[House Report 111-709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


111th Congress  }                                            {   Report
  2d Session    }        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES            {  111-709
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                 Union Calendar No. 432
 
                    FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH 
                                CONGRESS 

                   SUBMITTED BY MR. MARKEY, CHAIRMAN,
                       SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY
                              INDEPENDENCE
                           AND GLOBAL WARMING

                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed








     SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING'S 
               FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS


















111th Congress   }                                           {   Report
  2d Session     }       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES            {  111-709
_______________________________________________________________________

                                                 Union Calendar No. 432


                    FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH

                                CONGRESS

                   SUBMITTED BY MR. MARKEY, CHAIRMAN,

                       SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                              INDEPENDENCE

                           AND GLOBAL WARMING

                  [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed


















        Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
            Warming, House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, January 3, 2011.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Madam Speaker: Pursuant to H. Res. 5, section 4(a)(5), 
I hereby transmit to you the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming's Final Staff Report for the 
111th Congress. This report summarizes the Select Committee's 
work during this Congress, the historic achievements on energy 
and climate issues, and recommendations for actions in the 
112th Congress.
    As we move into the 112th Congress, I want to thank you for 
your historic and continued leadership and vision on the 
critical issues of energy security and climate change. I hope 
and trust that the work of the Select Committee, reflected in 
this Report, will assist the next Congress as we press forward 
to meet these urgent challenges and opportunities.
                                          Edward J. Markey,
                                                          Chairman.


















                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Introduction.....................................................     1
The Energy and Climate Challenge.................................     3
    I. Energy Independence.......................................     3
    II. The Climate Crisis.......................................    19
    III. The Economic Challenge: Jobs and Clean Tech Growth......    47
Select Committee Activities......................................    51
    I. Investigation into the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.....    51
    II. Accomplishments..........................................    55
Conclusion.......................................................    61
Appendix A: Hearings and Briefings of the Select Committee on 
  Energy and Global Warming......................................    65
Appendix B: BP Deepwater Horizon Correspondence..................    73















                                                 Union Calendar No. 432
111th Congress  }                                           {    Report
  2d Session    }          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES         {   111-709

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

               FINAL STAFF REPORT FOR THE 111TH CONGRESS 

                                _______
                                

January 3, 2011.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Markey, from the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
                    Warming, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                              Introduction

    We are at a watershed moment in the history of energy 
production--and the choices we make at this juncture will 
determine the fate of our planet and the national security and 
economic future of the United States. Between now and 2030, 
roughly $26 trillion will be invested in energy infrastructure 
worldwide. Clean energy will likely make up an increasing share 
of this investment with every passing year. The International 
Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that $5.7 trillion will be 
invested in renewable electricity generation alone between 2010 
and 2035.\1\ This new infrastructure is long-lived and costly, 
and the decisions made in the next decade will set the course 
of the global and U.S. energy system--and of the global 
climate--for the next century and beyond. This transition also 
presents an unprecedented opportunity for economic growth and 
job creation in the clean energy technology sector. Other 
countries are taking the lead in clean energy and the United 
States must act now if it is to remain competitive in this 
rapidly developing global market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010. 
Available at http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global climate change presents one of the gravest threats 
to our planet's health, and to America's economy, its national 
security, and its public health. Scientists warn that we may be 
approaching a tipping point, after which it will become 
increasingly difficult, or perhaps impossible, to halt global 
warming and its catastrophic effects. The United States 
confronts this issue at the same time it faces a deepening 
energy crisis--characterized by skyrocketing prices, high 
dependence on foreign oil, and continued reliance on high-
carbon fuels that worsen the climate crisis.
    The Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 
Warming was created by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in 
2007 to examine and make recommendations on the interrelated 
issues of energy independence, national security, America's 
economic future and global warming.
    During its four years, the Select Committee held 80 
hearings and briefings, conducted investigations, led fact 
finding trips with Congressional members, and contributed to 
the most active four years in energy and climate policy 
development and debate in the United States Congress.
    As a result of the Select Committee's work in raising the 
profile of energy and climate issues, and spurring increased 
debate, the House of Representatives passed several pieces of 
legislation that will reduce our nation's consumption of 
foreign oil, increase energy efficiency, and create new jobs in 
the clean energy sector.
    In 2007, the first year of the Select Committee, the House 
passed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which included 
fuel economy provisions co-authored by Rep. Edward J. Markey, 
Chairman of the Select Committee. The bill also increased 
America's use of advanced biofuels, and updated energy 
efficiency standards for appliances and lighting systems.
    The Select Committee also was instrumental in pushing for 
increased investment in clean energy technologies. The American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 invested $90 billion in 
clean energy, which jump-started new domestic industries like 
advanced electric batteries, boosted household energy 
efficiency, and helped key renewable energy sectors like wind 
and solar avoid collapse during the recession.
    In June of 2009, the House passed the Waxman-Markey 
American Clean Energy and Security Act, the first passage of a 
comprehensive energy and climate bill in the history of the 
U.S. Congress. The bill set ambitious carbon reduction targets, 
which were used by U.S. negotiators to craft the Copenhagen 
Accord. It also created a roadmap to create clean energy jobs 
and the next generation of clean energy technologies.
    These legislative achievements happened as historic events 
indicated that swift action was needed to address a strained 
energy system and a dangerously destabilized climate. The years 
2007-2010 are all in the top ten warmest years on record, 
according to NASA. Oil and gasoline prices peaked to record 
levels in 2007 and are on the rise again as the country emerges 
from the recession.
    As the Select Committee ends its tenure of progress, it is 
clear that there is much left to be done to stabilize our 
global climate, and spur the development of clean energy 
technology and jobs here in America.
    This report summarizes the results and findings of the 
Select Committee's hearings and investigations, highlights 
legislative accomplishments that flow from the information it 
has developed and makes recommendations for steps moving 
forward. We begin with a discussion of the key issue of energy 
independence.

                         I. Energy Independence


                              INTRODUCTION

    The United States is confronting a deepening energy 
security crisis--characterized by escalating and volatile 
energy prices, unacceptably high dependence on foreign oil, and 
increasing global demand for limited energy resources. At the 
same time, an unprecedented economic and job creation 
opportunity has developed in the clean energy sector. According 
to the IEA, roughly $26 trillion in investment will be needed 
through 2030 to meet the world's energy demand, a significant 
share of which will be made in the rapidly growing clean energy 
sector.\2\ Nations that move aggressively now will position 
their domestic companies and workers to disproportionately 
benefit in this key growth sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2008. 
Available at http://www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2008/weo2008.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Oil Challenge

    The United States' continuing addiction to oil presents a 
serious threat to our national security and economy. The United 
States is the largest consumer of oil in the world, accounting 
for 22 percent of global demand--principally to power our 
transportation system, which is 95 percent dependent on oil.\3\ 
About half of all U.S. oil consumption in 2010--3.5 billion 
barrels--came from foreign sources. Imports have declined from 
their peak of 60 percent of total consumption in 2005 but are 
still up from 42 percent in 1990 and 27 percent in 1985.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\Energy Information Administration; World Oil Balance: Second 
Quarter 2010 and U.S. Consumption by Sector. Available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_ publications/
oil_market_basics/demand_text.htm#Global Oil Consumption.
    \4\Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review 
November 2010, Table 3.3a Petroleum Trade: Overview. Available at: 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/mer/pdf/pages/sec3_7.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Oil and gasoline prices have been on a roller coaster ride 
over the past four years, and are predicted to remain at 
historically high levels for the foreseeable future, primarily 
as a result of rising global demand. Crude oil prices have 
increased by 250 percent over the last decade while gasoline 
prices have more than doubled.\5\ In just the last 3 years, the 
price of a barrel of oil has soared to $147, dropped to $36, 
and climbed back above $90 by the close of 2010.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\Energy Information Administration Weekly United States Spot 
Price FOB Weighted by Estimated Import Volume (Dollars per Barrel) 
(November 2010) Available at http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/
pet_pri_wco_k_w.htm.
    \6\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Experts agree that rapidly growing oil demand from 
developing countries is likely to result in sustained high 
prices for the foreseeable future. China, for example, alone is 
expected to grow its vehicle fleet from 40 million vehicles 
today to 350 million by 2035, according to the International 
Energy Agency (IEA).
    Soaring petroleum prices have been a drain on the economy 
and have a crippling effect on American consumers. Nearly $1.3 
trillion has been sent overseas to import oil over the past 
four years, while oil imports have grown to account for nearly 
half the U.S. trade deficit.\7\ Each $1 per gallon increase in 
the average cost of gasoline adds nearly $600 to an average 
American's annual transportation fuel bill.\8\ At mid-2008 
gasoline prices, fuel expenses were eating up nearly 10 percent 
of an average American worker's pre-tax income.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\As calculated by Select Committee staff, from census data. See 
U.S. Census Bureau Foreign Trade, Exhibit 9--Petroleum and Non-
petroleum End-Use Category Totals (Sept 2010) Available at http://
www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/2010pr/10/exh9.pdf.
    \8\This is based on EPA estimates of fuel economy and miles driven 
by an average U.S. passenger vehicle. See Environmental Protection 
Agency, Emission Facts: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical 
Passenger Vehicle, Fact Sheet EPA420-F-05-004 (Feb. 2005) Available at 
http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05004.htm.
    \9\According to the Department of Transportation, U.S. cars, vans, 
pickups, and SUVs in 2005 traveled an average of 11,856 miles and used 
594 gallons of gasoline over the course of the year. U.S. Department of 
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Annual Vehicle Distance 
Traveled in Kilometers and Related Data--2005, By Highway Category and 
Vehicle Type (Table VM-1M) (Nov. 2006) Available at http://
www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/pdf/vm1m.pdf. Based on those figures, 
with gasoline prices at $3.75 per gallon, the average consumer would 
spend $2,227.50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, nearly 8 million American households rely on 
heating oil to warm their homes during the winter. These 
households face an expected average heating bill of $2,146 
during the 2010-11 winter, 61 percent more than households 
spent on average 6 winters ago.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\Energy Information Administration, Short-Term Energy Outlook, 
December 2010--Table WF01. Available at http://www.eia.gov/emeu/steo/
pub/wf-table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OPEC countries control 70 percent of estimated global oil 
reserves and account for 40 percent of global production.\11\ 
OPEC's share of global production is projected to continue to 
increase, reaching more than 50 percent by 2035.\12\ Moreover, 
investor-owned companies control only about 6 percent of the 
world's known oil reserves. By contrast, government-owned and 
operated companies in oil-producing countries, such as Saudi 
Aramco in Saudi Arabia or the National Iranian Oil Company in 
Iran, control most of the rest.\13\ Of the top 20 oil producing 
companies in the world, 14 are national oil companies (NOCs) or 
newly privatized NOCs.\14\ Although Canada and Mexico supply a 
substantial proportion of U.S. imports, OPEC countries control 
virtually all of the world's marginal production capacity and 
therefore have the ability to set the global price for this 
commodity. As a result, the United States' national security 
and economy is increasingly threatened by the potential for a 
supply disruption or market manipulation by sometimes 
unfriendly foreign governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\Energy Information Administration, International Petroleum 
Monthly (November 2010) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/ipm/
supply.html; and Oil and Gas Journal--World Proved Reserves of Oil and 
Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates, (March 2, 2009) Available at 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html.
    \12\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010 at 48 
(2010).
    \13\David Baker, ``Big Oil has trouble finding new fields,'' San 
Francisco Chronicle, Feb. 1, 2008. Available at http://www.sfgate.com/
cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/01/BUMDUOD7S.DTL.
    \14\Amy Myers Jaffe & Ronald Soligo, The International Oil 
Companies at 3 (Nov. 2007) 
(The James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy) Available at 
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/ publications/NOC_IOCs_Jaffe-Soligo.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Despite increasing calls to open the Outer Continental 
Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to 
drilling, the facts make clear that we cannot drill our way out 
of this problem. While the United States consumes 22 percent of 
the world's oil, it has less than 3 percent of global reserves. 
More drilling will have little or no impact on prices consumers 
pay for gasoline and will not substantially reduce U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil.
    The Department of Energy's Energy Information 
Administration (EIA) estimates that, even if the entire lower 
48 OCS were opened to drilling, this would increase cumulative 
U.S. oil production by only 1.6 percent by 2030 and would have 
an ``insignificant'' impact on prices.\15\ As to the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, EIA estimates that if the Refuge were 
opened for drilling, production would likely peak in 2027 at 
just 0.78 million barrels per day--reducing world oil prices by 
78 cents per barrel in EIA's average price and resource 
case.\16\ EIA notes that ``the Organization of Petroleum 
Exporting Countries (OPEC) could neutralize any potential price 
impact of ANWR oil production by reducing its oil exports by an 
equal amount.''\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access 
to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer 
Continental Shelf. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
otheranalysis/ongr.html.
    \16\Energy Information Administration, Analysis of Crude Oil 
Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (May 2008). Available 
at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/anwr/index.html.
    \17\Id, p. 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, there is currently no shortage of 
opportunities for drilling on federal lands in the United 
States. Oil and gas companies currently hold leases to nearly 
68 million acres of federal lands and offshore areas on which 
they are not currently producing.\18\ From 2000 through 2009, 
the federal government has offered more than 517 million acres 
for lease offshore and leased more than 8,700 tracts.\19\ 
Onshore, more than 40,000 permits have been approved for 
drilling. Nearly 83 percent of technically recoverable offshore 
oil reserves offshore in the United States are located in areas 
already available for leasing and drilling.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Department of Interior, Minerals Management Service, All 
Reported Royalty Revenues, Fiscal Year 2004. Available at http://
www.mrm.mms.gov/MRMWebStats/Disbursements_ 
Royalties.aspx?report=TotalLeasesbyCategory&yeartype=FY&year=2007&asOfDa
te=10-26-2007.
    \19\Department of Interior. Mineral Management Service, Table 1. 
All Lease Offerings. Available at http://www.gomr.boemre.gov/homepg/
lsesale/swiler/Table_1.PDF.
    \20\Department of Interior, Mineral Management Service, Report to 
Congress: Comprehensive Inventory of U.S. OCS Oil and Natural Gas 
Resources (Feb. 2006). Available at http://www.mms.gov/revaldiv/PDFs/
FinalInvRptToCongress050106.pdf. Figures are adjusted to account for 
the estimated 1.26 billion barrels of oil and 79.96 trillion cubic feet 
of gas in the Gulf of Mexico that were made accessible following this 
inventory by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, regardless of U.S. oil production trends, there 
are serious questions about how increasing global demand will 
be met--and whether it can be met at all. Estimates of the 
total petroleum resources currently in the ground--both 
conventional and unconventional\21\--vary from 14 to 24 
trillion barrels.\22\ However, actual ``proven reserves'' that 
have already been discovered and are expected to be 
economically producible are much lower--estimated at between 
1.2 and 1.3 trillion barrels worldwide. Chevron Corporation has 
estimated that humanity has consumed 1 trillion barrels of oil 
during the past 125 years, but that it will take just 30 years 
to burn through another trillion barrels. Proven U.S. reserves 
are estimated at 21 billion to 30 billion barrels, enough to 
meet U.S. demand for 3 or 4 years.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\Conventional oil is crude oil and natural gas liquids produced 
from underground reservoirs by means of conventional wells. Non-
conventional oil includes oil shales, oil sands, and extra-heavy crude.
    \22\Energy Information Administration, Long-term Global Oil 
Scenarios: Looking Beyond 2030 (Slide presentation by Glen Sweetnam 
from EIA 2008 Energy Conference, April 7, 2008) (EIA uses 20.6 trillion 
barrels as its base case.).
    \23\Energy Information Administration, World Proved Reserves of Oil 
and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates, Oil and Gas Journal, (March 3, 
2009) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/
reserves.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Generating new oil supply is proving increasingly 
difficult. The fields that oil companies find are generally in 
hard-to-reach places like deep water areas in the Gulf of 
Mexico, where drilling and pumping costs far more than it does 
on land. Much of these companies' current oil supplies come 
from old giant fields which are now in decline and deepwater 
fields which may have shorter lifespans than traditional 
fields.\24\ The 87 day BP Deepwater Horizon oil and gas spill 
illustrates the inherent risk and increased environmental and 
safety challenges of pursuing ever more remote, highly 
pressurized, and difficult to extract hydrocarbon deposits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\Matthew R. Simmons, Simmons & Company International, The 21st 
Century Energy Crisis Has Arrived (Presentation to the CFA Society of 
Atlanta: April 16, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Further, a growing share of reserve additions are coming 
from revised appraisals of existing fields, not the discovery 
of new fields. Even with advances in technology, the average 
size of discoveries per exploratory well is around 10 million 
barrels, which is half the output of wells dug between 1965 and 
1979.\25\ As a result, the IEA believes that crude oil output 
will not exceed the all-time peak production level of 70 
million barrels per day (mb/d) reached in 2006. Instead, crude 
output plateaus around 68-69 mb/d over the next decade, while 
production of natural gas liquids and unconventional oil 
grows.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2006 at 90.
    \26\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010 at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In short, the shrinking margin between stagnant supply and 
soaring demand provides yet another reason that the United 
States and the world need to begin to look beyond oil to meet 
our growing energy needs.

                   PART II: THE ELECTRICITY CHALLENGE

    Even with the recession reducing economic growth and 
electricity demand in 2008 and 2009, the U.S. power sector is 
facing rapid and sustained growth in demand over the coming 
decades. Additionally, our electricity transmission and 
distribution infrastructure is outdated and overtaxed, and 
uncertainty about climate regulation is stalling new 
investment.
    U.S. electricity demand is predicted to increase by 30 
percent by 2035, requiring the construction of 250,000 
megawatts of new generating capacity--or equivalent increases 
in efficiency.\27\ Many regions of the country are predicted to 
see declining levels of reserve capacity--putting the 
reliability of the grid at greater risk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010. 
Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/
electricity.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More than 10,000 megawatts of new wind generating capacity 
was installed in the United States in 2009,\28\ making it the 
second consecutive year in which more wind capacity was 
installed than natural gas, coal, or any other resource.\29\ 
While coal remains the single largest source of electricity in 
the country (45 percent), fuel-switching to natural gas 
contributed to a 12 percent decline in coal-fired generation in 
2009, its lowest share of the electricity market since 1978. 
Longer-term, the massive contribution of coal-fired power 
plants to global warming pollution and uncertainty regarding 
climate policy are making it increasingly inadvisable and 
difficult to build new conventional coal-fired plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Industry Annual 
Market Report, Year Ending 2009 Available at http://e360.yale.edu/
images/digest/Annual_Market_Report_Wind.pdf.
    \29\Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2008 
Available at ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/electricity/034808.pdf; and Energy 
Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009, See table 1.5 
Capacity Additions, Retirements and Changes by Energy Source, 2009 at 
19. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epaxlfile1_5.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beginning January 1, 2011, EPA will phase in permitting 
requirements for new plants with greenhouse gas emissions. 
Power plants will also face new air toxics regulations in the 
next several years. Meanwhile, discoveries of domestic shale 
gas deposits and advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic 
fracturing techniques, have led to expanded domestic gas 
reserves and production and the lowest well-head prices\30\ in 
seven years. U.S. solar electric capacity grew 37 percent in 
2009\31\ as the price of photovoltaic modules has declined 50 
percent in price over the last two years. While many advocate 
nuclear power, massive expansion would be necessary even for it 
to maintain its current share of U.S. generation, and there are 
very substantial financial, market, and other obstacles to such 
an expansion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\The well-head price is the price charged by the producer for 
petroleum or natural gas without transportation costs.
    \31\Solar Energy Industry Association, U.S. Solar Industry Year in 
Review 2009 (April 15, 2010), Available at http://seia.org/galleries/
default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in %20Review.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rapidly growing demand, security challenges, and 
underinvestment in transmission infrastructure have created 
concerns about the reliability of the electrical grid. A number 
of steps have been taken to increase grid reliability in the 
wake of the 2003 blackouts in the northeast. However, 
transmission congestion remains a problem and the margin 
between capacity and demand is growing thinner in many regions 
of the country--notably the Midwest, Southwest, and 
California--creating concerns about the potential for brownouts 
or blackouts in the next several years.\32\ The grid's 
increasing reliance on automation and two-way communications, 
especially with the rise of advanced metering and other ``smart 
grid'' capabilities, has increased the grid's vulnerability to 
remote cyber attacks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\See generally North American Electric Reliability Corporation, 
2007 Long-term Reliability Assessment (Oct. 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Retail electricity prices have seen a steady upward march 
over the last decade due to rising fuel and infrastructure 
costs. Prices have increased from a nationwide average of 6.64 
cents per kilowatt hour in 1999 to 9.89 cents in 2009, a 49 
percent rise.\33\ However, electricity represents a much less 
price volatile form of energy, as average annual electricity 
rates are projected by the EIA to stay relatively steady, 
increasing to 10.2 cents per kilowatt hour in real dollars 
through 2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\Energy Information Administration, Average Retail Price of 
Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector. Available 
at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electricity generation is heavily dependent on water, and 
growing water scarcity due to climate change will constrain 
power generation in many areas here in the United States and 
abroad. Power plants that convert thermal energy into 
electricity--primarily coal, natural gas, oil, and nuclear 
power plants--currently produce 90 percent of U.S. electricity 
and consume massive amounts of the country's fresh water supply 
for steam generation and cooling.
    Hydroelectric power, which typically accounts for another 
6-9 percent of U.S. power generation, is of course highly 
dependent on water flow. Water used by electric utilities 
accounts for 20 percent of all non-farm water use in the United 
States.\34\ This figure could rise to 60 percent by 2030, with 
fast-growing regions like the Southwest and Southeast hit the 
hardest. In recent years, decreased river flow and increased 
water temperatures already have led to shut-downs of nuclear 
power plants in the southeastern United States and across 
Europe. These problems will be exacerbated as global warming 
increases temperatures and water scarcity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\Peter Spotts, ``Trade-off looms for arid US regions: water or 
power?'' The Christian Science Monitor, April 17, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coal

    Coal has not been immune to the increase in fossil fuel 
costs, as domestic prices have soared nearly 60 percent between 
2000 and 2009.\35\ These higher prices drove a decline in coal-
fired generation to its lowest share of the domestic 
electricity market since 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \35\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009, 
Table 7.8 Coal Prices, Selected Years, 1949-2009. Available at http://
www.eia.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec7_19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yet coal remains a key fuel for the electric power sector, 
both for the United States and the rest of the world. Often 
referred to as the Saudi Arabia of coal, the United States has 
the largest coal reserves in the world (28 percent of global 
reserves\36\) and produces more than 10 billion short tons of 
coal annually. More than 90 percent of U.S. coal consumption is 
used for electricity generation. It is frequently asserted that 
U.S. reserves are sufficient to last 250 years at current rates 
of consumption, though a 2007 National Research Council report 
emphasized that this estimate could not be confirmed and some 
question whether full recovery is feasible.\37\ China and 
India, two of the largest, fastest growing economies in the 
world, have large reserves and rely on coal for most of their 
electricity generation (80 percent for China and 71 percent for 
India).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \36\Energy Information Administration, International Energy 
Statistics, Total Recoverable Coal. Available at http://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=1&pid=7&aid=6.
    \37\National Research Council, Coal: Research and Development to 
Support National Energy Policy (2007).
    \38\Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 
2010, at 87. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/
electricity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Coal presents a serious challenge from the perspective of 
global warming, and the successful development of carbon 
capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies will be crucial to 
reconciling our continued reliance on coal with the urgent need 
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because of coal's high-
carbon content, coal-fired power plants emit roughly twice as 
much carbon dioxide per unit of electricity as natural gas-
fired plants. Existing coal-fired plants account for about a 
third of U.S. CO2 emissions, and projected business-
as-usual expansion in conventional coal-fired power plants 
would make achieving science-based reductions of carbon 
emissions impossible. Globally, coal-fired generation is 
expected to nearly double between 2007 and 2035, with the 
lion's share of new capacity being built in China and 
India.\39\ If built without carbon controls, these new coal 
plants alone would increase global greenhouse gas emissions by 
nearly 19 percent above current levels.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\Energy Information Administration, International Energy Outlook 
2010. Available at 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf.
    \40\As calculated by Select Committee Staff. See Energy Information 
Administration, International Energy Outlook 2010, Available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here in the United States, construction of new coal-fired 
power plants has slowed. According to one tally, more than 100 
coal-fired power plants were cancelled, abandoned, or put on 
hold between 2007 and 2009.\41\ While 2009 saw more new coal 
capacity come online in the United States in a single year 
since 1991, it was far less than new wind (9,410 MW) and 
natural gas (9,403 MW) capacity added that year.\42\ In fact, 
more than four times as much planned coal capacity was 
cancelled or abandoned (14,900 MW) as was completed (3,200 MW) 
in 2009.\43\ This slowdown was due in large part to public and 
regulatory opposition related coal plants' emissions of 
CO2 as well as conventional pollutants, such as 
mercury. This opposition, together with uncertainty about 
future climate regulation, is making it increasingly difficult 
for new coal-fired power plants to secure financing. For 
example, in February 2008, three of what were then Wall 
Street's biggest investment banks issued standards requiring 
utilities seeking financing for coal-fired power plants to 
demonstrate that the plants will be economically viable even 
with stringent federal controls on CO2 
emissions.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\Source Watch ``Coal plants cancelled in 2009,'' available at 
http://www.sourcewatch.org/
index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2009.
    \42\Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Annual 2009, 
Table 1.5. Capacity Additions, Retirements and Changes by Energy Source 
(2009). Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epaxlfile1_5.pdf.
    \43\National Energy Technology Laboratories, Tracking New Coal-
Fired Power Plants, January 8, 2010. Available at http://
www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf.
    \44\See, e.g., Jeffrey Ball, ``Wall Street Shows Skepticism Over 
Coal: Banks Push Utilities To Plan for Impact of Emissions Caps,'' Wall 
Street Journal, Feb. 4, 2008, at A6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Natural Gas

