[Senate Hearing 113-743]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-743
REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 16, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-581 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
_________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 16, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 2
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 4
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 5
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho........... 7
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 8
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 9
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........ 16
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 16
Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.. 19
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 21
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 22
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska....... 24
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 25
Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi... 27
WITNESSES
McCarthy, Hon. Regina, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 38
Senator Carper........................................... 41
Senator Vitter........................................... 44
Senator Inhofe........................................... 52
Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso..... 53
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Sessions......................................... 54
Senator Crapo............................................ 58
Senator Fischer.......................................... 59
Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 71
Senator Vitter........................................... 73
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 77
Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions...... 78
Sutley, Hon. Nancy H., Chair, Council on Environmental Quality... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 82
Tangherlini, Hon. Dan, Administrator, U.S. General Services
Administration................................................. 88
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Ritter, Hon. Bill, Jr., Director, Center for the New Energy
Economy, Colorado State University............................. 119
Prepared statement........................................... 122
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 132
Senator Sessions......................................... 136
Dessler, Andrew E., Ph.D., Professor of Atmospheric Sciences,
Texas A&M; University........................................... 138
Prepared statement........................................... 140
Lashof, Daniel A., Ph.D., Director, Climate and Clean Air
Program, Natural Resources Defense Council..................... 153
Prepared statement........................................... 155
Curry, Judith A., Ph.D., Professor and Chair, School of Earth and
Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology.......... 169
Prepared statement........................................... 171
Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions...... 185
White, Kathleen Hartnett, Distinguished Senior Fellow-in-
Residence and Director, Armstrong Center for Energy and the
Environment, Texas Public Policy Foundation.................... 186
Prepared statement........................................... 188
Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions...... 200
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters and E-mail
November 15, 2013, letter to Gina McCarthy, EPA, from
Representative Upton et al..................................... 215
December 19, 2013, letter to Gina McCarthy, EPA, from
Representative Lamar Smith et al............................... 217
December 2013 draft letter to Regina A. McCarthy, EPA, from the
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness............................ 222
November 19, 2013, e-mail exchange between Nathan J. Frey, Office
of Management and Budget, and Robert Wayland, Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 236
Statements and News Releases
December 17, 2013, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Arctic Report Card: Update for 2013............. 238
January 16, 2014, statement by the Center for Regulatory
Solutions...................................................... 241
October 29, 2013, statement of the Energy and Environment
Initiative, Rice University.................................... 246
June 25, 2012, statement of the San Miguel Electric Cooperative,
Inc............................................................ 251
January 13, 2014, SNL Energy Daily Coal Report................... 260
October 8, 2013, statement of the University of Texas at Austin,
Climate Systems Science........................................ 272
September 17, 2013, U.S. Census Bureau highlights on poverty..... 274
February 27, 2009, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis news release,
Gross Domestic Product: Fourth Quarter 2008 (Preliminary)...... 275
December 20, 2013, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis news release,
National Income and Product Accounts, Gross Domestic Product,
3rd quarter 2013 (third estimate); Corporate Profits, 3rd
quarter 2013 (revised estimate)................................ 277
Element VI Consulting, EPA and the CCS Oops...................... 280
January 21, 2014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Social
Security and Elderly Poverty................................... 282
Articles and Reports
AGU Publications, National Center for Atmospheric Research (Kevin
E. Trenberth and John T. Fasullo), An apparent hiatus in global
warming?....................................................... 284
September 13, 2013, Congressional Research Service (Jane A.
Leggett et al.), Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to
FY2014......................................................... 298
January 2009, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of
Government (Craig A. Hart), Advancing Carbon Sequestration
Research in an Uncertain Legal and Regulatory Environment...... 318
January 2, 2014, Nature (Steven C. Sherwood et al.), Spread in
model climate sensitivity traced to atmospheric convective
mixing......................................................... 364
January 9, 2014, Politico Pro (Erica Martinson), Challenge to EPA
power plant rule surprised administration...................... 378
January 2, 2013, Salon (Jillian Rayfield), Koch brothers donated
big to ALEC, Heartland Institute............................... 380
August 2013, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to
Congress....................................................... 382
Miscellaneous
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, State of
Nebraska, Plaintiff, v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency; and Gina McCarthy, Administrator, U.S. EPA, Defendants. 430
2011 tax information from the Charles Koch Foundation............ 439
Biography of John Christy, Director, Earth System Science Center,
University of Alabama--Huntsville.............................. 515
REVIEW OF THE PRESIDENT'S
CLIMATE ACTION PLAN
----------
THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:15 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of
the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Merkley, Booker, Carper, Inhofe, Crapo, Barrasso, Sessions,
Fischer, Boozman, and Wicker.
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everybody. And I would ask the
panel to take their seats, and I would ask the good Senator
Udall to sit there at the end and he is going to introduce us
to a member of the second panel. But knowing his schedule, we
said we would allow him to go first.
We also want to note that Senator Inhofe, one of the great
members of this committee, has to run to be a ranking member in
his Armed Services Committee. So he is going to leave, preserve
his early bird status and come back.
Senator Inhofe. I will.
Senator Boxer. So before we even do our opening statements,
Senator Udall, we want you to be able to go to your next
appointment. Please, go right ahead.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Good morning to
the committee. Thank you, Senator Vitter. I appreciate an
opportunity to introduce a member of your second panel, but a
man who looms large in our great State of Colorado, and that is
former Governor Bill Ritter. He helped our State become a
national leader in the new energy economy, and in our fight to
combat global warming. He was our Governor from 2007, Senator
Boxer, to 2011. He found really creative ways to grow a
bipartisan consensus around the need for our State to develop
job creating clean energy while also safeguarding our land and
our air, our water, the features that make the Centennial
State, look, I am going to be immodest here, we are the envy of
the world.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. He was raised on a farm, he brought that
rural perspective to discussions about crafting an effective
State policy of energy development.
Many of you have heard me talk about our strong renewable
electricity standard. It is second only to the great State of
California's. I helped lead that effort in 2004. We started out
with a 10 percent requirement. We very quickly met that
requirement, and then Governor Ritter came along and he built
on that accomplishment and he led the effort, Senator Boxer, to
whereby now we are going to triple the State's use of renewable
energy to 30 percent by 2020.
Along the way he created the Governor's energy office,
which was the first cabinet level office devoted to improving
the effective use of Colorado's vast energy resources. He also
signed Colorado's Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, which moved us in
the utility front from burning of coal in our front range power
plants to the use of clean-burning natural gas. We reduced
carbon emissions, we cleaned up our air, we created jobs. And
that natural gas, it may have been from Colorado, Senator
Inhofe isn't here, it may have been from Oklahoma, it may have
been from Louisiana, Senator Vitter's State. So we are truly an
all of the above energy State. We are now one of the leading
States, because of Governor Ritter's great work in terms of the
jobs created and total money invested in our growing clean
energy economy.
Since we are here today to talk about climate action plans,
I want to add that Governor Ritter issued Colorado's first
climate action plan in 2007. It was a bold proposal, it called
for a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020,
and an 80 percent reduction by 2050.
So what has Governor Ritter been doing since he left office
in 2011? Well, he went up to CSU, our land grant college,
Colorado State University, he created the Center for New Energy
Economy at CSU. The Center promotes the growth of clean energy
by working through, with leaders in government and the private
sector, their pursuing business friendly policies that create
jobs and promote investment in the clean tech economy. And the
Center does this all the while through maintaining a commitment
to the University's original land grant service mission, to
benefit the people of Colorado.
The Center is expanding the innovative and entrepreneurial
approach to clean energy research. Colorado State has long been
known for that. It will play an integral role in bringing
alternative energy solutions to the marketplace.
And I just want to end on this note, Chairman Boxer, and
Ranking Member Vitter, I am really pleased, I know Senator
Bennet is really pleased that you saw fit to invite the
Governor here today. He has a lot to share with you. It is
thanks to efforts like Governor Ritter's that I can say with
confidence and pride that Colorado has a balanced approach to
energy that is truly a model for our Nation. So I know you will
enjoy hearing form Governor Ritter, and I know he looks forward
to engaging in a back and forth with the committee. Again,
thank you for inviting him, and I appreciate the time of the
committee.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
So we will go the 5-minute rule now.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Today's hearing will cover three topics.
First, the President's climate action plan, which is a critical
issue. We have four agencies here today to address it. Senator
Vitter and minority members of this committees stated in their
December 2013 year-end report, Vitter and the EPW Republicans
will continue pushing for an oversight hearing on the
Administration's climate agenda that includes witnesses from
Federal agencies.
Second, today's hearing will include the budget for the
EPA, and third, we have set aside time for members of this
committee to ask about John Beale, an outrageous con man who
was finally caught and convicted. We held a briefing on this on
September 30th. All members were invited. I asked many
questions and Senator Vitter asked over 50 questions. However,
Senator Vitter has more questions, so we are covering that
subject, too.
The broad scope of this hearing was formally agreed to by
ranking members.
The Wall Street Journal said in its editorial today that I
am living in an EPA fairy tale for commending EPA Administrator
McCarthy for shining a light on the actions of a rogue
employee. Well, that is what Patrick Sullivan said, the
Assistant Inspector General, when he said about Ms. McCarthy's
role, ``To our knowledge, the first senior person to express
concerns was Ms. McCarthy.'' So I stand by what I said.
Now let me turn to the President's climate action. In his
plan released on June 2013, President Obama called for action
to fight climate change, so we don't condemn future generations
to a planet that is beyond repair. I couldn't agree more,
because climate change is a catastrophe that is unfolding
before our very eyes. The President's plan lays out a road map
for action. It calls for a wide range of reasonable steps to
reduce carbon pollution, grow the economy through clean energy,
prepare for future impacts, such as rising sea levels and storm
surges, and lead global efforts to fight climate change.
When the President announced his climate change plan, many
companies issued statements of support, including Wal-Mart,
Honeywell, DuPont, Dominion Resources, American Electric Power
and other business leaders. More than 500 companies, such as
GM, Nike, Mars, Nestle, Unilever have stated that tackling
climate change is one of America's greatest economic
opportunities in the 21st century.
In addition to many of the Nation's largest companies, the
American people have waited on the need to address this growing
threat, and they want action now. A USA Today poll in December
found that 81 percent of Americans think climate change will be
a serious problem if nothing is done to reduce it. And 75
percent of Americans say that the U.S. should take action on
climate change, even if other nations do less. That poll also
found that Americans overwhelmingly support clean energy
solutions like generating electricity from solar or wind.
And here is the thing about the American people. They all
say this, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just
Independents. The only place that we have a partisan divide is
right here in the Congress.
Well, I am encouraged that significant action to address
climate change is already underway, including establishing
limits on carbon pollution from cars and trucks. The Obama
administration is also working on carbon pollution limits for
new and existing power plants. Together these efforts address
the Nation's two largest sources of carbon pollution.
Now, a new peer-reviewed study in the journal Nature finds
that unless we control carbon pollution, the most severe
predictions by scientists and climate experts on rising
temperatures will occur by the end of the century, resulting in
the most significant and dangerous impacts from climate change,
an increase of more than 7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.
In my home State of California, scientists have been
telling us for years what would happen, for years. And they are
right on target. Years ago, they said, there will be
substantially higher temperatures, droughts, floods, extreme
weather, extreme wildfires and rising sea levels. And it is
happening. Future generations are going to look back to this
moment and judge each of us, each of us, by whether we start to
act on this issue.
So I look forward to hearing from today's witnesses who are
leading their agencies' efforts to reduce carbon pollution. I
will pledge to you that I will use every tool at my disposal to
ensure that you work will be done. The reason is, it is a moral
obligation, it is good for the economy and it is good for human
health.
Thank you very much, and I would ask my ranking member to
address us at this time.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for calling
today's hearing on the President's climate action plan. It is
long overdue, quite frankly. In 2013, the committee failed to
hold an EPA budget hearing and held only one climate hearing,
which had excluded all Federal Government witnesses. Today's
one hearing comes 7 months after the announcement of the
biggest regulatory avalanche in U.S. history, the President's
climate action plan. And this avalanche of regulatory actions
will begin in 2014, and I believe will further frustrate our
already struggling economy. Only a fraction of the jobs
economists had hoped for were created in December.
Last June, when President Obama announced his climate
action plan, it was clear to me that he didn't want his
supporters to engage in straight economic arguments over
promise on the impacts taking action will have or debate the
validity of the claim that the science is already settled. In
fact, there were White House talking points to that effect.
However, these are topics that must be discussed.
While the current EPA Administrator argues that the
President's climate action plan is part of an overall strategy
positioning the U.S. for leadership in international
discussions, her predecessor clearly argued that such action
would have no impact without international participation first.
For the purposes of facilitating international buy-in, the
Administration is moving forward with a domestic agenda that
will clearly damage our ability to utilize our abundant energy
resources and to support the growth of manufacturing jobs.
I am afraid these policies just show the international
community three things: how to undermine chances of economic
recovery and growth, how to achieve the lowest work force
participation rate since the Carter administration, and how to
increase energy prices by denying the ability to utilize all
energy resources. While these policies were squarely rejected
by Congress in 2009, since then the President has simply sought
to legislate them through administrative fiat.
President Obama promised his Administration would be the
most transparent in history. However, his record, including
here, reflects a determined effort to do the opposite. I think
the social cost of carbon is a perfect example on point. Since
last June, a number of my Republican colleagues joined me in
asking the Administration to provide details on those social
costs of carbon estimates which were developed in a black box
and are used regulatory by multiple Federal agencies to justify
costly regulations.
The first confirmation of even participation in these
closed door meetings was acknowledged at a November EPW hearing
by EPA's Director of Atmospheric Programs. She committed to
providing further detailed information to the committee in
November, and we got a short, terse, very superficial response
to our detailed question this morning. I think that says it
all.
Afterwards, the Administration gave in to pressure from
Congress and the public and announced that the estimates would
be noticed in the Federal Register and open to comment. Yet
they are still being utilized in many ways across the Federal
Government in rulemakings.
While the President's climate action plan includes a role
for almost every Federal entity, the EPA is clearly at the
core. I am very concerned that the EPA waited over 3 months to
publish a second try at proposed greenhouse gas new source
performance standards for power plants. I am even more
concerned that I believe these roles are still contrary to
Federal law. I think the EPA's delay is designed to postpone
controversial news during an election year and give the EPA
more time to make excuses about why they are taking action
beyond the scope of their legal authority.
So in summary, I continue to be really concerned that the
President's climate action plan has deeply flawed legal
justifications and perceived theoretical benefits. I believe it
undermines our economic recovery, threatens to keep off limits
our energy abundance and manufacturing renaissance,
exponentially increases Federal bureaucracy and red tape and
most tragically, hurts those who can least afford it.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. First, Madam Chair, thank you very much for
your extraordinary leadership on these issues during very
challenging times. I thank you for holding fast on science,
because the science is clear. Atmospheric science 101 teaches
us that carbon-based gases in the atmosphere are what keep the
planet warm and habitable by trapping heat around the planet.
Earth's plants and oceans naturally help regulate and balance
the level of carbon in the atmosphere by absorbing carbon.
Since the industrial revolution, levels of carbon in the
atmosphere have been steadily increasing, and the reduction of
forest acres around the world have compounded these increases
in carbon pollution emissions by reducing nature's carbon
sequestration capacity. Therefore, increased levels of carbon
gases in the atmosphere have led to more heat being trapped,
which is changing the earth's climate.
We are accelerating by human activities the carbon
emissions. It is having a catastrophic impact, and we have to
do something about it. These are scientific facts. There isn't
any debate in the scientific community on these facts. Neither
is any debate among political leaders in any other developed
nor many developing countries. Because unlike in the U.S.
Congress, facts on climate change are accepted.
I urge my colleagues to think about how future generations
will look back upon our political squabbling and inaction to
legislate meaningful policies to curb carbon pollution and
authorize action to adapt to our world's changing climate.
After all, it will be our grandchildren and their children, not
us, living in the world we leave them.
The effects of climate change can be seen around the world,
across the United States and in my home State of Maryland.
Scientists monitoring migrating patterns of fish and birds are
seeing changes in these patterns as meteorological seasons are
changing. In some instances, the changes in certain wildlife
species, particularly cold weather and cold water adaptive
species like trout and salmon, are shrinking, while the ranges
of pest species like bark beetles are expanding due to milder
winters. Changing water temperatures in the Chesapeake Bay will
have an impact on our blue crabs and oyster populations, which
will threaten the livelihood of Maryland's watermen, who make
their livelihood off the seafood of the Bay.
Climate change is also directly affecting human population
around the globe. This raises concerns about climate refugees,
who have lost their communities to sea level rise and other
catastrophic weather events in the decades to come. In my own
State of Maryland, I can point to the people who live on Smith
Island, as they see their island being consumed by sea level
rise.
While I am disappointed that the politics of Washington
prevents Congress from enacting legislation to address both the
causes and effects of climate change, our Nation is very
fortunate to have an Administration that is able to rise above
the squabbles in Congress to take bold action to curb
greenhouse gas emissions, promote more responsible and
efficient energy consumption, grow our Nation's renewable
energy sources and take critical steps to adapt to the effects
of climate change. EPA has reduced U.S. vehicle fleet emissions
through improved CAFE standards by setting ambitious yet
achievable goals for fuel efficiency. The President's
announcement in 2011 to raise CAFE standards to 54.5 miles per
gallon by 2025 in sum are the world's most ambitious fuel
economy standards in the world. These targets demonstrate how
EPA and the industry can work together to achieve what is
necessary to protect public health and the environment.
And I might point out, this is going to help our economy.
Efficiencies of energy creates jobs, clean energy creates jobs.
President Obama's EPA has also taken bold and a necessary
step toward regulating carbon pollution from our Nation's power
sector by using existing authority under the Clean Air Act to
propose the first limits of carbon emissions for the U.S. power
generator sector. All of this is helping. The Obama
administration has executed successful programs that are
generating clean energy and American jobs, reducing our
reliance on foreign oil, bolstering our national security and
international competitiveness and protecting health and the
environment.
We should help. Instead, what we see, particularly coming
over from the House of Representatives, are proposals that
would block this progress. Fortunately, we have stopped that in
the Senate. But we should adopt an energy policy that will help
this Nation not only become energy independent for our national
security and not only help our economy grow but also help our
environmental future.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Crapo.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this
important hearing on the President's climate action plan.
I share many of the concerns outlined by my colleagues on
this panel and welcome this opportunity to hear from the
Federal officials assembled on the first panel who have and
will continue to generate the President's core policies on
climate change. Many of my concerns with the President's
current action plans stem from issues that we have wrestled
with in this Administration in the past.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency has
without providing for public comment or peer review adjusted
upwards the social cost of carbon to modify the accounting for
benefits claims from regulatory actions. Moreover, proposed
regulations of greenhouses gases from new and existing sources
are likely to cripple numerous large scale manufacturing and
energy projects across the Nation, creating an environment in
which foreign countries will become far more attractive for
future investment, potentially undermining our economy again.
In another instance, the Treasury Department obstructed
multiple transparency requests for more than 9 months regarding
internal work on the development of a carbon tax, as well as
sources of funding for international climate commitments that
were negotiated behind closed doors.
We can all agree that affordable energy is a critical
component of having a healthy and robust economy in the United
States. And we are fortunate to have tremendous energy
resources here at home. As such, I am concerned that the
Administration's proposals threaten to undermine an important
sector of our economy and the industries and jobs it supports
in the name of modest environmental gains. In reviewing the
testimony provided by members of President Obama's
Administration today, I am concerned that the views of those
most likely to be negatively impacted by the new EPA
regulations have not been appropriately considered.
Protecting and improving our natural environment is a goal
shared by many. But there is strong disagreement about how to
achieve these goals. In general, the best policies for
addressing climate change are grounded in three basic
principles: sound peer-reviewed science, protection of our
quality of life; and policies that promise the greatest benefit
to both the environment and the people without harming our
economy.
The recent climate change proposals issued by President
Obama, however, will have severe economic consequences and will
likely yield immeasurable environmental benefits if fully
implemented. Further, they would undermine the utilization of
our own traditional affordable sources of energy and increase
the cost of electricity for consumers. Rather, we must utilize
an all of the above approach which should include a robust
expansion of nuclear energy production, hydroelectric power and
other promising renewable and emissions reducing technologies.
By expanding and diversifying our energy portfolio, we can
reduce risks to the environment, promote a strong domestic
energy sector and increase our energy security.
I support legislative solutions that preserve and enhance
our natural environment. However, I am deeply concerned that
unilateral EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is
already imposing major burdens on our economy without resulting
in commensurate environmental benefits. I agree on the need for
continued research in the field of climate science in order to
gain the necessary knowledge needed to implement effective
policies. The issue is fraught with significant social,
environmental and economic consequences, and it is essential
that we get it right.
As such, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today, particularly Dr. Judith Curry, and her work at the
Georgia Institute of Technology.
Again, thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Let me just briefly welcome our witnesses to this chamber,
one in which reality is so often suspended, one in which
science is so often twisted and mocked and one in which the
power of special interests to manipulate American democracy is
often so nakedly revealed.
My belief is that the propaganda machine behind the climate
denial effort will go down in history as one of our great
American scandals, like Teapot Dome or Credit Mobilier or
Watergate, for that matter.
Most Americans see through it. Major American
organizations, everything from Coke and Pepsi to Ford and GM to
Wal-Mart and Nike and Apple, you can go on and on through the
corporate community, outside the corporate community you can go
from the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops to the Garden Clubs of America, over and over
again, organization after organization accepts the science,
accepts the reality. And frankly, farmers and fishermen are
starting to see it happen on their farms and in their fishing
grounds in their reality. Ask the ski mountains of Utah.
