[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PARIS CLIMATE PROMISE:
A BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
February 2, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-57
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-827 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEPHEN KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
February 2, 2016
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Mr. Steve Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce
Oral Statement............................................... 14
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director
of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in
Huntsville
Oral Statement............................................... 44
Written Statement............................................ 46
Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 71
Written Statement............................................ 73
Mr. Steven Groves, The Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research
Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 109
Written Statement............................................ 111
Discussion....................................................... 120
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Mr. Steve Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce............................................ 144
Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute... 147
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr.,
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 156
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 162
Article submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 196
Letter submitted by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 197
PARIS CLIMATE PROMISE:
A BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Research and Technology &
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing, entitled ``Paris Climate Promise: A
Bad Deal For America.'' I'll recognize myself for an opening
statement, and then the Ranking Member.
President Obama submitted costly new electricity
regulations as the cornerstone of his agreement at the Paris
U.N. Climate Conference last December. These severe measures
will adversely affect our economy, and have no significant
impact on global temperatures. In Paris, the President pledged
that the United States will cut its greenhouse gas emissions by
as much as 28 percent over the next decade, and by 80 percent
or more by 2050. Moreover, the President's pledge creates an
international agreement that binds the United States for
decades to come, but lacks constitutional legitimacy, since it
has not been ratified by the Senate.
The agreement not only requires the U.S. to reduce carbon
emissions, but also compels our country to pay billions of
dollars to developing nations to reduce their carbon emissions.
Furthermore, even if all 196 countries continue their promised
reductions for each year after 2031, until 2100, it will only
reduce temperatures by one-sixth of a degree Celsius. The so-
called Clean Power Plan will cost billions of dollars, cause
financial hardship for American families, and diminish the
competitiveness of American employers, all with no significant
benefit to climate change. The U.S. pledge to the U.N. is
estimated to prevent only one-fiftieth of 1 degree Celsius
temperature rise over the next 85 years. EPA's own data shows
that this regulation would reduce sea level rise by only one
one-hundreth of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of
paper.
The President's power plan is nothing more than a power
grab. A majority of Congress disapproved of the Clean Power
Plan through the Congressional Review Act, and the governors of
most states are challenging the rule in court. Meanwhile, the
President attempts to justify his actions with scare tactics,
worst case scenarios, and biased data. An example of how this
administration promotes its suspect climate agenda can be seen
at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Its employees altered historical climate data to get
politically correct results in an attempt to disprove the 18
year lack of global temperature increases. NOAA conveniently
issued its news release that promotes this report just as the
administration announced its extensive climate change
regulations. NOAA has refused to explain its findings and
provide documents to this Committee, and the American people.
The people have a right to see the data, evaluate it, and know
the motivations behind this study. Last week, over 300
respected scientists and experts, which include a Nobel Prize
winner, members of the National Academy of Sciences, and former
astronauts, sent this Committee a letter that expressed concern
over NOAA's efforts to alter historical temperature data. They
agree that the issue deserves serious scrutiny.
This administration continually impedes Congressional
oversight of its extreme climate agenda. Rightfully, Americans
should be suspicious. Furthermore, statements by President
Obama and others that attempt to link extreme weather events to
climate change are unfounded. The lack of evidence is clear. No
increased tornadoes, no increased hurricanes, no increased
droughts or floods. For instance, the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that there is
``low confidence on a global scale'' that drought has increased
in intensity or duration. The same lack of evidence can be
found in the IPCC reports for almost every type of extreme
weather.
The administration's alarmism and exaggeration is not good
science, and intentionally misleads the American people.
Congress has repeatedly rejected the President's extreme
climate agenda. Now the administration attempts to create the
laws on its own, and has packaged all these regulations, and
promised their implementation to the U.N. The President's Paris
pledge will increase electricity cost, ration energy, and slow
economic growth. It ignores good science, and only seeks to
advance a partisan political agenda. The President should
present his Paris climate change agreement to Congress. He
won't, because he knows neither the Senate, nor the House,
would approve it. As we will hear today, the President's U.N.
climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the
American people, and would produce no substantive environmental
benefits.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good
morning. Let me welcome our witnesses, and in particular I'd
like to thank Dr. Steer for returning today. Your testimony in
December, before the Paris conference, was enlightening, and
greatly appreciated. Today I look forward to discussing your
takeaways from Paris, as well as your thoughts on appropriate
steps that need to be taken to address climate change.
The Paris agreement formalized what many across the world
already knew must be done to meaningfully address our most
serious environmental challenge. Establishing a commitment to
action, not for some, but for all countries, is the first step
toward a comprehensive global strategy to reduce carbon
emissions. This commitment demands transparency, again, not for
some, but for all countries, to ensure that effective policies
are put in place, and that the objective of the agreement, to
limit the warming of our planet is accomplished.
We can accomplish this in three ways. First we must need--
we need to support the private sector's growing recognition of
the threats posed by climate change. In the United States
alone, 154 companies signed on to the American Business Act on
Climate pledge. Through this pledge, companies like AT&T, Bank
of America, Cargill, Coca-Cola, IBM, and even the Walt Disney
Company are demonstrating their support for action by setting
emission targets for their operations. As many of you will
recall, days before the Paris climate talks, Bill Gates, along
with a group of private investors, announced the creation of
Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a coalition committed to
investing in potentially transformative emerge--energy systems.
Private sector efforts like this illustrate the potential
impacts investments in technology can have on achieving both
long and short term carbon reductions.
The Paris agreement requires all governments to be
consistent with their commitments, and sends a signal to the
private sector that a stable framework for action will be put
in place, enabling private actors to invest, innovate, and
inspire further action. Second, as our private sector responds
to stable market signals, we must continue to identify
opportunities for the Federal Government to invest in research
and technologies that put us on a path to prevent a rise in
global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius. In addition to
helping address climate change, investments in such innovative
technologies will propel us forward into a new era of economic
prosperity and environmental health. Third, we must capture the
momentum of the Paris agreement, and take a leadership role in
addressing the challenge of climate change, and not just react
to changes as they occur. Maintaining our international
commitments demonstrates strength, and provides certainty for
all of our partners, including our private sector partners
right here at home. As we act in a transparent manner to
develop and implement policies to address our own carbon
emissions, we will help move other nations to follow our
example, and achieve an impactful global response to climate
change.
I fear that we will hear today many of the same views and
arguments that we've heard from the majority for years. They
will warn us of the dire economic consequences of acting on
climate change, or suggest that thousands of the world's most
respected scientists are wrong about climate changing at all,
or that any actions we take will be pointless. They will
portray the Obama Administration as overreaching. They will say
all of these things, but the reality is that the audience for
those views is shrinking as the reality of climate change
become evident. The rest of us acknowledge the task ahead, and
recognize that delay is not an option. We must move forward to
support policies that will address our climate challenge, and
trust that our private sector will continue to innovate. The
Paris climate agreement is a very positive development, and I
hope that we can all build on it.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have a page here from the Washington
Post dated Friday, December the 11th, 2015, that talks about
the draft of the Paris agreement, and it also has a second
article that's entitled, ``In Paris, Majority View in GOP
Congress Is In A Minority''. I thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Our first
witness today is Mr. Stephen Eule, Vice President for Climate
and Technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Prior to
joining the Chamber, Mr. Eule was the Director of the Office of
Climate Change Policy and Technology at the Department of
Energy, and during this time Dr. Eule represented DOE at the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the G-20, and other
multilateral forums. He also previously served as a
Subcommittee Staff Director here at the Science Committee, so
welcome back.
Dr. Eule received his Bachelor's Degree in Biology from
Southern Connecticut State College, and his Master's Degree in
Geography from George Washington University.
I'll now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer,
to introduce our next witness.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure and
honor to introduce a fellow Alabamian. Our second witness is
Dr. John Christy, distinguished Professor of Atmospheric
Science, and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville. Dr. Christy, a data-driven
climate scientist, has researched climate issues for 27 years,
and has been Alabama State Climatologist since 2000. He was a
contributor on four reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, and was lead author of a section of the 2001
IPCC third assessment report. In addition, Dr. Christy received
NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991 for
building a global temperature database, and in 2002 was elected
a fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Dr. Christy received his Bachelor's Degree in Mathematics
from California State University, Fresno, and his Master's and
Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois.
It's our pleasure to have you here, Dr. Christy. Thank you for
testifying.
Chairman Smith. All right. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Our third
witness today is Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO of World
Resources Institute. Dr. Steer joined WRI from the World Bank,
where he served as Special Envoy for Climate Change since 2010.
Prior to this position, Dr. Steer was Director, General, and
Member of the management board at the United Kingdom Department
of International Development. Dr. Steer worked at the World
Bank for over 20 years, and has held a number of position, that
include Director of the Environment Department. Dr. Steer
received his Ph.D. in Economics from the University of
Pennsylvania.
Our final witness is Mr. Steven Groves, Senior Research
Fellow at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the
Heritage Foundation. Before joining Heritage in 2007, Mr.
Groves was Senior Counsel to the U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. Groves received his
Bachelor's Degree in History from Florida State, his Master's
Degree in Law from Georgetown, and his J.D. from Ohio Northern
University.
We welcome you all, look forward to your testimony. And,
Mr. Eule, if you'll begin?
TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVE EULE,
VICE PRESIDENT FOR CLIMATE AND TECHNOLOGY,
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Mr. Eule. Thank you, Chairman, Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, and members of the Committee. It's a pleasure to be
back here in the Science Committee. The main points I'd like to
make, which are detailed in my written testimony, are as
follows. First, the Paris agreement clearly fulfills the Durban
Platform's goal of an outcome with legal force, as it contains
many legally binding provisions laying out what parties
``shall'' do. These include requiring the parties to make
future increasingly ambitious mitigation pledges, and to
provide financing and technology assistance. The binding
aspects of the Paris agreement clearly require implementing
legislation and regulation potentially affecting every sector
of the U.S. economy. An agreement with such far reaching
consequences, if it is to be considered durable and binding
both politically and legally, should approved by Congress.
Second, according to its own analysis, the Obama
Administration's emission reduction commitment for Paris
doesn't add up. In a report released New Year's Eve, the
administration estimates that 41 percent to 57 percent of the
President's 2025 emissions target remains unaccounted for, and
that's assuming EPA's Clean Power Plan survives court scrutiny,
a big if. Even when including the administration's wish list of
additional measures, in almost all cases the projected emission
reductions still fall short, and often well short, of the
President's 2025 goal. That the administration, which has
thus--shown thus far no reticence when it comes to regulating
greenhouse gases, still can't figure out how to reach its 2025
goal without everything breaking just right demonstrates how
unrealistic its goal really is.
Third, the Paris emissions pledges are hugely unequal, and
will not change appreciatively the rising trajectory of global
emissions. While the United States, Europe, Japan, and a few
other countries have offered up deep emission cuts, nearly all
developing countries, particularly the large emerging
economies, have offered little beyond business as usual.
Differentiation among the parties is alive and well. A recent
report from the Framework Convention estimates that, even in
the unlikely event all the Paris pledges are implemented to the
letter, global emissions will still rise nearly 1/5 between
2010 and 2030, within the range of where emissions were headed
anyway.
Fourth, the disparity in commitments results from the fact
that most countries place greater emphasis on economic
development than they do on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
More than a billion people worldwide still lack access to the
modern energy services that could lift them out of poverty.
Coal will remain for some time the fuel of choice for
electrification in developing countries. Using data from
plants, we estimate that during the Paris climate talks, about
1.2 trillion watts of new coal fired power plants were under
construction, or planned throughout the world. That's about 3-
1/2 times the capacity of the entire U.S. coal fleet. This is
not a carbon constrained world.
Fifth, the administration's plan will likely result in
emissions from the U.S. leaking to other countries, merely
moving, not reducing them. The United States has a tremendous
energy price advantage over many of its competitors.
Overregulation from EPA, however, could force energy intensive
industries to flee to other countries, similar to what we are
seeing in Europe, where climate and other policies have driven
up energy costs to industry two to four times higher than here
in the United States.
Sixth, developing countries have made it plain they will
not undertake any meaningful commitments without large doses of
financial aid. Developed countries have pledged $100 billion
annually by 2020, and are expected to increase that amount by
2025. A great deal of the U.S. share of this--will have to be
appropriated by Congress.
Seventh, although parties agree to a non-binding aim to
limit the global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C
from the pre-industrial level, the parties, as they have in the
past, refuse to agree to a global emissions pathway that they
believe would be needed to meet this goal. It is exceedingly
unlikely that they ever will. This temperature target,
therefore, will remain what it has always been, a political
symbol of little practical consequence.
Finally, technology is the key. At its most fundamental
level, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a technology
challenge. Existing technologies can make a start, but as we
have seen, they are not capable of significantly cutting
emissions on a global scale, and at an acceptable cost. That is
why the Chamber will continue to emphasize energy efficiencies
and policies designed to lower the cost of alternative
energies, rather than raising the cost of traditional energy.
In closing, back in 1997 the Clinton Administration offered
up an unrealistic U.S. goal, disregarded clear guidance from
the Senate, and signed the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty it knew was
politically untenable, and therefore never bothered to submit
to the Senate for its advice and consent. Now it looks like the
Obama Administration may have repeated the mistake of ignoring
Congress, signing on to a lopsided deal, and making promises
future presidents and Congresses may be neither willing, nor
able, to keep. As the late, great Yogi Berra once quipped, it's
deja vu all over again. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Eule follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Eule, and Dr. Christy?
TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN CHRISTY,
PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE AND
DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER,
UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE
Dr. Christy. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member
Johnson, for the opportunity to speak about climate change. I'm
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Alabama State
Climatologist. I've served in many climate science capacities,
including as lead author of the United Nations IPCC. My
research might best be described as building datasets from
scratch to help us understand what the climate is doing, and
why.
I begin with the chart on display. This particular chart
has caused considerable anxiety for the climate establishment,
who want to believe the climate system is overheating,
according to the theory of how extra greenhouse gases are
supposed to affect it. The message is very simple. The theory
does not match the observations as measured independently by
both satellites and balloons. With that, a tax on those of us
who pay attention to such evidence, and on the data themselves,
have been remarkably sophisticated. From Congressional
investigation of our finances, to well-funded videos, to
reporters' inquiries, for all of our notes, phone calls,
expenses, reimbursements, e-mails, letters, and so on.
At the core of these activities is the belief that someone
who does not go along with the climate establishment must be on
the payroll of scurrilous organizations. These attacks attempt
to persuade people not to consider the data of the bulk
atmosphere, the surface to about 50,000 feet. One attack says
the satellites do not measure temperature. They do. As my
colleague, Roy Spencer, points out, they measure temperature by
emission, which is the same way a doctor measures your body
temperature with an ear probe. Another attack says that the
vertical fall of the satellites makes the readings unreliable.
This problem was corrected 20 years ago for a different
measurement, but the measurement shown here, this was never a
factor involved.
In a similar assertion, the claim is made that there was an
error in the correction for the east-west drift of the
satellites, but, again, that does not apply to the measurements
shown here, but to a different layer, and that was fixed ten
years ago. My written testimony goes into more detail about how
these attacks on the data are misdirections, or simply wrong.
They are designed to divert your attention away from the
critically important result of how significantly the
theoretical impact of greenhouse effect, on which policy is
based, differs from reality. It is a bold strategy on the part
of many of the climate establishment to put one's confidence in
theoretical models, and to attack the observed data. To a
scientist, this just doesn't make sense.
My written testimony also examines issues, excuse me,
related to the surface temperature datasets. I attempt to make
the case that the surface temperature measurements are less
effective at detecting climate change than the bulk atmospheric
measurement shown here. First, the variations of the basic
physical measurement are not as directly related to greenhouse
gas impact as is the upper air, and then there are other issues
that affect the surface temperature, such as problems with
human development around the stations, and huge changes in the
way the measurement was actually made through the years.
What about the Paris agreement? No one knows the impact of
this agreement, because no one knows whether any country will
follow through on its voluntary aspirations at all. However, we
do know that even so-called green countries, like Germany and
Japan, are today adding to their carbon emissions by building
more coal-fired power plants, and the rest of the world is
moving forward with affordable carbon-based energy. These
present trends of emissions indicate very little will be done
because carbon-based energy is the foundation of the world's
improving welfare, and I believe this will continue until
something even more affordable is discovered.
With no certainty on future emissions, I've done a thought
experiment. As I note in my written testimony, if the United
States had disappeared in 2015, that's no more people, no cars,
no industry, nothing, the impact on the climate system would be
a tiny few hundredths of a degree over 50 years. And that's if
you believe climate models. So, to me, it is not scientifically
justifiable or economically rational that this nation should
establish regulations whose only discernible consequence is an
increase in economic pain visited most directly and harshly on
the poorest among us. This happens when the scientific process
that allegedly underpins regulations lacks objectivity and
transparency, and becomes associate with attempts to shut out
any evidence that questions the regulation's assumptions. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Christy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Christy. Dr. Steer?
TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW STEER,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Dr. Steer. Thank you very much indeed, Chairman Smith, and
Ranking Member Johnson. It's a great honor for me to be back in
front of this Committee again. My name is Andrew Steer, and I'm
President and CEO of the World Resources Institute. WRI is a
non-profit, non-partisan research institution, our 500
professionals work in 50 countries.
Mr. Chairman, the Paris agreement is a big deal for the
world, and a good deal for America. It has transformed the
climate change landscape. 187 countries submitted their climate
pledges as part of an agreement, a remarkable level of
participation that we've never seen before. Developed and
developing countries are now united in a common framework, as
the U.S. has been pushing for. The World Resources Institute
has analyzed over a dozen major studies, adding up the pledges,
and found that they will substantially reduce global emissions
below our current path. They'll put us on a track for a world
that warms 2.7 to 3.7 degrees Celsius, compared to a business
as usual increase of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius. But they still
don't go far enough to avoid some of the worst impacts of
climate change, but fortunately the agreement sets up the right
conditions for future improvement. It establishes an ongoing
regular process to increase action every five years, with an
ultimate goal of limiting temperatures well below 2 degrees
Celsius.
We believe the agreement strikes the right balance between
what is legally binding and what is not. If the country targets
had been legally binding, not so many countries would have
signed up, probably including the United States. What is
legally binding is a set of actions relating to measurement,
reporting, transparency, and a review mechanism designed to
ramp up ambition. In this regard, it's actually a very modern
form of an agreement, particularly in the context of rapidly
falling costs of green technology, and a growing recognition
that strong climate action is good for business. Countries like
China and India have stepped up to the plate to take action. In
2015 China once again broke world records for the most wind and
most solar capacity installed in one year, almost twice the
investment here in the United States. India is aiming to
install 100 gigawatts of solar power by 2022, 30 times the
current level, and 5 times higher than their previous target.
