[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHALLENGES
AND OPPORTUNITIES

=======================================================================

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD
OCTOBER 28, 2021

__________

Serial No. 117-10

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
46-351 WASHINGTON : 2022

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Seventeenth Congress

KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
JULIA BROWNLEY, California Ranking Member
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
------
Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisis.house.gov

C O N T E N T S

----------

STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Prepared Statement........................................... 3
Hon. Garret Graves, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Louisiana, and Ranking Member, Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement............................................ 4

WITNESSES

Taryn Fransen, Senior Fellow, World Resources Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 8
Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, Chief Executive Officer, Mercy Corps
Oral Statement............................................... 16
Prepared Statement........................................... 18
Charles Henrick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, Citizens
for Responsible Energy Solutions
Oral Statement............................................... 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 21
Alden Meyer, Senior Associate, E3G, Inc.
Oral Statement............................................... 26
Prepared Statement........................................... 28

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Article from Wall Street Journal, ``Solar and Wind Force Poverty
on Africa,'' submitted for the record by Mrs. Miller........... 36
Report from the World Resources Institute, State of Climate
Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to Limit Global
Warming to 1.5 deg.C, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor... 50
Executive Summary of a report from the United Nations Environment
Program, The Heat Is On: A World of Climate Promises Not Yet
Delivered, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor.............. 50
Report from the OECD, Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by
Developed Countries, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor.... 51
Letter from ICEA to Secretary Granholm regarding requiring LNG
terminals to reduce export rates to fill winter natural gas
storage, establish LNG export volume limits, and put public
interest safeguards in place, submitted for the record by Ms.
Castor......................................................... 51

APPENDIX

Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Taryn Fransen. 51
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Tjada D'Oyen
McKenna........................................................ 61
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Alden Meyer... 66

INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHALLENGES
AND OPPORTUNITIES

----------

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2021

House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:35 a.m., in Room
210, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
[chairwoman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
Casten, Graves, Palmer, Carter, Miller, Crenshaw, and Gonzalez.
Ms. Castor. The committee will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
As a reminder, members participating in a hearing remotely
should be visible on camera throughout the hearing. As with in-
person meetings, members are responsible for controlling their
own microphones. Members can be muted by staff only to avoid
inadvertent background noise.
And I would like to remind members that, per the guidance
of the Attending Physician, members, staff, and all members
physically present, including in this hearing room, are
required to wear masks unless seeking or under recognition by
the chair.
In addition, statements, documents, or motions must be
submitted to the electronic repository,
sccc.repository@mail.house.gov.
Finally, members and witnesses experiencing technical
problems should inform committee staff immediately.
Well, good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining this
hybrid hearing on the international climate challenges and
opportunities.
Today, we will hear about the challenges and opportunities
for international climate action as we prepare for the COP, the
Conference of Parties 26, about to commence in Glasgow,
Scotland.
And I will now recognize myself for a 5-minute opening
statement.
First of all, thank you, everyone, for joining us today. We
are at a very exciting inflection point for our country and for
the planet. We now know that we are on the cusp of the most
historic investment in clean energy and climate action that has
ever been part of U.S. politics. Our economy is going to move
forward through creating jobs, providing opportunities, but
also addressing the very costly impacts of the climate crisis.
It appears now that we are poised to vote on a Build Back
Better plan that will help us combat climate change for all
American families. And just as a summary, President Biden just
left a meeting

[[Page 2]]

of the Democratic Caucus where he outlined a lot of what is in
that framework.
What we know now is that that framework will cut greenhouse
gas pollution by well over 1 gigaton by 2030, reduce consumer
energy costs, give our kids cleaner air and water, create
hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs, and advance
environmental justice by investing in a 21st century clean
energy economy. From buildings to transportation, to industry,
to electricity, and agriculture--agricultural smart practices
all across this country, it will help restore America's
leadership role in the world.
But we have a lot to do heading into Glasgow. Climate
change is a global crisis. According to a recent study, the
climate crisis impacts more than 85 percent of the world's
population. And although every country is impacted differently,
it is clear we have got to work together to solve it.
We have to choose a path forward. One path is paved with
inadequate action, which will lead to continued destruction as
we kick the can down the road. But we are not going to do that.
There is a brighter path, and it is paved with generational
investments in renewable energy, electric vehicles,
environmental justice, and climate resilience, and it leads us
to a net-zero-emissions world, one in which future generations
will thrive.
We have a moral obligation to our kids and future
generations to do this now, and the United States has a special
responsibility to lead the world down this path through our
example.
See, and this chart tells a story. The United States has
emitted more CO2 than any other country in history,
and we are also going to lead the world in the solutions and
the answers. The upcoming COP26 will serve as a vital test.
When global leaders meet in Glasgow next week, almost every
nation around the world, including big polluters like China,
will be challenged to increase their climate ambitions.
President Biden is on his way there, he just told us, to
help lead the world on those solutions. This year, the
President has already pledged to slash America's greenhouse gas
emissions in half by 2030. And as COP26 starts next week, it is
up to us in Congress to help achieve that goal.
In this committee, we have focused on the solutions. We
have talked about the opportunity to create millions of good-
paying jobs, to protect the health of our children, and
safeguard our economy, and of our imperative to ensure
environmental justice for communities of color and Tribes.
And, today, we are going to focus on those international
benefits that come with solving the climate crisis, because not
only will reducing pollution make life better for families here
in America, it will also strengthen our partnerships abroad as
we work with other nations to do the same.
But there are major challenges to international
cooperation. The overarching one is straightforward. How do we
keep global temperatures from continuing to rise? We can start
by making those generational investments in clean energy,
powering our homes with renewables, and expanding our use of
zero-emissions technologies. But we know we cannot do this
alone.

[[Page 3]]

Another challenge is the need to invest in adaptation,
because, while cutting carbon pollution is critical, we must
also focus on helping communities adapt to climate impacts that
are already here. Without expanded adaptation and resilience,
we will continue to see suffering, not only in America, but
across the globe, especially in low- and moderate-income
communities. That is why we must invest in measures that will
help families prepare today while also reducing the risk of
broader instability.
Climate action gives us an opportunity to transform our
world for the better. The upcoming climate conference reminds
us all that we are all fighting the same fight. By the power of
America's example, we will lead the world and rise to this
challenge. We simply don't have another choice.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]

Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor

Hearing on ``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities''

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

October 28, 2021

As prepared for delivery

Over the past several decades, climate change has fueled
increasingly destructive weather events around the globe. Last year,
Australia faced its costliest disaster in history, as massive fires
burned across their country. In Germany and Belgium, towns were
recently hit with two months' worth of rain in only two days, leading
to deadly floods. In Central America, climate-fueled droughts and
floods are killing crops, devastating economies, and driving migration.
And in India and Pakistan, families are suffering through longer and
hotter heat waves.
Climate change is a global crisis. According to a recent study, the
climate crisis impacts more than 85% of the world's population.
Although each nation is impacted differently, it's clear we must work
together to solve it. We have to choose a path forward. One path is
paved with inadequate action, which will lead to continued destruction,
as we continue to kick the can down the road. But there is a brighter
path. It is paved with generational investments in renewable energy and
electric vehicles, in environmental justice and climate resilience. And
it leads us to a net zero emissions world, one in which future
generations can thrive.
The United States has the responsibility to lead the world down
this path through our example. The upcoming COP26 will serve as a vital
test. When global leaders meet in Glasgow next week, almost every
nation around the world--including big polluters like China--will be
challenged to increase their climate ambitions. President Biden has
already signaled his willingness to lead in that regard. This year, the
President pledged to slash America's greenhouse gas emissions in half
by 2030. And as COP26 starts next week, it's up to us in Congress to
help achieve that goal.
In this committee, we've focused on how solving the climate crisis
will bring incredible benefits in America. We've talked about the
opportunity to create millions of good-paying jobs; of the need to
protect the health of our children and safeguard our economy; and of
our imperative to ensure justice for communities of color and tribes.
Today, we're going to focus on the international benefits that come
with solving the climate crisis. Because not only will reducing
pollution make life better for families here; it will also strengthen
our partnerships abroad, as we work with other nations to do the same.
But there are major challenges facing international cooperation on
dealing with this crisis. The overarching one is straightforward: how
do we keep global temperature from continuing to rise? We can start by
making generational investments in clean energy, powering our homes
with renewables, and expanding our use of zero emissions technologies.
But we know we cannot do it alone.
The second big challenge is financial. Historically, some of the
world's least developed countries have been the most affected by
climate impacts, including sea level rise, floods, and droughts while
being the least responsible for climate-fueling pollu

[[Page 4]]

tion. Solving the climate crisis will require us to use international
climate financing to partner with countries to develop their economies
in climate-smart ways. In fact, President Biden has already called on
Congress to double our pledge for international climate financing by
2024. He understands that, by helping developing countries reduce their
pollution and build resilience, the United States can help billions
across the world not only survive, but thrive.
Finally, another major challenge is the need to invest in
adaptation. While cutting carbon pollution is critical, we must also
focus on helping communities adapt to climate impacts that are already
here. Without expanded adaptation and resilience support, we'll
continue to see suffering across the globe, especially in low- and
moderate-income communities. That's why we must invest in measures that
will help families prepare today, while also reducing the risk of
broader instability.
Climate action gives us an opportunity to transform our world for
the better. The upcoming climate conference reminds us that we're all
fighting the same fight. By the power of our example, we will lead the
world and rise to the challenge. We simply have no other choice.

At this time, I will recognize Ranking Member Graves for a
5-minute opening statement.
Mr. Graves. Hey, thanks, Madam Chair. Appreciate the
hearing today. And I want to thank our witnesses for joining
us.
I share the Chair's objective of moving in a direction of
even lower emissions and clean energy transition. But,
unfortunately, as I sit here and listen to the opening
statement, I have got to tell you, I feel that that might be
about where our views--our common views end, unfortunately.
Madam Chair, I feel that we have got to be a bit more
candid about reality. We have got to be a bit more candid about
what is going on in the world today, what has gone on in the
world in recent years in regard to strategies that have worked
and strategies that haven't.
Madam Chair, we are seeing right now record energy prices,
escalation in prices in energy that is affecting every single
American. It is costing people more to fuel their cars. It is
costing people more to heat and cool their homes. And let's be
really clear. This is absolutely, positively the result of
actions and inactions of this administration.
I can't even begin to explain to people at home, nor should
I even try to, how in the world it can be that our
administration, our White House in America, the leaders of this
country, are out there facilitating projects like the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline; facilitating Russian dirtier energy into the
European Union; and at the same time, shutting down the exact
same types of projects in the United States, where this
administration leading this American country, the leaders of
our 330-plus million citizens, are out there saying, You can't
produce domestic energy and conventional fuels, yet going in
the same breath to Russia, to Saudi Arabia, to Venezuela, to
Nigeria, to Iran and saying, we would like for you to increase
the production of the very resources we are preventing from
being produced in the United States.
Madam Chair, I want to see our President treat Americans
the same way that he is generously treating citizens of other
countries. I don't get it. It doesn't make sense, and American
citizens are paying the price today.
And as every hearing as we sit here and listen to folks
demonize the United States, this is the 26th COP--the 26th COP,
and you know what? Global emissions are still going up. If
people in our office failed 26 times, they would be having--
they would have had a pink slip long ago.

[[Page 5]]

It is not okay for us to be out there in this global stage
talking about all of these commitments that disproportionately
penalize the United States economy, that are extraordinary
deviations from the very strategies that have resulted in the
United States being the global leader in reducing emissions.
And sitting there, as we have in testimony today, propping
up countries like China--and it is fascinating to me seeing
letters written by environmental communities saying things
like, ``we are deeply troubled by the growing Cold War
mentality driving the United States' approach to China--an
antagonistic posture that risks undermining much-needed climate
cooperation.''
Let me ask you how we are supposed to act whenever you have
a country that lies about what is going on with a global
pandemic; that in the same breath, they are telling the World
Health Organization nothing is going on; that they are buying
billions of pieces of masks and gloves that were manufactured
in China and previously sold to other countries and buying it
back into China so their citizens have protection, and so they
can then price gouge the rest of the world on the same PPE.
How are we supposed to treat a country that has gone out
there and stolen, through cyber attacks, intellectual property,
innovation of Americans?
How are we supposed to treat a country that has gone out
there and, in illegal trade practices, dumping products on the
U.S. economy, killing jobs, affecting millions and millions of
jobs in the United States? Are we supposed to be nice to these
folks? The country that is increasing emissions four times for
every--four tons for every one ton we are reducing in the
United States?
Madam Chair, as the United States has led the world in
reducing emissions, the global community has increased tenfold
for every ton we have reduced.
Let me say it again. You can look at the strategies--and
Europe is a great example for us. California is a great example
for us. We can either follow strategies that work or we can
continue to do what you all are trying to do right now,
manipulating technologies, taking options away from innovators
and, at the end of the day, resulting in higher emissions,
resulting in higher prices. It is a flawed approach, and we
have the evidence to prove it. It is irresponsible for us to
continue in this direction.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Without objection, members who wish to enter
opening statements into the record have 5 business days to do
so.
Now I would like to welcome our witnesses. We will hear
from experts on the challenges and opportunities for
international climate action as world leaders prepare to gather
in Glasgow for COP26.
First, Taryn Fransen is a Senior Fellow at the World
Resources Institute Global Climate Program, where she focuses
on long-term climate strategies and nationally determined
contributions, with a view of leveraging these and other policy
instruments in support of rapid decarbonization.
In 2018, Taryn served as a Senior Policy Advisor on the
Global Climate Action Summit for the Office of the Governor of
California.

[[Page 6]]

And prior to that, she led WRI's Open Climate Network, a
coalition focusing on countries' commitments under the Paris
Agreement.
The chair now recognizes Representative Bonamici to
introduce Tjada D'Oyen McKenna.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Castor.
It is my pleasure to introduce Ms. Tjada D'Oyen McKenna,
Chief Executive Officer of Mercy Corps, which is headquartered
in Portland, Oregon, just a few blocks from the congressional
district I represent.
Ms. McKenna leads a global team of more than 5,400
humanitarians who provide immediate relief to save lives and
livelihoods in more than 40 countries, reaching 37 million
people. Previously, she served as Chief Operating Officer of
CARE, where she oversaw the organization's programming and
global operations.
I want to thank Ms. McKenna for spending time with the
committee this morning and for providing her organization's
important perspective. I look forward to hearing more about the
important work Mercy Corps is doing, in particular, its efforts
to increase climate and disaster resilience in vulnerable
communities around the world.
Thank you, Chair Castor, and I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next is Charles Hernick. He is the Vice
President of Policy and Advocacy at Citizens for Responsible
Energy Solutions Forum, where he leads policy work and executes
strategies to advance clean energy solutions and innovative
approaches to reducing carbon emissions.
Charles has decades of experience working in economic
development, energy, and natural resource management across the
United States and on the ground in dozens of countries.
Next, Alden Meyer is a Senior Associate at E3G, working on
United States and international climate policy and politics. He
is a Principal at Performance Partners, which provides a range
of consulting services to clients in government, business, and
the nonprofit sector. Alden has more than four decades of
experience on environmental and energy issues and is an expert
on the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change,
the Paris Agreement, and other aspects of international climate
policy.
Without objection, the witnesses' written statements will
be made part of the record.
With that, Ms. Fransen, you are now recognized to give a 5-
minute presentation of your testimony. Welcome.