So I simply urge you all while you are here to keep the
faith. Keep faith with reality. Keep faith with truth, keep
faith with science. Armor yourselves against the slings and
arrows of the deniers and the polluters machine and do our
duty. I ask this particularly on behalf of my home State, Rhode
Island, which is a coastal State, which is at the front line of
the undeniable effects of climate change. Our sea levels are
rising. It is not complicated. You measure that with a
yardstick, more or less. Our oceans are warming. Not
complicated. You measure that with thermometers.
And we know that our oceans are getting more acidic.
Everybody with an aquarium can take a litmus test. This is not
complicated. And it is affecting our people.
So bear that in mind, do our duty and thank you. I ask that
the remainder of my statement be put into the record.
[The referenced statement was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Without objection, it will be done.
Senator Sessions, you are next followed by Senator
Barrasso. That is the list we have, but it is up to both of
you.
Senator Sessions. Senator Barrasso was here before I came.
Senator Boxer. Then absolutely, Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Madam Chairman, last week was the 50th anniversary of the
war on poverty. The war began when President Lyndon Johnson
visited with Tom Fletcher and his family on the front porch in
Martin County, Kentucky. NPR did a story on this recently and
said at the time, the poverty rate in this coal mining area was
more than 60 percent. Johnson visited the Fletchers on the
porch of their home, a small wooden structure with fake brick
siding. This is from the NPR story. The study went on to say
that photographers took what would become one of the iconic
images of the war on poverty. The President crouched down,
chatting with Tom Fletcher about the lack of jobs.
Flash forward to today, according to the Department of
Agriculture, the latest numbers for 2011, 38.6 percent of the
population of Martin County is in poverty. NPR stated that this
is twice the national average. In addition, 47 percent of
children in that county are in poverty. NPR went on to say
today, many people here rely on government aid. In fact, it is
the largest source of income in the county. They say people say
it has helped to reduce hunger, improve health care and given
young families a boost, especially at a time, NPR said, when
coal mining jobs, let me repeat, when coal mining jobs are
disappearing by the hundreds.
Now, this is National Public Radio, not known as a
conservative outfit that champions coal. Those are the ones
saying that.
The actions of this Administration's EPA to wipe out coal
and eventually natural gas is costing thousands of jobs, and it
is driving up energy costs for many of the most vulnerable
people in this country. I can only conclude that this EPA is on
the wrong side of the war on poverty. In fact, this EPA is the
tip of the spear that is spending energy producing communities
like Martin County, Kentucky, like Campbell County in my home
State of Wyoming, Marshall County in West Virginia, Belmont
County in Ohio back to the very days before Lyndon Johnson's
original declaration.
When you wipe out the jobs in these communities and you
drive up electricity costs, you create poverty, period. Folks
back in those counties wonder why the EPA is making these
decisions that deliberately hurt them. The Associated Press
shed some light on this with an article written January 10th of
this year, just 6 days ago. The article demonstrates that the
EPA has been colluding with the Sierra Club and their Beyond
Coal campaign to deliberately draft a rule that will prevent
new coal-fired power plants from being built. According to the
Associated Press article, e-mails between the Sierra Club and
the EPA produced through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit
show the green group and senior officials of the Nation's top
environmental enforcer met and corresponded frequently about
the agency's work on coal regulations. The article goes on to
say that the EPA has repeatedly said the regulations on coal-
fired plants will not be a death blow to the industry. However,
the agency was working closely behind the scenes with the
Sierra Club, an environmental organization that was pushing the
agency to adopt standards that would be impossible for power
plants to meet.
Many of the e-mails are between John Coequyt, head of the
Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign, and the EPA's Michael Goo
and Alex Barron, both in the agency's Office of Policy at the
time. Just yesterday, a report of new e-mails obtained from the
Freedom of Information Act show more coordination between the
EPA and extremist environmental groups. The report stated, ``E-
mails show EPA used official events, official events, to help
environmentalist groups gather signatures for petitions on
agency rulemaking, incorporated advance copies of letters
drafted by those groups into official statements by the agency
and worked with these environmental extremist groups to
publicly pressure executives of at least one energy company.''
Madam Chairman, I cannot believe that these are the first
instances of this type of collusion in this Administration's
EPA. It is clear that this EPA and this Administration has an
agenda. And that agenda is hurting jobs, the agenda is raising
energy costs and the agenda is making poverty worse in
struggling communities around this country. The message to
energy producing communities is clear: if you like your job,
your community and your electricity bill, you can't keep them.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Barrasso,
U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Last week was the 50th anniversary of the war on poverty.
This war began when President Lyndon Johnson visited with Tom
Fletcher and his family on their front porch in Martin County,
Kentucky. NPR did a story on this iconic moment, and stated,
``At the time, the poverty rate in this coal-mining area was
more than 60 percent. Johnson visited the Fletchers on the
porch of their home--a small wooden structure with fake brick
siding. Photographers took what would become one of the iconic
images of the war on poverty: the President crouched down,
chatting with Tom Fletcher about the lack of jobs.''
Flash forward to today. According to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's latest numbers for 2011, 38.6 percent of the
population of Martin County is in poverty. NPR stated that this
is twice the national average.
In addition, 47 percent of children in the county are in
poverty. NPR went on to say that ``Today, many people here rely
on government aid. In fact, it's the largest source of income
in Martin County. People say it has helped to reduce hunger,
improve health care and give young families a boost, especially
at a time when coal mining jobs''--let me repeat--``coal mining
jobs . . . are disappearing . . . by the hundreds.'' This is
National Public Radio, not known as a conservative outfit that
champions coal, saying this.
The actions of this Administration's EPA to wipe out coal,
and eventually natural gas, is costing thousands of jobs and
driving up energy poverty for the most vulnerable. I can only
conclude that this EPA is on the wrong side of the war on
poverty. In fact, this EPA is the tip of the spear that is
sending energy producing communities like Martin County,
Kentucky, Campbell County in my home State of Wyoming, Marshall
County in West Virginia, and Belmont County in Ohio back to the
very day before Lyndon Johnson's original declaration.
When you wipe out the jobs in these communities, and you
drive up electricity costs, you create poverty, period. Folks
back in these counties wonder why the EPA is making these
decisions that deliberately hurt them. Well, the Washington
Free Beacon shed some light on this in an article written on
January 10th of this year.
The article demonstrates that the EPA has been colluding
with the Sierra Club and their Beyond Coal campaign to
deliberately draft a rule that will prevent any new coal-fired
power plants from being built. According to the article, ``E-
mails between the Sierra Club and the EPA produced through a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit show the green group
and senior officials at the nation's top environmental enforcer
met and corresponded frequently about the agency's work on new
coal regulations.''
The article goes on to say that ``The EPA has repeatedly
said the regulations on coal-fired power plants will not be a
death blow to the industry. However, the agency was working
closely behind the scenes with the Sierra Club, an
environmental organization that was pushing the agency to adopt
standards that would be impossible for power plants to meet.
Many of the e-mails are between John Coequyt, head of the
Sierra Club's `beyond coal campaign,' and the EPA's Michael Goo
and Alex Barron, both in the agency's office of policy at the
time.''
And just yesterday, the Washington Free Beacon reported new
e-mails that show more coordination between EPA and extremist
environmental groups. The paper stated, ``E-mails show EPA used
official events to help environmentalist groups gather
signatures for petitions on agency rulemaking, incorporated
advance copies of letters drafted by those groups into official
statements, and worked with environmentalists to publicly
pressure executives of at least one energy company.''
Madam Chairman, I can't believe these are the first
instances of this type of collusion in this EPA. It is clear
that this EPA and this Administration has an agenda, and that
agenda is not to create jobs, provide affordable energy, or
fight poverty in these struggling communities.
The message to energy producing communities is clear--if
you like your job, community, and your electricity bill, you
can't keep them.
I thank the Chair and look forward to the testimony.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
I ask unanimous consent to place into the record an article
entitled The Future of Coal. Despite the gas boom, coal is
dead. It goes on to talk about how, over the 20 years,
employment is down because people are more productive,
production is actually up. That is No. 1. And No. 2, I want to
put into the record news today that the third quarter GDP went
up 4.1 percent compared to the last quarter of George W. Bush
where GDP went down 3.8 percent and that was the time that the
Administration then was arguing over they couldn't do anything
about greenhouse gases, that it wasn't actually in the Clean
Air Act.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. So I think we really need to balance this
out. And now we are going to go to Senator Merkley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. No matter where
you travel in our State, you see the assault of carbon
pollution on our natural resources. We can take and start with
farming. We have had three worst ever droughts in the Klamath
Basin in a 13-year period. And based on the snow pack this
year, we may well have a fourth this coming summer, devastating
a key agricultural part of our State.
If we turn to fishing, we have streams that are smaller and
warmer, affecting our trout and our salmon. A lot of folk
certainly appreciate having vital streams with vitality, if you
will, and do not appreciate this assault of carbon pollution on
our fishing.
If we turn to our sea life off the coast, we are having
trouble with oyster seed, the baby oysters that are distributed
throughout the industry to create the oyster industry. They are
having trouble because there is more carbonic acid in the
ocean. Why? Because of the carbon pollution. Carbon pollution
assaulting our natural resource base.
And if we turn to our forests, the concern is even more
evident. We have pine beetle infestations that are out of
control because we don't have the cold snaps, cold enough and
long enough to kill them off in the winter. We have large red
zones that I have taken tours from the air in that you see red
trees as far as the eye can see as a result. And we have forest
fires that are the worst ever in a hundred years summer before
last, and year after year with drier forests, more lightning
strikes, more devastation. Part of that, certainly a piece of
it, has to do with forest health, which is why I am lobbying
the Administration to continue forest health money for us to be
able to reduce the load enforcement.
A lot of it has to do with these changing patterns. In
fact, the Department of Energy has an early version of their
study from Los Alamos National Laboratories that says that
western forests will be largely wiped out by the year 2100 with
the combination of forest fires and beetle devastation.
So for the people of Oregon, in our rural areas, who see
this devastating attack of carbon pollution affecting their
fishing and farming and forestry, we need to stand up for rural
America. We need to stand up for our natural resources, we need
to stand up for this planet.
And I look forward to your comments. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe would like to be heard next. Is that OK with
colleagues?
Senator Sessions. It would be OK with me, Madam Chair.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. This is one of those times we have the
Armed Services hearing at the same time, as you well know,
Senator Sessions.
On multiple occasions and most recently on May 30th of last
year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote that he has
used several times, he said the temperature around the globe is
increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago, and
that climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated 5 or 10
years ago. Both statements are false, and through letters to
you, and I appreciate very much the quick response I got from
you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the record of this committee, we have
asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two
statements, the two statements made by the President.
But they didn't have the data, and referred us to the U.N.
IPCC, Intergovernmental, and their scientists, apparently the
EPA thought they were the source of this. Well, we went there
and they had nothing to back it up, so apparently the President
just made that up. And I think it is very important, because
when you get statements that are made that are supposed to be
based on logic and on truth, you have to check them out. Last
week's record cold temperatures brought global warming debate
back to the public's attention, but that is only important to
the extent that it is bringing more awareness to the
uncertainty of the science around the debate. When you go back
and look at the temperature projections from the climate models
and compare them to actual temperatures, two things are readily
evident. First, temperatures have flat-lined over the last 15
years. And second, an average of over 100 climate models from
the last decade show that the scientific community did not
predict this would happen. To my knowledge, not a single
climate model ever predicted that a pause in global warming
would ever occur. Senator Sessions is going to go deeper into
this.
The truth completely contradicts the Presidents' statement
and begs the question as to why he and the EPA not only
continue to deny the truth of it, but why it has raced to stop
this information from disseminating into scientific record.
What I am referring to is the Administration's efforts with
other nations to lobby the IPCC to back up the President's
statement in the most recent report. And while I did not think
the IPCC hiatus explanation was sufficient, I have to at least
give them credit for recognizing the facts for what they are
and that the hiatus has occurred and does exist, is existing
today.
I know the Administration and I will never agree on the
science of global warming, but we can set aside for now and
focus perhaps on the more alarming issue, the politics of EPA's
regulations.
In October 2012, when I was ranking member of this
committee, I released report highlighting the Administration's
systematic actions to delay finalization of costly
environmental regulations until after the 2012 presidential
election. Whether it was the farm dust rule or the ozone
standards, the President punted regulation after regulation
until after the election to minimize the influence this would
have on voters. Again, it appears he is doing exactly the same
thing for the first round of greenhouse gas regulations for the
construction of new power plants.
As we know, this is because under the Clean Air Act, this
is significant, new rules for power plants must be finalized
within 1 year of the proposal's publication in the Federal
Register, or the proposed rule is invalidated. This is
important, because after announcing the climate action plan,
the President ordered the EPA to issue a new proposal by no
later than September 20th of 2013.
Now, the EPA proposed a new rule on September 20th, but it
didn't publish the Federal Register until after January 9th of
2014. Had the EPA published the rule in the Federal Register on
the same day it proposed it, on September 20th, it would have
been forced to finalize the rule by September 20th of 2014,
which is about 6 weeks prior to the 2014 elections. But because
the agency delayed the publication until last week, the EPA
will not be required to finalize the rule until 8 weeks after
the election.
This reveals an astonishing double standard. On one hand,
the President says that we don't have time to delay action on
global warming. He says we must act before it is too late. But
on the other hand, his actions show it is OK to wait to
finalize rules that will harm the economy until after the
elections, so they won't have an impact on the vulnerable
candidates that might be damaged by this.
Ultimately, this hypocrisy reveals the Administration is
fully aware that the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations will put
a drag on the economy. Study after study has shown that
greenhouse gas regulations will cost the economy between $300
billion and $400 billion a year. If we remember, the
predecessor of Ms. McCarthy said before this committee that
even if we did pass these, it wouldn't have an effect of
reducing greenhouse gases worldwide because it would only
affect the United States.
Let me say to Ms. McCarthy, thank you very much for your
very kind condolences over the problem that we had. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of
last year, President Obama has said that ``the temperature
around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even
10 years ago'' and that ``the climate is warming faster than
anybody anticipated 5 or 10 years ago.''
Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms.
McCarthy, and on the record in this Committee, we've asked the
EPA to provide us with the data backing up these statements,
but they don't have any data and referred us to the U.N. IPCC.
They had nothing to back it up, so President Obama just made it
up.
Last week's record cold temperature brought the global
warming debate back to the public's attention, but that's only
important to the extent that it's bringing more awareness to
the uncertainty of the science around the debate.
When you go back and look at the temperature projections
from climate models and compare them to actual temperatures,
two things are readily evident: (1) temperatures have flatlined
over the last 15 years; and (2) an average of over 100 climate
models from the last decade shows that the scientific community
did not predict this would happen.
This fact completely contradicts the President's statements
and begs the question why he and the EPA not only continue to
deny the truth but why it has raced to stop this information
from disseminating into the scientific record.
What I'm referring to is the Administration's efforts, with
other nations, to lobby the IPCC to back up the President's
statements in their most recent report. And while I did not
think the IPCC's hiatus explanation was sufficient, I have to
at least give them credit for recognizing the facts for what
they are: that the hiatus has occurred and does exist.
I know this Administration and I will probably never agree
on the science of global warming. But we can set that aside for
now and focus on perhaps the more alarming issue--the politics
of the EPA's regulations.
In October 2012, when I was Ranking Member of this
Committee, I released a report highlighting the
Administration's systematic actions to delay the finalization
of costly environmental regulations until after the 2012
presidential elections. Whether it was the farm dust rule or
the ozone standard, the President punted regulation after
regulation until after the election to minimize the influence
these rules would have on voters.
And it appears that he's doing the exact same thing with
the first round of greenhouse gas regulations for the
construction of new power plants.
And we know this because under the Clean Air Act, new rules
for power plants must be finalized within 1 year of the
proposal's publication in the Federal Register, or the proposed
rule is invalidated. This is important because after announcing
his Climate Action Plan, the President ordered the EPA to
``issue a new proposal by no later than September 20, 2013.''
The EPA proposed the new rule on September 20, but it did
not publish it in the Federal Register until January 9, 2014.
Had the EPA published this rule in the Federal Register on
the same day it proposed it, on September 20, 2013, it would
have been forced to finalize the rule by September 20, 2014,
about 6 weeks before the 2014 elections. But because the Agency
delayed the publication until last week, the EPA will not be
required to finalize the rule until January 2015, about 8 weeks
after the 2014 elections.
This reveals an astounding double standard. On the one
hand, the President says that we don't have time to delay
action on global warming. He says we must ``act before it's too
late.'' But on the other hand, his actions show it is OK to
wait to finalize rules that will harm the economy until after
the elections so they won't have an impact on vulnerable Senate
Democrats who face voters this fall.
Ultimately, this hypocrisy reveals that the Administration
is fully aware that the EPA's greenhouse gas regulations will
put a drag on the economy. Study after study has shown that
greenhouse gas regulations will cost the economy $300 billion-
$400 billion per year and will stunt economic growth for
generations.
They would be the largest tax increase in American history,
and our economy simply cannot afford them. And more
importantly, by this Administration's own admission, the whole
implementation of the rule would not reduce GHG emissions
worldwide because it would only apply to the United States. So
it would be the largest tax increase in American history for
nothing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Inhofe.
And we turn to Senator Booker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. First of all, I want to say thank you to
the ranking member and to the chairwoman for this opportunity.
This is my first hearing on this committee, and it is a
privilege and honor to be here, especially with committed
activists on both sides of the aisle who have a passion and
concern for our country and its well-being. So it is an honor
to be here as I begin my Senate career.
Chairwoman, it was a long time ago that I was the mayor of
New Jersey's largest city. That was back in October. What
frustrated me is, I am a guy who believes very strongly in the
power of markets, in the power of private enterprise and
industry to help poor communities, creating jobs, creating
economic activity, lifting people up. That is the idea of this
country.
But what I get frustrated with about having been a mayor as
I look at the landscape of my city, and frankly the landscape
of the State of New Jersey, is that we have it backward in our
history about what it means to do private enterprise. All over
Newark and New Jersey right now is a population as a whole
paying the costs of corporations who did not internalize their
pollution. Think about this right now. When I was mayor of
Newark, the government had to spend, and somewhere there were
Federal dollars, cleaning up brownfields where corporations of
past years, decades and centuries ago, poisoned our ground,
just to try and get it ready for economic opportunity. In
Newark we have an incredible river, the Passaic River, running
through New Jersey and Newark, that is so polluted right now
that not only will it cost this Federal Government, as well as
the State government, as well as past polluters, trying to
chase them down and legal fees and legal costs, millions and
tens of millions and hundreds of millions of dollars to ever
get that river clean enough, but it also killed entire
industries.
Everywhere around my State, dozens and dozens of Superfund
sites that we are paying for as a population. I am all for the
power of markets. But this idea that we are privatizing profits
and socializing costs has to stop. And the pain and suffering
of especially poor populations is something that you cannot put
a price tag on.
What would it mean for people in America to live in a place
where you can't plant in your ground to grow vegetables in your
back yards? We did urban agriculture in my city, acres of it,
and we could not go into the ground. We had to put the soil on
top. Who is paying that cost? What does it mean in a city when
you are separated from your air, as we have epidemic asthma
rates? What does it mean to a people that is separated from
their water, where they can't even go swimming? Who is
calculating those costs?
So I am happy that the Federal Government over the years
has caught up to a lot of these polluters and begun to put the
regulations in place. But I am telling you right now, they are
too late. So much land should be developed in economic
activity, and it can't be touched. We have an Agent Orange site
in New Jersey that is capped over. So here we are today, at
another verge of being too late. And again, poor people who
desperately need economic opportunity are being denied that in
communities all over New Jersey. Why? Because look, when the
temperature rises on our planet, please know that cities like
Newark, New Jersey, are many degrees higher because they lack
permeable surfaces, their tree canopy isn't there, and they are
suffering as a result. These cannot be calculated, these
negative externalities cannot be calculated.
So what I am simply saying is, I cannot stand by and allow
the continued socialization of costs and allow those who are
doing the polluting not to be held accountable for factoring
those costs into their business. The epidemic asthma rates that
are causing a generation of children to miss school, talk to
teachers in urban areas, not just in New Jersey, and see what
asthma does to undermine the education of children and
therefore undermine their future economic viability,
contribution, success that drives our whole economy, you
understand the peril we are in.
I end with the simple words of Martin Luther King, a hero
to Republicans and Democrats. He said, we are now faced with
the fact, and it seems that we want to ignore many facts in our
day and age. He says, we are now faced with facts, my friends,
that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce
urgency of right now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and
history there is no such thing as being too late. We cannot
afford to be too late and tarry away in needless and senseless
discussions and undermine our ability to act and link people
who put these pollutants into our air take responsibilities for
the costs that they take.
I do believe that the problem, as King said, is not the
vitriolic words and actions of bad people, it is the appalling
silence and inaction of the good people. We are good people. I
hope that we can act on this urgent need and urgent problem.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you for that eloquence.
And we turn to Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you. It is a fair question to ask
this morning, what is right and what is wrong with the
President's climate agenda. That is what we are paid to do, is
to try to do the right thing for America and wrestle through
these issues. What is right, first, I have said repeatedly it
seems logical that greenhouse gas increases could, all things
being equal, result in a warming effect in our atmosphere.
Scientists have told us that. It is an important scientific
question and there are smart and justifiable steps that can be
taken.
For example, I have supported funding climate research,
research into potential new technologies, cleaner sources of
energy, common sense ways to promote energy conservation and
efforts to expand nuclear power, the most significant emission-
free energy source in the world, I would suggest. I have
supported in the past ethanol, solar and other renewables and
gas mileage rules, CAFE standards. But the truth is that
predictions of warming simply have not occurred at the rate the
experts have predicted. This rush to force billions more
dollars of cost in this economy, many more thousands of people
laid off, based on predictions that are not panning out
deserves analysis. There is common ground that we can reach,
things that we can do together. And there are certain things
that I oppose and do not believe can be justified.
