[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE PRESIDENT'S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE:
SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR
A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
APRIL 15, 2015
----------
Serial No. 114-14
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
THE PRESIDENT'S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE:
SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR
A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-14
__________
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
95-219 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
MO BROOKS, Alabama AMI BERA, California
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BILL POSEY, Florida MARC A. VEASEY, TEXAS
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PAUL TONKO, New York
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan MARK TAKANO, California
STEVE KNIGHT, California BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRIAN BABIN, Texas
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
C O N T E N T S
April 15, 2015
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................................................ 7
Written Statement............................................ 8
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 15
The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for
21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant
Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department
of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 31
Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council
Oral Statement............................................... 43
Written Statement............................................ 45
Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist,
American Council for Capital Formation
Oral Statement............................................... 56
Written Statement............................................ 58
Discussion....................................................... 70
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology...................... 92
The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for
21st Century Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant
Secretary for Policy and International Affairs, U.S. Department
of Energy...................................................... 98
Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural
Resources Defense Council...................................... 104
Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist,
American Council for Capital Formation......................... 110
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 118
Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 185
Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 191
Document submitted by Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President
and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation.... 333
THE PRESIDENT'S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE:
SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR
A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS?
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology will come to order.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Without objection, the Chair is authorized
to declare recesses of the Committee at any time, and welcome
to today's hearing titled ``The President's U.N. Climate
Pledge: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans?''
Let me recognize myself for an opening statement, then I
will recognize the Ranking Member, then I will introduce the
witnesses, and let me say that because I was late I didn't have
an opportunity to say hello to each of you individually but we
very much appreciate your expertise and your presence as well.
Last June, the Obama Administration proposed sweeping new
electricity regulations. Now, despite heavy and growing
opposition to the proposal, the Administration seeks to commit
America to costly new requirements that won't improve the
environment. The President has promised the United Nations 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. He is attempting to write large checks we simply
cannot cash.
The pledge was made in preparation for a U.N. summit in
Paris this December aimed at producing an international
agreement that would impose legally binding requirements on the
United States for the next decades. But all of this activity,
at home and abroad, disregards the concerns of the majority in
Congress and many states. The President's attempt to justify
his actions with an alarmist, one-sided focus on worst-case
scenarios establishes a poor foundation for sound policymaking.
When President Obama took office, he had an opportunity to
work with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate to create
climate legislation. But that effort failed because opposition
to costly climate regulation crosses party lines. Congress has
repeatedly rejected the President's extreme climate agenda. So
the Administration instead has taken the unprecedented step of
attempting to create laws on his own and twist environmental
regulations in ways Congress never intended. Now the
Administration has packaged up all these regulations and
promised their implementation to the United Nations, but the
President's Power Plan is nothing more than a power grab.
Environmental laws can't trump the Constitution. They can't
give the federal government the right to regulate the daily
lives of citizens within their homes. Regardless of what the
President may try to claim, Congress has not given him or the
Environmental Protection Agency the authority to rewrite laws.
Opposition to the President's agenda is widespread and
continues to grow. At least 32 different states are openly
opposed to the plan and many now consider the possibility of
refusing to enact his edicts at all. The majority of the
members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are
opposed, and numerous organizations that are concerned about
the cost and reliability of America's electric grid have issued
dire warnings about the likely impacts of the President's plan.
And the EPA's models show there will be no real climate
benefits.
Whether that plan can stand up to legal scrutiny will take
years to sort out. The legality of President Obama's unilateral
action certainly will not be known when climate negotiators set
out to create binding international rules in Paris later this
year. The President's far-reaching proposals and international
promises will do lasting damage to our Nation, all for little
to no environmental benefit. In fact, the pledge to the U.N. is
estimated to prevent only a .03 percent Centigrade temperature
rise, and in testimony before this Committee, former Assistant
Secretary for Energy, the Honorable Charles McConnell, noted
that the President's Clean Power Plan would reduce sea-level
rise by less than half the thickness of a dime. Meanwhile,
middle and lower income American families will be hit hardest
as energy costs inevitably rise.
The President's pledge to the U.N. hinges on a questionable
and unclear plan. The commitment submitted two weeks ago lacks
details about how we will achieve such goals without burdening
our economy and it fails to quantify the specific climate
benefits tied to the promise.
Today is April 15th, Tax Day. It is a day that many
Americans dread. As more Americans feel squeezed by rising
costs, flat wages, and rising taxes, we should ask ourselves:
can we really afford another extreme and expensive mandate? We
will never reach the President's arbitrary targets, which would
increase electricity costs, ration energy, and slow economic
growth. Such severe measures will have no discernable impact on
global temperatures. They will make the government bigger and
Americans poorer.
I expect today's hearing will demonstrate that the
President's U.N. climate pledge is destructive to the American
economy and would produce no substantive environmental
benefits.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Lamar S. Smith
Last June, the Obama Administration proposed sweeping new
electricity regulations. Now, despite heavy and growing opposition to
the proposal, the administration seeks to commit America to costly new
requirements that won't improve the environment.
The president has promised the United Nations 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. He is
attempting to write large checks we simply cannot cash.
The pledge was made in preparation for a U.N. summit in Paris this
December aimed at producing an international agreement that would
impose legally binding requirements on the United States for the next
decades.
But all of this activity--at home and abroad--disregards the
concerns of the majority in Congress and many states. The president's
attempt to justify his actions with an alarmist, one-sided focus on
worstcase scenarios establishes a poor foundation for sound policy-
making.
When President Obama took office, he had an opportunity to work
with a Democrat controlled House and Senate to create climate
legislation. But that effort failed because opposition to costly
climate regulation crosses party lines.
Congress has repeatedly rejected the president's extreme climate
agenda. So the administration instead has taken the unprecedented step
of attempting to create laws on his own--and twist environmental
regulations in ways Congress never intended.
Now the administration has packaged up all these regulations and
promised their implementation to the U.N. But the president's ``Power
Plan'' is nothing more than a power grab. Environmental laws can't
trump the Constitution. They can't give the federal government the
right to regulate the daily lives of citizens within their homes.
Regardless of what the president may try to claim, Congress has not
given him or the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to re-
write laws. Opposition to the president's agenda is widespread and
continues to grow. At least 32 different states are openly opposed to
the plan and many now consider the possibility of refusing to enact his
edicts at all.
The majority of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives
and the Senate are opposed. And numerous organizations that are
concerned about the cost and reliability of America's electricity grid
have issued dire warnings about the likely impacts of the president's
plan. And the EPA's models show there will be no real climate benefits.
Whether that plan can stand up to legal scrutiny will take years to
sort out. The legality of President Obama's unilateral action certainly
will not be known when climate negotiators set out to create binding
international rules in Paris later this year.
The president's far-reaching proposals and international promises
will do lasting damage to our nation, all for little to no
environmental benefit. In fact, the pledge to the U.N. is estimated to
prevent only a 0.03 degrees C temperature rise. And in testimony before
this Committee, former Assistant Secretary for Energy, The Honorable
Charles McConnell, noted that the president's Clean Power Plan would
reduce sea level rise by less than half the thickness of a dime.
Meanwhile, middle and lower income American families will be hit
hardest as energy costs inevitably rise. The president's pledge to the
U.N. hinges on a questionable and unclear plan. The commitment
submitted two weeks ago lacks details about how we will achieve such
goals without burdening our economy. And it fails to quantify the
specific climate benefits tied to the promise.
Today is April 15th, Tax Day. It is a day that many Americans
dread. As more Americans feel squeezed by rising costs, flat wages, and
rising taxes, we should ask ourselves: can we really afford another
extreme and expensive mandate?
We will never reach the president's arbitrary targets, which would
increase electricity costs, ration energy and slow economic growth.
Such severe measures will have no discernable impact on global
temperatures. They will make the government bigger and Americans
poorer.
I hope today's hearing will demonstrate that the president's U.N.
climate pledge is destructive to the American economy and would produce
no substantive environmental benefits.
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me
apologize early that at the completion of my opening statement,
I will have to depart for another committee markup, but our
subcommittee Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, will take over.
We are here this morning to discuss the carbon reduction
target recently submitted by the Obama Administration to the
United Nations. This target, which is known as the United
States' Intended Nationally Determined Contribution, sets a
goal of reducing carbon pollution across the nation by 26 to 28
percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025.
Before I get too far into my statement, I would like to
point out the fact that my colleagues in the Majority failed to
invite anyone from the Administration to testify at today's
hearing. It seems to me that the Administration is likely the
best source to fill in any details regarding the proposal or to
address any questions or concerns that members of the Committee
may have. Despite this omission, I am looking forward to
hearing from today's witnesses, and I welcome you.
Some may say that the Administration's carbon reduction
goal is unrealistic or unwarranted, that addressing climate
change will cause irreparable harm to the Nation's economy or
that it is based on unsettled science. I disagree with such
sentiments. I think the target put forward by the President is
justified. It appears to strike the right balance between
ambition and achievability, and perhaps, most importantly, it a
sends a strong and much-needed signal--I am so sorry; this is
my allergy season--to the rest of the world about the
seriousness of the United States in addressing the impacts of
climate change. Such a position is critical to meaningful
international engagement.
I have been clear in my position that the time to address
climate change is now. The potential costs of inaction are too
high for us to continue to drag our feet or put our heads in
the sand. A sobering report from a nonpartisan and well-
respected group of business and financial leaders, including
Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer, titled
``Risky Business--The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the
United States,'' highlights the significant costs climate
change has exacted and will continue to exact on our economy.
The report presents a long list of concerns, including rising
seas, increased damage from storm surge, more frequent bouts of
extreme heat, and shines a light on the cost of inaction to
private businesses across the country.