Mr. Chairman, America's businesses and cities are
supportive of the Paris agreement. It wasn't just national
governments taking action in Paris. It was CEOs, bankers,
mayors, governors who were pushing the hardest for the deal,
and announcing new climate efforts of their own. 114 companies,
including Coca-Cola and General Mills, committed to setting
serious ambitious emissions targets aligned to climate science.
63 companies, including Walmart, Google, and Microsoft, pledged
to transition to 100 percent renewable power in the shortest
practicable timeframe. The six biggest banks in the United
States issued a statement in favor of a global agreement. 450
cities joined the Compact of Mayors, a coalition of city
leaders dedicated to reducing emissions, including 120 from the
United States.
This flood of support is indicative of a new understanding
of the relationship between climate change and the economy.
Growing evidence from groups like the Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate is proving that strong climate action is
compatible with, and actually even necessary, for economic
growth. And this is why 365 companies, including Adidas,
Unilever, Gap, and Staples, wrote to U.S. governors last year
in strong support of the EPA's carbon pollution standards for
existing power plants. They wrote, ``Our support is firmly
grounded in economic reality. Clean energy solutions are cost-
effective and innovative ways to drive investment.
Increasingly, businesses rely on renewable energy, and energy
efficiency solutions, to cut costs and improve corporate
performance.'' The 365 companies who wrote this letter know
that the smart money increasingly lies in the sustainable
economy.
Mr. Chairman, the United States is a leader in delivering
improvements in energy efficiency, cleaner fuels, and new
technologies. We're already seeing the benefits. Last year the
U.S. solar industry added workers at a rate nearly 12 times
faster than the overall economy. Transitioning to a clean
energy economy will create hundreds of thousands of more jobs,
increase GDP, and save families money on energy bills. But, if
unchecked, the negative economic impact of climate change will
profoundly undermine the U.S. economy.
Mr. Chairman, our analysis shows that the U.S. is already
well positioned to meet its international climate commitments,
but it will require continued strong leadership. The Paris
agreement was a great achievement, but now is the time to go to
work. Thank you, I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Steer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Than you, Dr. Steer. That was perfectly
timed at five minutes. Mr. Groves?
TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVEN GROVES,
THE BERNARD AND BARBARA LOMAS
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW,
MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM,
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Groves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
testify today regarding the Paris agreement on climate change,
and whether it's a bad deal for America. And I'll leave it to
climate scientists and economists to say whether it's a bad
deal for the economy, but as a lawyer, what I can say is that
the Paris agreement is a bad deal for the Constitution, for the
separation of powers doctrine, and for the already strained
relationship between Congress and the Executive Branch.
Over the course of the past seven years, President Obama
has taken many unilateral actions of dubious legitimacy. The
President's decision to treat the Paris agreement as an
executive agreement, instead of a treaty, is just his latest
use of executive power to achieve an end that he knows full
well would not pass Congressional muster. The President's
decision is particularly egregious because it flies in the face
of an agreement made between the White House and the Senate in
1992. Back then, during the ratification debate over the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Senate was
concerned that President Bush, or future presidents, would
negotiate agreements that contained emissions targets and
timetables without submitting those agreements to the Senate.
The Senate, then controlled by Democrats, required assurances
that any future agreement containing targets and timetables be
submitted for advice and consent. President Bush agreed on
behalf of the Executive Branch, and the commitment was
memorialized in the Senate's ratification documents for the
Framework Convention.
The next president lived up to this agreement. When
President Clinton negotiated the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, he
treated it as a treaty, requiring the advice and consent of the
Senate. But the Kyoto Protocol was so unpopular that the Senate
passed a resolution of disapproval on it by a vote of 95 to 0
before it could even be submitted to the Senate. To his credit,
President Clinton did not attempt to circumvent the Senate, nor
did he simply declare that the Kyoto Protocol was an executive
agreement that didn't require Senate approval. He lived up to
the commitment that was made in 1992.
But here we are in 2016, with a president that is unwilling
to live up to the commitments of his predecessors. The
President has negotiated a major climate change agreement under
the auspices of the Framework Convention that contains targets
and timetables, but he has refused to submit it to the Senate.
The President is treating the Paris agreement as an executive
agreement, and the reason is simple, political expediency. The
President knows that there are nowhere 67 votes in the Senate
to approve an agreement that requires the United States to send
billions of dollars to the Green Climate Fund annually, and in
perpetuity, to make aggressive emissions reductions, and to
ratchet those reduction levels up every five years, and to
submit itself to an International Review Committee that will
shame the U.S. in the event that the U.S. does not live up to
its obligations.
Now, in addition to ignoring the 1992 agreement with the
Senate, the President is simply pretending that the Paris
agreement isn't a treaty in its own right, even though the
objective criteria used by the State Department indicate that
the Paris agreement is a treaty, and not a mere executive
agreement. Specifically, when the U.S. is negotiating an
international agreement, the State Department uses something
called the Circular 175 Procedure to determine whether it is a
treaty or an executive agreement. And as I detail in my written
testimony, when you apply the eight factors of the C-175
Procedure to the Paris agreement, it's very clear that it
should be treated as a treaty. But the President has chosen to
ignore the C-175 Procedure, in the same way that he has chosen
to ignore the 1992 agreement between the Executive Branch and
the Senate.
As a result of the President's unilateral actions, and his
abuse of executive authority, in my view, the Paris agreement
lacks democratic legitimacy. For that reason, unless and until
the Paris agreement is submitted to the Senate, Congress should
refuse to appropriate U.S. taxpayer dollars for the Green
Climate Fund, or any other financial mechanism associated with
either the Paris agreement or the Framework Convention.
Congress should also continue to resist and disapprove all
regulations meant to implement the Paris agreement
domestically.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me, and I look
forward to answering any of your questions, or the questions of
the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Groves. Let me direct my
first question to Mr. Eule, and it is this. In your opinion,
what are the costs of implementing the Paris agreement to the
United States? And when I mention costs, I include the impact
on jobs as well. Make sure your mike is on there.
Mr. Eule. It's difficult to say what exactly the costs will
be, but it's surely going to cost quite a bit. When you look at
some of the projections for reducing greenhouse gas emissions
significantly globally, we're talking trillions of dollars,
perhaps tens of trillions of dollars in costs. And the U.S.
share of that would depend on what happens in negotiations, but
it would be a significant amount.
Now, when you talk about the $100 billion that's supposed
to be mobilized by 2020, that's supposed to be ratcheted up by
2025, the U.S. share of that is under negotiation. And there's
a big discussion within the Framework Convention as to whether
that should be government funding, or whether that should be
private sector funding, or a combination of both. But I think
it's safe to say that a large percentage of that will have to
come from the government, and that will be money that has to be
appropriated by the Congress, and it's going to run into
billions of dollars.
The impact this is going to have on the United States is
significant. The United States, as I mentioned in my testimony,
has an energy price advantage over many of its competitors. Two
to four times--we pay two to four times less than many of our
competitors in the OECD. You know, if that competitive
advantage goes away, I think we can see a lot of energy
intensive industries fleeing the country, as we're seeing in
Europe. We're seeing, in Europe, steel mills closing. We're
seeing--saying--companies saying they're not going to be
investing in Europe anymore. We're seeing power companies
saying they're not going to invest in Europe anymore. The same
thing could happen here, and I think that's why we have to take
a strong look at the big disparity in what the U.S. is
promising, and what other countries are promising.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Eule. Dr. Christy,
NOAA recently claimed, to great fanfare, that 2015 was the
warmest year on record. Now, this is the same organization that
claimed 2014 was the warmest year on record, and when we read
the footnotes, they actually said they were only 38 percent
sure that that was the case. In regard to their claim about
2015 being the warmest year on record, what are the weaknesses
with the data they're using? How good is their accuracy?
Dr. Christy. Well, this is a new dataset that's come out,
and hasn't had much scrutiny on it. We've tried to reproduce
parts of it, and have been unable at this point. It's a strange
kind of way to--that it was constructed. Relative to 2015, we
have a better way, I think, to measure the climate system, and
that's the bulk atmosphere. That's where the real mass of the
climate system exists, in terms of the atmosphere, and 2015 was
not the warmest year. It was either second to fourth, depending
upon which dataset you use. So the fact that that information
is not provided to the American public by a government agency
is disturbing to me, because the evidence is there that 2015
was not the warmest year.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Christy. Mr. Groves,
thank you for your strong testimony, and appreciate especially
your history of the 1992 agreement between the Senate and the
Executive Branch, and also the definition of agreement and
treaty as the State Department itself has determined. And it is
breathtaking to have a president that ignores this, and abuses
his executive authority, in my judgment.
My question is this: to what extent are President Obama's
promises at the Paris meeting legally binding upon our country?
Mr. Groves. Well, I mean, there are commitments made
throughout the Paris agreement. The Paris agreement is a
legally binding agreement. Just because it's not--he doesn't
consider it a treaty doesn't mean it's not legally binding.
Executive agreements can be legally binding, like status of
forces agreements, or even the agreement that we're working out
with Iran on the nuclear deal. The important thing to note is
that the other 195 countries certainly believe that the United
States will be legally bound by its commitments. Not only its
commitments to reduce its emissions on certain targets and
timetables, but mostly important for them to transfer billions
and billions of dollars annually to the Green Climate Fund, and
other climate mechanisms that they're going to use in their
countries.
Chairman Smith. What power does the next president have? I
mean, is the next president obligated to enforce what this
president agreed to?