What is wrong with the President's plan? I would suggest
four concerns. One, the President's plan lacks balance between
cost and benefit. This Administration, primarily through EPA,
is imposing a massive, bureaucratic, expensive plan that
threatens to kill thousands of jobs and increase energy costs
for American families. It will hammer middle class working
families and make our economy less competitive.
Last month the economy added just 74,000 jobs. For every
one job added, nearly five left the work force. That is not
good. Today we have the lowest workplace participation rate in
36 years. We still have fewer jobs today than in 2008. And the
President's climate agenda is hindering our economic recovery.
Just look at the thousands of jobs awaiting approval on the
Keystone Pipeline, which is being blocked.
Significantly, the amount taxpayers are being asked to pay
for this agenda is out of balance. A recent report by the CRS
found that direct Federal funding to address global climate
change totaled approximately $77 billion between 2008 and 2013,
18 agencies involved. For this amount, the taxpayer should
expect significant benefits. Yet the facts show that if the
agenda is adopted in its entirety and all these goals are
achieved in the U.S., there would still be no measurable
difference in the global temperatures 20, 50 or 100 years from
now.
What else is wrong with the climate agenda of the
President? It empowers Federal bureaucrats to regulate in ways
that Congress never authorized. I reject the notion that the
1970 Clean Air Act gave EPA the power to force every coal-fired
power plant in America to capture and store carbon dioxide.
Carbon dioxide was never even contemplated when the Clean Air
Act was passed.
Moreover, the President continues to misrepresent climate
science. He repeatedly stated global temperatures are
increasing more than was predicted 10 years ago. I raised that
before. This claim is demonstrably false. It is as false as, if
you like your health insurance, you can keep it. Really worse,
because it misrepresents existing facts, not something that
might happen in the future.
As shown in this chart, which was updated just a few days
ago, with the most recent satellite data for all of 2013,
global temperatures have not increased since 1998. They just
haven't. That is not consistent with the models that we have
been told correctly predict our future. Even the State
Department in a letter to me of December of this year
acknowledged a ``recent slowdown in atmospheric warming,'' they
acknowledge that. But the President is still claiming it is
higher than was predicted. That is not acceptable. We expect
more out of the President and we expect the EPA director to
tell the President, this is not accurate and to stop saying
that.
Finally, the President's plan is doing too much too fast.
Scientific American just this month had an article entitled The
Long Slow Rise of Solar and Wind. They say that each widespread
transition from one dominant fuel to the other has taken 50 to
60 years. And there is no technical or financial reason to
believe renewables will rise any faster. Yet we are trying to
force this beyond reason. They go into some length about that.
Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing. These are
important issues. We need to wrestle with it, and I think we
can begin that today.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
And there is dispute about what you said, and I will put
some things into the record at the end of the hearing, and I
will be happy to share them with you, Senator.
OK, so we're now going to go to Senator Carper.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Thank you, Madam Chair.
For years I have been working with our colleagues here in
Congress and the Administration, all kinds of stakeholder
groups across the country to try to tackle one of the biggest
challenges of our generation, that is climate change. I believe
climate change exists and that we are living on borrowed time.
The longer we wait to address this issue, the more damaging and
expensive it becomes.
Before the recent recession, we had members of both
parties, including myself, put forth legislative proposals that
would grow our economy and provide for a safe climate. This was
a time when our climate change debates focused on how we would
grow our economy and clean our environment. It is not a novel
idea, in the 1970s and 1990s, Republican Presidents and a
majority of the members on both sides of the aisle supported,
as you recall, the Clean Air Act and the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990. These clean air protections protected our
health but also allowed our economy to grow exponentially.
Unfortunately, in recent years we have seen a shift in the
debate and have been unable to find common ground in climate
legislation. Today our climate change debates are focused on
the science instead of solutions. Our debates focus on
backsliding clean air laws instead of improving them.
Essentially, we are back to debating whether we can have a
strong economy or a clean environment. History has shown that
this is a false choice.
As Congress fights over what to do, our communities are
feeling the first tastes of the harmful effects of climate
change through record droughts and storms. Coastal communities
like those in my own State of Delaware are especially
vulnerable as oceans slowly rise and more extreme storms like
Superstorm Sandy hit our coasts. These climate impacts are
costing our country not just in lives impacted but in true
economic costs. In fact, for the first time in history, the
Government Accountability Office last year listed climate
change as one of the biggest fiscal risks facing our country in
their annual high risk reports, GAO.
Federal Emergency Management Agency alone obligated over
$80 billion, $80 billion in Federal assistance for disasters
declared during fiscal years 2004 through 2011. Despite the
warnings and the reality, Congress remains gridlocked over this
issue, while our impacted communities, our children and the
rest of the world await our leadership. I don't think the world
can wait much longer.
That is why I welcome the President's comprehensive climate
action plan. I think it is a big step. And a big step, and a
big look forward to hearing today what progress we have made to
date, and what work remains.
At the end of the day, I still believe the best path
forward to combat climate change is through legislation. I hope
in the near future members of both parties, as well as leaders
in the private sector and other stakeholders will decide to
come together in a common sense environmental protections that
are good for our climate, our health and our economy.
The last thing I would say, if I could, Administrator
McCarthy and I were together on Monday of this week in Detroit,
where GM won car of the year or truck of the year,
international competition against the best of the world. We
also saw unveiled a new updated F-150 truck, the top selling
vehicle in America, the Ford F-150. They have taken 700 pounds
out of the weight of the vehicle, Madam Chair, 700 pounds, and
the EPA mileage of that truck, believe it or not, highway
mileage is 30 miles per gallon. Thirty miles per gallon for an
F-150. Who would have thunk it.
We saw internal combustion engines using turbo charges from
Honeywell and other American companies that are getting 40, 45,
50 miles per gallon, internal combustion engines. Saw a clean
diesel engine that is getting like 60 some miles per gallon, I
think it was a Volkswagen Jetta. And I think a Mazda product
that is getting 70 miles per gallon. A lot of folk who were
talking about fuel, not just talking but they are working,
spending money on fuel cells and on that particular approach to
production and propulsion.
A lot of good stuff is happening, a lot of good stuff is
happening. And part of it is because of the legislative work
that we did on CAFE that basically said, these are going to the
goals that we are setting, the milestones that we want to reach
and by golly, we are reaching them. It is exciting, it is
creating jobs, it cleans up the environment, it reduces our
dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. But it is actually
creating a stronger economy, not a weaker economy.
The last thing I would say, we have a new chairman of GM,
new president, new CEO, whose name is Mary Barra. At the
ceremony that Monday morning, GM announced car of the year,
Corvette Sting Ray, truck of the year, Silverado, and they had
a huge crush of people around Mary as she tried to leave the
press conference. As she walked out, I shook hands with her and
gave her my business card. On it I had written these words,
Gina. I said ``Proud Mary, keep on rolling.'' Proud Mary, keep
on rolling. Because they are rolling, they are rolling. They
are not rolling just to make more money, provide more jobs but
actually to clean up our economy.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. That is the win-win I see.
Senator Fischer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking
Member for holding the hearing today. I welcome and thank the
witnesses for being here as well.
I am especially pleased that we do have four witnesses here
from the Administration. Congressional oversight, especially
over EPA as it rolls out rules that jeopardize the
affordability and reliability of American energy, is critical.
Americans are very uneasy about a plan being enacted via
executive fiat and with what seems to be a total disregard for
the costs associated with it. Owners of coal plants have
announced that a total of over 55,000 megawatts of coal fueled
generating capacity will be shut down by 2025. Of this total,
EPA regulations have been cited as a factor in the closure of
over 45,000 of those megawatts, 303 coal units in 33 States.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Energy conservatively
estimates that these shutdowns will cause the loss of 17,000
jobs.
In 2012, National Economic Research Associates analyzed the
impacts of several EPA regulations affecting coal fueled
electricity generation. Compliance costs for the electric
sector average $15 billion to $15.7 billion per year. U.S.
employment losses average 544,000 to 887,000 per year. Given
EPA's recent new source performance standard proposal, which
hinges upon unproven carbon capture and sequestration
technology, Americans can only expect even higher energy prices
and greater job losses.
Countries that have made shifts away from fossil fuels are
now finding such policy positions to be untenable. The New York
Times reported last year, ``Europe faces a crisis in energy
costs. In Britain, climate changes and charges add 19 percent
to the electricity prices that large manufacturers pay, steel
production is down about 30 percent. Britain, where the average
annual household energy bill has doubled since 2006, is
approaching a tipping point where large numbers of people
decide to switch off heat permanently.''
The Wall Street Journal reported ``support for the European
Union's climate and energy policy eroded further Friday as the
Czech Republic became the latest member to denounce subsidies
for clean but costly renewable energy and pledged to double
down on its use of fossil fuels. It followed Poland's
declaration that it would use its abundant domestic coal
supplies for power generation rather than invest in costly
renewable energy facilities. Spain abolished subsidies for
photovoltaic power generation in July. And the U.K.'s power
markets regulator last month froze solar power subsidies for
the rest of the year.''
A headline in the Telegraph read ``Brussels fears European
industrial massacre sparked by energy costs.'' In the article a
European commissioner warned that Europe's quixotic dash for
renewables was pushing electricity costs to untenable levels.
Likewise, Australia is learning tough lessons from its costly
carbon tax. In the year after the carbon tax was introduced,
household electricity prices rose 15 percent and the number of
unemployed workers has risen by more than 10 percent.
Meanwhile, Australia's carbon dioxide emissions have actually
increased and will continue to increase until 2043, according
to their government.
I would urge us to heed these lessons and to proceed with
caution before needlessly damaging our economy and adding to
the burdens of our citizens. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I look
forward to today's testimony and questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, thank
you for holding the hearing. I am glad that we are reviewing
the President's climate regulation plan. Oversight is a good
thing and we appreciate you all being here. In fact, we need to
have you up here more often discussing not only these issues
but these really important problems that we face as a Nation.
Today the question is not whether greenhouse gases trap
heat. They do. The question is whether current climate science
and predict and adequately explain the complexity of climate
change. Can it do it to the point that our politicians here in
Washington can manipulate the earth's temperature from their
desks as we speak? Certainly their track record in that regard
in the past has not been very good in a number of different
things.
The question is also whether expensive regulations would
have significant impact on the global climate and whether the
President's policies are worth lost jobs, lower take home pay,
high gas and electricity prices, higher food prices and so on.
Sadly, this plan appears to be all pain and no gain. The
President once said that his climate policies would make the
cost of electricity necessarily skyrocket. Now he says his
plans won't cost much. The President may promise that if you
like affordable energy, you can keep affordable energy. But
like his other promises, we know that that is simply not true.
We hear many claims, but the actual climate is not doing what
the models predicted. As one of our witnesses said last year,
the models have not been successfully field tested for
predicting climate change and so far, their error rate should
preclude their use from predicting future climate change.
So what does all this mean? Let me explain it in my terms.
I am an optometrist, my brother was an ophthalmologist, we had
an eye clinic. When a patient's symptoms were complicated or
unclear, we never pretended to be certain about a diagnosis.
Instead, we would take a scientific approach and be thoughtful,
ask questions, investigate. And we were honest with our
patients. We would not prescribe a risky procedure if we were
uncertain whether we would do more harm than good.
Climate change is similar. There is uncertainty. We see
symptoms, but there is strong, contradictory evidence, there is
broad consensus that carbon emissions have at least some impact
on the climate, but we don't know how much. And beyond that,
the consensus breaks down. So the diagnosis is unclear. The
President's climate regulations are a series of risky
procedures with potentially harmful consequences to treat a
possible problem that we don't actually understand. So a
scientific approach, despite what is being said, and being
actually done, the actual scientific process is to be
thoughtful, ask questions and investigate.
Sadly, those who raise legitimate questions are portrayed
as ``anti-science.'' But there is nothing scientific about
discrediting conflicting evidence and asking reasonable
questions. Political parties are not science referees, cutting
off debate when it suits one side. In short, no political party
has a monopoly on the facts.
Speaking of the facts, when reviewing proposed rules we
must be honest about both the benefits and the costs. Sadly,
the Administration recently disregarded well established OMB
cost-benefit guidelines to generate an increased social cost of
carbon. In other words, they broke the rules to make emissions
look more costly. They cooked the books to meet their needs.
Instead of creating climate millionaires who benefit from
carbon trading schemes and new regulations, let's remember that
the pain falls hardest on low income families. These rules will
drive industry costs, hurting American workers and creating
foreign factories that emit far more than we would save. This
climate plan can pass Congress, and I understand the temptation
to ignore our system of checks and balances, pretend the
Constitution doesn't exist and implement whatever plans the
President would like. But that is not how representative
democracy works. The rest of the world is retreating as we
heard earlier. Instead, let's find common ground and let's
encourage an all of the above energy mix including wind,
renewable, biomass, hydro, solar, natural gas. We will continue
to reduce carbon emissions. Nuclear power can produce vast
quantities of emissions-free energy. Efficiency and new
innovations offer great promise.
In short, regardless of whoever's views, we can all work
together to reduce emissions without this job killing climate
plan. Let's find that common ground. I very much look forward
to your testimony. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
And last but not least, Senator Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you to
members of both panels. It is about to be your turn.
In Federalist Number 47, James Madison stated there can be
no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are
united in the same person or body of magistrates. I fear
members of our current Administration are anointing themselves
as both legislators and administrators with this climate action
plan, and I hope we have a dialogue about that today and in the
coming weeks.
I also hope we have a reasonable dialogue as Senator
Boozman suggested on the science, on the different views, on
the matter of climate science. And I hope we can discuss the
various views in this room and in this country with respect.
What is called for with regard to climate science is a robust
and comprehensive dialogue. Already we have heard it suggested
today by some of my friends on the other side of the aisle that
to question the science of climate science amounts to scandal.
I hope we can avoid that. This morning I hope we are able to
engage in a productive exchange of our concerns about the
President's plan, and about executive overreach and this
agenda's effect on jobs. I think we should be able to talk
openly about climate science issues, such as the link between
climate change and human activity as well as the challenges of
making long-term climate predictions based on models.
Now, here are some facts. According to analysis done by Dr.
John Christy of the Earth System Science Center at the
University of Alabama Huntsville, predictions made by 73
computer models cited by the United Nations latest
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, Fifth
Assessment Report, do not accurately predict the lack of
temperature rises seen in the past 17 years. In other words,
the IPCC models have been inaccurate. The past 15 years,
recorded world temperatures have increased only a quarter of
the rate IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in
2007.
Further, the 2007 IPCC report included predictions of a
decline in Antarctic sea ice. But the latest document does not
explain why this year it is at a record high. Antarctic sea ice
is at a record high.
In addition, the 2013 report states most models simulate a
small decreasing trend in Antarctic sea ice extent in contrast
to the small increasing trend in observations. The reality
differs from the models.
The 2007 forecast for more intense hurricanes has also been
ignored in the new document after this year was one of the
quietest hurricane seasons in history. This from a leading
group of international experts on climate science.
A recently published article in Science magazine entitled
In the Hot Seat said the fact is there is little or no evidence
that global warming steered Sandy into New Jersey or made the
storm any stronger. And scientists haven't even tried yet to
link climate change with particular fires.
Despite this knowledge, the Administration has based many
policy decisions on the link between specific extreme weather
events and climate change, as well as predictions on climate
models. Climate modeling is difficult by nature, and there are
large degrees of uncertainty in the resulting predictions.
Anyone who suggests, as has been suggested in this room today,
that climate science is not complicated, is simply being naive.
Many of the President's policies will negatively affect our
constituents by preventing them from earning a living. How can
we expect to assure these people that their sacrifices will
benefit them in the long term, when we do not have the capacity
to accurately predict regional climate changes?
Again, these discussions are important and they should be
had in this Congress without either side being accused of
engaging in scandal. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Well, it is your turn, panel. I am sure that you were
fascinated with all of our comments and mesmerized by them. But
now it is your turn to mesmerize us.
So, Hon. Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. REGINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. McCarthy. Thanks, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Vitter, members of the committee. First, let me thank you for
the opportunity to come and testify before you today.
In June of last year, the President reaffirmed his
commitment to reducing carbon pollution when he directed many
Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection
Agency, to take meaningful steps to mitigate the current and
future damage caused by carbon dioxide emission and to prepare
for the anticipated climate changes that have already been set
in motion.
Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our
time. Responding to this challenge is an urgent public health,
safety, national security and environmental imperative that
presents both an economic challenge and an economic
opportunity. Both the economy and the environment must provide
for current and future generations. We can and must embrace
cutting carbon pollution as a spark for business innovation,
job creation, clean energy and broad economic growth. The
United States' success over the past 40 years makes clear that
environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand.
The President's climate action plan directs Federal agencies to
address climate change using existing executive authorities.
The plan has three pillars: cutting carbon pollution in
America, preparing the country for the impacts of climate
change, and leading international efforts to combat global
climate change. EPA plays a critical role in implementing the
plan's first pillar, which is cutting carbon pollution. Over
the past 4 years, EPA has begun to address this task under the
Clean Air Act. In 2009, EPA and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, along with the auto industry, the UAW
and other stakeholders, worked together to set greenhouse gas
and fuel economy standards for model year light duty vehicles
2012 to 2025. Over the life of these vehicles, the standards
will save an estimated $1.7 trillion for consumers and
businesses and cut America's oil consumption by 12 billion
barrels, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6 billion
metric tons.
Building on that success, the President asked EPA to work
with States, utilities and other key stakeholders to develop
plans to reduce carbon pollution from both future and existing
power plants. In March 2012, the EPA first proposed carbon
pollution standards for future power plants. After receiving
over 2.5 million comments, we made the decision to issue a new
proposal based on this input and updated information.
In September 2013, the EPA announced its new proposal. The
proposed standards would establish the first uniform national
limits on carbon pollution from future power plants. They do
not apply to existing power plants. The proposal set separate
national limits for new natural gas-fired turbines and new
coal-fired units. The rule provides flexibility to the
operators of these units by allowing them to average their
emissions over multiple years to meet a somewhat tighter
standard.
The standards reflect a demonstrated performance of
efficient lower carbon technologies that are currently being
used today and that set the stage for continued public and
private investment in these technologies. We look forward to
robust engagement on that proposal.
And for existing power plants, we are engaged in an
outreach to a broad group of stakeholders who can inform the
development of the proposed guidelines which we expect to issue
in June of this year. These guidelines will provide guidance to
States which have the primary role in developing and
implementing plans to address carbon pollution from the
existing plants in their States. When we issue the proposed
guidelines, the more formal public process will begin,
providing an additional opportunity for stakeholders and the
general public to provide input.
The climate action plan also calls for the development of a
comprehensive interagency strategy to address emissions of
methane as well as domestic action to reduce emissions of
hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. EPA is working on these aspects of
the President's plan as well.
The President's plan also calls for a broad array of
actions to prepare for the impacts of climate change. EPA is
incorporating research on climate impacts into the
implementation of our existing programs and developing
information and tools to help decisionmakers better understand
these impacts. EPA is also working closely with our Federal
agency counterparts on several other aspects of building our
national resilience.
Working closely with the State Department, EPA is also
engaged in international discussions with our partners in other
countries in reducing carbon pollution through an array of
activities.
In conclusion, the President's climate plan provides a road
map for Federal action to meet the pressing challenge of
climate change, promoting clean energy solutions that
capitalize on American innovation and drive economic growth.
EPA looks forward to working with other Federal agencies and
all stakeholders on these critical efforts.
Thank you again, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Administrator McCarthy.
And we turn to Hon. Daniel Ashe.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter
and members of the committee. I want to also thank you for the
chance to testify on behalf of the President's climate action
plan and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's role under that
plan.
The best science available to us today supports the
conclusion that earth's climate system is undergoing rapid and
significant change, and I believe this is the greatest
challenge to current and future management of our wildlife
resources. I was trained as a scientist, and I lead a science
driven organization. We always begin with what we know through
observation.
The earth's climate is changing. It is changing at an
accelerating rate. Average surface temperatures are increasing.
Ocean temperatures are rising. Sea ice and glaciers are
melting. Sea levels are rising. Oceans are acidifying. Plants
are flowering earlier. Birds are migrating sooner. In general,
wildlife species distributions are shifting northward and
higher in elevation. All of these observed changes are
consistent with observations in the rise of greenhouse gas
emissions and with the conclusion that human emissions of those
gases are driving change in the earth's climate system.
And it leads to the conclusion that we as responsible
wildlife managers must anticipate that large scale ecological
disruption will be an increasing aspect of the daily challenges
that we face in doing our jobs. We must prepare or be
unprepared to deal with the consequences.
The President's climate action plan is compelling in
helping us to prepare. It asks us to reduce carbon pollution,
prepare our Nation for the impacts of changing climate and help
the world understand and respond to the challenge as well. It
is really asking us to be the leaders that we are supposed to
be.
In decades past, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has
been a leader in recognizing and helping prepare the Nation to
deal with great environmental challenges. Market shooting and
devastation of migratory birds, indiscriminate use of
industrial pesticides like DDT, large scale destruction of
wetlands and species extinction, great leaders prepared the
organization and its employees to deal with those challenges.
Today we see the emergence of a new and likely much greater
challenge, climate change. It is our obligation to prepare our
great institutions, like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to
meet this challenge. We cannot do this alone, and the action
plan compels us to work with other Federal agencies, States,
tribes, local communities and the private sector and private
citizens.