However, the economic costs of inaction are not the whole
story. There are also serious public health impacts associated
with climate change. Greater risk of asthma attacks, heat
stroke, food and waterborne as well as respiratory diseases are
all consequences of a warming climate. I know that some still
question whether climate change is happening or if humans have
contributed significantly to the impacts currently being
observed. I know such opinions will be expressed again today,
but it seems to me that most of the world has moved beyond such
debates and is instead focused on taking concrete steps to
address the problem at hand.
We in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not the
experts on the science, and that allowing partisan politics to
distort the scientific understanding of climate change is
cynical and shortsighted. We, as a nation, must act today to
address climate change if we are to preserve our quality of
life for our children and grandchildren, and some old people
like me. The negative consequences of climate change are not
abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We are
facing some of these consequences now and they are affecting
every American.
The President's Climate Change Action Plan and the goal
submitted to the United Nations represent commonsense steps
that will lead to a healthier environment, because acting on
climate change is not only an environmental imperative, but a
public health and economic one as well.
In closing, I would like to draw on a recent op-ed from Bob
Inglis, a former member, a Republican member of this Committee
with whom I served, and Jack Schlossberg, comparing the
challenge of addressing climate change to the space race. They
state: ``Climate change is only scary if we chose to sit, wait,
and do nothing about it. Climate change is a chance for all of
us to add a chapter to the story of American triumph and human
progress. Courage of this scale will come from a people who are
told they can do great things by leaders who believe that their
people are capable of great things. We believe America will see
opportunity in the danger of climate change just like we saw
benefits on Earth from travel in space.''
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of
my time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Statement submitted by full Committee Ranking Member
Eddie Bernice Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here this morning to
discuss the carbon reduction target recently submitted by the
Obama Administration to the United Nations. This target, which
is known as the United States' Intended Nationally Determined
Contribution sets a goal of reducing carbon pollution across
the nation by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by the year
2025.
Before I get too far into my statement, I'd like to point
out the fact that my colleagues in the Majority failed to
invite anyone from the Administration to testify at today's
hearing.
It seems to me that the Administration is likely the best
source to fill in any details regarding the proposal or to
address any questions or concerns Members of this Committee may
have. Despite this omission, I'm looking forward to hearing
from today's witnesses.
Some may say that the Administration's carbon reduction
goal is unrealistic or unwarranted; that addressing climate
change will cause irreparable harm to the nation's economy or
that it is based on "unsettled" science. I disagree with such
sentiments. I think the target put forward by the President is
justified. It appears to strike the right balance between
ambition and achievability.
And perhaps, most importantly, it a sends a strong and much
needed signal to the rest of the world about the seriousness of
the United States in addressing the impacts of climate change.
Such a position is critical to meaningful international
engagement.
I have been clear in my position that the time to address
climate change is now. The potential costs of inaction are too
high for us to continue to drag our feet or put our heads in
the sand.A sobering report from a non-partisan and well-
respected group of business and financial leaders, including
Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer, entitled,
Risky Business--The Economic Risks of Climate Change in the
United States, highlights the significant costs climate change
has exacted and will continue to exact on our economy.
The report presents a long list of concerns, including
rising seas, increased damage from storm surge, more frequent
bouts of extreme heat, and shines a light on the cost of
inaction to private businesses across the country.
However, the economic costs of inaction are not the whole
story. There are also serious public health impacts associated
with climate change. Greater risk of asthma attacks, heat
stroke, food and waterborne as well as respiratory diseases are
all consequences of a warming climate.
I know that some still question whether climate change is
happening or if humans have contributed significantly to the
impacts currently being observed.
I know such opinions will be expressed again today, but it
seems to me that most of the world has moved beyond such
debates and is instead focused on taking concrete steps to
address the problem at hand.
We in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not the
experts on the science, and that allowing partisan politics to
distort the scientific understanding of climate change is
cynical and short-sighted.
We, as a nation, must act today to address climate change
if we are to preserve our quality of life for our children and
grandchildren. The negative consequences of climate change are
not abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We
are facing some of these consequences now and they are
affecting every American.
The President's Climate Action Plan and the goal submitted
to the United Nations represent common-sense steps that will
lead to a healthier environment, because acting on climate
change is not only an environmental imperative, but a public
health and economic one as well.
In closing, I'd like to draw on a recent op-ed from Bob
Inglis, a former Republican Subcommittee Chairman of this
Committee, and Jack Schlossberg comparing the challenge of
addressing climate change to the space race. They state:
``Climate change is only scary if we chose to sit, wait, and do
nothing about it. Climate change is a chance for all of us to
add a chapter to the story of American triumph and human
progress. Courage of this scale will come from a people who are
told they can do great things by leaders who believe that their
people are capable of great things. We believe America will see
opportunity in the danger of climate change just like we saw
benefits on Earth from travel in space.''
Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Our first witness is Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former
Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the
Georgia Institute of Technology, and President of Climate
Forecast Applications Network. Dr. Curry performs extensive
research that focuses on air and sea interactions, climate
feedback processes associated with clouds and sea ice, and the
climate dynamics of hurricanes. Dr. Curry also serves on the
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee and the
Department of Energy Biological and Environmental Research
Advisory Committee. She recently served on the National
Academy's Climate Research Committee, the Space Studies Board,
and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Dr. Curry received her
Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of Chicago.
Our next witness is Ms. Karen Harbert, President and CEO of
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Institute for 21st Century
Energy. Ms. Harbert leads efforts to build support for
meaningful energy action through policy development, education
and advocacy. Under her leadership, the Institute established
the groundbreaking Index of Energy Security Risk and the
International Index of Energy Security Risk, the first tools to
quantify America's energy security on an annual basis. Before
joining the Chamber, Ms. Harbert served as the Assistant
Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the
Department of Energy. She was the Primary Policy Advisor to the
Secretary of Energy and to the Department on domestic and
international energy issues. She also served as Vice Chairman
of the International Energy Agency, which advises its 28 member
nations on energy policy issues and orchestrates international
responses to energy supply disruptions. Ms. Harbert received
her bachelor's degree in international policy studies and
political science from Rice University.
Our third witness is Mr. Jake Schmidt, the Director of the
International Program at the National Resources Defense
Council. Mr. Schmidt has 14 years of experience in
international climate policy with a focus on climate change,
clean energy, biogems, and sustainable development in India,
Latin America, Canada, and at the international level. He leads
NRDC's policy development and advocacy on international climate
change including through climate negotiations and direct work
with key countries around the world. Mr. Schmidt holds a
bachelor's degree in economics from Muhlenberg College and a
master's degree in environmental policy with a certificate in
ecological economics from the University of Maryland.
Our final witness is Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice
President and Chief Economist for the American Council for
Capital Formation and Director of Research for its public
policy think tank. She also serves as the Managing Director of
the International Council for Capital Formation. Dr. Thorning
is an internationally recognized expert on tax, environmental
and competitiveness issues. Dr. Thorning has made presentations
on the economic impact of climate change policy at forums in
China, India, the European Union, and Russia. In addition, she
recently made a presentation titled ``Investing in Energy and
Industrial Development: Challenges and Opportunities'' at a
U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development meeting. Prior to
joining the American Council for Capital Formation, Dr.
Thorning served at the Department of Energy, the Department of
Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. Dr. Thorning
received her bachelor's degree from Texas Christian University,
her master's degree in economics from the University of Texas,
and her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Georgia.
We welcome you all. You are clearly all experts, and it is
just coincidental that two of you all have degrees from Texas
universities, but that is nice to see.
Dr. Curry, we will begin with you.
TESTIMONY OF DR. JUDITH CURRY, PROFESSOR,
SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES,
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Curry. I would like to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to present testimony this morning.
I am concerned that both the climate change problem and its
solution have been vastly oversimplified. The central issue in
the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which
the recent and future warming is caused by human-caused
greenhouse gas emission versus natural climate variability
associated with variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions,
and large-scale ocean circulations.
Recent data and research supports the importance of natural
climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that
humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This
includes the substantial slow-down in global warming since
1998, reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon
dioxide, and climate models that are predicting much more
warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century.
While there are substantial uncertainties in our
understanding of climate change, it is clear that humans are
influencing climate in the direction of warming. However, this
simple truth is essentially meaningless in itself in terms of
alarm and does not mandate a particular policy response.
We have made some questionable choices in defining the
problem of climate change and its solution. First, the
definition of dangerous climate change is ambiguous, and
hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very
or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link
dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused
warming are unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a wicked
problem and ill-suited to a command-and-control solution. And
finally, it has been estimated that the U.S. national
commitments to the U.N. to reduce emission by 28 percent will
prevent three hundredths of a degree Centigrade in warming by
2100. The inadequacies of current policies based on emissions
reductions are leaving the real societal consequences of
climate change and extreme weather events largely unaddressed,
whether caused by humans or natural variability.
The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much
scope for disagreement amongst reasonable and intelligent
people. Effectively responding to the possible threats from a
warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties
surrounding the risk both from the problem and the proposed
solutions.
The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early
1990s by the United Nations has marginalized research on
broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and
has stifled the development of a broader range of policy
options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations
about how we should respond to climate change.
As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions
have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy
innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no-
regrets pollution-reduction measures. Each of these measures
has justifications independent of their benefits for climate
mitigation and adaptation.
Robust policy options that can be justified by associated
policy reasons, whether or not human-caused climate change is
dangerous, avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will
happen with the 21st century climate.
This concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Curry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Curry, and Ms. Harbert.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KAREN HARBERT,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
INSTITUTE FOR 21ST CENTURY ENERGY,
U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE;
FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY
AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Hon. Harbert. Thank you, Chairman Smith and the Ranking
Members of the Committee. I want to make four points today
regarding the Obama Administration's Intended Nationally
Determined Contribution to the UNFCC.
First, the U.N.--the U.S. INDC lacks basic information to
allow a rigorous assessment of the goal. The commitment is long
on promises but short on data needed for a proper assessment.