STATEMENTS OF TARYN FRANSEN, SENIOR FELLOW, WORLD RESOURCES
INSTITUTE; TJADA D'OYEN MCKENNA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MERCY
CORPS; CHARLES HERNICK, VICE PRESIDENT OF POLICY AND ADVOCACY,
CITIZENS FOR RESPONSIBLE ENERGY SOLUTIONS FORUM; AND ALDEN
MEYER, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, E3G, INC.

STATEMENT OF TARYN FRANSEN

Ms. Fransen. Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and
members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify.
My name is Taryn Fransen, and I am a Senior Fellow in the
Climate Program at the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit,
nonpartisan

[[Page 7]]

environmental think tank. My work focuses on greenhouse gas
pathways and targets.
You asked me to testify regarding how we can get on track
to limit climate change to less dangerous levels. Before I do
that, I want you to know where I am coming from.
On Sunday, I sat in the dark to write this testimony, as an
atmospheric river knocked out power to my house. Two months
ago, on the day my nephew was supposed to start kindergarten in
South Lake Tahoe, he was instead in a car heading north to flee
the Caldor fire. We watched the fire perimeter hour by hour to
see whether he would have a home to return to.
These are climate impacts. They are hurting Americans
today, and they pale in comparison to what less-fortunate
communities face. We are out of time for excuses.
So, there are three points I hope you will take from my
testimony. First, policies being implemented by countries
around the world today put us on track for warming of 2.8
degrees Celsius, or 5 degrees Fahrenheit. That is too high. It
is dangerous.
Second, to change that trajectory, we need to cut emissions
in half by 2030. That means rapidly transforming the systems
that propel our economy, like power generation, industry,
transport, and agriculture. We know what changes we need to
make, and we stand to benefit from those changes.
Third, this Congress is facing a once-in-a-generation
opportunity to change the course of history by passing strong
climate investments as part of the Build Back Better Act and
the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Let's look at where we are headed today. Global greenhouse
gas emissions grew 1.3 percent per year over the last decade to
reach a record high in 2019. While the recent downturn shaved a
few percentage points off 2020 emissions, they are already
bouncing back, and this year's emissions are expected to match
prepandemic levels. But to get on the least cost pathway to
limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, we need to cut emissions
in half over the next 9 years.
Under current policies, we are on track to experience
warming of around 2.8 degrees Celsius, or 5 degrees Fahrenheit.
If we factor in the additional targets that countries are
setting for 2030 under the Paris Agreement, which aren't yet
backed up by policies, we will do a little better.
And if countries like the U.S. and China that have set net-
zero-emissions targets manage to meet them, we will be on track
for 2 degrees Celsius, or 4 degrees Fahrenheit. But even that
is too much.
Temperatures to date have risen less than half that amount,
and scientists say that warming was responsible for the
devastating heat wave that killed hundreds in the Pacific
Northwest this summer. It also increased the likelihood of
storms like Hurricane Ida by two to three times, taking lives
and causing billions in damage.
We know what we need to do to get on a different path. A
report launched today by WRI and its partners identifies 40 key
benchmarks that we need to meet over the next decade in order
to avoid the worst climate impacts. To name just a few, by
2030, we need to increase the share of electric vehicles in
light-duty vehicle sales

[[Page 8]]

to between 75 and 95 percent, phase out public financing for
fossil fuels, and increase crop yields by 18 percent.
We are not starting from a standstill. We are moving in the
right direction, but too slowly, and we need to accelerate
dramatically. As the world's largest economy, the United States
has the ability to do just that. And because we have emitted
more carbon than any other country, we have the obligation to
do so.
We took a strong step by committing to cut emissions in
half by 2030. This target is ambitious and achievable, but it
will not implement itself. Congress should do three things to
help.
First, Congress should pass ambitious legislation to cut
emissions in line with our commitment.
Second, Congress should position the U.S. to help drive
emission reductions globally. One important avenue is to ramp
up bipartisan support for international funding for clean
energy, forest protection, and resilience.
Finally, further innovation can broaden our options for
driving net emissions down to zero. Therefore, Congress should
ramp up RD&D funding for clean technologies. We can't pick and
choose among these steps. We need to do them all, and,
fortunately, they will benefit Americans.
Reducing emissions means advancing clean, efficient energy
and ecosystem restoration, which create more U.S. jobs per
dollar invested than the fossil fuel sector. Supporting climate
finance abroad improves our national security and helps U.S.
business benefit from the $23 trillion low-carbon investment
opportunity in emerging markets.
We have a long way to go to address this crisis. A wide
range of policies can help us get there, but we need ambitious
legislation, and we don't have time to waste.
Ultimately, Congress will be judged not on the specific
measures it deploys, but on the extent to which it acts quickly
to place the country on a just and equitable path to meet its
climate targets.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Fransen follows:]

Testimony of Taryn Fransen

Senior Fellow, Global Climate Program, World Resources Institute

U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

Hearing on International Climate Challenges and Opportunities

October 28, 2021

Introduction
My name is Taryn Fransen and I am a Senior Fellow in the Global
Climate Program at the World Resources Institute (WRI). WRI is a non-
profit, non-partisan environmental think tank that goes beyond research
to provide practical solutions to the world's most urgent environment
and development challenges. My work at WRI focuses on national and
global greenhouse gas emissions pathways and policies; greenhouse gas
accounting, monitoring, reporting, and verification; climate change
policy in major economies; and the international climate change
negotiations. I have been a lead author of the UNEP Emissions Gap
Report since its third edition in 2012.
I have been invited to testify today on the state of global climate
action: Where greenhouse gas emissions are today, where they are headed
under our current policies and pledges under the Paris Agreement, and
what more is needed to ensure we deliver on our pledges and keep
ramping up action to limit warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F).

[[Page 9]]

I will focus my testimony on three main points:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------
Summary

(1) The domestic policies that countries around the world
have adopted to date put the planet on track to warm
by 2.8C (5.0F). The latest international commitments
for 2030 under the Paris Agreement go a bit further,
limiting warming to 2.7C (4.9F). And if countries
achieve their pledges to drive net emissions to zero
by mid-century, warming could be limited to 2.2C
(4.0F).\1\
(2) These figures are a remarkable improvement from where
we were before the Paris Agreement, when warming was
estimated in the range of 4C (7.2F),\2\ but even a
2.2C (4.0F) future represents a grave threat to
Americans' health and economic well-being. Changing
that future requires us to rapidly transform the
systems that propel our global economy, including
power generation, buildings, industry, transport,
land-use, and agriculture.
(3) Congress is currently facing a unique, once-in-a-
generation opportunity to pass strong climate policy
and investments as part of the Build Back Better Act
and the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, positioning the United States to deliver on its
commitments under the Paris Agreement. Congress must
seize this moment and do its part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where are global greenhouse gas emissions today, and where are they
headed under current policies?
Global greenhouse gas emissions grew on average 1.3 per cent per
year over the last decade to reach a record high of 58.1
GtCO2e in 2019.\3\ While the COVID-19 pandemic led to an
unprecedented drop in emissions during 2020, in the range of 5.8 to 6.3
percent, this decline stemmed from a temporary economic slow-down, and
emissions are on the rise again. This year (2021), emissions are
expected to roughly match pre-pandemic levels.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021''
\2\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2014''
\3\ 2019 emissions were 58.1 GtCO2e including land use,
land-use change, and forestry (LULUCF) and 51.5 GtCO2e
excluding LULUCF.
\4\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countries are increasingly putting in place policies to change this
trend. At last count, 3 out of 4 countries had framework climate
legislation in place, and the number of climate policies in action
throughout the world had risen to around 1,800.\5\ The expansion of
climate policies over the past decade has reduced projected 2030
emissions by about 14 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Eskander and Fankhauser, ``Reduction in greenhouse gas
emissions from national climate legislation''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current policies are likely to limit warming to 2.8+C (5.0+F).
While this is a remarkable improvement relative to the 4+C (7.2+F)
estimated prior to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the
consequences for Americans will still be serious. To date, average
annual temperatures have risen by just 1+C (1.8+F) across the
contiguous United States, and already, the average heat wave season in
many cities is now 40 days longer than it was 50 years ago, heavy
precipitation events have become more frequent and intense across most
of the country, and drier conditions have combined with warming to
contribute to an increase in large forest fires in the West and
Alaska.\6\ These and other impacts will become more severe with every
additional fraction of a degree of warming, potentially to the tune of
3.6-4.2 percent of GDP.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Reidmiller et al, ``Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the
United States: Fourth National Climate Assessment''
\7\ Hsiang et al, ``Estimating Economic Damage from Climate Change
in the United States''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How much progress are we making under the Paris Agreement?
Under the Paris Agreement, countries must commit to deeper
emissions reductions at least every five years. The second round of
pledges--following the first round that took place when the Agreement
was adopted in 2015--is now ongoing in the lead-up to COP26 in Glasgow.
So far, 145 countries have submitted new or updated emissions-reduction
pledges for 2030.\8\ These pledges, together with further reductions
that countries have announced informally, would reduce emissions by
around 4 gigatons CO2-equivalent relative to the first
round,\9\ more than the total

[[Page 10]]

annual emissions of India.\10\ That more than doubles the impact of
2030 pledges compared to the first round, and would limit warming to
2.7+C (4.9+F). However, we still need to reduce 2030 emissions by 7
times more in order to match the least-cost pathway to 1.5+C (2.2+F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Climate Watch, ``2020 NDC Enhancements Tracker'' (as of October
25, 2021)
\9\ UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021''
\10\ Climate Watch, ``Historical GHG Emissions''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to these 2030 pledges, countries are also increasingly
recognizing the need to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-century--that
is, to reduce emissions as far as possible, and then ensure that any
remaining emissions are counter-balanced by carbon removals, for
example, via forests or technological carbon dioxide removal. It is
critical to understand that if we do not reach net-zero emissions,
warming will not stop--at any level. Sixty-five countries to date,
including both the United States and China, have made net-zero
pledges.\11\ Germany and Sweden aim to reach net-zero by 2045, Iceland
by 2040, and Finland by 2035--5, 10, and 15 years earlier than the
United States, respectively. If these pledges are delivered, we could
limit warming to around 2.2+C (4.0+F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Climate Watch, ``Net-Zero Tracker'' (as of October 25, 2021)

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

How much more do global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced to
avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change?
Projected emissions in 2030 under current pledges are one-third
higher than the median in scenarios consistent with limiting warming to
2+C (3.6+F), and more than double the median in scenarios consistent
with limiting warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F) (Table 1). To match the least-
cost pathway consistent with limiting warming to 2+C (3.6+F), we would
need to reduce emissions by 4.7 percent per year from 2019 to 2030, and
to 1.5+C (2.7+F), 12.4 percent per year. If we had begun reducing
emissions a decade ago, we could have pursued this transition somewhat
more gradually, but now we have given ourselves no choice other than
fast, steep reductions.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ If global emissions had begun to fall a decade ago, they would
need to fall 1.7 per cent per year to limit warming to 2+ C (3.6+F) and
3.3 per cent per year to limit warming to 1.5+ C (2.7+F).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 11]]

Table 1 &verbar; Projected Emissions and Size of Emissions Gap in
2030 (GtCO2e, median, 10th percentile and 90th percentile)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The Gap Report estimates global emissions under unconditional
NDCs, which are the commitments countries pledge to achieve
unilaterally, and under conditional NDCs, which are typically more
ambitious pledges contingent on certain conditions, such as
international financial support.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2030 Emissions Gap
Scenario 2030 Emissions ------------------------------------------------------------
Gap to below 2C (3.6F) Gap to below 1.5C (2.7F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current policy 55 (52-58) 15 (12-18) 30 (28-33)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UnconditionalNDCs\13\ 52 (49-55) 13 (10-16) 28 (25-30)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conditional NDCs 50 (46-52) 11 (7-13) 25 (22-28)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below 2C (3.6F) 39 (33-49)
---------------------------------------------------------
Below 1.5C (2.7F) 25 (17-33)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: UNEP, ``Emissions Gap Report 2021.''

What specific changes are needed to limit warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F)?
The latest climate science makes clear that decision-makers must
accelerate transformations toward a net-zero carbon emissions future at
a far faster pace than recent trends to keep the window open to achieve
the 1.5+C (2.7+F) goal.\14\ These rapid, far-reaching transformations
must occur across every sector--shifting how we power our homes and
businesses, transport people and goods, grow our food, construct
buildings, protect our forests and much more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Boehm et al, ``State of Climate Action 2021: Systems
Transformations Required to Limit Global Warming to 1.5+C''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a report launched earlier this morning, my colleagues translate
these transformations required to avoid the worst climate impacts into
40 key indicators, or benchmarks for 2030 and 2050. The report assesses
recent global progress towards these benchmarks and identifies how much
work remains to be done to deliver a zero-carbon world in time.
Important progress toward meeting some of these benchmarks,
particularly in the transport sector, is already well underway here in
the United States, as well as in key U.S. allies and competitors. For
example, McKinsey estimates that if U.S. electric vehicle (EV) adoption
continues to accelerate, EVs will make up half of U.S. passenger car
sales by 2030.\15\ Incentives and significant investment in EV
infrastructure under consideration by Congress could further that
acceleration. And the United States is not alone. Having announced its
intent to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles,\16\ China is
aiming for 20 percent of sales to be EVs by 2025, equivalent to 7
million vehicles.\17\ The city of Shenzhen (population 12.5 million)
has already switched to 100 percent electric buses \18\ and is in the
process of electrifying its taxi fleet. While we are not yet on track
to achieve the benchmark of 75 to 95 percent of sales by 2030, this
does represent meaningful progress by two of the world's largest
economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Fischer et al, ``A Turning Point for US Auto Dealers: The
Unstoppable Electric Car''
\16\ McDonald, ``China to Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars, State Media
Reports''
\17\ Reuters Staff, ``China Targets 35 Million Vehicle Sales by
2025, NEVs to Make up One-Fifth''
\18\ Lu, Xue, and Zhou, ``How Did Shenzhen, China Build World's
Largest Electric Bus Fleet?''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the power front, we know that we must increase the share of
renewables in electricity generation to 55 to 90 percent by 2030 and 98
to 100 percent by 2050 to keep 1.5+C in sight. Here too, there has been
progress both at home and abroad: The United States has committed to
reaching 100 percent clean electricity by
2035, installing 35 gigawatts of new renewable generating capacity in
2020 alone by the end of January 2021, the United States had 169
gigawatts of wind and solar capacity.\19\ China, meanwhile, committed
$818 billion to renewable energy capacity from 2010-2019--more than
double the U.S. sum of $392 billion.\20\ India is also pursuing an
ambitious clean energy future, aiming to quintuple its renewable
capacity

[[Page 12]]

to 450 gigawatts by 2030,\21\ even as it endeavors to bring reliable
electricity to 30 million people who do not yet have it.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ McLaughlin and Bird, ``The U.S. Set a Record for Renewables in
2020, but More Is Needed''
\20\ Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre and BNEF, ``Global Trends in
Renewable Energy Investment 2020.''
\21\ ``PM's Remarks at Climate Action Summit 2019 during 74th
Session of UNGA,'' Narendra Modi
\22\ IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, and WHO, ``Tracking SDG 7: The Energy
Progress Report 2021.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But it is not enough only to invest more in clean technology--we
must also eliminate emissions from dirty technologies and put a stop to
the activities that cause climate change. For instance, to meet 2030
objectives, the world must phase out unabated coal electricity
generation five times faster than current trends. Eliminating subsidies
to fossil fuels would be a good place to start--the United States has
committed nearly three times as much support to fossil fuels as to
clean energy since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.\23\ Likewise, we
must also cut the rate of deforestation by 70 percent (relative to
2018), requiring a total U-turn in our current practices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Energy Policy Tracker, ``United States''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, none of the 40 key indicators assessed in the new
report are yet on track to reach their benchmarks (Figure 2). But as we
look to change this picture, we are not starting from a standstill--25
of the 40 indicators are already moving in the right direction, albeit
too slowly. The right policies and investments in the United States can
do a lot to accelerate progress.