    Two qualities make natural gas an important bridge fuel in 
the U.S. energy system: it emits roughly half the carbon as 
coal in producing the same amount of energy, and it is found 
and produced in the United States. Although the United States 
consumes 23 percent of the world's natural gas and has less 
than 4 percent of global reserves\45\--ultimately an 
unsustainable equation--natural gas does not present the same 
immediate geopolitical and economic security risks as oil. Net 
natural gas imports currently make up just 12 percent of total 
supply, the vast majority of which comes from Canada. Further, 
EIA projects imports to fall to 6 percent of U.S. supply in 
2035.\46\ After four consecutive years of production increases, 
the United States is now producing more natural gas than it 
ever has before. It has become a fuel of choice for new power 
plants in the United States because of its low emissions, 
comparatively low capital cost, short lead times for plant 
construction, and relatively low current fuel prices. The 
electric power sector now accounts for 30 percent of total U.S. 
natural gas consumption, nearly the same as the manufacturing 
sector.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \45\Energy Information Administration, World Proved Reserves of Oil 
and Natural Gas, Most Recent Estimates (March 3, 2009), Oil and Gas 
Journal data. Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/
reserves.html.
    \46\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 
with Projections to 2035, May 11, 2010. Available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html.
    \47\Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Consumption by 
End Use (November 2010). Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/ng/
ng_cons_sum_dcu_nus_m.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    New drilling technologies, especially horizontal drilling 
and hydraulic fracturing, have driven the recent surge in 
domestic production by allowing the extraction of shale gas 
from geologic formations that could not be tapped with 
traditional techniques. The resource potential of shale gas has 
significantly increased the natural gas reserve estimates in 
the United States.\48\ The Potential Gas Committee estimated in 
2009 that the United States held 35 percent more gas reserves 
than it believed two years earlier, an 80-year domestic supply 
at current rates of production.\49\ Shale gas now accounts for 
nearly a third of total U.S. gas reserves, and the EIA 
estimates that shale resources will provide 24 percent of total 
U.S. natural gas supply by 2035, up from 6 percent 
currently.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010 
with Projections to 2035, May 11, 2010, at 1. Available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/gas.html.
    \49\Potential Gas Committee, Press Release: ``Potential Gas 
Committee Reports Unprecedented Increase in Magnitude of Natural Gas 
Resource Base,'' June 18, 2009. Available at http://www. 
energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/potential-gas-committee-
reports-unprecedented-increase-in.pdf.
    \50\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2010, 
available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    By contrast, recent proposals to open new areas of the 
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for gas production are unlikely 
to lead to substantial new production or to significant 
downward pressure on prices. According to EIA, less than 7 
percent of total U.S. proven natural gas reserves are OCS 
offshore reserves. EIA estimates that 73 percent of these 
technically recoverable natural gas resources in the OCS (or 
all but 2 percent of total proven natural gas reserves) are 
already available for leasing and development.\51\ Furthermore, 
EIA's analysis found that ``lower 48 natural gas production is 
not projected to increase substantially by 2030 as a result of 
increased access to the OCS.''\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \51\Energy Information Administration, Impacts of Increased Access 
to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer 
Continental Shelf (2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/
otheranalysis/ongr.html
    \52\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Development of onshore unconventional resources has 
stressed water availability and quality in some areas. The 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from 
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, which has 
intensified concerns about the potential environmental impacts 
of hydraulic fracturing, focusing primarily on the potential 
for fracturing fluid, which may include chemical lubricants, 
gels, and biocides, to contaminate water supplies.\53\ Coalbed 
methane production--another form of unconventional gas 
development--releases saline water from the coal seams that can 
also contain arsenic, lead and other heavy metals\54\ and must 
be dealt with properly to avoid contamination of water supplies 
or destruction of pasture as has occurred in some areas of 
Wyoming.\55\ In some areas of the country, water supply systems 
are struggling to meet the demands of increased natural gas 
production on top of existing drinking and agriculture 
usage.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\Steve Hargreaves, Natural gas vs. contaminated water, 
CNNMoney.com, July 29, 2008, available at http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/
28/news/economy/_shale_drilling/index.htm.
    \54\U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-156-00, Water Produced 
With Coal Bed Methane (Nov. 2000), available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/
fs/fs-0156-00/fs-0156-00.pdf.
    \55\Hal Clifford, Wyoming's powder key, High Country News, Nov. 5, 
2001, available at 
http://www.hcn.org/issues/214/10823.
    \56\Vickie Welborn, ``Competition for Water Raises Concerns'' 
Shreveport Times, August 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Natural gas also comes with the same price volatility 
concerns as oil. Between 2002 and 2008, average monthly U.S. 
well head prices soared more than 400 percent. Just a year 
later, in 2009, prices had fallen by two-thirds from their high 
in 2008. This has had a deleterious effect on some industries 
that rely on natural gas a key input--such as pulp and paper, 
metals, glass, and plastic--as well as end users like farmers, 
who must spend much more for natural gas-based fertilizer.

Nuclear

    With a fleet of 104 commercial nuclear reactors, the United 
States is by far the largest producer of nuclear power in the 
world. In 2009, nuclear accounted for 20 percent of total U.S. 
electric generation, a share that has remained relatively 
stable over the last two decades. While the number of 
commercial reactors has remained the same since 1998, the fleet 
capacity factor--or the percentage of the time the generators 
are running at full capacity--has increased from 78 percent to 
more than 90 percent.\57\ While U.S. reactors were designed and 
commissioned to operate for 40-year lives, 59 commercial 
reactors have now received 20-year license extensions from the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), giving them up to a total 
of 60 years of operation. Extensions for 21 additional reactors 
are currently under review, and more are anticipated, according 
to NRC.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \57\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2009, 
p. 277.
    \58\Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Status of License Renewal 
Applications and Industry Activities, February 3, 2010. Available at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/
applications.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Electric utilities have filed 17 applications with the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for 26 new reactor operating 
licenses since 2007, the first new reactor applications 
submitted to U.S. regulators in three decades. While some are 
reading this activity as an indication of a nuclear 
``renaissance'', the nuclear industry continues to face 
significant challenges. The cost of new nuclear plants has 
ballooned in recent years and now approaches or exceeds the 
total market capitalization of many electric utility 
companies.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\Lovins, Amory B., Invited testimony to the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, Hearing on ``Nuclear Power in a 
Warming World: Solution or Illusion?'' (March 12, 2008) available at 
http://globalwarming.house.gov/tools/assets/files/0401.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While nuclear power is a mature technology that has been 
around for more than half a century, the industry's long-
running inability to build safe reactors on time and on budget 
continues to make financing very difficult for new projects. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office for the more than 
40 nuclear power projects underway since the partial-core 
meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, construction cost 
overruns exceeded 250 percent. For the 67 nuclear plants that 
have come online in the United States since 1976, on average 
more than 13 years passed between when a new plant application 
was officially accepted by the Nuclear Regulatory Committee and 
when the plant began commercial operation.\60\ The last reactor 
completed in the United States came online in 1996 after a 
construction period of 23 years. Since the nuclear building 
boom of the 1970s and 1980s, the nuclear industry and the 
number of skilled nuclear workers in the United States has 
contracted substantially, making a nuclear resurgence all the 
more difficult and less likely to be driven by domestic 
workers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \60\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cost projections for new nuclear power plants have also 
increased dramatically and made it unlikely new projects can be 
financed without taxpayer-backed loan guarantees. The nuclear 
industry projects a new large reactor would cost around $2 
billion to construct, which would place new projects at the low 
end of the $2 to $6 billion range seen for reactors completed 
since the mid-1980s (in 2007 dollars).\61\ However, the 2007 
Keystone Center study has found costs for the same plant could 
reach $4 billion. New plants are now expected to cost $6-8 
billion each,\62\ a figure which approaches or exceeds the 
total market capitalization of many electric power companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\Congressional Research Service, Report RL33558, Nuclear Energy 
Policy, by Mark Holt (October 21, 2010) available at http://
www.crs.gov/Products/RL/PDF/RL33558.pdf.
    \62\Nuclear Energy Institute, Policies That Support New Nuclear 
Power Plant Development (October 2009) available at http://www.nei.org/
resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/newplants/factsheet/
policiessupportnewplantdevelopment/?page=2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In light of these costs and risks, it remains in doubt 
whether private financing will be available for any new nuclear 
facilities without the assurance of federal government 
guarantees on the loans. The Congressional Budget Office has 
estimated the risk of default on such loans to be ``very high--
well above 50 percent.''\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\Congressional Budget Office, Cost Estimate, S.14, Energy Policy 
Act of 2003, at 11 (May 7, 2003), available at http://www.cbo.gov/
ftpdocs/42xx/doc4206/s14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The existing Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program 
has been authorized to award $38.5 billion in loan 
guarantees,\64\ more than half of which is specifically 
targeted at jumpstarting nuclear power. The Department has 
received 19 applications for federal loan guarantees to build 
22 proposed nuclear power plants, totaling $122 billion in 
requested assistance. The Director of the Department's loan 
program office has stated that $18.5 billion could probably 
accommodate only two power plants unless coupled with 
additional financing assistance.\65\ Additional financing from 
foreign government export credit agencies, in exchange for 
agreements on the sourcing of reactor components, could--in 
conjunction with the federal loan guarantees--increase the 
number of nuclear plants receiving loan guarantees to four. The 
Nuclear Energy Institute has stated that at no time ``in the 
immediate future'' are private companies anticipated to be able 
to finance new nuclear plants without the aid of federal loan 
guarantees. In recognition of this, the Nuclear Energy 
Institute endorsed the major energy infrastructure financing 
mechanism--the Clean Energy Deployment Administration--that was 
included in the American Clean Energy and Security Act that 
passed the House of Representatives in 2009.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\This does not include $2.5 billion appropriated through the 
Recovery Act which is estimated to support approximately $21 billion in 
loan guarantees. Department of Energy, Loan Guarantee Programs, (August 
2010) available at http://www.energy.gov/recovery/lgprogram.htm.
    \65\Katherine Ling, ``Nuclear Power: 17 apply for DOE loan 
guarantees, far exceeding available cash,'' Greenwire, Oct. 2, 2008.
    \66\Nuclear Energy Institute, June 26, 2009 available at http://
www.nei.org/newsandevents/senatevotenuclearplantdeployment/nei-
welcomes-inclusion-of-clean-energy-provisions-in-climate-bill-okd-by-
house/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Loan guarantee commitments are offered conditionally, 
contingent upon an applicant subsequently receiving both a 
reactor design certification and a construction and operating 
license from the NRC.\67\ On February 16, 2010, the Department 
of Energy announced the first of these nuclear loan guarantees, 
an $8.3 billion award to a consortium led by the Southern 
Company to support the construction of two nuclear reactors in 
Georgia.\68\ The other recent loan guarantee deal that was in 
the final stages fell through when the applicant, Constellation 
Energy, pulled out after a disagreement over the financing 
terms offered by the loan guarantee program.\69\ The Georgia 
project is unique in that, under Georgia state law, the 
consortium can begin recovering project costs from rate payers 
while the plants are under construction, several years before 
the project generates any power for its customers. This is 
another financing mechanism that utilities in some states are 
looking to replicate to help cover the huge cost of new nuclear 
projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \67\Secretary Stephen Chu response to questions from Rep. Markey, 
December 22, 2009. See http://globalwarming.house.gov/mediacenter/
pressreleases_2008?id=0186#main_content.
    \68\New York Times (ClimateWire), DOE Delivers Its First, Long-
Awaited Nuclear Loan Guarantee, February 17, 2010, available at http://
www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/02/17/17climatewire-doe-delivers-its-first-
long-awaited-nuclear-71731.html.
    \69\The Washington Post, Constellation Energy shelves plan for 
Calvert Cliffs reactor, October 13, 2010, available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/
AR2010100807370.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Beyond the financing problem, nuclear power faces a major 
challenge in remaining competitive in electricity markets where 
low cost generation has priority dispatch to the grid. While 
the cost of nuclear power is very low on an operating basis, 
when the huge up-front capital costs are calculated into 
electricity rates charged to consumers, nuclear power becomes 
very expensive. Over the long term, the way nuclear power will 
overcome this and become more competitive is through the 
realization of its low-carbon benefits. That is why the CEOs of 
Constellation Energy (60 percent of its electric generation is 
from nuclear power), Exelon (the largest nuclear plant operator 
in the United States), Florida Power and Light (20 percent of 
generation from nuclear), and Entergy (50 percent of generation 
from nuclear) all support a national cap on greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    Long-term nuclear waste disposal continues to be a problem 
as well. The Obama Administration requested no funding for the 
Yucca Mountain repository for FY 2011, instead determining that 
developing the Yucca Mountain repository is not a workable 
option and the nation needs a different solution for nuclear 
waste disposal.\70\ Alternatives to Yucca Mountain are being 
evaluated by the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear 
Future, which was formally established by the Department of 
Energy on March 1, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \70\Department of Energy, FY2011 Budget Justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Renewables

    Renewable sources of energy can and should become a major 
contributor to the U.S. electricity supply within the 
foreseeable future. Renewables such as wind, solar, biomass, 
geothermal, and hydro currently generate 10.5 percent of the 
country's electricity, with non-hydro renewables responsible 
for 3.6 percent.\71\ Even with no changes to current policy, 
EIA projects renewable generation to account for 45 percent of 
the increase in total generation through 2035. Assuming a long-
term extension of the production tax credit (PTC), renewable 
energy's share of increased electricity generation grows to 61-
65 percent through 2035.\72\ Reaching 20 percent of total 
generation by 2020 is an ambitious, but achievable target for 
renewables based on the current state of the technologies and 
the available renewable resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2007, 
Table 8.2b Electricity Net Generation: Electric Power Sector, Selected 
Years, 1949-2007 (2007).
    \72\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Adoption of a national renewable electricity standard (RES) 
requiring that 20 percent of electricity generated in the 
United States come from renewable sources by 2020 should be a 
centerpiece of our national energy strategy. A key driver of 
renewable energy growth in the United States has been state-
level RESs. Thirty States and the District of Columbia now have 
enforceable RESs or similar laws. In 2009, these states were 
responsible for 77 percent of total U.S. renewable energy.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \73\Energy Information Administration, Renewable Energy Consumption 
and Electricity Preliminary Statistics 2009, available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_ energy_consump/
rea_prereport.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The types and quantities of renewable electricity required 
under these programs vary widely among the states, but it has 
become clear that states with RESs are deploying more renewable 
electricity generation than states without them. At the same 
time, RES policies are having little or no impact on consumer 
electricity rates and in many markets the renewable electricity 
is priced competitively with fossil fuel-based generation.\74\ 
The House of Representatives passed a national RES of 15 
percent by 2020 in the 110th Congress and a national RES of 20 
percent by 2020 in the 111th Congress, but neither measure 
passed in the Senate. Like many state programs, these House-
passed RESs allowed a percentage of the renewable energy 
requirement to be fulfilled through utility programs that 
increase energy efficiency. This energy efficiency mechanism 
provides utilities with increased flexibility and gives regions 
with less renewable resources another way to achieve 
compliance, even providing lower utility bills to consumers in 
the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\Ryan Wiser & Galen Barbose, Renewable Portfolio Standards in 
the United States: A Status Report with Data Through 2007, Lawrence 
Berkeley National Laboratory (April 2008), available at http://
eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/lbnl-154e-revised.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tax incentives--including the existing Production Tax 
Credit (PTC) and the Investment Tax Credit (ITC)--also play a 
key role in deploying renewable electricity generation, 
providing a policy ``bridge'' that is helping the renewable 
energy industry survive in an environment where the benefits of 
low- and zero-carbon emissions are not properly valued by the 
market. These two policies have been a major driver of 
renewable energy development over the past several years by 
giving individuals, businesses, and utilities incentives to 
invest in renewable energy generation.
    In response to a collapsed tax equity market in late 2008 
that made it difficult for renewable energy developers to use 
these tax credits, the 1603 Treasury Grant Program was included 
in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to temporarily 
allow renewable energy developers to convert tax credits into 
cash grants of equal value. The highly successful program 
allowed the renewable energy industry to continue to grow 
during the recession, creating 55,000 jobs and directly leading 
to the deployment of 4,250 megawatts of renewable energy in 
2009.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\American Wind Energy Association, Press Release: Tens of 
Thousands of Layoffs in American Wind Energy Seen at State in Tax 
Extender Package, December 7, 2010, available online at http://
www.awea.org/rn_release_12-07-10.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The federal government has an important role to play in 
eliminating regulatory barriers to the expansion of renewable 
electricity generation. Despite the success of state-level 
initiatives to promote renewables, the balkanized structure for 
electricity regulation and the inconsistency of federal and 
state incentive programs have created a relatively unstable 
investment climate for the domestic renewable electricity 
market, limiting financing opportunities for individual 
projects and domestic manufacturing capacity. The federal 
government has a key role to play in helping to rationalize 
these programs and regulatory regimes to encourage expanded 
renewable electricity generation.

Wind

    The global market for wind power grew 32 percent in 2009, 
as more than 38,000 megawatts of new wind capacity was 
installed worldwide. More than 10,000 megawatts of this was 
installed in the United States\76\ where, for the second 
consecutive year, more wind capacity was installed than any 
other source.\77\ Over the last five years, wind installations 
in the United States have expanded 39 percent annually.\78\ 
Four U.S. states--all of which have state RESs--account for 51 
percent of total U.S. wind capacity: Texas, Iowa, California, 
and Washington.\79\ However, while the U.S. is the global 
leader in installed wind capacity, China is catching up quickly 
and may overtake the United States in 2010 or 2011.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \76\American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Industry Annual 
Markey Report, Year Ending 2009, Available at http://e360.yale.edu/
images/digest/Annual_Market_Report_Wind.pdf.
    \77\Energy Information Administration/Electric Power Annual 2008, 
available at ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/electricity/034808.pdf; and Energy 
Information Administration/Electric Power Annual 2009, U.S. Energy 
Information Administration/Electric Power Annual 2009, page 19, see 
table 1.5. Capacity Additions, Retirements and Changes by Energy 
Source, 2009 available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/
epaxlfile1_5.pdf.
    \78\American Wind Energy Association, Windpower Outlook 2010, 
Available at http://www.awea.org/documents/reports/Outlook_2010.pdf.
    \79\Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Industry 
2009: Year in Review (November 2010) available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epa_sum.html.
    \80\Pew Environment Group, Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race? 
(2010), Page 13. Available at http://www.pewglobalwarming.org/
cleanenergyeconomy/pdf/PewG-20Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Energy research suggests generating 20 
percent of electricity from wind in the United States by 2030 
is an ambitious yet feasible scenario, which would require a 
build-out of 300,000 megawatts of wind capacity.\81\ The EIA 
projects 27,000 megawatts to be installed through 2013, which 
would bring total installed capacity to 62,000 megawatts.\82\ 
To meet the 20 percent goal, wind turbine production capacity 
would have to ramp up to 16,000 new megawatts per year by 
around 2018,\83\ up from a current baseline production capacity 
of nearly 8,000 megawatts per year.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \81\U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy By 2030: Increasing 
Wind Energy's Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008). 
Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf.
    \82\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2011.
    \83\U.S. Department of Energy, 20% Wind Energy By 2030: Increasing 
Wind Energy's Contribution to the U.S. Electricity Supply (July 2008). 
Available at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf.
    \84\Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Ethan Zindler, Fostering Green 
Technology Innovation, slide presentation, July 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As wind technology continues to improve, prices are falling 
and capacity factors are increasing. The cost of wind energy 
over the past 20 years has dropped from 40 cents per kWh to 4 
to 6 cents per kWh at good sites. Increases in the capacity 
factor of the turbines--or the percentage of time in which they 
are producing at their full capacity--have grown 11 percent 
over the past two years and will continue to increase as the 
technology improves. While most new wind turbines in the United 
States produce 1.5 to 2.5 megawatts of power, superconducting 
materials may enable the construction of 10 megawatt turbines 
in the near future. These larger machines will be well suited 
for offshore wind developments, plans for which have 
accelerated recently. In addition to the 130-turbine wind farm 
off the coast of Massachusetts that is poised to start 
construction in 2011, Cape Wind, there are at least 11 other 
offshore wind projects in development across seven states.\85\ 
The available wind resources off U.S. coasts are massive, 
estimated by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory to be 
4,150,000 megawatts, or more than four times the capacity of 
all existing U.S. electrical generation.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \85\The Washington Post, Offshore wind farm near Cape Cod, first in 
U.S., gets federal approval, April 29, 2010, available at http://
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/
AR2010042804398.html.
    \86\National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Large-Scale Offshore Wind 
Power in the United States; Assessment of Opportunities and Barriers 
(September 2010), available at http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/40745.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Solar

    More energy in the form of solar radiation strikes the 
Earth's surface in an hour than humanity uses in an entire 
year. Capturing this energy and converting it into electricity 
is primarily done through photovoltaic cells that convert 
sunlight into direct electrical current and concentrating solar 
power, which concentrates the sun's energy using huge mirrors 
or lenses and then uses this heat to run a conventional 
turbine.
    Solar photovoltaics (PV) have experienced explosive growth 
over the last several years, with world capacity growing 44 
percent in 2009 alone\87\ and installed capacity has grown from 
1,200 megawatts in 2000 to more than 20,000 megawatts in 
2009.\88\ Total U.S. solar electric capacity climbed past 2,000 
megawatts in 2009, enough to serve more than 350,000 homes. 
Solar has expanded out of the residential and commercial 
rooftop niche, with more than 6,000 megawatts of utility-scale 
solar projects announced in the United States. The National 
Renewable Energy Laboratory has identified the potential for 
nearly 7,000,000 megawatts of solar thermal power generation in 
the southwestern United States, roughly seven times current 
U.S. electric generating capacity. Globally, research from the 
European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace 
suggests that by 2030, global PV capacity could reach 1,864,000 
megawatts and satisfy the electricity needs of 14 percent of 
the world's population.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \87\Solar Energy Industry Association, US Solar Industry Year in 
Review 2009 (April 15, 2010) available at http://seia.org/galleries/
default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in%20 Review.pdf.
    \88\European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, 
Solar Generation V--2008 Solar electricity for over one billion people 
and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at http://
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-
generation-v-2008.pdf.
    \89\European Photovoltaic Industry Association and Greenpeace, 
Solar Generation V--2008 Solar electricity for over one billion people 
and two million jobs by 2020 (2008), available at http://
www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/solar-
generation-v-2008.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Technology advances and increases in the scale of 
production in the solar industry have exceeded those of any 
other renewable energy sector as prices for PV modules have 
fallen to less than $3.50 per watt from almost $100 per watt in 
1975.\90\ Solar PV prices have declined an average of 4 percent 
per year over the past 15 years.\91\ The accumulation of 
innovations and movement down the technological learning curve 
experienced in solar PV is somewhat analogous to Moore's 
Law\92\ in microelectronics. Over the long term, every time 
deployment of solar PV capacity doubles, the cost of solar 
falls by 18 percent. Projected forward, this learning curve 
would have solar PV reaching grid parity by 2020.\93\ The 
Department of Energy's Solar America Initiative seeks to make 
solar PV cost-competitive with conventional forms of 
electricity by 2015. Huge investments in new production of 
polysilicon (the critical input for most PV cells) have come 
online recently, ending a temporary materials shortage and 
leading to a solar module price drop upwards of 50 percent over 
the past 2 years.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \90\This reflects crystalline silicon cell technology, which forms 
about 90% of the solar cell market. See Solar Buzz, Solar Module Retail 
Price Highlights: December 2010, Available at http://www.solarbuzz.com/
Moduleprices.htm.
    \91\Solarbuzz. Fast Solar Energy Facts: Global Performance, 
available at http://www.solarbuzz.com/FastFactsIndustry.htm.
    \92\Moore's law describes the long-term trend in computing hardware 
in which the number of transistors that can be placed on an integrated 
circuit has doubled approximately every two years.
    \93\Emanuel Sachs, in testimony to the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming, Hearing on ``New Technologies: What's 
Around the Corner'' (July 28, 2009) available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0007#main_content.
    \94\Solar Energy Industry Association, US Solar Industry Year in 
Review 2009 (April 15, 2010) available at http://seia.org/galleries/
default-file/2009%20Solar%20Industry%20Year%20in%20 Review.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Geothermal

