[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLIMATE CHANGE, PART IV:.
MOVING TOWARDS A.
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 24, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-120
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov,
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-980 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of James Comer, Kentucky, Ranking
Columbia Minority Member
Wm. Lacy Clay, Missouri Jim Jordan, Ohio
Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jim Cooper, Tennessee Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia Thomas Massie, Kentucky
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Jody B. Hice, Georgia
Jamie Raskin, Maryland Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin
Harley Rouda, California Gary Palmer, Alabama
Ro Khanna, California Michael Cloud, Texas
Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Florida Clay Higgins, Louisiana
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Peter Welch, Vermont Chip Roy, Texas
Jackie Speier, California Carol D. Miller, West Virginia
Robin L. Kelly, Illinois Mark E. Green, Tennessee
Mark DeSaulnier, California Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Brenda L. Lawrence, Michigan W. Gregory Steube, Florida
Stacey E. Plaskett, Virgin Islands Fred Keller, Pennsylvania
Jimmy Gomez, California
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
Katie Porter, California
David Rapallo, Staff Director
Britteny Jenkins, Chief Counsel
Amy Stratton, Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
Christopher Hixon, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Environment
Harley Rouda, California, Chairman
Rashida Tlaib, Michigan Mark E. Green, Tennessee, Ranking
Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois Minority Member
Jackie Speier, California Paul A. Gosar, Arizona
Jimmy Gomez, California Gary Palmer, Alabama
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Bob Gibbs, Ohio
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota
Columbia
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 24, 2020............................... 1
Witnesses
Robert C. Orr, Ph.D, Dean, University of Maryland School of
Public Policy
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Rachel Cleetus, Ph.D, Policy Director, Climate and Energy
Program, Union of Concerned Scientists
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Christopher Castro, Senior Advisor to Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer,
Director of Sustainability & Resilience, City of Orlando
Oral Statement................................................... 10
Kevin Dayaratna, Ph.D., Principal Statistician, Data Scientist,
and Research Fellow, Institute for Economic Freedom
Oral Statement................................................... 12
Reed Schuler, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Governor,
Governor Jay Inslee
Oral Statement................................................... 14
Written opening statements and statements for the witnesses are
available on the U.S. House of Representatives Document
Repository at: docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
Documents entered into the record during this hearing are
available at: docs.house.gov.
* Pictures; submitted by Rep. Gibbs.
CLIMATE CHANGE, PART IV:
MOVING TOWARDS A
SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
----------
Thursday, September 24, 2020
House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties
Committee on Oversight and Reform
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:17 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Harley Rouda,
presiding.
Present: Representatives Rouda, Maloney, Tlaib, Gomez,
Norton, Green, Palmer, and Gibbs.
Mr. Rouda. The committee will come to order. Without
objection the chair is authorized to declare a recess of the
committee at any time.
I now recognize myself for an opening statement.
This is the final hearing in the Environmental Subcommittee
series on climate change. Last year, the subcommittee explored
the early scientific consensus on climate change, a reality
confirmed in the 1970's and 1980's by internal scientists at
major fossil fuel companies such as Exxon and Shell concluded
that climate change was real, and it was caused by fossil
fuels. This reality was later denied by those same companies
once the United States began to take action to address climate
change and global warming.
In subsequent hearings and briefings the subcommittee
examined and laid out the current devastating consequences of
climate change for public health, the frequency and severity of
natural disasters, and our economic well-being.
We are seeing the devastating effects of climate change
right now. In addition to the devastating loss of more than
200,000 lives from the coronavirus, we are also seeing climate-
fueled disasters impact the safety and security of Americans
across the country. The entire West Coast of the United States
is currently experiencing debilitating fires. Washington
Governor Jay Inslee said it best, ``These are not just
wildfires. These are climate fires.''
We are experiencing destruction and loss of life on an
unprecedented scale, and there are still many months of
expected fire activity ahead. My home state of California's
wildfire season is already the most severe in modern history.
More than 2.5 million acres have already burned, nearly 20
times what had burned at this time last year. In fact, the five
largest wildfires in California's history have all occurred in
the last three years, and one on these five wildfires, three
have started this year.
As a result of warming ocean waters we are currently
experiencing what is shaping up to be the worst hurricane
season in history. The breakneck pace for named hurricanes has
far outpaced the 11-storm seasonal average. In fact, we have
already run out of names and are now using the Greek alphabet
to name storms. This has only happened one other time in our
history.
And to make matters worse, in August, amid a historic heat
wave in the West, Death Valley, California, saw 130 degrees
Fahrenheit, which ranks among the top three highest
temperatures ever measured on the planet at any time, and may,
in fact, be the highest ever.
I have often said that the difference between taking
climate action and the continued abdication of our
responsibilities will result in either a world of opportunity
or apocalyptic reality. Unfortunately, we are already seeing
what a lack of action means. Action is our only choice,
especially when you take into effect how inaction on climate
change would affect our economy. And let's be clear, this is
not a partisan perspective. It is what we are being told by the
experts.
According to the Trump administration's own Fourth National
Climate Assessment, continued greenhouse gas emissions could
decimate up to 10 percent of the gross national product by
2100. However, if we choose to act on climate change and if
nations meet the Paris Climate Accord's goal of maintaining a
1.5-degree Celsius rise in global temperature by 2100, global
GDP would increase by $20 trillion, compared with a 2-degree
Celsius rise. Again, action on climate makes good economic
sense.
By recognizing the challenge at hand, seizing this moment
and prioritizing justice and equity in the transition to the
future, we have the potential to usher in a new era of economic
growth, job creation, and opportunity for all Americans. While
the challenge is great, the opportunities are even greater.
Harnessing American ingenuity and innovation through investment
and incentives will create the jobs of the future. Indeed, it
already has.
Developing and deploying new and emerging technologies for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions and mitigating existing
carbon pollution is good for business. Some of the largest
companies are already pivoting and making sizable investments
in these tools. Advancing strategies to de-carbonize the
industry and achieve net zero emission goals will result in
economic growth. We are already seeing cities and states across
the country rise to the challenge in the absence of Federal
leadership.
The Federal Government is the largest employer in the
United States, the largest purchaser of goods and services in
the world, and an important partner to states, localities,
tribal governments, the public and private sectors, and other
countries. The Oversight Committee's climate change agenda aims
to utilize the Federal Government's unique position in the
fight against climate change by making important reforms in the
pursuit of greener, more efficient, and more just policies,
programs, and processes. Alongside Chairwoman Maloney, I am
proud to introduce the Federal Agency Climate Planning
Resilience and Enhanced Preparedness Act as part of this
forward-looking agenda.
Climate change is an existential problem. It threatens
every aspect of humanity's existence. The decisions we make now
will affect life on Earth for generations to come. We cannot
afford to be idle. We do not have time to waste. It is actually
pretty simple. If we refuse to rise to meet this challenge, our
children, our grandchildren, and future generations will be
left with a planet that none of us want to see, and history
will judge the actions we take now. This is an inflection
point. When future generations look back at this moment, will
we be able to say that we did all we could, or will they tell
us that we let them down?
The eyes of the future are watching, and we will not get a
second chance to get this right. We must look beyond our time
to ensure a just and livable future for all.
Thank you. I now turn to the subcommittee's ranking member,
Mr. Green, who I welcome to the subcommittee as our new ranking
member, the esteemed colleague of ours from Tennessee, for his
opening statement.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Chairman, and I really appreciate and
am excited about being on the committee and the opportunity to
work with you on this very important issue. I want to thank the
witnesses that will be here today and their willingness to
appear before the committee to discuss the path forward on a
sustainable future.
I would like to begin by discussing the amazing progress
the United States has made on sustainability. We are leading
the world in reducing emissions. According to the International
Energy Agency, and I quote, ``The United States saw the largest
decline in energy-related CO2 emissions in 2019, on a country
basis. Because these reductions have come via innovation and
market forces, energy costs have significantly decreased
nationwide.''
Over the summer, the EPA released its annual Air Quality
Report. From 2017 to 2019, under the leadership of the
President, air pollution emissions have dropped seven percent.
Due to these falling emissions, the United States saw a
substantial improvement in air quality. The number of days
listed as unhealthy for sensitive groups in the Air Quality
Index dropped by 34 percent from 2017 to 2019.
The EPA has made large strides in many areas when it comes
to environmental protection. According to the EPA Administrator
Andrew Wheeler, quote, ``EPA has delisted 27 Superfund sites,
the most in a single year since 2001, and plans to delist 27
more this year. The EPA has also helped finance more than $40
billion in clean water infrastructure, supporting 7,100 high-
priority projects and 27,000 jobs during President Trump's
first term,'' end quote.
Although it is not widely reported by the media, the Trump
administration's EPA is continuing to hold corporations
accountable for environmental crimes. Earlier in September, the
EPA reached a settlement with Daimler Chrysler, Daimler AG, for
$1.5 billion over Mercedes-Benz's emissions cheating scandal.
These statistics are truly amazing. The Trump administration is
making substantial progress to protect the environment while
simultaneously growing the economy, and I know firsthand that
Americans across the country are also taking the initiative to
protect the environment.
Earlier this year, I had the idea to plant trees in
Tennessee's highway interchanges, which not only would reduce
CO2 through both the withdrawal of it by trees and decrease the
production of CO2 from the mowing. The icing on the cake is
beautification. I mean, who doesn't love a tree? Because of
House ethics rules, though, I couldn't really be involved with
it, so I shared my idea with friends back home who formed an
entity and are going to be planting trees in interchanges all
across Tennessee starting in November.