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The good news is that we have a clear understanding of the puzzle
pieces that must be put together to catalyze and sustain the
transformational change that is required. Indeed, for each of the 40
indicators assessed, the report also outlines the required shifts in
supportive policies, innovations, strong institutions, leadership, and
social norms that are needed to unlock further progress. To build and
nurture these enabling environments, governments must work proactively
alongside the private sector, civil society, and citizens to ensure
that the necessary levers and drivers are in place.
We also know definitively that the economic and social co-benefits
that will accompany these transformations are enormous. Indeed,
transitioning to the economy that we know we need to close the
emissions gap will greatly improve human health, create more jobs,
boost growth and competitiveness, preserve biodiversity, and more.
The imperative of U.S. leadership
As the world's largest economy, responsible for more cumulative
carbon emissions than any other country,\24\ the United States has both
the obligation and the ability not only to decarbonize its own economy,
but also to influence other countries to do the same. The Biden
Administration took a strong first step by committing the

[[Page 13]]

United States to reduce emissions by 50 to 52 percent from 2005 levels
by 2030. This target is both ambitious and achievable, but it will not
implement itself. There are three things that Congress can do to help.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Warming is a function of cumulative carbon emissions. Since
1850, the United States has produced far more cumulative emissions than
any other Party to the Paris Agreement--55 percent more than the
European Union, and nearly twice as much as China (ClimateWatch 2021).
This means that the United States bears proportionately more
responsibility for warming to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Congress should pass ambitious legislation to cut greenhouse
gas emissions and deliver on our pledge to halve emissions by 2030. The
good news is that recent analysis by the University of Maryland, RMI,
and WRI for America Is All In shows that an ``all-in'' policy package
that leverages state and local leadership combined with ambitious
federal action can cut U.S. emissions by 52 percent by 2030.\25\
Achieving these reductions would entail decarbonizing the electricity
sector; electrifying and improving the efficiency of buildings,
transport, and industry; and enhancing the carbon storage potential of
forests, farms, and coastal wetlands. A similar analysis by the Rhodium
Group found that an extensive, but non-exhaustive, set of policies
could cut emissions by 45 to 51 percent.\26\ Key components of an
ambitious climate package--like long-term and enhanced clean energy tax
credits and investments in transportation electrification, natural
climate solutions, the equitable deployment of low- and zero-emission
technologies, the electric grid, efficient and climate smart buildings,
and more--are included in legislation Congress is considering right
now, with relevant provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act and the Build Back Better Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Kennedy et al, ``Blueprint 2030: An All-In Climate Strategy
for Faster, More Durable Emissions Reduction''
\26\ Larsen et al, ``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the
2030 US Climate Target''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Congress should position the United States to engage
effectively in international climate diplomacy and play a strong role
in driving the Paris Agreement forward. One important avenue is for
Congress to build on its successful bipartisan efforts to maintain
international funding for clean energy, forest protection, and
resilience.\27\ Funding like this supports national security \28\ and
can help U.S. businesses \29\ to benefit from an estimated $23 trillion
in low-carbon investment opportunities in emerging markets,\30\ in
addition to ensuring that the United States fulfills longstanding
international commitments. The Biden Administration has committed to
provide $11.4 billion a year by 2024 in public finance to developing
countries to support climate action,\31\ and Congress should
appropriate funding to help deliver on that commitment and ideally go
beyond it. Even with the new pledge, the United States still lags its
peers: European Union countries are already delivering more than double
the amount of international climate finance as the United States has
pledged to provide by 2024, even with a combined economy three-quarters
the size.\32\ Such funding is a strategic investment that pays
dividends by reducing the severity and costs of climate impacts at home
and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Thwaites, ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden
Administration''
\28\ Thwaites, ``US Climate Finance: A Great Deal for the Nation
and the World''
\29\ U.S. business can benefit from, and contribute to, climate
action, but their political actions and the actions of their trade
associations does not always reflect this reality. Meyer and Menninger,
``6 Ways to Prevent Greenwashing and Risks from Trade Associations''
\30\ IFC, ``Climate Investment Opportunities in Emerging Markets:
An IFC Analysis.''
\31\ Mountford, ``STATEMENT: US Announces New Finance Pledge for
Developing Country Climate Action''
\32\ €21.9 billion ($25.4 billion) in 2019. Council of the EU
and European Council, ``Climate Finance: EU and Member States'
Contributions Continued to Increase in 2019''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, while ambitious near-term actions are possible with
existing technologies, further innovation in clean technology can
broaden our options for ultimately driving net global emissions down to
zero, which we must achieve around mid-century to limit warming to
1.5+C (2.7+F). Innovation can also reduce costs and improve the
competitiveness of U.S. businesses. Therefore, Congress should ramp up
research and development funding across the power, transport,
buildings, industry, and land sectors, as well as technology-based
carbon removal.\33\ Investments in these priorities are also a part of
the Infrastructure and Build Back Better legislation currently moving
through Congress, which include important provisions on direct air
capture, industrial decarbonization, clean hydrogen, addressing
aviation emissions, and research and development.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ Mulligan, Amador, and Deich, ``Wanted: $325 Million for
Federal R&D to Jumpstart Carbon Removal''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. economy will benefit from bold climate action. Many
studies have found that strong U.S. climate action is consistent with
long-term economic growth and a healthy job market.\34\ Forty-one U.S.
States grew their economies while reducing energy-related
CO2 emissions from 2005-2017. This includes states in all
parts of the country, including Maryland and Maine in the Northeast,
Alabama and Georgia in the South, Indiana and Ohio in the Midwest, and
Alaska and Nevada in the

[[Page 14]]

West.\35\ In 2020, renewable electricity employed 517,000 Americans and
an additional 2.1 million Americans worked in energy efficiency
jobs.\36\ Renewable energy, energy efficiency, and ecosystem
restoration create multiple times as many jobs as the fossil fuel
sector per each $1 million invested in the United States.\37\ Other
low-carbon sectors are job creators, too. For example, investments in
public transit, walking, and cycling create more jobs than investments
in highways. New renewable energy power is increasingly cheaper than
existing fossil fuels. Eighty-six percent of U.S. coal-fired power
plants in 2021 are more expensive to keep operating than it would be to
build new renewables,\38\ and even nearly a third of U.S. gas-fired
power plants units are lossmaking.\39\ High fuel prices mean even more
may become uneconomical. Further, through intentional policy design and
targeted investments, benefits of climate action can contribute to an
equitable clean energy transition that builds prosperity across
society, by guiding funding to communities that are historically and
currently marginalized, discriminated against, or disadvantaged. This
is already a priority being implemented by President Biden's
administration through the Justice40 Initiative and their commitment to
40 percent of the overall benefits from federal climate investments
flowing to disadvantaged communities.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Saha and Jaeger, ``America's New Climate Economy: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the
United States''
\35\ Saha and Jaeger, ``Ranking 41 US States Decoupling Emissions
and GDP Growth''
\36\ DOE, NASEO, EFI, and BW, ``United States Energy & Employment
Report 2021''
\37\ Jaeger et al, ``The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-Friendly
Investments Are Better Job Creators''
\38\ Ray et al, ``Do Not Revive Coal: Planned Asia Coal Plants a
Danger to Paris''
\39\ Sims et al, ``Put Gas on Standby.''
\40\ The White House, ``Executive Order on Tackling the Climate
Crisis at Home and Abroad''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to start delivering
on these needs now, by realizing the Biden Administration's Build Back
Better Agenda and passing into law both the climate-smart spending in
the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the essential climate
investments under consideration in the Build Back Better Act. Further,
establishing a well-designed carbon price could drive additional, long-
term emissions reductions economy-wide and demonstrate the U.S.
commitment to climate action. A range of policies, as well as
legislative and administrative levers, can drive both domestic
emissions reductions and international ambition. Ultimately, the
legislation will be assessed not based on the specific policy
instruments it deploys, but on the extent to which it places the
country firmly on a just and equitable track to meet its climate
targets.
Sources
Boehm, S., K. Lebling, K. Levin, H. Fekete, J. Jaeger, R. Waite, A.
Nilsson, J. Thwaites, R. Wilson, A. Geiges, C. Schumer, M. Dennis, K.
Ross, S. Castellanos, R. Shrestha, N. Singh, M. Weiss, L. Lazer, L.
Jeffery, L. Freehafer, E. Gray, L. Zhou, M. Gidden, and M. Gavin.
``State of Climate Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to
Limit Global Warming to 1.5+C.'' Washington, DC: World Resources
Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-
2021.
Climate Watch. ``2020 NDC Enhancements Tracker.'' World Resources
Institute. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/
2020-ndc-tracker.
Climate Watch. ``Historical GHG Emissions.'' World Resources
Institute. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/
ghg-emissions.
Climate Watch. ``Net-Zero Tracker.'' World Resources Institute.
Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.climatewatchdata.org/net-zero-
tracker.
Council of the EU and European Council. ``Climate Finance: EU and
Member States' Contributions Continued to Increase in 2019.'' 2020.
Council of the EU and European Council.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2020/10/29/
climate-finance-eu-and-member-states-contributions-continued-to-
increase-in-2019/.
DOE, NASEO, EFI, and BW (U.S. Department of Energy, National
Association of State Energy Officials, Energy Futures Initiative, and
BW Research Partnership, Inc). ``United States Energy & Employment
Report 2021.'' U.S. Department of Energy, 2021. https://www.energy.gov/
us-energy-employment-jobs-report-useer.
Energy Policy Tracker. ``United States.'' International Institute
for Sustainable Development. Accessed October 25, 2021.
https://www.energypolicytracker.org/country/united-states/.
Eskander, Shaikh M. S. U., and Sam Fankhauser. ``Reduction in
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from National Climate Legislation.'' Nature
Climate Change 10, no. 8 (August 2020): 750-56. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41558-020-0831-z.

[[Page 15]]

Fischer, Maximilian, Nicolaas Kramer, Inga Maurer, and Rachel
Mickelson. ``A Turning Point for US Auto Dealers: The Unstoppable
Electric Car.'' McKinsey & Company, 2021. https://www.mckinsey.com/
industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/a-turning-point-for-us-
auto-dealers-the-unstoppable-electric-car.
Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre and BNEF (Bloomberg New Energy
Finance). ``Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2020.''
Frankfurt: Frankfurt School-UNEP Centre, 2020.
https://www.fs-unep-centre.org/global-trends-in-renewable-energy-
investment-2020/.
Hsiang, Solomon, Robert Kopp, Amir Jina, James Rising, Michael
Delgado, Shashank Mohan, D. J. Rasmussen, et al. ``Estimating Economic
Damage from Climate Change in the United States.'' Science 356, no.
6345 (June 30, 2017): 1362-69. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal4369.
IEA, IRENA, UNSD, WB, and WHO (International Energy Agency,
International Renewable Energy Agency, United Nations Statistics
Division, World Bank, World Health Organization). ``Tracking SDG 7: The
Energy Progress Report 2021.'' Washington, DC: World Bank, 2021.
https://www.irena.org/publications/2021/Jun/Tracking-SDG-7-2021.
IFC (International Finance Corporation). ``Climate Investment
Opportunities in Emerging Markets: An IFC Analysis.'' Washington, DC:
International Finance Corporation, 2016. https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/
connect/59260145-ec2e-40de-97e6-3aa78b82b3c9/3503-IFC-
Climate_Investment_Opportunity-Report-Dec-
FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lBLd6Xq.
Jaeger, Joel, Ginette Walls, Ella Clarke, Juan-Carlos Altamirano,
Arya Harsono, Helen Mountford, Sharan Burrow, Samantha Smith, and
Alison Tate. ``The Green Jobs Advantage: How Climate-Friendly
Investments Are Better Job Creators.'' World Resources Institute, 2021.
https://www.wri.org/research/green-jobs-advantage-how-climate-friendly-
investments-are-better-job-creators.
Kennedy, K., W. Jaglom, N. Hultman, E. Bridgwater, R. Mendell, H.
Leslie-Bole, L. Rowland, E. McGlynn, T. Massey-Green, T. Cyrs, L.
Clarke, H. McJeon, A. Zhao, J. O'Neill, R. Gasper, J. Feldmann, K.
O'Keefe, S. Kennedy, J. Zhao, and H. Kazanecki. ``Blueprint 2030: An
All-In Climate Strategy for Faster, More Durable Emissions
Reductions.'' America Is All In, 2021.
https://www.americaisallin.com/blueprint-2030.
Larsen, John, Ben King, Emily Wimberger, Hannah Pitt, Hannah Kolus,
Alfredo Rivera, Naveen Dasari, Claire Jahns, Kate Larsen, and Whitney
Herndon. ``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 US
Climate Target.'' Rhodium Group, 2021. https://rhg.com/research/us-
climate-policy-2030/.
Lu, Lu, Lulu Xue, and Weimin Zhou. ``How Did Shenzhen, China Build
World's Largest Electric Bus Fleet?'' World Resources Institute, 2018.
https://www.wri.org/insights/how-did-shenzhen-china-build-worlds-
largest-electric-bus-fleet.
McDonald, J. ``China to Ban Petrol and Diesel Cars, State Media
Reports.'' The Independent, 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/
world/asia/china-petrol-diesel-car-ban-gasoline-production-sales-
electric-cabinet-official-state-media-a7938726.html.
McLaughlin, Katrina, and Lori Bird. ``The US Set a Record for
Renewables in 2020, but More Is Needed,'' World Resources Institute,
2021.
https://www.wri.org/insights/renewable-energy-2020-record-us.
Meyer, Amy, and Leo Menninger. ``6 Ways
to Prevent Greenwashing and Risks from Trade Associations.'' World
Resources Institute, 2021. https://
www.wri.org/insights/how-businesses-mitigate-risk-greenwashing-trade-
associations-us.
Mountford, Helen. ``STATEMENT: US Announces New Finance Pledge for
Developing Country Climate Action.'' World Resources Institute, 2021.
https://www.wri.org/news/statement-us-announces-new-finance-pledge-
developing-country-climate-action.
Mulligan, James, Giana Amador, and Noah Deich. 2018. ``Wanted: $325
Million for Federal R&D to Jumpstart Carbon Removal.'' World Resources
Institute. https://www.wri.org/insights/wanted-325-million-federal-rd-
jumpstart-carbon-removal.
``PM's Remarks at Climate Action Summit 2019 during 74th Session of
UNGA.'' Narendra Modi, 2019. https://www.narendramodi.in/pm-modi-s-
remarks-at-summit-on-climate-change-546575.
Ray, Lee, Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, Durand D'souza,
Valeria Ehrenheim, Lily Chau, Nicolas Gonzalez, Lorenzo Sani, and
Aurore Le Galiot. ``Do Not Revive Coal: Planned Asia Coal Plants a
Danger to Paris.'' Carbon Tracker, 2021. https://carbontracker.org/
reports/do-not-revive-coal/.
Reidmiller, David R., Christopher W. Avery, David R. Easterling,
Kenneth E. Kunkel, Kristin L.M. Lewis, Thomas K. Maycock, and Brooke C.
Stewart. ``Impacts,

[[Page 16]]

Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: The Fourth National Climate
Assessment, Volume II.'' U.S. Global Change Research Program, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.7930/NCA4.2018.
Reuters Staff. ``China Targets 35 Million Vehicle Sales by 2025,
NEVs to Make up One-Fifth.'' Reuters, 2017.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-autos-electric-idUSKBN17R086.
Saha, Devashree, and Joel Jaeger. ``America's New Climate Economy:
A Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the
United States.'' World Resource Institute, 2020. https://www.wri.org/
research/americas-new-climate-economy-comprehensive-guide-economic-
benefits-climate-policy-united.
Saha, Devashree, and Joel Jaeger. ``Ranking 41 US States Decoupling
Emissions and GDP Growth,'' World Resources Institute, 2020.
https://www.wri.org/insights/ranking-41-us-states-decoupling-emissions-
and-gdp-growth.
Sims, Jonathan, Catharina Hillenbrand von der Neyen, Durand
D'souza, Lily Chau, Nicolas Gonzalez-Jimenez, and Lorenzo Sani. ``Put
Gas on Standby.'' Carbon Tracker, 2021. https://carbontracker.org/
reports/put-gas-on-standby/.
Thwaites, Joe. ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden
Administration.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/
insights/4-climate-finance-priorities-biden-administration.
Thwaites, Joe. ``US Climate Finance: A Great Deal for the Nation
and the World.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/
insights/us-climate-finance-great-deal-nation-and-world.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). ``Emissions Gap Report
2014.'' Nairobi: UNEP, 2014. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-
gap-report-2014.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme). ``Emissions Gap Report
2021.'' Nairobi: UNEP, 2021. https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-
gap-report-2021.
The White House. ``Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis
at Home and Abroad.'' The White House, 2021.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/
27/executive-order-on-tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home-and-abroad/.