    The Earth produces more internal energy, in the form of 
heat, than humans can possibly use. Like solar, the use of 
geothermal energy is only limited by technology and the 
associated costs. Unlike solar, geothermal is a baseload power 
resource and not vulnerable to intermittency problems. While 
the United States has the most installed capacity of geothermal 
energy in the world--about 2,500 megawatts across six states--
the amount of electricity produced from geothermal energy has 
essentially been flat for the past two decades. However, the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act created a building boom 
in the United States recently with 188 projects currently in 
different stages of development across fifteen states which 
could produce as much as 7,875 MW of new electric power.\95\ 
The sector is expected to grow rapidly in several other 
countries as well over the next 5 years, ramping up global 
capacity by 78 percent to more than 19,000 megawatts in 
2015.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \95\Geothermal Energy Association, Geothermal grows 26% in 2009 GEA 
identifies new projects underway in 15 states, April 2010 Update 
Release, Available at http://geo-energy.org/pressReleases/
April2010_Final.aspx.
    \96\ABS Energy Research, The Geothermal Energy Report--Direct Use 
and Power Generation, Edition 6 2010, available at http://
www.absenergyresearch.com/cmsfiles/reports/Geothermal- Report-2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States has massive, untapped geothermal energy 
resources. Scientists with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
recently found that the electric generation potential from 
currently identified geothermal systems distributed over 13 
U.S. states is more than 9,000 megawatts. Their estimated power 
production potential from yet to be discovered geothermal 
resources is more than 30,000 megawatts. An additional 500,000 
megawatts may be available by harnessing geothermal reservoirs 
characterized by high temperature, but low permeability, rock 
formations.\97\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \97\U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet: Assessment of Moderate- and 
High-Temperature Geothermal Resources of the United States (2008), 
available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2008/3082/pdf/fs2008-3082.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biomass

    Biomass currently supplies more electricity in the United 
States than wind, solar, and geothermal power combined, and the 
potential for additional generation from this energy source is 
vast. Biomass available for electricity generation includes 
residues from forests, primary mills, and agriculture, as well 
as dedicated energy crops and urban wood wastes. Biomass can be 
used as the sole fuel source for power plants, or it can be 
used in conventional power plants to substitute for a portion 
of the traditional fuel, typically coal, in a process called 
co-firing. While most co-firing plants use biomass for between 
1 and 8 percent of heat input,\98\ biomass can effectively 
substitute for up to 20 percent of the coal used in the 
boiler.\99\ In addition to reducing lifecycle greenhouse gas 
emissions, co-firing biomass also lowers fuel costs, avoids 
landfilling, and reduces emissions of sulfur oxide and nitrogen 
oxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \98\Zia Haq, Energy Information Administration, Biomass for 
Electricity Generation, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/
analysispaper/biomass/.
    \99\Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), Biomass Cofiring in 
Coal-fired Boilers, DOE/EE-0288. (2004), available at http://
www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_biomass_ cofiring.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An EIA analysis of the impacts of a 15 percent national 
renewable electricity requirement found that electricity 
production from biomass could grow by a factor of eight between 
2005 and 2030.\100\ Most of this generation would come in the 
southeastern United States, where nearly a third of the 
country's biomass feedstock potential exists.\101\ The EIA 
found that the Southeast region could meet nearly its entire 15 
percent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \100\Energy Information Administration, Impacts of a 15-Percent 
Renewable Portfolio Standard at 9 (Table 2: Summary Results) (June 
2007), available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/pdf/
sroiaf(2007)03.pdf.
    \101\Marie Walsh et al., Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Biomass 
Feedstock Availability in the United States: 1999 State Level Analysis 
(Jan. 2000), available at http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/resourcedata/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
renewable requirement through 2020 with indigenous biomass 
resources.\102\ Using biomass for electricity would help the 
region create thousands of jobs, increase global export 
opportunities, and keep billions of dollars in the Southeast 
that would have otherwise left to import coal and other fuels 
from other states and countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \102\Energy Information Administration, Regional Generation Impacts 
of a 15-Percent Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) (Supplement to 
Report #: SR-OIAF/2007-03) (June 2007), available at http://
www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/prps/pdf/regional_generation.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hydropower

    Hydropower is the largest source of installed renewable 
electricity in the United States, providing 7 percent of U.S. 
electricity in 2009, and accounts for two-thirds of U.S. 
electricity generated from renewable resources.\103\ Only 
China, Canada, and Brazil generate more electricity from 
hydropower than the United States.\104\ The 78,000 megawatts of 
installed capacity in the United States has remained relatively 
unchanged over the past 3 decades.\105\ However, with only 3 
percent of the 80,000 existing dams in the United States 
currently generating electricity, there exists great potential 
for increased hydropower capacity additions. The vast majority 
of dams in the United States were built and are operated for 
purposes such as flood control navigation and water supply. The 
hydropower industry projects nearly 19,000 megawatts of new 
hydropower capacity could be added by 2025 at existing dam 
facilities through efficiency upgrades and capacity additions 
with the passage of an RES. A strong federal RES could also 
incentivize nearly 16,000 more megawatts of hydro capacity 
installations by 2025 using wave, ocean current, tidal, and 
inland hydrokinetic resources. None of these nearly 35,000 
megawatts of new facilities would require a new dam, and they 
would only scratch the surface of the 371,000 megawatts of new 
hydro resource potential in the United States.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \103\National Hydropower Association, Hydropower: For a Clean 
Energy Future Fact Sheet, available online at http://www.hydro.org/
hydrofacts/two-pager4.pdf.
    \104\Energy Information Administration, International Electricity 
Generation, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/
electricitygeneration.html.
    \105\Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2009, 
at 264.
    \106\Navigant Consulting, Job Creation Opportunities in Hydropower 
(September 20, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

              II. An Overview of the Climate Change Crisis

    A clear scientific consensus now holds that climate change 
is occurring and that greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from 
human activities are largely responsible. During the past two 
centuries of industrialization, atmospheric concentrations of 
GHGs have increased dramatically, a shift comparable to that 
seen over the last 20,000 years as the Earth naturally 
transitioned out of its last ice age.\107\ Concentrations of 
carbon dioxide (CO2), the dominant GHG emitted by 
human activities, have increased from about 280 parts per 
million (ppm) in 1750\108\ to nearly 390 ppm in 2010\109\ and 
are now approximately 30 percent above the highest levels of 
the preceding 800,000 years.\110\ This has produced a dramatic 
shift in ocean chemistry, disrupting the delicate acid-base 
balance to which marine organisms are accustomed. Global 
average surface temperature has increased about 1.4+F over the 
past century. These changes are already causing a broad range 
of adverse impacts to human and natural systems. Failure to 
rapidly reduce GHG emissions will result in even more 
catastrophic impacts at a global scale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \107\As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 
Fourth Assessment Report, the total CO2-equivalent 
concentration of all GHGs is 455 ppm. See http://www.ipcc.ch/.
    \108\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I: 
The Physical Science Basis (2007). Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html.
    \109\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2010. Recent 
Mauna Loa CO2. Available at http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/
ccgg/trends/.
    \110\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), Global Climate 
Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University Press. (2009) 
Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If emissions of GHGs continue to grow unabated, the likely 
near- to medium-term impacts of unchecked climate change may 
include:
           Increasingly severe water scarcity, 
        subjecting up to 1.2 billion additional people in Asia, 
        up to 250 million people in Africa,\111\ and up to 80 
        million people in Latin America to increasing water 
        stress by 2020.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \111\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 
2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers.
    \112\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Further warming and acidification of the 
        oceans, severely impacting global fisheries and 
        contributing to the collapse of coral reefs around the 
        world.\113\ Ocean acidification has already risen by 
        about 30 percent due to increased carbon pollution 
        since 1750.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \113\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008. Ocean 
Acidification State of the Science Fact Sheet, available at http://
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification %20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Expected sea level rise of approximately 3 
        to 4 feet and possibly as much as 6.5 feet by 
        2100,\114\ subjecting roughly a billion people living 
        in coastal areas around the world to increased risk of 
        inundation, storm surges, coastal erosion, and 
        saltwater intrusion into freshwater supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \114\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Increased heavy precipitation events and 
        flooding, as well as more powerful 
        hurricanes.\115\\,\\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \115\Knutson, T., 2008. Global Warming and Hurricanes. Available at 
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes.
    \116\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mass extinction of species, perhaps 40 
        percent of the world's species by the latter half of 
        this century.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \117\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 
2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Multiple adverse effects on public health 
        associated with more frequent and intense heat waves, 
        ground-level ozone air pollution, and the spread of 
        infectious diseases.\118\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \118\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 
2007. Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability. Available at http://
www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch8s8-4-2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tragically, these impacts will fall disproportionately on 
vulnerable communities, particularly in developing countries 
that are least responsible for climate change and least able to 
adapt to its impacts. Still, the United States and other 
developed countries will suffer devastating economic, 
environmental, and human health impacts if climate change 
continues unabated.
    The potential costs of climate change are staggering. 
Economic studies suggest that climate change could cost the 
global economy 5 to 20 percent of gross domestic product 
(GDP).\119\ In the United States, even a narrow range of 
climate change impacts could slash GDP 3.6 percent by 
2100.\120\ These costs far outweigh the potential costs of 
economy-wide legislation to reduce carbon pollution.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \119\Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate 
Change.
    \120\Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton, 2008. The Cost of Climate 
Change: What We'll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural 
Resources Defense Council. Available at http://www.nrdc.org/
globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf.
    \121\Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton, 2008. The Cost of Climate 
Change: What We'll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural 
Resources Defense Council. Available at http://www.nrdc.org/
globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change presents a serious and growing risk to the 
U.S. security interests around the world. Climate change is 
expected to act as a ``threat multiplier''\122\ by increasing 
the risk of water and food scarcity, mass migration, resource 
conflict, and political destabilization. Climate change will 
also adversely affect military and strategic infrastructure, 
both in the United States and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \122\McGuinn, Admiral Dennis, Testimony before the Select Committee 
on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Not Going Away: America's 
Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges (2010) Available at http:/
/globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In order to avert the most catastrophic consequences of 
climate change, human-caused GHG emissions must be cut 
substantially. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC), the leading international climate science body, has 
concluded that to secure even a 50-50 chance of avoiding the 
dangerous climate change associated with a 3.6 +F increase in 
global average surface temperature, global GHG emissions must 
be reduced by 50 to 85 percent by 2050.\123\ This requires the 
United States and other developed countries to reduce emissions 
by at least 80 percent by 2050.\124\ Strong interim mitigation 
targets are also needed, including a reduction of U.S. 
emissions by at least 17 percent by 2020. To accomplish these 
goals, it is necessary to dramatically increase the amount of 
clean energy and energy efficiency deployed around the world, 
an energy technology revolution that the United States must 
lead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \123\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of 
Climate Change Summary for Policymakers; and Luers, A., et al., How to 
Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. Emission Reductions. 
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007) Available at http://www. 
ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/a-target-for-
us-emissions.html.
    \124\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of 
Climate Change Summary for Policymakers; and Luers, A., et al., How to 
Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A Target for U.S. Emission Reductions. 
Union of Concerned Scientists. (2007) Available at http://www. 
ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/a-target-for-
us-emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE

    A clear scientific consensus now holds that climate change 
is happening and that human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions are the primary cause. ``Climate change is occurring, 
is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant 
risks for--and in many cases is already affecting--a broad 
range of human and natural systems.''\125\ This is the 
conclusion of the National Research Council, the leading 
scientific body in the United States, in their comprehensive 
assessment America's Climate Choices. In fact, every major 
professional science organization working in fields relevant to 
climate change (e.g., the American Meteorological Society, the 
American Chemical Society, etc.) and national academies around 
the world agree that human emissions of GHGs are now the 
dominant driver of climate change. No scientific body of 
national or international standing rejects the conclusion that 
climate changes are being driven by human 
activities.\126\,\127\ There is now a vast body of scientific 
evidence that provides the basis for strong mitigation and 
adaptation actions. The consequences of failing to reduce GHG 
emissions will be catastrophic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \125\National Research Council, America's Climate Choices (2010), 
Available at http://americasclimatechoices.org/.
    \126\Gleick, Peter, Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence & Global Warming Hearing Not Going Away: America's Energy 
Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges. (December 1, 2010) Available at 
http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0024#main_content.
    \127\Scientific societies' letter to U.S. Senators, (October 21, 
2009) Available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/
1021climate_letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          BACKGROUND ON GLOBAL WARMING AND OCEAN ACIDIFICATION

    Global warming refers to the global temperature rise and 
associated impacts from the increase of GHGs in the atmosphere 
associated with human activities, primarily the burning of 
fossil fuels. The build-up of these gases enhances the so-
called ``greenhouse effect'' and warms the Earth's climate 
system. As the glass of a greenhouse traps warm air inside, 
these gases trap heat that would otherwise escape into space. 
Key human-emitted GHGs include carbon dioxide (CO2), 
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 
ozone, and certain fluorine-containing gases (F-gases) such as 
chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), 
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), 
and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). The impact of each 
gas on the climate is determined by its heat-trapping potency, 
concentration, and atmospheric lifetime. The IPCC declared in 
its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report that the evidence for global 
warming is ``unequivocal.''\128\ Over the last century, the 
global average temperature has increased 1.4sF, with 
almost 90 percent of the warming occurring over the last 50 
years.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \128\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
    \129\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is overwhelming scientific evidence that humans are 
the primary cause of global warming. The GHGs building up in 
atmosphere are the same type that humans are emitting by 
burning fossil fuels and clearing forests. Satellite 
measurements show that these GHGs are permitting less heat to 
escape out to space and ground observations show that they are 
heating up Earth's surface. Further, natural causes of climate 
change are not capable of explaining either the magnitude or 
patterns of observed warming. If the sun was responsible, for 
example, warming would be observed throughout the atmosphere. 
Instead, scientists see the fingerprint of GHGs: warming 
isolated to the lower atmosphere and cooling in the upper 
atmosphere. Indeed, the IPCC has estimated that the global 
warming contribution, or radiative forcing, from human 
activities is 10 times larger than the best estimates of the 
changes from solar activity.\130\ A 2007 study found that all 
the trends in solar activity that could influence the 
temperature of the Earth have been in the opposite direction 
needed to explain the rise in temperature over the preceding 20 
years.\131\ In addition to direct observational evidence, 
modeling results also confirm the human fingerprint on global 
warming. These fundamental conclusions related to human 
attribution of climate change were made clear in expert 
testimony before the Select Committee during the 111th 
Congress, including in-depth discussion by Dr. Ben Santer of 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Dr. James Hurrell of 
the National Center for Atmospheric Research.\132\ Given 
abundant evidence, the IPCC concluded in its 2007 assessment 
that most of the observed global warming of the past half-
century is very likely--with greater than 90 percent 
certainty--due to the increase of heat-trapping gases 
associated with human activities.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \130\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
    \131\Lockwood and Froehlich, 2007. Recent Oppositely Directed 
Trends in Solar Climate Forcings and the Global Mean Surface Air 
Temperature, Proceedings of the Royal Society, Vol. 463.
    \132\Santer, B. Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence & Global Warming. Hearing entitled Climate Science in the 
Political Arena. (May 20, 2010) Available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0019#main_content; Hurrell, J., 2010. 
Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global 
Warming Hearing entitled The Foundation of Climate Science (May 6, 
2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0018#main_content.
    \133\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to global temperature rise, human-emitted 
CO2 is causing rapid ocean acidification. Excess 
CO2 in the atmosphere from human activities enters 
the ocean, forming carbonic acid and lowering the pH of the 
seawater. For example, over the mid-1980s to mid-2000s, the 
upper ocean absorbed approximately 30 percent of the excess 
CO2 emitted through human activities.\134\ In 
response, the upper ocean has become 30 percent more acidic 
over the Industrial Era,\135\ a rate of change that is at least 
100 times more rapid than at any period in at least the 
preceding 650,000 years.\136\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \134\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2005. Impacts 
of Anthropogenic CO2 on Ocean Chemistry and Biology 
Available at http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/spot_gcc.html.
    \135\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, (2008) 
available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/
Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf.
    \136\Feeley, R., et al., 2006. Carbon Dioxide and Our Ocean Legacy. 
Available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/feel2899/feel2899.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  GLOBAL EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES

    Of all human-emitted GHGs, CO2 is most 
responsible for committing the world to long-term climate 
change. CO2 accounts for approximately 77 percent of 
recent long-lived human-caused GHG emissions (in terms of 
carbon dioxide equivalents, CO2-eq, evaluated over a 
100-year time horizon).\137\ Over the past several decades, 
about 80 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions 
resulted from the burning of fossil fuels, while about 20 
percent resulted from deforestation and agricultural practices 
occurring primarily in developing countries.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \137\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
    \138\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After CO2, the other primary long-lived GHGs are 
methane, nitrous oxide, and F-gases. Methane emissions derive 
primarily from agriculture, livestock, mining, transportation, 
use of certain fossil fuels, sewage, and landfill waste. 
Currently, methane accounts for approximately 14 percent of 
global GHG emissions (i.e., CO2-eq).\139\ Nitrous 
oxide is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities 
as well as during combustion of fossils fuels and solid 
waste.\140\ Nitrous oxide accounts for approximately 8 percent 
of recent global GHG emissions (CO2-eq).\141\ F-
gases are very potent GHGs that are emitted during 
refrigeration, air conditioning, and industrial processes. F-
gases account for approximately 1 percent of recent global GHG 
emissions (CO2-eq).\142\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \139\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
    \140\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
    \141\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
    \142\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to long-lived GHGs, tropospheric ozone and 
water vapor are important GHGs that are short-lived in the 
atmosphere. Changes in tropospheric ozone concentrations result 
from emissions of chemicals such as nitrogen oxides, carbon 
monoxide, and hydrocarbons. While the atmospheric lifetime of 
tropospheric ozone is relatively short compared to many other 
GHGs, its instantaneous warming effect is substantial, about 
one-fifth of the instantaneous warming associated with human-
caused CO2.\143\ Water vapor is a naturally-
occurring, short-lived GHG. The amount of water vapor in the 
atmosphere is dependent on temperature and is not a direct 
result of human activities, but does respond indirectly; as the 
ocean and atmosphere warm from other GHGs, more evaporation 
occurs and the atmosphere's capacity to retain moisture also 
increases, thereby increasing the water vapor concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \143\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Over the past two decades, growth in the world economy and 
its carbon intensity has driven a marked increase in GHG 
emissions. Between 1990 and 2004, global GHG emissions grew by 
24 percent.\144\ In 2000, the IPCC developed emissions 
scenarios that projected an increase of global GHG emissions of 
25 to 90 percent (CO2-eq) from 2000 to 2030.\145\ 
However, recent (2000-2007) trends in emissions are higher than 
the worst case scenario. The growth rate in emissions increased 
markedly from 1.3 percent per year in the 1990s to 3.3 percent 
per year for the period 2000-2006.\146\ In 2007, the IPCC 
developed an updated set of scenarios that show similar 
emissions growth by 2030, but they also make clear that more 
rapid growth is possible.\147\ Fossil fuel CO2 
emissions reached a record high in 2008 and subsequently 
declined slightly in 2009 by 1.3% due in part to the global 
economic downturn.\148\ Under current mitigation policies, 
however, global GHG emissions will continue to grow over the 
next few decades.\149\ By some estimates, GHG emissions from 
developing and emerging countries are expected to grow by 84 
percent from 2000 to 2025, while GHG emissions from developed 
countries are expected to rise 35 percent over the same 
period.\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \144\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of 
Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers.
    \145\United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. Climate Change 
Science Compendium.
    \146\United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. Climate Change 
Science Compendium.
    \147\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
    \148\Global Carbon Project, 2010. Available at http://
www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/09/hl-full.htm#ffcement.
    \149\United Nations Environment Programme, 2009. Climate Change 
Science Compendium.
    \150\World Resources Institute. Projected Emissions of GHGs in 2025 
Available at http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=ntn/3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National statistics show a complex and changing environment 
for the sources of GHG emissions. In 2008, two-thirds of global 
GHG emissions originated from just ten countries, with China 
and the United States together responsible for 41 percent.\151\ 
While China is now the largest GHG emitter on an annual basis, 
the United States continues to have one of the highest per 
capita emissions rates. As of 2008, the United States emitted 
19 percent of global CO2 from 5 percent of the 
world's population.\152\ In contrast, China contributed 22 
percent of global CO2 from 20 percent of the 
population.\153\ India contributed less than 5 percent of 
CO2 from 17 percent of the population.\154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \151\International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions 
from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available at http://www.iea.org/
publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143.
    \152\International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions 
from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available at http://www.iea.org/
publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143.
    \153\International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions 
from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available at http://www.iea.org/
publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143.
    \154\International Energy Agency, 2010. CO2 Emissions 
from Fuel Combustion 2010. Available at http://www.iea.org/
publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=2143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For most industrialized countries, their historic (i.e., 
cumulative) share of global emissions is much higher than their 
current (i.e., annual) share. For the period between 1850 and 
2005, the United States led all countries by contributing 26 
percent of global cumulative CO2 emissions and the 
EU-27 nation grouping contributed 22 percent. China's 
cumulative contribution was 10 percent and India's was 8 
percent.\155\ In contrast, from 2000 to 2025, China and India's 
emissions are expected to grow by 118 and 70 percent 
respectively, while emissions from the United States are 
expected to grow by 39 percent.\156\ Strong new mitigation 
policies will be required to prevent emissions growth 
consistent with these projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \155\Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) Version 8.0. 
(Washington, DC: World Resources Institute, 2010).
    \156\World Resources Institute. Projected Emissions of GHGs in 
2025. Available at http://cait.wri.org/figures.php?page=ntn/3-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emissions of GHGs in the United States derive from a 
variety of sources and have on the whole been on a growth 
trajectory. As of 2008, 83 percent of U.S. GHG (i.e., 
CO2-eq) emissions came from CO2, emitted 
almost entirely from energy-related fossil fuel burning. The 
remaining GHG emissions were comprised of CH4 (11 
percent of all U.S. CO2-eq emissions), 
N2O (4 percent), and F-gases (3 percent). U.S. 
energy-related CO2 emissions come from the following 
end-use sectors: the electric power sector (41 percent), 
transportation sector (33 percent), and residential, 
commercial, and industrial sectors (26 percent).\157\ Emissions 
from the electric power, transportation, and agricultural 
sectors have increased since 1990, while emissions from the 
industrial, commercial, and residential sectors have held 
steady or declined over the same period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \157\Energy Information Agency, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 
Report (2009) Available at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Emissions of CO2 from all sources grew from 5.02 
billion metric tons in 1990 to a record high of 6.03 billion 
metric tons in 2005.\158\ While the long-term emissions trend 
has been up, year-to-year fluctuations result from a multitude 
of factors, including economic conditions, weather, and fuel 
switching in response to price changes. The recent economic 
downturn combined with a change in energy use--including a 
substantial switch from coal to natural gas and increased use 
of renewables for electricity generation--reduced 
CO2 emissions in the United States during the last 
few years. For example, CO2 emissions from fossil 
fuels declined 6.6 percent in 2009.\159\ However, the current 
economic recovery is expected to contribute to a rise of 
CO2 emissions of 2.1 percent and 1.1 percent for 
2010 and 2011, respectively.\160\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \158\Energy Information Agency, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases 
Report. (2009) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/
carbon.html.
    \159\Energy Information Agency, Short-term Energy and Summer Fuels 
Outlook (2010) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/
contents.html#Overview.
    \160\Energy Information Agency, Short-term Energy and Summer Fuels 
Outlook (2010) Available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/
contents.html#Overview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        GREENHOUSE GAS CONCENTRATIONS AND REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS

    The current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere are 
unprecedented in Earth's recent history. Records over the past 
800,000 years show variations in atmospheric CO2 
concentrations within a range of approximately 170 to 300 
ppm.\161\ Human-caused CO2 emissions since the 
Industrial Revolution have pushed the concentration from 
approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) to nearly 390 
ppm.\162\ The current concentration of CO2 is 
roughly 30 percent higher than the highest level of the past 
800,000 years.\163\ Over the same period, methane has increased 
from about 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1774 ppb and nitrous 
oxide has increased from about 270 ppb to 319 ppb.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \161\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \162\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \163\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \164\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the absence of mitigation policies, GHG concentrations 
will continue on a dangerous trend. For example, CO2 
concentrations could increase to 2 to 3 times the highest 
levels from the past 800,000 years by the end of the 21st 
century.\165\ The IPCC has concluded that to create even a 50-
50 chance of avoiding the dangerous climate change associated 
with a 3.6+F increase in global average surface temperature, 
global GHG emissions must be reduced by 50 to 85 percent by 
2050. This requires the United States and other developed 
countries to reduce emissions by at least 80 percent by 
2050.\166\ Given the current emissions growth both in the 
United States and globally, a substantial change of course is 
required in the very near term to avoid the catastrophic 
impacts outlined in later sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \165\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \166\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Mitigation of 
Climate Change, Summary for Policymakers at 38-39 (Table TS.2); and 
Luers, A., et al., 2007. How to Avoid Dangerous Climate Change: A 
Target for U.S. Emission Reductions. Union of Concerned Scientists. 
Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/
big_picture_solutions/a-target-for-us-emissions.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              BLACK CARBON

    Black carbon is a potent, short-lived driver of climate 
change. Unlike GHGs, black carbon is a particle pollutant, 
which is emitted as a component of soot during incomplete 
combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. Black carbon alters 
Earth's energy balance by absorbing sunlight (1) independently 
in the atmosphere, (2) in water droplets and ice crystals in 
clouds, and (3) when deposited on snow and ice surfaces.\167\ 
Currently, black carbon is likely the second or third largest 
driver of global warming and plays a particularly large role in 
modifying the Arctic climate.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \167\Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional 
climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1.
    \168\Jacobson, M., 2010. Short-term effects of controlling fossil-
fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, 
and air pollution health. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global emissions of black carbon derive from energy-related 
combustion and outdoor biomass burning. Of the approximately 8 
million tons of black carbon released each year,\169\ about 58 
percent is emitted through energy-related combustion and 42 
percent is emitted through outdoor biomass burning.\170,171\ 
Residential emissions of black carbon are due largely to home 
heating and cooking (e.g., using wood, coal, crop residue, 
dung, and diesel fuel). Diesel fuel vehicles are the dominant 
source in the transportation sector. In the industrial sector, 
iron and steel production are major sources. Outdoor biomass 
burning is largely associated with deforestation activities and 
the burning of crop residue.\172\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \169\Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional 
climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1.
    \170\Bond, T., et al., 2004. A technology-based global inventory of 
black and organic carbon emissions from combustion. Geophysical 
Research; Letters, Vol. 109.
    \171\Bond, T. 2007. Testimony for the Hearing on Black Carbon and 
Climate Change, House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 
Available at http://oversight.house.gov/images/stories/documents/
20071018110647.pdf.
    \172\Ramanathan, V. and G. Carmichael, 2008. Global and regional 
climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geosciences, Vol. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Currently, global emissions of black carbon are dominated 
by Asia (59 percent), followed by Europe (12 percent), South 
America (10 percent), Africa (10 percent), and North America (9 
percent).\173\ In developed countries such as the United 
States, energy-related combustion, primarily related to diesel 
fuel, is now the leading source of black carbon. Energy-related 
combustion also dominates emissions in Asia, though with a much 
larger contribution from residential sources. In contrast, 
outdoor burning of biomass is the leading cause of emissions in 
South America and Africa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \173\Climate Institute, 2009. How does black carbon change the 
climate debate? Climate Alert, Vol. 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In March of 2010, the Select Committee held a hearing to 
explore opportunities for reducing black carbon emissions in 
the United States and abroad.\174\ According to the expert 
testimony, there are substantial climate benefits associated 
with reducing black carbon emissions and the technologies to do 
so are already available. Residential emissions of black carbon 
may be reduced with cleaner cook stoves (e.g., improved-
combustion, solar-powered, electric, and gas). Transportation 
sector emissions may be reduced through the phase out of two-
stroke engines, upgrades to higher quality, low-sulfur fuels 
(e.g., ultra-low sulfur diesel or natural gas), improved engine 
technology, and engine retrofits for existing diesel vehicles. 
In the industrial sector, emissions may be reduced 
substantially by capturing particle pollution from coke ovens 
and blast furnaces used in steel and iron production. Changes 
in agricultural and forestry practices could yield large 
reductions from biomass burning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \174\Select Committee, 2010. Clearing the Smoke: Understanding the 
Impacts of Black Carbon Pollution. Available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0016#main_content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since black carbon has a short atmospheric lifetime, the 
benefits of emissions reductions could be achieved rapidly. 
However, it is very important to note that black carbon is co-
emitted with other climate-modifying aerosols, including those 
that act as cooling agents. Still, the fast-acting nature of 
black carbon emission reductions could be important in 
preventing the climate system from passing certain tipping 
points of rapid and irreversible change and greatly improve 
human health, particularly in developing countries.\175\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \175\Jacobson, M., 2010. Short-term effects of controlling fossil-
fuel soot, biofuel soot and gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, 
and air pollution health. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 OBSERVED AND PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGE

    As atmospheric GHG concentrations have increased, the 
global temperature has increased about 1.4+F over the past 
century. The 2010 meteorological year was the hottest on record 
dating back to 1880.\176\ This follows on the heels of the 
hottest decade (2000-2009) on record, breaking the previous 
record held by the 1990s, which broke the previous record of 
the 1980s. Additionally, every year in the 2000s was warmer 
than the 1990s average, and every year in the 1990s was warmer 
than the 1980s average.\177\ Historical trends in the 
temperature record also show that the rate of warming is 
increasing: the rate of warming was 0.08+F per decade for the 
period 1850-2005; 0.11-0.13+F per decade for 1901-2005; and 
0.29-0.31+F per decade for 1979-2005.\178\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \176\Kintisch, E., 2010. NASA: 2010 Meteorological Year Warmest 
Ever. Science.
    \177\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at 
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/decadal-global-
temps-1880s-2000s.gif.
    \178\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global temperatures are expected to continue to rise. Over 
the next two decades, global temperatures are projected to 
increase approximately 0.36+F per decade for a range of 
emissions scenarios.\179\ Beyond that time frame, the expected 
temperature rise depends largely on future emissions that will 
in turn depend on a variety of factors, including energy and 
climate policies of countries around the world. By the end of 
this century, if there is no change in policies, global 
temperatures are expected to increase in a likely range varying 
from 2-11.5+F globally\180\ and 4 to 11+F in the United 
States\181\ for a broad range of future emission scenarios. It 
should be emphasized, however, that current trends in emissions 
are consistent with, or higher than, the scenarios on the high 
end of this range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \179\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 Synthesis 
Report.
    \180\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007 Synthesis 
Report.
    \181\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The oceans have experienced both significant warming and 
acidification due to increases in the atmospheric concentration 
of GHGs. Thus far, oceans have absorbed approximately 90 
percent of the excess heat trapped in the climate system 
because of human activities. This is due in part because ocean 
water has a heat capacity 1,000 times greater than that of the 
air in the atmosphere. Most of the warming is occurring within 
a few hundred feet of the sea surface; the sea surface itself 
has warmed about 1.4+F over the past century.\182\ Increasing 
concentrations of CO2 have also acidified the 
world's oceans by approximately 30 percent over pre-industrial 
levels.\183\ If the current CO2 emissions trend 
continues, the ocean will experience acidification to an extent 
and at rates that have not occurred for tens of millions of 
years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \182\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Fourth 
Assessment Report.
    \183\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2008. Ocean 
Acidification, State of the Science, Available at http://
www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/OA/Ocean_Acidification%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In May 2010, the Select Committee examined the fundamental 
climate changes occurring to Earth's atmospheric, marine, and 
terrestrial environments.\184\ Dr. James Hurrell of the 
National Center for Atmospheric Research told the Committee 
that the global warming is accelerating; the rate of warming in 
the last 50 years is nearly twice that of the warming over the 
100-year trend.\185\ Dr. James McCarthy of Harvard University 
reported that scientists now know that the oceans have absorbed 
about one-third of the CO2 released from fossil fuel 
burning in the Industrial Era, threatening a range of 
calcifying organisms and the marine ecosystems dependent on 
them.\186\ The expert testimony made clear that a broad range 
of adverse climate change impacts are expected to intensify if 
human-caused GHG emissions are not curbed substantially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \184\Select Committee, Hearing on The Foundation of Climate Science 
(May 6, 2010), available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0018#main_content.
    \185\Hurrell, J., 2010. Testimony before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming, The Foundation of Climate 
Science (May 6, 2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
files/HRG/050510climateScience/hurrell.pdf.
    \186\McCarthy, J., 2010. Testimony before the Select Committee on 
Energy Independence and Global Warming Hearing `` The Foundation of 
Climate Science'' (May 6, 2010) available at 
http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/050510climateScience/
mcCarthy.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

    The warming of the climate system produces many complex 
responses, which then lead to a range of impacts on human and 
natural systems. It bears emphasis that the observed warming 
and ocean acidification to date has already produced many 
documented climatic changes. As warming and acidification 
continue, more dramatic changes are expected. Here, we discuss 
some examples of climate change impacts.

Ice in the Arctic

    The Arctic region is warming at a staggering rate. By the 
decade of the 2000s, much of the Arctic warmed by 1.8-3.6+F 
relative to the period 1951 to 1980, a level of warming that 
exceeded most other regions on Earth. Since 1950, northern 
Greenland has experienced warming of 2.7-3.6+F.\187\ The 
amplified climate response in the Arctic is thought to be due 
in large part to the melting of Arctic ice.\188\ Ice acts like 
a mirror to the sun's energy, reflecting much of the energy 
back out into space. As Arctic ice disappears, dark ocean water 
and land is revealed, which soaks up more sunlight and heat and 
thereby accelerates warming and melting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \187\National Aeronautic and Space Administration. Available at 
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Greenland.pdf.
    \188\Arctic Council and the International Arctic Science Committee, 
2004. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Available at http://
www.acia.uaf.edu/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As temperatures rise in the Arctic, sea ice is 
disappearing. The Arctic sea ice extents in the last four years 
(2007 to 2010) have been the four lowest on record.\189\ In 
2010, the extent of ice in the Arctic was the third-lowest 
recorded since observations began in 1979\190\ and the area of 
missing ice compared to the baseline period of 1979-2000 was 
nearly five times the size of California.\191\ The amount of 
multi-year ice has been in decline, as has the thickness of 
ice. From submarine measurements, researchers have observed an 
average loss of nearly two meters of Arctic sea ice between 
1980 and 2008, almost half of the average ice thickness.\192\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \189\National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.
    \190\National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.
    \191\National Snow and Ice Data Center. Available at http://
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/.
    \192\Copenhagen Diagnosis (2009) Available at http://
www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Leading models predict that Arctic summer sea ice may 
completely disappear within the next 30 years and possibly as 
early as the 2020s, though the precise timing is 
uncertain.\193\ A recent international assessment projects that 
the polar bear population will decline by more than 30 percent 
in 45 years due to reduced habitat range and quality.\194\ The 
loss of stable, year-round sea ice is also disrupting 
traditional seal-hunting and fishing practices on which Inuit 
livelihoods depend, endangering an entire way of life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \193\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Available at 
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/future/sea_ice.html.
    \194\International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural 
Resources, 2010. Ursus Maritimus. Available at http://
www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/22823/0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ice covering Arctic land areas is also melting and 
contributing to global sea level rise. In Greenland, for 
example, around 385 cubic miles of ice was lost between April 
2002 and February 2009, equivalent to a half millimeter per 
year of global sea level rise.\195\ Further, the rate of ice 
loss from Greenland has been accelerating,\196\ meaning the 
contribution to global sea level will continue to grow with 
time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \195\University of Colorado at Boulder, (2010) Available at http://
www.colorado.edu/news/r/f595fae00e6b451d4016ab9a43a049f8.html.
    \196\Kahn, S., et al., 2010. Spread of ice mass loss into northwest 
Greenland observed by GRACE and GPS. Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 
37.; and Velicogna, I. (2009). Increasing rates of ice mass loss from 
the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets revealed by GRACE. Geophysical 
Research Letters, Vol. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Melt-water from Arctic land areas may alter ocean currents, 
potentially disturbing marine ecosystems and weather patterns. 
As the Arctic permafrost (frozen soil) melts, massive amounts 
of methane may be released as the carbon-rich soils are exposed 
to microbial degradation. Since methane is a potent GHG, these 
emissions will produce a positive feedback that will drive 
additional warming and subsequent methane emissions.\197\ At 
predicted rates of thaw, it is expected that methane emissions 
from melting permafrost will contribute an additional 20 to 40 
percent to all global methane emissions (natural and manmade) 
by 2100 and thereby contribute a projected +0.58+F to global 
temperatures.\198\ The loss of permafrost is also causing 
extensive damage to homes and other infrastructure in Inuit 
villages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \197\Anthony, K., 2009. Methane: A menace surfaces. Scientific 
American.
    \198\Anthony, K., 2009. Methane: A menace surfaces. Scientific 
American.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Select Committee held a briefing in August of 2010 to 
examine the calving of a massive iceberg from Greenland and the 
broader pattern of ice loss in the Arctic.\199\ In early August 
2010, an iceberg covering nearly 100 square miles--four times 
the size of Manhattan--broke off (calved) from the Petermann 
Glacier on the northwestern coast of Greenland.\200\ The 
iceberg was the largest to break off in the Arctic in nearly a 
half century. Dr. Robert Bindschadler and Dr. Richard Alley, 
two of the scientists participating in the briefing, warned 
Select Committee members that we could have already passed, or 
may within only decades pass, a tipping point in the Arctic 
beyond which climate change may be even more abrupt and 
effectively irreversible.\201\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \199\Select Committee hearing on The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global 
Warming's Impacts on the Arctic Region (August 10, 2010) available at 
http://globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id= 0020#main_content.
    \200\National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010. Ice 
Island Calves off Petermann Glacier. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/
topics/earth/features/petermann-calve.html.
    \201\Select Committee Briefing, 2010. The Greenland Ice Sheet: 
Global Warming's Impacts on the Arctic Region. Available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/pubs?id=0020#main_content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ice in Antarctica

    Antarctica is also losing ice with consequences ranging 
from increased global sea level to loss of wildlife habitat. 
Antarctica is covered by two ice sheets; the larger East 
Antarctic ice sheet covers the majority of the continent, while 
the West Antarctic ice sheet has significant ice shelves 
floating in the ocean. Taken together, they contain enough 
water to raise sea level by around 200 feet if melted 
completely.\202\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \202\National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2010. Is 
Antarctica Melting? Available at http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/
features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the spring of 2002, scientists were shocked to discover 
that an ice shelf the size of Rhode Island had disintegrated in 
just over a month from the West Antarctica ice sheet. The 
collapse of the Larsen B ice shelf was a wake up call to 
scientists who had thought that these large areas of ice would 
take a millennium to disappear, not a month.\203\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \203\National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2002. Breakup 
of the Larsen Ice Shelf, Antarctica. Available at http://
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=2288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Since then, satellite measurements made by NASA show that 
Antarctica as a whole is indeed losing mass at an accelerating 
rate. There is also evidence that in addition to the loss known 
to be occurring in the western ice sheet, East Antarctica has 
also been losing ice since 2006.\204\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \204\Chen, J., et al., 2009. Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from 
satellite gravity measurements. Nature, Vol. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Human activities have been identified as an important 
driver of Antarctic climate change, though a complex set of 
natural factors are also important.\205\ Rigorous analysis of 
temperature trends show that Antarctica has been warming at an 
average rate of 0.22+F per decade (from 1957 to 2006) or more 
than 1+F for the last half century,\206\ roughly comparable to 
the warming observed for the globe as a whole.\207\ Antarctic 
warming is expected to continue as GHG concentrations rise and 
the ozone hole, which cools the continent, heals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \205\Gillett, N., et al., 2008. Attribution of polar warming to 
human influence. Nature, Vol. 1.
    \206\Steig, E., Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since 
the 1957 International Geophysical Year, Nature 457; and National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2009. Satellites Confirm Half-
Century of West Antarctic Warming. Available at http://www.nasa.gov/
topics/earth/features/warming_antarctica.html; Real Climate, 2009. 
State of Antarctica: red or blue? Available at http://
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-
or-blue/.
    \207\National Aeronautics and Space Administration. GISS Surface 
Temperature Analysis, available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
graphs/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As ice extent shrinks, breeding and foraging habitat for 
Antarctic wildlife is compromised. The population of Emperor 
penguins, for example, has already declined by 50 percent.\208\ 
Researchers studying Emperor penguins in Terre Adelie, 
Antarctica, estimate that by the end of the century their 
population will decline from 6,000 breeding pairs to an 
expected 400 breeding pairs under IPCC climate projections of 
business-as-usual emissions of GHGs.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \208\Barbraud, C., and H. Weimerskirch, 2001. Emperor penguins and 
climate change. Nature 411.
    \209\Jenouvrier, S., et al., 2009. Demographic models and IPCC 
climate projections predict the decline of an emperor penguin 
population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Vol. 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sea Level Rise

    Accelerating sea level rise is threatening coastal 
communities around the world. Over the past century, thermal 
expansion of the oceans and widespread melting of ice sheets 
and glaciers have produced a global sea level rise of 
approximately 8 inches.\210\ Observations from the past two 
decades indicate that the recent rate of rise has been twice 
that of the past century.\211\ Over the next century, the IPCC 
has projected global sea level rise of 7 to 23 inches (18-59 
centimeters), with current emissions trends consistent with the 
higher end of the range. However, these estimates do not 
account for changes in ice sheet dynamics.\212\ Accounting for 
this contribution, the rise is expected to be in the range of 
3.5 feet by the end of this century, perhaps even as great as 
6.5 feet.\213\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \210\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \211\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Adaptation 
North America. Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/
ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter14.pdf.
    \212\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007.
    \213\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sea level rise will have severe impacts on the world's 
coastal regions. Rising sea levels are already causing 
inundation of low-lying lands and infrastructure, erosion of 
wetlands and beaches, exacerbation of storm surges and 
flooding, and increases in the salinity of coastal estuaries 
and aquifers. The most dramatic near-term threats of sea level 
rise are being felt by small island states with elevations 
close to current sea level. Worldwide, about one billion people 
live within 75 feet elevation of today's sea level, including 
nearly all of Bangladesh, and areas occupied by more than 250 
million people in China.\214\ In total, more than 70 percent of 
the world's population lives on coastal plains, and 11 of the 
world's 15 largest cities are on the coast.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \214\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The coastal regions of the United States are very 
susceptible to sea level rise. Along the Gulf Coast, an 
estimated 2,400 miles of major roadway and 246 miles of freight 
lines are at risk of permanent flooding for a 4 foot rise.\215\ 
The Transportation Research Board concluded that under 
business-as-usual, coastal airport runways in Boston, Miami, 
New York and other areas could be under water by 2050. In 
addition, rising sea level will cause intrusion of saltwater 
into both surface water and ground water in many U.S. coastal 
areas, threatening freshwater supplies.\216\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \215\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \216\Environmental Protection Agency. Coastal Zones and Sea Level 
Rise, Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/coastal/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Warming and Acidification of the World's Oceans

    The world's oceans will suffer devastating climate change 
impacts. The U.N. Environment Programme found that ``climate 
change may slow down ocean thermohaline circulation crucial to 
coastal water quality and nutrient cycling in more than 75 
percent of the world's fishing grounds.''\217\ Less hospitable 
waters would have a significant effect on the fishing 
industries. In the United States alone, commercial and 
recreational fisheries contribute $60 billion to the economy 
each year and employ more than 500,000 people.\218\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \217\United Nations Environmental Programme, 2008. Warmer World May 
Mean Less Fish. Available at http://www.unep.org/
Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=528& ArticleID=575.
    \218\Connaughton, J., 2005. Testimony to Senate Commerce Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Warming and acidification of ocean waters are also 
contributing to the collapse of coral reefs around the globe. 
Recent studies indicate that over one-third of all coral 
species are already endangered.\219\ When key temperature 
thresholds are exceeded, mass bleaching and complete coral 
mortality often result. In fact, corals are threatened to 
extinction within the next century from rising ocean 
temperatures and ocean acidification if atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations continue to rise unchecked. This 
threatens U.S. reefs with commercial value exceeding $100 
million. The total global economic value of coral is estimated 
to be between $30 and $172 billion annually. In the United 
States, certain coastal areas would be especially harmed; in 
Florida, for example, reef-based tourism in the Florida Keys 
generates $1.2 billion in annual revenue.\220\ Healthy coral 
reefs provide other benefits as well, including shoreline 
protection, beach sand supply, potential pharmaceuticals, and 
habitat for fish and other marine organisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \219\Carpenter K., et al., 2008. One-Third of Reef-Building Corals 
Face Elevated Extinction Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts, 
Science Express.
    \220\Damassa, T., 2006. World Resources Institute, The Value of 
Ecosystems. Available at http://www.wri.org/stories/2006/12/value-
coastal-ecosystems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Extreme Events