Nowhere does it explain how the Administration intends to get
to its 26 to 28 percent reduction target. The Administration's
math just doesn't add up. We estimate that the announced and
forthcoming regulations out of EPA including EPA's Clean Power
Plan still leave between 500 and 600 million tons or more of
the Administration's commitment still unaccounted for, and
without a sector-by-sector breakdown, we just don't know how
the Administration expects to achieve its target.
Indeed, yesterday EPA Air Administrator McCabe acknowledged
in House testimony that they have yet to do a comprehensive
modeling of all of the regulations that constitute this
proposal, and surprisingly, nowhere in the INDC is there any
reference to industrial emission. It is hard to imagine getting
there without addressing the industrial sector. EPA's current
budget proposal notes the Agency will soon begin considering
new regulations on the refining, pulp and paper sector, iron
and steel sector, livestock, and cement sectors, so there is
more to come.
It is also difficult to see how this plan can be sold to
the international community, especially given the uncertain
legal foundation upon which it rests. In its Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. EPA ruling, the Supreme Court warned EPA
against using ``unheralded power to regulate a significant
portion of the American economy.'' This certainly constitutes a
significant portion of the American economy. Thirty-two states
have now raised legal objections to it, and the first case will
appear before the Supreme Court tomorrow, and EPA Air
Administrator McCabe said yesterday they do expect litigation
to last for years.
Secondly, the commitments are hugely unequal. If the world
is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then
developing countries will have to take on huge commitments.
However, indications are that that is not happening. China
provides a very useful example. It has pledged to peak its
carbon emission around 2030 and to increase its share of non-
fossil-fuel consumption to around 20 percent is business as
usual. In fact, in the International Energy Agency's most
recent outlook, which was released before China and the United
States made this announcement, it actually models the Chinese
proposals and policies currently in place and comes to the same
conclusion, which is, they will peak just around 2030. This is
nothing new. ExxonMobil's forecast confirms the same.
To put a finer point on it, yesterday in testimony here,
the Arkansas Cooperative Executive that testified in front of
the House said that the most advanced coal-fired power plant
today in America is in Arkansas, the Turk power plant. Under
EPA's proposal, it will close. In China, on the other hand,
they have 46 of these plants, and under their proposal they can
now build 44 more of these plants. India has declined to make a
very aggressive proposal before Paris, and the Russian
Federation's proposal actually allows it to increase its
emission compared to the 2012 level.
Third, the Administration's plan is all pain. It is poised
to be one of the most costly and burdensome regulations and
rulemakings and proposals ever. Its own analysis suggests that
electricity prices will go up 6 to seven percent by 2020 and up
to 12 percent in other locations, and compliance costs could
rise to about $8-1/2 billion by 2030. That is on top of what
EIA released yesterday, which is an 18 percent increase in
electricity rates between now and 2040 without the
Administration's Clean Power Plan. NERA, an economic consulting
firm, did another analysis which said it is probably going to
increase more like 12 percent, and compliance costs would be
much higher than EPA forecasts. We should take note of that
because EPA has been wrong in the past. For their proposal of
mercury air toxins reductions, which they promulgated in 2012,
they estimated that there would be 5 gigawatts of coal-fired
generation retired. Today, it is actually 50 gigawatts
attributed to that rule, a factor of 10.
And fourth, the Administration's plan has no gain. It is
important to note that despite all of these costs, EPA admits
under the Clean Power Plan that the heart of this will have no
discernible impact on the environment, and that is because of
carbon leakage as U.S. energy-intensive industries move to
other countries and deprive us of revenue, tax revenue, and
employment. Our diverse electricity sector, which has afforded
us very affordable energy as opposed to other parts around the
world, will actually be taken away from us.
Conclusion: We need the industry that is investing here,
the chemical industry, the manufacturing industry, the steel
and pulp and paper industry, but those industries may move. We
need a predictable environment, and this actually upends the
predictable environment of investing in America, which is bad
for the American economy.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Harbert follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Harbert.
And Mr. Schmidt.
TESTIMONY OF MR. JAKE SCHMIDT,
DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM,
NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Schmidt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Schmidt--
sorry--Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and
distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting
me to present the Natural Resources Defense Council's views on
the U.S. target to cut emission 26 to 28 percent below 2005
levels by 2025 to address climate change.
We have a responsibility to protect our children and future
generations from the effects of climate change by reducing
emission of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants.
This can be done in a manner that protects public health, spurs
job creation, and helps address the significant damages from
climate change. Acting responsibly at home is also an essential
component of efforts to secure strong global action including
for major emitters. Our actions at home show other countries
that the world's largest economy is prepared to rise to the
challenge to address climate change.
The consequences of inaction on climate change are grave.
We are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our
communities and facing substantial costs from these impacts.
Strong and sustained efforts to address carbon pollution and
other heat-trapping pollutants can significantly decrease these
impacts on the U.S. and other countries.
The new U.S. climate target is essential to helping stave
off the worst of these impacts. The U.S. target can be achieved
under existing law cost-effectively. Under existing law,
President Obama has set in motion a number of carbon-cutting
actions including carbon pollution standards for America's
power plants, improved vehicle efficiency standards, appliance
efficiency standards, efforts to address methane leakage, and
standards to reduce the climate pollution of coolants used in
air conditioners and refrigerators. This new target will build
upon these efforts as all these standards have time frames that
extend past 2020 to give businesses longer-term certainty for
their investment decisions.
The U.S. can meet both its 2020 and 2025 targets using
existing laws like the Clean Air Act, energy efficiency laws,
and steps to protect our public lands and waters. These cuts
can be achieved cost-effectively while helping to create jobs
and achieving important health benefits for our children. Time
and again, American ingenuity, entrepreneurs, and workers have
risen to address great challenges. That opportunity to address
this challenge is why more than 140 entrepreneurs recently
wrote in support of the new U.S. target to cut its emissions.
As you know, U.S. action at home also helps spur global
action. For almost two decades, inaction on climate change in
the U.S. has been a major stumbling block to securing strong
international action on climate change. When the United States
is willing to step forward domestically, it can have a
catalyzing impact in other countries. This is evident in the
new commitments from China and the recent one from Mexico. As
part of the U.S.-China agreement, China's president committed
to peak its emission by 2030 with the intention to peak earlier
and to build an increased amount of non-fossil-fuel energy to
amount to 20 percent of its energy by 2030. This is a
commitment to even deeper cuts in its climate pollution that
many expected was achievable just a few short years ago. In
fact, prior to the announcement, many experts including the
U.S. Energy Information Administration predicted that China's
emission wouldn't peak until well after 2040, and you can see
that in other analysis.
This U.S. action couldn't come at a more critical juncture.
As leaders meet later this year to finalize a new commitment to
address climate change, this agreement will solidify even
deeper commitments from key countries around the world. Already
the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Mexico, and China have
announced the outlines of their new commitments as a part of
this agreement and more countries around the world like India,
South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia are diligently
working on their proposed targets as a part of the
international agreement.
In summary, let me conclude with, if the U.S. target can be
achieved cost-effectively under existing law, when the world's
largest economy acts, it sends a powerful signal to other
governments that they also can and must act aggressively on
this grave challenge of climate change.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.
Dr. Thorning.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MARGO THORNING,
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST,
AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR CAPITAL FORMATION
Dr. Thorning. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member
Johnson, for the opportunity to appear before this committee.
I'd like to make three or four points, picking up on some
of what the other witnesses have said. First, it's not clear
that developing countries like China and India will actually
implement strong measures to slow the growth of their
emissions.
Second, reaching the Administration's target of 17 percent
below 2005 levels by 2020 seems unlikely since we're only 9.5
percent down right now from 2005. So how we would reach a 26 to
28 percent reduction by 2025 seems very challenging.
And third, how will the various regulatory measures
described in the INDC to reduce carbon emissions impact the
U.S. economy?
Looking at trends in global energy use, the International
Energy Agency's 2014 statement suggests that energy use is
going to grow by 37 percent to 2040. Why do we think the
developing countries will actually be able to meet stringent
reduction targets? Their emissions are the ones that are
growing fast. The United States' emissions are relatively flat.
So it's questionable that the targets that are being discussed
will actually be met.
What is the economic impact on the United States of the
INDC? Investment in the United States is already quite
sluggish. It hasn't recovered to the 2007 levels. Net
investment, net depreciation is sluggish, productivity growth
is slow, wage growth is slow. We need to be sure that the
policies that we undertake aren't going to negatively impact
our attempt to recover a strong economy.
The question of whether developing countries will actually
follow projected emission cuts, if they look at the European
Union, the European Union over a decade ago was implementing
strong policies to reduce GHGs to switch toward renewables.
They have enjoyed very sluggish economic growth, very high
unemployment rates, about 11 percent. So looking at the
European lesson, why would developing countries want to follow
that kind of a path?
On the other hand, there are ways that the United States
can move forward to try to slow the growth of emissions. There
are policies that we can undertake that will actually be no-
regrets policies, will actually increase economic growth. For
example, tax reform. Congress and Senate Finance and Ways and
Means are discussing tax reform. Scholarly research suggests
that allowing expensing for all new investment would pull
through cleaner, less-emitting technologies and help us reduce
GHG growth, as well as other emissions.
A study by the ACCF and Ernst & Young last year showed that
allowing expensing for all new investment would reduce the cost
of capital by about 25 percent, whereas the Bowles-Simpson
plan, if implemented, would actually increase the cost of
capital. Research shows that each ten percent reduction in the
cost of capital for new investment increases investment by five
percent. So tax reform should be on the table as a way of
addressing GHG reductions.
Second, we should encourage the export of liquefied natural
gas. Cleaner-burning fuel to our allies and trading partners in
China and India and Europe would help them reduce their
emissions while growing their economies. And recall that over 2
billion people have no electricity; 1.3 billion are cooking
with biomass and dung and coal, so we need to try to export our
surplus of LNG, which is--seems to be growing every year.