Ms. Castor. Thank you, Ms. Fransen.
Ms. McKenna, you are recognized for 5 minutes to provide
your testimony.

STATEMENT OF TJADA D'OYEN MCKENNA

Ms. McKenna. Thank you.
Good morning, and thank you, committee Chair Castor,
Ranking Member Graves, and members of the House Select
Committee on the Climate Crisis.
My name is Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, and I am the Chief
Executive Officer of Mercy Corps, an international humanitarian
and development organization.
As was mentioned earlier, our global team of 5,400
humanitarians operates in 40 countries where our work supports
more than 37 million people, including to adapt to a change in
climate.
One of our flagship programs is providing services and
products by mobile phone to 3 million farmers across seven
countries to help them improve climate-informed agriculture
practices, from planting drought-resistant seeds to accessing
innovative financial services.
While climate change affects every country on every
continent, its effects are not shared equally. People already
burdened by poverty, violence, and hunger suffer the harshest
consequences while having the least ability to cope.
Climate change is one of the main drivers of the global
hunger crisis. Global hunger has been dramatically rising over
the past 5 years and today, roughly 155 million people are
experiencing acute food insecurity.
Extreme weather events are reducing harvests, raising food
prices, driving migration, and generating new conflicts,
contrib

[[Page 17]]

uting to the reversal of years of gains in income growth and
food security.
We have effective tools for solving hunger, but we now need
to build climate change adaptation into that equation. For
example, in Guatemala, where rising temperatures have
contributed to long periods of drought, crop loss, and low food
production, Mercy Corps has partnered with Colorado State
University to leverage its predictive weather modeling
expertise to help farmers make more informed decisions about
planting, harvesting, and storing.
And in Nepal, where changing weather has led to severe crop
losses, we have helped farmers increase their yields by 61
percent through new climate-smart agriculture practices.
Climate change is a threat multiplier, sparking violence
and conflict. Our teams see firsthand how interconnected
conflict and climate change are. For instance, in the eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo, while climate change affects
every country on every continent, its affects are not shared
equally.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, our FARM Program
provided community members with negotiations and dispute
resolution training, empowering them to work with local
authorities to establish a new land access and leasing program
for thousands of small-scale farmers.
Unfortunately, the communities that need the most help are
being left behind as the most fragile countries are passed over
for safer options. Only 25 percent of bilateral climate
financing and less than 50 percent of major multilateral
funding targets countries most vulnerable to climate change.
And, in 2019, less than 1 percent of climate adaptation funding
went to the 10 most fragile states.
It is possible to reverse the trend. Mercy Corps has helped
millions of people worldwide adapt to a changing climate,
sowing drought-resistant crops in Ethiopia, using state-of-the-
art technology to cope with flooding in Nepal, and distributing
drought-resistant seeds to boost harvests in Haiti. But we need
the help of donors, including the U.S. Government.
First, it is vital to recognize that communities urgently
need help to adapt to the changing climate. It is too late to
focus solely on reducing emissions. The U.S. Government can
demonstrate leadership by increasing resources dedicated to its
climate adaptation accounts, particularly for the U.S. Agency
for International Development.
I was pleased to see the increase for climate adaptation
funding in the pending Fiscal Year 2022 State and Foreign Ops
appropriation bills, and I hope the House of Representatives
will match the Senate's more generous proposal. I also urge the
United States to galvanize private sector investment and
sustainable climate finance.
Second, the U.S. Government must ensure that its assistance
is going to the most climate-vulnerable places, and
particularly to those that are conflict affected. Adaptation
efforts should be locally led, include a strong investment in
digital infrastructure, and have a special focus on small
holder farmers, especially women and young people.

[[Page 18]]

Lastly, U.S. climate adaptation assistance should build on
and reinforce our other development assistance to prevent
conflict, hunger, and poverty.
I thank this Select Committee for its commitment to helping
vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, and I look
forward to questions later.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. McKenna follows:]

Written Testimony of Tjada D'Oyen McKenna,

Chief Executive Officer, Mercy Corps

House Select Committee On The Climate Crisis

Hearing on International Climate Challenges and Opportunities

Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:30 AM EST

Written Testimony

Good morning, and thank you Committee Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the House Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis.
My name is Tjada D'Oyen McKenna, and I am the Chief Executive
Officer of Mercy Corps, an international humanitarian and development
organization. Our global team of 5,600 humanitarians operates in 40
countries, where our work supports more than 37 million people,
including to adapt to a changing climate. One of our flagship programs
is providing services and products by mobile phone to 3 million farmers
across seven countries to help them improve climate-informed
agriculture practices--from planting drought resistant seeds to
accessing innovative financial services.
While climate change affects every country on every continent, its
effects are not shared equally. People already burdened by poverty,
violence, and hunger suffer the harshest consequences, while having the
least ability to cope.
Climate change is one of the main drivers of the global hunger
crisis. Global hunger has been dramatically rising over the past 5
years, and today roughly 155 million people are experiencing acute food
insecurity. Extreme weather events are reducing harvests, raising food
prices, driving migration, and generating new conflicts, contributing
to the reversal of years of gains in income growth and food security.
We have effective tools for solving hunger, but we now need to
build climate change adaptation into the equation. For example, in
Guatemala, where rising temperatures have contributed to long periods
of drought, crop loss, and low food production, Mercy Corps has
partnered with Colorado State University to leverage its predictive
weather modeling expertise to help farmers make more informed decisions
about planting, harvesting, and storing. And in Nepal, where changing
weather has led to severe crop losses, we have helped farmers increase
their yields by 61% through new climate smart agriculture practices.
Climate change is a threat multiplier, sparking violence and
conflict. Our teams see firsthand how interconnected conflict and
climate change are. For instance, in eastern Democratic Republic of the
Congo, where tensions were exacerbated by land disputes and natural
resource scarcity, our FARM program provided community members with
negotiation and dispute resolution training, empowering them to work
with local authorities to establish a new land access and leasing
program for thousands of small-scale farmers.
Unfortunately, the communities that need help the most are being
left behind as the most fragile countries are passed over for `safer'
options. Only 25% of bilateral climate financing and less than 50% of
major multilateral funding targets countries most vulnerable to climate
change. And, in 2019, less than 1% of climate adaptation funding went
to the 10 most fragile states.
It is possible to reverse the trend. Mercy Corps has helped
millions of people worldwide adapt to a changing climate: sowing
drought-resistant crops in Ethiopia, using state of the art technology
to cope with flooding in Nepal and distributing drought-resistant seeds
to boost harvests in Haiti. But we need the help of donors, including
the U.S. government.
First, it is vital to recognize that communities urgently need help
to adapt to the changing climate. It is too late to focus solely on
reducing emissions. The U.S. government can demonstrate leadership by
increasing resources dedicated to its climate

[[Page 19]]

adaptation accounts, particularly for the U.S. Agency for International
Development. I was pleased to see the increase for climate adaptation
funding in the pending Fiscal Year 2022 State and Foreign Operations
Appropriations Bills, and I hope the House of Representatives will
match the Senate's more generous proposal. I also urge the United
States to galvanize private sector investment and sustainable climate
finance.
Second, the U.S. government must ensure that its assistance is
going to the most climate vulnerable places, and particularly to those
that are conflict-affected. Adaptation efforts should be locally led,
include a strong investment in digital infrastructure and have a
special focus on smallholder farmers, especially women and young
people.
Lastly, U.S. climate adaptation assistance should build on and
reinforce our other development assistance to prevent conflict, hunger,
and poverty.
I thank the Select Committee for its commitment to helping
vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, and I look forward to
your questions.

Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hernick, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES HERNICK

Mr. Hernick. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member
Graves, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today.
My name is Charles Hernick. I am Vice President of Policy
and Advocacy with an organization called Citizens for
Responsible Energy Solutions. My testimony today is shaped not
just by my experience here in the United States, but on the
ground in over a dozen countries in Africa and Latin America.
I hope you remember three points from my testimony today.
The first is that there is no substitute for U.S. leadership in
innovation. The second is that trade and aid must drive
economic growth and opportunity, not just on the ground in the
countries we are assisting, but here in the United States. And,
finally, and in the spirit of Halloween, to remember that
greenhouse gases are the bogeyman, not fossil fuels.
With respect to innovation, low-cost, low-emission
technologies and goods will be successful to climate policy.
Anything short of widespread adoption will fail to address the
global issue. American innovations will be a key driver, and
people all around the world are looking for the next 3M or
General Mills, the next Ford or Tesla, the next IBM or Apple,
to develop and deploy quality consumer products around the
world.
In our climate-conscious era, quality means low-carbon,
zero-carbon, or net-negative emissions technologies. That is
why the most important role for the United States Government is
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by making strategic
investments in innovation, research and development, such as
those included in the Energy Act of 2020, which serves as a
strong foundation for an all-of-the-above approach, focusing on
renewables, nuclear, fossil fuel--fuel and energy efficiency,
hydrogen, electrification, and carbon capture utilization and
storage. All of these options must be on the table.
With respect to trade and aid, the United States leads the
world in development assistance. We should be proud of that
fact and continue our global commitments. But more important
than the dollars of the direct aid is America's role in
cultivating the right outcome: economic growth, a low-carbon
future, and strong ties with our democratic allies around the
world. That means also as

[[Page 20]]

suring that U.S. solutions are brought to the world through
international trade policy at a cost that the developing
nations are able and willing to pay.
U.S. Government must harness the power of free markets and
be champions of free markets as we reexamine our regulations,
trade, and intellectual property protections. That means
avoiding mandates and subsidies. We live in an era where, even
in the depths of a pandemic, companies large and small have
voluntarily committed to carbon neutrality by mid-century.
Government should empower companies to achieve their self-set
goals, not pursue heavy-handed, top-down mandates that drive up
costs and reduce options, not just here in the U.S. but around
the world.
With respect to greenhouse gases, we need to remember that
the data matters. Coal, oil, and natural gas are indispensable
to the global energy system and the global economy. In 1971,
coal, oil, and natural gas fueled 86 percent of the global
energy supply. In 2019, this decreased only slightly to 81
percent.
I am a champion of renewables, and I am very proud of the
fact that renewables have been able to grow in the United
States at over 11 percent last year in the depths of a
pandemic. But when you look at the globe, the energy mix is
pretty stable. Dramatic reengineering of the global energy
system hasn't happened, and while it is possible, it is not
likely to happen in the next decade.
That is why we need to acknowledge that U.S. oil and gas is
far cleaner than equivalent fuels from anywhere else in the
world. For example, Russian-produced natural gas shipped by
pipeline to Europe has about 41 percent higher life cycle
emissions than U.S. liquefied natural gas shipped to the same
destination. Russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline
to China has 47 percent higher life cycle emissions than U.S.
LNG.
When a resource is taken off the table, innovation in that
area will grind to a halt. That is why Congress should continue
to support carbon capture utilization and storage.
Government does not need to mandate that these technologies
be adopted. Companies are doing it on their own. Completely
cutting out fossil fuels in the short-term is simply not
realistic. And given the high percentage of the energy mix that
they still provide, we need to keep all options on the table.
Finally, there is a significant security concern with
targeting U.S. fuels in our current global marketplace. America
calling on OPEC to increase production undercuts our economic
and national security objectives. Policies that restrict U.S.
fossil fuel production, transportation, and exports in the name
of climate change actually have the opposite effect; they
contribute more to global emissions, not less, at a significant
cost to America's reputation, security, and economic outlook.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to questions.
[The statement of Mr. Hernick follows:]

[[Page 21]]

Testimony of Charles Hernick, Vice President of Policy and Advocacy,

Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES) Forum

To the U.S. House of Representatives,

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

For the Hearing ``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities''

Thursday, October 28, at 10:30 AM EDT

210 Cannon House Office Building

Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities.''
My name is Charles Hernick, and I am the Vice President of Policy
and Advocacy for Citizens for Responsible Energy Solution (CRES) Forum.
We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit that educates the public and influences
the national conversation around clean energy and climate solutions
that are actionable, market-friendly, and responsible. My testimony is
shaped by my experience not just here in the U.S. but on the ground in
over a dozen countries in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean
working to advance American interests abroad as a consultant to U.S.
Agency for International Development.
In April, during ``Earth Week,'' our executive director testified
before this committee on ways that climate-focused goals could also
create new jobs and catalyze economic growth. Although much has
happened in a short period of time since that testimony, we continue to
focus on three guiding principles for judging climate policy from a
conservative perspective:

Cut energy prices, not energy choices
Export American Innovation, not American jobs
Reduce global emissions, not America's economy

Nowhere do these principles matter more than in international
climate negotiations, which are designed to advance common solutions to
a truly global problem. To that end, I hope you will remember three
points from my testimony:
First, there is no substitute for U.S. leadership in innovation.
Low-cost, low-emissions technologies and goods will be critical to
successful climate policy.\1\ Anything short of widespread adoption
will fail to address this global issue, and American innovation will be
the key driver. People in every country look to the U.S. for the next
Ford or Tesla, IBM or Apple, 3M or General Mills to develop and deploy
quality consumer products around the world. In our climate conscious
era: quality means low-carbon, net-zero, or negative emissions
technologies. Innovative and low-cost climate solutions are needed for
global uptake in developing countries in Africa, Latin America, and
Asia, where too many people still lack basic services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See more about CRES Forum's Climate Policy Directives at:
https://cresforum.org/climate-policy-directives/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most important role for the U.S. government in reducing
greenhouse gas emissions around the world is to make strategic
investments in research and development (R&D), such as those included
in the Energy Act of 2020, which serves as a strong foundation to an
all-of-the-above approach: renewables, nuclear, fuel and energy
efficiency, hydrogen, electrification (i.e., electric vehicles), and
carbon capture utilization and storage must all on the table. And it
must not pick winners and losers in the marketplace.
Second, aid and trade should drive economic growth and opportunity.
The U.S. leads the world in aid and development assistance.\2\ We
should be proud of that fact--and continue our global commitments. But
more important than the amount of dollars of direct aid is America's
role cultivating the right outcome: economic growth, a low carbon
future, and strong ties with our democratic allies. That means also
assuring that U.S. solutions are brought to the world through
international trade policy, at a cost that developing nations are able
and willing to pay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ OECD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/45472e20-en/index.html?itemId=/
content/component/5e331623-
en&_csp_=b14d4f60505d057b456dd1730d8fcea3&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=c
hapter
To make a dent in global emissions, climate solutions must be as
accessible and locally appropriate. This means driving down the cost of
innovation as quickly as possible by eliminating unnecessary regulatory
barriers, forcefully protecting the intellectual property of our
homegrown innovations, and enabling the right market conditions for our
companies to scale up manufacturing and distribution without delay.

