[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PITFALLS OF UNILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS
AT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
December 1, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-52
__________
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
97-771 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., ZOE LOFGREN, California
Wisconsin DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANA ROHRABACHER, California DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas ERIC SWALWELL, California
MO BROOKS, Alabama ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois AMI BERA, California
BILL POSEY, Florida ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts
RANDY K. WEBER, Texas DON S. BEYER, JR., Virginia
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado
JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan PAUL TONKO, New York
STEVE KNIGHT, California MARK TAKANO, California
BRIAN BABIN, Texas BILL FOSTER, Illinois
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia
GARY PALMER, Alabama
BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia
RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana
DARIN LaHOOD, Illinois
C O N T E N T S
December 1, 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................................................ 5
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking
Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
of Representatives............................................. 9
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Mr. Oren Cass, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Mr. Andrew Grossman, Associate, Baker & Hostetler LLP
Oral Statement............................................... 33
Written Statement............................................ 36
Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 53
Written Statement............................................ 55
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center
Oral Statement............................................... 98
Written Statement............................................ 100
Discussion....................................................... 119
Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute... 152
Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, President, Copenhagen Consensus Center........ 158
Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record
Document submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.. 162
Statement submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici, Committee
on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 170
Statement submitted by Representative Elizabeth H. Esty,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 175
PITFALLS OF UNILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS
AT THE PARIS CLIMATE CHANGE CONFERENCE
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 2015
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in Room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith [Chairman
of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. The Committee on Science, Space, and
technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is
authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
Welcome to today's hearing entitled ``Pitfalls of
Unilateral Negotiations at the Paris Climate Change
Conference.'' I'll recognize myself for an opening statement
and then the Ranking Member.
The Obama Administration's new electricity regulations will
increase the control of the federal government over the lives
of Americans and will burden American families. President Obama
intends to submit these costly new requirements as the
cornerstone of his proposal at the Paris U.N. climate
conference. These severe measures will adversely affect our
economy and have no significant impact on climate change.
The President has pledged that the United States will cut
its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent over the
next decade and by 80 percent or more by 2050. The pledge was
made in preparation for the U.N. meeting now underway in Paris,
which seeks to produce an international agreement that would
impose legally binding requirements on the United States for
decades to come.
However, the Committee learned from last month's hearing
that the cornerstone of this Administration's climate pledge
reduction, the so-called Clean Power Plan, will do nothing to
meet the President's pledge.
Moreover, this regulation will cost billions of dollars,
cause financial hardship for American families, and diminish
the competitiveness of American employers, all with no
significant benefit to climate change. In other words, it's all
pain and no gain.
It is well-documented that the EPA's Power Plan will shut
down power plants across the country, increase electricity
prices and cost thousands of Americans their jobs.
The U.S. pledge to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only
one-fiftieth of one degree Celsius temperature rise over the
next 85 years. Incredible. This would be laughable if it
weren't for the tremendous costs it imposes on the American
people. EPA's own data shows that this regulation would reduce
sea level rise by only 1/100 of an inch, the thickness of three
sheets of paper.
The President's Power Plan is nothing more than a power
grab. It disregards the opposition of the majority in Congress
and the governors of most states. The President attempts to
justify his actions by scaring people with worst-case scenarios
and biased data.
An example of how this administration promotes its suspect
climate agenda can be seen at the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration. Its employees altered historical
climate data to get politically correct results in an attempt
to disprove the 18-year lack of global temperature increases.
NOAA further perpetuates the administration's agenda by
dismissing accurate and calibrated satellite data. This data,
considered by many to be the most objective, has clearly showed
no warming for the past two decades. So NOAA and this
Administration simply chose to ignore the satellite data in its
recent report. NOAA conveniently issued its news release
promoting this report just as the Obama administration was
about to announce its extensive climate change regulations.
When the Science Committee raised concerns about NOAA's
report, the agency refused to explain its findings and provide
documents to the Committee. The American people have a right to
see the data and know the motivations behind the study. The
American people should be suspicious of this Administration
when it continually impedes Congressional oversight of its
extreme climate agenda.
Furthermore, statements by President Obama and others that
attempt to link extreme weather events to climate change are
completely unfounded. The lack of evidence is clear: no
increased tornadoes, no increased hurricanes, no increased
droughts or floods. The Administration's claims are
contradicted by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change itself.
For instance, the IPCC found that there is ``low confidence
on a global scale,'' that drought has increased in intensity or
duration. The same lack of evidence can be found in the IPCC
reports for almost every type of extreme weather.
The administration's alarmism and exaggeration is not good
science and intentionally misleads the American people.
Congress has repeatedly rejected the President's extreme
climate agenda. So the administration instead attempts to
create laws on its own and to 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.
The President's pledge to the U.N. would increase
electricity costs, ration energy and slow economic growth. The
President's plan ignores good science and only seeks to advance
a partisan political agenda. The President should come back to
Congress with any agreement that is made in Paris. He won't
because he knows the Senate will not ratify it.
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:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. That concludes my opening statement, and
the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice
Johnson, is recognized for hers.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me welcome our witnesses. I'd like to especially thank
Dr. Steer for his testimony today. I understand that he's
changed his flight to Paris at the last minute to accommodate
this committee's invitation, and we need your expertise and
opinions. And they will be appreciated as much here as in
Paris.
As we speak, representatives from more than 190 countries
are meeting in Paris to reach a historic agreement to achieve
reductions in global carbon emissions. I am pleased and proud
to support the efforts of this Administration, and now the rest
of the world, in taking meaningful steps to change--to address
climate change.
Every day, more and more people are waking up to the
reality that climate is changing. Over the weekend, my
constituents in Dallas, Texas, woke up from the Thanksgiving
holiday to find streets submerged and homes flooded due to
extreme rainfall that is only now showing signs of subsiding,
cars being overrun. Sadly, eight people lost their lives in
North Texas as a result of these floods. These same
circumstances played out 6 months ago with equally tragic
consequences.
These kinds of extreme precipitation events are predicted
to become more common with a changing climate, and they serve
as a reminder that we must not forget how high the stakes truly
are and what the true cost of inaction will be. The United
States has been a leader on the world stage before and should
be again. When faced with a difficult task, our nation has
historically risen to the challenge. Our efforts to reduce
carbon emissions through the Clean Power Plan and the Climate
Action Plan have helped to motivate other nations to act in a
similar manner.
Climate change is not the problem of any one country. It is
a problem facing all nations. And only through a combined
effort can we be successful. Climate plans submitted ahead of
the Paris talks are a clear indication that we are not alone in
our commitment to reducing carbon emissions and to finding
solutions to the impacts of climate change. These plans are
already expected to reduce emissions substantially and reduce
the average rise in global temperature to around 2.7 degrees
Celsius.
Ideally, the final agreement should have mechanisms in
place to allow nations greater flexibility to change emission
goals over time that will ultimately bring the average global
temperature rise down to 2 degrees Celsius or less.
Support for this kind of international agreement can only
be found domestically among U.S. companies and leaders of
industry. Eighty one companies, including Coca-Cola, AT&T, and
the Walt Disney Company signed on to the American Business Act
on Climate Pledge.
Despite what some of my colleagues have been fond of
saying, the long-recognized reality of good environmental
regulation is that it helps, not hinders, the growth of
economies. Further evidence of that fact was on display
yesterday as leaders in China, India, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, and
more than a dozen other nations joined the United States in
launching Mission Innovation, a pledge to double investments in
clean energy R&D over the next 5 years.
At the same time, a group of 28 influential investors from
10 countries led by Bill Gates has formed the Breakthrough
Energy Coalition. These business leaders are committing
billions of dollars of their own money to commercialize
promising early-stage technologies developed in countries that
are part of the Mission Innovation initiative. This powerful
public-private partnership is just the most recent sign that
the entire world is prepared to act accordingly and
meaningfully to address climate change.
The global climate system is complex. Solutions to address
these problems are equally complex. However, I am confident
that the enthusiasm for change going into the Paris conference
will lead to a meaningful agreement to reduce carbon emissions.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back. And I have to
excuse myself to go to a conference committee. And I will try
to return.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson of Texas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Ms. Johnson of Texas. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Johnson.
Our first witness today is Mr. Oren Cass, Senior Fellow for
the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Mr. Cass focuses
on energy, environmental, and antipoverty policy. He was the
Domestic Policy Director of Mitt Romney's presidential
campaign. Prior to joining the Manhattan Institute, Mr. Cass
was a Management Consultant for Bain & Company. There he
advised global companies across a range of industries on how to
implement growth strategies in performance improvement
programs. Mr. Cass received his bachelor's degree in political
economy from Williams College and his law degree from Harvard
University.
Our second witness is Mr. Andrew Grossman, an associate at
Baker & Hostetler. He has served as counsel in many prominent
cases that raise significant issues of federal authority, the
constitutional separation of powers, and individual rights. As
a scholar, Mr. Grossman has written on administrative law,
national security law, and the constitutional separation of
powers. Mr. Grossman is a graduate of Dartmouth College and of
University of Pennsylvania's Fels Institute of Government. He
received his law degree from George Mason.
Our third witness is Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO of
World Resources Institute. Dr. Steer joined WRI from the World
Bank where he served as Special Envoy for Climate Change since
2010. Prior to this position, Dr. Steer was Director General
and member of the Management Board at the United Kingdom
Department of International Development. Dr. Steer served with
the World Bank for over 20 years and has held a number of
positions that include Country Director for Indonesia and
Vietnam, and Director of the Environment Department. Dr. Steer
received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of
Pennsylvania.
Our final witness today, and this is unusual, joins us from
Paris via Google Hangout, and he is Dr. Bjorn Lomborg,
President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. The Copenhagen
Consensus Center brings together many of the world's top
economists, which include several--excuse me--seven Nobel
laureates, to seek priorities for the world. Dr. Lomborg is an
academic and the author of the best-selling books ``The
Skeptical Environmentalist'' and ``Cool It.'' In addition, he
is a visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. Dr.
Lomborg received his Ph.D. in political science from the
University of Copenhagen.
Now, Dr. Lomborg will actually be testifying last today
because the videoconference that we have set up. And we'll
begin now with the testimony from Mr. Cass.
TESTIMONY OF MR. OREN CASS, SENIOR FELLOW,
MANHATTAN INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH
Mr. Cass. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Committee for inviting me to participate in today's hearing.
My name is Oren Cass. I'm a Senior Fellow at the Manhattan
Institute for Policy Research. My primary message to the
committee is this: the climate policies pursued by this country
under President Obama are a bad deal for the climate and a bad
deal for the country.
Globally, climate negotiations no longer bear a substantial
relationship to the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The commitments known as INDCs made by various countries are
voluntary, and those made by developing nations do not depart
from their existing emissions trajectories.
Ms. Johnson in her opening statement suggested that pledges
will lower warming by 2100 to 2.7 degrees Celsius, but that
analysis assumes other better actions will be taken at some
point in the future and does not reflect what is actually
included in the INDC commitments.
The sum of all INDCs will likely affect the global
temperature by the end of this century by 0 to 0.2 degrees
Celsius. Indeed, the only likely achievement of the Paris
conference is an agreement by developed nations, including the
United States, to transfer enormous sums of--excuse me--
enormous sums of wealth to poorer countries.
This outcome is not surprising to those skeptical that U.S.
leadership on climate policy could persuade the developing
world to make economic sacrifices for the sake of reducing
emissions. However, it differs dramatically from the popular
narrative in which Paris represents the historic combination of
an effective process to bring the world together and act on
climate.
And it deals the harshest blow to anyone concerned about
rising greenhouse gas emissions or interested in holding
nations accountable for action. If progress under this process
is supposed to come from peer pressure and so-called naming and
shaming, then countries failing to take substantial and costly
action should be named, shamed, and pressured. Instead, they
are being applauded by the United Nations, the White House, the
media, and nongovernmental organizations committed to climate
action. This fatally undermines the entire enterprise for the
sake of photo ops and political point-scoring.
Domestically, even the Obama Administration acknowledges
that its policies make sense only if they influence
international action. For instance, EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy testifying before this committee in July did not argue
that the Clean Power Plan will have a detectable impact on
global temperatures. Rather, she suggested ``the value of this
rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing
strong domestic action which can actually trigger global
action.''
If the objective of this nation's climate policy is to spur
international action, the empty commitments of Paris make clear
that the policy has failed. Yet proponents, including Ms.
McCarthy, continue to argue that new regulations, subsidies,
and mandates are ends unto themselves, that even if the
mitigation of carbon dioxide emissions will not itself produce
meaningful benefits, we should regulate anyway because the
impositions on the nation's energy sector will be good for the
economy.