Then we also should encourage international financing for
clean coal technology. My colleague George Banks recently
produced a research paper on that topic and I'd like to request
that that paper be submitted for the record.
Chairman Smith. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Dr. Thorning. So a third thing I think we should do to try
to stimulate our economy, as well as reduce GHG growth, is be
careful to use cost-benefit analysis. Other witnesses have
discussed the fact that reducing U.S. emissions significantly
will have no impact on the temperature or on concentrations of
GHG, so we should be using cost-benefit analysis, and we should
also be adopting--encouraging the adaptation to climate change
through no-regrets strategies in agriculture, for utilities,
and other industries.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thorning follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Thorning.
I will recognize myself for five minutes for questions.
And, Dr. Curry, let me address my first one to you.
Earlier this year, NASA claimed that 2014 was the warmest
year on record, and then they put in a footnote a disclaimer
that they were actually only 38 percent sure that that was the
case, less than 50/50. That's amazing. But quite frankly, you
seldom hear disclaimers from the so-called experts who always
seem to be 100 percent certain that they are right. Actually,
as you know, the scientific method itself actually says that we
should continue to question and challenge our hypotheses, not
just assume we're 100 percent right. So in many instances I'm
thinking these so-called scientists really aren't acting very
scientifically.
But in any case, I have a couple quick questions for you.
One is that the President keeps talking about or keeps trying
to connect human-caused climate change to extreme weather
examples such as hurricanes and wildfires, and he keeps being
contradicted by his own Administration officials. Why he keeps
doing it, I don't know. But who is right, the President or
others who say there's really no demonstrable connection
between these extreme weather events like hurricanes and
wildfires and human-caused climate change?
Dr. Curry. Well, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, who I regard as a little bit on the alarmist side
frankly, even they acknowledge in their Special Report on
Extreme Events--Weather Events and Climate Change published in
2012 that there was essentially no connection observed in the
historical record between human-caused climate change and
extreme weather events. They found a few regional examples
where there was a trend like heat waves in Australia and things
like that but really no----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Dr. Curry. They didn't find anything. And why this
continues to be touted by the Administration is pure politics.
I mean people respond a lot more to extreme weather events than
they do to like a 2 degree temperature change or something.
Chairman Smith. It's regrettable that we have the political
leader of our country saying statements that we have reason to
believe he must know are not accurate, so I thank you for your
comment on that.
Another question is that the two percent increase in global
temperature is often seized upon as a tipping point, and if the
temperature increases by two percent, all kinds of dire
consequences will result. Is there anything magic about two
percent. Where did we get that figure? Is it arbitrary or is
there some scientific validity to 2 percent and not 2.5 or not
1.5 or something like that?
Dr. Curry. Well, the 2 degree target was a carefully
negotiated number, okay, that doesn't have much basis, you
know, in science. The one scientific concern that was put
forward was that this would be the amount of warming that would
cause some of these tipping points like a shutdown in the
Atlantic circulation or collapse of the major ice sheets. But
again, the IPCC, in its recent assessment report, found these
to be extremely unlikely in the timescale of the 21st century.
So there's really not much to that number other than a
politically negotiated----
Chairman Smith. Yes.
Dr. Curry. --danger sign.
Chairman Smith. And thank you for that. And by the way,
just as a side comment, the experts that make predictions as to
what's going to happen 85 years from now or 100 years from now
and are absolutely certain that that's going to occur, whatever
those dire consequences are, the only thing I will say about a
100-year prediction is that it's not going to be what is
predicted. And it's too bad that again the scientists are
actually not using the scientific method on that.
Ms. Harbert, let me ask you, you did a great job of going
through those countries and what they are contributing or not
contributing to the UN Treaty, but going back to China for a
second, we have heard this from--we have heard the promises
that we have recently heard from China for years and years and
years and they never really come through on those promises. Is
there any reason for us to believe that China is suddenly going
to do what it claims it's going to do and much of what it
claims it's going to do isn't going to occur for years from
now? Why should we be suspicious about some of these countries'
commitments?
Hon. Harbert. Well, China's priority is economic growth.
And we look at all of the forecasts and China's economy is
beginning to slow down. If you look at the International Energy
Agency's World Energy Outlook, they forecast a slowdown which
would actually show that China's emissions will peak just
around the 2030 time frame, which is what they agreed to in
this announcement. Now, let's be clear. This was an
announcement. This was not an agreement; this was not any type
of binding commitment that the United States and China agreed
to in the visit to Beijing.
I think it's highly unlikely that we will see anything
happen before that. China is building coal-fired power capacity
faster than we are. They are building lots of things faster
than we are. And we're looking at an emissions trajectory that
was going to peak at the time frame they are agreeing to. So
this is business as usual. They had already agreed to the
renewables targets. They had already agreed to everything in
that agreement they had already put down on paper before.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you.
And with the indulgence of my colleagues, I'm going to try
to squeeze in one more question even though my time is up and
that's to Dr. Thorning.
Dr. Thorning, you're aware of this, but President Obama,
when he was in law school, had as a professor a well-known
constitutional expert by the name of Laurence Tribe. Recently,
Professor Tribe testified, ``The EPA is attempting to exercise
lawmaking power that belongs to Congress and judicial power
that belongs to the Federal courts.'' He added that, ``Burning
the Constitution should not become part of our national energy
policy,'' amazing statement with which I happen to agree.
Well, both Ms. Harbert and you have mentioned the
litigation that is out there. What happens if the clean power
rule is thrown out, as many legal experts, including Professor
Tribe, expect?
Dr. Thorning. Well, I think the question of how that
uncertainty about future directions will impact the business
community is significant. Uncertainty retards investment,
raises the cost of capital, so we need certainty and clarity
and transparency about what our policies are going to be.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you all for your answers today.
And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is
recognized for questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, welcome to the Science Committee, the
last place on the planet where we question whether climate
change is being caused by human activity.
Mr. Schmidt, it seems to me that the reality of
anthropogenic climate change is really impossible to deny by
reliable scientists all over the world. People are facing new
challenges resulting from the rapid increase in greenhouse gas
emissions, heavier precipitation events, consistently higher-
than-average global temperatures, warming ocean, rising sea
levels, increased incidence of extreme weather, severe
droughts, changes in the spread of infectious disease, changes
in ocean chemistry, and other ecological and public health
impacts. Now, the scientific consensus about the contributions
of humans to climate change is overwhelming. However, Dr. Curry
and our Chairman appear to deny such consensus exists, and Dr.
Curry suggests, ``If humans are not the dominant cause of
climate change, then attempts to modify the climate through
reducing GHG emissions will have little impact on future
climate change.''
Do you believe, Mr. Schmidt, that human activities are the
main cause of climate change?
Mr. Schmidt. Yes, we do. We draw our conclusions from the
vast majority of the climate scientists through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as well as the U.S.
National Climate Assessment, which surveys the landscape in
terms of opinion and views and research analysis of the vast
majority of the climate science community. And they have
consistently found for the past 15 or more years that, yes, in
fact humans are causing climate change, that our contributions
are significant, and that there are severe damages coming
forward. We are at .8 degrees centigrade increase in
temperature since preindustrial levels, and many of the impacts
that you have outlined are already being felt.
Ms. Lofgren. I would ask unanimous consent that we place in
the record of this hearing the report entitled ``Climate Change
2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers'' from the IPCC.
And I would note that contrary to the testimony of one of the
witnesses, on page 7 of that report they find that changes in
many extreme weather and climate events have been linked to
human influences, including a decrease in cold temperature
increases, an increase in warm temperature extremes and an
increase in extreme high sea levels, and an increase in the
number of heavy precipitation events in a number of regions.
Chairman Smith. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Lofgren. I would also ask unanimous consent that the
report entitled ``Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, An
Overview from the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy
of Sciences'' be placed in the hearing record and would note
that on page 15 of that report they find that lower atmosphere
is becoming warmer and moister as a result of human-emitted
greenhouse gases. This gives the potential for more energy for
storms and certain severe weather events, consistent with
theoretical expectations, heavy rainfall and snowfall events,
which increase the risk of flooding. And heat waves are
generally becoming more frequent trends and extreme rainfall
vary from region to region. The most pronounced changes are
evident in North America and parts of Europe, especially in
winter.
Chairman Smith. That will be made a part of the record but
I don't know if that's necessary since you read it all.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Ms. Lofgren. I--no, the rest of the report, I would need
more than my five minutes.
Let me just ask you, Mr. Schmidt, as you're aware, critics
of the EPA rule have a sky-is-falling attitude towards actions
that would protect the health of Americans and do something
about emissions, which I think kind of ignores the fact that
the U.S. economy has tripled in size since the adoption of the
Clean Air Act in 1975. Concerns are raised that the Clean Power
Plan is going to cause residential electricity rates to
increase dramatically. Those most in need are going to suffer
the most. Is that the case, and how will the efforts to reduce
carbon emissions such as the Clean Power Plan affect low-income
Americans?
Mr. Schmidt. Well, I think you are right to point out that
oftentimes there is a sky-is-falling analysis that's presented,
and we have seen this time and again in terms of environmental
protection when the United States first took steps to deal with
acid rain. The cost of--the cost estimates for many of the
modelers predicted very significant impacts across the economy,
and I think we have found that the economy has grown
significantly and we, lo and behold, have very much lower acid
rain as a result of that. And we have seen that--excuse me--
across the board in terms of many environmental challenges.
When we have analyzed what EPA has proposed and what's
possible in the power sector, we have found that you can
actually make cuts on the order of 36 percent below 2005 levels
by 2020 and 44 percent by 2030 in the power sector with net
benefits estimated to be up to 70 billion and 108 billion
respectively. So these are significant benefits that can be
achieved very cost-effectively through things like energy
efficiency, you know, assuming real cost of energy efficiency,
real cost of renewables like wind and solar, and reasonable
transitions in terms of natural gas and so forth.