Mr. Groves. Well, the rest of the world would certainly
believe that the next president would be required to live up to
the U.S. commitments under the Paris agreement. However, since
the President currently characterizes the Paris agreement as a
mere sole executive agreement, any incoming president may
withdraw from it, in the same way they can withdraw from other
executive agreements made with other countries. There are going
to be political consequences to that with our allies, but,
unlike a treaty, it's much more simple to unwind a sole
executive agreement.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Groves. And the
gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for her
questions.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Steer,
before I ask you a question, I'd like to congratulate you on--
and all the staff at WRI for being named the number one
environmental policy think tank in the world by the 2015 Global
Go To Think Tank Index Report.
The launching of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, the
world's largest clean energy research and development
partnership, is a prime example of the commitment by the
private sector to addressing climate change, and it is clear
that, from your testimony, that businesses have recognized the
importance of taking action against climate change. Can you
please comment on the importance of the private sector in
addressing climate change?
Dr. Steer. Thank you very much indeed. Yes, I think one of
the things that's happened in the last five years is a radical
shift in our understanding about the link between economic
growth and climate change. I was in Davos last week, at the
World Economic Forum. There's an overwhelming sense now on the
part of business leadership in the largest companies in the
world that actually we have to do something about climate
change, and doing it smartly will make us more efficient, more
competitive. And that's why you have these really remarkable
sort of major companies, you know, 1,000 companies have now
said, we want a price on carbon.
And one of the reasons for that is that they're currently
living in no man's land. You know, they don't know, well, there
is, or there isn't going to be, and so investment is lower than
it should be. And what we now know--there's a lot of empirical
evidence that if you take smart actions on climate change, you
can promote efficiency, you can bring in technology, and you
can give long term confidence, which is what business really
needs. So it's a very exciting time.
Now, one of the interesting things is that it's not only
the manufacturers and the retailers, it's actually the
financial sector as well. I mean, in Paris, 400 investors,
representing 24 trillion in assets, have signed up to the
global investment statement on climate change, pledging to seek
out and scale up low carbon and resilient investments. And so
what we're seeing, and it's very relevant to this Committee,
obviously, is that the agreement by the United States and 20
other countries to double their investment in research at the
public level, plus the Bill Gates commitment, together with
another 25 billionaires, if you like, to really move things
forward, and to link together, is an incredibly exciting
development.
Ms. Johnson. Yes. In his testimony, Mr. Eule stated that
the emerging economies have showed very little interest in
reducing emissions in any meaningful way, and that most
developing countries will just continue to operate in a
business as usual manner under this agreement. You have a much
more optimistic view of the impact and effectiveness that the
Paris agreement will have on global emissions. Can you please
elaborate on why you believe all countries, including
developing countries, will deliver on this emissions reduction
commitment?
Dr. Steer. I don't think it's that I'm optimistic. I think
we look at the facts. We leave our opinions at home, and we
look at the facts. In China--most people still perceive China
to be opening up hundreds of coal powered plants, and
increasing their use of coal. In 2014 China shrank its
consumption of coal. In the first 10 months of 2015, coal
consumption in China fell by nearly five percent. So coal
consumption in China is actually now peaking. We're not
absolutely certain whether it'll go up this year or not, but it
looks like it's now on a downward trajectory. In the meantime,
China invested $120 billion on renewable energy last year. So
things are changing, and countries like Brazil are now
committed to actually reducing, in an absolute sense, as I
think Mr. Eule made that in his written testimony, that--an
absolute reduction. And countries like Mexico as well are
really doing very remarkable things.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you. Now, what do you make of the claim
that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce made, that most businesses in
the U.S. are opposed to this deal?
Dr. Steer. Well, I think we're still on a journey, quite
frankly. Just because the United States as a whole, our economy
and our society, would benefit from serious action, that
doesn't mean that every single industry and every single
company--and the history of change is that those who have a
vested interest in the--in not changing are much more vocal,
including in trade associations, than those who would benefit.
And so we're on a journey, as we have been in many other
areas, and each year we're seeing more and more coming on
board, and we've seen it in the last 12 months in an
unprecedented way.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to
enter the articles I mentioned earlier into the record, in my
opening statement.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for your questions.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized for his questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So let's talk about the economic impact,
and maybe Mr. Eule would like to have his say on that as well.
Mr. Eule, could you--we just heard about how it's going to be
more efficient to go over to a non-carbon-based energy source.
That's what we're really talking about. It's my understanding
that oil, and gas, and coal, at their fundamental, is much more
efficient than any other method that we've got at this point to
produce the same amount of energy. Thus, if we're not using
those efficient methods, that means that some sort of wealth is
having to be consumed that otherwise wouldn't be consumed,
which it seems to me destruction of the manufacturing of wealth
would hurt normal people. Maybe you could comment on that?
Mr. Eule. Yeah. I think I understand the question.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I mean, fundamentally, the economics--
we're being told the economics----
Mr. Eule. Right.
Mr. Rohrabacher --is actually working in behalf of moving
in the direction--the global warming direction, pardon me, of--
making that a major goal, bringing down the climate--bringing
down the temperature. I mean, is that what you're reading?
Obviously it's not. Maybe you could just get in a discussion--
--
Mr. Eule. Yeah, I----
Mr. Rohrabacher. --over that.
Mr. Eule. Yeah, I think when you look at where alternate
technologies are, they're still more expensive than more
traditional energy technologies. I think that's pretty plain.
They intermittency issues, so that--and, you know, the question
is, can they be scaled up to provide the energy that people
need to lift themselves out of poverty worldwide?
You know, when you think about climate change, like I said
in my testimony, it's a technology challenge. And as long as
alternate technologies are more expensive and less reliable
than traditional technologies, people are going to use
traditional technologies, because it's more important,
especially in the developing world, it's more important for
them to provide energy to their people. And they will continue
to use these technologies, because they make sense.
Once alternate technologies are competitive with
traditional technologies, a lot of these issues go away, quite
frankly. The--we won't need a big international----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Right.
Mr. Eule. --conference to decide how to change the, you
know, the energy systems of these countries, because people
adopt these technologies anyway because they make sense. They
don't at this point, but they will one day in the future, but
we just don't know when that's going to happen.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So any businessman that runs a corporation
that is not going to more efficient use of energy is wasting
the resources of his company, and that would happen naturally,
hopefully, that people are making their adjustments to go to
more efficient methods of using the energy for their company.
Let me ask Dr. Christy--the--when we talk about what was
the most--the hottest day, this--isn't this important? Because
if indeed there's been this massive increase in the amount of
CO2 in the atmosphere over these last 20 and 30
years, if indeed the--that has not resulted in these hottest
days, does that not disprove the CO2 theory of--that
CO2 is causing the climate to change?
Dr. Christy. Okay, in terms of the hottest days, I think
you're referring to the chart on--when a number of 100 degree
days occurred in the United States, that one that shows in the
'30s many more occurred than today. So when you look at the
United States' record of extreme high temperatures, you do not
see an upper trend at all. In fact, it's slightly downward.
That does fly in the face of climate model projects.
I just had a paper accepted for a publication in which we
looked at Alabama, and that very thing. Not one single one of
the 76 climate models ran came close to producing what actually
happened in Alabama's climate over the last 120 years. So I
think my bottom line here is I would not trust model
projections on which all the policy is based here, because they
just don't match facts right now.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So if the facts are that we are not having
this dramatic increase in temperature that we've been told that
we're having, at a time when CO2 has been increasing
dramatically, and use--the amount of CO2 going into
the atmosphere has been dramatically increasing, well, then
that would suggest that the CO2 theory of climate
change is just inaccurate.
Dr. Christy. Well, I'm very happy to say you're acting like
a scientist here. When a theory contradicts the facts, or the
other way around, you kind of try to change the theory. And
that's what we've shown, is that the key metric, the bulk
atmospheric temperature, is not obeying what climate models
say. The real world is not going along with that rapid warming,
and so that should tell us our understanding is not sufficient
to explain what is happening in the real world. We don't know
how CO2 is affecting the climate.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the models based on this are obviously
incorrect?
Dr. Christy. The models need to go back to the drawing
board, I think.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. And the
gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for her
questions. I'm sorry, the gentlewoman from Maryland is not
here. The gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized.
Mr. Bera. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as a scientist
and a physician, I agree, you gather the facts, and you take
those facts, and you make a decision. I don't think anyone
disputes that both NASA and NOAA look at 2015 as the hottest
year on record. I don't think anyone disputes, you know, that
the--that climate does change. I mean, in my home state of
California, we've gone through several years of devastating
droughts, loss of the snow pack. I'm grateful that we're
getting a lot of snow, and, you know, we're getting that snow
pack, and we're getting a lot of rain, and El Nino, but climate
does fluctuate, and it changes, so I think we can agree on that
as well.
You know, we do--if we look at extremes of climate, we're
having more extremes of climate. If we take the fact that, you
know, look at our poles, North Pole, Antarctica, you know,
we're seeing more glacial melt off, and, you know, more
extremes of melt. So those are the facts, and we should accept
those facts. We can debate what's causing this, and we
certainly should have that robust debate, but based on those, I
think many of us take these as just objective facts of what's
happening.
We're seeing, you know, in my colleague, Congressman Derek
Kilmer's district, you know, Native American tribes that have
lived on coastal plains for thousands of years are now subject
to chronic flooding, and having to move to high ground. So,
again, we can take those facts. This body then has to debate
what can we do to help move this forward?
You know, Dr. Steer, if I think about it, it can't just be
one country moving forward, because we're talking about a
global climate. The reason why you have to act as an
international community is setting targets. And, again, I
think--what I was pleasantly surprised about at the Paris
accords is, you know, some of the countries that we have the
most concern about, countries like India, who, I think, many of
us thought could really undermine the Paris accords, really
stepped up to the plate. I mean, and this is a country that
will be making massive investments in energy. You know, the--
300 million Indians have no reliable electrical source. There
is a real opportunity to come up with innovative electrical
sources in a very different way, using alternative and
renewable energies.