This argument defies both common sense and empirical
evidence. Honest discussion of the costs and benefits of
environmental regulation must begin from the acknowledgement
that regulation does in fact have costs.
In the absence of climate benefits, carbon dioxide
regulations cannot be justified by claiming that the economic
costs are themselves the benefits. Climate policy that does not
help the climate is not good policy. Europe has gone down this
path, suffered the consequences, and is turning back, yet
American policymakers in the White House seem determined to
charge forward anyway.
In summary, President Obama is placing the United States in
a disastrous long-term position for the sake of securing a
short-term political victory. In future years when the world
revisits commitments made today, countries that we applauded
for promising nothing will be able to show that they are on
track because indeed they have promised to do what they are on
track to do.
Yet the United States, having put forward an aggressive
commitment that even the President's Clean Power Plan cannot
achieve, will likely find ourselves off track. Americans will
incur the expense to take costly domestic action. We will
potentially send billions of dollars overseas to countries that
take no such action themselves, and yet as those countries'
emissions grow unabated, we will be the ones facing scrutiny
and criticism for violating the agreement that President Obama
signs. This will be the President's climate legacy, and it is
not a good one for the country.
My written testimony provides additional detail on these
points with respect to the INDC targets and commitments, as
well as the analyses by economists and other scholars showing
that environmental regulation does in fact have costs.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before the
Committee, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cass follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Cass.
Mr. Grossman.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ANDREW GROSSMAN,
ASSOCIATE, BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Mr. Grossman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for holding this hearing today and
inviting me to testify.
The Committee has requested that I assess the legal aspects
of the climate agreement being negotiated in Paris, and my
conclusion is that, as a legal matter, Paris is a farce. The
point of the Paris negotiations is to create new obligations in
international law, but it is our constitutional separation of
powers that will effectively determine the parameters of that
agreement because of a decision that the President made.
The President decided that he would not seek the advice and
consent of the Senate to ratify the Paris agreement as a
treaty, and he decided that he would not seek the legislative
support of the House and Senate to implement the Paris
agreement as a Congressional executive agreement. Instead, the
President made the decision to do what he has done so many
times in recent years: attempt to circumvent Congress and
proceed on his own. Well, he's got his pen and he's got his
phone, but what he doesn't have is the legislative power. And
that means he is extremely constrained in terms of what he can
lawfully accomplish through an executive agreement made on his
sole authority.
Let me concede that the President's authority to conclude
executive agreements is a controversial subject with many legal
scholars having differing views about the scope of that
authority. But the law in this area is often uncertain. But
it's not the uncertain parts that we're talking about today.
The issues at play here are ones where there is broad agreement
about what the President can and cannot do. That means we can
review the likely components of a Paris deal and determine with
great confidence where they stand under U.S. law.
The two central objectives of the negotiations are
financial commitments to foreign aid and emission reduction
targets. These things cannot be implemented in any binding
fashion consistent with U.S. law. The idea of the financial
commitments, as I understand it, is for the United States and
other developed nations to make transfer payments to the
governments of poorer nations to coax them to forgo cheap
energy from traditional high emission sources.
There is an insurmountable legal issue here. The U.S.
Constitution provides that no money shall be drawn from the
Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law--in
other words, a law enacted by Congress. For that reason,
commitments of funds are often cited as the quintessential
example of measures that the President cannot undertake on his
sole authority.
Now, I'm not aware of any serious disagreement on that
point, so that is our legal conclusion. An agreement containing
binding financial commitments cannot be executed on the
President's sole authority.
Binding emission reduction targets are likewise off the
table. In assessing the President's authority to enter into an
executive agreement, we look to historical practice and
Congressional consents. The leading legal authorities echo
Justice Jackson's formula from the Steel Seizure case. The
President's authority to enter into executive agreements is
secure where he draws on consistent support and historical
practice and Congressional acquiescence. His power is at its
lowest ebb where he lacks those things.
The President lacks both of those things here. The
historical practice is that international agreements concerning
environmental protection have traditionally been entered as
treaties in all or nearly every instance. And now that's
according to an exhaustive survey by the Congressional Research
Service.
And that consistent practice includes the last major
agreement concerning climate change to which the United States
was a party: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. The ratification history of that treaty rebuts any
claim that Congress has acquiesced in allowing the President to
bind the Nation to emissions targets.
When the Senate ratified the Framework Convention, it
sought and extracted a pledge from the Bush Administration that
any future protocol containing targets and timetables would be
subject to Senate ratification. Subsequently, President Clinton
signed the Kyoto Protocol, which did contain binding targets,
but it was never sent to the Senate for ratification. It was
never implemented. It was ultimately abandoned.
In other words, the Kyoto Protocol, which concerns the very
same subject matter as the Paris talks, was regarded by both
political branches as a treaty subject to Senate ratification.
And due to the inability to secure Senate ratification, the
United States never deposited an instrument of ratification
binding it to Kyoto's terms. In foreign relations law, that
series of events constitutes incredibly strong precedent.
I therefore agree with the CRS's conclusion that any court
weighing the claim that the President may adopt and implement
quantitative emissions reductions would most likely deem the
executive's action an unconstitutional usurpation of
Congressional power. This is why Paris is a farce. The two
central planks of any agreement have already been ruled out due
to the President's decision to go it alone.
So where does that leave the President? I see two possible
outcomes. The first is the solution proposed by the
Administration, a so-called hybrid agreement. This would
consist of legally binding and non-legally binding components.
Foreign-aided emission target--foreign aid and emissions
targets would be what the diplomats call political commitments,
which means that they aren't legal commitments at all. In other
words, they're nonbinding.
The other possibility is more objectionable. There's a real
risk, I fear, the Administration may view the red lines of U.S.
law the same way it has viewed red lines in international
affairs, as basically meaningless. What if the President
purports on his sole authority to join a Paris protocol
containing binding financial commitments and emissions
limitations?
I think that Congress can and should guard against this
risk, and the way to do it is to make clear the limits on
presidential legal authority in this area. If the President is
not serious about holding the line, Congress can and should
remind our negotiating partners, as well as the President, that
they--so that they are under no illusions about what the United
States is likely to do. In other words, where enforceable
measures are concerned, there is no avoiding Congress.
Again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to offer
these remarks, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grossman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Grossman.
Dr. Steer.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW STEER,
PRESIDENT AND CEO,
WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
Dr. Steer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a great honor to
appear before you this morning. My name is Andrew Steer. I'm
the President and CEO of the World Resources Institute, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution working in 50
countries.
As I listened to the testimony from the other witnesses
this morning and read Mr. Lomborg's written testimony, I hear
three messages: first, that action against climate change will
cost too much; second, that it'll hurt economic growth; third,
that the climate deal under discussion in Paris won't achieve
much.
Our analysis suggests that each of these is false. Let me
address each in turn. Two years ago, WRI set up--help set up
the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate to seek to
address the first two of these questions. The Commission
comprises global leaders from private business, government, and
research, is led by former President Felipe Calderon of Mexico,
an economic advisory group consisting of some of the world's
top growth economists, oversaw the technical quality of the
work.
On the costs of climate action, the Commission concluded
that investment costs in a low-carbon future would rise
slightly, by about four percent, but fuel savings alone would
negate those increases. So the overall cost would be less than
zero compared to current trends.
But what about the impact on economic growth? Our work
finds that far from undermining growth, smart policies to
address climate change will promote competitiveness and growth.
There are five paths through which this happens. First, action
on climate change promotes resource efficiency such as through
promoting energy efficiency, removing harmful energy subsidies
and so on.
Second, smart climate action promotes technological
advance, an essential ingredient to increasing growth. There's
a large literature that shows how this happens with the U.S.
the leading player in such innovation and job creation.
Third, smart climate policies reduce other environmental
drags on the economy. In many cities in the world, real incomes
are being dragged down by nearly ten percent by congestion and
another ten percent by pollution. Smart climate policies can
help address these.
Fourth, clarity on climate policy can give long-term policy
predictability, something that private investors crave and
something they do not currently have.
Finally, climate-smart policies can reduce the negative
impact on growth of climate change itself, which unchecked will
be very substantial. Combined, these impacts explain why strong
climate action on--strong action on climate can create a
healthier and more vibrant economy.
This explains why so many companies now are advocating for
action. More than 1,000 major companies are advocating for a
price on carbon. Last week, a group of 78 major corporations
sent an open letter to world leaders calling for bold action in
Paris. It explains why more than 100 major global companies
such as Coca-Cola, General Mills, Procter & Gamble have
committed to set their own emissions reductions targets in line
with what science says is necessary.
It also explains why over 360 cities worldwide have signed
on to the Compact of Mayors committing to track and reduce
their own greenhouse gas emissions. One hundred and seven of
these are from the United States: New York, Los Angeles,
Chicago, Atlanta, Washington D.C., St. Louis, Phoenix, and so
on. All of these players are advocating strong action and
taking their own action because they believe it is good for
their shareholders, their customers, and their citizens.
On the third question, how much impact will the Paris deal
have, our analysis shows that the climate pledges made by the
183 countries will make a substantial difference in stopping
climate change. We've analyzed more than a dozen recent studies
that added up the contribution of these so-called INDCs. These
put us on a track for a world that warms by 2.7 to 3.7 degrees
Celsius over the next century depending on modeling
assumptions. This compares to fou to five degrees Celsius of
warming under a business-as-usual path.
This is significant progress but it's not enough, and
that's why the provisions for increasing ambition every five
years, ensuring full transparency of reporting, and supporting
low-income countries as they adapt to climate change that are
all being negotiated this week in Paris are so important.
Finally, we've done detailed technical analysis on how the
United States can deliver its own climate targets. Our recent
report delivering on the U.S. climate commitment, which I have
here today, shows several pathways to get there.
In closing, we believe that the U.S. political and
technical leadership in solving the great challenge of climate
change is absolutely necessary. As with many other challenges
before, the United States is an indispensable leader. We also
believe that the United States will benefit economically from
playing such a role, and we believe that we can be proud of the
role that the United States is playing at this present time.
I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Steer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Dr. Steer.
We'll now go to Dr. Lomborg, who is joining us from Paris.
We very much appreciate his efforts to do so by video. I think
it's 4:30 in the afternoon. I hope the weather is clear. And we
look forward to your testimony.
[The following testimony was delivered via teleconference.]
TESTIMONY OF DR. BJORN LOMBORG, PRESIDENT,
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS CENTER
Dr. Lomborg. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much to all your honored members.
I'm actually going to show you some slides, so I hope that
this will work at the same time. So we're pushing the
technology to its fullest.
And so here it is. So fundamentally, I would like to show
you two main points, namely, the impact and the cost of Paris.
And this is perhaps not very surprising; I am going to take
some issues with what Andrew Steer--Dr. Andrew Steer pointed
out.
So, look local global warming is an important issue. It's
manmade. It's a long-term problem. But I think what we need to
understand is that we have little sense of the scale.
Let me just show you this, and this is the UNFCCC, the ones
that are organizing the Copenhagen--sorry, the Paris meeting.
If everybody does everything that is promised in Paris, we will
cut the equivalent of 56 gigatons of CO2 until 2030.
This is incontrovertible. Obviously, you can talk about is it
40, is it 50, might it be 60? And just to show you what we're
trying to achieve, there's about--the 2 degree target will
require us to cut more than 6,000 gigatons over the century.
Mr. Steer and also the--Eddie Johnson mentioned that we're
possibly on the road to 2.7 degrees. That would require about
3,000 gigatons of reduction. So remember, we're 1 or two
percent of the way. That's important because it gives us a
sense of proportion.
Now, let me to show you briefly with the Clean Power Plan.
It will, if it's achieved, reduce temperatures trivially, as
has been pointed out several times, but it'll reduce emissions
by 4 gigatons by 2030 and 42 gigatons through the century.
So again, just to show you the scale, 4, 42, and what we're
talking about achieving is 6,000 gigatons. That's also why, if
you run it in a standard climate model, you won't be able to
tell the difference. It's in my description, but just to
summarize it, if we just do the Clean Power Plan until 2030, it
will reduce temperatures by 0.007 degrees Fahrenheit by the end
of the century, and even if it continued in its full
implementation until the end of the century, it will reduce
temperatures by 0.0023 degrees Fahrenheit.
Likewise, if you'll look at the U.S. climate promise, the
promised to cut 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels in 2025, it
will reduce temperatures trivially. It will reduce 6 gigatons
by 2025 and 100 gigatons throughout the century it.
Again, just look at the changes here. We're talking about a
very, very small impact. And that's of course why, if you run
it in a climate model, again, you will get very, very small
impacts. Again, if you actually keep your U.S. Paris promise
until the end of the century, you will reduce temperatures by
1/20 of a degree Fahrenheit.