What we cannot do, though, is resort to fear tactics to
scare people into action regarding climate change. It is not
healthy or productive, and the mental health impacts regarding
the fear of climate change are growing at a staggering rate. A
survey of 30,000 people worldwide found that nearly all of
those people believed climate change would make humanity
extinct in the coming years.
Doomsday scenarios, almost all of which have been proven
wrong, push people out of this discussion. We have all heard
them and we have heard the revision of those predictions each
time they fail, and I believe they only serve to push
reasonable people out of the discussion. It is an important
discussion.
I hope that our committee can move past those doomsday
scenarios and headlines and focus on the policy steps we can
take, we can be taking right now, and what their costs and
impacts really are. After multiple hearings on climate change
this year, I am encouraged that we will be hearing from
majority witnesses who will hopefully describe a sensible path
forward to safeguard America's health, unlike unrealistic pipe
dreams such as the Green New Deal. According to a study
performed a minority witness, one part of the Green New Deal
would cost an average family $165,000 and wipe out 5.2 million
jobs with negligible climate benefit. I fear that a premature
move away from fossil fuels, particularly in poor areas, means
that they will continue to have little access to the type of
cheap, reliable energy that enables economic growth and allows
for the provision of clean water and sanitation, widespread
vaccination, and preventive child health services.
I know that from my constituents in Tennessee clean air and
clean water are vital to their livelihoods and well-being, and
as for me, I am a fly fisherman. I want my streams clear and I
want to trout in them not to glow.
It is important, also, for a robust economy. The United
States is fortunate to have copious clean energy natural
resources, and we must use those resources to advance American
interests while continuing to lead the world in emission
reductions. Inexpensive, accessible energy has led to
technological medical and other advances that have driven the
American economy and increased U.S. life expectancy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, I really look forward
to working with you.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Ranking Member, and likewise looking
forward to working with you as well.
At this time I have the honor to recognize the chairwoman
of the entire Oversight Committee, Chairwoman Maloney, and also
I would like to express my thanks for her tremendous leadership
in multiple areas, from helping save the United States Postal
Service, making sure we have a fair and just census, and for
helping on these key environmental issues that our country
faces. Thank you for your leadership.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Ranking Member, for having this incredibly important hearing.
As we commemorate Climate Week 2020, I want to start by
commending Chairman Rouda on his remarkable leadership on this
subcommittee and on one of the most urgent global crises
defining the modern era. From devastating fires in the West to
historic hurricanes in the South to rising sea levels that
threaten 40 percent of America's population near our
coastlines, the destruction of climate change is mounting and
menacing.
From his first days in Congress, Chairman Rouda has
recognized the existential threat that climate change poses to
Americans and people around the world. With this series of
hearings he has demanded accountability from fossil fuel
companies. He has exposed their undue influence over this
administration, and he has demonstrated a steadfast
determination to meet these challenges to ensure a more
sustainable and livable future for our children and
grandchildren.
Building on Chairman Rouda's great work today I released
the Oversight Committee's Climate Change Agenda. This is a set
of bills to implement recommendations from the Select Committee
on the Climate Crisis that fall within our jurisdiction. Our
Committee's Climate Change Agenda focuses on the Federal
Government's unique position in the fight against climate
change. The Federal Government is the largest employer in the
United States and the largest purchaser of goods and services
in the world. It is an important partner to states, localities,
tribal governments, the public and private sectors, and other
countries. Our agenda takes advantage of this leverage to move
our country forward.
For example, Chairman Rouda and I are introducing a new
bill called the Federal Agency Climate PREP Act. Senator Amy
Klobuchar is introducing the same bill in the Senate. Our
legislation is modeled on two Executive orders issued by
President Obama to build climate change preparedness,
mitigation, resiliency into all aspects of Federal Government
operations. Our bill would require each agency to create a
climate change adaptation plan, with strategies for confronting
risk to agency missions, operations, and programs. These plans
would address any agency's practices that worsen climate change
threats, and they would identify strategies to tackle the
disproportionate impacts of climate change on front-line
communities and vulnerable populations. Our bill also would
establish a Council on Federal Agency Climate PREP to guide the
implementation of Federal preparedness and resilient actions
and to work with state and local leaders to improve Federal
efforts to support these goals.
An effective Federal response to climate change begins with
evidence-based planning that recognizes the magnitude of the
threat and responds accordingly. American lives, livelihoods,
ecosystem security, prosperity depend on strategic and whole-
of-government efforts in the face of climate crisis. Our
committee's Climate Change Agenda also includes other
innovation-and action-oriented legislation by our colleagues,
including Representatives Don McEachin, Julia Brownley, Peter
Welch, Matt Cartwright, and many others.
For example, it includes a bill I introduced with
Representative Gerry Connolly, the chairman of our Subcommittee
on Government Operations, and Representative Jared Huffman,
that would build a fleet of the future at the Postal Service by
upgrading its vehicles to electric or zero-emissions by 2040.
Today's hearing is an important opportunity to look forward
to identify change like these that are doable, that are within
our power, and then to take action. I thank you, Chairman
Rouda, again, for your invaluable partnership and your
leadership on this critical, critical issue, and I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney, and again, thank
you for your incredible leadership. Ranking Member, would you
like to add any additional commentary before we go to the
witnesses?
OK. Now I would like to introduce our witnesses. Our first
witness today is Robert C. Orr, PhD, who is the dean of the
University of Maryland School of Public Policy. Next, we will
hear from Rachel Cleetus, PhD, who is the Policy Director of
the Climate and Energy Program of the Union of Concerned
Scientists. Then we will hear from Christopher Castro who is
Senior Advisor to Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer and Director of
Sustainability and Resilience for the city of Orlando. We will
also hear from the Republican witness, Kevin Dayaratna, PhD,
who is a Principal Statistician, Data Scientist, and Research
Fellow at the Institute for Economic Freedom for The Heritage
Foundation. Finally, we will also hear from Reed Schuler, who
is the Senior Policy Advisor at the Office of the Governor for
Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State.
The witnesses will be unmuted so we can swear them in.
Please raise your right hands.
Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to
give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. Orr. I do.
Ms. Cleetus. Yes.
Mr. Castro. I do.
Mr. Dayaratna. I do.
Mr. Rouda. Let the record show that the witnesses answered
in the affirmative. Thank you.
Without objection, your written statements will be made
part of the record. With that, Dr. Orr, you are now recognized
for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. ORR, PhD, DEAN, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND,
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY
Mr. Orr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairwoman Maloney,
Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member Green, and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to testify before
you.
Today we face a climate reckoning that imperils our planet
and our country. In the last month alone we have witnessed the
American West burn, the South flood, and the Midwest ripped by
severe storms, all indications of the new abnormal that climate
change visits upon us year after year.
I will focus my remarks today on enhancing our economic
transformation and competitiveness and building our resilience
to inevitable climate shocks. Addressing climate change is at
its core an issue of economic development strategy. The
countries that transition their economies most adroitly will
benefit the most. Around the world, governments are using their
policy levers to position themselves. Unfortunately, the United
States, at the Federal level, is moving in the opposite
direction, letting others seize the commanding heights of the
21st century economy.
We are seeing this competition play out in many areas,
three of which I will discuss today. First, renewable energy.
Looking at the $2.6 trillion investment in renewable energy
capacity over the last decade, China has captured 31 percent of
the total and the U.S. only 14. There is only one U.S.-based
company in the top ten global wind manufacturers. This is a
consequence of deliberate policy efforts by governments.
Meanwhile, the United States is asleep at the switch.
Historically, the Federal Government played a key role in
the development of renewable energy and it must do so again.
While many governments are using economic recovery funds to
stimulate their industries of the future, in the U.S. we have
committed $72 billion of public money to support fossil fuel,
compared to only $27 billion for renewable energy. As we invest
in the recovery, the extension of tax incentives for renewable
energy generation should be central.
Second, policy and market forces are shifting the
automotive industry toward electrification. Top automotive
manufacturers plan to spend more than $300 billion globally
over the next 10 years to increase production of electric
vehicles, and 17 countries, and now California, have announced
the phase-out of the internal combustion engine altogether in
passenger cars. Yet China commands 50 percent of the electric
vehicle production and produces 11 times the number of battery
cells than the U.S., again, asleep at the switch.
The European Union has placed support of the clean energy
transition at the core of its 750-billion-euro recovery
package. China, Korea, and others the same. In the U.S.,
nothing. The significant downward revision of the CAFE fuel
standards has had the effect of taking our foot off the
accelerator just as others are racing toward the electric
transition. The Federal Government needs to reintroduce
ambitious mileage standards. Our auto companies can compete.
Third, smart electrical grids have arisen as the critical
infrastructure of the 21st century. Over the last decade, China
has invested more in its electric grid than the United States
has in all but one of those 10 years. China has prioritized
ultra-high voltage transmission grids in its pandemic recovery
plan and will spend nearly $27 billion in 2020 alone.
The scale of investment needed in this area demands a
coherent U.S. Federal Government response. A bipartisan
infrastructure package that privileges great modernization in
partnership with the utility industry is both necessary and
possible.
Even as we pursue competitive strategies to mitigate
climate change, we must also dramatically increase our
resilience to the profound and increasing impacts of climate
change. First, health. Extensive research points to tight
linkages between climate change and the adverse health impacts
of air pollution and heat-related illnesses. The U.S. Federal
Government can help address growing climate health nexus by
fully funding research into extreme weather, particularly
through NOAA, as well as health impacts of extreme weather by
NIH.
