[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]