And let me just share with you what is the impact of all
the INDCs, all the Paris promises. If you run this through a
standard climate model, this is what you see. You can actually
tell the difference but not by very much. So again, if we just
keep our promise until 2030, which of course is the only thing
on sale here, we will reduce temperatures by 0.09 degrees
Fahrenheit. If indeed they are kept all the way through the
century, they will reduce temperatures by about one third of a
degree Fahrenheit. That is important because we're essentially
talking about very small changes. At the same time, the costs
are significant.
Now, Andrew Steer would like us to believe that this is not
very much. Actually, overall, we're going to see increases in
growth and we're actually going to make money from this. But
certainly all standard models, these are all the models from
the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum, and all the other multi-
model forums have looked at the cost of climate policies
through a variety of different models. They indicate on average
the cost for the United States is going to be about $154
billion if you do this well. And fundamentally, that's because
if you make energy more expensive, it will inevitably affect
everything. It's not the end of the world economically, but it
does have a cost of a couple of percent of GDP and that's what
turns out.
Of course, we also know that most policies--I'm sorry for
this committee to say that, but most policies are not perhaps
most effectively implemented, and then we know they can be even
more costly. So it's likely that we will see a cost of at least
$1 trillion globally and maybe even $2 trillion. And remember,
this is the cost per year.
And so in summary, the impacts of Paris are small, about 1/
3 of a degree Fahrenheit at best. The cost of Paris is large.
It's not a benefit. That's of course why we need everybody to
cajole us into doing this. It's at least one trillion dollars a
year. Spending $1 trillion to cut virtually nothing of
temperature, that's perhaps not the best way forward.
And that's why we really need to recognize if we want to do
better, we owe it to the world to spend our money better both
on focusing on R&D for green energy, as the Chairwoman pointed
out. That is what Bill Gates is now making us focus on, and of
course also realize that there are many other problems we need
to fix as a world.
So, again, I say thank you very much to the Committee, and
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Lomborg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Lomborg, for that
great testimony. I will recognize myself for questions.
Actually, you've anticipated my first question, which was
what impact would President Obama's pledge in Paris have on the
Earth's climate? I think your word was it would have a trivial
impact. You said all the pledges made in Paris would affect
temperature by only 1/3 of a degree over the next 85 years, and
the cost would be about $1 trillion a day. Is that all accurate
as a summary?
Dr. Lomborg. Yes.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Here's a more recent question that
just came up this morning because President Obama has said a
few hours ago that he blamed climate change for flooding in
Miami, Florida. The President said you go down to Miami, and
when it's flooding at high tide on a sunny day, the fish are
swimming through the middle of the streets, there's a cost to
that.
However, the President's statement that Miami flooding is
linked to climate change in my view is entirely false and in
fact disputed by meteorologists at the National Weather
Service. Those meteorologists have reported that the lunar
cycle and wind patterns are to blame for unusually high floods
in Miami, not climate change.
Do you feel that the President's statement linking the
Miami floods to climate change is just another example of
alarmist rhetoric or do you think it's accurate?
Dr. Lomborg. Unfortunately, I'm going to tell you a little
more complicated story. I don't know the specific issue of
Miami, but in general, it stands to reason that as temperatures
rise, as sea levels rise, we will have more problems, for
instance, with flooding. But what is incredibly important is to
recognize that most of these things we know very well how to
deal with at very low cost through adaptation. The simple
answer is the Dutch have shown the way for a couple hundred
years.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Dr. Lomborg. So, again, trying to deal with this through
climate policies is probably one of the least effective ways to
help people who are actually flooded.
So remember, global warming is a problem. Global warming
will cause problems, but the way that almost every catastrophe
you see is being used as a way to bludgeon us to say we should
cut carbon emissions as the only solution is unfortunately very
often the worst or the least effective way to help.
Chairman Smith. I understand, and I understand also and
appreciate your talking about the need to put more funds into
research and technology, and I totally agree with that.
By the way, if it comes down to choice of taking the
meteorologist's word for it or the President's word for it when
it comes to Miami flooding, every time I'll go with the
meteorologist.
Let me go to Mr. Grossman for my next question, and it is
this: How much impact on climate change, a little bit
repetitive, will the Clean Power Plan have?
Mr. Grossman. Well, by the Administration's own estimates,
the impact is incredibly minor. And keep in mind that even
assumes that the Clean Power Plan remains in law. In my view,
the most likely outcome is that it has zero impact on climate
because it is ultimately struck down by the courts as both
unconstitutional and inconsistent with EPA's statutory
authority.
Chairman Smith. And if it is unconstitutional, what impact
does that have on the President's pledge?
Mr. Grossman. It would actually have an enormous impact,
something like half of the--actually more than half of the
estimated reductions that are fully enumerated in the INDC that
the White House has released are attributable to the Clean
Power Plan. So if that's off the table, we're not--under the
way they've enumerated, we're still 30 percent short. In that
instance, I think we would be something like 80 percent to 90
percent short.
Chairman Smith. Okay.
Mr. Grossman. It's a very big gap.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Grossman.
Mr. Cass, is any agreement President Obama makes legally
binding on the United States?
Mr. Cass. Well, I think, as Mr. Grossman testified, there
are things that the President could agree to in Paris under his
sole executive authority with respect to things like
transparency and reporting measures, but he's not able to
commit either to binding emissions reductions or to the
appropriation of funds. Any of that would need to move through
Congress.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thanks.
And who would be hardest hit in the United States if the
President's emissions reduction passage was implemented? Yes.
Mr. Cass. I think the primary costs are in the energy
sector and then on those who rely on the energy sector. So the
expectation is certainly that electricity prices would rise,
and that affects both consumers, as well as industries that
rely heavily on the use of energy.
Chairman Smith. And so the American family will pay a
price?
Mr. Cass. That's exactly right, and that's what they've
seen happen in Europe when they tried to pursue similar
policies.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cass.
The gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to all the witnesses for being here.
I'm encouraged this morning because I heard both Dr.
Lomborg and Chair Smith talk about the importance of investing
in technology and research in clean energy. I absolutely agree.
I also understand, however, that it's important to reduce
carbon emissions while we're doing that.
Dr. Steer, thank you so much for being here. We appreciate
your testimony. And you testified that businesses have
recognized the economic value of action. And I agree. My home
State of Oregon has many companies that have stepped up and
demonstrated their commitment, companies like Nike, Genentech,
Intel, Lam Research, Portland General Electric. They're among
the more than 150 companies nationwide that have now signed the
American Business Act on Climate Pledge. These companies have
made business-specific commitments to take significant actions
to address climate change, and they've expressed their support
for a strong Paris agreement. And as we heard this morning,
just a few days ago, Bill Gates unveiled the world's largest
clean energy research and development partnership, all very
encouraging.
So, Dr. Steer, how are these businesses supporting a strong
international agreement? Can you talk a little bit about why
these business leaders see this not only as a critical issue
but also as economically viable and valuable to their bottom
line?
Dr. Steer. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
And let me also say how pleased I am that we are in
agreement on research and development and the kind of
announcement that President Obama and 20 other leaders
yesterday made on a doubling of research and investment for
renewable energy is profoundly encouraging, especially when
linked to the private sector and the efforts of Bill Gates.
The private sector has a very major role to play in the
climate talks. This weekend, thousands of private sector
leaders will gather in Paris, and they'll do two things. One,
they'll say this is what we are doing. And many of them, for
example, will say, look, we looked at the science. We have no
actual obligations necessarily to reduce our own greenhouse
gases legally but we're going to do it. And some of them are
saying we're not only going to do better, we're going to do
enough. That means that they are looking at the science and
they're saying what would it take for us to do enough to reduce
our greenhouse gases so that the problem will be solved?
And in Paris there will be a whole set of coalitions that
are announced on renewable energy, on energy efficiency, a
whole range of issues related to greening supply chains,
deforestation. So first, they're saying here's what we're
doing; and then second, they're saying to governments, look,
we're keen to act but you've got to help us out here.
Since 1923, every economist has told us--since Professor
Pigou at Cambridge University showed how you price
externalities--that it is much better to tax bad things than
good things. Stop taxing good things like your work and your
profits and start taxing bad things like congestion and
pollution. If you do that, the private sector is saying, you'll
help us a lot because you'll shift the compass and you'll once
and for all say we're going in this direction, which is better
for our grandchildren rather than this direction.
The problem they have at the moment is it's sort of a
dance. They don't know whether we're heading towards a low-
carbon future or a high-carbon future. So they're saying
please--to the government--act firmly, clearly, set a long-term
target.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. And you talked about here the
private sector, but you also state that a growing body of
evidence shows that economic growth is not in conflict with
efforts to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. And you
mentioned the role of subnational actors like States in
addressing climate change. Portland, Oregon, Mayor Charlie
Hales is in Paris speaking as we speak.
So when I served in the Oregon Legislature, we passed a
renewable portfolio standard to require large utilities to
increase the use of renewable resources. That and other
policies and commitments have created meaningful employment in
that sector, in clean energy. Can you talk further about your
statement that environmental protection and economic
development go hand-in-hand, especially when you combine the
private sector and then the subnational actors as well?
Dr. Steer. Yes, indeed. It wasn't long ago when we really
did believe there was a tradeoff. It'd be nice to address
climate change but it would cost us a lot. We've learned so
much in the last few years. Even if one looks at the
performance of stock markets, you will see if you take, for
example, the CDP green index, you'll see over the last four
years they performed considerably better than just any old
Standard & Poor's index, for example. So going green actually
pays.
And as you say, Congresswoman, that the States that have
put renewable energy standards, it turns out that actually
citizens are saving money, just as we show that, for example,
having fuel economy standards will save consumers--the new fuel
economy standards will save consumers, you know, several
thousand dollars in fuel over the life of the vehicle.
And so adding these things together, there is a dynamism
here that actually--that economic models can't capture very
well. And here I do agree with my good friend Bjorn Lomborg
here. I mean, economic models actually are deeply flawed in the
sense that the economy is really a very dynamic thing. And it
turns out the five things that I mentioned all add--all move in
the same direction to show that actually climate action can
lead to more economic growth. But very few economic models can
really capture those well.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Steer. I see my time is
expired. I yield back. Thank you.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici.
The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized for
his questions.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cass and Mr. Grossman, would you characterize any of
the policies discussed in the United States such as major
industrial CO2 restrictions as flexible or adaptive?
Either one, gentlemen.
Mr. Cass. I would not. I think the Clean Power Plan in
particular is marketed in that way but has been designed by EPA
to give States very few options in how they proceed.
Mr. Lucas. And would either one of you care to address how
those restrictions will impact the industries and the consumers
of those products ultimately?
Mr. Cass. Sure. Essentially, what the Clean Power Plan
attempts to achieve is to implement a cap-and-trade system on
the country in direct contravention of the decision of the
Congress not to implement such a cap-and-trade plan. And what
that will do is force States to install significant amounts of
renewable energy in place of the reliable fossil fuel baseload
that they use today.
The impact of that is to replace lower-cost energy sources
with higher-cost energy sources, and it does not take a very
sophisticated economic model to conclude that replacing lower-
cost sources with higher-cost sources is unlikely to reduce
costs.
Mr. Lucas. And the net effect is giving government the
control over both the production and, in effect, the
consumption of energy, which is a major expansion of economic
power. Fair assessment, gentlemen?
Mr. Grossman. If I could, it is. And it's one,
interestingly enough, that this Congress has rejected on any
number of occasions, holding that, you know, the mix of
electricity and energy sources is something that really is left
to the States for their regulation and something that has never
been federalized and that, you know, has been resisted as a
federal encroachment on State authority. And so this really--
the EPA's actions turn that on its head.
Mr. Lucas. I'm going to take that one step farther. We
are--we live in a very intensive energy consumption society in
both the manufacturing and in our personal consumption. Would
the federal government, having that kind of control over both
the production of and the consumption of energy, picking
winners and losers so to speak, it's fair to say that from this
vantage point it's almost unimaginable what the consequences
could be. Fair assessment, gentlemen?
Mr. Cass. I think that's correct. And if I could make one
additional point----
Mr. Lucas. Please.
Mr. Cass. --I think what we are seeing in the debate over
the Clean Power Plan and the economic affect is really a very
fundamental debate over whether an agency like EPA can manage a
sector of the economy better than it will manage--be managed
and operate in the free market.
And so if you take, for instance, the testimony of Dr.
Steer, the assumption he is making is that, in fact, we will
get better efficiency and economic growth through government
regulation than we get through the free market. I think that is
something that has been asserted by those in favor of more
government power at many points in history, and I think that is
something that almost never works, and that there's no evidence
it would work better in this situation.