    Global warming has already changed the intensity, duration, 
frequency, and geographic range of a variety of weather 
patterns and will continue to do so, with potentially severe 
impacts on the United States and the world.\221\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \221\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis at 8; and U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis, 
2008. Assessment Product 3.3, Weather and Climate Extremes in a 
Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, Hawaii, Caribbean, 
and U.S. Pacific Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A 2009 study by researchers at the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research (NCAR) shows that the United States 
experienced approximately twice as many daily record high 
temperatures than daily record lows over the past decade, as 
the number of daily record lows has diminished due to global 
warming.\222\ Since the 1980s, the frequency of damaging 
extreme weather events and the cumulative cost of those storms 
has increased in the United States; in recent years, the number 
of weather events exceeding $1 billion in damages exceeded 
100.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \222\University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. Available at 
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp.
    \223\National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Billion 
Dollar U.S. Weather Disasters. Available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
oa/reports/billionz.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heat waves have already increased in frequency over most 
land areas, and it is very likely that future climate change 
will result in an increase in the frequency and intensity of 
hot extremes.\224,\\225\ The intensity, duration and frequency 
of heat waves will increase particularly in western and 
southern regions of the United States.\226\ For a high GHG 
emissions future, parts of the U.S. South that currently have 
about 60 days per year with temperatures exceeding 90 +F will 
experience more than 150 such days by the end of the 
century.\227\ With continued warming by 2100, Washington, D.C. 
will experience the temperatures that Houston does today, 
Denver will be as warm as Memphis is today, and Anchorage will 
be as warm as New York City is today.\228\ A warmer planet is 
also expected to experience more extreme summer dryness.\229\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \224\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report, Summary for Policymakers.
    \225\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \226\Meehl, G. and C. Tebaldi, 2004. More Intense, More Frequent, 
and Longer Lasting Heat Waves in the 21st Century, 305 Science 994.
    \227\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \228\Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton. The Cost of Climate Change: What 
We'll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural Resources 
Defense Council. (2008) Available at 
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf.
    \229\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With global warming, heavy winter precipitation and 
flooding is also increasing.\230\ In the United States, for 
example, the amount of precipitation falling in heavy downpours 
(heaviest 1 percent of events) has increased nearly 20 percent 
over the past century.\231\ As the atmosphere warms, it is able 
to hold more water vapor. When a storm occurs, the amount of 
precipitation can increase, which can result in flooding. The 
IPCC has found that ``[t]he frequency of heavy precipitation 
events has increased over most land areas, consistent with 
warming and observed increases of atmospheric water 
vapor.''\232\ Precipitation is expected to continue to shift 
towards heavier events, with longer dry periods in 
between.\233\ Contrary to the claims of global warming 
skeptics, the record snowstorms during the winter of 2009-2010 
may have demonstrated this phenomenon; they certainly did not 
disprove it. In the future, it is very likely that North 
America will experience more frequent and intense heavy 
downpours and higher levels of total rainfall in extreme 
precipitation events. Extreme precipitation events and 
associated flooding costs lives and result in damage to 
infrastructure, property, and agricultural lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \230\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \231\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \232\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
    \233\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. The Physical 
Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming is expected to increase the globally 
averaged intensity of tropical storms and decrease their 
frequency.\234\ Stronger hurricanes lead to more destructive 
winds and higher storm surges, increasing the risk to coastal 
communities in their paths. As sea level rises and storm surges 
increase, the vulnerability of cities to flooding, and the 
related impacts, increases significantly. Finally, strong cold-
season storms are also likely to become more frequent, with 
stronger winds and more extreme wave heights.\235\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \234\Knutson, T., et al., 2010. Tropical cyclones and climate 
change. Nature Geoscience 3, 157-163.
    \235\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008. Weather and Climate 
Extremes in a Changing Climate: Regions of Focus: North America, 
Hawaii, Caribbean, and U.S. Pacific Islands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In September of 2010, the Select Committee held a briefing 
to examine the links between climate change and extreme weather 
events. Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States Husain 
Haqqani spoke about the devastating economic, health, and 
security impacts of the flooding that struck Pakistan in the 
summer of 2010.\236\ Twenty percent of Pakistan was inundated, 
more than 1,700 people lost their lives, and more than 21 
million people were directly affected by the floods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \236\Select Committee, Hearing on Extreme Weather in a Warming 
World (September 23, 2010) Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Extreme events consistent with climate change predictions 
occurred in a number of other locations in 2010 as well. Russia 
experienced both the worst heat wave and one of the worst 
droughts on record. In China, massive flooding claimed over 
2,000 lives. In India, heat waves killed dozens of people and 
flooding left 2 million people homeless. Here in the United 
States, record-breaking temperatures baked the East Coast and 
disastrous flooding inundated Arkansas, Iowa, Oklahoma, 
Tennessee, and elsewhere. As the participants of the briefing 
discussed, as concentrations of GHGs increase in the 
atmosphere, there will be more extreme weather events, 
including more intense and frequent heat waves and increased 
drought and flooding.\237\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \237\Select Committee, Hearing on Extreme Weather in a Warming 
World (September 23, 2010) Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freshwater

    One of the most dramatic impacts of global warming in the 
21st century will be the exacerbation of already severe water 
scarcity. Over a billion people currently lack access to safe 
drinking water.\238\ By 2025, 1.8 billion people are expected 
to be living in regions experiencing water scarcity and two-
thirds of the world's population may be living in water 
stressed conditions.\239\ The IPCC projects that by 2020, 
between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will experience an 
increase of water stress due to climate change.\240\ For Asia, 
the number is between 120 million and 1.2 billion people, and 
for Latin American it is 12 to 81 million.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \238\German Advisory Council on Global Change, 2007. Climate Change 
as a Security Risk Summary for Policy-makers.
    \239\United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, 2008. 
The Food Crisis and Sustainable Development. Available at http://
www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd16/documents/bgrounder_foodcrisis.pdf.
    \240\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007: Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers at 13.
    \241\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming is leading to rapid melting of land ice, 
glaciers, ice caps, and snow fields which over time will 
exacerbate water scarcity in many regions of the globe. One-
sixth of the world population currently relies on melt-water 
from glaciers and snow cover for drinking water and 
irrigation.\242\ The IPCC's 2008 Climate Change and Water 
report projects widespread reductions in snow cover in the 21st 
Century, and a 60 percent volume loss in glaciers in various 
regions.\243\ While melting may temporarily increase freshwater 
supply, more winter precipitation falling as rain rather than 
snow and an earlier snowmelt season will deplete frozen 
freshwater reserves and exacerbate water scarcity 
conditions.\244\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \242\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Summary for Policymakers at 11.
    \243\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 28.
    \244\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 19-26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased water stress due to climate change will 
disproportionately affect the dry tropics and dry regions at 
lower mid-latitudes.\245\ Semi-arid and arid areas in Southeast 
Asia, Southern Africa, Brazil, and the western United States 
are expected to suffer decreasing water resources with climate 
change.\246\ In Asia, decreasing precipitation and rising 
temperatures will result in the increasing frequency and 
intensity of droughts.\247\ In northwestern China and Mongolia, 
snow and glacier melt will cause floods in the spring in the 
near term but will also result in freshwater shortages by the 
end of the century.\248\ Global warming is expected to result 
in more persistent El Nino conditions that shift the Amazon 
rainforest from a tropical forest environment towards dry 
savannah,\249\ imperiling an ecosystem that sustains local 
communities and one of the highest concentrations of 
biodiversity on Earth.\250\ In the American West, the Sierra 
Nevada snowpack is at its lowest level in 20 years, threatening 
California water supplies.\251\ Experts warn that even in 
optimistic scenarios for the second half of the 21st century, 
30 to 70 percent of this snowpack may disappear.\252\ As a 
consequence of decreasing snowmelt in the Rocky Mountains, the 
U.S. Southwest is already experiencing a severely reduced flow 
in the Colorado River upon which 30 million people depend for 
water.\253\ The U.S. Midwest is expected to experience drought 
due to a loss of soil moisture and surface waters.\254\ In 
addition to a range of other costs, agriculture in the U.S. 
Southwest and Great Plains is likely to suffer massive economic 
losses due to increasing water scarcity.\255\ In September 
2010, Dr. Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory briefed the Select Committee on the hydrologic 
impacts of climate change, explaining that much of the United 
States will experience severe drought by the end of the 21st 
century for business-as-usual GHG emissions.\256\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \245\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 3.
    \246\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 88.
    \247\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 86.
    \248\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 87.
    \249\Lenton, T., et al., 2008. Tipping Elements in the Earth's 
climate system. 105 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 
1790.
    \250\WWF Climate Change Programme. Climate Change Impacts in the 
Amazon: Review of Scientific Literature. Available at http://
assets.panda.org/downloads/amazon_cc_impacts_lit_ review_final_2.pdf.
    \251\Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. 
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-
t.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin.
    \252\Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. 
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-
t.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin.
    \253\Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. 
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-
t.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin.
    \254\Gertner, J., 2008. The Future is Drying Up, New York Times. 
Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/21/magazine/21water-
t.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin.
    \255\Ruth, M., et al., 2007. The US Economic Impacts of Climate 
Change and the Costs of Inaction. University of Maryland Center for 
Integrative Environmental Research. Available at 
http://dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/us_economic.pdf.
    \256\Wehner, M., Testimony before the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming. Hearing on Extreme Weather and Climate 
in a Changing World. (September 23, 2010) Available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/092310ExtremeWeather/wehner.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change will also negatively impact the quality of 
freshwater resources. For example, reduced river flows will 
limit the dilution of effluent, leading to increased pathogen 
and chemical concentrations.\257\ In addition, increased heavy 
precipitation events due to climate change may contaminate 
watercourses and drinking-water reservoirs.\258\ Warmer water 
temperature combined with higher phosphorus concentrations will 
increase the occurrence of freshwater algal blooms, with 
adverse impacts on freshwater ecosystems and fisheries. Fish 
habitat may also be compromised because altered water chemistry 
will promote the intrusion of invasive species.\259\ These 
impacts will exacerbate the precarious state of freshwater fish 
species in North America, nearly 40 percent of which are 
already at risk.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \257\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 67.
    \258\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2008. Climate 
Change and Water, pp. 68.
    \259\Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. National Water Program 
Strategy: Response to Climate Change. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
water/climatechange/docs/TO5_DRAFT_CCR_ Revised_10-16.pdf.
    \260\Winter, A., 2008. Fisheries: Freshwater species in steep 
decline--USGS, Greenwire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Resources

    Global warming is impacting forests through increased 
temperatures, altered patterns of precipitation, and changes in 
the presence and severity of pests. The role of climate change 
in forest ecology is an area of active scientific research. In 
areas with adequate water availability, warmer temperatures 
have likely increased forest growth and will continue to do so. 
Increasing CO2 concentrations will likely increase 
photosynthesis but will only increase wood production in young 
forests where adequate nutrients and water are available.
    But the negative effects of climate change on forests 
outweigh the benefits. Increasing global temperatures are 
already affecting tropical forests, with droughts provoking 
forest fires in the Amazon and Indonesia. The combination of 
degraded forests from logging and agriculture with more extreme 
climate events suggests that forest fires are likely to play an 
even more important role in the future of tropical forests and 
their contribution of global warming pollution.\261\ The 
dieback of forests represents a form of abrupt climate change, 
as forests that would otherwise serve as carbon sinks may 
succumb to water stress and pest exposure; the risk of passing 
such critical thresholds increases greatly with continued 
climate change.\262\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \261\Alencar, A., et al., Carbon emissions associated with forest 
fires in Brazil, in Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change (P. 
Moutinho and S. Schwartzman eds. 2005). Available at http://
www.edf.org/documents/4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf.
    \262\Copenhagen Diagnosis, 2009. http://
www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the United States, some forest types are expected to 
expand (e.g., oak-hickory), while others are expected to 
contract (e.g., maple-beech-birch).\263\ There is also growing 
evidence that climate change is increasing the frequency and 
intensity of wildfires in the United States. Scientists have 
concluded that from 1986 to 2006 longer, warmer summers have 
resulted in a four-fold increase in major wildfires and a six-
fold increase in the area of forest burned, compared to the 
period from 1970 to 1986.\264\ In addition to more intense and 
more frequent fires, the length of the fire season and the burn 
duration of large fires have also increased. Warmer 
temperatures cause an earlier snowmelt which can lead to an 
earlier and longer dry season.\265\ Models of future climate 
have consistently concluded that the area burned will increase 
in the coming years and decades. With more wildfires come more 
GHG emissions. Although estimates vary widely, wildfires may 
represent up to 10 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions.\266\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \263\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \264\Westerling, A., et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase 
Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity 313 Science 940 (2006).
    \265\Westerling, A., et al., Warming and Earlier Spring Increase 
Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity 313 Science 940 (2006).
    \266\Van der Werf, G., et al., Continental-Scale Partitioning of 
Fire Emissions During the 1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina Period, 303, 
Science 73. (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming is also exacerbating insect infestations 
(most notably bark beetles), which in turn make forests more 
susceptible to wildfire. Drought stress makes trees and 
vegetation more susceptible to attack by insects, and warmer 
winter temperatures allow a higher number of insects to survive 
and increase their populations. Warmer temperatures can also 
increase reproductive rates of insects, resulting in two 
generations in a single year. Finally, warmer temperatures 
allow insects to invade areas previously outside their natural 
range, as has happened with the mountain pine beetle in the 
U.S. West. Research has clearly demonstrated the link between 
warmer temperatures and drought on extensive insect outbreaks 
in southwestern forests and Alaska.\267\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \267\Backlund, P. et al., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 
2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, 
Water Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agricultural lands are also expected to experience 
substantial impacts from climate change. For most crops there 
are temperature limits that, when reached, can impair crop 
yield. For example, an anticipated 2.2 +F rise in temperatures 
over the next 30 years is projected to decrease yields of maize 
by 4.0 percent, wheat by 6.7 percent, sorghum by 9.4 percent 
and dry bean yields by 8.6 percent.\268\ Agricultural lands are 
also sensitive to changes in the timing and intensity of water 
availability. Runoff in snowmelt-dominated areas is occurring 
up to 20 days earlier in the U.S. West and up to 14 days 
earlier in the Northeast.\269\ In some regions, global warming 
is expected to exacerbate drought conditions, whereas others 
will experience more frequent and intense heavy downpours. 
Heavy rainfalls reduced the value of the U.S. corn crop by an 
average of $3 billion per year between 1951 and 1998.\270\ 
Insects and disease pests will also respond to changes in 
climate and may adversely affect agriculture.\271\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \268\Backlund, P., et al., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 
2008. The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, 
Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States.
    \269\Karl, T., J. Melillo, and T. Peterson, (eds.), 2009. Global 
Climate Change Impacts in the United States, Cambridge University 
Press. Available at http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/
scientific-assessments/us-impacts.
    \270\Rosenzweig, C., F.N. Tubiello, R. Goldberg, E. Mills and J. 
Bloomfield, 2002. Increased crop damage in the US from excess 
precipitation under climate change. Global Environ. Change, 12, 197-
202.
    \271\Backlund, P., et al., U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 
2008 The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, 
Water Resources and Biodiversity in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wildlife

    If climate change goes unchecked, it could lead to mass 
extinction of the world's species. The International Union for 
the Conservation of Nature's 2008 annual report lists 38 
percent of catalogued species as already threatened with 
extinction, including nearly 25 percent of all mammals.\272\ A 
2004 study suggests that 15 to 37 percent of terrestrial 
species may be ``committed to extinction'' by 2050 due to 
climate change.\273\ The IPCC predicts that for a temperature 
rise of 2.7-4.5 +F, approximately 20 to 30 percent of plant and 
animal species will be at an increased risk of extinction.\274\ 
Additional warming could lead to even higher rates of 
extinction, perhaps a loss of more than 40 percent of all plant 
and animal species by the latter half of this century.\275\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \272\International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 2008, IUCN 
Red list Reveals world's mammals in crisis, Available at http://
www.iucn.org/news_events/events/congress/index.cfm?uNewsID=1695
    \273\Thomas C., et al., 2004. Extinction risk from climate change, 
427 Nature 145.
    \274\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers.
    \275\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability, Summary for Policy Makers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The species most vulnerable to climate change have a 
specialized habitat, a narrow environmental tolerance that is 
likely to be exceeded due to climate change, and dependence on 
specific environmental triggers or interactions that are likely 
to be disrupted by climate change. One tragic and iconic 
example is the polar bear. Polar bear populations are expected 
to decline by 30 percent in the next 35 to 50 years and to 
disappear from Alaska altogether due to loss of habitat 
resulting from global warming.\276\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \276\Harden, B., 2005. Experts Predict Polar Bear Decline, 
Washington Post. Available at 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/06/
AR2005070601899.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Health

    There is a broad consensus among experts within the 
worldwide public health community that climate change poses a 
serious threat to public health. The IPCC's Fourth Assessment 
Report concluded that climate change's likely impacts on public 
health include: increases in mortality associated with more 
frequent and more intense heat waves; increased occurrence of 
deaths, disease, and injury from floods, storms, fires and 
droughts; increased cardio-respiratory morbidity and mortality 
associated with ground-level ozone pollution; changes in the 
range of some infectious disease vectors; and increased 
malnutrition and consequent disorders, including those relating 
to child growth and development.\277\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \277\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Synthesis 
Report, Summary for Policymakers at 48.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, EPA,\278\ the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention (CDC),\279\ and NOAA have all concluded climate 
change poses a serious public health risk. The World Health 
Organization (WHO) released a quantitative assessment 
concluding that the effects of climate change may have caused 
over 150,000 deaths in 2000 and that these impacts are likely 
to increase in the future.\280\ According to the IPCC, climate 
change contributes to the global burden of disease, premature 
death and other adverse health impacts.\281\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \278\Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Change--Health and 
Environmental Effects. Available at http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/
effects/health.html.
    \279\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC Policy on 
Climate Change and Public Health, Available at http://www.cdc.gov/
climatechange/pubs/Climate_Change_Policy.pdf.
    \280\World Health Organization, 2007. Fact Sheet No. 266, Climate 
and health. Available at http://www.who.int/globalchange/en/.
    \281\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability at 391-431.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Heat waves will increase in intensity and frequency in the 
United States and globally, with significant consequences for 
human health. The populations most at risk of dying in a heat 
wave are the elderly and people in underserved communities. The 
European heat wave of August 2003 is estimated to have killed 
up to 45,000 people.\282\ In France alone, nearly 15,000 people 
died due to soaring temperatures, which reached as high as 
104+F and remained extreme for two weeks. It is estimated that 
heat-related deaths in the United States will climb from the 
current 700 per year to 3,000-5,000 by 2050.\283\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \282\European Commission. Directorate General for Health and 
Consumer Protection. The 2003 European heat wave. Available at http://
ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/dissemination/unexpected/
unexpected_1_en.htm.
    \283\Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Climate Change and 
Public Health: Heat Waves. Available at http://www.cdc.gov/
climatechange/effects/heat.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global warming will exacerbate ground-level ozone 
pollution, leading to substantial increases in respiratory 
illness and premature death. Ozone is a known public health 
threat that can damage lung tissue and exacerbate pre-existing 
respiratory conditions. The IPCC predicts increased levels of 
ozone across the eastern United States, ``with the cities most 
polluted today experiencing the greatest increase in ozone 
pollution.''\284\ The increase in temperature in urban areas 
specifically and increases in ozone can increase rates of 
cardiovascular and pulmonary illnesses as well as temperature-
related morbidity and mortality for children and the 
elderly.\285\ Similar impacts will be felt in urban areas 
around the globe. By mid-century, ozone related deaths from 
climate change are predicted to increase by approximately 4.5 
percent from the 1990s levels.\286\ Even modest exposure to 
ozone may encourage the development of asthma in children.\287\ 
Recently, an analysis linking CO2 emissions to 
mortality revealed that for each increase of 1.8+F caused by 
CO2, the resulting air pollution would lead to about 
a thousand additional deaths annually and many more cases of 
respiratory illness and asthma in the United States.\288\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \284\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability at 632.
    \285\U.S. Climate Change Science Program, 2008. Synthesis and 
Assessment Product 4.6, Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on 
Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems at ES-6.
    \286\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability at 632.
    \287\McConnell, R., et al., 2002. Asthma in exercising children 
exposed to ozone: A cohort study, 359 The Lancet 386; and Gent, J., et 
al., 2003. Association of low-level ozone and fine particles with 
respiratory symptoms in children with asthma, 29 J. Am. Med. Assoc. 
1859.
    \288\Jacobson, M., 2008. On the Causal Link Between Carbon Dioxide 
and Air Pollution Mortality. 35 Geophysical Research Letters L03809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change will lead to changes in geographic 
distribution of infectious diseases, with potentially serious 
impacts on public health in the United States and globally. The 
WHO estimates that climate change was responsible in 2000 for 
approximately 2.4 percent of worldwide diarrhea, and 6 percent 
of malaria in some middle-income countries.\289\ If average 
global temperature increases by a further 1.8+F, an additional 
320 million cases and 176,000 deaths from diarrheal illnesses 
are expected annually.\290\ According to EPA, ``[c]limate 
change may increase the risk of some infectious diseases, 
particularly those diseases that appear in warm areas and are 
spread by mosquitoes and other insects.''\291\ For example, the 
IPCC has concluded that the global population at risk from 
vector-borne malaria will increase by between 220 million and 
400 million in the next century.\292\ Similarly, the IPCC 
predicts that climate change is likely to increase the risk and 
geographic spread of the West Nile virus, a mosquito-borne 
disease.\293\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \289\World Health Organization, 2002. World Health Report: Reducing 
risks, promoting healthy life.
    \290\Checkley, W., et al., Effect of El Nino and ambient 
temperature on hospital admissions for diarrhoeal diseases in Peruvian 
children, 355 The Lancet 442.
    \291\Environmental Protection Agency. Climate Change--Health and 
Environment Effects: Health. Available at http://www.epa.gov/
climatechange/effects/health.html#climate.
    \292\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability.
    \293\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Security

    The current and projected impacts of climate change have 
serious national security consequences for the United States 
and its allies. The security issues raised by climate change 
have received increasing attention in recent years both in the 
U.S. Congress and in international venues.
    The first-ever U.S. government analysis of the security 
threats posed by global climate change was issued in June 2008 
as the National Intelligence Assessment (NIA), National 
Security Implications of Global Climate Change to 2030. The 
2008 NIA was the result of a process initiated, in part, by the 
introduction of H.R. 1961, the ``Climate Change Security 
Oversight Act,'' which required the U.S. Intelligence Community 
to analyze the national security implications of global climate 
change.
    In addition, U.S. and European military and security policy 
analysts have issued a number of public reports exploring the 
security consequences of global warming and potential 
responses. All of these reports emphasize concerns over a few 
key security impacts, including migration, water scarcity, 
infrastructure at risk from extreme weather, and new economic 
routes and access to new energy resources. In most cases, 
global warming is not creating ``new'' security threats, but 
rather is acting as a ``threat multiplier.''\294\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \294\McGuinn, Admiral Dennis, 2010. Testimony before the Select 
Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Hearing on Not 
Going Away: America's Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges. 
(December 1, 2010) Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0024#main_content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numerous impacts of climate change could ultimately 
increase both the temporary and permanent migration of people 
inside and across existing national borders and increase risks 
of geopolitical instability. Nations dealing with an influx may 
have neither the resources nor the desire to support climate 
migrants. As in the past, movement of people into new territory 
can increase the likelihood of conflict and the potential need 
for intervention from U.S. and allied military forces.
    Rising sea levels threaten low-lying island nations and 
populous coastal areas. For example, the risk of coastal 
flooding in Bangladesh is growing and could force 30 million 
people to search for higher ground in a country already known 
for political violence. India is already building a wall along 
its border with Bangladesh.\295\ Other economically and 
agriculturally important coastal areas, like Egypt's Nile Delta 
and China's southeast coast, are also threatened from rising 
sea level and severe storms. Similar impacts in Central America 
and the Caribbean could add pressure to existing migration 
patterns from those areas to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \295\Black, G., 2008. The Gathering Storm, OnEarth. http://
www.onearth.org/article/the-gathering-storm?page=all.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Increased water scarcity due to climate change will likely 
increase the risk of conflict. Already, scientists have traced 
declines in rainfall in the Darfur region to disruption in the 
African monsoon associated with warming sea surface 
temperatures\296\ which has exacerbated conflict between 
farmers and nomadic herders. Rapidly melting glaciers in the 
Andes and the Tibetan Plateau threaten the water supply for 
some of the most populous countries in the world. The major 
rivers of India and China originate in the Tibetan Plateau 
glaciers and are an important component of their summer 
freshwater resources; dwindling water resources or changes in 
the flow regime could heighten existing tensions within the 
region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \296\Giannini, A., et al., 2008. A Global Perspective on African 
Climate, Climatic Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Extreme weather events also pose a significant and growing 
security threat. Many active U.S. coastal military 
installations around the world are at risk of damage from storm 
surges and associated flooding. For example, the U.S. airbase 
at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which is critical to 
operations in Iraq and the surrounding region, is highly 
susceptible to coastal storm surges.\297\ In September of 2010, 
the Select Committee held a briefing entitled Extreme Weather 
in a Warming World, in which Pakistan's Ambassador to the 
United States Husain Haqqani spoke about the security 
implications of the devastating floods that struck Pakistan in 
2010.\298\ Military resources, including U.S. helicopters 
needed to fight terrorists, had to be diverted for humanitarian 
assistance. Flood-stricken regions of Pakistan with dislocated 
populations also became more susceptible to the intrusion of 
terrorism.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \297\The CNA Corporation, 2007. National Security and the Threat of 
Climate Change. Available at http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/
National%20Security%20and%20the%20
Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf.
    \298\Select Committee, Briefing on Extreme Weather in a Warming 
World, (October 23, 2010). Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0023#main_content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Finally, accelerating melting of Arctic sea ice is 
impacting the United States' strategic interests in the region. 
Russia has moved to stake claim to over 460,000 square miles of 
new arctic territory, including areas with potential oil and 
natural gas resources.\299\ With the opening of the Northwest 
Passage for the first time in recorded history, the Prime 
Minister of Canada announced his intention to increase his 
country's military presence in the Arctic.\300\ Other 
circumpolar nations, including the United States, have begun to 
examine their potential claims on Arctic territory and identify 
necessary preparations for increased maritime traffic in the 
area. Given that melting in recent years was almost as great as 
2007, this issue will remain one of immediate concern. As new 
economic routes and energy resources become available, the 
United States will have to adapt and perhaps redeploy resources 
to deal with the changing physical and economic landscape.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \299\Borgerson, S., 2008. Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and 
Security Implications of Global Warming. Foreign Affairs.
    \300\Borgerson, S., 2008. Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and 
Security Implications of Global Warming. Foreign Affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vulnerable Communities