Second, increased resilience will require addressing our
public and private insurance system's declining ability to
adequately protect Americans against risk in the face of
climate change. The Federal Government's National Flood
Insurance Program and Federal Crop Insurance Corporation need
to be reviewed and reformed in light of the changing risk
equation posed by climate change, and if they are not they will
continue to support, at increasing cost to taxpayers, behaviors
incompatible with our new climate realities.
Finally, climate change is a global problem that requires
global solutions, and the United States has been central in
organizing the world to respond to this challenge from the
beginning. In the past four years, however, the United States
has abdicated its global leadership position. Two days ago,
President Xi Jinping of China announced China's intent to reach
net-zero climate emissions before 2060, while the European
Union announced plans to do so before 2050. The United States
can and must move from missing in action to leading the action.
The Federal Government can transform itself from ballast to
catalyst by leading national efforts to leverage the many U.S.
strengths to promote a race to the top with other countries, a
race that everyone can win by doing more, faster.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Dr. Orr. Dr. Cleetus, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF RACHEL CLEETUS, PhD, POLICY DIRECTOR, CLIMATE AND
ENERGY PROGRAM, UNION OF CONCERNED STUDENTS
Ms. Cleetus. Hello, and thank you, Chairwoman Mahoney,
Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member Green, and members of the
committee for providing me the opportunity to testify here
remotely today. My name is Rachel Cleetus, and I am the policy
director for the climate and energy program at the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
Our nation faces multiple compounding crises right now--the
COVID-19 pandemic, an economic crisis, the climate crisis, and
a longstanding crisis of systemic racism. These crises have
also laid bare and exacerbated the fundamental socioeconomic
inequities of our society. We must respond with bold,
multifaceted, and just solutions at the Federal level, which
can help our Nation recover and rebuild from the current crises
while also setting us on a path to a fairer, healthier, more
prosperous, and climate-safe economy in the long term.
We have just passed a tragic milestone of 200,000 deaths
from COVID-19, 6.9 million cases. Millions of people are out of
work, many facing a loss in unemployment benefits, potential
eviction, loss of health insurance.
Meanwhile, the climate crisis continues unabated. As
Chairman Rouda says, we are in the midst of a devastating,
unrelenting hurricane and wildfire season, and these climate
extremes we are experiencing are very costly, with the Nation
experiencing multiple billion-dollar disasters. The science is
clear that if we fail to limit our
[inaudible] emissions,these kinds of impacts will worsen
considerably.
That is why, increasingly, across the board, including
major financial sector assets like bonds, businesses,
regulators in the financial sector, many are sounding the
alarm. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly
flagged climate change as a key area of fiscal exposure for the
Federal Government, calling for better management and risk
reduction.
Our own research at UCS shows that under the high sea rise
level scenario, by 2045 about 325,000 coastal properties, worth
$136 billion will be at risk of chronic flooding, and that
rises to approximately 2.5 million U.S. coastal homes and
commercial properties currently worth more than $1 trillion by
the end of the century. Without global action to reduce heat-
trapping emissions, our research also shows that the number of
days per year when the heat index exceeds 100 degrees
Fahrenheit would more than double from historical levels to an
average of 36 across the country by midcentury and increase
fourfold to an average of 54 by late century.
UCS has also analyzed the threats of sea level rise to
military installations in the U.S., which would pose
significant risks to servicemembers and essential operations.
For example, of the 18 military installations along the coasts
that we analyzed, by 2050 most of these installations will see
more than 10 times the number of floods. Eight bases are at
risk of losing between 25 to 50 percent or more of their land
by the end of the century, and four are at risk of losing 75 to
95 percent of their land. By midcentury, more military
installations in the U.S. could experience nearly five times
the
[inaudible].
The good news is we can limit the costs and harms of
climate change if we make investments in a just and equitable
transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy
immediately. We have to get on this task. States, cities,
businesses, and ordinary people are leading the way, but we
cannot achieve our goals without robust Federal action.
The U.S. must contribute its fair share to global goals by
achieving net-zero carbon emissions no later than 2050 and
cuttings its emissions by at least half by 2030. We need
Federal policies to use renewable energy and efficiency
[inaudible] modernized electricity, electrifying
transportation, and other
[inaudible] investing in R&D, investing in climate-smart
agricultural and forestry practices. This is a part of our
future that we should embrace, because not only will we cut
carbon emissions, we can also create jobs, build public health,
and address longstanding inequities.
We have to invest proactively in resilience to help prepare
and protect communities. The climate agenda must address the
cumulative burden of toxic and harmful pollution in
overburdened communities, ensuring that they also benefit
directly and equitably from our investments in clean energy. A
fair conviction that is also centered on needs of working
people, making sure that they are providing retiree pensions
and health benefits, training, job opportunities, and
investments in communities that are being hurt as they move
away from fossil fuels.
Our ability to solve these challenges like COVID-19 and the
climate crisis depend on working together with the global
community. We urge Congress to engage directly and move forward
with a direct diverse set of statements to pass legislation. We
welcome the majority report from the House Select Committee and
the climate agenda that has been put forward by this committee
today by Chairwoman Maloney and Chairman Rouda.
I want to say that our children deserve to know that we
will come together to do our utmost to safeguard their future
in the face of the climate crisis, just as we are trying to do
right now in the midst of COVID-19. Let us not get into short-
sightedness and selfishness. Let's be guided by the science and
do what is right. States shouldn't be...
[inaudible].
Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today.
Ms. Tlaib.
[Presiding.] Thank you so much, Doctor. I will now
recognize Director Castro. You are now recognized for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER CASTRO, SENIOR ADVISOR TO ORLANDO
MAYOR BUDDY DYER; DIRECTOR OF SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE,
CITY OF ORLANDO
Mr. Castro. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Rouda,
Chairwoman Maloney, Ranking Member Green, and distinguished
members of the subcommittee. It is with great honor and
privilege that I appear before you today. My name is Chris
Castro, and over the last 14 years I have devoted my studies
and my professional career and my life to advancing solutions
to the climate crisis and implementing sustainability
strategies that aim to improve health and well-being of our
community, our environment, and our economy.
Today I come before you on behalf of the city of Orlando,
Florida, in my capacity as the senior climate advisor to
Orlando Mayor Buddy Dyer and the director of the City's Office
of Sustainability and Resilience. In this role, over the last
six and a half years, I have helped to foster a wide array of
public policies, community programs, and creative partnerships
that aim to advance local climate solutions and our collective
vision of Orlando becoming a model city of the future, one of
the most environmentally friendly, socially inclusive and
equitable, and economically vibrant cities in America.
Orlando has quickly become a critical player in the climate
leadership and innovation in Florida and in the Southeastern
United States. We became an early signatory of the Paris
Climate Agreement for cities in 2016, joined the Global
Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, sit on the steering
committee of the national U.S. Climate Mayors network, and
currently a winner in the American Cities Climate Challenge.
In Orlando, we utilize the most accurate science and data
to determine our client action strategy. After performing an
annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory for the last 12
years, we have uncovered that the majority of our carbon
emissions, 72 percent, were associated with energy use in
commercial and residential buildings, followed 25 percent from
transportation, and the rest from our waste system.
Following a year's worth of community engagement and
feedback sessions we developed the Green Works Orlando
Community Action Plan, which provides a comprehensive set of
goals, objectives, and strategies that are guiding our pathway
forward toward a net-zero carbon future by 2050.
With the remainder of my time I plan to share high-level
highlights of these solutions.
The first priority in addressing the climate crisis, we
have been boosting energy efficiency in existing buildings and
spurring green construction. With buildings contributing the
vast majority of our emissions, and often wasting up to 30
percent of the energy used, we have prioritized energy
efficiency in buildings as one of the most cost-effective and
impactful climate solutions today.
Learning from the efficiency investments made through the
EECBG funding provided during the Recovery Act, the city
decided to pursue a $17.5 million municipal green bond to
invest in city property, retrofitting outdated city buildings
with high-efficiency technologies like LED lighting and HVAC
technologies, building controls, and even rooftop solar. Today,
we are saving over 20 percent of the energy when compared to
the baseline across over 7 million square feet of real estate
and more than $2 million in operational cost savings per year.
Regarding new construction, we have established a mandatory
green building policy for the city, similar to the Federal
rules, resulting in LEED certification for city-owned buildings
since 2012. And to go further, we have established green
affordable housing criteria for city-supported housing projects
that begin to address high energy burdens in low-income
communities.
Our second priority focuses on decarbonizing our
electricity generation and rapidly advancing renewable energy.
Despite the strong dependence on fossil fuels, over the last
few years a solar panel installer has become the fastest-
growing job of any sector in the state of Florida, but yet we
only get less than two percent of our electricity from this
abundant resource.
In partnership with our hometown utility, OUC, we are
ramping up solar in our community as a green economic
development strategy, installing rooftop solar arrays on city
buildings, solar canopies over parking lots, ground-mounted
solar on brownfield sites, and even floating solar at the
Orlando International Airport stormwater ponds.
Our ultimate goal in Orlando is to achieve net-zero carbon
and 100 percent clean and renewable energy sources by 2050
citywide.
Our third priority focuses on accelerating the adoption of
zero-emission electric vehicles and E-buses. With
transportation contributing to 25 percent of our emissions in
Orlando, we have been looking to address this by enhancing more
safe and alternative transportation options to reduce vehicle
miles traveled in the city as well as ramping up EVs. Today
more than 500 publicly available EV charging stations have been
installed throughout the city at parks, rec centers, at
different parking garages, even major destinations, making us a
top EV-ready destination.
We are purchasing more electric vehicles for our city fleet
every single year, and in partnership with the Central Florida
Regional Transit Authority, known as LYNX, we will begin to
deploy electric buses this month in an effort to transition the
entire public transportation fleet to electric and alternative
fuel by 2030.