Mr. Lucas. And isn't it a fair assessment to say that
industry already is in effect being stampeded as they try to
figure out what's coming and how to prepare for that?
Mr. Cass. That's absolutely true. I think one very
concerning thing about the way that the EPA has operated is to
essentially put forward rules that in many cases it realizes it
may not have the authority for and simply force industry to
respond before the courts can throw out the rule.
I think we saw this in the Supreme Court's decision in
Michigan v. EPA where it said EPA had overstepped its
authority, and the EPA spokesman almost immediately put out a
statement essentially saying, well, too bad; industry already
had to adapt before you made your ruling so your ruling won't
have much effect.
And they're trying to do something similar with the Clean
Power Plan, forcing States to move forward into a cap-and-trade
structure before the question of authority is even resolved.
Mr. Lucas. When I was a kid at home, we would have called
that the bully bluffing.
Mr. Cass. That would be a fair description.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
The gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to the witnesses today.
I have to say I am just, you know, staggered yet again by a
conversation where people acknowledge that there's climate
change happening, but because we can only do things that are
small or trivial, it seems worthless to do anything.
Dr. Steer, you pointed out in your testimony that opponents
of acting on climate change often state that the
Administration's Clean Power Plan will be expensive,
technically difficult, and not have meaningful impact on
emissions. Given the history of this committee, I can't help
but be reminded of what President Kennedy said when he charged
the Nation to go to the moon. He said we do these things ``not
because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that
goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our
energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we are
willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone.''
It does appear to me that what the Administration is doing
with the Clean Power Plan and the commitment to the United
Nations embodies the spirit of what President Kennedy was
getting at. And to that end, Dr. Steer, I wonder if you could
please elaborate on a statement that you make in your testimony
that the United States' carbon reduction targets are in fact
achievable. Can you just describe how the United States can
reduce carbon emissions to meet both its 2020 and '25 targets?
And tell us what kind of market signal is being sent by these
emissions targets.
Dr. Steer. Thank you very much. Yes, we've done a great
deal of analysis of this both at the overall national level and
at the State level as well. We've produced a report which lays
out 10 actions that can be taken that actually will benefit
business. Compliance costs, as you know, are estimated by 2020
about 1.4 billion to 2.5 billion, but the health impacts alone,
the benefits from health alone are 3.5 to 8.1 billion. If you
go further out, the compliance costs rise to about 5 billion,
but the health benefits alone are 32 billion. So--if you
include climate benefits as well.
So in other words, what you have got is a multiple of
benefits compared to the costs. What we see is the--whether
it's in energy efficiency, whether it's in expanding the fuel
efficiency of vehicles, but also the power plant rule itself
can be very, very doable and positive.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. And of course that drives both
investment and spurs innovation in the clean energy
technologies, which you also point out.
And, Dr. Steer, I wonder if you could--and referring to Dr.
Lomborg's testimony, he states, ``yes, manmade global warming
is a reality and will in the long run have an overall negative
impact.'' However, Dr. Lomborg also suggests in his testimony
that the cost of acting to address climate change would be very
large with little impact. Do you agree with this assessment,
and if not, why not?
Dr. Steer. Well, I certainly agree with his assessment on
the need for R&D. I do not agree with his assessment on his
modeling. Look, modelers can--I've been a modeler a lot of my
life. You can choose any assumption. So what Dr. Lomborg does
is he assumes that after 2030 countries will go back to their
old ways. In other words, when China says we are going to peak
our emissions, actually, as soon as they reach 2030, they're
going to start increasing again.
So if you make that kind of assumption, you are going to
find that the impact is not very good and the costs are high.
In fact, what will happen between now and 2030, because of the
action, the price of technology will fall, as already is the
case in many technologies. Renewables are increasingly more
attractive. And what one will find is that there will be a
virtuous cycle that happens, led by the private sector but
empowered by clear signals from the public sector.
Ms. Edwards. And that kind of assumes that, even as
consumers, that we would want to go back to our old inefficient
dirty cars, that we would want to go back to the old
technologies that we use in our homes for heating and air-
conditioning. There are a lot of assumptions that go into a
model where you basically stop in place instead of moving
forward from that point, isn't that right?
Dr. Steer. Yes, absolutely. And this has nothing to do with
government versus private sector. I mean, Mr. Cass said that I
was assuming that the government should be in charge of energy
efficiency and everything. That's not the case at all. It will
be the private sector that leads, but the government has a role
to play for all kinds of well-known reasons that economists
understand.
So, for example, the Energy Star program in the United
States has saved household utility bills 360 billion since
1992. Do households want to go back to their old ways? Of
course they don't.
And what we're going to see actually is a very interesting
dynamic take place. In the United States and in most other
countries around the world, cities over the last hundred years
have been designed for automobiles rather than people. And so
in the United States we lose $1 trillion of GDP a year due to
what's called sprawl. And this is technically estimated. A
growing number of mayors around the world are saying actually,
we don't want to do that.
Houston, Texas, spends 14 percent of its citizens' income
on traveling back and forth to work. Copenhagen spends four
percent of its income. So once you can understand that actually
having a more compact and connected city that's designed around
people, so that's a dynamic that won't happen immediately, but
by 2030, you watch. That will be happening precisely because of
the dynamic reasons you're talking about.
Ms. Edwards. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Edwards.
And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is
recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I'm pleased that you have a good idea
of how the rest of us should live and where we should live and
how close to the cities. And I don't think that's consistent
with a free society, but I'm very pleased that you are able to
express those views today. And I admire your courage to being
here and--today. You've made some good points and you've got
three other witnesses on the other side. Thank you for being
here to give us some kind of balance to this. And the Chairman
has seen--did invite you and you were invited by the minority
also to provide that.
But you've made a couple points that I thought that Mr.
Lomborg--you mentioned his testimony. Maybe he'd like to have a
chance to comment on what your comments were. Mr. Lomborg?
Dr. Lomborg. Well, thank you very much. And the short
version is, again, I'm very happy that we are both in agreement
about the need for research and development. But if you look at
what you think about the actual impact of Paris, now, there's
definitely many different ways, as Andrew Steer pointed out,
many different ways to do the modeling. But I would surmise
that if you're going to look at what the impact of Paris--you
look at what's actually promised in Paris, you don't look at
all the extra things we might hope and wish and wait for the
world is going to do in 2040, 2050 and on, unfortunately,
that's almost all of what we're talking about here.
As I tried to show, right now, Paris is promising about 50
gigatons of CO2 cuts. That is if everybody does
everything they promised. Of course, remember back, Kyoto did
not work out that way. And if we go even further back in 1992
in the Rio Summit, all industrialized nations promised to cut
their carbon emissions to 1990 levels in 2000, and almost none
of them, except for the Eastern European bloc, kept that
promise. So fundamentally, we have lots of wasted promises.
But even then assuming that we'll have the 50 gigatons and
then suddenly we will somehow magically get to 3,000 gigatons
in order to get to 2.7 degrees, or 6,000 gigatons in order to
get to 2 degrees is to me a very, very unlikely outcome.
So if you'll allow me the metaphor, in some ways this is a
little bit like, you know, looking at the Greek tragedy, the
debt tragedy, and saying, oh, if they had decided they're going
to pay off the next tranche of one of their loans in the next
couple of months, hey, they're on their way to being debt-free.
I mean that's technically true but very, very misleading
because it means there's lots and lots of hard decisions that
have to be taken in decades to come. And that's really the same
conversation that we're having with this climate discussion.
You can't just say, well, we're not only going to do this for
2030, but we'll do all kinds of great things on the way through
the century.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes. One question of my own and then I'll
let Dr. Steer have his retort to that. How much of the--we all
admit that there's a changing of the climate. It's changed
forever. I mean, the history of the globe is a constant change
in the climate, constant adaptation of the planet to different
factors that are going on. The question is, what impact is man
having on the climate?
And I recognize myself that we've had a lot of people
advocating these restrictive policies. For example, the
opposition to the Alaskan pipeline was long before anybody ever
talked about global warming. People--and they were--it only won
by one vote. The Alaskan pipeline only won by one vote in the
United States Senate, and if they had all those--it had nothing
to do with climate change then. It's just--there's a lot of
people using climate change to achieve other goals.
But what is--to the degree that the climate is changing
because of nature, how much of that, Dr. Lomborg, how much of
that is a result from CO2?
Dr. Lomborg. Well, unfortunately, I an economist and a
political scientist. I'm a modeler so I'm just going to give
you the standard IPCC answer, but it's more than half. But I
think you're very right in pointing out that because we know
that we have survived many other changes in climate previously,
we have to realize it's not the only way to deal with global
warming to say let's cut carbon emissions and to keep
temperatures at the same level. We also need to ask is it
actually more efficient to adapt? And we definitely need to do
both.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think Dr. Steer needs to have some time
to retort that. Go right ahead.
Dr. Steer. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I've only got 10 seconds so----
Dr. Steer. Oh, thank you, Congressman, very much. By the
way, it's not me who's suggesting where people should live.
These are the mayors of cities who are democratically elected
by their citizens.
Look, Bjorn Lomborg has made certain assumptions. A
professor at LSE Bob Ward said rather than calling it
optimistic and pessimistic, we should call them highly
pessimistic. So, too, a professor at MIT John Sterman says that
Mr. Lomborg's assumptions grossly misrepresent the pledges that
are being made at Paris. And so, you know, we can make any kind
of assumption we want.
But here's the point about whether or not this will
continue. Consider Prime Minister Modi of India. He came into
power last year not because he wanted to solve the environment.
He came because he wanted to promote growth. One of the first
things he says, he says I have 4 gigawatts of solar energy. The
previous government had a target of 20 gigawatts. He said I
want 100 gigawatts of solar energy by 2022. He didn't say that
because he's a member of the Sierra Club. He said that because
he thinks that will be good for his economy. And he's right.
And he's not going to turn around. He wants to make the point
that actually there's something dynamic going on here relating
to these technologies and the jobs that come from it, new
industries that will actually set his country on a more
competitive path.
Chairman Smith. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.
The gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, is recognized.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we speak, thousands of people have gathered in Paris for
the U.N. climate change conference. And at this time more than
170 countries have made intended nationally determined
contributions, the INDCs we've heard of, outlining their
commitments to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These
commitments cover nearly 95 percent of global greenhouse gas
emissions. This is incredible momentum for an agreement, and it
demonstrates the potential to achieve real progress using a
bottom-up, inclusive approach to climate policy.
We've always been able to improve the air we breathe and
the water we drink, while simultaneously growing our economy
and creating jobs. And I strongly believe that this will
continue to be the case as we work to mitigate and adapt to
climate change.
An agreement in Paris certainly will not solve our climate
crisis but is an important step forward. We need global
cooperation from nations, subnational governments, businesses,
and researchers. There may be difference of opinion around the
world about the exact actions we should take, but I strongly
agree with Dr. Steer that something must be done.
Dr. Steer, New York has had a number of devastating natural
disasters in recent years, including devastation from Super
Storm Sandy, Hurricane Irene, and Tropical Storm Lee. In New
York's 20th Congressional District, my home district, we used
to talk about storms that came once every hundred or 500 years.
This type of talk is no more with devastating weather events
happening time and time again. I've sat with families who have
lost everything and have witnessed the exorbitant cost that we
are still trying to pay off from these extreme events.
So I ask, in your testimony you discuss how extreme weather
events are incredibly expensive. How do these costs affect
communities and the Nation overall, and should we be factoring
in these costs when calculating the overall cost of climate
change?
Dr. Steer. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, we definitely
should. You know, it's so tempting to look at the economy, but
actually these are human lives we're talking about. And whether
it's in New York City or it's suburbs or whether it's in
Bangladesh, the potential impact is vast on families.
We cannot say that any particular extreme weather event is
caused by climate change, but what we can do is say that the
science, at least 97 percent of the leading science predicts
that they will be more and more intense. That is clear.
The interesting thing is the insurance companies seem to
believe them because they're saying we need to act on this. And
so it's not only the scientists, it's actually business now are
saying this is not good enough.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And one of the findings of the United
States National Climate Assessment is that the impacts related
to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are
expected to become increasingly disruptive across the Nation
through the century and beyond.
In your testimony you mention the cost of delaying action,
including concerns about national security and mounting harm to
businesses, consumers, and public health. Can you please
elaborate on the cost of not acting to address climate change
on the United States?
Dr. Steer. Well, each year we delay it will become more
expensive. If we act strongly now, we can have a relatively
smooth path in which we continue to grow and prosper each year,
and we can keep growing and growing.
If we fail to act soon, then the cost of adjustment will be
much greater, and of course every year we get close to
potentially very bad tipping points.
Mr. Tonko. And in your testimony you state that businesses
have recognized the economic value of action. In fact, Bill
Gates unveiled the world's largest clean energy research and
development partnership yesterday. Can you please comment on
the importance of the private sector in addressing climate
change?