    While the ramifications of climate change will be felt in 
every community, the greatest impacts will be borne by those 
already most economically vulnerable and who have contributed 
least to climate change. Left unabated, climate change will 
exacerbate deep inequalities within and between countries. The 
human face of the climate story is one in which communities 
least responsible for the climate crisis are the first pushed 
to the edge of survival, and then ultimately over the edge if 
they are unable to adapt to climate changes.
    Climate change will have devastating impacts on the 
developing world, reversing gains in poverty alleviation, food 
security, nutrition, health, and basic services. Poor 
communities are especially vulnerable because they have less 
capacity to adapt to climate changes and are more dependent on 
climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food 
supplies.\301\ Increased exposure to drought and water 
scarcity, more intense storms and floods, and other 
environmental pressures will hold back the world's poor from 
building a better life for themselves and their children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \301\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change, 
2007. Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Summary for Policymakers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change is likely to add to the total of 2.6 billion 
people now living on $2 a day or less. By the end of the 
century, an additional 145 to 220 million people in South Asia 
and Sub-Saharan Africa could fall below the $2 per day poverty 
level as a result of climate change impacts.\302\ According to 
the Stern Review, unchecked climate change could turn 200 
million people into refugees this century, precipitating the 
largest migration in history. In addition, increased frequency 
and severity of droughts and floods will affect crop 
productivity and food production, disproportionately affecting 
the 850 million people already experiencing food scarcity.\303\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \302\Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate 
Change.
    \303\Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate 
Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Island nations are particularly vulnerable to the impacts 
of climate change, from the degradation of marine resources to 
sea level rise. The Republic of the Maldives, for example, is 
confronting the loss of coral reefs that serve as the basis for 
its economy, currently driving a productive fishing industry 
and attracting large numbers of tourists. In the long term, 
rising sea level represents a truly existential threat; with 
the highest point on the islands little more than six feet 
above sea level, all 1,190 islands making up the Maldives could 
eventually be rendered uninhabitable.
    In the United States, climate change impacts are deepening 
existing inequities. In Alaska, a state already hit hard by 
climate change, at least three Alaskan villages--Shishmaref, 
Kivalina, and Newtok--will be lost to coastal erosion due to 
rising sea levels as soon as in the next decade.\304\ As 
devastating as it may be to watch a town fall into the sea, the 
more destructive and irreplaceable transformation occurring 
within these native communities is to cultures and traditional 
ways of life as global warming transforms the world around them 
and makes practices and traditions irrelevant or even 
dangerous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \304\U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Alaska Village Erosion 
Technical Assistance Program. Available at http://housemajority.org/
coms/cli/AVETA_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Climate change may also increase existing health inequities 
for people of color. In major metropolitan areas, African 
Americans are more likely than whites to be exposed to higher 
air toxic concentrations and are nearly three times as likely 
to be hospitalized or killed by asthma.\305\ Latinos, 66 
percent of whom live in areas that violate federal air quality 
standards, face disproportionate health impacts as well.\306\ 
These health inequities may grow, for example, as levels of 
ground-level ozone increase with warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \305\Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative, 2008. 
Climate of Change: African Americans, Global Warming, and a Just 
Climate Policy for the U.S. Available at http://www.ejcc.org/
climateofchange.pdf.
    \306\Quintero-Somaini, A., et al. (2004), Hidden Danger: 
Environmental Health Threats in the Latino Community. Natural Resources 
Defense Council. Available at http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/
latino/english/latino_en.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economic Costs of Climate Change

    Climate change impacts of the types described above will 
have staggering economic impacts in the coming decades. 
Measuring these impacts in dollars is a challenge, requiring 
analysis of local and global impacts, long time horizons, 
quantification of risk and uncertainty, and capturing the 
possibility of climate tipping points that induce major, 
catastrophic change. While the variables are numerous and 
complex, estimates of potential economic impacts are massive.
    The Stern Review, one of the most in-depth and respected 
economic analysis of climate change, used formal economic 
models to estimate that unabated climate change will cost at 
least 5 percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) each 
year, now and forever.\307\ If a wider range of risks and 
impacts is considered, the damages could rise to 20 percent or 
more of GDP annually over the next two centuries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \307\Stern, N., 2006. Stern Review: The Economics of Climate 
Change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In the United States, the economic impacts of climate 
change will be felt throughout the country and within all 
sectors of the economy. The greatest economic impacts will 
likely result from stress to freshwater supplies, changes to 
the agricultural sector, damage to coastal infrastructure from 
storms and sea level rise, effects on energy supply and demand, 
adverse impacts to human health, and more frequent and 
extensive forest fires.\308\ Tourism and other weather-
dependent industries will continue to be hit especially hard as 
well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \308\Ruth, M., et al., 2007. The US Economic Impacts of Climate 
Change and the Costs of Inaction. University of Maryland Center for 
Integrative Environmental Research. Available at http://
dl.klima2008.net/ccsl/us_economic.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Modeling results from a Tufts University and Natural 
Resources Defense Council study show that if present trends 
continue, the total cost of only four global warming impacts in 
the United States--hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy 
costs, and water costs--will cost nearly $1.9 trillion annually 
by 2100 (in constant 2008 dollars), or 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP. 
Factoring in a wider range of harms such as health impacts and 
wildlife damages, these costs could reach 3.6 percent of GDP 
annually in the United States by 2100.\309\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \309\Ackerman, F., and E. Stanton, 2008. The Cost of Climate 
Change: What We'll Pay if Global Warming Continues Unchecked. Natural 
Resources Defense Council. Available at http://www.nrdc.org/
globalwarming/cost/cost.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 CLIMATE SCIENCE IN THE POLITICAL ARENA

    As the political debate over climate change solutions has 
gained prominence, climate science and the climate scientists 
themselves have become targets of politically motivated 
attacks. A number of such incidents occurred during the 111th 
Congress. The Select Committee played an important role in 
informing the public on these issues and bringing the best-
available climate science into discussions and debates of U.S. 
energy and climate policy.

Hacked Email Incident Explained

    In November of 2010, emails and electronic documents were 
stolen from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University 
of East Anglia. The emails were subsequently taken out of 
context and distorted to smear the reputations of certain 
climate scientists and challenge the well-established 
conclusions of climate science.
    However, all of the official reviews of the hacked email 
incident cleared climate scientists of any wrongdoing and 
showed there was no real substance to the allegations; the 
official reviews included the UK House of Commons Report,\310\ 
the Oxburgh panel report,\311\ the Sir Muir Russell 
Report,\312\ and the Penn State Report.\313\ The Sir Muir 
Russell panel's review of the scientists whose emails were 
stolen concluded that, ``their rigor and honesty as scientists 
are not in doubt.'' Their review also states that, ``we did not 
find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the 
conclusions of the IPCC assessments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \310\House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010. The 
disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the 
University of East Anglia. Available at http://climateprogress.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/03/HC387-IUEAFinalEmbargoedv21.pdf; and Secretary 
of State for Energy and Climate Change, 2010. Government Response to 
the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee 8th Report of 
Session 2009-10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic 
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Available at http://
www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf.
    \311\Oxburgh, R., H. Davies, K. Emanuel, L. Graumlich, D. Hand, H. 
Huppert, and M. Kelly, 2010. Report of the International Panel set up 
by the University of East Anglia to examine the research of the 
Climatic Research Unit. Available at http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/
media/press/CRUstatements/SAP.
    \312\Russell, M., G. Boulton, P. Clarke, D. Eyton, and J. Norton, 
2010. The Independent Climate Change Email Review, Available at http://
www.cce-review.org/.
    \313\The Pennsylvania State University, 2010. RA-1O Final 
Investigation Report Involving Dr. Michael E. Mann. Available at http:/
/live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation 
_Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Select Committee held a series of hearings that 
examined the hacked email incident. In December of 2010, the 
Select Committee heard testimony from President Obama's science 
advisor, Dr. John Holdren, and the NOAA Administrator, Dr. Jane 
Lubchenco, emphasizing that it is the results of thousands of 
researchers from hundreds of research facilities around the 
world that makes global warming unequivocal, not the work of a 
single research group.\314\ In fact, NASA and NOAA have 
conducted independent research that fully confirms the findings 
of the Climatic Research Unit that came under attack.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \314\Revkin, A., 2009. On Climate Data, Trends and Peer Review. New 
York Times, Available at http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/
more-on-the-climate-files-and-climate-trends/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a separate hearing held in May of 2010, the Select 
Committee heard directly from one of the members of the Oxburgh 
inquiry panel, which reviewed the hacked email incident; Dr. 
Lisa Graumlich, then of the University of Arizona, reported 
that she and her colleagues on the Oxburgh panel ``saw no 
evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the 
work of the Climatic Research Unit.'' The Select Committee also 
issued a report explaining how some of the emails--namely those 
related to Dr. Michael Mann and his analysis of temperature 
records--were inappropriately taken out of context and that the 
fundamental conclusions of his work were robust and 
independently verified by numerous research groups, including 
the National Research Council.\315\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \315\Select Committee staff analysis of the stolen electronic 
documents from the CRU. Avail- 
able at http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/DOCS/
SelectCommitteeAnalysisStolenElectronic
Documents.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harassment of Climate Scientists

    Following the hacked email incident described above, 
harassment and intimidation of some climate scientists sharply 
increased.
    In May of 2010, the Select Committee held a hearing to 
examine the harassment and intimidation of climate 
scientists.\316\ Dr. Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National 
Laboratory told the Committee, ``I firmly believe that I would 
now be leading a different life if my research suggested that 
there was no human effect on climate. I would not be the 
subject of Congressional inquiries, Freedom of Information Act 
requests, or email threats. I would not need to be concerned 
about the safety of my family. I would not need to be concerned 
about my own physical safety when I give public lectures.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \316\Select Committee, Hearing on Climate Science in the Political 
Arena, (May 20, 2010). Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0019#main_content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The late Dr. Stephen Schneider of Stanford University, an 
early and influential voice on climate change, described a 
shift in the climate debate since the 1970s, saying, ``It was 
always civil. It was always bipartisan. And it has now gotten 
to the point where things have become accusatory and highly 
ideological, and that is very unfortunate.'' All of the 
witnesses participating decried political attacks on climate 
scientists and advocated for a civil dialogue on the issue of 
climate change.

IPCC Criticism Explained

    During the 111th Congress, the IPCC and its Chairman 
Rajendra Pachauri were also the target of many politically 
motivated attacks. A number of alleged errors in the IPCC's 
2007 Fourth Assessment Report--namely the section on Impacts, 
Adaptation and Vulnerability--received a great deal of 
attention. The alleged errors were used to question the 
conclusions of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, even those 
derived from other sections of the report. In fact, only one of 
the alleged errors--an error in the year that Himalayan 
glaciers are expected to disappear--was legitimate; the IPCC 
admitted the error and corrected it.\317\ Close scrutiny by 
climate science experts revealed that the other allegations of 
errors were false.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \317\Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Statement on the 
melting of Himalayan glaciers. (2010) Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/
pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numerous newspapers have since retracted stories 
perpetuating the false allegations against the IPCC. The UK's 
Sunday Times issued an apology and retracted an erroneous story 
about the IPCC's discussion of climate change impacts in the 
Amazon, acknowledging that, ``In fact, the IPCC's Amazon 
statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific 
evidence.''\318\ The UK's Telegraph issued an apology to IPCC 
Chairman Rajendra Pachauri for putting forth allegations of 
financial irregularity that were proven false by an independent 
review. Following the exoneration, the Telegraph stated, ``We 
apologise to Dr. Pachauri for any embarrassment caused.''\319\ 
The Netherlands Government has also accepted responsibility for 
erroneous information that they provided to the IPCC and which 
was wrongly attributed to the IPCC in news reports. While the 
error had no bearing on the IPCC's conclusions, the Netherlands 
Government appropriately stated, ``We acknowledge that this 
error was not the fault of the IPCC.''\320\ Further, an 
official review of IPCC procedures and process coordinated by 
the InterAcademy Council determined that in fact ``the IPCC 
assessment process has been successful overall.''\321\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \318\Kintisch, E., 2010. As Climate Scientists Battle the Press, 
One Receives Rare Apology From Paper. Science. Available at http://
news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/
climate-scientists-battle-press.html.
    \319\The Telegraph, Dr Pachauri--Apology (August 20, 2010). 
Available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7957631/Dr-Pachauri-
Apology.html.
    \320\Netherland Environmental Assessment Agency, 2010. Assessing an 
IPCC assessment: An analysis of statements on projected regional 
impacts in the 2007 report. Available at http://www.pbl.nl/images/
500216002_tcm61_48119.pdf.
    \321\InterAcademy Council, 2010. Climate change assessments: Review 
of the processes and procedures of the IPCC. Available at http://
reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Select Committee held a series of hearings in which the 
allegations against the IPCC were examined and debunked. In a 
Select Committee hearing in May of 2010,\322\ for example, Dr. 
Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory told 
the Committee that, ``Responses to these unfounded allegations 
have been given in a variety of different fora by myself, by 
the IPCC, and by other scientists, yet the allegations remain 
much more newsworthy than the rebuttals.'' Dr. Mario Molina, a 
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, told the Committee that, ``There 
appears to be a gross misunderstanding of the nature of climate 
change science among those that have attempted to discredit it. 
They convey the idea that the science in question behaves like 
a house of cards. If you remove just one card, the whole 
structure falls part. However, this is certainly not the way 
the science of complex systems works. A much better analogy is 
a jigsaw puzzle. Many pieces are missing, some might even be in 
the wrong place, but there is little doubt that the overall 
image is clear, namely, that climate change is a serious threat 
that needs to be urgently addressed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \322\Select Committee, Hearing on Climate Science in the Political 
Arena. (May 20, 2010). Available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/
pubs?id=0019#main_content.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

      Part III: The Economic Challenge: Jobs and Clean Tech Growth

    The United States stands at a critical moment with regard 
to the relationship between our economy and our energy system. 
Our economic future is threatened by continued dependence on 
foreign oil and other fossil fuels. Our electric grid and 
transportation system are inefficient. We are losing the lead 
in development of alternative energy technologies to countries 
like Germany and China. We are vulnerable to volatility and 
speculation in our energy markets. In short, the United States 
cannot continue business as usual and expect to maintain our 
current level of economic competitiveness.
    Fortunately, the energy and climate challenges we are 
facing represent an unprecedented opportunity for an 
innovation-driven economic revival in which clean energy 
solutions--built by American workers--are marketed around the 
world. Investments in renewable energy create, on average, 
three to five times as many jobs as similar investments in 
fossil-fuel energy systems.\323\ Rather than energy dollars 
going to expensive fuels that are quickly burned up, energy 
dollars that go into renewable energy systems go to actual 
workers building machines that, once assembled, run on free 
fuel for their operating lifetimes.\324\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \323\Kammen, Kapadia and Fripp, Putting Renewables to Work: How 
Many Jobs Can the Clean Energy Industry Generate? (2004). Available at 
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/policy/
external_documents/040413_renewables_berkeley.pdf.
    \324\In the case of biomass, there are fuel costs but these fuels 
are renewable and prices are less volatile.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The world will need to invest $26 trillion over the next 2 
decades in order to meet our energy needs.\325\ Clean energy 
will likely make up an increasing share of this investment with 
each passing year, and the International Energy Agency 
estimates that, globally, $5.7 trillion will be invested in 
renewable electricity generation alone between 2010 and 
2035.\326\ The nations that move aggressively to support their 
young clean energy industry and workers will have a leg up in 
leading this key growth sector. With more than 90 percent of 
the increase in global energy demand coming from outside the 34 
wealthy industrial nations,\327\ the clean energy sector 
represents an opportunity to help countries develop 
alternatives to the fossil fuel development pathway followed by 
the United States and other developed countries. Further, with 
half of the current U.S. trade deficit coming from imported 
oil, clean energy represents a huge export market that has the 
potential to reverse our energy-driven trade imbalance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \325\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2009, 
Available at http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
    \326\International Energy Agency, World Energy Outlook 2010, 
Available at http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/.
    \327\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Clean energy is already an important player in the world's 
energy markets. For example, the 2009 market for wind turbine 
installations was worth $63 billion and more than 600,000 
people are now directly employed in the industry.\328,329\ In 
the U.S., there were 39 new announced or expanded wind 
manufacturing facilities in 2009, and more than 200 facilities 
in production.\330\ Over 60 percent of the value of wind 
turbines installed in America is now produced domestically, an 
increase from 25 percent in 2004.\331\ Total U.S. wind turbine 
manufacturing capacity is expected to reach 12,000 megawatts 
per year by 2012.\332\ Coal mining jobs have dropped 
precipitously--by more than 60 percent--over the past 30 years 
(246,300 in 1980 to 80,000 in 2010). Meanwhile, the wind 
industry has taken off. Since 2007, wind jobs have increased 70 
percent and have surpassed coal mining jobs to employ 85,000 
workers across all 50 states.\333\ The solar industry doubled 
the number of people working in the industry in the United 
States from 2009 to 2010, to 93,000 workers in all 50 
states.\334\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \328\Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind 2009 Report, March 
2010 available at http://www.gwec.net/fileadmin/documents/Publications/
Global_Wind_2007_report/GWEC_Global_
Wind_2009_Report_LOWRES_15th.%20Apr.pdf.
    \329\Global Wind Energy Council. Latest News: Wind power to provide 
a fifth of world's electricity by 2030, (Dec 10, 2010). Available at: 
http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_ 
cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=270&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=97741fa57b.
    \330\American Wind Energy Association, U.S. Wind Industry Annual 
Market Report--Year Ending 2009, available at http://e360.yale.edu/
images/digest/Annual_Market_Report _Wind.pdf.
    \331\American Wind Energy Association, Fact sheet: Wind Energy 
Manufacturing: Rapid Growth in the United States (2010).
    \332\Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Joined at the Hip: the US-China 
Clean Energy Relationship, (2010). Available at bnef.com/free-
publications/white-papers.
    \333\Coal mining jobs data includes employees engaged in 
production, preparation, processing, development, maintenance, repair, 
shop or yard work at mining operations. Excludes office workers and 
mines producing less than 10,000 short tons annually and preparation 
plants with less than 5,000 employee hours. Wind jobs total includes 
turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind 
turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing 
services. See Energy Information Administration, Coal Data: A 
Reference, page 79 Table 22. U.S. Coal Mining Average Employment, Hours 
Worked, and Earnings, Selected Years available at http://
tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/coal/006493.pdf; and American Wind Energy 
Association, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/
news_detail.html?news_id=15927.
    \334\The Solar Foundation, National Solar Job Census 2010, (October 
2010) available at http://www.environmentwashington.org/uploads/21/d0/
21d00a2f59894f096c52d4c6567f0e64/Final-TSF-National-Solar-Jobs-Census-
2010-Web-Version.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The energy efficiency sector is a huge untapped resource 
with the potential to increase economic productivity and save 
U.S. consumers money. McKinsey & Company research has found 
that the U.S. economy has the potential to reduce annual non-
transportation energy consumption by roughly 23 percent within 
a decade. Such action would eliminate more than $1.2 trillion 
in waste, far more than the $520 billion in required upfront 
investment. California regulators have similarly found that 
state efficiency programs produce savings at a rate of two 
dollars or more for every dollar invested.\335\ According to 
the Union of Concerned Scientists, a requirement on utilities 
to meet a certain share of their load through energy efficiency 
measures, in combination with an RES, would reap huge savings 
for U.S. consumers. The average U.S. household would save 
nearly $100 annually on their energy costs in 2030, and 
electricity and natural gas expenditures would be reduced by a 
total of $113 billion through 2030.\336\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \335\See, e.g., California Public Utilities Commission and 
California Energy Commission, Energy Efficiency--California's Highest 
Priority Resource (Aug. 2006), available at ftp://ftp.cpuc.ca.gov/Egy-
Efficiency/CalCleanEng-English-Aug2006.pdf.
    \336\Union of Concerned Scientists, A Better Climate Bill, (2010). 
Available at http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/
big_picture_solutions/a-better-climate-bill.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Pew Environment Group has found that clean energy jobs 
grew 2.5 times faster than jobs in the U.S. overall between 
1998 and 2007, and 770,000 people are now employed in clean 
energy jobs across the country.\337\ China is estimated to now 
have more than 1 million people employed directly through the 
clean energy sector.\338\ The German renewable energy sector 
increased to more than 300,000 in 2009, nearly half in the last 
five years.\339\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \337\Pew Environment Group, Who's Winning the Clean Energy Race? 
(2010). http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/
Global_warming/G-20%20Report.
pdf?n=5939)
    \338\Bradsher, Keith, New York Times, On Clean Energy, China Skirts 
Rules, (September 8, 2010). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/
09/09/business/global/09trade.html?page wanted=all).
    \339\Bloomberg New Energy Finance, Global Trends in Sustainable 
Energy Investment 2010 Report (2010) Available at http://bnef.com/free-
publications/white-papers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    While opponents of clean energy and climate protection have 
proliferated arguments intended to undermine the scientific 
consensus on climate change and stall policy action, many in 
the financial community that put real investment capital at 
risk have analyzed the climate change threat, drawn clear 
conclusions, and moved capital to the markets where policies 
reflect this threat. One large financial institution, Deutsche 
Bank, went so far as to partner with the expert scientists at 
the Earth Institute at Columbia University to determine the 
validity of climate skeptic claims. The central conclusion of 
this large institutional investor was clear: ``the primary 
claims of the skeptics do not undermine the assertion that 
human-made climate change is already happening and is a serious 
long-term threat.''\340\ It is therefore no surprise that 
Deutsche Bank, with nearly $7 billion in climate change-related 
investments under management, has placed only about $45 million 
into that sector in the United States, instead focusing 
investments in China and Western Europe.\341\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \340\Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors, Climate Change: 
Addressing the Major Skeptic Arguments (September 2010) Available at 
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/
DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf.
    \341\Reuters, Deutsche Bank spurns U.S. for climate investment, 
(Aug 11, 2010) Available at http://www.reuters.com/article/
idUSTRE67A3JK20100811.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The United States has fallen behind China in building a 
robust clean energy sector. In 2009, $35 billion was invested 
in the Chinese clean energy sector, nearly twice the amount 
invested in the United States. During the coming decade, China 
has pledged to support $738 billion in investment in their 
domestic clean energy sector.\342\ In less than a decade, China 
has gone from manufacturing less than 1 percent of the world's 
solar panels to nearly half. Upwards of 95 percent of these 
solar modules are exported. This $15 billion in solar exports 
is more valuable than America's corn, beef, and chicken exports 
combined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \342\Bloomberg, China May Spend $738 Billion on Clean Energy 
Projects, (July 20, 2010) Available at http://www.businessweek.com/
news/2010_07_20/china-may-spend_738_billion-on-clean-energy-
projects.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some of China's clean energy programs may be illegal 
violations of international trade agreements. On September 9, 
2010, the United Steelworkers union filed a comprehensive trade 
case with the United States Trade Representative (USTR) 
alleging an array of Chinese policies and practices that 
threaten the future of America's clean energy sector.\343\ The 
case, which USTR began officially investigating on October 15, 
2010,\344\ alleges that China has utilized hundreds of billions 
of dollars in subsidies, performance requirements, preferential 
practices and other illegal trade activities to advance its 
control of the sector. The Select Committee is very concerned 
about China's use of unfair trade practices to bolster the 
competitiveness of its industries and urges prompt action to 
address violations found through the U.S. Trade 
Representative's investigation.\345\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \343\United Steelworkers, USW Files Trade Case to Preserve Clean, 
Green Manufacturing Jobs in America (September 9, 2010) available at 
http://www.usw.org/media_center/releases_ advisories?id=0327.
    \344\United States Trade Representative, United States Launches 
Section 301 Investigation into China's Policies Affecting Trade and 
Investment in Green Technologies, available at http://
www.ustr.gov/node/6227.
    \345\Chairman Edward J. Markey, Select Committee Opening Statement: 
Hearing on ``The Global Clean Energy Race'' (September 22, 2010) 
available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/HRG/092210Global/
markeyOpening.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    One aspect of the Steelworkers' petition relates to China's 
restrictions on access to rare earth elements and other 
critical materials, an issue that intensified in late 2010 and 
demonstrated the unacceptably high strategic value these 
critical materials have reached.\346\ China currently produces 
95 percent of the world's rare earth elements and in September 
2010 began restricting export of these materials to Japan in 
retaliation for Japan's detention of a Chinese fishing boat 
captain that was operating in disputed territorial waters. 
China has also increased export duties and cut 2010 export 
quotas by 40 percent compared to 2009 levels.\347\ With demand 
for critical materials growing rapidly and China becoming an 
increasingly unreliable global supplier, taking steps to 
encourage the development of critical material production 
outside of China will be important in bolstering U.S. energy 
independence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \346\Rare earth elements are a collection of 17 elements that are 
indispensable to a wide range of military, electronic, and industrial 
applications, as well as a variety of clean energy technologies, such 
as wind turbines, hybrid vehicles, solar panels and energy efficient 
light bulbs.
    \347\Secretary Chu, Secretary Locke, U.S. Trade Representative 
Kirk, Responses to Questions from Representative Markey, (December 13, 
2010) available at http://globalwarming.house.gov/files/SHARE/12_13-
10_RareEarthMaterials.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As mature industries increasingly move overseas to access 
cheaper labor, technology and innovation-driven sectors will 
become the key to sustaining economic growth and creating good 
jobs. It has been estimated that over 90 percent of new 
economic growth results from public and private sector 
investments in innovation.\348\ By this measure, the 
established energy industry now dominated by massive companies 
and outdated business models is decidedly not a high-growth, 
job-creating, innovation-oriented sector. While investment in 
research and development (R&D) is roughly 3 percent of gross 
domestic product, it is roughly one-tenth that level in the 
energy sector. By contrast, R&D investments in the medical and 
biotechnology field are roughly 15 percent of sales, almost 40 
times more than in the energy field.\349\ Policies that 
increase competition and open markets to new technologies and 
business models will accelerate the transition to an 
innovation-oriented, job-creating energy sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \348\Dan Kammen, Testimony for Select Committee Hearing ``Investing 
in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America's Energy and Climate 
Challenges'' on September 10, 2008. Available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0147.pdf.
    \349\Dan Kammen, Testimony for Select Committee Hearing ``Investing 
in the Future: R&D Needs to Meet America's Energy and Climate 
Challenges'' on September 10, 2008. Available at http://
globalwarming.house.gov/tools/2q08materials/files/0147.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Meanwhile, the Big Five oil and gas companies are raking in 
record-breaking profits--$321 billion between 2007 and 
2009.\350\ Instead of favoring greater exploration or 
alternative energy investments as the price of oil has raced 
upwards, the oil majors have preferred to increase stock 
buybacks, which grew from $10 billion in 2003 to $60 billion in 
2006. Exploration spending from the five largest oil companies 
was flat or decreased during this period. In 2009, the major 
oil companies invested more than $56 billion in dividends and 
stock repurchases and less than $4 billion on all types of 
research and development.\351\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \350\Excludes ConocoPhilip's one-time write down of more than $34 
billion in domestic oil exploration and production and investments in 
the Russian oil company Lukoil, which led to 
its reported $16 billion loss in 2008. See Weiss, Daniel and Alexandra 
Kougentakis, Center for American Progress. ``Big Oil Misers'' (March 
31, 2009), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/
big_oil_misers.html; and 10-K, Proxy Statements, and 20-F forms for BP, 
PLC, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, Chevron, and R.D. Shell.
    \351\Weiss, Daniel and Alexandra Kougentakis, Center for American 
Progress, ``Big Oil Misers'' (March 31, 2009), available at http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/03/big_ oil_misers.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Putting Americans back to work on retrofitting buildings to 
improve energy efficiency, expanding mass transit and freight 
rail, constructing a ``smart'' electrical grid, building and 
installing wind and solar energy systems, as well as developing 
next-generation biofuels would ensure the clean energy 
technology revolution brings working Americans along with it.