[[Page 22]]

Trade policy should reward American companies with high
environmental performance and assure they will not be undercut by
countries and foreign businesses lagging in the race to reduce
emissions.\3\ Our geopolitical adversaries are willing to undercut
American interests no matter what the implications are for climate
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Based on https://cresforum.org/climate-policy-directives/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government must lead the world to harness the power of
free markets as we reexamine regulation, trade, and intellectual
property protection. That means avoiding mandates and subsidies. We
live in an era where even in the depths of a pandemic, companies large
and small have voluntarily committed to carbon neutrality by definitive
dates. Government should empower companies to achieve their self-set
goals, not pursue heavy-handed, top-down mandates that drive up costs
or reduce options in the U.S. and around the world.
Third, greenhouse gas emissions are the bogeyman! Not fossil fuels.
Coal and oil and natural gas are indispensable to the global energy
system. In 1971, coal, oil, and natural gas fueled around 86 percent of
the global energy supply; and in 2019, this decreased only slightly to
81 percent.\4\ While I am a champion of renewables--and very proud that
solar and wind have taken off in the U.S. growing at 11 percent last
year--when you look at the globe (total primary energy supply), the mix
is about the same as it has ever been. A dramatic reengineering of the
global energy system has not happened since President George H.W. Bush
brough the U.S into the United Nations Climate Framework in 1992. It is
possible, but unlikely that such dramatic change will happen in the
next decade. While renewables will--and must--grow to tackle climate
change, Congress can take pride in the fact that for a world dependent
upon fossil fuels for the near future, U.S oil and gas is far cleaner
than the equivalent fuels from anywhere else in the world. For example,
Russian-produced natural gas shipped by pipeline to Europe has
approximately 41 percent higher life-cycle emissions (carbon dioxide
(CO2) equivalent) than U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG)
shipped to the same destination.\5\ Russian-produced natural gas
shipped by pipeline to China has 47 percent higher life-cycle emissions
than U.S. LNG exported to China.\6\ In addition, heavy oil produced in
Venezuela has 50 percent higher life-cycle emissions than light oil
produced in Wyoming.\7\ Of course, having the whole world consume U.S.
oil and gas is not realistic or possible, but if we are serious about
reducing emissions we cannot afford to take American oil and gas off
the table.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Balances,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/world.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Selina Roman-White et al., ``Life Cycle GHG Perspective on
Exporting LNG From the U.S. 2019 Update,'' National Energy Technology
Laboratory, (September 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/09/f66/2019%20NETL%20LCA-
GHG%20Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
\7\ Deborah Gordon et al., ``Know Your Oil: Creating a Global Oil-
Climate Index,'' Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, (March
2015). http://oci.carnegieendowment.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When a resource is taken off of the table, innovation in that area
grinds to a halt. That is why Congress should continue its support of
carbon capture utilization and storage. Government does not need to
mandate the adoption of these technologies and practices; companies are
adopting it themselves to meet consumer demand. Low-carbon fossil fuels
must be an important tool for climate policy as we transition to
cleaner energy sources, not just in the U.S. but because the rest of
the world also uses fossil fuels. Completely cutting out all fossil
fuels in the short term is simply not realistic, given the high
percentage of the energy mix they still provide, the reliability they
ensure, as well as the increasing number of options that are available
to reduce the carbon footprint of these fuels. Turning our back on the
opportunities for innovation that can ensure that fossil energy emits
significantly lower emissions would also be harmful for U.S.
competitiveness.
Finally, there's a significant security concern with targeting U.S.
fossil fuels in the current global marketplace. America calling on OPEC
to increase production undercuts our economic and national security
objectives. Policies that restrict U.S. fossil fuel production,
transportation, and exports in the name of climate change in fact have
the opposite effect. They contribute to more global emissions, not
less, at a significant cost to America's reputation, security, and
economic outlook.
Good policy, not good rhetoric is needed to solve the climate problem
With the 26th UN Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26)
starting in a few days, it is important to be realistic about the 2030
target that the Biden Administration has embraced and how it is related
to U.S. credibility in international climate politics.

[[Page 23]]

I am concerned that many of the policies implied to meet that
target would threaten economic growth because they put government in
the position to pick winners and losers and measure success in terms of
dollars spent, irrespective of real inflation and deficit concerns. We
need a suite of policies cutting across the major sectors, along with
the necessary modernization in permitting that would enable the
deployment of the clean energy infrastructure that we need. The Biden
pledge under the Paris Agreement--a 50 percent to 52 percent reduction
by 2030, compared to 2005--does not include specifics on how the US
will meet this goal and eliminate 3 gigatons from our carbon balance
sheet. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), while
CO2 emissions fell by 11 percent in 2020,\8\ they are
expected to grow roughly 8 percent this year.\9\ Next year, EIA expects
no change in CO2 emissions.\10\ Thus, America would need to
reduce emissions by about 2 gigatons by the end of 2030--roughly one
quarter of a gigaton a year. Since 1990, we have only reduced emissions
by that amount twice: as a result of the financial crisis in 2008-2009
and COVID in 2020. The economic hardship from these crises should not
be part of our climate plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``U.S. energy-related Dec. 16, 2021 emissions declined by 11%
in 2020,'' U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 12 April 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=47496.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``U.S. Economic Assumptions and Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide
Emissions,'' EIA, 13 October 2021, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
report/renew_co2.php.
\10\ ``Short-term energy outlook,'' EIA, 13 October 2021, https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effective climate policy will rely on the power of free markets.
Big government mandates favor incumbent technologies and large
companies and are blind to what the free market can do. Additional
bureaucracy is disproportionately threatening to small businesses and
start-ups. Appetite for clean energy--by people and companies--has been
growing steadily for decades and as a result, the private sector and
effective state-level policies have achieved the goals of President
Obama's Clean Power Plan carbon reductions 10 years ahead of time.\11\
Indeed, it is a favorable American business environment that gives
space for a record number of companies to put themselves on a path to
net zero and differentiate themselves on ``clean.'' Congress should
encourage more of that race to the top, and successful climate policy
can be measured based on whether the free market is incentivizing
behavior and activities that support our climate goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Bloomberg NEF and Business Council for Sustainable Energy
(BCSE). Sustainable Energy in America 2021. Factbook. https://bcse.org/
factbook/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, America's interests and American jobs should be our
number one priority when developing climate policy. The U.S. is more
energy independent than we have been in decades and we should not lose
that in the race to reduce emissions. This means that we need to
address the entire supply chain of materials and technologies. It is
encouraging that companies like Ford, General Motors, Tesla, and
Volkswagen are building electric vehicles and battery plants in the
U.S. to align supply chains with emerging markets. Domestically sourced
critical minerals and metals utilized by domestic manufacturing
facilities could supply the development of a clean energy
transportation sector at home and abroad--but closing off areas for
mining here in the U.S is problematic. For example, the Biden
Administration's ordering of a study that could lead to a 20-year ban
on mining upstream from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness poses
challenges to companies like Twin Metals Mining that are aiming to use
environmental best practices to safely mine minerals critical to clean
energy technology. Steps like this risk hemorrhaging more domestic jobs
along the full clean energy and technology supply chain overseas. We
must directly measure the effectiveness of our climate policy in our
greenhouse gas emissions, job numbers, manufacturing metrics, the
security of our supply chain, and our Gross Domestic Product.
1. Innovation
U.S. leadership in advancing global action to address climate
change is indispensable. However, we need to get away from a 1990's
climate policy conversation (a U.S.-centric view of the world) when the
United States was a quarter of global emissions and the rest of the
developed world was another 25 percent. When we could pursue unilateral
policy--perhaps in coordination with a few other economies--that could
make a major dent in global emissions. But we are not there anymore.
Today, more than 85 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions
occur outside U.S. borders--a share that will increase to over 90
percent by the end of the next decade. Worldwide emissions are
increasing, as global energy demand is rising. The primary driver of
this demand is developing economies as they increase their energy use
and living standards rise. As a group, they are estimated to account
for over 100 percent of the anticipated increase in global emissions
through 2050.

[[Page 24]]

Accordingly, we need to figure out how to best leverage U.S.
climate and energy policy to innovate and develop commercialization
pathways that work in India, Nigeria, and Indonesia. We need to be
clear headed about what poor countries can and will do.

Recommendation: Make strategic investments in research and
development (R&D).

At the close of 2020, the COVID relief and year-end omnibus also
included a broad modernization of our nation's energy policies. The
Energy Act of 2020 was the culmination of many years of significant
bipartisan effort and marks the first comprehensive energy legislation
passed in over a decade. It combined several bipartisan provisions and
reflects the priorities of many members of Congress to accelerate the
development of technologies needed to meet our environmental and
economic challenges. The Act provides a timely and critical investment
in the advancements in energy efficiency, energy storage, advanced
nuclear, carbon capture, carbon removal, renewable energy, and other
approaches needed to decarbonize our economy. Importantly, it brought
bipartisan compromise on the phaseout of hydrofluorocarbons, which are
greenhouse gases with extremely high warming potential.
The bipartisan Energy Act of 2020 was an important down payment on
energy innovation, but affordability also matters here at home. The
impacts of the pandemic-induced recession have not been evenly
distributed across America, nor are historic environmental burdens or
the likely economic and health impacts of effects of climate change.
Price increases make life even harder for these Americans. We can
measure the success of our climate policy based on the availability of
new energy innovations and whether they are priced for easy and
widespread adoption.
As COVID-19 has been brought under control, the economy has
recovered faster than many expected. The case for additional stimulus
is limited, and overspending risks overheating the economy and further
stoking the fires of inflation. Congress should fully fund Energy Act
of 2020.
2. Aid and trade should drive economic growth and opportunity.
When history books are written about how we solved the climate
problem, these years of the global COVID-19 pandemic will be a
surprising turning point. There is a new, encouraging baseline.
Companies across the U.S. economy voluntarily committed to renewable
energy, as evidenced by more than 10.6 GW of corporate renewable energy
purchases occurring in 2020, according to the Renewable Energy Buyers
Alliance.\12\ Companies across retail, big tech, and hospitality, among
other sectors, have stepped up and made voluntary commitments to
decarbonize their operations. That is why multi-billion or trillion-
dollar pledges will not be a sign of success. Capital markets--driven
by large investors and common stockholders alike--are focused on
delivering a low-carbon future. Investors like Wells Fargo, Goldman
Sachs, Bank of America, HSBC, Morgan Stanley, and Barclays have all
committed to net-zero portfolios by mid-century.\13\ More investors are
factoring climate change into their portfolios, and it is easier than
ever for Americans to align their 401(k) plans with a carbon-free
future. There is no shortage of finance for mature clean energy
technologies. Trillions in scattershot spending--in the U.S. and
abroad--could crowd-out private sector investment. First and foremost,
we should measure the success of our climate policy based on how well
it encourages, not competes, with investment from America's financial
industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Ben German. ``Ranking 2020's corporate clean energy deals.''
Axios, February 11, 2020. https://www.axios.com/renewable-energy-
companies-amazon-google-18db639c-e1e5-416f-8887-848e601131c6.html.
\13\ American University. Carbon Removal Corporate Action Tracker.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vf-
uXsf6fo7MuNpPya2Kz82Dxte0hHgtOXimgpRA3c/edit#gid=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This new baseline needs to be kept in mind as we revisit
regulation, trade, and intellectual property protection. Frequently,
policy that is ostensibly designed to address global climate change
does not achieve the goals we seek. Entrepreneurs are rewarded with
sales as customers seek suppliers that best fulfill their demands.
Mandates and subsidies, however, actively undermine this dynamic--
by shifting costs from one party onto another. For their part,
subsidies harm competition by alleviating inefficient producers of the
need to cut costs to increase revenues, while unsubsidized competitors,
which may be more efficient, are forced out of the market.
Studies by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
(ITIF) have confirmed that such governmental policies harm innovation.
In comparing subsidized Chinese solar module producers to U.S.
manufacturers, for example, American companies invested less in
innovation as they struggled to raise revenue in the face of
competitors that were buoyed by Chinese governmental support. Our
failure in solar manufacturing is a case study worthy of consideration.
Solar was invented in the United States and then stolen by China, which
has used predatory trade

[[Page 25]]

practices and nearly destroyed our related manufacturing. The story is
similar for manufacturing of solar cells and modules. Imports of those
products supplied 88 percent of U.S. domestic demand in 2017.

Recommendation: Normalizing transparency and reporting for
sustainability markets such as voluntary carbon trading will help drive
competition and investment.

America's private and public sectors have made great strides in
deploying clean energy and reducing emissions, but there is currently
no way for these accomplishments to be documented and organized so that
their collective impact can be better understood by investors and
consumers.
Normalizing systems for carbon reporting will increase transparency
and accountability, increase investment in clean energy and offsets,
and further decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions without imposing
unnecessary mandates, costs, or bureaucracy.
This type of limited federal effort could help protect investors
and maintain fair and orderly functioning of voluntary carbon markets.
State compliance markets would still need their own enforcement
mechanisms. But for private actors in the voluntary carbon space,
following federal transparency and reporting guidance could crowd-in
investment the way that Energy Star mainstreamed energy efficiency in
the early 1990s through a voluntary program. Perhaps most importantly,
government can facilitate certainty and trust in voluntary, industry-
established greenhouse gas emissions registries and bring greater
definition to tradable carbon offsets without inventing a new federal
system that attempts to supersede state progress.
In addition to helping industry meet climate change goals, this
framework for carbon transparency would help U.S. companies outcompete
foreign rivals, particularly Chinese companies that depend on high-
carbon sources of energy for industry. Indeed, our polling shows that
72 percent of all voters, and 61 percent of Republicans, support
requiring both foreign and domestic companies to label their products
based on the type of energy used in production, and equal numbers
support requiring government contractors to disclose carbon emissions
in the production of their goods and materials.\14\ Consumers want to
know that their hard-earned dollars support companies that do not harm
the planet. Providing easy access to that information will drive
business back to American industry, boosting American jobs, our
economy, and our national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions (CRES). Poll:
Republican, Democratic Voters Support Commonsense, ``All-of-the-Above''
Climate Solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://citizensfor.com/pressreleases/poll-republican-democratic-
voters-support-commonsense-all-of-the-above-climate-solutions/.
3. Keep the focus on greenhouse gas emissions
Here in the United States, there's a lot of talk about
transitioning away from fossil fuels--but you don't have that
conversation in the developing world. While there is strong support for
low carbon technologies in those countries, they all support
traditional fossil fuel energy as well.
Consequently, we should develop a climate strategy anchored in the
real world of today. The United States needs to leverage its policies
to accelerate the overseas deployment of low carbon technologies to
reduce or avoid increases in global emissions. Poor countries are
unwilling to pay the green premium that we're willing to pay--they're
focused on poverty eradication and energy access. Many of them also
have fossil fuels, particularly coal, and there will be a strong
incentive to tap those indigenous resources to enhance their own energy
security, create jobs, and improve their balance of payments. Because
developing countries are going to reject increasing the costs of
conventional fuels, we must focus on driving down the cost of low
carbon technologies to create a commercialization strategy that works
for their market--and not just for ours.
Here in the United States there's a strong push to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by blocking fossil fuel infrastructure,
including pipelines and terminals that would ultimately result in
exporting that energy overseas. This is a misguided approach and
detrimental to efforts to reduce global emissions. While it is
important to push other countries to deploy low carbon technologies and
systems, we must recognize that countries, even those in the European
Union, will continue to use fossil fuels.
In reducing global emissions, the use of U.S. natural resources is
key. As stated previously, the greenhouse gas life-cycle emissions of
fossil fuels vary by supplier--often significantly. The potential
emissions reductions from intra-fuel switching are significant. For
example, if the European Union (EU) replaced its Russian natural gas
for electricity production with U.S. natural gas, the associated global
emissions

[[Page 26]]

would fall approximately 72 million metric tons annually.\15\ For
comparison, the EU estimates that it needs to reduce its emissions by
78 million metric tons each year to reach its 2030 targets.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Assuming 35 percent of EU electricity generated from natural
gas is sourced from Russia (244 million megawatt hours) and 297
kgCO2e lower life-cycle emissions per megawatt hour from
U.S. supply.
\16\ ``Gas 2019,'' International Energy Agency, (2019). https://
www.iea.org/reports/market-report-series-gas-2019

Recommendation: Welcome approaches that decarbonize oil and gas and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
coal, specifically carbon capture utilization and storage.

