn't even exist.
So the data is showing you are going to have a surge in
energy demand, yet what they are doing is nothing. To put it in
perspective, Madam Chair, the Carter Administration leased 100
times more acres of land--100 times. So the fascinating thing
here, the irony here is that we are beating up on an industry
that we caused an imbalance in supply and demand. When I say
``we,'' I really mean the White House. Energy policies of this
administration have caused this distortion between supply and
demand. You have a surge in demand with cutting off supply. So
folks are sitting here saying this is awful that these
companies have these profits. You have created it by cutting
off supply to meet demand. It is your fault.
Now, all this is being done under the auspices of
emissions, right? So this is all climate change, and we are
stopping emissions. We are lowering emissions. Let's bring
facts to the table again. So the reality is that under the
previous administration, emissions went down an average of 2.5
percent a year. Under the Biden administration, they went up
6.3 percent. OK, so we failed on price. We failed on the
environment. All right. So let's look at the energy security
box. Energy security. Well, so we have gone to Iran. We have
gone to Venezuela, we have gone to the Saudis, two of which
have kidnapped Americans, and we have asked them to backfill
our refusal to produce energy.
Well, the United States, and specifically, off the coast of
Louisiana where I represent, we have some of the cleanest
barrels of oil in the world. Recognizing, as the Biden
administration does, recognizing that there is going to be
global energy demand, why would we not go and get energy from
where we know it is cleanest? It doesn't seem to make sense.
And so then, last, looking at Census data, 25 percent of all
Americans, 1 in every 4 Americans, have had to choose among
medication, food, or energy. This is what these policies are
doing to people.
Mr. Shellenberger, just asking you a question. You and I
have talked about California, and I look at California, eigth
worst emissions growth in America, most reliable state upon
foreign energy, least reliable grid in the Nation, and rates
that are 85 percent above the national average or 100 percent
higher than my home state. Why would we want to replicate those
failures on the other 49 states?
Mr. Shellenberger. Well, I think California is a cautionary
tale, sir. We saw our electricity prices rise 7 times more than
in the rest of the United States over the last decade. We have
the second highest electricity prices in the United States,
second only after Hawaii, which has to import its electricity
in the form of oil to burn. We were on the verge of having
blackouts. You know, we had rolling blackouts in 2020, so I
have been advocating that we keep our nuclear plants open,
expand the nuclear plants. The Governor finally did the right
thing and kept the nuclear plant going. But California is a
lesson to the world. You know, you add more unreliable energy
to the electrical grid, you make the electrical grid less
reliable.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank
you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. In closing, I would like to
thank our panelists today for their remarks, and I want to
commend my colleagues for participating in this important
conversation.
With that, without objection, all members will have five
legislative days within which to submit extraneous materials
and to submit additional written questions for the witnesses to
the chair, which will be forwarded to the witnesses for their
response. I ask our witnesses to please respond as promptly as
you are able.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]