                      SELECT COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES


        I. Investigation into the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill

    The Select Committee, together with the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, conducted an 
extensive, groundbreaking investigation into the BP Deepwater 
Horizon Oil spill. As a result of this investigation the 
Congress and the public gained a much better understanding of 
the true amount of oil spilled and its actual effects on the 
Gulf of Mexico. The investigation also forced BP to make 
publicly available its live video feed of the spill occurring 
5,000 feet below the ocean surface and revealed many instances 
of BP's and other oil companies' lack of preparation and 
inadequate response plans.

                          SUMMARY OF INCIDENT

    On April 20, 2010, at about 10 p.m., an explosion occurred 
on the Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig in the Gulf of 
Mexico. There were 126 people on board at the time. Fifteen 
people were injured and eleven workers were killed. The 
Deepwater Horizon, owned by Transocean Ltd., was under a 
contract with BP to drill an exploratory well. BP was the 
lessee of the area in which the rig was operating. At the time 
of the explosion, BP and Transocean were in the process of 
temporarily closing the well, in anticipation of returning to 
the well in the future for commercial production. Halliburton 
had completed some cementing of casings in the well less than 
24 hours prior to the accident. On April 22, 2010, the 
Deepwater Horizon rig sank and two days later, Remotely 
Operated Vehicles (ROVs) found oil leaking from the broken 
riser pipe.
    Ultimately, oil would continue leaking from the Macondo 
well for 87 days before the well was finally capped on July 15, 
2010. The government's Flow Rate Technical Group (FTRG) 
concluded that during that period, oil had been leaking into 
the Gulf of Mexico at a rate beginning at 62,000 barrels per 
day and ending at 53,000 barrels per day prior to the well 
being capped.\352\ According to the FRTG, a total of 4.1 
million barrels of oil were spilled into the Gulf of Mexico, 
with an addition 800,000 barrels having been captured aboard 
containment ships responding to the crisis.\353\ The BP 
Deepwater Horizon oil spill ultimately became the largest oil 
spill in the history of the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \352\National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (2010) 
Available at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/US-Scientific-Teams-
Refine-Estimates-of-Oil-Flow-from-BP-Well -Prior-to-Capping.cf.
    \353\National Incident Command's Flow Rate Technical Group (2010) 
Available at http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/US-Scientific-Teams-
Refine-Estimates-of-Oil-Flow-from-BP-Well -Prior-to-Capping.cfm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               SUMMARY OF CHAIRMAN MARKEY'S INVESTIGATION

    Chairman Markey helped lead the investigation in Congress 
into the causes of and response to the BP Deepwater Horizon 
disaster. Chairman Markey's investigation focused on a number 
of key areas.

Forced BP to Make Live Video of the Oil Spill Available to the Public

    It took 23 days for BP to produce underwater images from 
ROVs at the leak site. After the first shocking images 
appeared, Chairman Markey pressured BP to release a live video 
feed of the leak from the ocean floor. This live video feed 
from the ``Spillcam'' appeared on the Select Committee website 
on May 19, 2010. Within a few days, more than a million people 
had visited the Select Committee website to see the images of 
the spill.

Uncovered the Truth About the Size of the Oil Spill

    BP initially claimed that oil was spilling into the Gulf of 
Mexico at the rate of 1,000 barrels a day. However, Chairman 
Markey uncovered documents from BP that showed as early as 
April 27, 2010, the company knew that the spill could be as 
large as 14,0266 barrels per day and its ``best guess'' was 
that 5,758 barrels were leaking. Despite this knowledge, BP's 
top official in the Gulf continued to maintain that the spill 
was 1,000 barrels per day and resist efforts to increase the 
estimate to 5,000 barrels per day.
    Chairman Markey also convened the first briefing on Capitol 
Hill with officials from BP, Halliburton and Transocean on May 
4, 2010. During the closed door briefing, BP officials admitted 
that a worst case scenario from the Macondo well would be a 
spill of 60,000 barrels per day. Chairman Markey was later able 
to provide video images of the spill to scientific experts, who 
warned Congress that based on those images, the spill might be 
much larger than what BP was asserting. The size of the spill 
was critical information not only to inform response efforts 
but also to ultimately decide BP's financial liability.

Creation of an Independent Panel to Investigate the Spill

    Chairman Markey was the first Member of Congress to call on 
President Obama to create an independent, blue-ribbon 
commission to investigate the causes of the BP oil spill and to 
make safety recommendations on deepwater drilling moving 
forward. The President responded by establishing the National 
Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 
Drilling through executive order on May 21, 2010.\354\ This 
bipartisan commission was headed by former Sen. Bob Graham and 
former EPA Administrator William Reilly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \354\Executive Order 13543. Available at http://m.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/executive-order-national-commission-bp-deepwater-
horizon-oil-spill-and-offshore-dri.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Markey further pushed for legislation to grant 
this bipartisan panel subpoena power, which was not possible 
through executive order. On June 23, 2010, the House passed 
legislation to give the commission subpoena power in an 
overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 420-1. However, consideration 
of that legislation, H.R. 5481, was ultimately blocked in the 
Senate.

Uncovered Flawed Oil Spill Response Plans from all Major Oil Companies

    In examining the Gulf of Mexico oil spill response plans 
for the five major oil companies, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, 
Shell and ConocoPhillips, Chairman Markey found that none of 
these companies were any better prepared to respond to a 
deepwater blowout than was BP. In fact, these five companies 
had response plans that were virtually identical.
    The oil spill response plans cited identical response 
capabilities and touted identical ineffective equipment. In 
some cases, they used the exact same words. Like BP, three 
other companies include references to protecting walruses, 
which have not been found in the Gulf of Mexico home for 3 
million years. BP and two other companies all listed a 
scientific expert as a resource who had died years earlier. All 
in all, the response plans for these companies were 90 percent 
identical.

The First Congressional Delegation to the Region

    On May 7, 2010, Chairman Markey led the first Congressional 
Delegation to the Gulf Coast following the BP Deepwater Horizon 
Incident. Members flew over the spill site to view the impacts, 
met with the officials leading the response efforts at the 
Unified Command Center in Robert, LA, and visited a staging 
area on the coast.

Oversight of Efforts by EPA and the Coast Guard to Curb BP's Use of 
        Dangerous Chemical Dispersants

    Despite the assertions made by BP that dispersants could be 
safely used on the surface and at the sea floor, Congressman 
Markey conducted considerable oversight of the manner in which 
the 1.8 million gallons of dispersants were applied to Gulf of 
Mexico waters. Congress warned of potential harm that long-term 
use of these chemicals could have on the marine environment, 
the food chain and families living in the Gulf of Mexico, 
particularly since BP decided to use the least effective and 
most toxic formulation of dispersants to combat the effects of 
the spill.
    As a result of concerns expressed by Chairman Markey 
regarding their use and EPA's analysis of these risks, on May 
26, 2010 EPA and the Coast Guard directed BP to completely 
eliminate surface application of dispersants except in ``rare 
cases'' when an exemption might be needed.\355\ EPA and the 
Coast Guard further directed BP to reduce the overall volume of 
dispersant by 75 percent from the maximum daily amount used 
(70,000 gallons per day) and to limit subsurface application to 
no more than 15,000 gallons per day. If BP wished to deviate 
from these instructions, it was required to make a written 
request and obtain approval from the Federal On-Scene 
Coordinator, which was the Coast Guard in this case. On July 
30, 2010, Chairman Markey released analysis of the actual 
volumes applied following this directive, which indicated that 
the Coast Guard approved requests to use dispersants on an 
almost-daily basis, despite the directive that these approvals 
be issued in only ``rare'' cases.\356\ Chairman Markey also 
conducted extensive oversight to ensure that seafood was being 
examined to ensure that it was not contaminated with 
dispersants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \355\Letter from Lisa Jackson to David Rainey, BP vice president of 
Gulf of Mexico Exploration, attaching Addendum 3 to the ``Dispersant 
Monitoring and Assessment Directive.'' (May 26, 2010).
    \356\Letter from Chairman Edward J. Markey to Admiral Thad Allen 
(July 30, 2010. Available at http://markey.house.gov/docs/07-30-
10ejmtocgdispersants.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring the Effects of Dispersants and Oil on Seafood

    Chairman Markey also conducted extensive oversight to 
ensure that seafood harvested from the Gulf of Mexico was being 
appropriately monitored for the presence of dispersants, oil 
and other byproducts of the oil spill, such as toxic heavy 
metals. A series of letters to the FDA prodded FDA to do more 
to monitor the long-term consequences of the spill on food 
safety to ensure that the public has confidence in the safety 
of seafood from the Gulf. As a result of these concerns, the 
FDA developed a chemical test to detect the presence of 
dispersant in fish, oysters, crab and shrimp, which was 
announced on October 29, and subsequently used as a part of the 
protocol to reopen waters in the Gulf to fishing.

Creation of a $500 Million Research Fund

    Chairman Markey called on the companies responsible for the 
disaster to pay for outside research by independent scientists 
to analyze the environmental impacts of the spill. Following 
Chairman Markey's request, BP pledged on May 24, 2010 to donate 
$500 million to establish this fund which will also assess the 
ecological impacts on the Gulf. However, only $40 million of 
the $500 million pledged has been disbursed by BP to date, 
hindering the efforts of scientists to understand the full 
consequences of the spill.\357,358\ Future disbursements will 
be determined by a board assembled by BP and the Gulf of Mexico 
Alliance; it still remains unclear to what extent grants will 
be awarded on the basis of scientific merit versus geographic 
proximity to the spill.\359\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \357\BP, p.l.c., (2010) Available at: http://www.piersystem.com/go/
doc/1927/910403.
    \358\Schenkman, Lauren (2010) BP Releases Long-Awaited Plan for 
$500 Million for Gulf Research. Available at http://
news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/bp-releases-long-awaited-
plan-fo.html.
    \359\Schenkman, Lauren (2010) BP Releases Long-Awaited Plan for 
$500 Million for Gulf Research. Available at http://
news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/09/bp-releases-long-awaited-
plan-fo.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          II. Accomplishments


                              INTRODUCTION

    The 111th Congress--and particularly the House of 
Representatives--was intensely active in addressing energy 
security and climate change. As detailed below, the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, passed by Congress, established 
the largest public investment in clean energy technology in 
history. The House passed historic comprehensive energy and 
climate legislation, a major bill responding to the BP oil 
spill, and an array of bills addressing other energy security 
and climate-related issues. The Select Committee played a 
substantial role in each of these legislative efforts.
    Collectively, they represent a broad vision of energy and 
climate solutions that have been a major focus of the Select 
Committee's work. During the same period, the United States 
under the Obama Administration returned to a leadership role in 
the international climate negotiations, resulting in some 
significant initial steps forward, as discussed below.

                 AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT

    The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was 
enacted on February 17, 2009. This legislation was a direct 
response to the economic crisis, intended to preserve and 
create jobs, promote economic recovery, and assist those most 
impacted by the recession, in large part through the provision 
of needed investments in infrastructure and technology that 
will also generate long-term economic benefits. The bill 
included $288 billion in tax cuts and benefits for families and 
businesses; $224 billion in increased federal funding for 
education, healthcare, and extended unemployment benefits; and 
$275 billion in federal contracts, grants and loans.
    Roughly $90 billion, or 11 percent, of ARRA investments 
targeted clean energy and energy efficiency initiatives, such 
as tax credits, grants, loan guarantees, and other programs for 
energy efficiency, electricity generation from renewable 
sources, electric grid modernization, advanced vehicles and 
fuels technology, traditional mass transit and high-speed rail, 
carbon capture and sequestration, green innovation and job 
training, and clean energy equipment manufacturing. 
Collectively, this represents the largest public investment in 
clean energy technology in history.
    As of July 2010, two-thirds of appropriated ARRA funds had 
been obligated and more than one-quarter had been spent. The 
Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) estimates this public 
investment has already saved or created more than 800,000 jobs, 
with 190,000 of those occurring in the clean energy category. 
CEA also reports that ARRA clean energy funds have been 
successful in leveraging private investment. For example, the 
Energy Cash Assistance Program has disbursed $4.7 billion, 
supporting over $13 billion in total investment activity, and 
the Smart Grid Program has leveraged $6 billion in outside 
investment with their initial investment of $4.5 billion.\360\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \360\Council of Economic Advisers. The Economic Impact of the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Fourth Quarterly 
Report. (Jul 14, 2010) Available at http://www.white house.gov/
administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports/economic-impact-arra-4th-
quarterly-report/summary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Both demand for ARRA programs and the impact they are 
making are significant. For example, the $14 billion in 
competitive grants that the Department of Energy is now 
distributing are over-subscribed with projects, with only one 
in five applications receiving an award.\361\ ARRA clean energy 
programs are putting the United States on track to double non-
hydro renewable electricity generating capacity and double 
advanced energy equipment manufacturing by 2012.\362\ In 2009, 
a year in which many were forecasting declines in renewable 
deployments, the wind industry grew its total installed 
capacity nearly 40 percent from the previous year.\363\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \361\Rogers, Matthew. Testimony for U.S. Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee Hearing: To examine the Department of Energy's 
implementation of programs authorized and funded under the American 
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. (March 4, 2010).
    \362\Id.
    \363\Mouawad, Jad. Wind Power Grows 39% for the Year. New York 
Times. (January 26, 2010). Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/
26/business/energy-environment/26wind.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 AMERICAN CLEAN ENERGY AND SECURITY ACT

    On June 26, 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives passed 
the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), also 
known as the ``Waxman-Markey'' bill. This is the first and only 
comprehensive legislation to combat climate change to be passed 
by a full chamber of Congress in the United States. If enacted, 
the Waxman-Markey bill would create millions of new clean 
energy jobs, enhance America's energy independence, and protect 
the environment--all without increasing the federal 
deficit.\364\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \364\The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 2454 would 
raise federal revenues by $873 billion over ten years and increase 
direct spending by $864 billion, resulting in a net $9 billion 
reduction in the federal budget deficit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The bill would unleash private sector investment in clean 
energy to create millions of new jobs that can't be shipped 
overseas. One recent study concluded that H.R. 2454 and the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would together create 
1.7 million new clean energy jobs.\365\ The energy efficiency 
provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill alone would generate 
770,000 jobs by 2030.\366\ The bill would also protect 
America's current jobs by helping energy-intensive industries 
like the steel, iron, and paper industries transition to a 
cleaner, more profitable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \365\Center for American Progress, The Economic Benefits of 
Investing in Clean Energy (June 2009) Available at http://
www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/peri_report.pdf.
    \366\American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings 
Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) available at http://www.aceee.org/
energy/national/Jobs_Analysis_0309.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To enhance America's energy independence, the Waxman-Markey 
bill promotes all forms of American clean energy. The bill 
would make a landmark investment in the future of the country 
by providing $190 billion through 2025 to increase our 
efficiency and deploy cutting-edge technologies, such as carbon 
capture and sequestration, renewable energy, and electric and 
other advanced technology vehicles. As a result, enactment of 
the bill would cut America's use of foreign oil by more than 5 
million barrels per day in 2030--as much as we currently import 
from the Middle East and Venezuela--when combined with vehicle 
efficiency and biofuels standards enacted in 2007 and updated 
by President Obama.
    To protect the environment, the Waxman-Markey bill would 
limit global warming emissions from electric utilities, oil 
refineries, and other major sources, and reward companies as 
they use cleaner technology. The bill would reduce total global 
warming emissions 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. 
According to the World Resources Institute, the bill would 
slash global warming pollution by 2,265 million metric tons in 
the year 2020 alone.\367\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \367\World Resources Institute, Emissions Reductions Under the 
American Clean Energy and Security Act (May 19, 2009) Available at 
http://www.wri.org/publication/usclimatetargets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Waxman-Markey bill enjoyed support from a broad range 
of stakeholders, including representatives of industry, labor, 
environment, and faith groups, and the bill was careful to 
protect consumers from higher energy prices. In fact, the 
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy concluded that 
the energy efficiency provisions in the bill would save 
consumers $1050 per household by 2020.\368\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \368\American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings 
Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) available at http://www.aceee.org/
energy/national/Jobs_Analysis_0309.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unleashing a U.S.-led clean energy revolution and cutting 
U.S. global warming pollution remains critical unfinished 
business and should be among the top priorities of the new 
Congress and the Administration. The Waxman-Markey bill remains 
the most comprehensive and detailed roadmap established to 
date, and should be a touchstone for future efforts in this 
sphere.

                       GULF OIL SPILL LEGISLATION

    In response to the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, 
discussed at length above, the House enacted broad legislation 
to hold BP and other parties fully accountable for the spill, 
to help restore the Gulf, and to reform offshore oil and gas 
drilling to ensure that a spill of this kind never happens 
again.
    On July 30, 2010, the House passed the Consolidated Land 
Energy and Aquatic Resources (CLEAR) Act (H.R. 3534). This 
legislation includes the following elements:
           Strong new safety measures, including 
        independent certification of critical offshore drilling 
        equipment.
           Removal of the $75 million cap on economic 
        damages to be paid by companies like BP and other 
        responsible parties to families and businesses harmed 
        by an oil spill.
           Elimination of the scandal-ridden Minerals 
        Management Service; establishment of a new structure 
        within the Department of Interior for offshore oil and 
        gas leasing, revenue collection, and safety and 
        environmental regulation; and establishment of tougher 
        ethics standards for Federal officials overseeing 
        offshore drilling.
           Strengthening of the President's Commission 
        on the Deepwater Horizon spill by giving the Commission 
        subpoena power to ensure cooperation in its 
        investigation. This portion of the legislation was 
        introduced by Rep. Lois Capps and Chairman Markey as 
        H.R. 5481.
           Closing of the royalty loopholes that allow 
        oil companies to drill for free on public lands during 
        times of high oil prices, saving American taxpayers up 
        to 53 billion. This provision was introduced by 
        Chairman Markey and has passed the House multiple 
        times.
           Establishment of a Gulf of Mexico 
        Restoration Program to coordinate efforts to return the 
        Gulf to health following the spill, and measures to 
        ensure that a portion of the fees from offshore 
        drilling are used to protect and improve our oceans.
           Provisions to ensure full funding, using 
        offshore oil and gas drilling fees, for the Land and 
        Water Conservation Fund and the Historic Preservation 
        Fund, which help protect high quality natural, 
        recreational, and historical areas.
    The CLEAR Act built on other legislation separately passed 
by the House, including:
           Legislation, co-sponsored by House Education 
        and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller and Chairman 
        Markey, to protect whistleblowers working on offshore 
        oil and gas drilling operations (H.R. 5851--the 
        Offshore Oil and Gas Whistleblower Protection Act).
           Legislation to ensure fair compensation to 
        the families of those killed or injured in the BP spill 
        (H.R. 5503--the Securing Protections for the Injured 
        from Limitations on Liability (SPILL) Act).
           Legislation supporting research and 
        development of new technologies and practices for the 
        prevention and cleanup of oil spills (H.R. 5716, the 
        Safer Oil and Natural Gas Drilling Technology Research 
        and Development Act; H.R. 2693, the Oil Pollution 
        Research and Development Program Reauthorization Act).
    Although the Obama Administration has taken a number of 
critical steps to address these issues, many of the elements of 
this House-passed legislation should remain key priorities for 
the next Congress.

                           CASH FOR CLUNKERS

    On June 24, 2009, President Obama signed into law 
legislation originally passed in the House as the ``Consumer 
Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009,'' authorizing the 
creation of the successful ``Cash for Clunkers'' program. The 
framework for this legislation had previously been negotiated, 
as part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by 
Democratic Members of Congress led by Chairman Markey, Energy 
and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, and Reps. Betty 
Sutton, Jay Inslee, John Dingell, and Bart Stupak.
    Under this legislation, Congress ultimately provided $3 
billion in funds to encourage consumers to trade in their old 
gas-guzzler for a new, more fuel efficient vehicle, thereby 
reducing our dangerous dependence on imported oil, saving 
consumers money at the gas pump and providing meaningful 
assistance to get the struggling American auto industry back on 
its feet. The program provided consumers purchasing qualifying 
new vehicles with $3,500-$4,500 vouchers, in connection with 
the purchase of almost 700,000 new vehicles.
    These new vehicles:
           Averaged about 9.2 miles per gallon (about 
        60 percent) more efficient than the gas guzzlers that 
        were traded in, far exceeding the minimum fuel 
        efficiency requirements imposed by the legislation.
           Are estimated to reduce the need for 33 
        million gallons of gasoline annually.
           Are estimated to reduce GHG emissions by 9 
        million metric tons over the next twenty-five years.
    The program was also estimated to have created or saved 
more than 60,000 jobs and added $3.8-$6.8 billion to the GDP.