And, you know, I guess, Dr. Steer, as we look at this,
you've already indicated corporate America gets the economic
opportunity here. Many of us get the job creation opportunity
here. And what would you say if, you know, the next concrete
steps, and also what the facts are?
Dr. Steer. Well, thank you, Congressman Bera. I agree very
much with you. Look, no individual country operating on its own
can address this problem. Global problems require international
cooperation. That's been massively lacking for the last quarter
century. And what we've seen in the last year, actually, is
potentially the emergence of a new multilateralism, and it's a
multilateralism led by the United States.
Because the United States, including the George W. Bush
Administration, and the current administration, have said,
look, we are not going to put ourselves under some global
treaty. We are going to have a situation where we are going to
pledge, we're going to be transparent, and something very
dynamic is going to happen. And it's going to happen because
costs are falling, and because signals will be given to the
private sector. And what we have now in the Paris deal is
precisely that.
It's actually a very modern type of deal, because it's not
based upon sending you to prison, or sending you a requirement
to pay something if you don't deliver. It's rather saying,
look, we are going to move in a certain direction. Every year
that passes, costs are falling. And that's why Prime Minister
Modi, you know, as you say, he came into power--he didn't come
in, you know, committed to the environment. He came in to
promote economic growth. He looked at his solar targets, which
were 20 gigawatts by 2022, and he said, let's quintuple them,
to 100. Why did he do that? It wasn't because he, you know,
wanted to look good on the international stage. He actually did
it because he wanted to promote a new industry. He wanted the
notion that there were factories that are going to be built,
and that's exactly what he's going to do, and that's why China
is spending 120 billion on renewable energy last year. So
something is going on out there that is going to lead to an
upward----
Mr. Bera. Because the economics make sense. And if we want
to be smart, and we're looking at 21st century industry, I want
our companies to be creating those new energy sources. I want
our company to--our companies to lead solar and wind, the
thousands of jobs that are going to be created. And, again,
let's be smart about this, and let's win this. And this is
smart business, it's smart investment, and it does protect our
planet for the next generation. It's the right thing to do, so
thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bera. The gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for questions.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steer, in your
exchange with my good friend Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas,
you got pretty exuberant one time, and you said there's 25
billionaires involved. Do you remember that exchange with her?
Do you remember that? Yeah. So I take it, because of the, I
guess, status of being a billionaire, I take it, in this
current presidential campaign, you would be a Donald Trump
supporter?
If--so--here's my question for you, Dr. Steer. If climate
change theory is right, assuming that all other countries
comply--that all the other countries comply, and don't cheat,
then we will all stay equal, as it were, quote, unquote, in our
respective competitive positions. We're talking about global
marketing now. But, if the theory is wrong, or if countries
cheat, not that they would ever do that, the U.S. stands to
lose the most, in terms of our competitive position. Does
either one of those two scenarios I just laid out concern you?
Dr. Steer. Well, as--I think it was--Mr. Eule made the
point that, actually, at the moment, the United States, for
example, has a great cost advantage in electricity. Consider
the steel industry in Indiana. The cost of electricity to the
steel industry is about 60 percent what it is in Hebei
Province, which is the sort of big steel section of China.
Under the U.S. Clean Power Plan, the estimation is that
electricity prices will rise between five and ten percent, and
then would fall back down again. So even under that, we don't
have to worry about the competitiveness of the United States
steel industry. The academic evidence----
Mr. Weber. Well, that's really my question, is are you
concerned about either one of those two scenarios, whether we
lose our competitiveness, or that the other companies--other
countries would cheat? Are you concerned about either one of
those?
Dr. Steer. I fear that we will lose our competitiveness if
we do not act on climate.
Mr. Weber. If you don't act?
Dr. Steer. Yeah.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Eule, let's go to you. Do you--do I need to
lay out those two scenarios again? Are you----
Mr. Eule. Congressman, it's a very big concern. I mean, all
you have to do is look at what's going on in Europe. There--in
Europe, energy intensive industries are becoming an endangered
species, and they're even recognizing now that they have a real
problem. And when you talked five years ago in Europe about
energy, it was all focused on climate change. Now it's--there's
still a focus on climate change, but they're talking more now
about competitiveness, and how they're going to position
themselves in a competitive world. And I think we're headed
down the same path----
Mr. Weber. Yeah.
Mr. Eule. --if we're not careful. And I would like to point
out, about China, and China's adoption of renewable energy,
it's also true that China has, under construction, planned
about 460 billion lots of coal fired power plants, and India
has about 360 billion lots of coal fired power plants, either
planned or under construction.
Mr. Weber. So are you suggesting----
Mr. Eule. India----
Mr. Weber. Are you suggesting we sic the EPA on them?
Mr. Eule. Well, I'm just saying, you know, in the--made the
pledge in Paris, and after Paris they still said that they're
going to go ahead with their goal to double coal production in
five years. So while a lot of countries are making baby steps
toward renewables and alternative technologies, coal is still
going to be the go-to fuel for providing electricity in these
countries.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you. And, Dr. Christy, I'm coming to
you, those same two scenarios. Are you concerned about either
of those two scenarios?
Dr. Christy. Well, I look--are you talking about if the
climate models are wrong?
Mr. Weber. Well, if climate change theory is right, okay,
then, assuming all countries comply, and don't cheat, and we
all stay equal, as it were, in our respective competitive
positions, but if it's wrong, or if those countries cheat, then
we lose our competitive position. Are you concerned about that?
Dr. Christy. Well, the one I study is the climate model
issue the most, and the evidence, to me, indicates they're
wrong. They just--the data is not matching up with----
Mr. Weber. And you're very concerned about that?
Dr. Christy. I'm very concerned. That's why I showed the
picture.
Mr. Weber. Let me move on to Mr. Groves, thank you. Mr.
Groves, I know you raised a Constitutional issue, which I
appreciate, and I am concerned about that, but just as you and
me talking now----
Mr. Groves. Um-hum.
Mr. Weber. --the scientists don't get the Constitutional
issue, so----
Mr. Groves. And I don't get the----
Mr. Weber. You didn't hear me say that, right? But you're--
would you be concerned about that scenario as well?
Mr. Groves. Well, the area that I would be concerned about
is non-compliance by the other parties. I mean, the U.S.----
Mr. Weber. Thank you.
Mr. Groves. --tends to take its treaty commitments much
more seriously than other countries. That goes to arms control
treaties, that goes to human rights treaties. And even if the
U.S. joined this one, and lived up to the letter of its
commitments, I wouldn't be confident that countries like India,
or China, or even countries--developing countries around the
world would find it economically feasible to live up to their
commitments.
Mr. Weber. So we would be tying our, as it were, proverbial
arm behind our back?
Mr. Groves. Since we would be complying and they----
Mr. Weber. Absolutely.
Mr. Groves. --would not, yes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber. And the gentleman
from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Dr. Christy,
it was fun to read about your resume. I understand--your
emphasis on this bulk atmosphere measurement. I mean, I saw you
won a very distinguished award from NASA in 1991 for your work
on that, a special medal from the American Meteorological
Society in 1996 for your work on that and you lay out some
criticisms of other climate scientists about using atmospheric
data. You talked about--that they say--you're only measuring
radiation, not temperature, that you don't allow for orbital
decay and vertical drop, that you don't allow for the diurnal
drift problem, the east to west. And then you also responded
and say, no, you've adjusted for all that stuff.
But then you go on to criticize the surface measurement,
saying, you know, one meter deep in the ocean is not the same
as three meters above, that there's infrastructure buildup that
they don't allow for. In fact, you even say, and I quote, that
those who measure at the surface use ``unsystematic measuring
methods and instrumentation''. So question number one is
doesn't it make sense to use all of the data we have, both
yours and the stuff on the surface? And number two, does it
really make a difference whether 2015 was the first warmest, or
the second, or fourth, if we're looking at all recorded data?
And three, doesn't it make sense to look at what's really
happening, not between 20,000 and 50,000 feet, where we don't
live, but here, where we have sea level rise all along the
Virginia coast, where the surges in Norfolk, Virginia are
getting worse, and worse, and worse, as developed by Lockheed?
The migration of animals, the migration of insects, and the
decimation of forests in the north, the migration of tropical
diseases, which is on the front page of the papers, these days,
the disappearing Arctic ice, and Greenland ice, and other
stuff. Shouldn't we put all of these things together, as
opposed to--you don't like the models, but let's also look at
what's happening to our lives.
Dr. Christy. I'll try to back up with those. I might have
to ask you to remind me what the question----
Mr. Beyer. I'm sorry.
Dr. Christy. But for the third one, the bulk atmospheric
temperature is where the signal is the largest, so that's where
you go to look for it, if you're a scientist. We have
measurements of that. It doesn't match up with the models.
Now, all those other things you've mentioned, if you take
systematic measurements back 1,000 years for those very issues
you talked about, I'll bet you'll see the same type of
variations. The droughts mentioned in California, they were 100
years long when you go back about 9 or 800 years, not just four
years, as this one has shown. So I think there's a little bit
of hyperbole, and all those things that people see changing
right now, they've always changed, I suspect. What was your
second question? And then we'll----
Mr. Beyer. Does it make any difference whether it's the
first warmest, or the second, or fourth?
Dr. Christy. No. Individual years, no, it's really not
critical on that. It's the longer term trend, which is what I
was showing. That's the more critical parameter, because it
talks about the accumulation of heat. It's not happening the
way models project it to. And number one was?