In closing I wanted to highlight a few ideas of Federal
support that could propel our efforts even further. One, I
focused on refunding the EECBG program that has catalyzed clean
energy implementation at local levels over the last 10 years.
Second, extend the investment and production tax credits for
wind, solar, electric vehicles, and batteries, and consider
reallocation of Federal subsidies that exist in other legacy
technologies.
Standardize the cost-effectiveness tests used at state
energy efficiency programs to ensure that efficiency is
considered a ``first fuel'' in utility rulemaking. Assist
public transit agencies in electrifying their bus fleets by
expanding the Low-No grants and other financing mechanisms and
continue to explore putting a price on carbon or another form
of valuing the externalities that are currently accelerating
the problem.
If you take anything away from this testimony, I hope that
you realize that the work that is happening at the local level
in cities like Orlando is not only happening, but it is showing
measurable progress, and momentum is building. But there is no
doubt that we need Federal climate leadership, partnership, and
support, now more than ever, to help double-down on the climate
solutions that advance a greener and more equitable future for
all Americans.
Thank you all for your service and I look forward to your
questions. I yield back.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Director Castro. I want to
thank you and now recognize Dr. Dayaratna. You are now
recognized for testimony.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN DAYARATNA, PhD, (MINORITY WITNESS),
PRINCIPAL STATISTICIAN, DATA SCIENTIST; RESEARCH FELLOW, THE
HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Dayaratna. Thank you Chairman Rouda, Ranking Member
Green, and other members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify about climate change and sustainability.
My name is Kevin Dayaratna. I am the Principal Statistician,
Data Scientist, and Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation
Center for Data Analysis. The views I express in this testimony
are my own and should not be construed as representing any
official position of The Heritage Foundation.
Energy is literally the basis of anything and everything we
do, from flipping on a light switch to starting up your car, to
enabling this very hearing to operate, and unfortunately many
people take energy for granted. Over the course of this past
decade, it has been a fundamental goal of policymakers in
Washington expand regulations across the energy sector of the
economy to address climate change.
During my work at Heritage, my colleagues and I have used
various academic models that have been used to quantify the
economic effects of climate change as well as the economic
impact of the associated regulations. In our published work, we
have found that statistical models aimed to quantify the
economic effects of climate change are nowhere near robust
enough to be suitable to guide regulatory policy. Furthermore,
the regulations associated with decarbonization will result in
devastating economic impacts with negligible impact on the
climate.
The primary metrics used by policymakers to justify carbon-
based regulations is the social cost of carbon, which is
defined as the economic damages associated with a metric ton of
carbon dioxide emissions summed across a particular time
horizon.
There are three primary statistical models that the Federal
Government has called on to estimate, in the past--has called
on in the past, excuse me--to estimate the SCC: the DICE model,
the FUND model, and the PAGE model. Over the course of my work
at Heritage, my colleagues and I have used the DICE and FUND
models, testing their sensitivity to a variety of important
assumptions. Our work, published both at Heritage as well as in
the peer-reviewed literature, has repeatedly demonstrated that
while these models might be interesting for academic exercises
their assumptions can be easily manipulated by regulators and
bureaucrats.
These models make fundamental assumptions regarding climate
sensitivity. The idea is that these models attempt to forecast
temperatures centuries into the future to quantify the
associated costs of CO2 emissions. A very reasonable question
to ask is how accurate these forecasts actually are.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity distributions are used to
quantify the earth's temperature response to a doubling of CO2
concentration. A vast amount of recently published research has
shown lower than expected climate sensitivity to CO2. Indeed,
our modeling has found recent sensitivity assumptions lowered
the SCC by as much as 80 percent compared to Federal Government
estimates.
A more fundamental question completed avoided by the
Federal Government is, are there actually any benefits
associated with CO2 emissions? Well, the model often employed
by the EPA actually includes these benefits in its calculation.
In fact, under very reasonable assumptions there are
substantial probabilities of a negative SCC, or in layman's
terms, actual benefits, in some cases as high as two-thirds,
resulting from greater CO2 prevalence, allowing increased
agriculture and forestry yields. This negative SCC estimate
would signify that CO2 emissions are not a cost but a benefit
to society.
Now I, of course, don't take the position that CO2
emissions are either an overall positive or negative
externality, but the sheer fact that the model could indicate
either, under very reasonable assumptions, speaks volumes about
how prone it is to user manipulation, which is precisely what
government bureaucrats have been able to do in the past.
So, the bottom line is regulations aimed at decarbonization
are predicated on models that have been manipulated to justify
a particular regulatory agenda. At Heritage, we have used a
clone of the Department of Energy's National Energy Modeling
System to quantify the economic impact of these and other
policies. We modeled the economic impact of the Green New Deal.
We found that the economic impacts would be quite devastating.
In particular, by 2040, the country would see an average
employment shortfall of nearly 1.1 million lost jobs, an up to
30 percent increase in house electricity expenditures, and an
aggregate $15 trillion loss in GDP.
Now last, I will talk about the climate impacts of these
policies. The primary goal of any of these decarbonization-
related policies is to reduce global climate change. At
Heritage, we have one of the EPA's actual models, the model for
the assessment of greenhouse gas-induced climate change, to
quantify the climate impact associated with the policies that I
have described. In one series of simulations, we assumed that
the United States reduced CO2 emissions by 100 percent and
attained a climate that is more sensitive than what was even
assumed by the Obama Administration's interagency working
group. We found that by 2100, there would be 0.2-degree Celsius
temperature reduction and a miniscule 2 cm sea level rise
reduction.
In conclusion, statistical models used to quantify the
economic effects of climate change are extremely sensitive to
very reasonable changes in assumptions, and thus prone to user
manipulation. Moreover, the regulatory policies regarding
decarbonization will have a devastating economic impact and
only negligible impact on the climate.
Thank you for your attention and I look forward to your
questions.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you, Doctor. Mr. Schuler, you are now
recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF REED SCHULER, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR, OFFICE OF THE
GOVERNOR, GOVERNOR JAY INSLEE
Mr. Schuler. Chairwoman Maloney, Chairman Rouda, members of
the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify here
today about solutions to the climate crisis. I am Reed Schuler,
Senior Policy Advisor for Climate and Sustainability to
Governor Jay Inslee of Washington State. Previously, I served
at the U.S. Department of State as a negotiator of the Paris
Agreement on Climate Change and as a member of the Secretary of
State's Policy Planning Staff.
In Washington State, when we talk about the climate crisis,
it is in the present tense. This month it took less than a week
for fires in our state to grow into the second-worst fire
season ever recorded. The worst came just five years prior.
These fires are without precedent in modern history. Even for
the lucky ones among us, those without asthma, with jobs that
allow us to work indoors, with homes that are not in the path
of wildfires, the fires were awful, with air quality monitors
up and down the coast recording the world's most polluted air.
For nearly two weeks I couldn't safely let my children go
outdoors. For the less fortunate, the costs were much greater--
hospitalizations, destroyed homes and businesses, lives lost,
whole communities devastated.
The fires are changing because the climate is changing, as
Governor Inslee has said and the chairman repeated. According
to the Federal Government's own assessment, over just the next
30 years, the annual area burned in the western United States
could increase two to six times from the present.
Again, as Chairman Rouda emphasized this morning and as
Governor Inslee has said, what we are experiencing are not
wildfires. They are climate fires. And as Governor Inslee wrote
last week in an open letter to the President, ``There is no
fire suppression plan on this planet that does anyone any good
if it doesn't even acknowledge the role of climate change.'' I
want my children to grow up knowing a time year called summer,
not fire season.
While the story of these fires may feel distinctly western,
climate change will not spare the rest of the country. From
flooding, agricultural productivity losses in the Midwest, to
rising sea levels in the Southeast, to more and more powerful
hurricanes across the East Coast, climate change is spreading a
dizzying array of risks across the country, and we know it is
felt disproportionately by the most vulnerable among us,
including the rural and urban poor, our tribal nations, and
communities of color.
But the worst of these risks are not inevitable. They are
the costs of failure, and failure on climate change is the path
that this administration has chosen. We have witnessed a deep
hostility toward environmental stewardship at all levels, and a
dismantling of decades of progress in protecting clean air and
clean water.
In 41 days, the formal withdrawal of the United States from
the Paris Agreement will be complete. We, in Washington State,
hope that our natural absence from the agreement will be brief,
and so do the nearly 4,000 cities, states, tribes, colleges and
universities, businesses, and faith groups who are part of the
``We Are Still In'' movement across the country.
Governor Jay Inslee is not waiting for sanity to be
restored at the Federal level, and neither are the 24 other
American Governors who make up the United States Climate
Alliance, a coalition that represents the majority of the
American population and is leading the way in fighting the
climate crisis.
Let me tell you about just some of the solutions that
Washington State has put in place. We have ambitious, science-
aligned, statutory limits on carbon pollution, and a net-zero
goal for 2050 to guide our overall efforts. We have passed a
nation-leading clean electricity law that phases out all coal
by 2025, requires carbon neutrality by 2030, and achieves 100
percent carbon-free power by 2045, all the while incentivizing
high wage and labor standards and increasing resources to
assist low-income repayors.
We are implementing a phase-down of super-polluting
hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs, some of which are thousands of
times more potent than carbon dioxide. We have created a first
of its kind statewide building performance standard for
Washington's commercial buildings, helping to incentivize
better use of energy and creating new jobs in the building
construction trades.
We are using a broad suite of tools to accelerate the
deployment of electric vehicles on our roads and reduce carbon
pollution from the transportation sector, and we are proud to
be both a Clean Car state and a Zero Emission Vehicle state,
fighting an illegal effort by this administration to tear down
these policies.