In March 2013, the Service worked with Federal and State
agency partners to release the National Fish, Wildlife and
Plants Climate Adaptation Strategy. This strategy identifies
key vulnerabilities to fish, wildlife and plants and presents a
unified approach to reduce the negative effects of climate
change on our wildlife heritage and on the communities and
economies that depend on those resources.
Since it was released, the strategy has been incorporated
into guidance to all Federal agencies for their climate change
adaptation planning efforts. And it is the focus of legislation
introduced by Senator Whitehouse on climate change adaption for
natural resources. The Service is embracing the challenge
presented by climate change to the Nation's fish and wildlife
resources. We realize that addressing this challenge was a good
measure of success and in the long term will require our
commitment, resolve, passion and creativity. We look forward to
working with this committee and the Congress to enhance this
most important work, work that will pass on our wildlife
resource heritage to future generations of Americans.
Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify,
and especially for your leadership on this issue. During the
members' presentations today, I heard many things of interest,
and I heard Senator Whitehouse say do your duty. I heard
Senator Sessions say, there is common ground. I think those are
both words to live by, and things we can bear in mind as we go
forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
And we turn to Hon. Nancy Sutley, who is the Chair of the
Council on Environmental Quality.
STATEMENT OF HON. NANCY H. SUTLEY, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member
Vitter and members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the President's climate action plan.
The President believes we have an obligation to our
children to reduce carbon pollution, to protect our future. The
climate action plan builds on steps the Administration has
already taken to cut carbon pollution and to strengthen our
economy by supporting domestic clean energy jobs. As you heard,
the plan has three pillars: cutting carbon pollution at home,
preparing the Nation for the impacts of climate change we can
avoid and leading international efforts to address this global
challenge.
The key part of the plan is to reduce carbon pollution in
the United States. The Administration is already making
significant progress. In the last 5 years, the U.S. has more
that doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar and
geothermal sources. We are setting a goal to double electricity
production from these sources again by 2020.
We are also focusing efforts on energy efficiency. As you
have heard, we have established new fuel economy and greenhouse
gas standards that will double the efficiency of our cars by
the middle of the next decade and help families save money at
the pump. Also established the first-ever fuel economy and
greenhouse gas standards for heavy duty trucks, buses and vans,
and the plan promises a second round of standards for heavy
duty trucks.
The plan also sets a goal to reduce carbon pollution
through energy efficiency and standards for appliances and
energy efficiency efforts in Federal buildings. Since August,
the Department of Energy has proposed or finalized several
energy efficiency standards for appliances and other products.
When combined with other energy efficiency standards issued by
the Administration, they will help cut consumer electricity
bills by hundreds of billions of dollars.
We are also focused on making sure that the Federal
Government is leading by example. Since 2008, Federal agencies
have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by almost 15
percent. The President recently directed agencies to consume 20
percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020,
more than double the current goal.
Even as we work to cut carbon pollution, we also need to
take action to address the impacts of climate change that can't
be avoided. We know as the earth continues to warm, we can
expect more frequent extreme weather events, including large
storms, severe droughts and heat waves. In 2012, weather and
climate disasters caused over $110 billion in damage. Last
summer the Administration released the Hurricane Sandy
rebuilding strategy. The strategy focuses on helping the region
build to be more resilient to deal with future storms. As part
of these efforts, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development and its partner agencies are investing in safe and
more resilient infrastructure, and the Federal Transit
Administration is strengthening public transit systems affected
by the storm. These efforts can serve as a model for
communities across the country.
The President also signed an executive order directing
agencies to help communities strengthen their resilience to
extreme weather and other climate impacts. The agencies are
directed to modernize their programs to better support local
preparedness, to better manage our natural resources to improve
resilience and to develop information and tools to help local
decisionmakers. The executive order also established a task
force of State, local and tribal elected leaders to advise the
Administration. Their recommendations will be vital to ensure
that the Federal Government responds to the needs and
priorities of communities when addressing the impacts of
climate change.
Finally, all agencies are now examining how a change in
climate will affect their missions. Last February, Federal
agencies for the first time released their climate change
adaption plans, outlining strategies to reduce their
vulnerability to the impacts of climate change.
As you have heard, we also understand that our response to
climate change must be global and we are committed to playing a
leadership role that can support a strong international
response. The Administration is pursuing this through multiple
channels, including the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, as well as multi-lateral and bilateral
initiatives focusing on tackling the key drivers of greenhouse
gas emissions.
The impacts of climate change are being shouldered by
communities, families and businesses across the country. For
the sake of our economy and the legacy that we leave our
children, it is vital to address this problem head-on. Thank
you for listening, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sutley follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
And now we turn to Hon. Dan Tangherlini.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN TANGHERLINI, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. GENERAL
SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tangherlini. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking
Member Vitter and members of the committee. I appreciate being
invited here today to testify on this important topic.
Last year, the U.S. Government Accountability Office added
climate change to its high risk list, citing that it presents a
significant financial risk to the Federal Government. According
to the National Climatic Data Center in 2012, weather and
climate disaster events caused over $110 billion in damage and
337 deaths, making it the second costliest year on record. The
Administration is committed to reducing the damage caused by
climate change and to preparing for its long term impacts. In
June 2013, the President reaffirmed this commitment with a
climate action plan that directs agencies to cut carbon
pollution, prepare for the impacts of climate change and lead
international efforts to address global climate change.
GSA is one of the many Federal agencies doing its part to
assist in this effort. As the owner and caretaker of Federal
properties, our large and diverse portfolio presents many
opportunities to increase the Government's energy efficiency,
reduce our contribution to climate change, save millions of
dollars in energy costs, and to plan and implement risk
management strategies. As part of the President's climate
action plan, GSA is undertaking efforts to improve the
efficiency of our Federal buildings, identify and prepare for
climate risks, and is working to ensure that we share lessons
learned with our partner agencies.
GSA reduces energy consumption across its portfolio through
a variety of means. GSA leverages technology such as advanced
metering, remote building analytics and smart building systems
to uncover deeper energy savings opportunities. We also use
rapid building assessments to perform sophisticated energy
audits that require no onsite work or new device installations.
Another valuable tool is energy savings performance contracts.
These are public-private partnerships where the private sector
provides the up front capital to make energy efficiency
upgrades in a facility and is paid by the Federal agency from
the guaranteed energy savings under the contract. Once the
contract ends, the agency continues to benefit from the reduced
energy costs.
The President's climate action plan sets new goals on the
use of renewable energy, increasing the current goal from 7.5
percent to 20 percent by 2020. In fiscal year 2013, 46.1
percent of electricity procured or generated by GSA came from
renewable sources, and enough renewable energy to power nearly
2,600 homes came from our own facilities.
GSA is also working to improve our partners' understanding
of their energy use. As directed in the December 2013
Presidential Memorandum on Federal Leadership and Energy
Management, GSA is partnering with the Department of Energy and
the EPA to prepare and initiate a pilot Green Button initiative
that will increase our partners' ability to manage energy
consumption, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet
sustainability goals.
Taken together, these efforts have led to a significant
reduction in GSA's energy use intensity and greenhouse gas
emissions. In fiscal year 2013, GSA reduced energy usage per
square foot by 24.8 percent, ahead of statutory targets. Since
fiscal year 2011, these reductions have saved $192.7 million in
avoided costs. Also in fiscal year 2013, GSA achieved an
approximately 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions,
exceeding our 2020 target. This amount of energy that we no
longer use is enough to power over 60,000 homes for 1 year.
GSA is also preparing for the potential impacts of climate
change as part of the President's climate action plan. While it
is impossible to predict the precise occurrence and cost of
each and every climate risk, it is imperative to develop a
robust risk management approach. The President's climate action
plan represents a commitment to reduce and respond to the
impacts of climate change. GSA is responsible for buildings and
offices throughout the Government and across this country. This
means we play a vital role in mitigating and preparing for
these adverse effects. Through improved energy efficiency and
risk planning, we hope to continue to make progress on both of
these critical efforts.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and I welcome
any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tangherlini follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much to our patient panel. We
will start the questioning and comments.
Sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the
same. Let's take the often-repeated charge that scientists are
divided on climate change. Let's take a look at that. So we
have quantified it. There are 98 percent of the scientists, I
am sorry, I will correct myself, 97 percent of the scientists
who say that human activity is causing carbon pollution. And
there are 3 percent who fight that. So it is 97 percent of the
scientists on one side and 3 percent on the other. And my
colleagues act as if it is 50-50.
It is just like the scientists who are divided on whether
or not smoking caused cancer. It was 97 percent to 3 percent
and when you looked at the 3 percent, they were somehow
connected to the tobacco industry. And I can tell you that most
scientists who say no to climate change have ties to big oil
and coal polluters, including the scientist who was mentioned
here today by Senator Wicker. We checked it out. He is from a
think tank that is funded by the Koch brothers.
So again, when people say there is a split, let's look at
what the split is. Second----
Senator Wicker. Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. I am going to continue and then I am happy
to call on you in your turn.
Now, there's also predictions of economic gloom and doom,
gloom and doom if we address climate change and if we move to
clean energy. We are already hearing about the money we are
saving by going to energy conservation.
But let's go back 40 years. Forty years, when in this
committee we had a robust debate, I wasn't here then, on the
Clean Air Act. And it was gloom and doom, we were going to
destroy the economy. Let's look at what happened since the
Clean Air Act.
Over the last 40 years, our national GDP has risen 207
percent. The total benefits of the Clean Air Act amount to more
than 40 times the cost of regulation. For every dollar spent we
get $40 in benefits. So the gloom and doom that is always
predicted when we move to clean up the environment keeps being
repeated. Fortunately, the people don't believe it. Only the
people here believe that. Too many. But the people out there,
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, don't believe it.
Now, I want to ask Administrator McCarthy a question
related to something that is very disturbing that has been said
on the other side. And I believe my friends truly mean this,
they are not, they are very, very concerned. And they are
concerned that the President is acting by fiat, that he is
above the law, that he is moving in a way that isn't warranted
and that is up to the Congress to take action to move forward
with new standards for existing power plants and so on and so
forth.
So I just looked at the Supreme Court decision, there are
two of them, one in 2007. And what they said then contrary to
something Senator Sessions said, which he has a right to
believe, he said that carbon wasn't covered. Well, the Supreme
Court said that ``The statute is unambiguous,'' and the Clean
Air Act covers carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, without a doubt.
Senator Sessions. Madam Chair, you quoted my name, and----
Senator Boxer. You will have the time. You will have the
time.
Senator Sessions [continuing]. Your interpretation of my
remarks----
Senator Boxer. You will have the time. You can talk about
me for an entire 5 minutes, I don't care. Now, could you set
the clock back and give me another 30 seconds? Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Here we are. Clear Supreme Court case
decision, followed by another one in 2011 that said absolutely,
you have to move on these power plants.
So my question to you is, as you move forward with this,
isn't it true that if you did not move forward with the climate
action plan, if you did not try to regulate this carbon
pollution which is so damaging and which is covered by the
Supreme Court decision that you could be sued and you could be
harmed if you didn't do that?
Ms. McCarthy. Madam Chairman, we actually have been
petitioned and we are in litigation about regulating carbon
pollution in a number of sectors. The most important thing to
remember about the President's carbon action----
Senator Boxer. Sued because people think you are not doing
enough?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. Or because you are doing too much?
Ms. McCarthy. That is correct, because once you decide it
is a pollutant under the law and that it endangers, EPA is
obligated to look at those public health and environmental
impacts and to consider those in their regulations.
Senator Boxer. So you are already being sued by those in
the public who think EPA is not doing enough, while people here
say you don't have the right to do anything, and the President
has no right to do anything. It is very clear, if you read
these cases, that you have to move forward.
Ms. McCarthy. But the President made the--I am sorry.
Senator Boxer. No, no, go right ahead.
Ms. McCarthy. But the President made the very sensible and
common sense decision to tell us to focus on power plants
first. Because power plants represent 33 percent of the carbon
emissions that are being emitted in the U.S. and 60 percent of
the emissions from stationary sources. So we are trying to be
very deliberate and careful in how we apply the Clean Air Act.
Senator Boxer. I believe you are. And I would close with
this, the endangerment finding was started under George W.
Bush, and we got that endangerment finding, that draft, and it
was completed under the Obama administration. So that was
common ground.
I would call on Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. Administrator
McCarthy, I am going to have 5 or 10 minutes talking with you,
so I want to focus on all of these new, very consequential
regulations. But I first want to ask that if this committee
calls a separate hearing on the investigation and circumstances
surrounding John Beale, and if you are invited to testify along
with other appropriate witnesses, would you come and testify at
that hearing?
Ms. McCarthy. Whatever the Chair wishes, sure.
Senator Vitter. Is it fair to say whatever the committee
wishes, if it is a committee invitation?
Ms. McCarthy. If I am invited, I will always appear. Yes.
Senator Vitter. So you have no hesitation talking about
that subject?
Ms. McCarthy. None at all.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
OK, Ms. McCarthy, I want to focus on one area where I think
there is a clear overstep, and that is the greenhouse gas new
source performance standards. You have said as you relooked at
that, ``We did what democracy demands, we paid attention, we
read those comments, we thought about them and we decided that
we needed to update the proposal.'' Talking about the initial
wave of comments that came in about that. And you further
stated, ``Our best defense is to do it right, to do it
correctly under the law.''
However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 clearly prohibits
EPA from considering certain federally funded projects when
setting the standards. And yet three such projects form the
majority of EPA's discussion regarding new plants. And there is
no mention of EPA Act 2005 in the over 400 pages of that
proposal.
Recent press accounts report that you and the agency were
unaware of this conflict with the EPA Act requirement until it
was pointed out by colleagues in the House of Representatives.
How did the EPA miss this?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I will advise you that EPA is,
understands that concerns have been raised about EPACT. To
address those concerns we have very recently, I think as early
as this morning, provided to OMB for interagency review a
notice of data availability, so that the package is very clear
about its intersect with EPACT. We believe that having this
specific consideration for EPACT makes no change in the
standard as we have proposed, but it is important that the
public have this information and have us provide more clarity
on that issue. That is exactly what we are doing.
Senator Vitter. Is all of this since the issuance of the
new proposed rules, or did you consider that, did you evaluate
that before the issuance of the new rules?
Ms. McCarthy. I can't say what the individual staff was
aware of or not. I certainly was not aware that we should raise
that issue specifically. We are going to address that issue
specifically, but Senator, we are looking at evidence in data
well beyond what has been associated with the EPACT funded
projects. So we are very comfortable with the standard that we
propose. We think it is a very robust data set. We are looking
at those facilities in concert with all those, which is
perfectly appropriate under EPACT.
Senator Vitter. Well, as you know, these three projects
that under the law you can't consider, you clearly cannot
consider, they form the majority of your discussion about the
regs. So I think there is a serious problem there.
But let me go on. Let me just also point out, you said EPA
read all the comments. San Miguel Electric Cooperative
submitted comments and they underscored this particular issue.
They pointed out, this law is in direct conflict with what you
are doing, with your evidence, your support for doing this. So
I just wanted to point that out.
This is very concerning, because this is a direct legal
conflict. I think this concern is underscored by the fact that
litigation has now been filed over this direct legal conflict,
which is clearly, by EPA's own submissions and writing, the
majority of its backing for these new source performance
standards.
Ms. McCarthy. But Senator, our understanding of the reading
of the EPACT is that we can't solely make a determination on
the basis of EPACT funded facilities. There is nothing in the
law that precludes us from considering those in the context of
a larger, more robust data set, which is what we are actually
doing.
Senator Vitter. OK. I want to move on to the social cost of
carbon process. Many of us have written you and others at EPA,
very concerned about this secretive process. We wrote you in
September of last year, we wrote another one of your high-
ranking deputies in November with detailed questions. We got a
response at 8:18 a.m. this morning. I appreciate that. I think
the timing of that response says a lot.
We are going to be, I am out of time, so we are going to be
submitting detailed questions as a follow up to you and to the
other witnesses for the record regarding the social cost of
carbon process, because it is being used to justify all sorts
of regulations, we believe, without adequate backing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator Vitter. Senator
Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank all
four of our witnesses, not only for their appearance here but
for their public service and for your strong leadership on this
issue.
Mr. Tangherlini, I want to ask you a question concerning
one specific consolidation. But buildings play a huge role in
dealing with the carbon emissions. We had the President take
some pretty aggressive action so that the Federal Government is
a leader in reducing carbon in our buildings. The Committee on
the Consolidation of the FBI, our resolution makes it clear
that to the maximum extent practicable the Administration shall
require that the procurement include requirements for water and
energy efficiency and stormwater management in accordance with
the executive order. This is the largest public works
consolidation probably in this decade. So it is one that we
will want to be a clear example of what we can do to reduce
carbon emissions.
But we also want to consolidate the FBI, because it is
inefficient the way they operate, which is also causing excess
energy use and a larger carbon footprint than we need. The
committee is pretty clear when it says we want a consolidated
headquarters facility, giving you up to 2.1 million rentable
square feet and up to 55 acres. The Appropriations Committee
just recently in its report accompanying the Omnibus
Appropriation Bill made it clear that the FBI headquarters
consolidation is expected to result in full consolidation of
the FBI headquarters.
Can you assure this committee that passed the resolution
that you will be in full compliance with both the environmental
issues as well the plan that is ultimately selected? And that
is going through a competitive process, which I certainly full
understand. But it will provide for the full consolidation of
the FBI.
Mr. Tangherlini. That is definitely our interest, Senator
Cardin, as you point out. Having these employees spread out
over more than two dozen facilities is not helping the ability
of the FBI to meet the needs of that agency, but certainly
causing undue expense because of rent, but also undue damage
because of the additional environmental impacts. It is our
interest to consolidate fully the FBI. We also though have to
see what resources are available to us through the exchange
process and what resources we would have to be able to bring
into the project.
So as we have talked about, we are at the beginning stages
of identifying the value of the current facility, identifying
sites, completing a fair, transparent, competitive process.
Senator Cardin. And I fully support that. I would just be
pretty clear about this, I think it is pretty clear that
Congress expects full consolidation and that that is not able
but I would hope that you would work with Congress rather
than--we expect full consolidation. Let me just put it that
way.
Mr. Tangherlini. Absolutely.
Senator Cardin. Let me just make one observation, Madam
Chair, the point that you raised on the Administration's
actions on the regulatory front which are required to do and
they are doing absolutely the right thing in regulating carbon
emissions. We tried a few years ago to pass a different
framework, framework that would give more flexibility, set a
cap and then give flexibility on how to reach those caps that
would be an alternative to the regulatory process under the
Clean Air Act. We couldn't get that done. Our friends on the
other side of the aisle decided that that was not to be how
they wanted to move forward.
And clearly the American people want clean air. And clearly
the American people want a clean environment. And the Clean Air
Act is critically important and you have a responsibility to
carry out that law. And we should help you. We should help you.
We try to do that. And we didn't get cooperation, and now we
are getting complaints.
So I would hope that we will find ways to find that common
ground, Mr. Ashe, that you quoted one of the members of this
committee that I don't want to quote because it will just take
my time.
But let me in the 40 seconds that I have remaining, the
failure to deal with this causes us to concentrate on
adaptation and resiliency. Significant resources have now been
made available through the Sandy appropriations, et cetera. You
talk generally about it, but could you supply us with specific
programs that you are dealing with under your jurisdictions to
deal with resiliency and adaptation in light of the realities
that we now have a different climate pattern?
Ms. McCarthy. Let me be very brief, because I think others
might want to interject. But all of the agencies have developed
climate adaptation plans that have been publicly commented on.
We are taking those plans to develop implementation strategies.
But clearly EPA has a number of issues that are impacted, a
number of concerns that are impacted by climate. Most notably
certainly water and wastewater infrastructure issues. Those are
of primary importance and raise the concern about moving toward
green infrastructure, which keeps water local and can help
provide more livable and safe communities.
Mr. Ashe. I think for the Fish and Wildlife Service,
Senator Cardin, I think probably the most significant relevant
piece is, we received $102 million under the Sandy supplemental
funding for resilience, and to look at building resiliency into
that middle Atlantic coastline as we do restoration from
Hurricane Sandy. So it provides us really for the first time
the opportunity not just to rebuild, but to rebuild in a way
where we are thinking about making that, making our coastal
infrastructure and our natural, our human and natural
infrastructure more resilient in the future.
Senator Boxer. OK, we are going to move on to Senator
Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. McCarthy, in my opening statement I brought up
something that I have talked to you about before. That is, it
just seems to me that it is, the delay of placing it on the
Federal Register until January was done for the political
purpose that I outlined. You can remember and I can remember
back in 2012, prior to the election, I named all the different
rules and regulations and how damaging they would be, would
come out. So this is not a new issue with me. I just would ask
you, is there any time that during this process that you or the
EPA had a conversation with the White House or OMB in terms of
the timing of the release on the Federal Register?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I will assure you that as soon as
that proposal was released, we had submitted it to the Federal
Register office. The delay was solely the backup in the Federal
Register office. And we frequently asked when it was going to
come out and how quickly. Because it was available on our web
page, we wanted to start the formal public process.
Senator Inhofe. But if you started it, wouldn't that start
the clock running for the 12-month period?
Ms. McCarthy. It would have started it an obligation on the
part----
Senator Inhofe. Let's assume that for any reason, if you
submitted that to be placed on the Federal Register, wouldn't
that start the 12-month clock running? I am asking because I
don't know.
Ms. McCarthy. It would have started the obligation under
the Clean Air Act that says we should complete NSPSs within the
12-month period.
Senator Inhofe. So that would actually end up then in
October, as opposed to in January in terms of when it actually
comes out.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, we had every opportunity to put out
a reproposal, and we wanted, we tried very hard to get it
published so that we could start that in the public process.