With current technologies, it is possible to reduce, and perhaps
someday fully decarbonize, the oil and gas sector. Oil and gas
companies are focused on reducing upstream emissions, as well as
sequestering and offsetting carbon. Despite incredible economic
challenges this past year, oil and gas majors Total and Royal Dutch
Shell announced ambitious plans to reach net zero greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050, echoing similar announcements made by BP and Repsol
in 2019. Total, for example, aims to achieve net-zero Scope 1 and 2
emissions by 2050 and it is targeting carbon neutrality for all its
Scope 3 production and energy products sold in Europe by 2050.\17\ Oxy
Low Carbon Ventures, a subsidiary of Houston based Occidental
Petroleum, delivered its first batch of ``carbon-neutral oil'' this
past January.\18\ Fueling up with carbon-neutral gasoline can only be
part of the future through an all-of-the-above approach that is open to
innovation in all sectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Francois De Beaupuy. ``Oil Giant Total Targets Carbon
Neutrality in 2050.'' Bloomberg Green, May 5, 2020. https://
www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-05/total-targets-carbon-
neutrality-in-2050-as-profit-plunges-
35?cmpid=BBD051220_GREENDAILY&utm_medium=email
&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=200512&utm_campaign=greendaily
\18\ Eklavya Gupte and Paula VanLaningham. ``US' Occidental
supplies first cargo of `carbon-neutral crude' to India's Reliance.''
S&P Global, January 29, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/oil/
012921-us-occidental-supplies-first-cargo-of-carbon-neutral-crude-to-
indias-reliance.
Government does not need to mandate this behavior; companies are
adopting it themselves to meet consumer demand. Zero-emission fossil
fuels can be an important tool for climate policy as we transition to
cleaner energy sources, but only if we make it possible for oil and gas
companies to deliver on those promises. Government can do that by
removing barriers that currently inhibit transparency, certainty, and
trust in carbon offset markets.
Conclusion
Over the past decade, America has reduced its carbon emissions more
than any other country. This was achieved through an all-of-the-above
energy policy combined with public and private sector investments in
American innovation. There is no need to reinvent this wheel.
U.S. government efforts related to international climate policy can
build upon our past success by maintaining American leadership through
strategic R&D and innovation investments; harnessing instead of
hampering the power of free markets; and focusing on reducing emissions
from fossil fuels--not they are the most glamourous climate solutions--
but because we must take a realistic view of energy supply and demand
here in the U.S. and in the developing world.

Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Mr. Meyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF ALDEN MEYER

Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves,
and members of the Select Committee. My name is Alden Meyer,
and I am a Senior Associate with E3G, Third Generation
Environmentalism. I very much appreciate the opportunity to
testify before you today.
I have been asked to discuss what needs to be accomplished
at the COP26 summit in Glasgow that starts on Sunday, and what
are the prospects for success.
As you just heard from Ms. Fransen, we already know that we
will leave Glasgow with a huge gap between the collective level
of ambition in the commitments countries have put forward under
the Paris Agreement and what is required to keep 1.5 degrees
alive

[[Page 27]]

and avoid the worst impacts of climate change. In Glasgow,
countries must acknowledge the need to increase ambition over
the remainder of this decade and set out a process and deadline
to make that happen.
On climate finance, it is good that developed countries
have finally shown how they intend to meet their commitment to
mobilize $100 billion annually in finance for mitigation and
adaptation activities in developing countries out to 2025. But
more work is needed to scale up finance for adaptation and to
improve access to finance for smaller, vulnerable countries.
Countries also must agree at COP26 on the process and
timeline for negotiating the goal for mobilizing even more
climate finance after 2025. We already know that sums much
greater than $100 billion a year are required to help
developing countries such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa
make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy
resources.
If the U.S. and other G7 countries are able to show how the
Build Back Better for the World Initiative launched at their G7
summit in June will deliver clean infrastructure investments at
the scale needed, it would help persuade some of the major
developing countries to support the ambition accelerator
language that we need in the final COP decision.
As Ms. McKenna just told you, many countries and
communities are suffering from a range of devastating climate-
related impacts, which will continue to mount over the next
several decades even if we succeed in meeting the Paris
Agreement temperature limitation goals.
Vulnerable countries are calling for much faster progress
on mobilizing financial resources to help address the economic
losses and the severe damage to lives and livelihoods that
their citizens are experiencing as a result of climate impacts.
How far we can get towards agreement in Glasgow that start to
meet these needs remains to be seen.
Agreement on the rules for market mechanisms under Article
VI of the Paris Agreement is an important objective for COP26,
as is ensuring transparency on how well countries are doing in
meeting their Paris commitments, both on constraining domestic
emissions and on providing finance for developing country
action.
Bringing China and other major developing countries closer
to parity with developing nations on a robust reporting regime
has been an objective of both Democratic and Republican U.S.
administrations throughout the history of the climate
negotiations.
Climate change and health issues are the driving themes for
the G20 Leaders Summit that will take place in Rome this
Saturday and Sunday. Italy's Prime Minister Mario Draghi will
be pressing other leaders to agree on the need for more
ambitious action between now and 2030 and for commitments to
phase down coal consumption and to eliminate subsidies for
fossil fuel production and use. If he can forge consensus on
these issues, it will provide important impetus for progress in
Glasgow.
Let me conclude by discussing three possible scenarios for
the outcomes of COP26. A good outcome would see agreement on
the need for more action to close the ambition gaps on reducing
emissions, on increasing climate finance for both mitigation
and adapta

[[Page 28]]

tion, and finance to address loss and damage. Environmental
integrity would be prioritized in the Article VI rules, and a
strong transparency framework would be agreed upon.
The slew of announcements made in Glasgow by governments,
companies, and investors on sectoral initiatives to cut
emissions would send strong signals on the irreversibility of
the shift from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy.
A disappointing outcome would see no agreement on ways to
close these ambition gaps. The rules on Article VI and
transparency would be agreed, but with major compromises that
weaken their effectiveness and raise concerns about
environmental integrity.
An ugly outcome would see no agreement on the remaining
elements of the Paris rule book and no real engagement at all
on ways to close the ambition gap, with sharp divisions and
finger-pointing between countries over who needs to do more to
address the climate crisis.
Thank you again for this opportunity to share my thoughts
with you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Meyer follows:]

Testimony of Alden Meyer

Senior Associate, E3G--Third Generation Environmentalism

U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

Hearing on International Climate Challenges and Opportunities

October 28, 2021

Introduction
My name is Alden Meyer and I am a Senior Associate with E3G--Third
Generation Environmentalism. E3G is an independent climate change think
tank headquartered in London that operates with a global outlook. We
work on the frontier of the climate landscape tackling the barriers and
advancing the solutions to a safe climate. Our goal is to translate
climate politics, economics and policies into action. Prior to joining
E3G last December, I worked for 31 years for the Union of Concerned
Scientists, concluding my tenure as its Director of Strategy and Policy
and co-director of its Washington office. I have attended the climate
negotiations since they first started in 1991 and have served as an
informal adviser to numerous United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties presidencies.
I have been invited to testify today on the outlook for the 26th
meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC that will open
this Sunday in Glasgow, as well as the summit of G20 leaders that will
be held this weekend in Rome. I will discuss why these meetings are
important, the geopolitical context in which they are taking place,
what needs to be accomplished at each of them, and what the prospects
are for success.
First let me provide some context. As this committee knows well,
the Paris Agreement, adopted by 196 countries on December 12, 2015,
sets out a goal of ``holding the increase in the global average
temperature to well below 2+C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing
efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5+C above pre-industrial
levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and
impacts of climate change.'' \1\ But in releasing its most recent
Synthesis Report on Nationally-Determined Contributions under the Paris
Agreement, the UNFCCC Secretariat noted that ``The available NDCs of
all 191 Parties taken together imply a sizable increase in global GHG
emissions in 2030 compared to 2010, of about 16%. According to the
latest IPCC findings, such an increase, unless actions are taken
immediately, may lead to a temperature rise of about 2.7C by the end of
the century.'' \2\ Along similar lines, the 2021 Production Gap report
produced by the United Nations Environment Program together with four
research and policy organizations

[[Page 29]]

including E3G found that ``Governments plan to produce more than twice
the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than would be consistent with
limiting global warming to 1.5+C.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/
english_paris_agreement.pdf
\2\ https://unfccc.int/news/full-ndc-synthesis-report-some-
progress-but-still-a-big-concern
\3\ https://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/
PGR2021_web_rev.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clearly, the challenge we face in reversing these trends in less
than a decade is a daunting one. COP26 will serve as a litmus test of
whether countries are serious about delivering on the temperature
limitation goals they set under the Paris Agreement, accelerating
adaptation to climate change, and mobilizing support for climate action
including on loss and damage. This COP represents a pivot point from a
system that for the last 30 years has been primarily focused on
negotiation of treaties, protocols, agreements, and rules to one
focused on the implementation of existing commitments and the need to
ratchet them up quickly. National leaders, ministers, and negotiators
coming to Glasgow will need to take a page from the growing number of
governors, mayors, business leaders, investors, universities, and
others who have taken bold action on climate change in recent years and
are creating a culture of true collaboration and learning by doing. In
a process that needs to focus on generating results on the ground,
these ``non-state actors'' should be seen as active partners, rather
than as mere observers.
This COP faces several challenges:

-- while the recent joint US-EU commitment to vaccinate 70% of
the globe by September 2022 signals progress, developing countries and
NGOs continue to express frustration that wealthier nations are still
not taking sufficient action to address issues of vaccine inequity and
enhance global recovery through the G7, G20 and other multilateral
spaces.
-- the current global energy crisis which has seen sharp spikes
in energy prices worldwide represents a potential wildcard for COP26
that as has been reported \4\, could either make long-term decisions on
climate action more difficult or instead could reinforce the narrative
around the benefits of a diversified energy portfolio for building
economic resilience.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/08/global-energy-
crisis-cop26/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- geopolitical tensions--especially between the US and China--
are inevitably spilling over into multilateral spaces like the climate
summit; we can see this dynamic at play in recent comments from Chinese
officials reacting to calls for China to increase its domestic climate
ambition by calling into question the ability of countries like the
United States to fully implement their 2030 and 2050 commitments.
-- increased public awareness of climate impacts is increasing
expectations for action, and all the major powers say they want a
successful outcome in Glasgow; but different perceptions of what
``good'' looks like could still derail negotiations while at the same
time the fossil fuel industry and other incumbents continue to hold
political sway in all too many capitals and many of them are using that
influence to frustrate bold action.
Benchmarks for Success
Raising Mitigation Ambition: In the run-up to COP21 in Paris in
2015, countries put forward the emissions limitation objectives that
they proposed to meet in the five- or ten-year period after 2020; these
were referred to as ``intended nationally determined contributions,''
or INDCs. It was clear at the time that these INDCs were collectively
insufficient to meet the Agreement's temperature limitation goals; the
decision adopting the Paris Agreement noted that ``much greater
emission reduction efforts will be required than those associated with
the intended nationally determined contributions in order to hold the
increase in the global average temperature to below 2+C above pre-
industrial levels.'' \5\ That decision requested countries to
``communicate or update'' their final Nationally Determined
Contributions by late 2020 (when COP26 was originally scheduled to be
held), in hopes that many countries would use that five year period to
identify ways to raise the ambition of their initial Paris pledges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/docs/2015/
cop21/eng/10a01.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While quite a few countries--including the United States--have put
forward substantially enhanced NDCs, several of the largest emitting
countries have yet to do so, and it's clear that we will leave Glasgow
with a huge gap between the collective level of effort put forward by
countries and the level required to meet the UK's declared goal of
``keeping 1.5 alive.'' There needs to be language in the final COP26
decision acknowledging the need for additional efforts to raise
ambition over the remainder of this decade and setting out a process to
help make that happen. If we wait for 2025, when the next round of NDCs
for 2035 or 2040 are scheduled to be

[[Page 30]]

put forward, it will be too late--we will have blown past the 1.5+C
limit and condemned future generations to ever more devastating climate
impacts.
The 48 nations that are part of the Climate Vulnerable Forum have
called for ``annual ambition raising platforms'' at each COP through
2025 where countries can come forward with increased ambition on both
mitigation and adaptation.\6\ There have also been suggestions that
COP28 in 2023 should be positioned as the next big political moment for
countries to put forward more ambitious NDCs and finance commitments,
as that is when we will see the culmination of the first Global
Stocktake \7\ mandated by the Paris Agreement, which will assess
collective progress on climate mitigation, adaptation and finance flows
and means of implementation and support. As we can already anticipate
that the results of this stocktaking process will demonstrate a huge
continuing gap in ambition, it should not only be used for its original
purpose of informing the post-2030 NDCs that countries are expected to
submit by 2025, but to also drive additional improvements to their
existing Paris pledges out to 2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://thecvf.org/our-voice/news/press-releases/climate-
vulnerable-nations-lay-out-expectations-for-glasgow-cop26/
\7\ https://unfccc.int/topics/global-stocktake
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question, of course, is whether the UK can produce an agreement
on such ``ambition accelerator'' language as part of the final COP26
political package; while such an agreement would be consistent with the
spirit of the Paris Agreement, it would clearly be a deviation from the
letter of the decision adopting it in 2015, which envisioned just one
such revision deadline in 2020. The UK presidency has indicated it will
conduct intensive consultations on this issue--which is not part of the
formal negotiating agenda--over the two weeks in Glasgow.
At what the UK is touting as the ``ambition COP,'' national
governments, states, cities, companies, investors, and others are
expected to sign up to a range of significant `sector deals' on energy,
nature and land, transport, adaptation, finance, innovation, industry,
and other sectors, aimed at signaling an acceleration of the transition
to a 1.5+C pathway. Deals will be announced to phase down coal
consumption, cut methane emissions, fund clean power, further constrain
fossil fuel finance, restore nature and protect biodiversity, boost
uptake of zero emission vehicles, and grow high ambition alliances like
the Race to Zero campaign \8\ launched by the UNFCCC Climate Champions
from Chile and the UK. It is critical that these pledges are backed by
real and urgent implementation actions which are transparent and
independently verifiable, so we know how much these initiatives really
add up to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://unfccc.int/climate-action/race-to-zero-campaign
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramping Up Finance for Climate Action: This past Monday, Canada's
Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson and Germany's State Secretary
Jochen Flasbarth released a Delivery Plan \9\ intended to provide
confidence to developing countries that developed countries will meet
the commitment they made in Paris to mobilize $100 billion annually in
public and private climate finance for mitigation and adaptation
activities over 2020 to 2025. This $100 billion commitment has taken on
iconic status in the climate negotiations process since it was first
made in Copenhagen in 2009 and then reiterated in Paris in 2015, and
the failure to meet this goal has been a barrier to building trust and
confidence between developed and developing countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Climate-Finance-
Delivery-Plan-1.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas OECD data shows that climate finance only reached $80
billion in 2019--$20 billion below the 2020 target--the delivery plan
shows that the gap will be bridged by 2023, after being nearly attained
in 2022, and would be surpassed thereafter. Using conservative
assumptions for mobilization of private finance, the Plan estimates
that developed countries' collective mobilization of climate finance
could reach almost $120 billion by 2025.
While the Plan is a step towards restoring trust, more actions will
be required to meet developing country expectations around scaling up
the quantity and quality of predictable adaptation finance (which
represents less than a third of total climate finance to date, despite
the Paris Agreement calling for a balance with finance for mitigation),
as well as improving access to finance, particularly amongst smaller
vulnerable countries.
The UK presidency needs to broker agreement by the end of the COP
on the terms of reference, process and timeline for negotiations on the
post-2025 finance goal that countries in Paris agreed should be
established. While there is broad agreement that the goal needs to be
greater than the $100 billion developed countries committed to mobilize
annually starting in 2020, there isn't consensus on just how much
greater the target should be, and there is resistance to the
proposition