These climate solutions help, not hinder, our economy. U.S.
Climate Alliance states have reduced carbon pollution at double
the rate of the rest of the country, and at the same time we
have also grown our economies more than 30 percent faster. So,
you can understand why we are not listening to lectures on how
to unlock economic growth by letting companies pollute freely.
It is time to embark on a national mobilization to defeat
the climate crisis and to harness the innovative, moral, and
entrepreneurial spirit of the United States. We eagerly await
the necessary restoration of Federal leadership to make that
happen.
Thank you to the committee for this important hearing and
for the opportunity to testify today, and I look forward to
answering your questions.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
Representative Norton for five minutes of questioning. Ms.
Holmes Norton, are you on?
Voice. First of all, I would like to take a moment to thank
[inaudible].
Mr. Rouda. If we could pause for one second here. Somebody
is coming through that I don't think has been recognized. If
they could mute their microphone. And Representative Holmes
Norton, I believe you are ready and able?
While we work on technical difficulties there, I will
recognize the vice chair of this committee, Representative
Tlaib, for five minutes of questioning. Representative Tlaib?
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much, Chairman, and thank you all
for being here with all of us.
If this pandemic has taught us anything it is that we
cannot simply return to what they called normal when this is
all over, because normal wasn't working for millions of
Americans across the country and for thousands and families in
my district. And author and poet, Sonya Renee Taylor, put it
perfectly. She said, quote, ``We will not go back to normal.
Normal never was. Our pre-corona existence was not normal other
than that we normalized greed, inequity, exhaustion, depletion,
extraction, disconnection, confusion, rage, hoarding, hate, and
lack. We should not long to return, my friends. We are being
given an opportunity to stitch a new garment, one that fits all
of humanity and nature.''
So, to all my colleagues and to the witnesses, in stitching
this new garment it is important to consider what it means as
we try to transition into a green future and a green economy.
My constituents, as chairman knows, who came to my district,
knows that they are no strangers to what I call environmental
injustice. I represent a district that contains fossil fuel
facilities and corporate polluters throughout neighborhoods. As
a result of the decades of pollution in my community, many of
my neighbors suffer negative health impacts of this country's
dependency on fossil fuels and lacks permitting rules,
including children who are some of the highest asthma rates in
the Nation.
That is why it is important that we talk about climate
solutions, we do so in a manner that is intentional and
equitable. So, Dr. Cleetus, if we are not intention about
centering frontline communities like my district as we fight
climate crisis, what will happen to these communities?
Ms. Cleetus. I think what will happens is already happening
all around us, and we are seeing with the COVID crisis, the
economic crisis, the climate crisis. This frontline and fence
line communities are often the ones who are being
disproportionately harmed when it comes to public health
impacts, loss of jobs, loss of economic opportunities.
So, what we have here is a very clarifying moment where, as
you say, we should not be content with the status quo, business
as usual. The good news is the opportunities here are immense,
because we can do better. We must do better. With the cost of
renewable energy falling year on year by double digits in some
cases, with so many communities who are struggling to pay their
energy bills who with the right access to these clean energy
resources would be so much better off, this is a moment that we
should lean into every opportunity we have here to make the
kind of Federal Government investments and policies that would
solve multiple problems at the same time, address the economic
crisis, address these public health challenges, and help us
address the climate crisis at the same time. We are not going
to solve these crises unless we center equity injustice in our
solutions.
Ms. Tlaib. Thank you so much. I also want to spend some
time here discussing the urgent need to also plan for impacts
of climate change that vulnerable communities already
experience and will experience in the near future. According to
a report by Union of Concerned Scientists, 175 cities across
the Nation will experience extreme flooding events by 2045,
with 67 of those communities consisting of above-average
poverty levels. As many of my colleagues know, I represent the
third-poorest congressional district in the Nation.
So, Doctor, what are some of the climate resiliency
measures that can be put in place to protect these communities
from extreme weather events?
Ms. Cleetus. First and foremost, we have to recognize that
these communities often are being hit repeatedly by these kinds
of extreme weather disasters. With this hurricane season, for
example, we have seen the Gulf Coast and East Coast being
repeatedly exposed to these harms, the flooding, the loss of
power, the public health negative impacts that fall on
communities.
So, the kinds of investments we need to make is, first and
foremost, making sure that people have safe, affordable
housing, that the investments and resilience in floodproofing,
fireproofing, heatproofing that we are doing go to all
communities. We need to make sure that we are upgrading our
housing infrastructure to be energy efficient and climate
resilient. We need to ensure that the public health investments
that we are making reach people who are marginalized--the
incarcerated, the homeless, people who live in public housing.
We need to make sure that people can pay their energy bills
to stay safe during extreme heat events. Currently, a lot of
people are living in substandard housing or they can't afford
or don't have air conditioning. People need access to these
things.
We also need to understand that longstanding systemic
racism has created a situation where people have preexisting
health conditions that are being exacerbated by climate change,
so we have to be addressing that.
Ms. Tlaib. No, and just last and I will yield, it is so
important for all my colleagues to know, and I look at one of
my senior citizens who told me, especially during this pandemic
she felt like the environmental racism, the fact that she lived
in the most polluted ZIP code in the state of Michigan, where
Chairman Rouda came to visit, she felt like we giving
permission to kill her. She really, truly felt completely
unseen and unheard, and I think a lot of that is because of the
climate crisis, the fact that we haven't really been aggressive
enough on the climate crisis.
So, I yield, and thank you again, Chairman, for always
highlighting these issues.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Vice Chair Tlaib. The chair now
recognizes the ranking member from Tennessee, Mr. Green, for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again thanks to all
the witnesses for their time today and their thoughts.
My question, I want to direct my first question to Dr.
Dayaratna. Sir, there have been a lot of proposals from the
majority that look to address climate change. Many of those
proposals aim to do this by introducing taxes and burdensome
regulations on the energy sector. Have you done research into
the costs and benefits of these policies, and if you could
elaborate on that?
Mr. Dayaratna. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
have indeed. At the Heritage Foundation Center for Data
Analysis we have the Heritage Energy Model, which, like I said,
is a clone of the Department of Energy's National Energy
Modeling System. So, we use this to score various energy
policies.
And what we have found is that these policies, they not
only failed the test of cost benefit analysis, they failed the
test of cost benefit analysis miserably. For example, the Green
New Deal, we scored that. That would have, over a 20-year time
horizon--and by the way, when I scored the Green New Deal it
literally crashed this government model. I had to backtrack the
carbon dioxide emissions down from 100 percent to 50 percent or
so to get the model to actually be able to handle it.
But the bottom line is even after a 58 percent reduction in
CO2 emissions, over a 20-year time horizon, the Green New Deal
resulted in an average employment shortfall of 1.1 million lost
jobs, a peak employment shortfall of over 5 million jobs, and
an average loss of income of over $165,000 of income for a
family of four, and a total $15 trillion loss in GDP, all for
negligible changes in the climate, less than 0.2 degrees
Celsius temperature reduction and less than 2 centimeters of
sea level rise reduction.
So, you see it is quite apparent that these policies have
significant economic costs--that is an understatement--and
effectively no environmental benefit. Very negligible.
Mr. Green. Thank you for that. I know that there are a
couple of different ways of calculating social costs of carbon,
and I wondered if you would elaborate on that and perhaps how
easily they can be manipulated.
Mr. Dayaratna. Yes, there are indeed a variety of ways to
calculate the social cost of carbon. So, there are three main
statistical models, as I alluded to in my testimony, that the
Federal Government had used--the DICE model, the FUND model,
and the PAGE model.
We took the DICE and FUND models inhouse. The PAGE model we
did not take inhouse because the author, Chris Hope,
specifically insisted on co-authorship in exchange for giving
us his code, so we felt it precluded us from being able to do
any independent analysis.
So, we took the DICE and the FUND models, and we played
with the assumptions, and what we noticed is that these models
are very, very sensitive to extremely reasonable changes in
assumptions. For example, these models foolishly make
projections 300 years into the future. We have no idea what the
American economy will look like 300 years from now. It is like
saying that George Washington would know what the economy would
look like today. And these models foolishly make these
projections.
If you cut the time horizon back to, still unrealistic but
more realistic, 150 years, you get a drastically lower estimate
of the SCC, around 20 percent lower. If you change the discount
rate, specification of a discount rate--in fact, the Obama
Administration interagency working group specifically ignored
advice from the LMB to include a seven percent discount rate--
you not only reduce the social cost of carbon, under some very
reasonable assumptions the social cost of carbon can even be
negative. And when the social cost of carbon is negative, then
that signifies that the benefits exceed the costs, and CO2 is
an overall positive externality.
And last, the climate sensitivity distribution. Quite
frankly, the previous administration beefed up the climate
sensitivity assumptions in the use in calculating the social
cost of carbon to beef up the SCC as high as it could. And when
you use more realistic climate sensitivity assumptions you can
also get a drastically different and lower estimate,
potentially even negative estimate of the SCC. Again, under
some very reasonable assumptions, it can be negative.
And actually let me just say, since I still have a little
bit of time left, in another recently peer-reviewed paper we
also looked at the agricultural benefits of CO2 emissions and
played with those assumptions, and again, even under the
discount rates that the Obama Administration instated on using,
even under those you still get a negative estimate of the SCC.
So, with these results literally all across the map--
positive, zero, negative--it makes no sense to me how
policymakers can even use these models with integrity. Then can
be manipulated to get pretty much any result that you want.