Dr. Steer. Yes, Congressman. The private sector is--at
least a good proportion of it now is very, very concerned. The
private sector does not like policy uncertainty, and they don't
like risk. And the risks they face at the moment are twofold
from climate change. One, the climate itself will undermine
what they're doing as it changes; and second, they don't know
when a policy reform will be brought in. And that may lead to
billions of dollars of stranded assets. And so they face these
two risks and they are saying we want some policy certainty.
And they also believe that their own long-term bottom line is
healthier with action on climate change.
Mr. Tonko. Okay. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Tonko.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question for each of the three of the panelists here
first and then we'll go on to the video gentlemen. Range of the
temperature increase that you consider would be happening with
climate change, Mr. Cass, did you have an estimate for that,
the range of the temperature increase by the end of the
century?
Mr. Cass. As Dr. Lomborg said, I think I would also look at
what the IPCC has projected, which, depending on the scenario
you use, I think a number between 3.5 and 4 degrees Celsius is
probably the best available estimate.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Grossman, same question.
Mr. Grossman. Mr. Congressman, I'm an attorney. I'm not a
climate scientist or anything of the sort. But, you know, you
look at the agreement here and all of that and you kind of
wonder, you know, is it going to make any difference at all, I
don't know.
Mr. Weber. Okay. And, Dr. Steer?
Dr. Steer. Without action, by the end of the century
between 3.8 and 5 degrees Celsius with sea level rise of about
1 to 2 meters.
Mr. Weber. All right. I got the sea level rise as a bonus.
And, Mr. Lomborg, how about you? Did you----
Dr. Lomborg. Well, again, I would also take my starting
point with the U.N. Climate Panel. If we don't do anything,
they find that the likely range towards the end of the century
for RCP 6 is 1.4 up to 4.8 for RCP 8.5. And again, the sea
level rise would be somewhere between half and a full meter.
I'm very surprised with Steer's 2 meters. That's certainly not
in the standard range.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Thank you.
Gentlemen, as the President flies over to Paris to attend
something that Mr. Cass and Mr. Grossman says he doesn't have
the authority to do or that you've showed that he doesn't have
the authority to do, is there any idea of what that--has
anybody done the research? Do you know what that costs the
American taxpayer? Anybody have that figure? Dr. Steer?
Dr. Steer. I beg your pardon, the cost of the----
Mr. Weber. The cost of his going over to Paris for the
climate negotiations that these two gentlemen have shown that
he doesn't have the authority to do without, you know, Congress
weighing in to spend the money for what he wants to agree to.
Dr. Steer. I could talk about the cost of the Clean Power
Plan but not about his trip to Paris.
Mr. Weber. Okay. Do any of you have--go ahead, Dr. Lomborg.
Dr. Lomborg. Sorry. I mean if you use the latest Stanford
Energy Modeling Forum for the United States and estimate what
is it going to cost to cut 26 percent below 2005 by 2025 with
the most efficient metric possible, so remember, this does not
include----
Mr. Weber. Well, but I'm----
Dr. Lomborg. --undoubtedly, it's not the most----
Mr. Weber. Dr. Lomborg, I'm just talking about his trip,
just his trip over there.
Dr. Lomborg. Oh, I'm sorry.
Mr. Weber. No, I got you. I got you. All right. Let me move
on.
Does anybody know what the cost in terms of the output of
the CO2 are for the trip? Everybody seems to be
concerned about the cost of the output of CO2. Has
anybody calculated that? Dr. Steer, I'll start with you.
Dr. Steer. No, Congressman.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Lomborg?
Dr. Lomborg. No, I don't know.
Mr. Weber. Okay. So climate change--Dr. Steer, you made the
comment earlier--or actually, I think Dr. Lomborg said that he
quoted people saying we're actually going to make money from
this. Well, there's people making money from pushing climate
change, no question about it, in my estimation.
One of the proponents of climate change on a national stage
is actually presidential candidate--is reported to be saying--
Bernie Sanders--that climate change caused the rise of ISIS.
Are y'all aware of that? Just as a question, Mr. Cass, would
you agree with that assertion?
Mr. Cass. No.
Mr. Weber. Mr. Grossman?
Mr. Grossman. Of course not.
Mr. Weber. Dr. Steer?
Dr. Steer. In the eight years leading up to the Syrian
Civil War, there was a drought----
Mr. Weber. Okay.
Dr. Steer. --so, too, in northeast Nigeria where Boko Haram
has emerged there's been a drought----
Mr. Weber. So back when the Sunnis and the Shias split some
six, seven, eight hundred years ago, was that because of
climate change?
Dr. Steer. No, I'm not making that link at all, sir.
Mr. Weber. Oh, I got you. Okay. Smart man in that regard.
Dr. Lomborg?
Dr. Lomborg. It's very, very tenuous, that connection.
Mr. Weber. Okay. One of the other comments was made--and
I'm going to move on very quickly now--that Kennedy wanted to
go to the moon and so people--and that was a good thing and
we're going to--climate change ought to be tackled because it's
hard as well. But refresh my memory from the historical
perspective because y'all have checked into this, back then,
Congress was with him and actually appropriated the money to do
that. Is that correct, Mr. Cass, your recollection, or Mr.
Grossman?
Mr. Grossman. That's absolutely correct, and indeed, that
was--the President put special emphasis on that.
Mr. Weber. Right. And so you had the people with him at
that point.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Weber.
And the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Clark, is
recognized for her questions.
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the
witnesses.
Dr. Steer, if I can follow up, what we're hearing from Dr.
Lomborg is small impact on what we're going to do in Paris, big
cost that far outweighs, and we could spend our resources
better. How is that analysis changed when we look at what you
are saying are what I believe the false assumptions that at--by
2030 we would just go back to what we were doing before? Does
that change your analysis or do you see what we're starting in
Paris as part of iterative process that would move forward to
different policies?
Dr. Steer. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, exactly right.
You put it exactly right, I think.
Look, one thing that does have to be made clear is that
the--that in Paris there needs to be some tough negotiating to
make sure that everyone is transparent, to make sure that every
five years we do come back and we ramp up our ambition, and
that we have a long-term goal.
So I'm not sitting here today to tell anybody that Paris is
solving the problem. I have no incentive of exaggerating the
benefit of Paris. Why? Because I want to solve the problem of
climate change. If I believed Mr. Lomborg, I would say it
because I would be upset at Paris. The estimates we've done--
and we've got very, very good economists working across a lot
of different models--is that actually--that the actions in
Paris are quite significant, but they are not enough. And what
we have to do is get precisely the kind of dynamism that's in
your question playing through. And the way you do that is have
really tough transparency, you have really clear renegotiation
every five years to ramp up ambition.
Ms. Clark. And that is necessarily a process that we have
to go through, that we didn't come to this point--and what I'm
heartened by by Dr. Lomborg is, unlike some previous witnesses
we've had that have said, yes, climate change is a huge
problem, it's going to be devastating to agriculture and our
economy, but in the end we must continue the status quo,
business as usual, at least Dr. Lomborg is saying we should be
investing in research and development, which we all--well,
certainly the two of us agree that that is where we need to
also be working on.
But it sort of brings me to looking at RGGI, which you
brought up in your testimony, coming from Massachusetts,
looking at the successes of that, and talking about taxation
and creating the right incentives so we grow our economy, we
create jobs of the future, would you say that a key piece of
the policy moving forward after Paris is looking at setting
market prices for carbon?
Dr. Steer. Yes, indeed I do. I think that the--I am a
strong believer that the President's Clean Power Plan is a good
plan, but it would be better if it were complemented with a
serious price on carbon. As I said before, this has nothing to
do with big government or small government. This has to do with
putting a price on things that are hurting citizens and not
putting a price on things that are helping citizens like hard
work and profit. So we should shift the tax, as fiscal
economists have been saying for many decades now, but very few
countries have actually managed to do it.
So I agree very much with you. The States that are part of
RGGI have been growing more rapidly than States that are not
part of it, and serious analyses have been done on that.
Ms. Clark. And do you think that it would take setting that
at a national level to really see the promise of RGGI--I mean
is that a place for American leadership?
Dr. Steer. Well, there are now about 40 countries that are
setting a price on carbon, and many others are considering it.
Even countries like South Africa will be introducing a tax on
carbon soon and offsetting it against reductions in taxes
elsewhere. By 2017 China will have a nationwide cap-and-trade.
We don't need a nationwide tax or price on carbon, but it would
certainly help a lot.
Ms. Clark. Great. And talking about American leadership, in
Paris what do you see--what does it mean to the other countries
to have us there and to be present and to be leading in this
area?
Dr. Steer. Oh, look, I was in China last week. I absolutely
am certain that the radical change in the Chinese position
since Copenhagen or really since three years ago is due to
conversations and serious negotiations with the United States.
And so, too--others are coming along, too.
And interestingly, yesterday, when the R&D proposal was
announced--it includes developing countries like India, like
China, like Indonesia--this would not be happening, this level
of coordination, had it not been for the United States, and
certainly, we would not have 183 countries which have now made
pledges for 2025 and 2030.
Ms. Clark. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Clark.
The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized for
questions.
Mr. Babin. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Very interesting. Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Mr. Cass and Mr. Grossman, the Paris conference appears to
be all about climate financing. I heard Dr. Steer a while ago
was talking about how enthusiastic the Indian Prime Minister
was in Paris. Maybe that has to do with all the wealth transfer
that the developing nations might be getting from the developed
nations.
But not only is the United States supposed to hobble its
own economy with the Clean Power Plan in the name of the
President's climate agenda, it must also pay billions to these
developing countries. Do you agree with my assessment that we
are transferring wealth?
Mr. Cass. That's certainly what is being expected of us and
what I think President Obama would like to commit to. Until
Congress appropriates it, though, it will not actually go out
the door.
Mr. Babin. Right. And how about you, Mr. Grossman?
Mr. Grossman. I agree with that. I mean that's--you know,
the idea that we would be transferring wealth in the form of
foreign aid is an integral part of the agreement, albeit one
that, given the legal--current legal authority, is not
enforceable at this time.
Mr. Babin. Right. Okay. And this is for Mr. Cass, Mr.
Grossman, and Dr. Lomborg. I'm worried that regulations
associated with climate change will increase the cost of energy
to American citizens and especially my constituents in east
Texas. Could you describe how increased energy costs impact the
macroeconomic health of the United States both for primary
energy users and end-use consumers?
Mr. Grossman. Well, I think one thing to note in particular
is Texas is in a very unique situation, is uniquely harmed by
the Clean Power Plan and by other regulations that increase the
cost of energy. Texas is on its own grid and--known as ERCOT,
and so for that reason what we've seen is regulations that
affect the use of traditional fuels in that area tend to cause
price spikes within the Texas area, which is something that
potentially is very damaging to Texas's economic growth. And,
you know, to this date it's been one of the bastions of growth
in the country. And, you know, if you looked at the overall
energy policy and how it affects Texas, that status is
potentially at risk.
Mr. Babin. Thank you. Mr. Cass?
Mr. Cass. Well, I think we actually have the Clean Air Act
to look at in this respect to understand what happens when you
see regulations on the energy sector and other heavy industry.
And I provide the citations in my written testimony, but
there's very good peer-reviewed research that has been done on
what happened when we applied strict pollution controls in that
context. There was the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs,
the long-term reduction in the earnings of people in affected
industries, decline in the profitability of manufacturing, and
also a sharp decrease in the number of new facilities that were
opened.
And again, there may be benefits to offset costs in some
contexts, certainly the Clean Air Act has achieved significant
public health benefits, but it's critical to understand what
those costs are and understand that in the Clean Power Plan we
are taking on the costs and yet we're not getting the benefits.
Mr. Babin. Right. Okay. Thank you.
And, Dr. Lomborg, are you still there?
Dr. Lomborg. Yes, I am. And, you know, very bluntly, yes,
of course, if you increase the cost, if you say you have to buy
energy that's more costly, the price will go up. But what we've
also seen in Europe is that we have dramatically increasing
power costs. The--Germany and Denmark, I'm sorry to say, are
the most expensive countries in the world for energy, certainly
in the industrialized world, and the costs are typically in the
order four times as costly as what your constituents are paying
for their electricity. So, yes, it really does have impacts.
And of course, remember, this is a regressive tax because the
poor will actually end up paying the most.
And what we're seeing, for instance, in many places in
Europe there's--there are a lot of people who are now no longer
able to pay their electricity bills. For instance, in Britain
there is an increasing number of people who are energy-poor who
are spending a very disproportionate part of their income on
paying off energy and have to make very hard decisions on which
rooms do I want to keep heated during the winter.
