[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.]