  HOMESTAR--CREATING JOBS THROUGH BUILDING ENERGY EFFICIENCY RETROFITS

    On May 4, 2010, the House passed the HomeStar Energy 
Retrofit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019) to address the issues of job 
creation in the construction sector and building energy 
efficiency. Similar to the ``Cash for Clunkers'' program, this 
legislation would authorize the establishment of a national 
rebate program to encourage homeowners to improve home energy 
efficiency through measures such as installation of new 
insulation, more efficient windows and doors, and so on.
    Under the program, homeowners can participate in either a 
``Silver Star'' program that provides rebates for a pre-
approved list of specific energy-saving measures, or the ``Gold 
Star'' program that provides rebates for whole-home retrofits 
that achieve at least a 20 percent increase in the overall 
energy efficiency of the home.
    If funded at the authorized level of $6 billion, the 
HomeStar program would create or save 168,000 jobs--helping to 
address high unemployment rate in the construction industry, 
which is near 25 percent.\369\ Ninety percent of the retrofit 
products that would be purchased under the program are made in 
the United States, such that it would also provide a much-
needed stimulus for domestic manufacturing.\370\ The program 
would also save homeowners $9.2 billion on energy bills, and 
would save an amount of electricity equivalent to the output of 
four 300 megawatt power plants and an amount of natural gas and 
home heating oil equivalent to 6.8 million barrels of home 
heating oil.\371\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \369\American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings 
Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) available at http://www.aceee.org/
energy/national/Jobs_Analysis_0309.pdf.
    \370\New York Times, Made in the U.S.A: Efficiency Materials, 
(March 12, 2010) Available at http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/
12/made-in-the-u-s-a-efficiency-materials/.
    \371\American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Savings 
Estimates for Jobs Bill, (2010) available at http://www.aceee.org/
energy/national/Jobs_Analysis_0309.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           THE GRID ACT--SECURING AMERICA'S ELECTRICITY GRID

    Another critical issue addressed by the House of 
Representatives during the 111th Congress is the security of 
America's electric grid--a key element of America's energy 
security. Right now, America's electric grid is vulnerable to 
cyber or other attacks by terrorists or hostile countries. Our 
adversaries are actively probing these weaknesses and already 
have the capacity to exploit them. The consequences of such an 
attack could be devastating. The commercially operated grid 
provides 99 percent of the power used by our defense 
facilities. Every one of our Nation's critical civilian 
systems--water, communications, healthcare, transportation, law 
enforcement, and financial services--depends on the grid. 
Classified Member briefings convened by Chairman Markey during 
the 111th Congress underscored the urgency of this threat.
    On June 9, 2010, the House passed--by unanimous voice 
vote--H.R. 5026, the Grid Reliability and Infrastructure 
Defense (GRID) Act, sponsored by Chairman Markey and Rep. Fred 
Upton. This bipartisan legislation would establish critical new 
Federal authority to protect the Nation's electric grid against 
a range of threats and vulnerabilities--including cyber 
attacks, electromagnetic weapons, solar storms, and the supply 
of critical large transformers produced exclusively overseas. 
Without the establishment of this new authority, the Federal 
government has limited authority to protect the grid. This 
remains a front-burner issue for the next Congress.

International Negotiations

    The past two years have seen substantial new developments 
with regard to international climate negotiations. With more 
than 120 heads of government in attendance, the United Nations 
Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 was the 
largest meeting of world leaders in history. Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi led a high-profile, bipartisan delegation of 21 Members 
of the House of Representatives, including Majority Leader 
Steny Hoyer, Chairman Markey and four other Chairmen of House 
Committees, to attend the summit.
    President Obama and other world leaders gathered at the 
Copenhagen summit reached a significant new agreement known as 
the Copenhagen Accord. This Accord, which has now been signed 
by 140 countries, including those accounting for the vast 
majority of global greenhouse gas emissions, provides for 
explicit emission pledges by all the major economies. It also 
outlined an aspirational goal of limiting global temperature 
increase to 2 degrees Celsius and broad terms for the reporting 
and verification of countries' actions.\372\ For the first 
time, the United States, China and other major emitters 
committed to strong reductions in greenhouse gas emissions on a 
national level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \372\United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Report 
of the Conference of 
the Parties on its fifteenth session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 
December 2009. Available 
at http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/
3594.php?rec=j&priref= 600005735#beg.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Copenhagen Accord also included an unprecedented 
commitment of funds for global adaptation and mitigation. The 
United States and other developed countries made a collective 
commitment of $30 billion in 2010-2012 to help developing 
countries reduce emissions, preserve forests, and adapt to 
climate change, and a goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year in 
public and private finance by 2020 to address developing 
country needs. The United States, the world's second largest 
greenhouse gas emitter, committed to 17 percent below 2005 
levels by 2020, 42 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, and 83 
percent below 2005 levels by 2050. These targets are aligned 
with the ACES legislation passed by the House of 
Representatives.\373\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \373\United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 
Submission of the United States of America, Organization of Work of the 
AWG/LCA in 2010 (February 26 2010) Available at http://unfccc.int/
files/meetings/ad_hoc_working_groups/application/pdf/usawp2010_lca.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the 16th Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework 
Convention on Climate Change in Cancun, Mexico in December 
2010, the international community took another important step 
forward through the establishment of the Cancun Agreements. 
These agreements make substantial progress in implementing all 
of the major pillars of the Copenhagen Accord, including 
Mitigation, Monitoring, Reporting and Verification and 
International Consultation and Analysis (MRV/ICA), Adaptation, 
Finance, Technology, and Reduced Emissions from Deforestation 
and Degradation (REDD).\374\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \374\See Draft Decision -/CP.16, Outcome of the work of work of the 
Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action (December 2010) 
Available at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/
cop16_lca.pdf); and Draft Decision -/CMP.6, Outcome of the work of the 
Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under 
the Kyoto Protocol at its fifteenth session (December 2010) Available 
at http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/ application/pdf/
cop16_kp.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Notably, the agreements ``anchor'' the emission reduction 
pledges made by major developed and developing countries under 
the Copenhagen Accord in a new decision of the Conference of 
the Parties and confirm the climate financing pledges made by 
developed countries. Further, major developing countries agreed 
to take a substantial step forward in establishing an 
international regime to ensure transparency in measuring, 
reporting and verifying their compliance with emission 
reduction pledges, including through periodic international 
consultation and analysis.

                               CONCLUSION

    In April of 2007, the Select Committee on Energy 
Independence and Global Warming held its first hearing. At that 
inaugural gathering, the Select Committee discussed the twin 
challenges of climate change and our dependence on foreign oil.
    Since that day, Congress passed historic improvements in 
vehicle fuel economy standards and made major investments in 
clean energy technologies, including renewable energy, electric 
vehicle, and advanced battery technologies as well as building 
and appliance efficiency measures that will save families and 
small business billions of dollars. The House passed a 
comprehensive energy and climate bill. America held two 
historic national elections. The world--including China and 
India--committed to reduce carbon pollution in the Copenhagen 
Accord and the Cancun Agreements. U.S. troops continue to fight 
bravely in Iraq and Afghanistan, regions where our energy and 
national security interests remain entangled. The Gulf of 
Mexico was sullied by BP's oil spill, which became the worst 
environmental disaster in U.S. history. The Select Committee 
has been a central forum for discussion and debate of all these 
issues.
    Over the life of the Select Committee, the politics of 
energy and climate change have shifted back and forth as have 
the issues that dominate media and public attention. What has 
not changed is the array of challenges we face as a nation and 
as a planet.
    The national security challenges from our dependence on oil 
are not going away. The Select Committee heard from Vice 
Admiral Dennis McGinn, who was a witness at the very first 
Select Committee hearing first hearing and at the very last 
Select Committee hearing. He made clear the price of our 
dependence on foreign oil, borne out not in this rhetorical 
battlefield, but in the theater of actual war, where bullets 
and bombs are spent to defend or acquire barrels of oil.
    The national security threats from climate change are not 
going away. During the first Select Committee hearing, we 
discussed the drought-influenced Somali conflict that led to 
the events recounted in the film ``Blackhawk Down.'' A warming 
world exacerbated a military hot spot. In September of 2010, 
the Select Committee hosted the Pakistani Ambassador to discuss 
his country's devastating floods. He discussed how his country 
diverted resources like helicopters away from fighting Al Qaeda 
to assist in the flood response. An increasingly destabilized 
climate will invariably lead to more of these destabilizing 
geopolitical events.
    The economic security threats stemming from America's lack 
of an energy plan are not going away. China is pushing ahead 
with clean energy investments, along with other emerging 
technologies like carbon capture. Twice as much money was 
invested in clean energy in China as was invested in the United 
States last year. As we heard from the private investment 
community, this move by China will attract trillions in private 
capital--money that could be invested in jobs here at home.
    And China is not alone. Germany, Japan, South Korea, and 
other countries recognize that dominating the trillion dollar 
market of tomorrow requires foresight and public investment, 
supported for forward-looking public policy, today. For the 
United States, second place in the clean energy race is an 
unacceptable goal. Just as we cannot afford to continue our 
dangerous dependence on foreign oil, we cannot afford to 
concede this economic opportunity.
    The carbon pollution that we have already spewed into the 
atmosphere, warming our Earth, is not going away anytime soon. 
The pollution we emit today will still be in the atmosphere 
centuries from now. Every day that we wait to act to stem the 
tide of carbon emissions will be felt for decades and centuries 
to come. While some Members of Congress dispute the science of 
global warming, the rest of the world does not. As the world's 
climate community gathered for the U.N. climate change 
conference in Mexico this year, virtually all the countries of 
the world accepted that cutting carbon pollution is this 
generation's responsibility. The threat that climate change 
poses is too dangerous and too urgent, for us to retreat into 
cynicism, skepticism, or inaction.
    Speaker Nancy Pelosi created the Select Committee with her 
grandchildren in mind, hoping to ensure that the world we leave 
behind is safe and prosperous and that its natural treasures 
remain undiminished for generations to come. The Select 
Committee held 80 hearings and briefings, focusing on 
developing solutions to end our dangerous addiction to foreign 
oil, combat climate change, create millions of new clean energy 
jobs here in the United States, and save American consumers 
billions in energy costs. The Committee heard testimony from a 
diverse group of literally hundreds of the world's leading 
energy and national security experts--from military generals, 
energy CEOs, Nobel Prize-winning scientists, local, State, 
Federal and international officials, private sector investors, 
clean energy and environmental advocates, and entrepreneurs and 
innovators who are creating the next generation of clean energy 
technology. Collectively, these business, science, military, 
government, and civil society leaders made a compelling case 
for the urgent need for the United States to embrace a clean 
energy future.
    In considering the future, it is instructive to keep in 
mind a few key numbers:

1. $1.3 Trillion

    That is the amount of money consumers have shipped overseas 
for foreign oil since the Select Committee was created in 2007. 
Imported oil represents nearly half of our trade deficit. This 
massive transfer of wealth is an albatross on our economy and 
boon for terrorist activities around the globe.
    As long as foreign oil continues to jeopardize our national 
and economic security--Congress's work is not done.

2. $738 Billion

    That is the amount of money China plans to invest in clean 
energy over the next decade. This will generate jobs that 
should be created here in the United States. The United States 
has the technological advantage and the entrepreneurial spirit. 
But unless the United States marshalls the political will to 
adopt policies that will spur a clean energy revolution, we 
will continue to lose our innovation and manufacturing edge.

3. $4 Dollars.

    In the summer of 2008 that was the price of gasoline that 
focused this nation like a laser on finding alternatives to 
oil. As the global economy recovers, China and India continue 
to grow, and supplies remain tight, it is inevitable that these 
prices will return. The United States must act to continue the 
transition away from oil dependence.

4. And finally, the number 1

    We have one planet. We all share it. We are all responsible 
for it.
    2010 is on track to be the hottest year on record, 
following the warmest decade on record. We have heard the 
warnings from scientists. We have seen the damage with our own 
eyes.
    Someday, our children and grandchildren will look back on 
the record of the Select Committee. That record will reflect a 
respectful and rigorous debate and an unprecedented 
understanding of the challenges before us. Whether or not they 
will see that this generation has taken the bold action 
required by these challenges remains to be seen.
                               APPENDIX A

 Hearings and Briefings of the Select Committee on Energy Independence 
                           and Global Warming

                            JANUARY 15, 2009

   Stimulus Package and Energy: Creating Jobs, Opportunities for All

Witness List:
           Mr. Van Jones, Director, Founding President, 
        Green For All
           The Honorable Michael Nutter, Mayor, City of 
        Philadelphia
           The Honorable Douglas Palmer, Mayor, City of 
        Trenton
           Denise Bode, CEO, American Wind Energy 
        Association
           Mr. Trevor Houser, Visiting Fellow at the 
        Peterson Institute for International Economics and 
        Partner, Rhodium Group, LLC (RHG)
           Dr. David Kreutzer, Senior Policy Analyst in 
        Energy Economics and Climate Change at the Heritage 
        Foundation

                            FEBRUARY 4, 2009

      Roadmap from Poznan to Copenhagen--Preconditions for Success

Witness List:
           Mr. John Bruton, Delegation of the European 
        Commission and Ambassador to the U.S.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Mr. Bruton's testimony was presented in a briefing format and 
immediately following his testimony the formal hearing commenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Mr. Elliot Diringer, Vice President of 
        International Strategies, Pew Center on Global Climate 
        Change
           Mr. Rob Bradley, Director of the 
        International Climate Policy Initiative, World 
        Resources Institute
           Ms. Karen Alderman Harbert, President and 
        CEO, Institute for 21st Century Energy

                           FEBRUARY 25, 2009

     Get Smart on the Smart Grid: How Technology Can Revolutionize 
                   Efficiency and Renewable Solutions

Witness List:
           Mr. Allan Schurr, Vice President, IBM
           Mr. Robert Gilligan, Vice President, General 
        Electric
           Mr. Tom Casey, CEO, CURRENT Group, LLC
           Ms. Shirley Coates Brostmeyer, CEO, Florida 
        Turbine Technologies, Inc.
           Mr. Charles Zimmerman, Vice President, Wal-
        Mart
           Mr. James Hoecker, Hoecker Energy Law ` 
        Policy

                             MARCH 2, 2009

           Briefing: Youth Climate: Green Jobs, Clean Futures

Witness List:
           Ms. Jessy Tolkan

                             MARCH 4, 2009

Preparing for Copenhagen: How Developing Countries Are Fighting Climate 
                                 Change

Witness List:
           Mr. Carter Roberts, President and CEO, World 
        Wildlife Fund (WWF)
           Ms. Barbara Finamore, China Program 
        Director, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
           Mr. Ned Helme, President, Center for Clean 
        Air Policy (CCAP)
           Mr. Lee Lane, Resident Fellow, American 
        Enterprise Institute (AEI)

                             MARCH 19, 2009

     Constructing a Green Transportation Policy: Transit Modes and 
                             Infrastructure

Witness List:
           Mr. Peter Varga, CEO, Interurban Transit 
        Partnership, Grand Rapids, Michigan
           Mr. Andy Clark, Executive Director, League 
        of American Bicyclists
           Mr. Chris Zimmerman, Arlington County, 
        Virginia Board Member
           Mr. John Boesel, President and CEO, CalStart

                             JUNE 18, 2009

 Global Warming's Growing Concerns: Impacts on Agriculture and Forestry


Witness List:

           Mr. Jerry Hatfield, Supervisory Plant 
        Physiologist, USDA
           Ms. Heather Cooley, Senior Researcher, 
        Pacific Institute
           Mr. Tom Troxel, Director, Black Hills Forest 
        Resource Association
           Dr. Johannes Lehmann, Associate Professor of 
        Soil Fertility Management/Soil Biogeochemistry, Cornell 
        University
           Mr. Ford B. West, President, The Fertilizer 
        Institute

                             JULY 28, 2009

               New Technologies: What's Around the Corner


Witness List:

           Dr. Greg Kunkel, Vice President for 
        Environmental Affairs, Tenaska Inc.
           Mr. Frank Smith, Chief Executive Officer, 
        PURGeN One LLC
           Dr. Brent Constantz, Chief Executive 
        Officer, Calera Corporation
           Dr. Emanuel Sachs, Chief Technical Officer, 
        1366 Technologies Inc.
           Mr. Sean Gallagher, Vice President, Tessera 
        Solar
           Mr. Gary Spitznogle, Manager, IGCC and Gas 
        Plant Engineering, American Electric Power

                             JULY 29, 2009

Climate for Innovation: Technology and Intellectual Property in Global 
                           Climate Solutions


Witness List:

           Mr. Govi Rao, Chairman, Lighting Science 
        Group Corporation
           Mr. Robert T. Nelsen, Co-founder and 
        Managing Director, ARCH Venture Partners
           Ms. Jennifer Haverkamp, Managing Director 
        for International Policy & Negotiations, Environmental 
        Defense Fund
           Dr. Mark Esper, Executive Vice President, 
        Global Intellectual Property Center, U.S. Chamber of 
        Commerce

                           SEPTEMBER 10, 2009

             Roadmap to Copenhagen--Driving towards Success


Witness List:

           Mr. Todd Stern, U.S. Special Envoy for 
        Climate Change, U.S. Department of State

                           SEPTEMBER 24, 2009

           Solar Heats Up: Accelerating Widespread Deployment


Witness List:

           Dr. Stephanie A. Burns, Chairman, President 
        and Chief Executive Officer, Dow Corning
           Mr. Frank De Rosa, Chief Executive Officer, 
        NextLight Renewable Power
           Mr. Steve Kline, Vice President for 
        Corporate Environmental and Federal Affairs, Pacific 
        Gas & Electric
           Ms. Nada Culver, Esq., Senior Counsel, The 
        Wilderness Society
           Dr. Gabriel Calzada, Economics Professor, 
        King Juan Carlos University

                            OCTOBER 22, 2009

           Building U.S. Resilience to Global Warming Impacts


Witness List:

           Mr. John Stephenson, Natural Resources and 
        Environment, Government Accountability Office
           Mr. Eric Schwaab, Deputy Secretary of the 
        Maryland Department of Natural Resources
           Mr. Stephen Seidel, V.P. for Policy Analysis 
        & Gen. Counsel, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
           Kenneth Green, Resident Scholar, American 
        Enterprise Institute

                            OCTOBER 29, 2010

          Fraudulent Letters Opposing Clean Energy Legislation


Witness List:

           Representative Tom Perriello, U.S. House of 
        Representatives
           Mr. Jack Bonner, Bonner & Associates
           Mr. Steve Miller, President and CEO, 
        American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
           Ms. Lisa M. Maatz, Director of Public Policy 
        and Government Relations, American Association of 
        University Women
           Mr. Hilary O. Shelton, Director and Senior 
        Vice President for Advocacy and Policy, NAACP 
        Washington Bureau

                            DECEMBER 2, 2009

                      The State of Climate Science


Witness List:

           Dr. John Holdren, Director, Office of 
        Science and Technology Policy
           Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Administrator, National 
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

                             MARCH 10, 2010

 The Clean Energy Recovery: Creating Jobs, Building New Industries and 
                              Saving Money


Witness List:

           Ms. Lisa Patt-McDaniel, Director, Ohio 
        Department of Development
           Mr. Bryan Ashley, Chief Marketing Officer, 
        Suniva Inc.
           Mr. Paul Gaynor, Chief Executive Officer, 
        First Wind Holdings LLC
           Ms. Mary Ann Wright, Vice President and 
        Managing Director, Business Accelerator Project, 
        Johnson Controls, Inc.
           Mr. Brian M. Johnson, Federal Affairs 
        Manager, Americans for Tax Reform & Executive Director, 
        Alliance for Worker Freedom

                             MARCH 16, 2010

        Clearing the Smoke: Understanding the Impacts of Black 
                            Carbon Pollution


Witness List:

           Dr. Tami Bond, Professor, University of 
        Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
           Dr. Veerabhadran Ramanathan, Professor, 
        Scripps Institution of Oceanography
           Dr. Drew Shindell, Senior Scientist, NASA 
        Goddard Institute for Space Studies
           Mr. Conrad Schneider, Advocacy Director, 
        Clean Air Task Force

                             APRIL 14, 2010

                  The Role of Coal in a New Energy Age


Witness List:

           Mr. Gregory Boyce, President and Chief 
        Executive Officer, Peabody Energy Corporation
           Mr. Steven F. Leer, Chairman and Chief 
        Executive Officer, Arch Coal, Inc.
           Mr. Preston Chiaro, Chief Executive for 
        Energy and Minerals, Rio Tinto
           Mr. Michael Carey, President, Ohio Coal 
        Association

                              MAY 6, 2010

                   The Foundation of Climate Science


Witness List:

           Dr. Lisa Graumlich, Director, School of 
        Natural Resources and the Environment, University of 
        Arizona, and member of the ``Oxburgh Inquiry'' panel
           Dr. Chris Field, Director, Department of 
        Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, and 
        co-chair of ``Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability'' 
        portion of new IPCC report due in 2014
           Dr. James McCarthy, Professor of Biological 
        Oceanography, Harvard University, past President and 
        Chair of the American Association for the Advancement 
        of Science, co-chair of ``Impacts, Adaptation and 
        Vulnerability'' portion of IPCC report published in 
        2001
           Dr. James Hurrell, Senior Scientist, 
        National Center for Atmospheric Research, contributor 
        to IPCC reports
           Lord Christopher Monckton, Chief Policy 
        Adviser, Science and Public Policy Institute

                              MAY 20, 2010

                 Climate Science in the Political Arena


Witness List:

           Dr. Ralph Cicerone, President of the 
        National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National 
        Research Council
           Dr. Mario Molina, Nobel Laureate in 
        Chemistry and Professor, University of California at 
        San Diego
           Dr. Stephen Schneider, Professor, Stanford 
        University
           Dr. Ben Santer, Research Scientist, Lawrence 
        Livermore National Laboratory
           Dr. William Happer, Professor, Princeton 
        University

                            AUGUST 10, 2010

  Briefing: The Greenland Ice Sheet: Global Warming's Impacts on the 
                             Arctic Region


Witness List:

           Dr. Richard B. Alley, Professor of 
        Geosciences, and Earth and Environmental Systems, The 
        Pennsylvania State University
           Dr. Robert Bindschadler, Senior Research 
        Scientist at University of Maryland Baltimore County, 
        who has 30 years of service with NASA
           Dr. Andreas Muenchow, Professor of Physical 
        Ocean Science and Engineering, University of Delaware

                           SEPTEMBER 16, 2010

 Briefing: Progressive Auto X PRIZE: How Entrepreneurs Are Driving the 
                   Future of Jobs and Energy Security


Witness List:

           Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman and CEO, X 
        PRIZE Foundation
           Mr. Oliver Kuttner, Founder and CEO, 
        Edison2, Team Edison2 Team Leader
           Mr. Ron Cerven, Project development 
        engineer, Li-Ion Motors Corp, Team Li-Ion Team Leader
           Mr. Jim Lorimer, US Sales Representative, 
        21st Century Motoring, Team X-Tracer Team Member

                           SEPTEMBER 22, 2010

                      The Global Clean Energy Race


Witness List:

           Mr. Mark Fulton, Global Head of Climate 
        Change Investment Research, Deutsche Bank
           Mr. Michael Liebreich, Chief Executive, 
        Bloomberg New Energy Finance
           Dr. Ravi Viswanathan, General Partner, New 
        Energy Associates
           Mr. Tom Carbone, Chief Executive Officer, 
        Nordic Windpower

                           SEPTEMBER 23, 2010

              Briefing: Extreme Weather in a Warming World


Witness List:

           Ambassador Husain Haqqani, Pakistan's 
        Ambassador to the United States
           Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, Professor, 
        Princeton University
           Dr. Thomas Peterson, Chief Scientist, NOAA's 
        National Climatic Data Center
           Dr. Michael Wehner, Staff Scientist, 
        Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

                            DECEMBER 1, 2010

 Not Going Away: America's Energy Security, Jobs and Climate Challenges


Witness List:

           General Wesley K. Clark, US Army (Ret.), 
        NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe 1997-2000*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *General Clark was not able to attend the hearing but his full 
written testimony was included for the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, U.S. Navy (Ret.)
           Mr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman of the 
        Waterkeepers Alliance
           Richard L. Kauffman, Chairman of the Board, 
        Levi Strauss ` Co.
           Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute for Studies 
        in Development, Environment, and Security
           Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute
                               APPENDIX B

                  BP Deepwater Horizon Correspondence

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