Mr. Babin. Okay. Thank you very much. And then also, just
yes or no, do high energy prices spill over and translate and
impact everyday items like cost of groceries, everyday goods
and services? And are there other areas where energy prices
will impact the United States and especially my district in
Texas? Can energy prices impact national security or the
stability of financial markets? Mr. Grossman?
Mr. Grossman. Yes. Energy is an input into everything that
we do.
Mr. Babin. Absolutely. Okay. Mr. Cass?
Mr. Cass. Yes, I would agree with that and note that it
also poses a competitive problem for the United States against
countries that are not imposing similar costs.
Mr. Babin. Okay. And, Dr. Lomborg, are you still----
Chairman Smith. The----
Dr. Lomborg. Yes, it does have real impact. So everything
else gets more expensive.
Mr. Babin. So the American people will suffer the
consequences of this plan is what it looks like to me. Thank
you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
The gentleman from California, Mr. Takano, is recognized.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that President
George W. Bush deserves some credit for the point we are at
with the Paris climate talks. It was his Administration in 2007
that negotiated the Bali Action Plan that eliminated a major
roadblock to international climate policy. Developing countries
such as China, Brazil, India, and South Africa finally went on
record and agreed to submit their own cleanup plans. This set
the stage for the negotiations taking place this week. So
congratulations, President George W. Bush, for getting us to
this point.
Dr. Steer, the United States has a long history of leading
global efforts on issues that have impacts beyond our borders.
In the past, these kinds of global partnerships have had
positive impacts on human rights issues, world trade, world
health, trade, and technology innovation. It should be--it
should surprise no one that the United States is now ready to
lead the international response to climate change.
In a relatively short period of time, we have seen
developing nations step up and make commitments to reduce their
GHG emissions.
Dr. Steer, how has the United States' willingness to act
decisively on climate change affected the response from the
rest of the international community?
Dr. Steer. Thank you, Congressman. The United States is the
leader in the world on technology. And its technological
advances over the last few years have made it much easier for
others to join in the discussion.
Second, the fact that the United States is now taking firm
action itself puts a lot of pressure on others. And the
diplomatic efforts of the United States have been very, very
positive in bringing the 183 countries that are now signing up
to action.
Mr. Takano. Well, thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
And the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar. Woops. I am
sorry. The gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Loudermilk, is
recognized.
Mr. Loudermilk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this
hearing.
Something that Mr. Lomborg stated a minute ago really had
an impact on me is the cost of electricity in Europe has
dramatically risen. And it's four times what it was. And what
I've read about the CPP, the effect it would have in Georgia is
an increase of about 17 percent. And 40 percent of Georgia's
electrical customers earn less than $40,000 a year.
So I'm having some grave concerns, as it was already stated
here today, that these regulations impact the most vulnerable.
They have the greatest impact on the most vulnerable in our
society. It's not just in climate regulation. If you look at
Dodd-Frank, Dodd-Frank had a negative impact on Wall Street. It
had a negative impact on the big mega businesses. But it was
devastating to small struggling businesses because the big
businesses can absorb the additional cost. The big businesses,
it's going to have an impact. The CPP will have an impact, but
they'll be able to absorb these costs.
One way that they'll absorb the costs is to cut their
spending by laying off employees. They're already talking about
closing a power plant in my district, possibly up to 2,000 jobs
being lost.
I want to use not modeling or hyperbole but real-life
instances of how this diminishing return of over-regulating
affects the lives of everyday struggling Americans. I have an
article here from National Public Radio, which is not known to
be a strong right-wing publication by any--or radio outlet by
any stretch of the imagination. It's talking about a 65--or an
elderly woman that basically--her name is Lydia Smith. She's 87
years old, and she's living on $900 a month Social Security.
That's all that she has. She has no retirement after working as
a store clerk for most of her life. She never saved. As you're
finding out today, a lot of our Baby Boomers have not saved for
retirement. They're living on a fixed income that comes in.
Even though she gets Section 8 housing, she still pays a
third of her income, $300 goes to rent. She spends $600 on
everything else, everything else that she needs to live. She
rarely leaves home. In fact, it says in the interview that she
mostly exclusively shops at Goodwill because that's all she can
afford. And what does she shop with? Well, her residual income
is $20, $20. That's her residual income that she has to live
on.
Under the CPP it's estimated that her power costs will go
up $20. So what is Ms. Smith to live on? What is going to
happen when her electricity prices go up? She's on most every
government program except for food stamps at this point. Not
only is it going to have a devastating impact on her, but when
you look at what the impact it's going to have on businesses,
and again, reiterating what everybody's said here, it's going
to be a minimal impact on the climate, but we're going to see a
significant impact on the lives of human beings in the name of
making a statement or the hope that we may get some kind of
.007 degree decrease in temperatures that we're not even
totally sure that we're causing.
I don't understand how we go down this path to the point of
diminishing returns and then, when these businesses get the
impact, they're going to lay off more and there are going to be
more people in the position of Ms. Smith.
Mr. Cass, am I totally off base or is this the direction
that we're going with these radical climate regulations?
Mr. Cass. Well, I think you're focusing on a very important
issue, which is who is actually hurt by rising energy prices.
And you're exactly right that it takes the largest bite out of
those with the lowest incomes. And so it has both that direct
effect on individuals and then it's going to have broader
effects on communities, as you see impacts on the economy more
broadly.
Mr. Loudermilk. Mr. Grossman, do you--I know that you're a
constitutional attorney, but in your opinion----
Mr. Grossman. Mr. Congressman, I don't think what you're
saying is a controversial view at least in general. I mean if
you look at the EPA's own publications, EPA acknowledges that
there's no free lunch and that these things come with costs.
And so I find it very surprising to hear from some people that
all of this is going to pay for it because they never explain
how someone like this Ms. Smith you describe, how somehow she's
going to get the money back in her pocket. And I don't know how
that would happen.
Mr. Loudermilk. I mean with $18 trillion debt, are we just
going to dump more--I know I'm out of time, Mr. Chairman, but
the American people continually say that they want commonsense
legislation. They want common sense coming out of Washington,
and I have not been able to make any common sense out of the
CPP or any of the administration's radical agenda.
So I yield back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Loudermilk.
The gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized
for her questions.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think this hearing is an important one, coming as it does
as leaders of the world are attempting to cope with the
catastrophe of climate change that our planet is facing. And as
we talk about really small board issues here, hey, I was
fascinated to hear the comment that, you know, there are--
mitigation issues would somehow help, that we should look at
the Dutch and the dikes that they've done as if that would
solve the problem of acidification of the ocean and the
collapse of the food chain that the elderly and the poor will
also face if we don't deal successfully with this challenge.
You know, Dr. Steer, my home State is California. We've
always been a leader and we've always set the pace on climate
change, and we have actually set some goals in California. And
what we did, I mean, was--has actually increased the amount of
alternative energy substantially in the last number of years.
The solar industry in California created more than 54,000 jobs,
and with our new commitment to 50 percent renewables by 2030,
the estimate is that employment in the alternative energy
sector will far surpass employment in the fossil fuel industry.
You mentioned that climate-smart policies can provide a
credible and predictable policy environment and give private
investors the confidence needed to invest in, deliver, and
create greater economic efficiency and innovation. Can you
elaborate how the Administration's Clean Power Plan and the
agreement in Paris might encourage even more energy investment
and reduce barriers to implementation of new energy
technologies?
Dr. Steer. Thank you, Congressman--Congresswoman. I agree
very much with you that, as we move forward, the new economy
will generate a lot more jobs than the one we're losing. But we
still obviously--as you implied, we have to be very sensitive
to the fact that we do need a just transition. Whilst the
Nation as a whole will benefit, that doesn't mean every single
company will benefit or every single citizen will benefit, and
we need a just transition. And we've learned a lot about how to
compensate those that will be harder off.
It turns out, by the way, that if you look at the entire
impact of the President's climate plan, whilst in the near-term
it's true that electricity costs per kilowatt hour will rise,
that will be more than offset by savings due to energy
efficiency, so household overall bills will in time be
considerably less.
But there still is that situation. I agree very much with
you that what we are seeing now--and your own State is a very
good example of this. Google has just made the biggest
investment in a renewable energy plan in Africa, in Kenya.
Google has. And that's because--and it's a commercial venture.
And I think we were talking earlier about the need for money to
go in. The overwhelming bulk of money will be private money,
companies like Google that see where the future is and they're
investing.
And what we're hoping for out of Paris are clear signals so
that kind of investment and thousands more like that will
become the norm.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you, Dr. Steer. It seems to me
what we've seen most successfully in California is to set
standards and then the private sector scrambles and innovates
to meet them. And in scrambling to meet those standards, they
create tons of new jobs. So isn't that what we're trying to
bring to the whole world?
Dr. Steer. Absolutely right, yes. I think everybody agrees
that the government has some role in setting standards.
Otherwise, you know, my kids would be electrocuted because, you
know, it does take regulation. So we shouldn't be sort of
oversimplifying this. Standards on, for example, the Energy
Star system has saved hundreds of billions of dollars for
consumers.
So you're absolutely right. The private sector will drive
everything, but they do so within a sensible environment
created by government.
Ms. Lofgren. I'll just close by saying that the cost of
doing nothing is immense, and we're already seeing it. In
California we've had the largest drought in 1,200 years. The
aquifer has been reduced and the land is sinking. It won't be
replaced, takes 1,000 years to replenish that aquifer. So we
have an issue about providing food, providing water. We've got
rising sea levels. We've got collapse of the fishing season
because of climate change in the ocean. So to think that doing
nothing is cost-free is very false.
And I see that my time is expired, Mr. Chairman, so I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren.
The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Abraham, is recognized.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll thank the
witnesses, especially Dr. Steer and Dr. Lomborg, for their
efforts to be here either in person or by videoconference. And
our Chairman Dr. Smith has had thankfully many hearings on this
Clean Power Plan rule that we're discussing today.
And I've looked back at past testimony and certainly the
previous testimony today, and the figures that I come up with
are if we go all in with President Obama's full compliance is
that it could cost up to five trillion dollars per year, which
is over nine percent of our GDP.
Now, the United States--the other figures I've seen that
40--at least 40 of our states would have increases in
electricity costs of somewhere between ten and seventeen
percent. And India, China--and, Dr. Steer, you said that, you
know, China was glad that we're leading the role--or leading
the charge so to speak. But if you look at China's own reports,
they say that their coal consumption has increased 17 percent
higher than previously anticipated. So they are--India, China,
and some of these underdeveloped countries are building coal-
fired plants at unprecedented rates. So for us as Americans,
we're--I look at it as kind of an all-pain/no-gain scenario
from our previous stance.
Now, the other thing that President Obama has said as far
as the Paris talks are that it will be a ``powerful rebuke to
terrorism'' because they are holding this climate meeting in
Paris. But U.S. intelligence reports also tell me that ISIS--
and I think it's been mentioned by one of our members--receives
up to half-a-billion dollars a year through the sale and
control of Middle East oil reserves. So as our Commander-in-
Chief, I think the President probably made a bold statement. It
is a powerful rebuke to terrorism, but as his assumed role as
our commander of climate change, he's not allowing our
businesses with this Clean Power Plan act to do business and
make American more energy-independent.
So I guess it will be a rhetorical question, but I'll ask
you, Mr. Cass, wouldn't it be a more powerful rebuke to ISIS
and other terrorists groups if the President worked to actually
enact policies that would make America more energy-independent
so that we don't have to turn to groups of the Middle East to
receive our oil?
Mr. Cass. You know, I don't think it's especially
constructive to try to take every other issue out in the world
and draw it back to climate change somehow. I think that is a
rhetorical device that has stirred up a lot of confusion but
does not really reflect on the relevant energy policy choices
or the relevant choices for international negotiation.
So I would say the preferable approach would be to focus on
what our energy policy actually does and does not accomplish
with respect to the climate instead of suggesting that it has
anything to do with ISIS.
Mr. Abraham. Would you say, Mr. Cass, that the current
policies, if we continue down this road, do restrict our energy
companies from making American more energy-independent?
Mr. Cass. I don't know that the Clean Power Plan will have
a significant effect on energy independence. It focuses almost
entirely on the electricity sector for which we already get all
the necessary fuels domestically, whereas it's really oil that
is the issue of concern for energy independence.
Mr. Abraham. Correct. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Abraham.
And the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lomborg, you're still with us?
Dr. Lomborg. I am.
Mr. Beyer. Great, thank you very much. I've been reading
your ideas for some time now and have always found them very
interesting. In my simple terms, you agree that climate change
is real and it's manmade but the costs to stop or significantly
slow this is much greater than the cost to simply adapt to it.