And so with these kinds of efforts we can see significant
benefits to the public and to low-income families as well and
still deal with this challenge of climate change.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt.
And, Mr. Chair, my time is expired. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Curry, you mentioned uncertainty and the importance of
understanding the actual climate variability. Before inferring
sensitivity to greenhouse gases and how there has been a hiatus
in global warming since '98, could you explain how the
Administration claims that 2014 is the warmest year on record?
Dr. Curry. Okay. There have been a number of--there's about
a half a dozen different groups doing these analyses and all
but one of them found that 2014 was right at the top. But if
you look at the uncertainty in these measurements, even knowing
that, most of them found that 2014 was in a statistical tie
with two other years, 2005 and 2010, and the U.K. group, with a
far more realistic assessment of the uncertainty, found that
2014 was tied with nine other years statistically. You really
couldn't distinguish them statistically. That, however, is not
the way all this was communicated to the public. It was touted
as warmest year.
Mr. Palmer. Can you discuss to what degree our
understanding of these issues are uncertain? You know, what are
the current key gaps in our understanding? Talk about the
models if you don't mind.
Dr. Curry. Okay. In terms of the climate models, the key
issues--I mean if you compare the climate models with the
observed temperature over the past decade, you see that the
climate models are running way too hot. Since 1998 surface--
global surface temperature has increased a tiny bit and it's
not statistically significant given the uncertainties, whereas
climate models were predicting 2/10 of a degree per decade in
the early years of the 20th century. So you're seeing this
growing divergence between the climate models and the
observations.
The key uncertainties are how the models treat aerosols in
the atmosphere like little tiny particles. That's a major
uncertainty. They don't get the ocean circulations in--
particularly in terms of the timing, the magnitude, and the
pattern of these major oscillations. They don't include a lot
of the indirect effects from solar variations and they don't
correctly simulate the effects of clouds, which have a very big
impact on the climate. So there's a large number of
uncertainties in these climate models and things that we know
we don't have right.
Mr. Palmer. When you mention clouds, you're referring to
water vapor as well, right?
Dr. Curry. Well, yes, water vapor.
Dr. Curry. The biggest uncertainty and the biggest impact
is from the actual condensed clouds themselves.
Mr. Palmer. Is it also true that what we found in
measurements in terms of deep atmosphere is in conflict with
what the models should have shown?
Dr. Curry. Yes. The temperature--the atmospheric
temperatures from satellite also diverge even more from the
climate models.
Mr. Palmer. Is it also true that the modeling does not
reflect what has actually occurred over the last 30 or so
years? There's a discrepancy--a wide variance in what the
models would have shown that the temperature would be versus
what it actually was?
Dr. Curry. Yes, that's correct.
Mr. Palmer. Then in your experience do you think this sort
of rhetoric coming from the White House is unprecedented to the
scientific community?
Dr. Curry. Well, there have been some rather extreme
statements coming from the White House that don't seem to be
justified by even the--you know, the basic evidence and the
assessment reports from the IPCC and so on.
Mr. Palmer. Given the status of some of the scientists who
raised these issues about the fallibility of the models----
Dr. Curry. Um-hum.
Mr. Palmer. --and the uncertainty of the science, does that
reflect well on how these issues should be debated?
Dr. Curry. We have gotten caught in this really toxic mess
where these politics have become scientized and the science has
become politicized, and I'm not exactly sure how to break out
of this. But again, it's the job of the scientists to
continually evaluate evidence and reassess conclusions.
Mr. Palmer. If I may, I'd like to ask one question of Dr.
Thorning.
Dr. Thorning, the Administration continues to assert that
the United States can substitute renewable energy for fossil
eco-energy without negative consequences. As a matter of fact,
they think that we should be at 80 percent renewables within
the next two or three decades. Can you explain why we can't
just rely on renewables?
Dr. Thorning. Well, renewable energy--pardon me; I have
allergies, too. Renewable energy tends to be a lot more
expensive than conventional energy from fossil fuel or nuclear.
EIA's most recent assessment of the capital cost for renewable
energy shows that new natural gas is about $60 a kilowatt hour
versus for offshore wind about $240 a kilowatt hour. Solar is
also more expensive, and because the wind doesn't blow all the
time and the sun doesn't shine all the time, you have to back
those up with conventionals. So renewable energy----
Mr. Palmer. May I interject something right there just for
a moment? If you have to back them up with natural gas or other
fossil fuels, does that not indicate that renewables are not
reliable?
Dr. Thorning. Well, that's one of the drawbacks because we
don't have the capacity to store solar right now and the wind
doesn't blow all the time. So--and we did an analysis of States
with renewable portfolio standards compared to those that don't
and the States with the renewable portfolio standards had
energy costs on average about 20--electricity costs about 20
percent higher than the States without portfolio standards. So
if you're thinking of how to grow the U.S. economy, forcing
renewable energy is probably going to retard growth, not help
it. And--you know, because it has to be backed up, you're not
really having much of an impact on U.S. emissions.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Palmer.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized.
I'm sorry. We will go back to the gentlewoman from Oregon,
Ms. Bonamici is recognized. I didn't realize you had returned.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate
that and I hope that my having to be in two places at once does
not indicate my lack of interest in this important topic. We
are also working on child nutrition in another committee.
Thank you so much to the witnesses for being here today.
Climate change is an important issue to my constituents in
northwest Oregon, and whether I'm talking about people who live
on the coast who rely on a healthy ocean or growers of our
famous pinot grapes in Yamhill County or entrepreneurs who are
developing new clean energy technologies, there are many people
who are working to address and mitigate the impacts of climate
change in my State of Oregon.
Now, there have been several statements here about how
reducing carbon emission has costs, but we should also consider
the costs of inaction. We have shellfish growers on our coast
and many of them have spoken with me about the significant
losses because of ocean acidification. Oyster production is an
$84 million industry on the West Coast and supports more than
3,000 jobs in my State. Ocean acidification is threatening this
industry, as well as those in the Gulf of Mexico, New England,
mid-Atlantic. And this just doesn't matter to coastal
representatives; it's important to restaurants and grocery
stores and people who eat shellfish across the country.
Now, later today, I'm going to have an opportunity to visit
with some of the Oregonians who grow wine grapes in my
district, and I want to mention that the wine economy in Oregon
is valued at more than $3 billion and supports more than 17,000
jobs. Wine grapes are especially vulnerable to temperature
extremes. Excess heat can raise the sugar level of grapes, for
example, which, along with drought, threatens this important
industry.
So, Mr. Schmidt, you discussed in your testimony some of
the increased costs associated with climate change. Do you
agree that if we continue to do little or nothing, these costs
will continue to rise? And can you talk just a little bit about
the terms of lost jobs, for example, and areas like agriculture
if we refuse to act? And I do want to have time for another
question as well.
Mr. Schmidt. Well, thank you. I will keep it brief then.
I think it's true. When you think about the impacts that
come from climate change, they are at this--sort of fundamental
components of the American economy. How often does it rain,
when does it rain, how much temperature variability at certain
points? And you're seeing some real-world examples of that in
California where they are suffering from very severe droughts
that are having a huge ripple effect across the entire economy,
in agriculture, and happy to share with you some of our
analysis of ocean acidification, which shows devastating
impacts potentially across the entire fishing economy of the
United States, which is significant, as you know.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And, yes, we also have outdoor
recreation activities that have been seriously hampered here
because no snowpack.
So in taking a leadership role to address climate change,
the United States has an opportunity to further spur innovation
and development of sustainable technologies. And, Dr.
Thornburg, thank you for mentioning the States that have
renewable energy portfolios. I was actually in the Oregon
Legislature when we passed the legislation, and I'm proud to
have supported that, to require that the State's largest
utilities derive 25 percent of their 2025 sales from renewable
sources.
We have a significant amount of hydropower as well in
Oregon, and one way that our State is working to meet this
benchmark is to be a leader in areas like wind energy. We are
involved in generation, manufacturing, and the industry employs
more than 1,000 Oregonians. We have also made a strategic
decision to become an international leader in the development
of wave energy technology, and we have partnered with the
government on some research in that area.
So, Mr. Schmidt, you have established that we are already
paying significant costs driven by climate change. Can you talk
about how the U.N. Framework Convention will positively impact
our domestic clean energy sector and innovation and economy
nationwide?
Mr. Schmidt. Well, it will have very significant positive
impacts we believe. What you're seeing in places like China and
India is a massive expansion of wind and solar demands. India
has a target to get to 100 gigawatts of solar by 2022. And I
was just there in February and I can tell you that there's a
huge amount of attention and focus on delivering that. They
have lots of sun. They have 300 days of sun, you know, some of
the best sun in the world. They also have significant wind
potential.
China does as well. Despite this perception that China is
not going to do anything for 16 years under this new
commitment, that's just not true. They are building a massive
amount of wind and solar.
And so what you see happening is that the more that these
clean energy markets are growing internationally, that American
companies are tapping into this. And this is a key component
when we talk to entrepreneurs. They see this huge sort of
market potential both within the United States and externally.
So the products that they build to meet standards and
regulations in the United States now become the kinds of
technologies that they can export around the world and tap into
those opportunities.
Ms. Bonamici. Well, thank you very much. I see my time is
expired and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A lot of different areas here and I kind of want to explore
two or three of them.
One of the issues is let's say we move forward with some
kind of an agreement with these other countries. What kind of a
verification process will be put in place? Are they going to
allow us to fly drones over their countries and do satellite
imaging? I mean how do we know that they are playing by the
rules? Because one of the things that I have seen in other
areas of our government is we play by the rules but some of the
people that we make agreements with don't necessarily play by
the rules. And so how do we make sure everybody is playing by
the rules? Ms. Curry--Dr. Curry?