Mr. Beyer. That's good. I would've loved to have seen the
rest of that. You stopped at 2025, or 2020, to see where it
went in 2050 and 2100.
Dr. Christy. It just kept going.
Mr. Beyer. Kept going up?
Dr. Christy. Yeah.
Mr. Beyer. Mr. Eule, you talked--really fascinating, from a
Chamber perspective, I'm a businessman also, that you're going
to look at where the cost-effectiveness of the technologies
are, that when solar, and wind, and tidal and stuff begin to
approach the cost of fossil fuel, the problem will take care of
itself. Exxon-Mobil has come out for a carbon tax, carbon
pricing. I had a good conversation with the Chairman of BP in
Davos last week, who said they also support a carbon tax. Would
the Chamber support a carbon tax to bring these different
methods into balance, especially if all of the revenue is
returned to the American citizens, so it was revenue neutral?
Mr. Eule. We would have to see what the proposal looked
like. We're--we've never said we were opposed to a carbon tax,
never said we were in favor of a carbon tax. Never said we were
opposed to cap and trade, never said we were in favor of cap
and trade. We always have to see what the legislation says, and
then we make a decision.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. That's fair. Thank you very much. Dr.
Steer, it's been alleged that all of the Paris agreements and
stuff will have a devastating economic impact. How do you
reconcile that with the fact, since 2009, no country in the
world has reduced its carbon footprint more than the United
States, and we've had 70 straight months of private sector job
growth, 18 million new jobs since January 20, 2009? How do you
put those together?
Dr. Steer. Well, I agree with you, Congressman, that
actually this is part of this learning that we're doing right
now. The United States, we here, in this economy, are on the
forefront of something we didn't understand before, which is if
you actually focus on the efficiency of economy, you will want
to emit less greenhouse gases. And smart policies for climate
change will lead to more efficiency, more technology, more long
term certainty. So, I mean, I think you're absolutely right.
The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which is
chaired by President Felipe Calderon, the previous President of
Mexico, a conservative President of Mexico, you know, he said,
you know, that--when I was a young politician, he said, I
believed there was a tradeoff between climate action and
economic growth. When I was president, and I was chairing the
G-20, I believed that, actually, economic growth and climate
action could be compatible. He said, now, I've looked at the
facts, and I know that long term healthy economic growth is
only possible with climate action. So I agree very much with
you, Congressman.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you much. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And the gentleman
from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized.
Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Several of
you have, and almost everybody else has referenced the increase
in cost--energy cost to Americans, and this is all about
energy. And further down the chain, the increases affect
virtually every product or service of every American. Example,
I talked to some people in the cement manufacturing business,
and they said, under the proposed EPA rules now, if they're
allowed to go into effect, in my state, half the manufacturing
will close immediately, and the other half will be able to hang
on for a year, long enough to get re-established in Mexico. And
I don't think there's any environmental protection regulations
of significance in Mexico regulating cement, and the
manufacturing. And so, you know, unless you believe in such a
thing as a no peeing section of a swimming pool, you know, we
still get the pollution, we just pay 400 percent more for the
product, you know?
So I wondered, Mr. Eule and Mr. Groves, you had expressed
to us the bottom line of your thoughts about the U.N. climate
negotiation. Do you think this is simply an attempt to transfer
wealth, or do you see other, more legitimate purposes?
Mr. Groves. Sure. Well, both Mr. Eule and I were there in
Paris during these negotiations, and we can tell you from
firsthand experience that the big issue in Paris was money. I
studied not just agreements like these, but other agreements
that deal in wealth transfers from the global north to the
global south, from the developed world to the developing world,
and the Paris agreement is no exception to the general trend in
global U.N. agreements regarding global wealth transfer. And if
it's enforced, that's essentially what will happen.
Only the developed countries are required to pay into the
Green Climate Fund, which is going to be $100 billion a year as
a floor, beginning in the year 2020. And all of those dollars
go to the developed world, which is in the global south. So if
that's not kind of a global wealth transfer, I'm not sure what
is.
Mr. Eule. I would say there are mixed incentives in the
talks. But I think what's interesting is what Christiana
Figueres said. She's the Executive Secretary of the U.N.
Framework Convention on Climate Change. And it's in my
testimony, and I'll quote what she said. ``This is the first
time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves
the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to
change the economic development model that has been reigning
for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.''
So I think a lot of people see these talks as a way to
change the economic development system, and I think that's
something we should be concerned about, because the free
enterprise system that we have has been responsible for the
biggest boost in human health and welfare in history, and so I
think we have to be cautious about where these talks go.
Mr. Posey. And I agree. And it's--and I hadn't intended to
make this comment, but, you know, we won the Second World War.
The world is more free today because we had enabled
industrialists to produce, and we out produced the enemy. And
here, I mean, I think most people have the common sense to
understand that most of the rest of the world is in favor of us
being less productive if it makes them more productive.
But based on so much that we've seen in the governments
that they're actually trying to help with our money here, do
you think that's--any probability that the funds would be
properly used, or would we see more waste, fraud, and abuse,
like we have with many other--with many of the other resources
we use to disperse Americans' wealth to other people?
Mr. Eule. Well, I think, certainly, if Congress is going to
be appropriating the money that goes into the fund, Congress
should have a say in how it's spent. And there are rules that
are being set up in the Green Climate Fund to oversee how the
money is being spent. But, you know, I think the focus on the
Green Climate Fund is a little bit displaced, because a lot of
the money is not going to go through the Green Climate Fund.
Even the Obama Administration has said we're not going to be
sending $100 billion through the Green Climate Fund. That is
just not going to happen. A lot of it's going to go through the
World Bank. A lot of it's going to go through other development
banks. Some of it will go through the Green Climate Fund. But
it's going to be coming from--the $100 billion that the
developed countries have pledged to mobilize is going to be
coming from a lot of different sources, and so that makes it a
little bit more complicated to track actually who's providing
the money, and where it's going.
Mr. Posey. Yeah, there's just such a historical problem
with corruption in those processes every time we get involved.
And I assume my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Posey. The gentleman
from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Chair, and I'm glad Mr. Posey
brought up World War II, because when I think of the challenges
of the 20th century, and what we're facing now in the 21st
century, it was America's role in World War II that really
changed the dynamic of that cause, and I think the world is a
better place because America acted. And Dr. Steer, I'm
wondering, what does climate change look like if America does
not act? Like, if we were, you know, in this next, I think,
greatest challenge to the world since, you know, World War II,
probably separate from, you know, extreme terrorism is climate
change. And what happens if the United States does not act?
Dr. Steer. The United States is the indispensable leader,
in terms of the technologies that are required, the pro-market
approaches, the pro-business, pro-growth, approaches. That is
the only way we can address it. This is something that the
United States is uniquely qualified to lead in. We would not
have the Paris deal, had the United States not been a leader
there, and so we look forward to continued leadership.
Mr. Swalwell. And, Dr. Steer, are you familiar with the
U.S. military, and its belief on whether or not climate change
is happening, and whether or not it should adjust in its
modeling for the future?
Dr. Steer. Yes. Look, the United States military is a
leader in understanding climate change. It, more than most
other institutions, has said we have to act, because climate
change is affecting us in several ways. It's making the world
much less secure. It's also raising our costs, quite frankly.
The U.S. Navy, as you know, is exploring just how much it is
going to cost to raise the moorings for its ships, given
they're projecting over a meter rise in sea level this century.
So the U.S. military, and actually NATO--I met last week
with the head of NATO, Prime Minister--ex-Prime Minister
Stoltenberg in Davos, and NATO is concerned, deeply concerned,
about climate change.
Mr. Swalwell. Great. Thank you, Chair, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. The gentleman from
Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized for his questions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
introduce into the record a letter led by my friend from
Oklahoma, Congressman Mark Wayne Mullin, and Congressman Tim
Murphy, signed by myself and 26 other colleagues.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The letter was sent to
the EPA, seeking clarification on potential EPA plans to embed
U.S. federal employees in foreign countries to help monitor
their progress towards the Paris climate promise's goals. The
EPA has yet to respond to the letter, but I'm hopeful they will
take the letter seriously, and address our concerns soon.
With that, Mr. Groves, are you concerned that the EPA is
going beyond their legal authority by sending employees
overseas?
Mr. Groves. Well, that article and that letter is the first
that I've heard of this, Mr. Lucas. But I think what it does
show is kind of the mischief that can--our federal agencies can
get themselves into once you have something like the Framework
Convention on Climate Change, and the Paris agreement being
signed, is you have something that they can point to that
authorizes them to engage in this type of international
cooperation. I mean, I would be interested in seeing where the
funding is coming from to pay U.S. employees taxpayer dollars
to go help other countries with their climate change issues.
But from a legal standpoint, you know, when the President
signs things, and treats them as executive agreements, like
he's treating the Paris agreement, then it gives agencies like
the State Department and the EPA clearance to go out and do
this, or at least some type of justification they can point
back to. But I think it's something that's worthy of further
examination.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Mr. Eule, on principle,
wholeheartedly disagree with the concept of devoting U.S.
taxpayers' money to enforce an international agreement that the
Senate's not yet even ratified. With that being said, I
understand it's the EPA's intent to move forward and help China
get a handle on its greenhouse gas emissions. Do we really have
a clue how much greenhouse gas China is emitting?