[[Page 31]]

advanced by the US and other developed countries that the base of
donors needs to be expanded to include China, some of the OPEC
countries, and developing country members of the OECD. This is likely
to be one of the crunch issues occupying ministers in the final hours
of the COP.
Of course, sums much greater than $100 billion a year are required
to help developing countries such as India, Indonesia, and South Africa
make the transition from fossil fuels to clean energy resources. A
report released in June by the International Energy Agency, the World
Economic Forum, and the World Bank finds that ``clean energy investment
in emerging and developing economies declined by 8% to less than USD
150 billion in 2020, with only a slight rebound expected in 2021. By
the end of the 2020s, annual capital spending on clean energy in these
economies needs to expand by more than seven times, to above USD 1
trillion, in order to put the world on track to reach net-zero
emissions by 2050.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/6756ccd2-0772-4ffd-
85e4-b73428ff9c72/FinancingCleanEnergyTransitionsinEMDEs--
WorldEnergyInvestment2021SpecialReport.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlocking this nearly order of magnitude higher level of climate
finance for the decarbonization of developing country economies is not
on the formal negotiating agenda in Glasgow, but it has been the focus
of discussions that developed country officials--including Special
Presidential Climate Envoy John Kerry and others from the United
States--have been having in recent months with investors, developing
country leaders and ministers, and others. The ability of the US and
other G7 countries to increase confidence that the Build Back Better
for the World (B3W) initiative \11\ launched at their leaders' summit
in Cornwall last June will deliver clean infrastructure investments at
the scale needed could go a long way to persuading some of the major
developing countries to support the ``ambition accelerator'' language
that is needed in the COP26 decision. Beyond Glasgow, further efforts
to scale up the share of the portfolios of the World Bank and other
multilateral development banks going towards climate-friendly
investments could also make a major contribution towards this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/
2021/06/12/fact-sheet-president-biden-and-g7-leaders-launch-build-back-
better-world-b3w-partnership
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss and Damage: This term refers to the now-unavoidable impacts
that many countries and communities are experiencing as a result of
climate change, both extreme events such as hurricanes and typhoons,
torrential floods, and out-of-control wildfires, and so-called slow
onset impacts such as desertification, droughts, and sea level rise.
These consequences will continue to mount as a result of past and
ongoing emissions of greenhouse gases, even if we succeed in meeting
the Paris Agreement temperature limitation goals.
Vulnerable countries and NGOs such as the Climate Action Network
are pushing for loss and damage to become a standing agenda item on COP
agendas in order to create a political space to address the fact that
seven years after creation of the Warsaw International Mechanism on
Loss and Damage, there has been little progress made on mobilizing
financial resources to help address the economic losses and the severe
damage that all too many people are now experiencing as a result of
climate impacts. They also want the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage
agreed to at COP25 to be operationalized at COP26 and to go far beyond
being merely an informational website, with adequate funding for a
secretariat and activities of the Network. Finally, they want a process
coming out of Glasgow that will tee up real deliverables at COP27 in
Africa late next year on finance for loss and damage, above and beyond
the current flows for adaptation and resilience.
These are tough issues (they almost led to the collapse of
negotiations at the end of COP18 in Doha), and the UK presidency has
been slower to take them up than would have been desired; but reports
out of the pre-COP ministerial consultations in Milan two weeks ago
indicate that they are now clearly on the political radar screen.
Discussions with the US and other developed countries also show they
recognize the need to take a more constructive stance in their
engagement with vulnerable countries on loss and damage, which in the
past has been too often polarized by developed countries' concern about
creating open-ended liability for their past emissions. But how far we
can get towards agreements in Glasgow that meet the legitimate needs of
the vulnerable countries on the loss and damage issue remains to be
seen.
Completion of the Paris rulebook: while COP26 does represent a
pivot from negotiations to implementation, there are still some
unfinished pieces of business on the Paris rulebook, including
agreement on the rules for market mechanisms under Article 6 and
finalization of the transparency guidelines and tables for reporting on
progress towards each country's nationally-determined contributions
under the Paris Agreement.

[[Page 32]]

On Article 6, this will be negotiators' third swing at resolving
the sharp differences that blocked agreement at COP24 in Katowice,
Poland and at COP25 in Madrid. Major issues include how to avoid double
counting of emissions reductions by countries engaging in such market
transactions, whether some portion of the credits generated by the
emissions trading mechanisms of the Kyoto Protocol--particularly its
Clean Development Mechanism--can be carried forward into the Paris
Agreement regime and sold in the market, and whether a share of the
proceeds generated by such market transactions should be dedicated to
funding adaptation activities in developing countries. In the run-up to
COP25, a group of 32 countries put forward the San Jose Principles for
High Ambition and Integrity in International Carbon Markets,\12\ which
are supported by most international NGOs and set the high bar for an
acceptable outcome. While there are reports \13\ that Brazil, which has
been one of the main obstacles to reaching agreement on an
environmentally robust set of Article 6 rules, may be softening its
stance, a lot of work remains to get this issue over the finish line in
Glasgow.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ https://cambioclimatico.go.cr/press-release-leading-countries-
set-benchmark-for-carbon-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
markets-with-san-jose-principles
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-23/brazil-
opens-door-to-carbon-market-deal-at-cop26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensuring transparency on how well countries do in meeting their
commitments under Paris--both on constraining domestic emissions and on
providing finance and other means of support for developing country
action--was a centerpiece of the agreement in Paris, and bringing China
and other major developing countries closer to parity on the frequency
and robustness of reporting on emissions inventories and domestic
actions has been an objective of both Democratic and Republican US
administrations throughout the history of the climate negotiations. The
detailed reporting guidelines and tables to operationalize the Paris
transparency rules are supposed to be finalized in Glasgow, but China
and some other developing countries are pushing for more flexibility in
how they are to be applied than the US and other developed countries
are willing to accept. Given that this issue is both technical and
intensely political, I expect it to be resolved only in the final hours
of COP26.
The G20 Leaders' Summit
The G20 Leaders' Summit will take place in Rome this Saturday and
Sunday. The leaders of China, Russia and Japan are expected to
participate virtually, while President Biden and the other leaders will
attend in person. Climate and health are the driving themes of the
Summit and Italian Prime Minister Draghi will be chairing the meeting
and pressing for agreement on the need for more rapid decarbonization
to get the world on a pathway that limits the rise in global
temperature to 1.5+C through a commitment to global net-zero greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050 and increasing the ambition of their 2030
Nationally-Determined Contributions in the early 2020s; these proposals
build on the communique \14\ issued by G20 Climate and Energy ministers
at their meeting in Naples in July. Prime Minister Draghi will also be
pushing for commitments to phase down coal consumption and finance as
well as to eliminate subsidies for fossil fuel production and use, both
issues that ministers were unable to resolve in July. It is expected
that the G20 Sherpas will be unable to resolve these issues in their
meetings today and tomorrow in Rome, and that it will be left to the
leaders' discussion of climate and energy issues on Sunday morning for
the disagreements to be hammered out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ https://www.g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021_G20-
Energy-Climate-joint-Ministerial-Communique.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The G20 leaders who are in Rome will then go to Glasgow to join
leaders from over 100 other countries for the ``World Leaders Summit''
component of COP26 on November 1st and 2nd. The UK presidency has
called on leaders, ``alongside heads of international organizations,
civil society and business leaders, to show that they are serious about
working together to tackle climate change . . . and to set out the
ambitious actions that they are taking to reduce emissions, scale-up
adaptation and mobilize finance, and to collectively signal their
commitment to ensuring that COP26 keeps 1.5+C in reach.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ https://ukcop26.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Presidency-
Programme-COP26.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The outcome of the G20 leaders' summit is important to success in
Glasgow. If Prime Minister Draghi can forge consensus on tough issues
such as ramping up climate action in this decade to keep 1.5+C alive
and constraining use of unabated coal, it will provide important
impetus for agreement on ambition accelerator language in the COP26
final decision. Conversely, if Italy's proposed language for the G20
leaders' communique on these issues is blocked by leaders from China,
India, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other countries, it will make the UK
COP26 presidency's work on this front much more difficult.

[[Page 33]]

There are also several finance issues in the purview of the G20
that are essential to make the progress we need in the real economy,
including use of a portion of the new general Special Drawing Rights
allocation implemented by the International Monetary Fund in August to
help vulnerable developing countries deal with the risks to their
financial stability posed by both the COVID19 pandemic and climate
change, further development of international standards for what
qualifies as sustainable finance, and policies on corporate risk
disclosure, stress testing of financial institutions and other ways of
addressing climate-related risks to the global financial system. Some
progress was made on these issues at the meeting of G20 finance
ministers in Washington earlier this month,\16\ but much more work
remains to be done, including by the German and Indonesian incoming
presidencies of the G7 and G20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.g20.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/G20-FMCBG-
Communique%CC%81-Fourth-G20-FMCBG-meeting-13-October-2021.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scenarios for COP26 outcomes
As the renowned Danish physicist Niels Bohr is reported to have
said, ``Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the
future.'' But I will nonetheless attempt to lay out a few possible
scenarios for the outcomes of COP26.
A good outcome would see the final COP26 decision laying out
pathways over the next several years to close the gaps on the emissions
reductions needed to secure 1.5+C (via more ambitious NDCs and side
agreements on key sectors), increasing climate finance (via near-term
action to mobilize resources well above the annual $100 billion pledged
by developed countries as well as a robust start to the post-2025
finance goal negotiations), and adaptation (via a mandate on further
development of the global goal on adaptation), along with a mandate to
pursue new sources of finance to address loss and damage.
This outcome would see environmental integrity prioritized in the
agreement on the Article 6 rules and agreement of a transparency
framework that will enhance understanding of how well countries are
doing in carrying out their commitments on both climate action and
support. The slew of announcements and progress reports in Glasgow on
sectoral initiatives to cut emissions would send strong signals to
investors, companies, and the public on the irreversibility of the
shift from fossil fuels to a clean energy economy.
A disappointing outcome would see no consensus for political
agreements on ways to close the ambition gaps, with only small groups
of countries agreeing side deals on key sectors and a subset of high
ambition countries committing to enhance their NDCs before 2023. While
mandates would be secured for additional diplomacy in the run-up to
COP27 diplomacy to address the gaps on finance, adaptation and loss &
damage, there would be little confidence that they would lead to the
results needed.
The Paris rules on Article 6 and transparency would be agreed, but
with compromises made that raise concerns about generating real
benefits to the atmosphere (on Article 6) and providing the full level
of information needed on country progress (on transparency).
An ugly outcome would see COP26 ending without agreement on the
remaining elements of the Paris rulebook and no real engagement on ways
to close the ambition gaps on 1.5+C, finance, and impacts, with sharp
divisions and finger-pointing between countries over who needs to do
more on each of these fronts. A lack of progress on climate finance,
adaptation, and loss and damage issues would be used by some developing
countries as justification for their resistance to doing more to
decarbonize their economies, and the serious doubts that some are
already expressing about the ability of the multilateral climate regime
to come to grips with the climate crisis would gain traction.
Over the course of the next few weeks, we are likely to see
competing narratives at play: one narrative will emphasize the
successful progress made since Paris, the rapidly falling prices of
clean technologies, and the growing number of both countries and non-
state actors making transformational climate commitments; the other
narrative will focus on the failure to get even close to where science
requires us to be to secure a tolerable future for current and future
generations, and the lack of a meaningful response to the increasingly
devastating impact of climate change on vulnerable countries and
communities. The paradox is that each narrative contains elements of
truth, and it is certainly possible to embrace both of them
simultaneously; what is needed in this moment is a mix of equanimity,
realism, and respect for expressions of both grief and hope.
Regardless of the outcome at the end of COP26, 2021 has unlocked a
new level of integration on climate action and positioned climate
change as a top-tier geo

[[Page 34]]

political issue for world leaders, which provides a foundation for
further progress in 2022. Unlocking much greater investment in
accelerating climate implementation must be a key focus of the German
and Indonesian G7 and G20 Presidencies, while progress on the issues of
adaptation, resilience and loss and damage--which have received
insufficient attention throughout 2021--can hopefully be made under the
likely Egyptian COP27 Presidency. Of course, both goals will be more
attainable if we come out of COP26 with a positive outcome.

Ms. Castor. Well, thank you very much to our witnesses for
your very insightful testimony.
And I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
It was refreshing to hear a united panel, a message from
this panel that the world needs American leadership when it
comes to climate. For the Congress, the best way to demonstrate
that leadership is to pass the Build Back Better,
Infrastructure, and clean energy package, and we are on the
cusp of doing that, so that is good news. It is also good news,
in a selfish way, for American consumers, because we know
investing in clean energy over time is going to lower costs for
them.
But there is a bigger picture here as we all march to
Glasgow. We are marching together with American businesses,
states and local communities, scientists, innovators, farmers,
churches, and the faith community. And I think the message is
partly to keep the pressure on China and India and other large
emitters to help them raise their level of ambition, and that
has got to be part of the equation here.
So, Ms. Fransen, what risks do you see for America if we do
not assume that leadership role and follow through? And then
talk to us about the opportunities for America that renewed
leadership would bring.
Ms. Fransen. Thank you. I will start with opportunities,
actually, because there are many.
Assuming a leadership role on the climate crisis, it not
only saves money for American households and businesses, as you
noted, which currently spend a trillion dollars per year on
fossil fuels, but it reduces costs in healthcare too. In one
scenario for halving emissions developed by WRI and others, it
was found that these actions would provide health benefits and
avoid health costs to the tune of somewhere between $26 billion
and $58 billion by 2030, not to mention the lives saved.
We also can benefit from increased competitiveness. As
demand for clean technologies rises, focusing on low-carbon or
zero-carbon manufacturing rather than doubling down on
yesterday's industries is what is going to give the U.S. the
advantage. So just, for example, the global lithium-ion battery
market is projected to be $105 billion by 2025 as EVs gain
traction. And as I noted, by 2030, there will be a $23 trillion
climate-related market in emerging markets. And so if we don't
pursue these clean technologies domestically and maintain and
gain our competitive edge, we are going to be losing out on
those opportunities.
I also want to mention the job potential. In the United
States, investing in renewables and energy efficiency creates
more than 2.5 times as many jobs as fossil fuels per dollar
invested, and investing in ecosystem restoration creates 3.7
times as many jobs per dollar invested. So that is another
opportunity that we are risking losing out on if we don't take
action here.