Dr. Curry. I will defer to the other witnesses on that.
That's something that I don't have much expertise on.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes.
Hon. Harbert. The answer is we won't know. It's a
voluntary, you know, monitoring and self-reporting, as we have
seen under--that's why we had the Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act. We play by the rules; many other countries don't, and
that's something we need to be concerned about. Even though
they have vague commitments, they will have even a vaguer
ability to ensure that they are meeting their commitments.
Mr. Neugebauer. Yes. One--and also I guess the other
question along with that, so it's voluntary, but what is the
regulatory infrastructure in those countries and what kind of
regulations do they have? The President is proposing pretty
rigorous regulatory proposals and this Administration has put
out a lot of very extraneous proposals. But how do they compare
with the United States, these other countries?
Hon. Harbert. The answer is that there are--very few
commitments have been made. The deadline was March the 31st to
make the commitments to the United Nations and less than a
dozen countries have made the commitment, so we don't know what
the commitments will be going forward.
Mr. Neugebauer. Do they have EPAs--I mean are they
organized? Is there enforcement mechanisms that are as
organized as the United States?
Hon. Harbert. I think it's fair to say the United States
has the most rigorous environmental--most stringent regulations
on the books of the developed world.
Mr. Schmidt. Do you mind if I add some perspective to that?
From our work in China we have a major effort in China working
on environmental challenges because it has many, as you know--
what we have found consistently--and I think that they are at a
critical tipping point. Any time you travel to anywhere in
China now you see that the air pollution is terrible. That's a
major challenge for the government and they get that because
social instability is the thing that scares them the most. And
so the number one issue around social unrest today is air
pollution in the country, and so that's why we have seen them
begin to control the amount of air pollution and coal
consumption in some of the key provinces. And just last year
was the first time in over--almost two decades that China's
emissions actually declined by about two percent. Their coal
consumption declined as a result of many of these measures.
Mr. Neugebauer. I think you have made one of my points
there is that everywhere you go in China it's foggy and it is a
problem.
I think the other issue is--and, Dr. Curry, you're talking
about modeling and how the actual temperatures and projected
temperatures and various models that have been put together. I
remember I had an opportunity to travel to the South Pole a
number of years ago and there were some climate people there
and they were showing me these projections of temperatures back
5,000 years moving forward, and they were models because
obviously they probably didn't have thermometers 5,000 years
ago. If we do, we haven't been able to find any of the
recordings. So when those models aren't correct and we make a
huge amount of policy based on what we think the models are and
the potential outcomes and we miss those models, what are the
consequences of that?
Dr. Curry. Well, this is why I argued that for a very
wicked, complex problem, some sort of, you know, explicit
targets and command and control really isn't a very good policy
choice. And this is why I suggest that we need a broader range
of policy options on the table that leave us less
vulnerability--less vulnerable to really getting it wrong.
Mr. Neugebauer. Aren't we kind of betting the ranch on an
outcome we're not even sure about and a problem we have not
quite defined?
Dr. Curry. Yes. There are two possibilities. One, that we
could spend all this money and really nothing happens with the
climate and we have sunk--you know, it's an opportunity lost.
On the flipside, if the climate really is going to turn out
worse than we think, what will be left is inadequate solutions,
damaged economies, and technologies that aren't up to scratch.
So, you know, we risk of both of these things by, you know,
focusing on these technologies that are really inadequate to
the problem. We need to invest in better energy technologies
that are really up to the challenge. Wind and solar aren't
going to do it.
Mr. Neugebauer. I see my time is expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I found myself deeply troubled by Dr. Curry's written and
oral testimony, and I respect your career and your academic
background and am grateful that you're here, but I found the
testimony just full of internally conflicting facts and
opinions and in almost total conflict with everything I have
read in the last 15 years in every journal I could get my hands
on. So let me offer three examples and ask Dr. Curry for a
response.
First, you are highly critical of the precautionary
principle. By the way, there's a third option there, which is
we do nothing and the worst happens and we're embarrassed for
the generations to come because we didn't react.
But you are highly critical of the precautionary principle.
You said, ``Extensive costs and questions of feasibility are
inadequate for making a dent in slowing down the expected
warming.'' Then the very next sentence you state, ``The real
societal consequences of climate change in extreme weather
events remain largely unaddressed.''
A second, you--I'm quoting from your written testimony,
``Is it possible that something really dangerous and unforeseen
could happen to Earth's climate during the 21st century? Yes,
it's possible, but natural climate variability, let me
emphasize, perhaps in conjunction with human-caused climate
change, may be a more likely source of possible undesirable
change that human causes. In any event, attempting to avoid
such a dangerous and unforeseen climate by reducing fossil fuel
emissions will be futile if natural climate is a dominant
factor.''
And then the very next page, ``Climate change may
exacerbate environmental problems that may be caused by
overpopulation, poorly planned land use, over-exploitation of
natural resources. However, it's very difficult to separate out
the impacts of human-caused climate change from natural climate
change and from other societal impacts. So does it really make
any difference? We can't change sunspots or ocean circulation
or even cloud cover, but we can impact the human-caused part of
this wicked problem.''
And finally, at the end of your written testimony you say,
``There is reason to be concerned about climate change,'' which
sort of undoes the first 8 pages.
Dr. Curry. Okay.
Mr. Beyer. ``Uncertainty is a two-edged sword. Future
climate outcomes might be better or worse than currently
believed.'' And then you propose a different set of solutions
based on climate pragmatism, accelerated energy innovation,
building resilience to extreme weather, and no-regrets
pollution reduction. So it's almost like climate change is real
but let's not talk about fossil fuel burning and the impact on
greenhouse gases on what that does to all this.
Dr. Curry. Okay. The confusion is this: Scientifically, the
term climate change means a changing climate and it has changed
for, you know, the past 4 billion years or so. Okay. This whole
issue of human-caused climate change is a relatively recent
notion. So climate is always changing and it's going to change
in the future. The issue is how much of the change is caused by
humans. We don't know. We don't know what the 21st century
holds. The climate change may be really unpleasant and that may
happen independently of anything that humans do.
My point is is that we don't know how much humans are
influencing climate and whether it's going to dominate in the
21st century. Given that we don't know this, we're still going
to see extreme weather events whether or not humans are
influencing the climate. This is what I'm talking about, that
we really don't know how the 21st century is going to--climate
is going to play out, and we should figure out how to reduce
our vulnerability to whatever might happen, and that includes
extreme weather events are going to happen regardless of
whether humans are influencing climate change. So maybe that
clarifies my testimony.
Mr. Beyer. A little but not much. I mean all science is
contingent. We continue to learn. We continue----
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. You must be humble at all times with what we
know.
Dr. Curry. Yes.
Mr. Beyer. But it seems to me very much sticking our head
in the sand to look at all of the evidence of what has happened
with global warming in the last 30 years. By the way, the
debate over whether it's 2004 or 2009 or 2014----
Dr. Curry. Okay.
Mr. Beyer. --is the warmest year seems silly----
Dr. Curry. Okay.
Mr. Beyer. --when 10 of the last----
Dr. Curry. Okay. The climate has been warming since the
1700s, okay, since we came out of the Little Ice Age. We don't
know what is causing that warming in the 18th century, in the
19th century. It's not attributed to humans so there are other
things going on in the climate system that has been
contributing to a warming over several centuries. We can't
blame all of this on humans, okay, and we don't know how all of
this is going to play out in the 21st century. We just don't
know.
Mr. Beyer. We just had a vice president who was willing to
argue for enhanced interrogation and torture on the one percent
chance of that Al Qaeda might someday get a nuclear weapon. Are
we going to do nothing because there's a greater than one
percent chance that climate change----
Dr. Curry. There's nothing in my testimony that said we do
nothing. I'm saying that what is being proposed is ineffective.
It's not going to do anything. Even if the United States is
successful at meeting 80 percent reductions by 2050, this is
going to reduce warming by about 1/10 of a degree centigrade.
It's not going to do anything. So should--I'm saying we need to
acknowledge that and rethink how we are going to deal with the
risk from future climate change, whether it is caused by human
or natural processes. That's what I'm saying.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Curry, very much.
Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you. Mr. Beyer, those were good
questions.
By the way, you mentioned head in the sand. The best
example I know of head in the sand is the Los Angeles Times
announcing a policy that they will no longer cover climate
change skeptics, nor will they publish letters to the editor on
the subject.
I not going to ask you whether you agree or disagree
because I have a hunch you might agree that we need to be open-
minded and continue to challenge our hypotheses. But----
Mr. Beyer. I will always agree, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Curry, you're the professor and former chair of the
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia
Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech. You have a Ph.D. in
atmospheric science from the University of Chicago. Prior to
joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, you had faculty positions
at the University of Colorado, Penn State University, and
Purdue University.
There are a lot of us probably especially on this side of
the aisle who are confused because during this conversation we
have heard that climate change has caused snowpack in some
States, it has caused drought in other States, it has caused
extreme weather, you know, experiences in other States. I come
from Oklahoma. We know what extreme weather is. This is very
confusing to us, that climate change is causing these vast
changes, you know, I guess weather events. And really when
you're talking about States that are next door to each other in
one State it's causing snowpack, in the next-door State it's
causing drought, can you share with us what your professional
judgment is on that analysis?
Dr. Curry. Well, climate--extreme weather events and
weather patterns is really, you know, just dominated by random
chaotic variations in the atmosphere and ocean circulations.
There are some regimes that get established that allow you some
predictability. In the large ocean circulations like the
Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multi-decadal
oscillation have a big decadal controls on the weather
patterns, and a lot of the extreme weather that we're seeing
now has analogues back in the 1950s when the patterns were sort
of similar. So trying to blame this on human is really rather
pointless. It happens to be weather variability.