Mr. Eule. No, Congressman, we don't. There was an
interesting report in the New York Times a few months ago which
said that Chinese had been underestimating their coal
consumption by 17 percent. Just to give you an idea of how big
that is, in emissions terms, that's equivalent to the
greenhouse gas emissions--not just CO2 emissions,
but the greenhouse gas emissions of Germany, so this is not a
trivial error. And one of the aspects of the Chinese pledge is
to set up a trading system, emissions trading system. And, you
know, the question I have is how can you set up an emission
trading system when you really don't know how--what your
emissions are? So, yeah, that's a big problem. And it's not
just with China, by the way. I think this is a problem a lot of
developing countries have. They really don't have a handle on
how much they're emitting.
Mr. Lucas. So it's hard to enforce an agreement that you
don't have any details for at home, you don't have any facts to
work from of substance?
Mr. Eule. Well, I mean, one of the things in the Paris
agreement is to set up a system where they're supposed to be
able to do that, but we'll just have to see how that works out.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Well, it'll be fascinating to see
how the EPA responds on this concept of sending U.S. employees
out to enforce agreements that the Senate hasn't yet approved.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I wait with intensity on our friends
at the EPA to respond, and I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. And the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Steer, I wanted to
ask you about the transfer of wealth from developed to
developing nations that was a part of this agreement. Can you
comment on that a little bit, and why it's important to include
a financial mechanism in the agreement, and what are the
consequences for the U.S. not committing resources to
developing nations?
Dr. Steer. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, the 100 billion
that is often referred to is not all public money. It includes
private money. It includes the money that comes from the
private sector that can actually be stimulated by the public
money. And only a very small portion of that will go through
the Green Climate Fund, by the way. Most of it will go through
many other channels, as Mr. Eule says.
Look, countries in Africa are severely affected by climate
change. I think the science is pretty clear on that. Yields
will, other things being equal, decline, and it's--quite
frankly, it's not pleasant, if you are a very poor farmer, and
your yields decline further. They need help on new seeds. We
know how to do that. So too, of the 1 billion people that would
be affected by a rising sea level of a meter, most of those are
poor. Most of them are living in very low lying areas. They
need help, quite frankly. And so, to us, it's pretty obvious
that poor people require help. It needs to be provided, in link
with private investment, and it needs to be provided in a way
that promotes jobs and growth.
So, I mean, quite frankly, under the agreement in Paris,
the obligation for the United States, or any other country, to
give any specific amount of money does not exist. That is not a
legal obligation. What is required is that we are transparent
about the extent to which we are willing to help low income
countries.
Mr. Veasey. You know, you kind of--in that same lane, when
it comes to opportunities for American businesses being able to
export technologies to the developing world, what kind of
opportunities do you see there?
Dr. Steer. Look, I think that I would--I'm pretty confident
that for every dollar of public money that the United States
puts in to help developing countries on their mitigation, on
their adaptation, because it will be leveraged with private
investment, I'm pretty confident that more than a dollar will
come back to the United States in terms of additional trade and
investment.
Mr. Veasey. Well, yeah, that's remarkable. Thank you, Dr.
Steer, I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Chairman Smith. And thank you, Mr. Veasey. And the
gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, is recognized for his
questions.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank
the witnesses for being here today, and your testimony. Mr.
Groves, I wanted to ask a couple questions on the legal issues
and Constitutional issues. Obviously, I was not in Paris. It
sounds like you were, and many of the panelists were. In terms
of the discussion that went on on why this was not a treaty,
and an agreement, or a promise, you know, it seems like so much
of our foreign policy is premised on the rule of law, our
democracy, Constitutional democracy, how we do things in our
country. And so when the question is asked by other countries
or other entities, why is this not a treaty, and that's posed
to this administration, what's the response, and what are the
consequences of that?
Mr. Groves. Well, the response--and it's not like our
delegation was shy about this in Paris. The response was, you
know, we cannot get this through the Senate, and so that's why
we're not going to treat it as a treaty. This didn't come out
of the blue when White House Spokesman Jose Earnests was asked
about this in March of last year, about whether the Senate
would be able to review the Paris agreement. He said, well, I
don't really think that the Senate, who's full of climate
deniers, should have a say on making climate change policy. And
when the host of the Paris conference, Laurent Fabias of
France, the Foreign Minister, was asked about this, he said,
well, no matter what we do, we can't have an agreement that
would have to go to the U.S. Congress, because it's not going
to pass. So it was the biggest open secret in Paris, that
whatever they agreed to, it was--it would have to be something
that the U.S. would have to come back to the United States and
not have to pass Congressional muster with.
So, although the rest of the world will require and expect
the United States to live up to its mitigation reduction
commitments, and live up to its financial commitments to send
billions of dollars every year, the fact that it didn't have
any type of Congressional scrutiny I think really speaks to the
legitimacy of the agreement.
Mr. LaHood. And in terms of the commitments and promises
made in this non-binding agreement, tell me how that affects
our domestic law, and how is that binding on corporations here,
and whether there's compliance or non-compliance, and is there
precedent for that?
Mr. Groves. Well, it's a clever thing that the White House
did, is you go and you make an international commitment in
Paris, you bypass Congress completely, and then you go to
enforce it domestically through EPA regulations. So there's a
lack of democratic legitimacy on almost every level of the
creation of this document and its enforcement. And these EPA
regulations, like the Clean Power Plan, will be litigated. You
know, Congress has passed resolutions disapproving of them.
But, of course, those EPA regulations will be binding on U.S.
corporations.
Mr. LaHood. Yeah. And, Mr. Eule, I would just--following up
on that, it seems incongruent to me that we continually, around
the world, talk about democracy, and Constitution, and the
system of government we have here, but we are doing this the
opposite way here, and, you know, and not going through the
treaty process, which, of course, is cloaked with the
legalities that are binding. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Eule. Yeah. I think, you know, if you want a durable
climate change agreement, and durable climate change policy,
you have to involve Congress. It's as simple as that. And this
administration has chosen not to do that. And so the question
is, is this a durable treaty, politically and legally? And I
would venture to say that the answer is no.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. LaHood. And the gentlewoman
from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of our witnesses for appearing before the Committee.
I represent Northwest Oregon, and climate change is a very
important issue for my constituents. I go out to the Oregon
Coast, that's the western boundary of my district. People there
rely on a healthy ocean. You may have heard of our famous Pinot
Noir wine from Yamhill County, Oregon. They need a particular
climate for those grapes to grow well. We have entrepreneurs
who are developing new clean energy technologies.
So there are many Oregonians who are working to address and
mitigate climate change. In fact, this weekend I'm looking
forward to meeting with the Willamette Valley Wineries
Association, and they want to talk about climate change. And
they're calling it climate migration. We're getting people
coming up from California, it's too dry, it's too hot. I don't
want to lose our industry to our wonderful state to the north,
or to Canada.
So I wanted to also talk about shellfish growers on the
Oregon coast. And they've spoken with me about significant
losses because of ocean acidification. Oyster production is a
multi-million dollar industry on the West Coast. It supports
thousands of jobs, and ocean acidification is threatening that
industry, but also--not just in Oregon, Gulf of Mexico, New
England, the Mid-Atlantic. And this issue doesn't just matter
to coastal representatives. All of us have restaurants, and
grocery stores, and people who eat shellfish in our districts
around the country.
So, Dr. Steer, I wanted to ask you a little bit about how
climate change affects oceans, and as a result, our fisheries,
what happens to the fish population, migration, and food chain
dynamics. And if you could also comment about the recent El
Nino, and how it's affecting the West Coast fisheries. And then
I do want to save time for another quick question, please.
Dr. Steer. Well, look, I think the understanding of science
is firming up year by year. The impact on fisheries is
potentially very great indeed. We know a lot about where fish
come from. We know how their habitat can be spoiled by
acidification, and by rising temperatures, and so there's now a
very large literature on this. So I think your constituents are
right to demand action for that.
Over the last year, as you know, there was a very major
piece of work called Risky Business that looked at the impact
of climate change at the county level throughout the entire
United States. It was sponsored by Hank Paulson, and by Michael
Bloomberg, and by Tom Steyer, so you had the entire political
spectrum that were there, and it was quite devastating, quite
frankly. And so we need to look at these facts.
Now, obviously, the science is not absolutely firm, and so
it's very legitimate there'll be some scientists on different
sides, but you've got to look at the bulk of where the
scientific opinion is, and it's crystal clear.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, Dr. Steer, I'd--I know you
were in Paris. Welcome back to the Committee. I know there's
been some discussion already this morning about U.S.
leadership, but I wanted to really follow up and have you
expand on that. The United States has a long history of leading
on global issues that have ramifications beyond our own
borders, whether it be human rights, world health, technology,
innovation. We ought to be applauding the administration for
being ready to lead the international response to climate
change. And we have, in a relatively short period of time, seen
developing countries step up and make commitments to reduce
their greenhouse gas emission.
So I wanted you to comment on the perception in Paris about
the role of U.S. leadership, but also, would you please address
this lack of--some people are saying the lack of a binding
mitigation commitment in the agreement as a negative, and
there's this naming and shaming concept. Could you comment on
that, and can meaningful carbon reductions be achieved without
legally binding mitigation commitments? How can we effectively
enforce that?
Dr. Steer. Look, in Paris there was--Congresswoman, there
was a remarkable gratitude for United States leadership, and I
would, you know, I think we should be proud of that, actually,
and this Committee should be proud of that. We wouldn't have
the deal without United States leadership. But it's a mistake
to say that only the United States didn't want, you know, the
country deals to be--or the country promises to be legally
binding. Many, many other countries, including some of the most
important in the world, said count us out if, you know, if we
are going to have legally binding--so this was something that
was negotiated.