Senator Inhofe. OK, that gives us somewhere to go and look
at.
I want to mention one other thing, too. Under the
uninsured, unemployment insurance bill, I had an amendment that
kind of re-emphasized Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act, and
you are familiar with that, that is the one that says the
Administration shall conduct continued evaluations of potential
loss or shifts of employment which may result from the
administration and the enforcement of the provisions of this
chapter and application of implementation plans. It goes on,
and it is very specific that the reason for this is they want
to make sure, or we wanted to make sure way back in 1977 that
if this took place, these various regulations, not knowing who
would be in office in the future, that we would know what
effect they have on jobs. And this is something that I do feel
that we will, you can comply with section 321(a), in spite of
the fact that my amendment didn't pass.
Ms. McCarthy. We are actually doing the best we can to do a
complete economic analysis. When we do our major rules, we do
look at employment impacts to the extent that peer-reviewed
science and modeling allows. Because of Senator Vitter and his
efforts to have us relook at whole economy modeling, we are
pulling together an expert panel under our science advisory
board to continue to look at these issues and to mature that
science as best we can.
Senator Inhofe. That is good. But can we say that we would
not implement these rules until we have that information?
Ms. McCarthy. We actually provide a significant amount of
information. Whole economy modeling is appropriate for some
rules and not others. So we believe we are complying with that
potion of the Clean Air Act at this point.
Senator Inhofe. And from this point on, and maybe you have
done it in the past, but from this point on can we really that
we are not going to be activating these regulations until such
time as we know the effect it will have on jobs and the
economy?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, what you can be assured of us when
we do rules we will do it to the full extent that the science
is available and the analysis can be done in a way that is
consistent with all the requirements at OMB.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is good. I appreciate that. We
will be looking for, as the clock moves on, to make sure that
is being done.
Mr. Ashe, first I want to thank you on the record again for
all the cooperation you have been on your word to approve the
range-wide plan on oil and gas, CCAA, of the lesser prairie
chicken. We have talked about this for a long period of time.
You were kind enough to make two trips, not one but two trips
out to Oklahoma, talk to these stakeholders and again, I just
appreciate it very much.
I know Senator Udall, who I thought was here earlier, he
may have mentioned this, Senator Udall's State and mine are
working very hard to enroll acreage into the program so that it
can successfully conserve the species in a way that is
voluntary. It is just this whole idea, like the partnership
program that I am so fond of, it doesn't assume that the
stakeholders don't want to clean up their system and protect
endangered species. Do you think that range-wide plan can
ultimately preclude the need for listing under the Endangered
Species Act?
Mr. Ashe. Senator, I think I met with the members of the
range-wide partnership 2 weeks ago in Texas, and I think they
are poised to make some significant steps forward. They already
have signed up I think between a million and a half and two
million acres of oil and gas lands, and they are working on the
possibility of several million more. So the question is, can
the implementation of the range-wide plan potentially address
the threats to the species? Yes. It can potentially. Will it? I
think it is a question of performance. And I think we have a
little bit of time left to see if that will work.
Senator Boxer. Sorry to cut you off, but we have gone over
quite a bit.
We are going to turn to Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer.
Let me first say to my colleagues on the other side that as
we solve the problem of carbon, I am prepared to accept that
there are going to be economic impacts on families that you are
here to represent. And it is important that in our solution we
address that concern. Because that is a legitimate concern.
What I can't accept is that the coal and oil jobs are the
only jobs that are at stake in this discussion. Not when
fishermen in Rhode Island are no longer catching winter
flounder because Narragansett Bay is 3 or 4 degrees warmer in
the winter. Not when the ski season in the northeast, and
frankly all the way out to Utah, is shortened. Not when
foresters in Oregon and across the west are losing their jobs
to the pine beetle and to the loss of having a vibrant national
forest. Not when we have the kind of impacts that we are seeing
throughout the economy. And that is just the economic impacts.
We also have health impacts in Rhode Island, as asthma and
other conditions increase. We are losing our State at the
coastal verge. The houses at Roy Carpenter's beach are falling
into the ocean. I am not going to ignore those factors out of a
desire to protect coal and oil jobs. I will work with you to a
solution that solves our mutual concerns and helps those
industries. But I am not going to ignore this problem.
The suggestion that climate change has stopped, I think,
flies in the face of realistic evidence. If you take a look at
what is happening and when that claim is made it refers to
surface atmospheric temperature, one specific measure. But if
you actually look at a trend line plotted, which is a
mathematical thing, it is not debatable, it is something that
mathematicians do all the time, you plot a trend line through
the data and that is what you get. It is clearly going up.
There is absolutely no legitimate dispute about that.
What you can do is you can cherry pick. And that is what
some of our friends are doing. You can pick different periods
in that rising step process. And if you pick a certain period,
it will look like it is flat through that period.
But it doesn't last. The underlying trend is upward. And
step after step after step is always up. There are in this
graph one, two, three, four, five, six separate occasions when
a denier could say that climate change isn't happening because
it has gone flat and every single time they would have been
wrong.
In light of that, I will ask Ms. McCarthy, on the spectrum
between wisdom and recklessness, where you put placing a bet
that this evidence shows that climate change has stopped and
that we should stop worrying about carbon?
Ms. McCarthy. Climate change is happening, and I have been
worried for a while.
Senator Whitehouse. And one of the reasons that might
explain this is when you look at what is actually happening in
climate change, the carbon pollution is hitting our oceans
pretty hard. Thirty percent of the actual carbon goes into the
oceans. And when it does, it changes it, and that is why
Senator Merkley has talked about the wipeouts of the oyster
hatches in his State. Because acidified water came in, in which
oysters could not build shells. Thirty percent of the carbon,
93 percent of the heat, 93 percent of the heat. The atmosphere,
2.3 percent of the heat.
So if anything changes just the tiniest bit in the ocean,
imagine what effect that has in the atmosphere. Something is
happening that creates that long-term trend oscillation that
creates those steps that if you cherry pick them, can create
the false impression that this thing has stopped. But if you
really look at the problem, you have to look at the role of the
oceans. And I am telling you, from the Ocean State, it is very
hard for me, let me ask, does anybody on this panel doubt that
the oceans are in fact warming? That sea levels are in fact
rising, and that the ocean is in fact becoming more acidic?
Indeed, is there a legitimate scientific debate on those three
subjects? There is none, correct? There is none. The record
will reflect that there was unanimous agreement from the
witnesses.
Senator Sessions. The record will reflect nobody spoke up.
[Laughter.]
Senator Whitehouse. OK, let's go ahead and have them all
say it, if that is what the Senator wants.
Mr. Ashe. I don't believe on those points that you raised
there is, those are based on observations.
Senator Whitehouse. It is measurement, not theory, correct?
Does everybody agree it is correct? Speak now, or else I am
going to count you as yes. I am trying to save time here.
Ms. McCarthy. We agree.
Mr. Tangherlini. And I defer to my colleagues who actually
know something about the subject.
Senator Whitehouse. General Services Administration is not
expert in this. I can appreciate that.
Last question. A ton of carbon that is released from a
power plant, does that do more or less harm than a ton of
carbon that is released from a refinery, a kiln or a boiler?
Ms. McCarthy. Same.
Senator Whitehouse. Same. So at some point, we should
probably start looking at refineries, kilns and boilers that
release tens of thousands of tons of carbon as well?
Ms. McCarthy. Point taken, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
We are going to call now on Senator Barrasso. I am going to
give the gavel to Senator Whitehouse while I step out for just
a moment.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. McCarthy, I would like to follow up on what Senator
Vitter had asked on carbon capture and sequestration and your
new proposed rule for new coal-fired power plants. This week a
Bloomberg news story ran entitled EPA Assertions on Carbon
Capture Viability Sparked Concerns by White House Officials.
The article quotes from interagency comments prepared by the
White House Office of Management and Budget. The article quotes
the White House OMB as saying about your new rule that ``EPA's
assertion of the technical feasibility of carbon capture relies
heavily on literature reviews, pilot projects and commercial
facilities yet to operate.'' It goes on to say ``We believe,''
this is the White House saying ``We believe this cannot form
the basis of a finding that CCS on commercial scale power
plants is `adequately demonstrated.' '' And as you know, and as
was stated before, the law requires that emission control
performance standards must be ``adequately demonstrated.''
So the White House is saying that carbon capture
sequestration is not adequately demonstrated that you are
recommending. So my question is, what does the White House know
that you haven't acknowledged? And is the agency going to speak
more definitely on this topic?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I don't know what you are referring
to, but you can be assured that this proposal went through
interagency review. You can be assured that OMB cleared the
proposal. And I am very confident that you will see that CCS is
proven to be technically feasible in that data that we have
provided.
Senator Barrasso. I am just going to have to disagree with
you. The White House apparently disagrees with you as well
through the OMB. And it is not just one person who is making
that comment. If you take a look at other testimony in the
House from Assistant Secretary of Fossil Energy in the
Administration testifying that commercial technology currently
is not available to meet the EPA's proposed rule, the cost of
current carbon dioxide capture technology is much too high to
be commercially viable, places the technology at similar
economic thresholds of alternative clean carbon. And it just
goes on and on about the lack of viability and availability of
what you are proposing. It just seems to be a level of denial
by the EPA as to what is actually available, and the White
House seems to have called you on that. So I would be
interested, again, on your getting back to me on the specifics
as you look into it some more.
I would like to read from a story from yesterday entitled
E-mails Show Extensive Collaboration between EPA,
Environmentalist Organizations, Top Officials Coordinate
Messaging, Help Groups Gather Petitions. The article stated
that Deputy EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe attended an April
24th, 2012 meeting with 24 leading environmentalist groups,
including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club,
Natural Resources Defense Council, according to a notice of the
meeting sent by his assistant, Terry Porterfield. The article
quotes EPA employee Porterfield's e-mail to the environmental
groups. The e-mail says ``The purpose is to create a photo op
and narrative beat for the comment-gathering efforts on the
issue,'' Porterfield wrote. ``Groups will use materials from
the event to communicate with supporters and recruit additional
comment signers via newsletters, e-mails and social media.''
Is this the standard practice of the EPA, to work with
environmental groups to coordinate on getting comment signers
that are favorable to your proposed policies?
Ms. McCarthy. It is very common practice for EPA to meet
with a variety of stakeholders. Our agendas and our meetings
are public. I think if you look at the history of EPA, we meet
as much with industry groups as we do with environmental
groups. It is our job to understand what concerns people have
and how we can work with them to make sure we are doing our job
appropriately.
Senator Barrasso. This doesn't sound like you are looking
for input, though. These e-mails that have been found seem to
say your goal with meeting with these specific groups is to
recruit additional comment signers via newsletters to generate
support for positions that you are taking and some of those
most liberal of all environmental activist groups, rather than
actually bringing in input.
Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to take a look at that, Senator. I
haven't read the e-mail, I don't know what it is referencing.
But there are often times when we have groups that come in and
give us petitions.
Senator Barrasso. Is it proper behavior for the EPA to go
out with these groups for the sole purpose of recruiting
additional comment signers to then go ahead and support your
position?
Ms. McCarthy. I certainly don't want to interpret what you
just read, Senator, I don't know what the occasion was. I am
sorry.
Senator Barrasso. Do you believe it is proper activity on
behalf of the EPA?
Ms. McCarthy. It is appropriate for EPA to connect with all
of our stakeholders.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I would just say to my colleague, I
mentioned, I don't know if you were here, the North American
Auto Show, a place I have gone for many years, a long time,
built more cars, trucks, vans per capita than any other State.
We had a Chrysler plant, a GM plant, we lost them both, within
months of each other, just a few years ago. I still go to the
Detroit Auto Show, and I was very pleased to see EPA
represented there. As you know, a major source of air pollution
in our country is our motor vehicles. Some people might
criticize and say, why would you go the North American Auto
Show? It is because some of the folks that are most important
for our economy, and frankly, people that they need to be not
just regulating but having a conversation with were there, were
there, from the top leadership of these companies all the way
down. That is the kind of thing I commend you for doing and I
hope you will continue to do more of that. I think you would
have been encouraged by that, had you been with us. I want to
invite you to go with us next year.
I have a question, maybe just one or two here.
Administrator McCarthy, with respect to new source performance
standards, I just want to take a minute or two to focus on
EPA's efforts to implement carbon pollution standards for power
plants. We call this new source performance standards, as you
know. I believe Congress established new source performance
standards in the 1970 Clean Air Act. It is nothing new. And
your agency has had a long history of implementing this
standard. Is that correct?
Ms. McCarthy. That is true.
Senator Carper. Can you tell us what the agency's
experience has been with these types of standards? How has the
agency worked with industry and stakeholders already and
expects to do so into the future when it comes to these
greenhouse gas standards? Third part of the question is, what
has EPA's past experience been when determining what is
adequately demonstrated technology when determining new source
performance standards? Those questions, thank you.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, Senator, thanks for the question. First
of all, the Agency has had a long history in developing new
source performance standards. We have done dozens and dozens of
industry sectors. There are two types. One is looking at new
facilities and it is very clear that it is intended to make
sure that we continue to develop advanced technologies moving
forward, so we take advantage of the best and brightest
technologies and move our innovative technologies more broadly
into the market.
The work that we do in existing facilities has also been
very robust. Our challenge there is to make sure that we work
with States to develop guidance and then they develop plans to
do their job. We have had, when I looked at these standards,
the standards that, the proposal that we put out for 111(b),
which is new sources, it was done exactly the same way that we
have done dozens and dozens of those. We looked at the data
available, we looked at the technologies, we made a
determination that CCS was the best system for emission
reduction for coal facilities moving forward, because it was
technically feasible, it would amount to significant emission
reductions. And it would continue to effectively promote the
development and deployment of advanced technologies.
So we did it the same way we always do, which for a long
time we have been doing very successfully and businesses
continue to grow.
Senator Carper. All right, thanks.
A question if I could for Ms. Sutley. I think you mentioned
in your testimony when I was out of the room, the President's
task force on climate preparedness and resilience, in which
Governor Jack Markell is a participant, as you may know, how do
you expect the valuable information collected from this task
force will be passed down and implemented throughout our
Federal Government?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator. The President directed us
to establish a task force of State, local and tribal elected
leaders, and we are grateful to have the participation of
Governor Markell. This is a very important task force for us in
helping to ensure that the kinds of policies and programs that
the Federal Government as a whole is considering in terms of
making sure that we are prepared and resilient in the face of
the changing climate will help States, tribes and
municipalities to prepare their communities to deal with the
impacts of climate change.
We had our inaugural meeting and a lot of good ideas and we
are having a second one very shortly, looking at different
subject matters. We started out looking at disasters and
resilience preparedness, we will be looking at infrastructure
next. So the input and the recommendations that we gather from
that group will be very helpful in helping us to look,
governmentwide, through our resilience council at the things
that the Federal Government can do, not only to prepare the
Federal Government to deal with the impacts of climate change
and the impacts on emissions, facilities, but also to ensure
that our communities are prepared.
Senator Carper. My time is expired. Mr. Tangherlini, very
nice to see you twice this week, and Gina as well. Again, nice
to see you again. Thank you all for your testimony and for the
good work that you are doing. God bless. Thanks.
Senator Boxer. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would certainly
agree with the 97 percent as you framed it, that human action
has caused more CO2 to be emitted into the
atmosphere. I don't doubt that one bit, and I don't think any
scientists do. But in Congress, in 1974, when they passed the
Clean Air Act, did not prohibit carbon dioxide. Global warming
was not considered at the time, I don't believe any debate
considered that question. It came before the Supreme Court, and
what the Supreme Court said, Ms. McCarthy, is that the EPA
should have to make an endangerment finding. You have made that
endangerment finding. That was a five to four decision, by the
way, only five to four, and it is coming back before the Court.
And you are going to have to justify why plant food,
CO2, is a pollutant covered in 1974. And I would
note, Congress has never since then ever passed legislation
that prohibits CO2 into the atmosphere, directly
doing so. And Senator Whitehouse produced a chart which showed
surface temperature data, which he described as surface
atmosphere. But I am not sure whether--but what the IPCC models
use, what scientists have referred to over the years at
atmospheric temperatures are taken at the lower troposphere.
This is what our chart shows, the kind of data we show, that
the models aren't reaching the temperature increases on that
that is predicted there. Haloes of heat around many land
stations that record temperatures and they are not accurate, as
accurate as the troposphere temperatures. That is what the IPCC
recognizes.
Second, the chart suggested 93 percent of the heat is
absorbed by the oceans, but it doesn't answer the question
about how the amount of temperature change in the oceans.
Evidence on panel will suggest the oceans may have warmed, but
only by 5/100ths of a degree over the last 50 years. That is
the chart Dr. Dessler will offer, and he is a Democratic
witness who will be testifying here today.
And Mr. Ashe, you stated, more than your written statement
says, that we have had more storms in America. And if we don't
have common ground, if we are going to be able to reach and
discuss issues together, we have to agree on what the problem
is, and we have to be honest about the facts. Dr. Pielke
testified here just a few months ago, supports President Obama,
this is what he found about disasters and storms: ``It is
misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters
associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have
increased on climate time scales either in the United States or
globally.'' You said directly opposite that.
Have you conducted any investigation yourself of storms and
disasters? Have you done an independent review of that? Yes or
no. I presume you haven't.
He went on to say globally, weather-related losses have not
increased since 1990. He said U.S. hurricanes have not
increased in frequency or intensity since 1900. He said that
since at least 1950, the intensity and frequency of floods in
the United States has not increased. He went on to say the
frequency and intensity of tornadoes has not increased since
1950 and droughts have not increased globally for half a
century. So do you still stand by your testimony? Have you done
independent research to that effect?
Mr. Ashe. I am not a researcher. I have not done
independent research, Senator. I think what I was speaking of
in my testimony, in my oral testimony, is observation.
Senator Sessions. Well, I would just say that I hope you
will review that and be accurate when you discuss as a public
official the facts, when you relate them to the American
people. And I believe your facts are wrong.
Now, Ms. McCarthy, the President has said that we have had,
repeatedly, at least three times in recent months, that the
temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was
predicted 10 years ago. I have written you about this. Is that
accurate or not?
Ms. McCarthy. I do know some of the facts that I can
provide for you.
Senator Sessions. No, I'm just asking you, is that an
accurate statement? Has it increased faster than predicted or
not?
Ms. McCarthy. I do not know what the President's context
was for making that. I do know that if----
Senator Sessions. Well, do you believe the temperature has
increased faster than predicted? Do you believe that the
temperature in the United States has increased faster than
predicted in the last, worldwide, than 10 years ago?
Ms. McCarthy. I believe that 2010 was the warmest year on
record ever, and I believe that 2012 was the warmest----
Senator Sessions. Now, I want to know whether or not you
believe that data shows that the temperature around the globe
is increasing--please let me ask you, do I not have the right
to ask the director of EPA a simple question that is relevant
to the dispute that is before us?
So I want to ask, is the temperature around the globe
increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago?
Ms. McCarthy. I can't answer that.
Senator Sessions. Why can't you answer that?
Ms. McCarthy. Because it is a narrow statement and a very
large wealth of evidence and information.
Senator Sessions. Do we not have the troposphere
temperature reports that even IPCC recognizes and do they not
show that it is not increasing anything like what the
predictions were? Can you answer that question?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I don't dissect the information and
provide it to you in a way that claims that I am a scientist
and it is a valid way to look at it.
Senator Sessions. You are asking us to impose billions of
dollars of cost on this economy and you won't answer the simple
question of whether it is an accurate statement or not?
Ms. McCarthy. I just look at what the climate scientists
tell me. I don't dissect that information in ways that would
impress you, but certainly I am not qualified.
Senator Sessions. Not me. Climate scientists are telling
you it is not warming to the degree predicted, in fact, it
hasn't really warmed at all in the last 15 years.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, my time is up.
Senator Boxer. I am going to give everybody an extra 2
minutes like I gave Senator Sessions. So you are going to get 7
minutes. Senator Fischer, Senator Boozman, and then we will
each have an extra 2 minutes to close.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Madam Chair. I hope I won't
take that amount of time, since we have another panel today.
Senator Boxer. We are happy to have you do it.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Ms. Sutley, you spoke about the United States should have a
global response because we are facing a global problem. In your
testimony you mentioned working through the United Nations.
What specifically can you tell us that the Obama administration
is doing in that regard, and working through the United
Nations, in your words?
Ms. Sutley. We participate in the U.N. Framework Convention
on Climate Change, which involves, I believe, over 190
countries. The U.S. continues to be a participant in that, and
the current activities are around developing an agreement for
post-2020, addressing climate change with the aim of reaching
an agreement in 2015 about what that might look like. So the
United States as many other countries is engaged in those
discussions right now.
Senator Fischer. What I am looking at are specific actions.
You say that to leverage more ambitious action by other
countries that the Administration needs to step forward. I know
it is always helpful to work with other nations, it is always
helpful to have conversations. But I want to know specifics.
What are we doing to help other nations? Are we investing
resources? Are we providing scientists? What are we doing? And
what is involved in the cost? Or are we just in conversations
right now?
Ms. Sutley. There are a number of different efforts
underway, both bilaterally and multilaterally, addressing a
number of the drivers of climate change. For example, and
perhaps the Administrator can talk a little bit more about
this, working through existing international forums to deal
with hydrofluorocarbons, which have a global warming potential
as well as working on issues around clean energy and promoting
clean energy and technologies around the world.
Senator Fischer. Perhaps you and the Administrator could
provide me with some examples, and if there are costs involved,
I would be interested in knowing that as well.
Ms. Sutley. Yes, certainly.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
Also, Ms. McCarthy, the EPA regulations on coal-fired power
plants are required by law to be technologically viable and
commercially available. While EPA has insisted publicly that
carbon capture and storage technology is technologically
viable, there is serious doubt that EPA officials actually
believe this to be true.