Mr. Green. One last quick question. I was reading an
article the other day in the journal about deserts that are
greening. I assume that is from aerial fertilization and the
CO2. If you could just talk a little bit about that. I think
you implied that when you about the positive impacts, and if
you would just elaborate a little bit on that.
Mr. Dayaratna. So, in one of my recent papers, co-authored
with Ross McKitrick and Pat Michaels, we talked about the
agricultural impacts of CO2 emissions, and we referenced a
paper, ``Hsu et al.'' from the Journal of Nature in 2016. What
it illustrates is the planet is greening, and some areas are
benefiting significantly from greening over the last 20 years.
Mr. Green. Thank you. I yield.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
Representative Norton for five minutes of questioning.
Ms. Norton. Before I go to my questions, I want to
challenge The Heritage Foundation witness to quote experts that
agree with his assessment.
I have a question first for Mr. Schuler, because of what is
happening as I speak. Can you hear me?
Mr. Schuler. Yes.
Ms. Norton. As I speak, because of what is happening as I
speak in Washington State. We have a real-time example of
record-breaking, in the case of Washington State, wildfires. Of
course, we are having record-breaking hurricanes, unprecedented
wildfires. I am not sure what kind of evidence more we would
need.
Mr. Schuler, if we continue down the path of inaction that
the United States is on, like other countries from China to
Europe, for example, what are some of the concerns that you
would have about the health of Americans living in the western
part of the United States?
Mr. Schuler. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question.
So, health concerns for us are paramount at the moment.
Obviously, we are dealing with an extraordinary pandemic, but
we see, too, that the effects of climate change, in so many
areas of our economy, are worsening existing challenges. So, we
are dealing with a whole span of effects, everything from
Congresswoman Tlaib discussed the incredible impacts, people in
her district, of the fossil fuel industry directly. So, we see
these impacts in the form of conventional air pollutants,
hurting people's lungs, giving them chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease and other respiratory conditions.
Then down the road, as we look at the creeping health
effects of climate change it is manifested in so many different
areas. The wildfires, as you discussed, are one of the most
immediate, and the impact of the smoke on people's lungs is
very serious. There is a gradation of air quality index and it
starts with, you know, of some concern, of some concern to
people with vulnerabilities, and it rises all the way to
hazardous for all of us. So, even folks----
Ms. Norton. We have already seen what the air looks like in
Los Angeles. It is incredible to think of people having to live
like that. So, I understand your point.
I wanted to ask Mr. Castro, because I wanted to go from the
West to the opposite side of the country, to see how universal
in many ways climate change is. Mr. Castro, what are the
current concerns you have for the city of Orlando, as well as,
for that matter, the rest of Florida, the other side of the
country? Is there a continuance of absence of--how is the
continuance of absence of leadership happening in Florida?
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congresswoman. Certainly Florida is
ground zero, as we often say, for climate change impacts,
everything from rising sea levels as we are seeing and storm
surges that are actually starting to eat away at our
coastlines. But obviously the, you know, superstorms that are
being fueled by warming oceans--and I think the best example
that I can share with you is the 2017 hurricane season that
really impacted the entire state, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane
Maria.
When we were doing our climate vulnerability and risk
assessment, in Orlando specifically, one of the things that has
come up is climate migration as a major risk in vulnerability
to our city, figuring out ways in which we can essentially
welcome an influx of people. It is projected that by the end of
this century over 500,000 people may move specifically to
central Florida because of climate change impacts directly to
the Caribbean and the coastlines of Florida.
So, the health and well-being of Floridians are being
impacted because of the lack of leadership, but we are hopeful
that we can continue to move forward, and the bill that is
being proposed today could be major steps in the right
direction.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Schuler, I must say, because of your
previous position, Mr. Schuler, as Secretary Kerry's, on that
team that negotiated the Paris Agreement, where there was near
universal agreement to try and keep global warming below 2
degrees Celsius, could you briefly describe some other benefits
that were discussed which led to that agreement? Remind us
about that agreement.
Mr. Schuler. Absolutely. Thank you, Congresswoman. So, the
Paris Agreement was a truly breakthrough, multilateral
agreement in our history that required sustained leadership by
the United States with our allies and partnership with
countries around the world to achieve. It was no easy thing
because it required cooperation among countries large and
small, countries rich and poor, major emitters and small
emitters.
It was all designed around the goal of limiting the most
extreme warming and showing every country that through
collective partnership, like putting forward strong targets and
then seeing the targets of other countries, that we could break
through the most incredible collective action problem the world
has ever seen, and work together to limit emissions, from major
emitters like Saudi Arabia and China and the United States all
the way down to tiny island nations with virtually no
emissions, but standing to risk extreme sea level rise. And the
Paris Agreement was the first major step on that pathway to
global harmony with now, as you said, the United States being
the only country in the world to signal that we will not be a
part of that. It is a truly tragic thing.
Ms. Norton. I think it--my time has expired but I think it
was worth hearing about where we were, the progress we have
made, and now how we have been thrust back once again. Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Representative Holmes Norton. The
chair now recognizes the chair of the entire Oversight
Committee, Chairwoman Maloney.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. From day one
the Trump administration has undermined science and evidence-
based strategies to address the climate crisis. We must reverse
this damage of the last four years by acting swiftly to make
the United States a leader in the climate challenge and the
climate responsibilities.
Mr. Schuler, in what ways would a more coordinated climate
resiliency response by the Federal Government assist states
such as yours and Governor Inslee's efforts?
Mr. Schuler. Thank you, Chairwoman. I mean, the benefits
would be enormous. Let me just detail a few categories.
So, first of all we would shift some of our efforts from
this incredible defensive action that we have all been forced
to fight over a period of years. So, a Federal Government that
was willing to work with us to set a basic minimum floor for
action but to provide resources and help support states in
going farther, as compared to this administration, that,
instead, has focused its efforts combatting what states are
doing, working to restrain us at every chance it gets. It would
just be a profound sea change.
So, we look forward to working with a Federal Government
that will help us to reduce air pollution from the power
sector, from our transportation sector, from industry, provide
additional investments in helping to ensure that American
businesses are going to, as Dean Orr discussed, be competitive
in our global future, instead of harkening back to past
technologies that are not going to continue to take us the
distance. That would be an incredible thing.
On the resilience side, a Federal Government that is a true
partner in helping to defend all of our communities from all of
the different climate impacts that they see, that would be an
enormous thing. When we hear the President criticize forest
management practices in the West, it is not lost on us that his
budget annually attempts to strip hundreds of millions of
dollars from the Federal forest and firefighting efforts,
including investments that go to states.
So, we would look for a Federal Government that has our
back and is going to help defend our people against the effects
of climate change.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. It has been a glimmer of hope that
so many states have remained committed to addressing climate
change even in the total absence of Federal leadership. Take
the United States Climate Alliance. In direct response to
President Trump's announcement that he planned to withdraw the
United States from the Paris Agreement, Governor Cuomo,
Governor Inslee, Governor Brown banded together to create this
alliance of Governors who are all working to meet the goals of
the Paris Agreement.
Mr. Schuler, I understand from your written testimony that
since its inception the alliance has grown to include 25
Democratic and Republic Governors. Could you describe the
innovative strategies these Governors are taking?
Mr. Schuler. Thank you, Chairwoman. So, these Governors,
Democratic and Republican, as you said, are the true
laboratories of democracy. We are doing that hard work both to
experiment with and develop new policies, and also to work in
lockstep to accelerate the deployment of policies that we know
work. So, we are working in every sector. We are thinking about
both how to take forward major areas of progress, like
reductions in power sector emissions, with one after another
state coming out with a new 100 percent clean electricity law,
to cooperation in the transportation sector, increasing the
number of states that are signing up to the most aggressive
vehicle emission standards, to increasing work in the natural
and working lands space, where we can think about how to
provide additional incentives to so many different kinds of
businesses that make use of lands, from agriculture to
forestry, how we can combine the resilience goals with
additional carbon sequestration efforts. Our states are working
together every single day to make these things happen.
So, it is both about the state-specific work of protecting
our own communities from these distinctive harms and taking
advantage of our distinctive economies in our own states, and
also that collaborative work to push back against the
extraordinary assault on environmental protection from this
administration over the last few years.
Mrs. Maloney. Thank you. Mr. Castro, could you briefly
describe strategies you are implementing to electrify the
transportation sector that also may prove to be effective on
the Federal level? Mr. Castro.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Chairwoman Maloney. Yes, we are
doing a number of things to accelerate more EV adoption. First
and foremost, we know that public EV charging stations are
really critical for us to get around some of the range anxiety
issues that residents have, and folks have around electric
vehicles.
We are also working very closely with our utility, as I
mentioned, to help enable more rebates for those who buy and
lease electric vehicles, and in addition to that, working
across with our hospitality and tourism associations and many
of the theme parks here in Orlando to ensure that have an EV-
ready destination. In fact, in 2015, the city launched the
first electric vehicle rental car program, Drive Electric
Orlando, where individuals can come here, rent an EV, and have
a zero-gas station experience here, zero emissions, and a
wonderful experience.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you, Madam Chair. The chair now recognizes
Mr. Gibbs for five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry I couldn't be
here to listen to the testimony, but I do want to raise some
issues with the wildfires out in Oregon and California and
Washington State, out west. Does anybody--I just heard a
comment from one of the witnesses that it was lack of Federal
funding. I don't know if Mr. Dayaratna or anybody wants to
comment, if they would allow the timber leased lands and FISA
funding, because my understanding, for 20-plus years now, since
we pretty much stopped timbering on Federal lands. So, I would
like to start there and then I have a submission to make. Does
anybody want to address the issue about timbering out there?