In our view, and remember, you know, we don't have a dog in
this race. We are a research institution. Having looked at this
very carefully, with our legal scholars, our scientists, our
economists, our view is actually the balance between legally
binding and non-binding. Given where we are as a civilization
today, and a global polity today, we believe this is a smart
decision, and we believe there's a potential dynamic that's
going to go on, whereby, as costs fall, as we learn more, as
private sector leaders, you know, and I loved what you said
about the United States leadership. Great thing about the
United States leadership is it's not just government.
Ms. Bonamici. Right.
Dr. Steer. It actually--it's, you know, it's Apple, it's
Walmart. It's a whole range of issues. Amazon, Kohl's Verizon,
they've all made huge commitments. These are powerful
institutions that are part of the partnership of change.
Ms. Bonamici. Terrific. Thank you. My time has expired. I
yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the
witnesses for being here. Quite frankly, I'm very concerned
that there is going to be a very harmful and detrimental impact
on the United States of America, including, and especially, my
district in Texas, the 36th Congressional District.
Mr. Eule, the regulations associated with climate change
will increase the costs of energy for American citizens,
especially hardworking families already struggling to get by. I
would like to ask you if you could describe how the increased
energy costs will impact the macroeconomic health of the United
States, both for primary energy users, and also end use
consumers?
Mr. Eule. Well, thank you. NERA Consulting took a look at
the Clean Power Plan, and it concluded that electricity rates
would rise between 10 and 14 percent, and so that's obviously
going to have a big impact on the poor, minorities, the
elderly, and people on fixed incomes. They also estimated that
this would result in 64 to $79 billion in losses to consumers.
And, you know, when you think about the energy price advantage
we have over other countries, we have to, you know, ask
ourselves, is this really the road we want to go down? So I
think it could have a very devastating impact on consumers and
on businesses.
Mr. Babin. Okay. And then, to follow that up, would U.S.
jobs be lost if these electricity and natural gas prices
increased for energy intensive trade exposed manufacturers here
in the United States?
Mr. Eule. Yeah, almost certainly they will be.
Mr. Babin. Yeah.
Mr. Eule. Again, we have a tremendous energy advantage
here, and we have to thank the oil and gas industry, and the
fracking revolution that's going on in this country.
Mr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Eule. And we have a completely different energy
situation than they have in many parts of the world, and we
need to protect that.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Well, if our colleagues on the other side
of the aisle were being told that these new green jobs are
going to increase the incomes of a lot of extra people, would
these green jobs be enough to offset the manufacturing jobs
we're talking about losing from the recent U.S. promise at the
Paris negotiations?
Mr. Eule. It's very difficult to say, but I will say this.
When you look at the last seven or so years, since the
recession, the one shining star in the U.S. economy has been
the oil and gas sector----
Mr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Eule. --and that's because of fracking. From the end of
2007 to today, employment in that sector has increased by about
38, 39, 40 percent, while for the rest of the economy it stayed
pretty much flat. We're pretty much back where we were back in
2007. So the one shining spot here has been the oil and gas
sector, and that's because of innovation, and that's because of
the entrepreneurship of U.S. companies, many of which are small
and mid-sized companies. So the shale revolution in the United
States has been a great boon to our economy.
Mr. Babin. Okay. To even go further with what you just
said, if you could elaborate on what the abundance of
affordable natural gas, via this hydraulic fracking, means in
terms of contributing to a cleaner environment, what can the
fracking boom, and the new technology, what does that mean for
a cleaner environment and increased standards of living, both
here in the United States, and around the globe? There will be
a positive impact in that regard as well, is that right?
Mr. Eule. Absolutely. And this is one thing, I think, that
doesn't get enough attention in the international negotiations.
And, to be perfectly honest with you, these people--these
negotiators, they live in a bubble. I remember talking with a
negotiator a couple years ago, and I mentioned the fracking
revolution, and I said, this is going to create headwinds for
any sort of agreement. And he looked at me, and he said, is
this fracking thing for real? Yes, the fracking thing is for
real. When people were talking about, a few years ago, peak
oil, we're not talking about peak oil anymore. We have more oil
than we know what to do with. We have more natural gas than we
know what to do with. There are shale formations throughout the
entire world. This is going to be a tremendous boom for
economies not just in the United States, but for those
economies that can develop their shale resources.
And so, when I look at this, and then I look at the Paris
agreement, and I look at where people are actually putting
their money--I mean, people talk green, but they're putting
their green into shale, they're putting the green into oil,
they're putting their green into natural gas, and they're
putting their green into coal, because it's cheap, affordable,
and scalable. So I think the shale revolution potentially is
going to have a huge impact globally. Maybe not in the next
five years, but certainly beyond that.
Mr. Babin. I know it's had a huge impact on my state, the
State of Texas.
Mr. Eule. And a very positive impact, not only for Texas,
but for North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and Colorado,
and many other places.
Mr. Babin. Right. Thank you so very much. And my time's
expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin. And the gentlewoman
from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Johnson, for holding today's hearing to examine policy issues
surrounding the United States' pledge at the recent U.N.
conference to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. I come from the
great State of Connecticut, where we have found, and shown,
that good environmental protection leads to economic growth,
not the contrary. And I--when I look at a world where the human
species needs two things, clean water and clean air, to
survive, we need clean energy to be affordable and available to
the entire world. So I'd like to follow up on some of the
issues raised by my colleagues, because I think in Connecticut,
where we're part of the regional greenhouse gas initiative,
where our state and our governor have been leaders on financing
clean energy projects, as well as conservation projects that
are bringing down the cost of energy, and spurring innovation
that is leading to job creation in our state.
The--three quick topics for you, Dr. Steer. Can you talk
about the following? First, can you talk about the value of a
bottom up approach? I know you were part of that in Paris,
about--the reason we got U.S. mayors, states, Canadian
provinces, and most importantly major U.S. corporations, who
are investing in these efforts because they see the dollar
imperative to do so for world markets.
Number two, can you talk about the health impacts of not
addressing climate change? One of the reasons we moved early
and vigorously in Connecticut, because the same rules that
address climate change are helping bring down asthma rates in
our cities from dirty air that's blown over from other parts of
the country. It doesn't just stay there, as many of our
colleagues on the panel have pointed out. It moves, but also
that pollution moves with it, and has major health impacts on
others, who many not get to vote on those rules.
And last, the role of technology, the upside of U.S.
technology to address these issues, and license them to the
world. These same engineers who developed fracking technology
can also be developing, and I would argue, better off
developing, clean, renewable energy technologies that can be
licensed to the world, where they need them desperately. So if
you could address those, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.
Dr. Steer. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Esty. First,
I commend Connecticut for certainly doing exactly what you say.
Until recently, your Commissioner of Environment was one of the
best known environmental economists in the world, Dan Esty, and
it's--it--what you managed to do is not only do the right
thing, but you actually analyzed it, and you've actually shown
that it works, which is a really remarkable thing.
And, by the way, it illustrates the point--I mean, coming
back to fracking for a moment, fracking is a great blessing. If
it's gas fracking, it can promote jobs, and so on. By no mean
is that killed by the Paris deal whatsoever. On the contrary,
one of the most important things we can do to address climate
change is actually reduce methane leakage from fracking, and
that actually would save money. It will help the frackers. In
the moment, like in energy efficiency more generally, we're
allowing stuff that we could be making money out of. So I think
it illustrates the point that you were making, Congresswoman.
On mayors, I mean, it really is amazing, you think about
it. Why would 120 American mayors say, sign me up. We, as a
city, we are going to measure our greenhouse gases, we're going
to be transparent about our greenhouse gases, we're going to
have plans for doing something about greenhouse gases, and
every year we're going to come back, be totally transparent as
to whether or not we're getting there. They don't have to do
that. No one is telling them. It's not a law, and so too the
450 around the world. The reason they do it is because mayors
are realizing their citizens want action, and they also see it
as a way of doing things that they know they should've done all
the time.
And, actually, this is giving them a little political boost
to do things like smarter public transportation, like bike
paths, things like that, which, actually, citizens want. I
mean, my--we have 350 staff 200 yards from here in our office.
Half of them don't own cars, they don't want to be. It's a new
era. They want bike paths. And so that would be one example.
On the health impacts, Congresswoman, you know, we tend to
think, well, China, obviously, you know, people are dying, and
we know that 7 million people are dying every year from air
pollution, but clearly in this country, you know, we breathe
clean air. Turns out that analysis shows that actually the
Clean Power Plan action will pay for itself just in health
gains alone. That's a really remarkable thing.
And on technology licensing, I mean, this is so crucial. I
mean, why is it the high tech companies are so keen that we
take strong action? I mean, why are they lobbying? Why are they
committed to, you know, 100 percent renewable? Why--and the
reason is they see this as an amazing growth opportunity for
the United States.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much. I believe my time has
expired. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Esty. Before we adjourn, a
couple of items. First of all, without objection, I'd like to
put in the record a letter signed by 300 independent scientists
that expressed concern over NOAA's efforts to alter historical
temperature data.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Chairman Smith. Also, Dr. Steer, a colleague of ours,
Senator Bill Cassidy , has asked me to pass along a question to
you relevant to today's hearing. And could I give you that
question momentarily, and ask you to respond in writing to me
sometime in the next week or so? Would that be all right? Okay,
thank you.
I just want to thank our witnesses. This has been an
excellent hearing. We've learned a lot, and I appreciate all
the expertise represented at our witness table today. We stand
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Statement submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Chairman Lamar S. Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Article submitted by Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Letter submitted by Representative Frank D. Lucas
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]