And I know you're aware that U.S. military strategists have
been very concerned about the accelerating effects of climate
change will lead to more conflict, revolution, even wars. Do
you factor these costs, loss of human life, economic
destruction, war materials, et cetera, into the overall cost of
adapting to letting climate change just proceed?
Dr. Lomborg. I should just say I don't necessarily say that
we should just adapt. I do try to say we need to prioritize how
much are we going to adapt and how much are we going to reduce
our emissions. So it's definitely going to be a balance.
But to answer your specific question, we do try to take
into account a lot of the costs in the models, so we do look at
heat deaths, cold deaths, deaths from more polluted water,
costs from higher--high amounts of floodings, potentially more
hurricanes in the long run. So a lot of costs are calculated in
there, but obviously not all costs. So again, I think in some
way we're stuck with saying we have the best models available,
but that doesn't mean it's right. It's probably just better
than anything you or I or anyone else can come up with as our
intuition.
Mr. Beyer. One of the other costs that--it's easier to
think about retaining walls in Miami than to think about what I
keep reading as being tens of millions of Bangladeshis that
will be displaced by even a 1 meter sea level rise. How do you
get a handle on the modeling of what it takes to relocate 20 or
30 million people in Bangladesh?
Dr. Lomborg. Well, I actually--you should be aware that we
know and we have good data for most of the world which
indicates that almost no populated areas are going to be
abandoned simply because it's very cheap to cover the costs
of--essentially put up dikes and levees to make sure that you
do not have to relocate.
And so what is ultimately going to happen is that you will
see some shore lost in, for instance, Alaska, you'll see it in
Siberia, some other places, but pretty much everywhere--and
certainly in Bangladesh, remember, Bangladesh is the most
tightly populated country in the world. They will definitely
put up those sea levels--sorry, those sea barriers that are
necessary simply because it will protect a lot of valuable land
both for people and for production.
Mr. Beyer. Okay. Thank you very much.
Dr. Steer, I keep reading articles about how climate change
just takes us from one set of climate conditions to a different
set, as has happened through the ages and that we must and will
adapt. But I've also long been fascinated by the Gaia
hypothesis, which states that organisms interact with their
inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a self-regulating,
complex system, that there's a homeostasis going on, that we'll
always adapt to maximize the conditions for life on Earth. Do
you see any evidence of such homeostatic mechanisms going on
right now with all the climate changes?
Dr. Steer. I--Congressman, I think the planet will take
care of itself; it's us I'm worried about. Or it's actually our
great-grandchildren I'm worried about. And I'm profoundly
worried when I hear my good friend Bjorn Lomborg say don't
worry, Bangladesh will be able to build dikes. I think that is
something we have to think very, very deeply about. Fifty years
from now the idea that something that's never been proven
before-it's absolutely the right thing to do. The Netherlands
does it. The Netherlands does it but the Netherlands is very
worried because--and that's why the Netherlands is a champion
to change things now because they know how difficult it is, how
expensive it is, and how risky it is to be building dikes. So
we absolutely should not accept that.
And your point, sir, about the Department of Defense is so
accurate. Two weeks ago I was with NATO leaders. They are
profoundly worried about the security risks of climate change.
In many ways it is Departments of Defenses around the world
that are the ones that are ringing the bell most loudly. So I
really do agree with you there.
Mr. Beyer. And, Dr. Steer, thank you for going right to the
correct answer to the question, which is we talk so many times
about, yes, the climate changes and changes and we've always
adapted. What they miss is that, you know, life will adapt but
the impact on human beings is very significant. And if you look
at how climate changes in the past, it has led to, you know,
dramatically different conditions for humanity, including the
agricultural revolution. So thank you very much.
Chairman Smith. Thank you, Mr. Beyer.
The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, is recognized.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank the
witnesses here today for your testimony.
I guess in looking at what the President and the
administration are doing in Paris, you know, the words that
come to mind in some respects is almost illegitimate in terms
of the pact or agreement that they're working on.
And I guess my question to you, Mr. Grossman, in terms of
circumventing the Congress and kind of doing an end run is what
this looks to be, you know, whether we call it an agreement or
a pact or whatever comes out of Paris, you know, is there going
to be advice and consent from the Senate? Is there going to be
ratification there? Is there going to be any input from the
House or Senate? In looking at the elected Congress, what role
will the elected Congress play in having input on something
this significant?
Mr. Grossman. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
When you look at what the Administration has discussed so
far, they spoke in terms of a hybrid agreement where the
central planks of the agreement--in other words, we're all
assuming that there's going to be this agreement and countries
are going to follow through on it in terms of financing and in
terms of reaching emissions targets.
But the way the Administration has looked at it, due to the
fact that they don't want to come to Congress, has been to have
a hybrid agreement where those central planks aren't
enforceable in any sense. They're pledges, they're promises,
they're things that may or may not happen, but at the end of
the day, you know, as a lawyer, I look at what does the law
require you to do, whether that's international law or domestic
law. And what's being contemplated at this point is an
agreement that has no teeth, that doesn't commit anyone to
anything.
So in that instance on the one hand, as a legal matter,
that probably would not require advice and consent of the
Senate. On the other hand, it doesn't really have any
substance.
But if the President were to go beyond that and to attempt
to enter into binding commitments, I think he would--that would
raise some very serious constitutional questions and would
really call into question the legitimacy of the United States'
involvement in such an agreement.
Mr. LaHood. And is there legal precedent for other things
that have circumvented the Congress that have been upheld in
federal court?
Mr. Grossman. I think in this instance we're really going
into new territory because if you look, for example, at the
Kyoto Protocol, both political branches recognized that the
binding emission reductions that were part of that protocol,
even though Bill Clinton had signed it, they recognized that
Senate ratification was a part of it. It had to go through as a
treaty. And because that never happened, because there wasn't
the political support for it, the United States never ratified
it, never deposited its documents of ratification, and it never
took effect here.
And so given that kind of precedent, I think the
Administration would be on very shaky legal ground were it to
agree to any type of binding commitments.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you. Mr. Cass, I wanted to follow up with
you. You know, in looking at this agreement and looking at how
we verify that foreign countries--India, China, Russia--are
going to be compliant with the commitments in this agreement,
you know, can you elaborate on that, you know, in terms of what
satisfaction we can have that they are going to be compliant
when they haven't had a very good track record of doing that?
Mr. Cass. Well, you know, I think one enormous challenge in
that respect is that a lot of these countries don't really even
have a mechanism for tracking even if they wanted to be
transparent. You know, there was an enormous story very
recently when China admitted it was using about 17 percent more
coal than it thought. It was an entire new Germany worth of
emissions just within China. And the striking thing is that the
Chinese said, well, of course we're not going to change any of
our commitments. It probably makes it easier to meet our
commitments, but we're not going to change anything as a
result.
And so I think, you know, accurately tracking the pledges
is an important challenge. The interesting thing with countries
like China and India, though, is that they have not pledged to
do anything except the trajectory that they were already on.
And so in that respect the question is less how do we make sure
they do what they promised than why is no one standing up and
saying they haven't promised anything?
Mr. LaHood. Well, as just a follow-up on that, you know, I
was going ask you--I was going to read--there was an agreement
released by the White House regarding its 2014 U.S.-China Joint
Announcement on Climate Change, and it said, ``China intends to
achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030.''
There is presumably a reason China committed to peak ``around
2030'' and that word around is really undefined in this, and so
we have no idea if this means 2031, 32, 35, or even later.
And I guess in looking at that, I mean doesn't this give an
incentive to china to go beyond that in using that kind of
undefined ambiguous language? That concerns me.
Mr. Cass. Well, you know, the reason that that is what
China agreed to is because they had already done the work and
knew that that is around when their emissions would peak
anyway. Unfortunately, President Obama knew this as well. The
U.S. Government's own Lawrence Berkeley laboratory had done a
very in-depth study four years earlier and had already said
based on the way China's economic development is going, it will
peak its emissions around 2030. So for China to make that
commitment now is essentially a promise to do nothing.
And the fact that we are applauding that and putting our
own very costly commitment up against it is really just another
example of how poorly we are positioning our own country's
interests on the international stage.
Mr. LaHood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. [Presiding] Yes. The Chair will now
recognize our colleague from Colorado, Mr. Perlmutter.
Mr. Perlmutter. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Obviously, there are big differences of opinion between
both sides of the aisle on this subject. We agree on quite a
few things on this committee but this is not one of them. And
it's disappointing to me but that's the way it is.
So, Dr. Lomborg, I want to start with you. You've been
talking about dikes and I'm just looking--are you in Copenhagen
now or where are you?
Dr. Lomborg. I'm in Paris right now.
Mr. Perlmutter. You're in Paris but you spoke fondly of
Copenhagen so I assume that's got some--it's close to your
heart in some fashion. Is that where you're from----
Dr. Lomborg. Yes, it is.
Mr. Perlmutter. --or your family? Okay. So Copenhagen, I
was just looking at it. I mean, it's pretty much at sea level
or below sea level, is it not?
Dr. Lomborg. It's at sea level and higher, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. So have you estimated how much it's
going to cost Copenhagen to build the dikes that you say might
be necessary--and I think you said sea levels are going to rise
between a half and a meter. Dr. Steer said between a half and 2
meters and you kind of objected to that. But how much are the
dikes going to cost Copenhagen if it goes a meter, which is
your testimony?
Dr. Lomborg. Yes. I'm sorry, I don't know the numbers for
Copenhagen. I do know the numbers that have been published
internationally in period for--globally, and they indicate for
almost all countries the cost of adapting to sea level rise up
to a meter is less than 0.1 percent of GDP, and mostly much,
much less. So it's a fairly small cost.
Mr. Perlmutter. So who----
Dr. Lomborg. It's not a trivial cost----
Mr. Perlmutter. I mean the----
Dr. Lomborg. --but it's a----
Mr. Perlmutter. You mean the world's GDP?
Dr. Lomborg. Of the individual nations. But yes, of course,
for the world it will be the world's GDP.
Mr. Perlmutter. When was the last time you were in Miami?
Dr. Lomborg. A couple years ago.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. And you're probably aware that Miami
is seeing street flooding on a pretty regular basis already,
are you not?
Dr. Lomborg. Yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. I mean what's it going to cost Miami to
build dikes and what do you think----
Dr. Lomborg. Again, sir----
Mr. Perlmutter. --what do you think----
Dr. Lomborg. --I don't know the----
Mr. Perlmutter. What will that do----
Dr. Lomborg. I don't know the----
Mr. Perlmutter. What will that do to their tourism?
Dr. Lomborg. It will do very little to their tourism. Look,
again, I think you're trying to pin me into a false dichotomy.
I'm simply pointing out that trying to do the Clean Power Plan
or even all of what the U.S. is promising or even what
everybody is promising, which will cut a couple of inches at
best of sea level rise by the end of the century is not
actually a very effective way of helping either Miami or anyone
else.
Yes, I do recognize that we need to fix this problem in the
long run. That's why I'm supporting green energy. But saying
that we are somehow being illogical by not focusing on say,
well, let's actually do the things that we can do to help poor
Bangladeshis today dealing with sea level rise or indeed rich
Miami--I'm sorry, I'm not sure what to call----
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So----
Dr. Lomborg. --Miamians.
Mr. Perlmutter. So I mean I guess my question to you is--
and I appreciate that. You're saying we need to do all of the
above. There should be some mitigation in terms of increased
temperature, as well as prevention, those areas that are going
to be especially affected. And is science so good to tell us
those areas that are going to be especially affected? If sea
levels rise a meter, does that pretty much flood all of Miami?
Dr. Lomborg. No, it doesn't. The cost of Miami--the wealth
of Miami----
Mr. Perlmutter. It--no--without----
Dr. Lomborg. --is so great that----
Mr. Perlmutter. Without dikes, without dikes, does that
flood Miami? Because Miami is less than a meter.
Dr. Lomborg. It probably would flood----
Mr. Perlmutter. So if I just do my basic----
Dr. Lomborg. --significant parts of Miami, yes.
Mr. Perlmutter. --map--okay. So, you know, everybody's been
talking about the cost of this, and so I want to turn my
attention to you for a second, Mr. Grossman. And you guys have
an office in Denver. Have--did you talk to anybody in the
Denver office before you came to testify today?
Mr. Grossman. No, I did not.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. Do you know what--in Colorado we were
the very first to pass by ballot an initiative renewable
portfolio standards. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Grossman. I'm aware that Colorado has such a law.
Mr. Perlmutter. Are you aware of what our unemployment rate
is today in Colorado? Three point eight percent. And I have
many friends who are partners at your firm, and I'd say that
they're probably doing pretty well because we are doing well in
Colorado, despite taking some very rigorous steps with respect
to the environment because in Colorado we appreciate the
outdoors, we appreciate our climate, and even so, we've managed
to continue to have strong employment across all industries,
except for oil and gas, which has dropped like a rock because
the Saudis are pumping like crazy.