I guess not. OK. Mr. Chairman, for the record, as my staff
did this, I have two photos, and one--these are photos taken
east of Roseburg, Oregon, OK. In the one photo there is a fire.
It is not out of control. It is an area that has been timbered,
and the forestland has been managed. The other photo is a
nearby area where the timberland has not been managed, and it
looks like a volcano compared to the other one here.
And this is just illustrating, if we actually manage our
forestlands out there, we can prevent a lot of this catastrophe
and loss of property and life and everything else that goes
with that, and all the carbon that has been emitted into the
atmosphere. So, if we are truly concerned about our carbon
emissions, we ought to be managing our forestland.
Because I have heard anecdotal information that the lands--
there is some land out there that is privately--private forest
land is managed, and it doesn't have these fire issues. And if
they do have a fire issue it is a lot less severe and they can
control it. But when you haven't timbered and done anything at
those forestlands in 20-plus years, you have a lot of fuel on
the ground, and now, of course, it is warm and dry out there.
Fortunately, in the last day or so, there is more rains moving
into that area, fall weather, and so hopefully, at least in the
Oregon-Washington area that should help fight some of those
fires.
So, I just wanted to submit to the record these two photos
that my staff sent, illustrating where forestlands have been
managed, the damage is less extensive and controllable,
compared to an area that has not been managed, that has all
that dead wood, brush fuel, to fuel the fires. I don't have any
other questions for the witnesses, but I think it is vitally
important that we manage these forestlands out there, because I
can't--I don't know if anybody wants to comment.
You know, we talked about the smoke. I know we saw smoke in
Columbus, Ohio, in some of the sunsets, and you said about the
upper atmosphere was carrying it even to Europe, and the carbon
that was emitted by this. You know, if anyone wants to comment
about, you know, if we didn't have the severity of these fires
in these forestlands, what the difference would have been in
the carbon emission from these terrible, catastrophic fires.
So, I don't know if anybody wants to address that or not.
Ms. Cleetus. Sure. Thank you, Representative Gibbs, for
raising this issue. The reality is that the science shows very
clearly that what are driving conditions fueled by climate
change are a major contributor to the kind of really
[inaudible] they are seeing in the western U.S. right now.
There is no question that mismanagement of forest development
in wildfire-prone areas is also exacerbating this, to people,
to property, and that we do need to do better with ecological
criteria in mind. This is not about timbering. This is about
managing the health of our forests, and there are certainly
more things that we need to do to address this.
But it would be folly not to recognize the role that
climate change is playing, a very, very clear role the
significance of climate change in contributing to these hotter,
drier conditions that are making our wildfire seasons longer,
more intense, more destructive. This is very, very clear----
Mr. Gibbs. I will just stop you----
Ms. Cleetus.
[Inaudible.]
Mr. Gibbs. I will stop you because I have only got 25
seconds. You know, even a one-degree change, it is hard to
believe that that is causing this more severity in the fires,
that one-degree change in the temperature. But I think we could
have a more immediate impact by managing these forestlands to
prevent the fuel there for these fires. Because it is a long-
term goal to address the temperature change that may or may not
be causing warmer temperatures and less humidity and drier
heat.
So, I would just close. My time is out. But I will submit
these for the record and just advocate for let's manage our
public forestlands out there and get some revenue from the
timber. I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. And without objection, the documents are
introduced into the record. So moved.
Mr. Rouda. At this time I would like to recognize myself
for five minutes of questioning, and I really don't want to
focus on empty rhetoric about whether the science is true that
humankind is causing climate change. The science is settled. I
want to recognize that I am interested in trying to work with
members across the aisle as well as members in my caucus to
find solutions and not denigrate ideas offered by others.
With that let me turn to some questions here for our
witnesses, that I am so thankful who have joined us here today.
We want to look at and understand how the Federal
Government can play a greater role in providing the economic
incentives to advance changes that truly address climate
change, not just here in the United States but globally, and
allows the United States to be a leader in creating these new
industries, these new good-paying jobs that we can have right
here in the United States, as well as export that technology
worldwide.
Clearly, transportation and industrial sectors play a huge
role in the sourcing of climate change and overall carbon
emissions. Dr. Cleetus, which sectors of our economy do you
think are best positioned to help drive nationwide
decarbonization efforts?
Ms. Cleetus. Well, right now the power sector is an
incredibly promising place to look. We are already in a moment
where we have about 20 percent of our electricity is renewable
energy. We have seen calls for, here and in Europe, for wind,
for solar, for battery storage. The EIA is projecting that wind
and solar will be the fastest-growing sources of new power this
year in our country.
So, we need to take this momentum and really accelerate it,
using Federal policy, and state policies. This is an area where
we can create jobs, we can make the kind of investments that
would benefit public health, and we can rapidly cut our
emissions.
So, I see this as a very promising sector. Transportation,
as well, electrifying transportation is a really very great
opportunity for us. And as others have pointed out on the
panel, other countries are taking these measures. We need to be
part of the revolution.
Mr. Rouda. Dr. Orr, I believe there is a statistic I have
come across that for every $1 we have provided in incentives
for renewables we have provided $80 for fossil fuels. And I
think in your opening testimony you said that even today for
every $1 we provide for renewables we provide $3 for fossil
fuels.
Can you talk a little bit about what you think the result
would be if we at least parity in supporting renewables at the
same level we do fossil fuels, or better yet, reverse those
numbers 3-to-1 for renewables?
Mr. Orr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed it is true that
just about all of the analysis about the impacts of investments
in renewables come out dramatically in favor of renewables
versus fossil fuels. The bottom line is that the industries of
the future are not going to be fossil fuel based. The longer we
delay our transition to the future energy sources, the more we
will be disadvantaged vis-`-vis the rest of the world, but also
the more that we will not have the ecosystem that we have
depended on in this country for innovation.
If we do not keep up our national R&D investments in areas
around energy, around transportation, around batteries, around
all the technologies of the future, and we just try to dig in
and hold the line with the industries that we have dominated
for decades, and even over a century, in oil and gas, coal, if
we tried to dig in it is economically foolhardy. But it also
stops us from the kinds of investments we need to get the next
technologies.
The United States is an innovation powerhouse. I currently
work at the University of Maryland. We have the best university
system in the world. We have more capacity in our laboratories,
in our universities. That can be harnessed. Federal Government
funding goes a long way to leverage private funding on
innovation.
So, it is the innovation economy that we are talking about
here, and that is jobs, and it is jobs that are going to be
around for the future. Quite honestly, I think the debates
around coal are pretty much settled in the sense that
economically it is not viable, but it is around oil and gas
that we need to make forward-looking calculations, to save our
own jobs but also to build the innovation framework for the
future.
Mr. Rouda. And the energy companies which have tremendous
experience in not just the production and development of energy
from fossil fuels. They also have tremendous knowledge and
innovation in renewables. And if the tax code aligned with
producing renewables at a greater rate to drive shareholder
value, don't you agree that the energy companies could actually
help lead us as we make this shift from fossil fuels and CO2
emissions to renewables as being the fundamental backbone of
the energy production of our country?
Mr. Orr. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and it is an extremely
important point. Our oil and gas companies need to become
energy companies. If we provide the incentives for them, they
can compete with anybody in the world. The fact is right now a
number of other oil and gas companies around the world, from
Saudi Aramco to BP and Shell and any and a whole range of non-
American oil and gas companies are diversifying at a rapid
clip. American oil and gas companies are not, and the reason
they are not is because there is not much incentive here in the
United States for diversifying. It would be economically wise
but also tremendously important for our climate if our
companies lead the way.
Just last year, three U.S. oil companies finally joined the
Oil and Gas Climate Initiative. It is a group of 14 different
oil and gas companies from around the world that tend to be the
most efficient and most effective companies in the oil and gas
sector. That is the kind of club that is transitioning itself
as fast as it can, because they see their future in that
transition. We need to make sure we are not holding back our
own companies from making the transition they have to make to
survive.
The issue of fossil fuel subsidies is a global one, and we
need to look at our own subsidies and where they go. It totally
warps the incentives for our companies to become competitive in
the 21st century.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. I know I am over time, but I do want
to ask one other quick question of Mr. Schuler. Mr. Schuler,
Governor Inslee from the great state of Washington has been an
advocate for deep economy-wide action to move us to renewables
and away from the fossil fuel industry. Is there one thing, one
policy that Washington State has implemented that you think
would be important to bring to our attention at the Federal
level?
Mr. Schuler. Thank you, Chairman. I think, in brief,
probably the one that I would highlight would be our Clean
Energy Transition Act, that has promised to take Washington
from already one of the cleanest electricity sectors in the
country to definitively zero carbon. We are showing that it can
be done, that there is political will that we can do this in an
equitable way that provides for worker transition, for low-
income people, and that at low, low cost can help all of us
move to carbon-free power. I think it is a powerful example for
the rest of the country, and I hope it is something that the
Federal Government can take urgent action on soon.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you very much. That ends my time of
questioning. The chair now recognizes Representative Palmer for
five minutes of questioning.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the gentleman. I have a question for
Dr. Dayaratna.
In an earlier hearing for this subcommittee your colleague
at The Heritage Foundation, Nick Loris, testified that the U.S.
could cut its carbon emissions by 10 percent and it would not
make much of a difference with regard to warming temperatures.
Is that because such cuts would impact only our national
emissions and climate change is a global phenomenon?
Mr. Dayaratna. Greenhouse gas--can you hear me? Yes. Those
simulations results are from using the Model for the Assessment
of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change. So yes, part of this
is because the United States constitutes a small fraction of
global emissions, and therefore cutting emissions is not going
to have that 10 percent--any meaningful impact whatsoever.