The strange weather that we have seen in the United States
this past winter with warmth and dry in the West and a lot of
snow and cold in the East has been associated with a blocking
pattern triggered by a warm blob in the Pacific that has been
there, you know, for almost a year now. And scientists don't
know how to explain the appearance of that warm blob but it's
something related to natural variability, not human causes.
So----
Mr. Bridenstine. Thank you for your analysis. I think you
have pretty much answered it.
I'd like to direct my questions to Ms. Harbert. By the way,
welcome from a fellow Rice Owl. It's good to see you here.
In your opinion, how much--or if you know--you probably
have the facts--how much coal-fired power generation in the
United States--will the United States lose under the EPA's
latest most recent round of power plant regulations? I have
heard it is about 100 gigawatts. Is that your assessment as
well?
Hon. Harbert. Well, we already know that between 2012 and
2016, so we are almost at the end of that period, that close to
60 gigawatts of closures have already been announced and are
underway. Beyond that, we expect and we see announcements every
day of an additional 40 to 50 gigawatts. So your number is
accurate. That's taking a tremendous amount of power off of the
system with little plan to replace it with anything
sustainable.
Mr. Bridenstine. So one of the things I'm hearing is that
that's about one third of total coal-fired capacity in our
country. Is your analysis similar? Is that about right?
Hon. Harbert. That's accurate.
Mr. Bridenstine. Okay. For my State of Oklahoma we derive
most of our electricity from coal, and those coal-fired power
plants are being shuttered. Can you explain for my constituents
at home what this means to their electricity prices?
Hon. Harbert. Absolutely. In the State of Oklahoma the
estimate is that the prices of electricity under this proposal
would go up between 18 and 21 percent, 21 percent at the peak.
Now, it's very important to understand that 21 percent is on
top of what is already forecast by EIA of an 18 percent
increase. So you're looking at a huge increase in Oklahoma, and
particularly when you're looking at 55 percent of the
households in Oklahoma contribute more than 20 percent of their
income, they are low-income households, this is going to hit 55
percent of those the hardest.
Mr. Bridenstine. So it hurts the poor the most?
Hon. Harbert. It hurts the poor and the elderly the worst.
Mr. Bridenstine. So anything about current and proposed
regulations, the Clean Power Plan, CAFE standards, among
others, these lead to necessary reductions to achieve the
United States--will these achieve the United States' intended
nationally determined contribution?
Hon. Harbert. Today, we're enjoying low electricity prices
and low natural gas prices. These proposals will eliminate that
comparative advantage and still not meet the goals that are
laid out in the INDC.
Mr. Bridenstine. If we're to reach our commitments of 26 to
28 percent reduction, will that mean also shuttering natural
gas-fired power plants?
Hon. Harbert. With the multitude of regulations, including
ozone, you're not going to be able to build at new capacity, so
that won't even shutter ones. It will not allow you to build
new ones. So we are looking at a very big different economy by
2025. And I think you should note that 40 percent of the
commitment the Administration made in their INDC, they have not
accounted for how they are going to reach it, so more to come.
Mr. Bridenstine. My constituents have been very concerned
about coal. This shocks me that they also need to be worried
about natural gas-fired power plants.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm out of time and I will yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Harbert, you mentioned in your testimony the Turk
plant, which happens to be in my district, and I have had the
opportunity to visit the Turk plant. I'm also an engineer and
have designed many industrial facilities, and it is a very
impressive plant. And I will say this about all of
manufacturing in the United States, the facilities I have been
involved with, they go to great extents to meet all permitting
requirements. They are very conscientious about being good
stewards of the environment. But when we see a plant like the
Turk plant that is a super hypercritical coal facility, best
technology in the world, if that plant can't meet emissions,
that's simply saying that we are going to abandon coal as a
fuel source if we can't use technology like at the Turk plant.
And when we look across the renewable energy spectrum,
which I have done projects in renewable energy as well, they
are not nearly as economically competitive as traditional
fuels, and we also see that they have got technical problems
with peak demand and baseline loads.
So I think my question is more questioning the overall
premise of our energy policy and our effort to use more
renewables. Wouldn't it make more sense, while traditional
energy prices are low, to divert more research into renewables
to make those technologies more efficient so that as we make
our traditional fuels more scarce in the future, our renewables
become more economic and will provide a much better energy
source for the future? So I know you have worked with the 21st
Century--you know, Institute for 21st Century Energy. I'd like
to get your input and maybe even Dr. Curry's input on how we
need to maybe rethink the premise of our whole energy policy
and the way we address using renewables in the future.
Hon. Harbert. I think two quick points. It's ironic that
under the Administration's proposal that we would be forced to
close the Turk plant because it cannot meet the expectations of
the proposal, and yet to highlight the disparity in
obligations, China will continue to be able to build those
plants, 54 new plants just like that one and yet we can't build
one here.
You know, the idea should be--you know, the idea under this
Administration's proposal is to make today's affordable energy
more expensive. And what we should be focusing on is making a
broad variety of energy more affordable, including alternatives
like wind and solar, make it more competitive and let the
market work. That's what is good for the American economy,
that's what is good for the consumer, that's what is good for
your constituents.
But this is going to raise electricity prices in Arkansas.
And particularly, you know, if you look at Arkansas, you have
got 61 percent of the households in Arkansas which are
considered low-income households which spend 20 percent of
their income on energy, they are going to be hit the worst. We
should be offering them more options, not fewer, more expensive
options.
Mr. Westerman. Dr. Curry, would you like to add to that?
Dr. Curry. I will just make a comment about wind energy and
solar energy, the great intermittence and the challenges of
integrating wind and solar power into the grid. My company
provides weather forecasts, and one of the things we do is
predict wind power, and it's enormously variable. Ramps are
very unpredictable and you basically have to have a backup
power supply ready. And so you have to make--you know, the day
before you have to make a commitment as to whether you're going
to fire up the coal burner, the gas burner, whatever backup
power source, and you just don't know. There's a great deal of
uncertainty. And so it's very difficult to integrate into the
grid and it's not clear because of the backup power sources and
the extra power required to ramp up these burners, you know,
whether you're actually saving any CO2 emissions in
this process. So we really need substantially better
technologies that this is going to meaningfully reduce the
CO2 emissions.
Mr. Westerman. Yes. When we talk about CO2
emissions, even, you know, some of the policies that come out
of here seem to be counterproductive to reducing CO2
emissions, even with our forests that we fail to manage
properly that emits, you know, 70, 80, 90 million tons per year
of carbon into the atmosphere because we haven't managed those
forests correctly. So I think we just need to focus on the
science and how to make all of our energy sources more
economical for the future. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I think
I'm out of time.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Westerman.
And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Harbert, in your testimony you said that the numbers
that the United States pledged to the United Nations do not add
up. I wonder if you would expound on that a little bit for me.
Hon. Harbert. Certainly. If you take all of the stated
regulations that they have put into their INDC and add up the
EPA's estimated carbon reductions, they still come up 40
percent short. So it is evident that there is more action
that's going to be needed to meet that 26 to 28 percent cut. On
top of that, in that submission to the United Nations, they say
that we are going to meet an additional target of an 80 percent
reduction by 2050 with absolutely no plan, no proposal, no
narrative, no evidence of how we're going to get there. So the
math does not add up.
Mr. Posey. Okay. I remember when Australia passed the
Australian version of cap-and-trade, national energy tax,
whatever, and I met with two members of Parliament yesterday,
one of them I guess was the essential representative of our
Senate and the other one represented essentially our House, and
they told me that Australia rescinded their national energy tax
cap-and-trade plan, said it was the biggest mistake, both of
them, and they were a liberal party, by the way. Both of them
said it was in their opinion the biggest mistake their
government ever made.
Hon. Harbert. And largely--and hugely unpopular with the
Australian people, which is why the subsequent government, in
listening during their election campaign, then rescinded that
pledge. And by the way, Australia has yet to make a pledge to
the United Nations for this round.
Mr. Posey. Okay. Well, I was going to ask why you thought
that they rescinded it because we didn't get that far in the
conversation, and now you have told me. I guess the cost of it
was unbearable on the citizens and they were losing business
left and right is what they told me. They didn't tell me about
the grassroots uprising.
Hon. Harbert. And they have a very dependent economy on
coal and coal production and that was certainly under threat.
They are a mining, you know, economy.
But we also just don't have to look to Australia. I think
somebody mentioned in testimony earlier we just need to look
across the pond to Europe about what we don't want to do and
look at what has happened under the cap-and-trade trading
system in Europe and electricity prices have gone up, emissions
have not gone down, they have not met their Kyoto requirements.
And here in the United States without all of these government
mandates and based on the private sector initiative and
innovation, we have in essence met what would have been our
Kyoto targets.
So we can prove that energy and the environment can
coexist, and those that would like to have the argument that
it's energy or the environment need to understand that that's
not the path that the economies of the world and the developing
economies are going to pursue.
Mr. Posey. I know during the National Prayer Breakfast I
guess--and I don't remember the title from Spain but pretty
much lectured us on the responsibility of adopting a cap-and-
trade policy. Are you familiar with where they are with their
policy in Spain?
Hon. Harbert. I know that Spain has heavily relied on
subsidizing renewable energy and subsequently hemorrhaged a
tremendous amount of jobs, about a 2-for-1 job loss in the
renewable industry, and so they have largely abandoned that
proposal.
You know, I would call your attention to an article in
today's New York Times about this exact issue, and the New York
Times itself says that, you know, no poor nation can take care
of its environment and so we should be very careful in how we
approach this. But if you don't offer people an opportunity,
we're never going to get to a point to resolve this on a global
basis.
Mr. Posey. Thank you for your comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized
for his questions.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here today and for your testimony.