I am going to highlight a 2012 e-mail exchange that was
produced through a Freedom of Information Act request between
John Coequyt, head of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal campaign,
and EPA's Michael Goo and Alex Barron, both in the agency's ops
policy at the time. Coequyt forwarded an article to Goo and
Barron regarding your comments on proposed CCS regulations. In
the article you were quoted as saying, ``While it is a
significant economic lift, the proposed standard will provide
investment for new technologies. CCS is technologically
viable.''
The headline then read, Coal To Remain Viable, says EPA's
McCarthy. In forwarding this article to EPA's Barron and Goo,
Mr. Coequyt wrote, ``Pants on fire.'' Do you have any idea why
he would say pants on fire? We all know the saying that goes
with that. Do you have any idea what that supposedly is about?
Ms. McCarthy. No, I don't.
Senator Fischer. Do you stand by your statement that, I
believe you said it earlier today, that the CCS is viable?
Ms. McCarthy. Very much so.
Senator Fischer. The EPA redacted Barron's very brief
comment then to Goo in response to another article 5 months
article from Politico, with the headline Will EPA's Greenhouse
Regs Wipe Out Coal. And EPA did redact that comment, apparently
no more than three or four words in total on the media article,
as deliberative, which on its face is a curious use of that
process exemption, to keep information from the public under
the Freedom of Information Act. By doing so, EPA nonetheless
indicates that it is deliberating whether its climate
regulations will wipe out coal. I think the American public
deserves to know, does EPA believe that the CCS is viable?
Again, could you answer that?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, when I was Assistant Administrator,
I believed that the information supported that CCS was viable
and was appropriate as a basis for that system of emission
reduction. As Administrator, I retain the same assessment of
the facts.
Senator Fischer. Can you tell me why that e-mail was
redacted?
Ms. McCarthy. I have no idea, Senator. I have no idea.
Senator Fischer. Could you look into that and provide me
with a copy of that e-mail?
Ms. McCarthy. I certainly will look into the issue. If they
were appropriately redacted, then that is fine. But I certainly
understand that there may be questions raised. But there is a
lot of jibber jabber in an agency that is that large. But I
want to assure you that the policy, the people making those
policies and making those technical judgments were the people
that were investing their time and providing input into this
rule.
Senator Fischer. I know we all receive e-mails and we have
no control over that. But it is disconcerting when information
like that does become public and then we have a Government
agency going through a process of really blocking that freedom
of information that I would hope would clarify statements like
this. So I look forward to seeing that.
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, we certainly want to be as
forthcoming as we can. It is an issue that has come up before
on this committee. We will do our best job to provide you these
e-mails, regardless, and only redact when it is appropriate to
do so.
Senator Fischer. Thank you so much.
Senator Boxer. OK, that was 7 minutes, and Senator Boozman,
you have 7.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
There was some criticism about a person that had done a
study that was funded by the Koch brothers. I guess my problem
with that is, you look at the product and then it is peer-
reviewed and this and that, and you criticize it based on the
work. Do you all ever use studies that rely, that are being
done by environmental groups, funded by environmental groups?
Is that a criterion for you as to whether or not it is a good
paper or bad paper?
Ms. McCarthy. We actually look at the study itself and try
to look at whether the analysis is correct and whether the
science is strong.
Senator Boozman. I think all of you have people that have
worked for environmental groups in the past, different
Administrations, but environmental groups. And the idea that
you can produce a product, in fact we have witnesses coming up
that are funded by outside groups one way or the other. But the
idea that testimony or a paper can't be produced because you
are a consultant for a various entity or whatever I think is
really not a good situation. We really need to push back from
that.
The other thing is, and in regard to just studies in
general, it is really hard, we really do want to be helpful in
the sense, we have some real problems to solve in the
environment. It is helpful, though, it is difficult to do that
if you don't have access to the materials and the scientific
studies that allow you to make really wide sweeping decisions
in that regard.
So will you commit to us that we will have those studies
available so that we can see what the basis of your rationale
is?
Ms. McCarthy. Senator, I assume you are talking to me?
Senator Boozman. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. McCarthy. We have been providing information to the
extent that we have it, we have already provided information
that you have requested.
Senator Boozman. OK. So the studies that we would like and
this and that, you will give us those completely?
Ms. McCarthy. To the extent that they are in the control of
EPA, of course, and to the extent that we can work together on
those, we are more than happy to do that.
Senator Boozman. Senator Whitehouse talked about the
oceans, which are having some real problems right now, and the
result to the fishermen. Is it your opinion that if we did pass
the policies that the President is proposing, that you are
proposing, would that solve the problems of the oceans that he
is describing?
Ms. McCarthy. Me again? Oh, I am sorry. I keep thinking you
are looking at me.
Senator Boozman. I am sorry.
Ms. McCarthy. Climate change is a global problem. It
requires global solutions. There is no question that
international effort is required. The issue is, should the
United States take action on its own that it can do that makes
sense, that can be cost effective and that will help us grow
economically. I think the President indicated that that answer
is yes.
Senator Boozman. But the reality right now is, in order for
that to be effective, we are depending on the Chinese and the
Indians and people like that who basically have said that they
are not going to participate. Mr. Ashe.
Mr. Ashe. First of all, with regard to what Senator
Whitehouse said, I think that when we look at natural resources
like the ocean resources, that we have to realize that climate
change is an overarching effect. So it exacerbates many
problems that already exist within fisheries management and
wildlife management, problems of habitat fragmentation and
degradation and contaminant loading and invasive species. So it
adds another layer of stress. So I think the things that we are
talking about in terms of dealing with climate change will help
address a major source of uncertainty and disruption in those
systems and will certainly help secure our fisheries resources
for the future. I think it is an important step for us to take
to learn more and reduce the level of uncertainty surrounding
this issue.
Senator Boozman. Ms. McCarthy, are the models that were
relied upon in developing the social cost of carbon estimates
published and available on EPA's Web site?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know the answer to that question,
Senator. I can get back to you. That was work that was
primarily organized by the Office of Management and Budget, so
that work was not a product of the EPA, although I am sure our
technical and economic folks participated in those discussions.
I do know they are available, they are public, the models are
public and they have been appropriately peer-reviewed.
Senator Boozman. OK, so the part that you did, the EPA, it
is not available on the Web site either?
Ms. McCarthy. Any work that EPA would produce would be
publicly available for sure. I just don't know whether those
particular models appear on our Web site or whether they are
part of the OMB Web site.
Senator Boozman. All right. The other thing, Mr. Ashe, I
guess one of the problems I have also is that we hear a lot
about forest fires, we hear a lot about beetles and things like
that. The reality is, and I have heard many, many hearings and
testimonies through the years, the reality is a lot of that
stuff is poor management in the sense we had a hearing not too
long ago and there was testimony to the fact that the areas
that were privately managed out west where you had fire, some
of the areas that are publicly managed are tinder boxes. The
beetle infestation has been going on for a long time. And
certainly climate has stuff to do with that.
But I do think that there is a tremendous, let's jump on
this and this is all, the reality is, when you have a forest
where you have, instead of 10 or 20 trees, whatever it can
support, if you have 150 trees taking up the nourishment that
makes it more susceptible to disease and things like that. Can
you comment on that?
Mr. Ashe. Just quickly, I would say that certainly
management can have a role to play and certainly can make a
difference. But you have to realize that the public lands are
managed for a much broader range of use. So if I have a private
forest that is managed for short rotation and so I am just
cycling those trees off and harvesting that timber on a regular
basis, then mountain pine beetle is going to be less of a
concern for you. Where in our public lands and like wildlife
refuges in national forests where we are managing land for
longer term, then pine bark beetle and other infestations can
be more of an issue.
But I agree with you that management is part of this
solution. We have to understand what that proper management is.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't want to
get gaveled on.
Senator Boxer. Well, you have 28 more seconds with which to
continue.
Senator Boozman. No, I will get some credit out of you and
yield back my time.
Senator Boxer. Major credit, that is true.
So now we are going to complete this first panel, which
started a very long time ago, it seems like yesterday. We are
going to do it this way. I am going to give Senator Whitehouse,
take my 2 minutes, Senator Vitter, then Senator Inhofe, Senator
Sessions and then I will close. Everybody has 2 more minutes.
So let's start with Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. I will just take a little bit of my
time to respond to Senator Sessions' suggestion that one
scientist says that climate change isn't really happening and
that there really isn't an association with storms. I just want
to put that into context.
There actually is a peer-reviewed scientific consensus out
there about this. It is massive. It is not unanimous, science
is rarely unanimous. There are eccentrics, there are outliers,
there are people who have non-mainstream opinions and to be
blunt, there are people who are in concert with the polluting
industries and delivering phony science, the way they did on
tobacco, the way they did on a variety of other public health
initiatives.
So when people pick out what one particular scientist said,
it is important to look at that in the context of where the
bulk of the science is. And if you don't believe science, then
perhaps my friends from the other side will believe big
corporations.
And one really big corporation that cares a lot about
climate's effect on storms is Munich Reinsurance. Not only
Munich Reinsurance, but the entire reinsurance industry and the
property casualty insurance industry are virtually up in arms
about what climate change is doing to their risk profile. Here
is a graph that Munich Reinsurance puts together, showing the
increase in natural catastrophes worldwide that are associated
with climate change, A, in the sense that they are happening
while climate change is happening, but B, and that we know some
underlying science. We know, for instance, it is not disputed,
that if you warm the ocean it creates more energy going up into
storms and that makes stronger storms when they hit the shore.
So much of the science is was past debate. And if you
simply take the science as way past debate and apply it, you
draw the same conclusion. Are there eccentrics and outliers who
can be quoted? Sure there are. But for this committee to rely
on anything other than the massive consensus of peer-reviewed
science, supported by not just environmentalists, but let's
look at the people who are asking us to take action, Coke and
Pepsi, Ford and GM, Nike, Wal-Mart, Apple, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Garden
Clubs of America. At some point, people have to come to the
realization that the scam that is being perpetrated has got to
come to an end. And I hope that that time comes soon.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make
a brief comment about science, too, and I think it is a useful
transition to the next panel. I want to underscore Senator
Wicker's and some others' comments. I think we do a real
disservice to science and facts the way we often do a
cartoonish gloss over these issues, which are often very
complicated and subtle. It doesn't mean we don't need to figure
it out, but we need to understand the real facts. And I would
urge all of us to try to do that. Let me just use a couple of
examples.
Senator Boxer said 97 percent of scientists, clearly, it is
a clear consensus, 97 percent. Well, 97 percent is very catchy.
But what is the underlying question? Human activity is causing
increased CO2 emissions. Well, I don't know why that
is not 100 percent. I agree with that. I think everybody on
this panel agrees with that. So let's mark it as 100 percent.
That is not the issue we are debating.
Give you another example. Dan Ashe said in his testimony
average surface temperatures are increasing. Interesting, that
is not in your written testimony. Is that true since 1998?
Mr. Ashe. Senator, I think that average surface
temperatures are increasing, as Senator Whitehouse said.
Senator Vitter. Is that since 1998?
Mr. Ashe. I don't know, I am no looking at the record since
1998. I am looking at the temperature record, the historical
temperature record, average surface temperatures are
increasing.
Senator Vitter. Over what period of time?
Mr. Ashe. Over a period of time that is relevant for
natural resource management, which is looking at since the
beginning of the industrial revolution.
Senator Vitter. My point is, we need to be precise and we
don't need to game words. You also said sea ice and glaciers
are melting. Did you mean net, and did you include Antarctica
which is a continent, or is that not sea ice?
Mr. Ashe. Sea ice and glaciers are melting. It is
indisputable, Senator Vitter, indisputable.
Senator Vitter. Are you saying net?
Mr. Ashe. I am saying sea ice and glaciers are melting,
that is what I said, it is indisputable.
Senator Vitter. Well, they are always melting sometimes and
elsewhere they are building. Are you claiming that that is net,
and are you counting Antarctica, which is a continent?
Senator Boxer. We really need to move on.
Senator Vitter. If you could provide that for the record,
because that is the level of detail and disciplined discussion
that I think we need.
Senator Boxer. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. Let me try to get this out
really quickly.
Ms. Sutley, several months ago the Corps of Engineers
testified to Congress that it would not consider the life cycle
of greenhouse gas emissions of coal exports when considering
the environmental impact of a coal export facility licensed to
the west coast. They said it would be outside the Corps'
control and responsibility for the permit applications.
Conversely, as you know, I believe, Columbia University's
Center for Climate Change Law released a report in August
saying that increased sales of coal in Asia are in effect the
Corps' decision, meaning that they should be the scope of NEPA.
Do you agree with Columbia or do you agree with the Corps?
Ms. Sutley. Thank you, Senator, for the question. We agree
that agencies need to look at greenhouse gas emissions when
they looking at their NEPA analysis.
Senator Inhofe. I am really sorry, but we are in 2 minutes,
and I need to have that answer for the record. But I would like
to ask you this to see if you would be in a position to let us
know. Is there a date certain for finalizing the guidance for
the including life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and the NEPA
analysis?
Ms. Sutley. Senator, we continue to work based on the draft
that we put out in 2010, we are working on revising that but I
don't have a date certain yet.
Senator Inhofe. If you decide you are going to have one,
would you try to let us know for the record?
Ms. Sutley. Yes, we will.
Senator Inhofe. We would appreciate that.
Let me just make this one comment. I know people get
hysterical on all this stuff, but when Senator Whitehouse
talked about the just one scientists, I have 700 scientists I
listed in a speech on the Senate floor, probably 8 years ago,
and these are scientists, Richard Lindzen from MIT, these are
top scientists, totally refuting the assertion that is being
made on which we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars.
Just the bills that they try to do through legislation on cap
and trade, that range, and no one disagrees with this, would be
between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and now through
regulations it would be even more than that. So that cost is
there.
In accordance with your predecessor, Lisa Jackson, when I
asked the question, if we pass these things here, is it going
to lower worldwide greenhouse gases, the answer was no, because
this only affects the United States. This is not where the
problem is, it is in China and India and Mexico, in other
places. So I just want to say that we are talking about the
largest tax increase in the history of this country if we were
to go through with what they are trying to do through
regulation that they could not do through legislation and not
get anything for it. That is my question.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, there is no question time. We have
2 minutes, you have gone over by a minute.
Senator Sessions. Two minutes.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Madam Chairman. One of the
things that we have heard today a good bit is carbon pollution.
That is sort of a new phrase we are seeing a lot. You might
wonder why that is happening. I think there is a great deal of
unease in the pro-global warming community about what the
Supreme Court is going to do. The Clean Air Act of 1970, I said
earlier 1974, it was 1970, did not ban CO2 and did
not even consider the possibility of global warming, Ms.
McCarthy.
So now the Supreme Court said you should make an
endangerment finding and you have. And without any explicit,
express authorization from the elected representatives of the
American people, under this decision you have made, the
Environmental Protection Agency can go into any American's
backyard, prohibit their barbecue grill, eliminate their
lawnmower. You have that power. It is one of the greatest
expansions of Federal power without explicit congressional
authorization in the history of the Republic. You are able to
go in any place where any carbon is produced and regulate that,
because you say it is a pollutant. And the Supreme Court ruled
five to four that you should make a formal finding on that.
They have not ratified our decision. And with the altering of
the predictions and the global warming projections that are not
coming true, I would hope that they would not allow you to have
that power, finally, when they finally rule on it.
So I want to say, Congress has never authorized such an
action. They would never authorize it today. And you should be
really careful about the assertion of power that you have.
I thank the Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Just for the record, the D.C. Court recently upheld the
ruling of the Supreme Court. So let's just stop relitigating
something that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Senator Sessions. It is going back to the Supreme Court.
Senator Boxer. I don't want to be interrupted, please. I
didn't interrupt you.
Senator Sessions. You used the power of the Chair to
dispute what I had said.
Senator Boxer. I did not.
Senator Sessions. I felt I had a chance to respond.
Senator Boxer. I will use freedom of speech to correct
folks who I believe are wrong and I will defend your freedom of
speech to do the same. Now, let's be clear. D.C. Court upheld
this, period, and it is moving forward. And if you don't act,
you are going to be sued. And the American people want this
done.
I just looked at the polling. Only 3 percent of younger
voters don't believe climate change is happening. You look at
Republicans. The latest poll I saw said that a vast, well, well
over 50 percent said that if you are a climate denier, you are
out of touch. So I wish this committee would find the common
ground with the American people. Because when you deny you are
doing just what people said when they said cigarette smoking
doesn't cause any harm.
A couple of other things, 1980 to 1990, hottest decade on
record until 1990 to 2000, which became the hottest decade on
record, until 2000 to 2010, which is now the hottest decade on
record. That is not me. That is not EPA. That is NOAA. In 2008,
the Bush administration used a form of the social cost of
carbon on fuel economy rules. They used it on air conditioner
rules, efficiency rules, and frankly, I never heard a peep out
of anybody at that time.
Now, I don't know why my clock isn't moving, but it should
be moving, it should be down to a minute.
Let me just close with this. We know what happens when the
environment is thrown under the bus. It is called China. And I
am going to put into the record today Airpocalypse, Smog Hits
Beijing at Dangerous Levels. On Thursday residents of Beijing
woke up with splitting headaches. Bottom line, 1.2 million
Chinese died in 2012 because of air pollution.
Now, I will do everything in my power to make sure that
this Clean Air Act, which passed in this very sacred room, so
many years ago, in a bipartisan way, that that Clean Air Act is
upheld and that everything we do is consistent with the law.
And this one went all the way to the Supreme Court. And the
fact of the matter is we have to make sure we uphold it.
Now, that is the end of this panel. What I want to make
sure, because Senator Vitter is very anxious to have another
hearing about Mr. Beale. And I am not.
[The referenced material follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Vitter. To have a hearing about Mr. Beale.
Senator Boxer. We had a briefing. He wants a hearing, in
addition to the briefing, in which he asked 50 questions. It is
his right to ask that. What I am going to ask you,
Administrator McCarthy, since no one asked you about that,
although it was in the scope of hearing, would you please
answer the question and take a week to do it, what is in place
now, we know that this con man is going to jail. But what is in
place now at the EPA to make sure this never happens again? If
you would get that to us, the Chairman and the Ranking, and
members of the committee, in about 2 weeks, can you do that?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sure.
Senator Boxer. And then we will look at whether or not we
need a hearing.
I want to thank the panel. It has been a tough morning for
you. You handled all the questions, I think, with great
integrity. Please now go back to your normal work and we will
call up the second panel. And if the second panel can come up
very quickly, because the caucuses have meetings shortly.
OK, if everyone could leave, we are going to get going
right now. Thank you to the first panel. We are getting
started.
And we are going to start with Hon. Bill Ritter. You had a
wonderful introduction from your Senator, so please, sir,
proceed. You are the Director of the Center for the New Energy
Economy, Colorado State University.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RITTER, JR., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE
NEW ENERGY ECONOMY, COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY
Mr. Ritter. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity. Ranking Member Vitter, other members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and
testify before the committee regarding the President's climate
action plan, but particularly with the work that I do at
Colorado State University that really involves what States are
doing around the country regarding energy and particularly
regarding clean energy.
I left office in 2011 and founded the Center at Colorado
State University, so for the past 3 years I have worked with
States on energy policy. We have developed actually a Web site
that tracks every piece of advance energy legislation at the
State level. There were 3,600 separate pieces of energy
legislation introduced in State houses across America last
year; 600 of those were signed into law by Governors across the
country.
It is important in this discussion to understand that clean
energy is on the minds of Governors across the country. There
are 220 million Americans who live in a State that has a
renewable energy standard or renewable energy goal. About 240
million Americans that live in a State with an energy
efficiency resource standard, and a number of Americans similar
to that number that live in a State with a climate action plan.
What is really important as well about that is those States
include both States where there is Democratic leadership and
Republican leadership. If you just look at sort of the recent
past, what Republican Governors have done with respect to
renewable energy standards or energy efficiency resource
standards or just generally with the topic, you get a sense
that this is a bipartisan sort of coalescing at the State
level.
Governor Snyder in Michigan just recently announced a plan
to increase the renewable energy standard in Michigan as well
as mix with natural gas and try and lessen the amount of coal
that there will be in Michigan. They import 100 percent of
their coal; it is about 60 some percent of their fleet.
Governor Kasich in Ohio has been very good about looking at
natural gas regulation as a part of his work there. But as
well, he has looked to the manufacturing association for Ohio
and another group called the Advanced Energy Economy of Ohio
with regard to sort of their input on the renewable energy
standard and the energy efficiency resource standard.
There was a real concerted effort in the United States
across the States last year to undo the renewable energy
standards in different States and the energy efficiency
resource standards, including in Ohio. Every one of those
efforts actually wound up failing and every one of the States,
including those that are under Republican leadership, were able
to beat back those efforts. So Governor Sandoval, actually the
Republican Governor in Nevada, expanded the renewable energy
standard. Governor Brewer in Arizona often champions solar as
an important part of that State's growing economy. Governor
Brownback in Kansas was another, this is another State where
they did not, they were not able to attack or defeat the
renewable energy standard. And it was beaten back and really,
with the support of Governor Brownback with the support of the
wind industry there.
Our experience in Colorado is interesting to think about.
As Senator Udall said, we expanded our renewable energy
standard to 30 percent over the, by 2020, we did it with a rate
cap in place to protect consumers. But that has created jobs in
a significant way, and as well, it is interesting to think
about Xcel Energy, the major investor-owned utility in
Colorado, because of the efforts to combine both the transition
of coal to natural gas as well as a 30 percent renewable energy
standard, Xcel will reduce their emissions. This is a major
investor-owned utility, reduce their emissions from 2005 to
2020 levels by 35 percent.