But even if--I was alluding to this earlier--in fact, the
slides I gave you guys, if you look at Slide 8, I think they
have been printed out for you guys, Slide 8 where I have the
climate impact for, say, the Green New Deal, where we simulated
the impact of eliminating CO2 emissions from the planet
completely. Under a variety of sensitivity assumptions, climate
sensitivity assumptions, even assuming a 4 1/2 degree climate
sensitivity, which is much higher than what the Obama
Administration's interagency working group assumed, and is the
upper bound of the IPCC's recommended range of climate
sensitivity, you still have less than 0.2 degrees Celsius
temperature impact by the end of the century.
So, emissions reductions in the United States are not going
to have any meaningful impact, climate-wise.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I don't know if you are aware but I also
serve on the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, and we had
a hearing, and among the witnesses was a lady who was one of
the editors, one of the lead people on the International Panel
of Climate Change. It may have been the fourth or fifth report.
I asked those three scientists who were the witnesses for my
colleagues across the aisle, if the United States went to
absolute zero emissions, would it stop climate change? And
their response was no. I followed that up and said if the
entire world went to zero carbon dioxide emissions, would that
stop climate change? Again the answer was no, it would only
mitigate the impact. As you just pointed out----
Mr. Dayaratna. Yes, I mean, I have done the modeling
myself, but there you have it, it is not just me saying it. You
have other people saying it as well.
Mr. Palmer. Well, these are people who are proponents of--I
would assume are proponents of the Green New Deal, which, as we
know, has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. It is
more about changing the economy.
But the point is that the things that we are focused on
will not impact climate and the climate is changing. This is
what concerns me: the climate is changing. There are things
that we need to be doing to adapt and mitigate. There is great
potential in emerging technologies for addressing CO2
emissions, and other areas that we are going to have to make
some changes, that we are not addressing, because we are
chasing the wrong thing.
Mr. Dayaratna. Absolutely. So, I am in favor of, you know,
removing all subsidies and credits from the market, and letting
all types of energy, completely leveling the playing field,
ranging from renewables to all other forms of energy, and
letting the best one win. And that would be the most optimal
way to deal with the situation.
Mr. Palmer. Well, I have had other witnesses----
Mr. Dayaratna. Yes, like you said, these policies are not
going to have any impact. I mean, you are not going to be able
to pass a bill and have it magically changed the weather. It is
absolutely ridiculous.
Mr. Palmer. Well, in another hearing I had another witness
for my colleagues across the aisle that explained to me that
China has an aggressive plan to meet their emissions reductions
by 2030. It has now been moved to 2060. But if that were the
case China wouldn't be building coal-fired plants, one about
every two weeks. I mean, there are just some really absurd
things being said and proposed to address climate change that
are going to have zero impact.
Mr. Dayaratna. I mean, that is the thing. So, for those who
are serious about changing the climate, I mean, they are just
looking at the wrong policies, because a lot of these policies
are not going to have any impact. I mean, these bills are not
going to magically change the weather. Again, I will reiterate
that.
Mr. Palmer. It is going to change the quality of life,
though, for individuals, so an impact on the economy.
Mr. Dayaratna. Yes, they will change the quality of life,
yes.
Mr. Palmer. Yes. I yield back and I thank the chairman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. The chair now recognizes
Representative Gomez from the great state of California.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for having this hearing on climate change. One of the things
that makes me laugh is that when it comes to showing the United
States leadership on this issue, Republicans all of a sudden
say, ``You know what? We shouldn't do that because the other
side, the other countries are not going to follow suit, but
they are not doing X, Y, and Z.'' But sometimes you have to
lead, right? Not sitting back and waiting for the other
countries to lead, and that is one of the benefits of being the
United States. We have the economic power, the cultural power
to actually change things, if we decide to engage, right?
We can change things. We can make things better. Right now
I represent L.A. in Congress, but I represented L.A. in the
State Assembly. We were taking on these issues for a while, by
trying to develop policies that not only combat greenhouse gas
emissions and lower them, but also the other determinants that
are caused by global warming. So, we were looking at it in a
more holistic way.
It is something that we know-- one thing-- is that it costs
more not to do anything, right? It costs more in the long run
not to do anything. Why is the military concerned about global
warming? Why does the military have report on report looking at
global warming and how they have to adapt? Because it is real,
and it is occurring. So, it is the same thing we should be
doing here in the states.
One of the questions I had is, we know climate change has a
disproportionate impact oftentimes on people who live in
certain areas, people who are often poor that don't have the
resources. Dr. Cleetus and Mr. Castro, are there any strategies
that we can implement at the Federal level in order to deal
with that disproportional impact or help the people that don't
have the necessary resources to weatherize their homes, to move
from one location to another, to, you know, buy electric cars?
Are there strategies that we can implement at the Federal level
that really target the working class?
Ms. Cleetus. Absolutely, and I think the most important
thing we need to do is get out ahead of this and make these
investments instead of just post disaster, picking up the
pieces after the terrible toll that it takes on people.
So, there are some very common-sense things we can do. We
can make sure that our investments in resilience and adaptation
are being targeted to these communities. Some have suggested a
40 percent off Federal investment targeted to communities that
have been marginalized and left behind, communities that are
facing a disproportionate burden
[inaudible]. So, that is an important step we can take.
We can make sure that we are extending economic
opportunities in these communities and building that kind of
infrastructure that is climate resilient and no carbon. We can
cut their energy bills by investing in clean energy that is
more affordable, so that they are not just being exposed to
pollution from fossil fuels as well as paying high energy
bills.
So, there are many tools for us here that can help us cut
emissions and address these inequities, and we should lean into
them.
Mr. Castro. And, Congressman, in addition to that great
response I would also say that HUD plays an incredible role
with the allocation of CDBG and other dollars at the local
level, which we depend upon to help build out affordable and
attainable housing, and putting restrictions on ensuring that
we are not building the worst housing by law but we are really
going above and beyond the code to ensure efficiency and not
continuing to burden these low-income communities with high
energy bills. Often not only are they burdened with higher
energy bills disproportionately, they are also often in
environmental justice zones throughout our communities that are
getting, you know, more impacted by air quality issues. Then,
of course, you have the issue around, you know, when we get
hit, they are often the least resourced and most impacted and
hardest to rebound.
So, you know, I do certainly agree that putting some
criteria around those dollars and ensuring that we are
prioritizing efficiency into our environmental quality and
health of those occupants could make drastic impacts, not only
on their lives but on the climate.
Mr. Gomez. And that is one of the things that I want people
to understand. When we say we are going to combat climate
change, it doesn't mean that it will be a cost to people,
right, breaking up their livelihoods, how they get from their
home to work or school. It is about enhancing and improving
their lives. But you have to target the resources to those
communities. You can't leave them behind. That is why I
introduced a bill to make sure that people who are lower income
can get access to electric vehicles at a similar price point.
So, it is all about how do you make life better for people
on the ground, and I say if you do that, the coalition to
combat climate change will all get bigger and stronger and
understands that it is not one thing versus another one, but
both of them at the same time.
So, thank you, I appreciate it, and I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Castro. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the ranking
member for any closing comments he would like to make.
No closing comments. With that, a few closing comments on
my part. We have had numerous of these hearings, and I know
that my colleagues across the aisle don't believe in the Green
New Deal. And I think it is not because they don't believe
climate change is real. They don't believe that is the right
way to address it.
I believe my colleagues across the aisle believe in climate
change. I believe my colleagues across the aisle want to
address climate change. They believe the science. They believe
there are ways we can address it. And I would hope they will
work with us to find those policies that we can agree on to
advance forward for the benefit of our kids, our grandchildren,
and future generations as we all try and address this issue
that we know is real. The science supports it. It is not a
question of if-- it is a question of how we get this done.
Gary--Representative Palmer--would like to make a couple of
closing comments as well, so let me defer and yield over to him
for a closing statement.
Mr. Palmer. First of all, I would like to thank the
chairman for your comments, and I associate myself with your
remarks, because we do believe that the climate is changing and
it poses serious risk for our country and for our future.
I ran a think tank for 24 years and was very involved in
these issues, particularly with climate change. And frankly I
am convinced that while CO2 obviously is a--contributes to
global warming, if we--as these scientists have said, if we
completely eliminated CO2 it wouldn't stop climate change. I
think we need to continue to invest in technology to reduce CO2
emissions. MIT is doing some fantastic work on carbon capture,
and methane, for that matter.
So, there are emerging technologies, I think, that will
really help us in this area. But I think we have also got to
take seriously the things that are happening through natural
variation, that will result in sea level rise, maybe not at the
level that some folks have put out there, and other issues that
are going to change weather patterns that we need to be
prepared to adapt to.
So, I commend you for your comments and recognizing that
this is a serious problem that we do need to work together to
solve. And yes, I do not think the Green New Deal is the way to
do it, but I do think that we have the capacity, the
intellectual, technical capacity to address these issues and do
it in a way that not only benefits our country but the whole
world.
And I yield back.
Mr. Rouda. Thank you for your comments, and I also know
that we all agree that while we can disagree on the impact and
pace of climate change and what are the contributing factors,
we all agree that less CO2 emissions is better for our health
and the health of our fellow Americans.
In closing, I want to thank our panelists for their
remarks. I want to commend my colleagues again for
participating in this very important conversation. With that,
without objection, all members will have five legislative days
within which to submit additional written questions for the
witnesses, to the chair, which will be forwarded to the
witnesses for their response. I ask our witnesses to please
respond as promptly as you are able.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:57 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]