So are you--I mean so is it your testimony that because of
clean action plan or these kinds of things, that that causes a
reduction in employment?
Mr. Grossman. I think my testimony concerns the legal
authority----
Mr. Perlmutter. All right. So----
Mr. Grossman. --of the executive to enter into a Paris
agreement.
Mr. Perlmutter. Okay. So looking at your testimony----
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. The gentleman's time has expired.
Thank you. We have other members that----
Mr. Perlmutter. That's true.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. --need to go.
The Chair now recognizes our colleague from Alabama, Mr.
Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to go back to you, Mr. Grossman, and the point you
were about to make. The President has made it clear that he
doesn't plan to submit any agreement reached in Paris to the
Senate. Does the position of Congress, the official position of
Congress on a particular policy issue have any bearing on
whether or not the agreement requires Congressional approval?
Mr. Grossman. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. The answer is
yes. Congress's position makes a great deal of difference,
particularly in this instance because potentially the
Administration, if there were some kind of binding agreement,
might point to the Framework Convention perhaps as supporting
that, and were there any legal challenge over that, the first
thing the courts would look to would be Congressional
understanding----
Mr. Palmer. All right.
Mr. Grossman. --of what that is.
Mr. Palmer. All right. Let me--I have a little short clip
I'd like to show if the staff can put that up that I think
might bring some clarity to where Congress is on this. Can they
do the video?
[Video shown.]
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. Is there any ambiguity there, Mr.
Grossman?
Mr. Grossman. No, there is not.
Mr. Palmer. I don't think that it's an issue here in regard
to the legality of what the President is doing as to whether or
not we should debate this issue. Clearly, we should. I think
that Congress has debated this issue. It's been pointed out
that Congress brought up a cap-and-trade bill, which is
arguably the same thing as the Clean Power Plan, and rejected
it. It was passed by the House but rejected by the Senate. And
I would like to point out that my colleagues on the Democrat
side controlled both houses of Congress. So Congress has
spoken.
You just heard from the Energy and Commerce Committee--I
think that was in 2009--who was present as a Member of Congress
when the Clean Air Act was passed, and it's clear that it was
never the intention of Congress to give the executive branch
through the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
So back to your point, I think this is relevant. I think we
talk about the danger of global climate change, but I think
there's another danger here that needs to be addressed, and
that is the loss of the authority of Congress to make laws.
So I think there's another point I want to make. Dr.
Lomborg, are you familiar with a paper that was published--I
think it was last year by Dr. Philip J. Lloyd, who was one of
the lead authors for the International Panel on Climate Change.
And he says that he now concludes that the majority of climate
change is the result of natural variation. Are you familiar
with that?
Dr. Lomborg. No, I'm not. Sorry.
Mr. Palmer. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter this
abstract into the record if we may do so.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. Without objection.
[The information appears in Appendix II]
Mr. Palmer. Thank you. I think that if climate change is
predominantly the result of natural variation, I think logic
would require us to put as much emphasis on dealing with the
consequences of climate change as a result of natural
variation, maybe even more so as the science continues to
evolve on this, than spending enormous amounts of money and
resources on human activities. Would you agree with that, Dr.
Lomborg? It's a yes or no.
Dr. Lomborg. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Palmer. Okay. I think to you, Dr. Steer, and your
comments about forcing people into smaller and smaller
environments and living spaces and changing their cultures and
how they live reminds me of a book that came out in 1978 by a
guy named Clarence B. Carson, the ``World in the Grip of an
Idea,'' and his point, if I may simplify it, is basically that
there's always this great idea out there that empowers
government to do things that people don't want it to do to--and
in this case it's achieving human progress through saving the
planet and focusing everyone's efforts on that and using
government power as the instrument to achieve that end.
My time is expired. I yield, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson of Ohio. The gentleman has yielded back. I now
recognize our colleague from California, Mr. Swalwell.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the
witnesses taking the time to come here today.
And, Mr. Cass, are you a scientist?
Mr. Cass. No.
Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Grossman?
Mr. Grossman. No, sir.
Mr. Swalwell. And I know Dr. Lomborg and Dr. Steer are. And
with respect to Mr. Cass and Mr. Grossman, you know, I think
one of the chief complaints that my colleagues and I have
around this issue--we're here talking about climate change--is
that we're not hearing from scientists. I mean I'm a lawyer. I
know Mr. Perlmutter is a recovering lawyer himself. But we
would be best informed by having scientists testify before this
committee.
When I was a prosecutor and I wanted to prove a murder
case, I had DNA testimony, I would not call in somebody who
watches CSI as my DNA witness. I would call in a scientist. And
I think the fact that this committee chooses to run from
science rather than to put forward scientists only hurts our
ability to get to the bottom of this issue.
I also am not a scientist but I can read and understand
numbers. And I've heard so much talk about the will of the
American people and an elected Congress, and I just wanted to
go through some numbers for my colleagues. In 2008, a Senator
named Barack Obama ran for President of the United States. He
made it unequivocally clear that, if elected President, he
would take bold actions to address greenhouse gas emissions,
including the policies he would enact. He was elected in 2008
by 52 percent of the popular vote and doubled the electoral
vote that his Republican opponent received.
In 2012, having already taken four years of actions on
climate change, he was reelected with 51 percent of the popular
vote. Over 3 million more people elected him than his
Republican opponent. A majority of Americans have elected the
person trying to take on these negotiations. An overwhelming
majority of nations are participating in these negotiations.
And an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that climate
change is real, it's caused by man, and we should do something
about it.
Dr. Steer, I ask are we really gathered here today to say
that so many people are so wrong about this issue?
Dr. Steer. Well, just last week Pew came out with a poll
that says 2/3 of Americans want the United States to join the
Climate Change Pact. So I think you're making a very good
point, Congressman.
Mr. Swalwell. And, you know, I really respect Dr. Lomborg's
position and I respect his credentials, and I think there's a
difference of opinion here as to the actions. And that's where
I'd like to see our country really move this debate to, which
is acknowledging that it's happening, acknowledging who has
caused it, but really getting into the details as far as
solutions.
And if you could summarize, Dr. Steer, what are some of the
solutions you think that both Republicans and Democrats could
agree on that could move us forward and show real action on
this issue?
Dr. Steer. Well, I do sense that we all care about our
grandchildren and great-grandchildren, so there clearly, you
know, is a reason to work together. A price on carbon need not
be an ideological issue. It need not increase the size of
government. Indeed, it could shrink the size of government.
It's just a smart way to re-orientate the way we collect money.
Go to Singapore and you will find that actually you are charged
to drive your car into the center of the city. That goes into
the general revenue. So instead of that, that enables them to
lower taxes on profits, for example.
London does the same thing whereby you don't even know-
you're paying the fee as you drive into London, but as a result
of that, you know, I was born in London, I now will never drive
into London the rest of my life. I don't need to, quite
frankly. It's a psychological shift. And life is much better,
quite frankly. The center of London is better. We have good
public transportation.
That's--and as a result of that, the Mayor of London, who
is a pretty conservative guy, Boris Johnson, he's able to lower
other fees that the businesses are paying. It doesn't need to
be ideological at all. So it seems to me that's one area.
And this is where, you know, I'm really interested by this
discussion about, you know, China's not doing anything and so
on. I mean, China is spending far more than any other country
in the world on renewable energy. It has figured out how to
invest in research. We should, as we are now going to do, have
a partnership with them. That should be a reasonable
understanding that will drive down the costs.
And by the way, we say that China now is getting off for
free. In fact, China has a commitment to lower its carbon-to-
GDP ratio by 65 percent by 2030. So don't kid--nobody should
believe that China's not doing as much as it could.
Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Dr. Steer. And I yield back.
Mrs. Comstock. [Presiding] Thank you. And I now recognize
myself for five minutes.
I want to thank Mr. Cass and Mr. Grossman and Dr. Lomborg.
And I think I wanted to highlight something that you had said,
Mr. Cass, in your testimony, that ``climate policy that does
not help the climate is not good policy.'' And I think the
results are what the three of you are trying to focus on if I'm
correct, and really looking at a results-focused policy.
And if I'm understanding this correctly, your concern is
not--I mean we've had a lot of discussion about the costs and
things that are running up here, but the real problem here is
that it's not doing what it says it's going to do, is that
correct?
Mr. Cass. That's exactly right.
Mrs. Comstock. And so the--this sort of--I guess it's
called pledge-and-review process really is more of a praise-
and-hope. I feel like it's a little bit like when the children
all get their trophy for the soccer game except this is a very
expensive trophy because we're hoping this increases their
self-esteem so to speak or we're hoping they're going to do
more. I think some of the testimony you had cited was, you
know, this is--we hope this will all make everyone feel better
to do a little bit more. So it's not results-focused, so this
is not about what we intend.
And I appreciate, Dr. Steer, you recognizing we all care
about our children and grandchildren because we certainly do
and want to have a cleaner environment. And I come from
Virginia, a state that did not put in a renewable portfolio but
we did work very aggressively on the state level on an all-of-
the-above strategy, seeing where we could find things. We
actually passed a bill that we're still waiting for the
federals to allow us to implement, which would have offshore
drilling and the royalties from that go towards, in part,
research in our universities for renewables and for alternative
energies. It would be a way of using what we have now while
we're investing in these other things without imposing a lot of
these costs that you were doing.
And I will point out in Virginia we have a really low
unemployment rate, too, but unfortunately, in southwest
Virginia if you talk to my colleague Morgan Griffith, you'll
find he has a very high unemployment rate due to the decimation
of our coal industry. And, you know, poverty has its threats
and problems, too, which they've had to deal with.
So what I wanted to ask is what--since we really are
concerned about results and having a cleaner environment, and
actually, instead of a praise-and-hope, sort of a trust-and-
verify type of system but also very measurable-so that we're
not just kind of getting together in Paris and doing something
to feel good but something that will actually improve our
economy, improve people's everyday life, and not impose on the
least of us and the poorest of us what they need. So if you
could describe some of that. I think you've testified to that
but I wanted to really clarify--you all really are going into--
so there's a third way here we often don't talk about, and I
think we've sort of been talking past that so I wanted to give
you an opportunity to----
Mr. Cass. Yes, thank you. I think that's exactly the right
way of framing the issue. And I would make two points. One is
that in terms of affirmative policies that are worth taking, by
far the most important is investment in research and
development. And I think you've heard a lot of consensus from
Dr. Steer, Dr. Lomborg. I would agree with that as well that
the only way we're going to address this problem long term is
if we have new technologies that are cheaper than fossil fuels
that developing countries want to use. And we don't have that
today.
I think the second piece that's very important is just some
fundamental honesty in the processes we're using and what's
happening. I think you're right to call out this kind of
pledge-and-review concept as not really being pursued
faithfully.
And I would say I genuinely have a tremendous amount of
respect for Dr. Steer. I think it very--is very problematic the
way that he has characterized the pledges that countries are
making. I mentioned that China has pledged only to peak where
it was going to peak anyway. He didn't contest that. He offered
a new statistic, which is that they plan to be more efficient
in their use of carbon, which is true, but Bloomberg New Energy
Finance, which is a--certainly not a right-wing analyst of
these issues--looked specifically at that pledge and similarly
found that that was less aggressive than the trajectory that
China was already on.
And you can go right down the list of major developing
countries. You know, Dr. Steer mentioned Prime Minister Modi.
India's pledge is perhaps the weakest of all of them. India
refused to make any pledge with respect to emissions and said
only that it would improve its efficiency less quickly than it
is already improving its efficiency. And so, you know, at one
point Dr. Steer said if I were upset, I would say it. And I
think it's important that people say it, that this process in
Paris is not producing commitments, that leadership by the
United States is not getting developing countries to do things
they wouldn't otherwise do. And if that's the case, then
incurring the costs that we're incurring here, even the Obama
Administration would say doesn't make very much sense.
Mrs. Comstock. I appreciate that because the worst thing is
when we cost everyone a lot of money and don't get any results.
Then that's the worst of all worlds. And I think if we can kind
of unite on some of those things, you know, we want to have
good results. So I appreciate your highlighting that and us
able to also discuss the science of this and getting to a
results-focused orientation.
So I would like to, on behalf of the Chairman and on behalf
of the committee, thank the witnesses for their insightful
testimony, all of our witnesses, and the members for their
questions. And the record will remain open for two weeks for
additional written comments and written questions from members.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix I
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Questions submitted by Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions submitted by Chairman Lamar Smith
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Appendix II
----------
Additional Material for the Record
Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement submitted by Representative Suzanne Bonamici
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]