It is important to understand that this is all done in
conjunction with the Federal Government, and why the
President's Federal climate action plan is so important.
Because it is not just States acting alone, it is actually a
great deal to do with a variety of things, including EPA
rulemaking where SIPs were required. The Department of Energy,
working in concert either with technical assistance or with
research assistance for States, developing their State energy
plans, and certainly as utilities, look at the future and
understand that a different business model is probably going to
be required over the next 10 or 20 or 30 years to have the
Federal Government's assistance, both from the Department of
Energy perspective as well as other agencies, and trying to
help this very important industry understand how to shift its
rate design, its revenue model.
So those are all part of what the Federal Government can do
in interacting with States. States are a vital part of this
Nation's climate action plan. States have shown great success
in actually being able to hold rates at a fairly steady rate.
In Colorado, for instance, below the consumer price index
increases, below inflation. Even with an aggressive renewable
energy standard like 30 percent. And at the same time, show job
creation as a result of it.
So I come here, Madam Chairman, appreciative of the time
that I have to speak about this and willing to answer any
questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ritter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I am going to hand the gavel over to my wing man here,
Senator Whitehouse, due to other obligations, and he will
complete the hearing. We are going to now hear from our next
panelist, Dr. Andrew Dessler, Professor of Atmospheric
Sciences, Texas A&M.;
STATEMENT OF ANDREW E. DESSLER, Ph.D., PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC
SCIENCES, TEXAS A&M; UNIVERSITY
Mr. Dessler. Thank you. My name is Andrew Dessler, I am a
professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M.;
In my testimony, I will review what I think are the most
important conclusions the scientific community has reached in
over two centuries of work on climate. First, the climate is
warming. By this I mean that we are presently in the midst of
an overall increase in the temperature of the lower atmosphere
and oceans spanning many decades. Second, most of the recent
warming is extremely likely due to the emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human activities. This is
based on several lines of evidence, including observation of
increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and understanding
of the greenhouse effect and a demonstration of the enhanced
greenhouse gas effect can explain the observed warming.
For simplicity, in the remainder of my testimony I am going
to refer to this mainstream theory of climate influence as the
standard model. The standard model in fact can explain just
about everything we observe in the climate system, both present
day and during the geologic record. It has also made many
successful predictions which are the gold standard of science.
If you can successfully predict phenomena that are later
observed, one can be supremely confident that a theory captures
something essential about the real world. So as an example,
climate scientists predicted in the 1960s that the stratosphere
would cool while the troposphere would warm, as a result of
increased greenhouse gases. And this was observed 20 years
later. In the 1970s, climate models predicted the Arctic would
warm faster than the Antarctic. This has also been subsequently
confirmed.
The water vapor feedback is another fundamental prediction
of the standard model that has just recently been observed.
This explains why the bulk of the scientific community is so
confident in the standard model. It explains just about
everything, and it makes many successful predictions.
Now, you don't hear about this very often. Because
scientists don't like to talk about things we know. I am
uninterested in things we know; I like things we don't know.
That is research. That is things where we can get stuff done.
And it is also true that obviously, this doesn't mean our
knowledge is perfect. And this is reflected in uncertainty
estimates that are provided in the consensus reports.
Now, a caveat. I said above the standard model explains
virtually everything, which means there are a small number of
observations that aren't necessarily well explained by the
standard model, just as there are a few heavy smokers who don't
get lung cancer. An excellent example of this is the so-called
hiatus which has been mentioned several times. Slow warming of
the surface temperature over the last decade or so. This is
frequently presented as an existential threat to the standard
model. But as I describe below, this greatly exaggerates its
implications.
Before I explain why, I think it is worth recognizing that
skeptics have a track record of overstating the importance of
these challenges to the standard model. A few years ago, for
example, strong claims were made about the surface temperature
record. It is argued that siting issues, for example, a
thermometer too close to a building meant that the surface
record was hopelessly biased. This was portrayed as an
existential threat to the standard model.
Subsequent research, however, has resolved this issue. It
is now clear there was never a threat to the standard model at
all.
So why do I think that the hiatus, the slow warming of the
last decade, is not much of a threat to the standard model? To
begin, a lack of a decadal trend in surface temperatures does
not mean that the warming has stopped. Observations show that
heat continues to accumulate in the bulk of the ocean,
indicating continued warming. Also in my written testimony, and
in the plot that Senator Whitehouse showed, the surface
temperature record shows frequent periods of short cooling,
even while it is undergoing a long-term warming trend.
In addition, one of the Senators said the climate models do
not predict periods of no warming. That is not correct. Climate
models do predict periods where there is no warming.
Now, that does not mean that we understand the hiatus
perfectly. And I view the hiatus as an opportunity not as an
existential threat. I think short-term climate variability is
an area where our understanding could improve and the hiatus
will help us to do that. Papers are already coming out, on a
monthly basis, it seems, I suspect that in the next few years,
our understanding of this phenomena will be greatly improved.
At that point, I predict that arguments about the hiatus will
disappear just like arguments about the surface temperature
record have.
Now, given the success of the standard model, what does it
tell us about the impacts of future climate change? Before I
begin talking about this, I think it is worth discussing the
value of talking about what we know rather than what we don't
know. Focus on what is unknown can lead to an inflated sense of
uncertainty. For example, we don't know the exact mechanism by
which smoking cigarettes causes cancer, nor do we know how many
cigarettes you have to smoke to get cancer, nor can we explain
why some heavy smokers don't get cancer while some non-smokers
do. Based on this, you might conclude that we don't know much
about the impacts of smoking, but that is wrong.
So let me just conclude by telling you a few of the certain
impacts of climate change. We know the planet is going to warm.
That is virtually certain. We know extreme heat events will
become more frequent. We know the distribution of rainfall will
change. We know the seas will rise. We know the oceans will
become more acidic. We can argue about things we don't know,
but those are things that are virtually certain.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dessler follows:]
Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Thank you very much, Dr.
Dessler.
Dr. Lashof, please.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL A. LASHOF, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND
CLEAN AIR PROGRAM, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Lashof. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to appear here today. I want to
thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for your work with Senator Boxer
and in the Senate Climate Task Force.
Senator Whitehouse. One day I am bipartisan, 1 day.
Mr. Lashof. So I appreciate that. Actually what I wanted to
say is that it does sadden me, actually, that there are no
Republicans on that task force. I have appeared before this
committee several times over the years, before both Republican
and Democratic chairmen. And it has never been as partisan as
it is today. CO2 molecules in the atmosphere trap
heat. They don't have party affiliations. It is physics and
chemistry, not partisanship, that should be informing the
policy that we adopt.
Let me turn to the President's climate plan, because I
think it is really a critical step forward. It will put us on
the right track to cut dangerous pollution that threatens our
health and well-being. It will help communities across the
country prepare for more frequent and intense inclement
weather. And it will position the United States to provide the
leadership that the world needs on this issue.
The central pillar of this plan is a set of standards under
existing law, authorized by previous Congresses in the Clean
Air Act and other legislation that if implemented ambitiously,
can achieve a total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of
127 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, which is the goal the
President has set for the United States. It can do that through
four major areas of action. First, power plants are the largest
source of carbon pollution in the United States. They are
responsible for 40 percent of our CO2 emissions.
And as Administrator McCarthy discussed, EPA's proposed
carbon pollution standards for future power plants, that
proposal is based on a careful review of industrial experience
with large scale carbon capture technologies.
Now, some have argued that the Energy Policy Act, and we
heard this argument today, prevents EPA from setting standards
based on CCS because there have been some Government-funded CCS
projects. That is incorrect. The Energy Policy Act said that
EPA cannot base its standard solely on projects that were
funded by the Government. And EPA hasn't done that. It has
based its proposal on a wide variety of data.
Just think about the proposition here. If the
interpretation that says because the Government has supported
some projects that use CCS means EPA can't base standards on
CCS, it would be an absurd situation where the Government is
investing hundreds of millions of dollars in advanced
technology and then we are not allowed to use that technology
to improve the environment. That would not make any sense. So
we should not do that.
But equally important, neither Government nor private
forecasts actually anticipate the construction of any new coal
plants in the United States, whether or not carbon pollution
standards are established. So in fact, the biggest opportunity
to reduce U.S. carbon emissions over the next decade is to set
standards for our existing fleet of some 1,500 coal-fired power
plants around the country. EPA is scheduled to do that in June.
NRDC's studies of a particular proposal that we offered
about how to do that shows that we can actually get big carbon
reductions at very low cost. The flexible system-wide approach
that we have proposed could reduce emissions by 23 to 30
percent below 2012 levels in 2020, while producing $30 billion
to $55 billion in net economic benefits or more.
So that is a very cost effective measure that we should
move forward with.
Second, the Administration needs to do more to reduce
emissions of methane, particularly from the oil and gas
industry. Third, another key initiative is phasing down the use
of HFCs, both domestically and internationally. HFCs are
hundreds of thousands of times more powerful on a pound for
pound basis than carbon dioxide. The U.S. has joined with other
countries, including Mexico and Canada, to propose a global
phase-down. The President recently reached an agreement with
the president of China, committing both countries to such a
phase-down. So that is an example of how U.S. leadership can in
fact achieve global action on a very important pollutant.
Fourth and finally, we need further action to address the
transportation sector, which is the second largest source after
power plants. Building on the successful fuel efficiency
standards which have been mentioned today, the priority for EPA
now is to set stronger standards for freight trucks. And by
doing so, the emissions of freight trucks could be reduced by
roughly 45 percent by 2025 for new trucks, compared with if we
continue to use 2010 technology.
So in conclusion, carbon dioxide emissions have actually
declined over the last 5 years as we use energy more
efficiently and shift toward cleaner fuels, putting the 17
percent reduction target within reach. And we can achieve that
goal through cost-effective standards to reduce CO2,
methane, HFCs from power plants and other large sources. Doing
that will create new markets for technological ingenuity and
will put the U.S. on track to the much deeper emissions
reductions needed for forestall out of control climate
disruption and protect our health and the future our children
inherit. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lashof follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Dr. Lashof.
Our next witness is Dr. Curry.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, Ph.D., PROFESSOR AND CHAIR,
SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Curry. I would like to thank the committee for the
opportunity to present testimony this morning. I am chair of
the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia
Institute of Technology. I have devoted 30 years to conducting
research on topics including climate of the Arctic, the role of
clouds and aerosols in the climate system and the climate
dynamics of extreme weather events.
The premise of the President's climate action plan is that
there is an overwhelming judgment of science that anthropogenic
global warming is already producing devastating impacts.
Anthropogenic greenhouse warming is a theory whose basic
mechanism is well understood, but whose magnitude is highly
uncertain. Multiple lines of evidence presented in the IPCC
Fifth Assessment Report suggests that the case for
anthropogenic warming is now weaker than in 2007, when the
Fourth Assessment Report was published.
My written testimony documented the following evidence. For
the past 16 years, there has been no significant increase in
global average surface temperature. There is a growing
discrepancy between observations and climate model projections.
Observations since 2011 have fallen below the 90 percent
envelope of climate model projections.
The IPCC does not have a convincing or competent
explanation for this hiatus in warming. There is growing
evidence of decreased climate sensitivity to atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentrations. And based on expert judgment in light
of this evidence, the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report lowered its
surface temperature projection relative to the model
projections for the period 2016 to 2036.
The growing evidence that climate models are too sensitive
to CO2 has implications for the attribution of late
20th century warming and projections of 21st century climate
change. Sensitivity of the climate to carbon dioxide and the
level of uncertainty in its value is a key input into the
economic models that drive cost benefit analyses, including
estimates of the social costs of carbon.
If the recent hiatus in warming is caused by natural
variability, then this raises a question as to what extent the
warming between 1975 and 2000 can also be explained by natural
climate variability. In a recent journal publication, I
provided a rationale for projecting the hiatus in warming could
extend to the 2030s. By contrast, according to climate model
projections, the probability of the hiatus extending beyond 20
years is vanishingly small. If the hiatus does extend beyond 20
years then a very substantial reconsideration will be needed of
the 20th century attribution and the 21st century projections
of climate change.
Attempts to modify the climate through reducing
CO2 emissions may turn out to be futile. The
stagnation in greenhouse warming observed over the past 16
years demonstrates that CO2 is not a control knob
that can fine tune climate variability on decadal and multi-
decadal time scales. Even if CO2 mitigation
strategies are successfully implemented and climate model
projections are correct, an impact on the climate would not be
expected for a number of decades.
Further, solar variability, volcanic eruptions and natural
internal climate variability will continue to be sources of
unpredictable climate surprises.
As a result of the hiatus in warming, there is growing
appreciation for the importance of natural climate variability
on multi-decadal time scales. Further, the IPCC AR5 and Special
Report on Extreme Events published in 2012 find little evidence
that supports an increase in most extreme weather events that
can be attributed to humans.
The perception that humans are causing an increase in
extreme weather events is the primary motivation for the
President's climate change plan. However, in the U.S. most
types of weather extremes were worse in the 1930s and even in
the 1950s than in the current climate, while the weather was
overall more benign in the 1970s. The extremes of the 1930s and
1950s are not attributable to greenhouse warming. Rather, they
are associated with natural climate variability. And in the
case of the Dust Bowl drought and heat waves, also to land use
practices. The sense that extreme weather events are now more
frequent and intense is symptomatic of pre-1970 weather
amnesia.
The frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is
heavily influenced by natural climate variability. Whether or
not anthropogenic climate change is exacerbating extreme
weather events, vulnerability to extreme weather events will
continue to increase owing to increasing population and
concentration of wealth in vulnerable regions. Regions that
find solutions to current problems of climate variability and
extreme weather events are likely to be well prepared to cope
with any additional stresses from climate change.
Nevertheless, the premise of dangerous anthropogenic
climate change is a foundation for a far-reaching plan to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce vulnerability to
extreme weather events. Elements of this plan may be argued as
important for associated energy policy reasons, economics and/
or public health and safety. However, claiming an overwhelming
scientific justification for the plan based upon anthropogenic
global warming does a disservice both to climate science and to
the policy process.
Good judgment requires recognizing that climate change is
characterized by conditions of deep uncertainty. Robust policy
options that can be justified by associated policy reasons----
Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Curry, in fairness to all the other
witnesses, we have tried to keep everybody within a fixed
timeframe. You are already a minute over. To the extent you
could wrap up, it will be helpful to the committee.
Ms. Curry. My apologies. Robust policy options that can be
justified by associated policy reasons, whether or not
anthropogenic climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of
pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century
climate.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Curry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
And our next witness is Ms. Kathleen Hartnett White.
STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN HARTNETT WHITE, DISTINGUISHED SENIOR
FELLOW-IN-RESIDENCE AND DIRECTOR, ARMSTRONG CENTER FOR ENERGY
AND THE ENVIRONMENT, TEXAS PUBLIC POLICY FOUNDATION
Ms. White. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse, and thank you,
Ranking Member Vitter, for the opportunity to testify before
this committee.
I am particularly grateful to share my perspective as a
former State environmental regulator of the Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality, which according to EPA is the second
largest environmental agency in the world. And before I address
specific components of the President's climate action plan, I
would like to note several very positive trends, and this is
one of two graphs in my written testimony. According to the
EIA, energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide decreased 3.7
percent in 2012, the lowest emission level since 1994. And as
the graph depicts, as a measure of the amount of CO2
generated per dollar of economic output, carbon intensity, a
metric that EIA uses, the U.S. economy has been steadily less
carbon intense since 1949. And in 1 year, 2012, that carbon
intensity declined 6.5 percent.
And while part of that is a weaker economy than in previous
decades and increased use of natural gas, I think it is really
a remarkable trend, and I would credit it to the inherent
efficiency in private markets that is always driving the
business.
The President's climate action plan, I counted a mixture of
at least 50 Federal programs or initiatives that most exist
already. So many of them are reinforcing what already exists.
Several components of which I think are quite alarming,
particularly without congressional approval of such bold, bold
projects. My overall assessment would be that in general a plan
of that scope and inevitable cost that really deals with a
policy of major national consequence must be, must be something
that our voice in the U.S. Congress approves and is not merely
a result of executive action.
I will turn the rest of my comments to the carbon pollution
standards, the so-called new source performance standards that
EPA, one of which is already proposed for the second time, and
for new coal-fired power plants, the second of which is well
underway as a plan, and from the standpoint, again, of spending
6 years implementing Federal law in air quality permits in
Texas. It is from that basis and quite a bit of familiarity
with how new source performance standards operate.
These new source performance standards are unquestionably
the most aggressive action taken under the endangerment finding
that CO2 endangers human health and welfare. And
they are the first direct regulation of carbon dioxide. I could
give examples of previous indirect means but not time.
EPA uses, as has been mentioned by several today, carbon
capture and control technology as the basis for which to craft
the numeric limit. In my judgment, that standard is
unquestionably infeasible for coal-fired power plants to
attain, because carbon capture and control technology is not at
all commercially demonstrated. This is really an unprecedented
expansion of EPA's authority, because the net effect is to
force fuel switching from coal to natural gas or from any
fossil fuel generation to non-emitting generation such as
renewables. I find nothing in the Clean Air Act that can
authorize EPA to engage in what becomes really centralized
energy planning.
To me, the Clean Air Act, which is a wonderful law,
enshrines economic freedom, which is at the basis of this
democracy. It allows private actors, not the EPA, to choose
energy source, process and product. EPA, as has been repeatedly
mentioned today, EPA's authority is limited to requiring best
pollution control technology that has been commercially
demonstrated for the industrial process in question. There is
not one single successfully operating power plant in the United
States for any length of time that has used CCS. There have
been a number of pilot projects, they either failed or are
incomplete. The EPA lays weight on the Southern Company's
project in Kemper County, Mississippi, which is under
construction and just was forced to acknowledge that its cost
overruns went from something like $2.3 billion to over $4
billion.
Coal remains the largest source and the central mainstay of
baseload electricity in this country. The infrastructure
surrounding it has evolved over a century. And the coal
industry has spent, in the last probably 10 years, an estimated
$100 billion to install all kinds of elaborate pollution
control technology to reduce by many, many times emissions of
traditional pollutants.
And the pain, I think, is already occurring in this country
and others. I see my time is about to run out, but I hope the
U.S. Congress and EPA will look very, very carefully at what is
going on in the European Union and countries that have made a
rush to renewables. Der Spiegel reports in Germany, mainstream
media, over 600,000 to 700,000 families in Germany are now cut
off from electricity. Another headline in the U.K. was
something to the effect, as referenced in my testimony, 24,000
elderly individuals in the U.K. may die this winter because
they no longer have access to heat.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. White follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Ms. White.
I have the gavel, and so by definition I am going to be the
last Senator in the room. So I will let my colleagues precede
me in order to allow them to move on to their schedules.
I will begin with the ranking member, Senator Vitter, and
then we will follow him with Senator Boozman and myself. So it
looks like it is down to the three of us. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you very much.
I want to get back to this push for us to talk in a fairly
precise, disciplined way about the science and not be
cartoonish about it. And certainly, folks in the Congress are a
lot more guilty of that than anyone at the table. So I don't
mean to level that criticism at you all.
Dr. Curry, you say ``Claiming an overwhelming scientific
justification for the plan,'' meaning this particular climate
action plan, ``does a disservice both to climate science and to
the policy process.'' Why don't you expand on that a little bit
more and explain what you mean?
Ms. Curry. There is a great deal of research that needs to
be done to better understand climate variability and change.
Everything from the sun, climate connections, natural internal
variation, the role of oceans and so on, there are a lot of
things that we don't have adequate understanding to. And to
think that all we need to do is leap to the impact assessment
part of the problem I think does a disservice to the science,
and we could end up with misleading conclusions if we don't
really keep trying to understand these aspects of the climate
system better.
Senator Vitter. One of my biggest pet peeves in this regard
is the growth in the last 10 years of the mantra, the rallying
cry of extreme weather. Because there are a few trends and
there aren't a lot of trends. Certainly for obvious reasons, I
am from Louisiana, I care a whole lot about hurricanes, and I
have lived through way too many. But we had a hearing before
this committee that dealt with, among other things, extreme
weather. And it was the consensus of every witness, I don't
think there was any disagreement, that in terms of historical
record and observation, there is no observation, there is no
historical record of increasing hurricane or tornado activity,
both in terms of frequency and in terms of strength. I point to
those two things, because those are the things that are most
often talked about in terms of this extreme weather narrative.
Do any of you disagree with that in terms of the historical
record, the metrics about hurricanes and tornadoes?
Ms. Curry. I have testified twice previously on House
committees related to hurricanes and climate change. There are
in some regions observations of increasing intensity of
hurricanes, in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean since 1980.
But there is absolutely no way to separate that out from
anthropogenic causes versus natural climatic variability.
For example, the hurricanes in the Atlantic are probably as
intense in recent decades as they were in the 1950s. So there
is just no way to separate it out from natural versus
anthropogenic, although in a few ocean basins there is evidence
of increased intensity in hurricanes.
Senator Vitter. Does anybody else want to comment about
that specific subject?
Mr. Dessler. Yes, I mean, we do have evidence of
precipitation, more intense events. Now, again, I don't know
what the attribution science is on that. But we do see more
rain falling and more intense events. We are seeing more
extreme heat waves. In some cases, those have been attributed,
at least partially, to anthropogenic effects. So in certain
things we can do some attribution. But you are right, there is
a lot of uncertainty in some of these.
But again, as I said in my testimony, I would encourage
everyone to think about the things that we are certain about,
instead of arguing about, well, we are uncertain. We are
certain the temperature is going up. We are certain, or
virtually certain, we can argue epistemological certainty and
science. We are virtually certain that it is getting warmer,
extreme heat events, the oceans are going to rise, the oceans
are getting more acidic. These are certain, or virtually
certain.