And I wanted to just share a story with you and then ask
you maybe some questions. The situation we had in Michigan a
while back in my district where we had a major manufacturer of
polycrystalline silicon, which goes into solar panels, and very
excited about the solar markets, one of the challenges with
that is the main criteria for that company to be successful
making that product that goes into solar panels was low-cost
electricity. And so we actually had an investment go from our
State to a different State because there was a lower-cost
electricity.
Now, what I'm hearing in Michigan is that we're going to be
losing a number of our coal plants, and I think and my
understanding is in China they are building more and more coal
plants, which will then allow them to be much more competitive
actually in building solar panels.
And so I guess one of the questions I had, Dr. Thorning,
and I think it was in Mr. Schmidt's testimony he stated that
China's president Xi Jinping--I'm probably not pronouncing that
right--committed to peak the carbon pollution by 2030, but I
think the actual agreement released by the White House says
China intends to achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide
emissions around 2030 rather than by 2030.
And I guess my question, Dr. Thorning, is this. You know,
if other countries don't make the same level of commitment that
we are making and we sort of unilaterally disarm our coal
plants that would actually allow us to be leaders in
manufacturing because of the low cost of electricity, aren't we
paying a huge political price or a competitive price for kind
of a political statement that says we are doing something at
the same time when others may not be equally committed to that
in a sort of a unilateral disarmament if you will?
Dr. Thorning. That's really the central theme of my
testimony, that we would be incurring substantial cost. And as
Dr. Curry and others have said, the overall impact on global
GHG emissions is almost nonexistent. So--and to pick up on
points that others have made, a strong economy is able to
weather and adapt to climate change. A strong economy can make
the investments needed to slowly bring in the type of equipment
that would allow us to grow and reduce GHG emissions.
So if we go down this path that this Administration is
trying to push us toward, we will certainly lose
competitiveness, we will lose jobs, we will slow our growth.
The Clean Power Plan is certainly not going to be helpful to
the environment.
I would like to clarify on Chairman Smith's question. If
the courts rule this as a legal, the question is what comes
next? It would certainly be a good thing if it were ruled
illegal, but the question is what comes next? Because
uncertainty is what is retarding investment, so we need
transparency in our energy policy. So I think policymakers need
to weigh very carefully as we go forward. If we make these
enormous sacrifices, loss of jobs, low-income people
disproportionately hit, States dependent on coal suffering the
consequences of higher prices, what do we gain for it? And I
make the case we gain almost nothing.
Mr. Moolenaar. Okay. Thank you.
And then, Dr. Curry, I just wanted to get your perspective
as a scientist. You know, my understanding is, you know,
science moves forward when people are skeptical. They come up
with new ideas and they test those ideas and there's a peer-
review process and there's an opportunity to criticize and the
academic freedom to criticize people's findings, and it creates
a whole new scientific debate based on that. What strikes me
about a lot of the argument around climate change is you have
people who are saying the debate is over or they are saying
scientists, you know, unanimously agree. And to me any time
someone says a debate is over in science it strikes me as not
really scientific. And I'm sure you have encountered some of
that, and what are your thoughts on that?
Dr. Curry. Well, I have definitely encountered that, and
whenever I despair over what is going on in the climate field,
I look at the recent collapse of the consensus on cholesterol
and heart disease, okay, and, you know, even though it's, you
know, strongly enforced by funding and reputation and authority
and groupthink, that these things, if they are not correct,
will eventually collapse.
Skepticism is one of the four norms of science. It's
absolutely essential for scientific progress. It's our job to
question the evidence and reassess conclusions. And that's what
we are supposed to do. However, in the climate field there is
this manufactured consensus that we are all supposed to step in
line and follow, and it's rather bizarre given this very
complex and poorly understood climate system. We need lots more
debate. We need to explore natural climate variability in
particular if we are ever going to understand all this. And
it's--disagreement and debate is really what moves the
knowledge frontier forward, and this is being stifled and it is
of great concern to me.
Mr. Moolenaar. Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar.
The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
I yield as much time as he may consume to Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Curry, it's very timely that you would end that last
comment on talking about climate variability. It was mentioned
earlier about the drought in California. Isn't it true that the
recent research has indicated that California has been through
much more severe droughts in the immediate ancient past? And we
have had a series of droughts. We had a drought in the American
Southwest in the 13th century that apparently contributed to
the decline of the Pueblo cities. Tree rings indicate that we
had a major drought in the Mississippi River basin between the
14th and 15th centuries that contributed to the disappearance
of the Mississippian culture. And we have had three major
droughts in the 19th century, mid-1850s, 1870s, 1890s, and then
the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s. Could you comment on that,
what might have caused those?
Dr. Curry. Well, drought is nothing new in the American
West. We have seen droughts in the American West. In the 20th
century there was a drought of comparable magnitude in
California in the 1890s and then the mega-droughts, you know,
13th, 14th centuries. Again, these were caused by natural
variability, some combination of something going on in the sun,
the ocean circulation, whatever. The exact mechanisms
contributing to those previous droughts are unknown but we
can't guarantee that it was not human-caused drought in the
13th century. So natural climate variability can bring some
unpleasant surprises. And in terms of extreme weather events, I
would say that natural climate variability is far and away the
dominant factor of what we have seen in terms of recent extreme
weather.
Mr. Palmer. Would you conclude that a drought that lasted a
century or more would be considered a severe weather event?
Dr. Curry. No, I guess I would call that, you know, climate
event but it is, yes, where you draw the line between weather
and climate. Drought really goes into the climate territory.
Mr. Palmer. All right. Well, that makes my point, though, I
think that when you have major changes in climate and attribute
it to anything manmade, I think it calls into question some of
the modeling. And I think it was you that made the point about
the Little Ice Age, but not much is discussed about the warming
period, the medieval warming period that occurred prior to that
that I don't think can be attributed to anything anthropogenic.
So thank you, Mr. Massie.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it.
Chairman Smith. Okay and----
Mr. Palmer. I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Massie. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you both.
And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized.
Mr. Babin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it.
Thank you for being here, all of you esteemed witnesses.
Dr. Thorning, I would ask you--first a comment. I worry
that regulations associated with climate change will increase
the costs of energy to American citizens. It's a big issue in
my district in Texas 36, especially hardworking families who
are already struggling to get by. Could you describe how
increased energy costs impact the macroeconomic health of the
United States both for primary energy users and end-use
consumers?
Dr. Thorning. Well, certainly. The overall impact of higher
energy prices impacts low-income minority communities severely
because low-income people may spend, you know, 15 to 20 percent
of their income on energy. In your State of Texas, which has
one of the highest electricity prices in the country, I think
is due in part to the renewable portfolio standards that have
been put in place there.
So macroeconomic studies over the last decade analyzing
cap-and-trade proposals, many of which the ACCF has prepared
and put forward, show significant impacts across the economy
because as electricity prices rise, you tend to see loss of
manufacturing jobs, you tended to see outsourcing of jobs, you
tend to see people substituting--spending more on energy and
less on other goods and services. So the whole economy is
dragged down as one important component is increased in price.
So that's why I think it is imperative that our policymakers
weigh the costs and the benefits of the proposals that this
Administration has put forward and EPA's plans because, as we
have already discussed, the impact of curbing our emissions
here will have almost no impact on global concentrations.
Mr. Babin. So I assume that high energy prices are spilling
over and impacting everyday items as well----
Dr. Thorning. Yes, and the----
Mr. Babin. --and you say the entire economy.
Dr. Thorning. The converse is true. Due to the fall in the
price of natural gas because of hydraulic fracturing, we have
seen a moderation of electricity prices. We have seen the
resurgence of manufacturing industries who use natural gas as a
feedstock. We have seen a lot more activity and job growth in
the sector, so that has been a great boon to the economy. And
policies that make those more difficult are certainly going to
slow our economic recovery.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Okay. So do you think going right
along with those same--along those same lines, do these energy
prices impact national security as well and the stability of
our financial markets?
Dr. Thorning. Yes, because as energy prices rise, that
means we're diverting resources to--you know, to the
consumption of energy that could perhaps be devoted toward
infrastructure spending, healthcare, national security. You
know, if you look at our economy as a whole, if resources are
going into a sector needlessly in the case of, you know, the
climate plans this Administration has put forward, it will
certainly weaken our ability to be competitive and to be strong
nationally in terms of defense.
Mr. Babin. Okay. And, Mrs. Harbert, would you like to
comment on that as well? We are talking about stability of
financial markets and impact on national security.
Hon. Harbert. Keeping, you know, energy affordable and
reliable here allows us to have a very healthy economy, and we
need a healthy economy to be a very healthy, you know, national
security apparatus and to be able to exert our power around the
world. They are inextricably linked, and to the extent that we
make our economy less competitive, that we are more focused on
domestic problems, the less able we are to focus on the growing
threat of terrorism.
Let us not forget that also our ability to produce more
energy here at home and use it here at home is allowing us not
to import and not to finance some of those countries and
organizations around the world that don't like us so much.
Mr. Babin. All right. Thank you so very much. And to follow
up where my colleague here, Mr. Palmer, I think we don't have
to go too much farther into the history books to see that we
have had climate change over the centuries, even during human
existence and not just going back pre-human. And this is
something that's very common in--when we see our environment
and our climate change for the warmer or for the cooler for
that matter.
But I want to thank each and every one of you. I yield back
my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin. And the gentleman,
Mr. Palmer, is recognized to put something into the record
here.
Mr. Palmer. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to enter into
the record a report called ``Activist Facts.''
Chairman Smith. Okay. Without objection, that will be made
a part of the record as well.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Palmer. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. We have no other Members to ask questions,
and so before we adjourn, I just want to thank all four of you
again for your testimony today. It has just been outstanding.
We appreciate the time and effort you contributed to this
hearing. And stay in touch with us. Thank you all.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Judith Curry
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by The Honorable Karen Harbert
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Mr. Jake Schmidt
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Margo Thorning
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Documents submitted Chairman Lamar S. Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Document submitted by Dr. Margo Thorning
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]