Senator Vitter. I accept your testimony. I was specifically
asking though because this is what is bandied about, at least
around here and in the media all the time, hurricanes and
tornadoes. Do you disagree with the discussion we have had
about hurricanes and tornadoes and that historical record?
Mr. Dessler. No, I agree with what Dr. Curry said, and I
agree there are a lot of foolish things that are said by a lot
of people in the climate change debate on both sides of the
debate. I think you are exactly right, we should really stick
to the science and really see what the scientists say.
Senator Vitter. And Dr. Curry, going back to you, you made
the statement with regard to this in general, ``The sense that
extreme weather events are now more frequent and intense is
symptomatic of weather amnesia prior to 1970.'' Can you explain
what you mean exactly?
Ms. Curry. It is just that people remember back a decade or
two. But if you look at the actual records, the data records,
there was much more severe weather in the 1930s and the 1950s
in the U.S. That is a matter, you can look at EPA, plots, I
think I cited one in my testimony about heat waves, the heat
wave index was much worse in the 1930s than anything we have
seen in recent decades.
So almost all extreme events were probably, in the U.S.,
were worse in the 1930s and the 1950s. The one exception, which
Dr. Dessler mentioned, was the 1-day extreme precipitation
amounts. We see higher values of that since the 1990s.
Senator Vitter. Thank you all very much.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Vitter. Senator
Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dessler, I agree with you, the science is settled in
regard to smoking. Would you agree that there was a time,
though, that the science was such that most scientists felt
like smoking was OK?
Mr. Dessler. I am sorry, was there a time when they said
smoking was OK?
Senator Boozman. Yes, when the medical authorities felt
like smoking wasn't a big deal and it was OK?
Mr. Dessler. Yes, I think probably in the early 20th
century.
Senator Boozman. The point I am making is, the idea, and I
think you agreed to it a few moments ago, in the sense that the
idea when people question things and then all of a sudden their
motives and that they are crazy in questioning the scientific
aspect of the day, because most of the time whoever made it
such, made the discovery did the research and started
questioning, many times those people were held in poor
standing.
So I don't think that is healthy, and I think you would
agree with that, is that correct?
Mr. Dessler. Yes, I think that free inquiry is one of the
hallmarks of science.
Senator Boozman. I think the question is, in the smoking
example, you solve that problem by not smoking anymore. In this
problem, we can't solve that problem by not having manmade
CO2. We are going to create manmade CO2.
So I think the question is, is the climate model science-
settled, is the science settled as to how much people are
producing, and is the science as to how much we can throttle
back where we actually would have an impact, a measurable
impact to reverse the process.
So do you feel like those areas are settled?
Mr. Dessler. So, your question about how much
CO2 we produce, that is settled. We have a really
good accounting of how much carbon dioxide comes from fossil
fuel combustion, cement and deforestation. There is some
uncertainty, we understand that.
Senator Boozman. So when you add in all of the rest of the
atmosphere, the solar aspect, the volcanoes, all of that, that
is pretty well settled?
Mr. Dessler. We have good measurements of the output of the
sun for the last few decades. You have to measure it from
satellite, and volcanoes, you can see it from space. So we have
pretty good measurements of the radiative force that comes from
those. So there are not big uncertainties in that.
There are some uncertainties in aerosols. But as carbon
dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, very soon it is going to
be really the only game in town.
Now, as far as your question about can do we something
about it, it is interesting because I think Dr. Curry and I
agree completely, we just said it in a different way. I agree
with her that we have no control, no fine control over the
climate. I agree that no matter what we do, we probably won't
see impacts for a decade or two or three. The climate of the
next few decades is essentially already determined by other
factors.
But the one thing we do have control over is, we have
control over the climate in the second half of the century and
in the century after that and for the next thousand years. So
if we dial down, we will avoid the very large warmings that are
predicted.
Senator Boozman. So the science is settled as to how much
you dial down that will produce this or that happening?
Mr. Dessler. I would say that there is wide agreement on a
range of climate sensitivities.
Senator Boozman. But it is not settled, is it?
Mr. Dessler. Well, it is settled, I would say it is settled
on a range. And you know what I would encourage you to do is,
don't take my word for it. I would invite you to go to a
meeting of climate scientists. The AMS meeting is in 2 weeks in
Atlanta. Dr. Curry will be there, I will be there. I talked to
Marshall Shepherd, President of the AMS. He says you guys are
more than welcome. Show up, talk to people. And you can find
that most people would say there is a range of sensitivities.
Senator Boozman. Let me ask, and then we will go back if he
will allow, do you agree with that? Is the science settled?
Ms. Curry. The significant thing, and this is in my written
testimony, is that the range of sensitivity was, the likely
range was 2 to 4.5 degrees Centigrade in the Fourth Assessment
Report. The range has dropped to 1.5 to 4.5. So it was lowered
as a result of a growing collection of empirically based,
observationally based studies that indicate lower values of
climate sensitivity at 2 degrees Centigrade or lower.
So, and for the first time, the Fifth Assessment Report
declined to give a central number, whereas the Fourth
Assessment Report said 3 degrees was sort of the central value.
The Fifth Assessment Report gave no central value because this
dichotomy of the low values from observations and the higher
values from climate models. So I would say that sensitivity to
doubling of carbon dioxide is now less certain than we thought
it was at the time of the Fourth Assessment Report.
Mr. Dessler. Could I add one thing to that? That is, of the
First, Second and Third IPCC Reports did not give a central
estimate and their estimate of climate sensitivity was one and
a half to four and a half. Only the Fourth moved it up to 2
degrees and gave a central estimate.
And I agree, there is a range of evidence, you can argue
about the range. But I would say that there is broad consensus,
if you go to a scientific meeting, you talk to scientists, you
will hear some say, yes, this is the range. There may be a few
people who are outliers. But that is what it is. And given that
sensitivity, you can then sort of project, OK, if we cut this
much, this is the temperature.
Senator Boozman. The thing that I would like to know, we
had comments about what is going on in Europe and things like
that. They are really backing up. India and China have both
said that they are not going to participate, they want their
200 years of industrial revolution. So as I said earlier, all
pain with no gain. At some point we need to be honest with the
American public as to what we are doing, what the cost is going
to be, and what the result is as far as actually making a
difference if the modeling is correct and all that, all those
things which we are currently using. I think there is some
question as to that.
That is the only point I would make.
Mr. Lashof. The point I was going to make is that the
policy question is, do we know enough about the risks to take
certain steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. I think
the answer to that is clearly yes. That doesn't mean we should
do crazy things, but it means we should take sensible steps
forward and China also believes that. China is actually looking
at capping their own emissions in the near future, and they
recognize that the pollution, both of conventional pollutants
and of carbon dioxide, is a huge threat to their economy and
well-being in the future. So it is really, in China now, just a
question of timing. But if you look at the U.S.----
Senator Boozman. So the Chinese, they are not building
coal-fired plants?
Mr. Lashof. They are building coal plants, but they are
also building wind, they are also building solar. The issue is,
you look at the individual policies in the President's climate
plan, do they make sense, I think the answer is clearly yes.
Senator Whitehouse. For what it is worth, I just came back
from China. I went there with Senator McCain. We met with the
second highest ranking individual in the most important
ministry in the Chinese government. And that is their climate
minister. And in everything that we heard from him and
everything that we heard from our embassy briefer as well, the
Chinese are absolutely deadly serious about getting something
done. They have to keep building coal plants for a while
because their economy is growing so fast that they need the
power, and they know that they can bring that online.
They also know that that is their biggest risk of social
upheaval and disruption. Because people are so fed up with the
environmental consequences that they are experiencing across
that country, it is the No. 1 thing, our embassy told us, that
frightens the Chinese government about a green revolution type
of thing that could upend their rule.
As a result, they are investing very heavily for two
reasons in new technologies. For instance, new nuclear
technologies that are stalled here in the United States,
developed here in the United States, they have decided to
invest in them and they are planning to allow them to go
forward, would allow them to actually burn spent nuclear fuel
to create power.
They also want, in the nuclear industry, in the wind,
solar, battery storage, all the array of new industries that
are going to emerge to make for the clean energy economy,
competitive advantage against us. So they have a mercantile
reason for doing it and a self-preservation reason for doing
it. But I cannot tell you how strong the sentiment was, both
from the embassy and from the Chinese officials we visited,
including their very highly placed climate minister, that they
are deadly serious about fixing this, and that it is vitally
important to them for a whole number of reasons.
Let me also just follow up with Governor Ritter. You opened
your testimony with the phrase, you said bipartisan coalescing
at the State level. Could you describe a little bit more of
what you see as bipartisan coalescing at the State level and
why you think bipartisan coalescing is happening at the State
level while here in Congress this has become part of the
culture wars and the deniers are forcing inaction?
Mr. Ritter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't hypothesize
about what is happening here, but what I can tell you at the
State level, you take a State like Ohio where there have been
efforts to undo the renewable energy standard, or the energy
efficiency resource standard that seems to fail because the
business community is able to approach Republicans and
Democrats alike, in the State house as well as approach
Governors, and make the business case for a clean energy
economy.
If you look at the supply chain for clean energy
manufacturing in Ohio, it is a great example of a place where
there has been an economic vitality to that State in part
because of clean energy. The same is really true, I think the
Governor of Michigan understands, first of all, they are
importing all of their coal. They have abundant wind and
natural gas and the ability to, and actually solar, the ability
to really mix that over time, increase their renewable energy
standard, increase their reliance upon natural gas, lower their
emissions and help their economy.
There have been other States that have already been able to
do that, and so some of these States are looking at the
examples of other States. But at the State level where
Governors actually have to compete every day with other States
for economic vitality they don't just talk about it, you
actually have to do it. In those States I think that have
looked around, they understand, it doesn't matter if I am a
Democrat or Republican, if I am not creating jobs in this
State, and if I am not doing it in a way that also responds to
environmental concerns or even climate concerns, then I may be
out of a job.
Governor Brewer in Arizona is a big champion of solar. And
she isn't a big champion of solar because she is Republican or
Democrat, she happens to be a Republican, but because that
economy is really going to rely heavily going forward on the
solar industries, the variety of solar industries. In Colorado,
where we made this big push around this aggressive renewable
energy standard, even during the downturn, the one place in the
private sector where our economy grew was in the clean energy,
clean tech sector. So while it is still, while renewable energy
is still a small part of the portfolio, certainly the natural
gas or certainly the coal, I think we have seen the clean
energy economies in States make an impact on those various
State job creation abilities, the various economies.
Senator Whitehouse. And very often that occurs with the
strong support of major American corporations. Since Senator
Boozman is here, I will read from the Wal-Mart 2009
Sustainability Report. Here is what Wal-Mart published. Climate
change may not cause hurricanes but warmer ocean water can make
them more powerful. Climate change may not cause rainfall but
it can increase the frequency and severity of heavy flooding.
Climate change may not cause droughts, but it can make droughts
longer. Every company has a responsibility to reduce
greenhouses gases as quickly as it can.
They continued by saying, that is why we are working in a
number of areas to reduce our company's carbon footprint and
also working with our suppliers and customers to help them do
the same. Currently, we are investing in renewable energy,
increasing energy efficiency in our buildings and trucks,
working with suppliers to take carbon out of products and
supporting legislation in the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Wal-Mart may be our biggest company. If we have a
bigger, it is Exxon, which is really no longer an American
company, it is an international creature.
Mr. Ritter. We have done a variety of things as well,
Senator, with utilities. Utility CEOs and CFOs around the
country understand as well their own sort of vulnerability,
their own risks. They do their own corporate threat analysis.
They have their own shareholders.
Senator Whitehouse. A number of big American corporations
have actually imposed an internal price on carbon.
Mr. Ritter. They have done an internal price on carbon.
They also, like Wal-Mart, are going up the supply chain to look
at consumer goods that come their way are produced and ask the
question as it relates to greenhouse gas emissions.
I actually spent some time in Bentonville with the
sustainability team at Wal-Mart for a National Academy of
Sciences panel that I am participating in, and had what I would
consider a brilliant day in listening to Wal-Mart's leadership
discuss about their sustainability efforts around the country,
and then thinking about how to do that as well with the supply
chain. But it is a great example.
Senator Whitehouse. Great. Thank you very much.
Ms. Curry, you are described very often when I look up your
name as a contrarian climate scientist. What does that mean?
Ms. Curry. I have no idea. There is a lot of words that get
bandied about in the political debate.
Senator Whitehouse. This is not just in the political
debate. This is like Google, news stories, all sorts of things.
Ms. Curry. Skepticism is one of the norms of science. The
way that we test theories and ideas is to challenge them. And a
good theory will be able to defend itself against challenges.
When people try to defend their theory by calling people
who challenge their theory by names, deniers, whatever, that is
not a good sign that it is a strong theory.
Senator Whitehouse. Do you think the scientific theory is
influenced by what a scientist is called?
Ms. Curry. No. I am just saying this is part of the public
debate, not the scientific debate.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. I thought you were saying that you
called into question the scientific theory what you were
called.
Ms. Curry. I don't know that Andrew would call me a
contrarian.
Senator Whitehouse. And that doesn't seem to be right.
Ms. Curry. I don't think climate scientists would call me a
contrarian.
Senator Whitehouse. Is it true that in 2007 you wrote in
the Washington Post about climate change that if the risk is
great, then it may be worth acting against, even if the
probability is small, and that you have yet to see any option
that is worse than ignoring the risk of global warming and
doing nothing? Was that your Washington Post editorial from
2007?
Ms. Curry. Yes, I wrote those words in 2007. A couple of
things. My thinking has evolved somewhat since 2007, as I have
seen increasing evidence. I still think that there is a real
risk there and that we need to figure out how to deal with it.
Senator Whitehouse. You do think that there is a real risk
there and that we need to figure out how to deal with it?
Ms. Curry. Yes. We may decide to do nothing and just to do
local adaptation and to see what happens.
Senator Whitehouse. That would probably be the worst
option, though. Correct?
Ms. Curry. I am not judging specific policy options.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. Well, as of 2007, you would have
thought that was the worst option.
Ms. Curry. Yes, as of 2007. I had more confidence in the
consensus, the IPCC consensus, I had more confidence in that
process.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me turn to Ms. White for a moment.
You opened your testimony by saying that you brought good
news. And the good news was that carbon emissions and carbon
intensity were both declining.
Ms. White. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Why is that good news?
Ms. White. It could be on a variety of levels, depending on
the point of view. It is a measure of efficiency, energy
efficiency in our economy. It is also a lot of the emission
control technologies or methodologies for the traditional
pollutants, the criteria pollutants listed in the Clean Air Act
as well as toxins. The great efforts over the last 20 years
that are in place now, those also just coincidentally reduce
CO2. So I think you see in those, you see the
general reduction of any kind of----
Senator Whitehouse. Any other reason that reducing carbon
emissions is good news?
Ms. White. I think the reasons I just stated were very
good. It is a measure of reducing all those others. I defer not
to something that someone calls consensus science. I have tried
to follow the science, been involved with my work in
environmental regulation for 30 years. But I do not reach a
conclusion.
Senator Whitehouse. So are the only two reasons that you
think it is good news, that carbon emissions and carbon
intensity are going because it shows that some emissions
controls, technologies are working and the energy economy is
becoming more efficient?
Ms. White. I think that is profound, that the continual
efficiency of our economy, even as population grows and the
economy grows. I think that is something----
Senator Whitehouse. In terms of the carbon emissions having
any effect on, say, the atmosphere or our oceans? Do you think
it is good news with respect to the atmosphere and oceans as
well?
Ms. White. Well, like I said, I don't reach conclusions on
that. But because there are----
Senator Whitehouse. Why would you not reach conclusions on
that but reach conclusions on energy efficiency?
Ms. White. Because I am not as persuaded by the science as
I understand it as layman than some others.
Senator Whitehouse. OK, so you are just a layman with
respect to carbon's effect on the atmosphere?
Ms. White. Yes, with respect to science. I am----
Senator Whitehouse. OK, well, I will end that there.
Ms. White. But if I could say one more thing, and this is
that----
Senator Whitehouse. And then I will turn back to Senator
Boozman, who would like another moment.
Ms. White. In response to Dr. Curry's testimony, I am
struck that there is a very significant need for more research
on natural variability and the climate sensitivity to manmade
CO2 in the context of natural, as you mentioned, in
terms of aerosols and the sun and all of that. I think----
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. The only thing I would say is that I think
every company, every individual, all of us need to do a much
better job of doing what we can, and we can, conservation I
think is the key to this whole thing. We don't talk near enough
about it. Back when most of you all were growing up, like me,
you simply did not leave a room without turning out the lights
or your parents yelled at you and said, turn the lights out. We
don't do that anymore.
The other thing is, the question is, with a potential
problem, I think the question is, are we better off with coming
up with a complex scheme like the cap and trade program that
was passed in the House, which was overwhelmingly rejected by
the American public, and I think you could argue that it was
one of the major drivers for the Democrats losing the House
that year, are we in the position to micromanage this thing up
here with very complex schemes as we have done with other
things. I think that the States are doing a good job. You have
alluded to that. Senator Whitehouse alluded to the fact that
industry was getting aggressive.
And I do think that, I think Ms. Curry is very
representative of the group of scientists who, in good faith,
simply don't feel like the science is settled. I think there is
evidence in that regard. Certainly the modeling, the fact that
we can just say, this modeling is perfect and this and that,
and we can predict all these things, I think that it is OK, we
need people to question these things. It is very, very
important.
The other thing is, if we are in a situation, and I think
it is really up for grabs whether or not the Chinese or the
Indians, the discussions I have had with them, they might be
doing a better job. But the discussions I have had with them
again, their attitude is, we will be responsible in 200 years
after we have our industrial revolution. We have problems we
have to deal with. And they might ratchet it down where they
can actually see their hand in front of their face again, as
opposed to now.
But what I want to know, from all of you at some point in
time, and I don't think it is fair that the American people
don't understand this, what is going to be the cost? What we
have to do as a country, if nobody else really participates at
great length, if we do all these things, what is going to be
the end result? What is that going to do to our environment,
what is it going to do to whatever.
There are certainly a lot of things that we can do and need
to be doing, common sense things. We all want to protect the
environment, and we can do a much better job of that. But when
you really make it such that you are talking about
significantly increasing electricity prices, what I want to
know at some point is what is that going to do to jobs, what is
it going to do to people who are retired on fixed incomes, what
is it going to do to single moms, all of those kind of folks,
when you are talking about significantly increasing their
energy prices and their gasoline, electricity and things like
that.
And if somebody would comment that you can do that without
significantly increasing energy prices, I would like to hear
that.
Mr. Lashof. We did analyze a proposal for achieving
significant further progress, building on the progress which I
think is quite significant over the last 5 years. To continue
to reduce the CO2 emissions, particularly from the
power sector, which is our biggest source. And we find that we
can make another 23 to 30 percent reduction without a
significant impact on electricity prices.
Why? Well, partly because of energy efficiency, we are
learning to use electricity much more efficiently and we have a
lot more potential there. It doesn't just happen by accident.
The States have adopted policies that are driving an $8 billion
industry in that.
The other reason is the cost of renewables has come down
remarkably in the last 5 years. Wind is now much cheaper than
building a new coal plant, and is competitive with just
operating some plants in some circumstances. Solar has come
down by 80 percent in the last 5 years. People haven't really
fully understood the revolution that has happened in the
renewable energy industry over that period of time. We actually
have a huge opportunity to get big reductions without driving
up electricity prices in a significant way.
Senator Whitehouse. Let me thank the witnesses very much.
Let me thank Senator Boozman for staying.
I would respond on that that there clearly are costs if you
apply what I proposed, which is a carbon fee. But if you make
it revenue neutral, then every single dollar of it goes back to
the American public. And so net, net, there is no cost. What
you get is savings in terms of not having to fortify our
coasts, for instance, against rising sea levels, not having to
figure out how you deal with fishermen whose catches have moved
either offshore or out in the deeper waters or into other
States that they can't reach any longer.
What do you do with foresters whose forests are burned
because the pine beetle climbed up higher because there was no
cold snap to wipe them out, and so there are the red forests
that Senator Merkley described.
Then there is the competitiveness question which is that if
we invest only in the fossil fuels, which are on the wrong end
of the cost curve that Dr. Lashof described, solar and these
technology based sources are going to continue to reduce, and
fossil and extractive based are going to continue to be
expensive. If we are on the losing end of international
competition for those newer, I don't want to buy that stuff
from China. I don't want to be buying it from the EU. I want
our American industries to be the leaders in that. And if our
fossil fuel industry is trying to sabotage our clean energy
industry for immediate market share advantage, it is doing a
long term disservice to the economy and to the well-being of
our country.
So I think that the cost questions are real ones, but I
think they are answered in the context of how we do something
intelligent about solving what is a very, very real problem.
And I thank the witnesses for sharing their various views. We
will keep the record of the hearing open for 2 weeks for anyone
who wishes to add anything further to the record and for those
who have been asked to provide something to provide it for the
record.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and I hope
sooner rather than later, even with Republican colleagues, to
address climate change and carbon pollution. Because you can
get into discussions about what climate modeling tells you, but
you can't debate the acidification of the seas. You can't
debate the 10 inches of sea level rise that my tide gauge in
Newport, Rhode Island, has already seen. You can't debate that
Narragansett Bay is already 3 or 4 degrees warmer in the
winter.
So you want to set aside the argument where there is
modeling fights. Let's look at the areas where we are really
hurting ourselves, and then it is, as Dr. Dessler said,
virtually certain with any, what was the word, epistemological
certainty, I think you said. Good words to close by. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]