[[Page 35]]

Finally, I think this provides an important opportunity for
rural America as well, and that is in terms of economic
diversification. So wind companies are already paying farmers
and other rural landowners something on the order of $220
million a year to host wind turbines, and this also generates
tax revenue and other income down the value chain. And we can
build on that by creating more opportunities in forest
restoration, agroforestry, and regenerative agriculture.
So those are the opportunities. The risk if we don't take
advantage of those is that we just lose out on all of that, and
we lose out to countries that are acting faster. China is
investing more than twice as much as we are in renewable
energy. I don't know why we wouldn't want to take advantage of
that for ourselves.
Thank you.
Ms. Castor. And thank you.
And, Mr. Meyer, the science tells us we don't have time to
waste, why we were focused years ago on the goal of net-zero by
2050, but the latest IPCC report was a code red, and it said
you better get going this decade. Talk to us about that, how
important that is going into Glasgow.
Mr. Meyer. Yes. Thank you, Chair Castor.
The report issued just yesterday by the United Nations
Environment Programme showed that we are on track for a 2.7-
degree world, almost twice what we need to be aiming for, and
emissions are going to increase by 16 percent by 2030 if we
stay on the path we are on and countries don't take more
action.
By contrast, we need to cut emissions almost in half over
that period to have a 66 percent chance of keeping below 1.5
degrees. So it is code red. We have to dramatically scale up
and accelerate the transition to a clean energy future, and
that is the challenge for Glasgow.
Can we do it? I think that is the biggest question that
will be before leaders and ministers when they gather next week
in Scotland.
Ms. Castor. Well, hopefully the Congress will pass a good
clean energy and infrastructure package to demonstrate we--
America is taking a leadership role there and we are serious
about acting this decade, right away. Thank you.
And I will yield now to Mr. Graves for 5 minutes for his
questions.
Oh, excuse me. Ms.--we will go to Mrs. Miller first. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chair Castor and Ranking Member
Graves. And thank you all for being here today.
Out-of-control gas prices have risen over $3 in every state
at this point. Natural gas prices are surging as Europe fails
to meet its own energy demands, and Russia, shockingly, holds
the lever of power over our allies, after our President gifted
Putin a pipeline instead of promoting cleaner, safer, American-
made energy.
President Obama was after coal during his Presidency, but
now President Biden is here to finish the job, and it is not
just coal that they are after. They are declaring war on
American prosperity, a war on American energy independence, and
a war on American working class, who will bear the greatest
brunt of this burden, los

[[Page 36]]

ing their jobs, paying more for the lifestyle that Americans
today have become accustomed to, like having electricity in
their homes instead of candles, or taking a hot shower instead
of dumping a bucket of cold water on their head. And this isn't
just in America.
Chair Castor, I would like to submit to you for the record
an op-ed from the President of Uganda, published in The Wall
Street Journal just this past week, titled, ``Solar and Wind
Force Poverty in Africa.''

Submission for the Record

Representative Carol Miller

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

October 28, 2021

ATTACHMENT: Museveni, Y. (2021, October 24). ``Solar and Wind Force
Poverty
on Africa.'' Wall Street Journal.

The article is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/solar-wind-force-poverty-on-
africa-climate-change-uganda-11635092219

President Museveni writes that focusing on renewable energy
projects in Africa earns praise in the U.S. and Europe, but
leaves many Africans with unreliable and expensive electricity.
While our global elite are trying to rewrite the rules for the
entire world, they are subjugating developing countries to
destitute destinies.
Affordable energy and capitalism have lifted more out of
poverty than anything else. Allowing developing nations access
to these resources is not only good policy, but it is also the
morally right thing to do. Forcing Africa to live in poverty
and darkness so that John Kerry can feel accomplished on his
private jet is not only arrogant, but it is inexcusable.
I am not opposed to forms of renewable energy, but we must
do it the right way. An all-of-the-above energy policy which
complements our energy producing communities instead of
destroying them, and it will build a stronger energy grid, more
resilient communities, and a more united country.
Innovation in carbon capture technologies will mitigate the
impacts of traditional energy sources without giving up
American energy independence. This committee and this President
must use science and technology and commit to commonsense
energy policies, not radical progressive idealism.
Mr. Hernick, in your testimony, you explained how U.S.
natural gas is much cleaner than natural gas from other foreign
countries. Can you explain why U.S. gas is cleaner and how
exporting more U.S. energy would actually lower global
emissions?
Mr. Hernick. Thank you, Congresswoman Miller, for the
question.
And, in your statement, you bring up some of the--the real
moral issue that is associated with tackling the climate
problem. And I agree with you completely. And part of what we
need to rely on is better data. I think a major challenge when
you look at the U.S. oil and gas sector and what is produced,
these are commodities, and historically we haven't done a good
job of distinguishing what is the difference between U.S. oil
and natural gas or petroleum products from other countries.

[[Page 37]]

But it is time that we do that, and the reason is because,
as the United States has grown in its economic development, we
have implemented the highest environmental safeguards anywhere
in the world.
When I was working for U.S. Agency for International
Development, folks looked to the United States for best
practices on how to protect waterways and keep the air clean.
We have been doing that. We have been doing that as we extract
natural resources, as we mine, as we develop oil and natural
gas. And that means that we have a smaller environmental
footprint, and we should be very proud of that fact.
I think it is part of what we need to do, is tell the story
to the rest of the world that there is a comparative advantage
that the United States has in cleaner oil and natural gas.
There is more that can be done, and part of the
technologies that you talked about with--related to carbon
capture, utilization, and storage, these are real technologies
that are being implemented right now. If you are in the
Washington, D.C. area, there is a plant not too far away from
here in Maryland that captures carbon dioxide, it is a coal-
fired power plant, it ends up as the fizzy bubbles in a lot of
drinks.
Companies are investing in how to develop everything from
concrete to yoga pants that is using carbon captured from the
atmosphere and integrated into consumer products. That is a
great direction to be headed in, and we shouldn't close that
off.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I yield back my time.
Ms. Castor. Rep. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Chair Castor. And thank
you to all of our witnesses.
I want to note that Ranking Member Graves, in his opening
statement, said we need to be candid and talk about reality.
Here is candid, and here is reality. Last summer, as Ms.
Fransen mentioned, there was a heat dome in the Pacific
Northwest that killed hundreds. Ocean acidification is
affecting our coastal communities and economies, drought is
threatening our crops and our farms, and glaciers are melting,
and the sea level is rising.
So climate change, as we know, is an existential threat. We
cannot rely on the free market alone to provide a sufficient
response to its worst effects. And I do want to say that I
reject the notion that a fossil fuel is fine if it is so-called
cleaner than another fossil fuel.
A whole-of-government approach is necessary to meet the
challenge domestically, and robust collaboration with the
international community is necessary to meet that challenge.
I want to ask you, Ms. Fransen: Would you please discuss
why relying on the free market and government-supported
research and development alone is not enough to meet the scale
of the climate crisis?
Ms. Fransen. Absolutely. So, to give some context here,
from 2005 to 2018, U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions
fell 12 percent. Okay? But we need to reduce emissions more
than four times faster than that over the next decade than we
did from 2005 to 2018. So we need to be stepping on the
accelerator here in a dramatic way. We can't just rely on what
we have been doing in the past.

[[Page 38]]

And, by the way, I think it is important to note as well
that the declines in emissions that we have experienced to date
are not only a result of the free market. We have invested
significantly in tax credits for renewable energy that are
responsible for the tremendous growth that we have seen in
solar and wind. So even some of those gains that we have had so
far, which are too little and not fast enough, are not solely
the result of the free market.
So I don't think that there is any evidence that suggests
that, if we sit back and do nothing, we will get to where we
need to go. It is just not happening.
We know that successful policies can make a difference,
that well-designed policies and measures like those in the
Build Back Better Act are a critical part of what is going to
get us to our emissions goals, which, by the way, are not
simply to reduce emissions marginally, like the shift from coal
to natural gas does, but to virtually eliminate emissions. That
is where we are going. That is what we need to keep our eyes
on.
Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much.
And I want to get another question in to Ms. McKenna, but I
also want to note the importance in the Build Back Better and
the policies that we are on the cusp of, as the Chair said,
passing. These policies will create hundreds if not millions of
jobs in this country. So I wanted to note that. It is so
important to make sure that we send the message that people
will be able to get these great jobs in renewable energy.
Ms. McKenna, thank you again for being here to discuss the
work of Mercy Corps. And your testimony highlighted the effects
of climate change on agriculture, including crop losses and
food insecurity. So can you please outline the importance of
U.S. climate leadership to the regions and the 40 countries in
which Mercy Corps operates and explain how the U.S. should step
up efforts to address global humanitarian issues that are
exacerbated by the climate crisis?
Ms. McKenna. Thank you so much for the question. There are
a few things and a few reasons why the U.S. should step up, but
the main one is that it only makes common economic sense,
particularly on the adaptation front.
So, the inequality that we are already seeing and
experiencing and that is being worsened due to COVID will only
widen and increase without immediate attention on adaptation
and money from the U.S. Government. Much of that money is
needed for the least-developed countries. And failing to act on
this will only result in a huge economic and human toll. It
will cause increases in poverty, increases in conflict, and
severely undermines our long-term global prospects. So we are
all aligned.
The second place where the U.S. should play a strong role
with U.S. companies, governments, universities, all of us, is
in innovation. A lot of the increase in access to energy that
we have seen in the world has been because of new technologies
and renewables and other energy things. But the old fossil fuel
ways of bringing big power in Africa simply have not been able
to come to fruition in that way.

[[Page 39]]

So there are a lot of opportunities to keep using those
technologies and opportunities for American businesses to help
people to get more sources of renewable and decentralized
power.
Finally, in addition to that, we need to be looking at the
causes of conflict and addressing those as we look at climate
change. Climate change only exacerbates conflict, and there are
a lot of ways that we can work with local actors to do that,
and looking at the root cause of climate is one.
For example, in northern Uganda, on the border, there are
pastoral communities that use rivers and other things for their
livelihood. We have been able to fund work that looks at--helps
those communities determine land rights--usage rights over that
water to decrease that tension between those communities and to
prevent a more costly conflict in those areas.
So we have a lot to bring to the table. U.S. innovation,
U.S. leadership is critical for us to be successful.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you so much, Ms. McKenna, for your
testimony and also for the important work of Mercy Corps.
And I yield back.
Ms. McKenna. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Graves, Ranking Member Graves, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Is he not on the screen? All right. Then we will go to Mr.
Carter. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Madam Chair.
If I could take a moment of personal privilege, I want to
announce, at 11:09 a.m., at Piedmont Hospital, Mary Emma
Carter, the first child of my youngest son was born, and my
sixth grandchild.
Ms. Castor. Congratulations.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Ms. Castor. That is wonderful.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Gosh. Let me start off somewhere.
Ms. McKenna, thank you very much. I found your testimony--I
read it, and I found it very fascinating. And I want you to
know that I agree with a lot of it. I think it hits at some of
the concerns that I have got.
In your testimony, first of all, you say: ``First, it is
vital to recognize that communities urgently need help to adapt
to the changing climate. It is too late to focus solely on
reducing emissions.''
And I have to agree with you there. I think that is a great
point. I have the honor and privilege of representing the
entire coast of Georgia, over 100 miles of pristine coastline.
It is where I have lived all my life and where I intend to live
the rest of my life, and it means a whole lot to me to make
sure.
I have always said that we have to do three things. We have
to practice mitigation, adaptation, and innovation. And I have
to give credit where credit is due. My good friend from Alabama
sitting beside me was the first one to say that that I heard it
from, and I have been saying it ever since. And it is true. It
is something I believe in.

[[Page 40]]

You also said that--in your testimony: ``U.S. climate
adaptation assistance should build on and reinforce our other
development assistance to prevent conflict, hunger, and
poverty.'' And I agree with you on that too. I think that is a
great point.
My question, though, is--is this: If the developing world
is forced to use renewable solar and wind energy, would it
increase prosperity or simply raise costs?
Ms. McKenna. Wow. Thank you for that question. I actually
recently moved to the area from Georgia, so I agree with you on
that pristine coastline, and I miss it.
As I mentioned earlier, we have seen a steady decrease in
energy poverty, and it has been mostly due to renewable
energies and then rapid growth in decentralized energy
processes. The other, the rapidly declining cost of those has
also been--enabled those usages of those. And for lower-income
communities, renewables may be the only real chance to end
energy poverty.
So we are continuing to see leapfrogging due to technology.
We have things like increased financing, further reach, ongoing
innovation to meet those needs, and improved policies will
allow communities to make their own choices and to do the most
cost-effective things.
Mr. Carter. Would you agree--what about higher energy
costs? Would that--with higher energy costs, are they going to
help to prevent conflict and hunger and poverty or do just the
opposite?
Ms. McKenna. Yeah. Higher energy costs are not helpful,
which is why it is important to have multiple sources of energy
to--
Mr. Carter. Absolutely. Thank you very much. I appreciate
that.
Mr. Hernick, I want to go to you. I want to ask you: As you
are well aware, as we are all aware, since President Biden has
taken office, he has done a number of things: canceled the
Keystone XL Pipeline, rejoined the Paris Agreement, ended
energy leases on Federal land, removed sanctions on the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline, encouraged OPEC to pump more oil, and we are
pumping less, encouraging them to pump more. I mean, it baffles
me. He has proposed taxing natural gas, penalizing the use of
all fossil fuels through the CEPP Plan and others.
First of all, I want to ask you: If all of these actions
stay in place, all of them that he has taken action on so far,
and the proposed ones are signed into law, will we still meet
the climate goals set by the Paris Agreement?
Mr. Hernick. Congressman, to achieve the climate goals set
in the Paris Agreement, we need to bring the whole world along
with us, and I think that that is part of the challenge, is
that we cannot sacrifice the U.S. economy to achieve these
goals alone. We need to take it with a global view on how we
can reduce emissions the most, bring people out of poverty,
meet their energy security needs, and do it while growing jobs
and economic opportunity here in the United States.
Some of those proposals that you mentioned will deploy more
renewables here in the United States. But this morning, I met
with the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and some folks from Twin
Metals Minnesota that came in, and they are going to be unable
to produce and open a mine in northern Minnesota that is
adjacent to the Boundary Waters, a beautiful area that we want
to preserve

[[Page 41]]

and protect. But if we are not able to mine and develop
critical minerals and resources in the United States, we are
going to fail to meet what is an economic growth opportunity
here too. And so that is where an all-of-the-above approach is
absolutely necessary.
Mr. Carter. Great. And how effective has the Paris
Agreement been on reducing emissions in other countries and
global emissions as a whole----
Mr. Hernick. Not at all.
Mr. Carter [continuing]. Thus far?
Mr. Hernick. Not at all. Not at all effective. And I think
that that is an important thing to recognize, is that even
President Obama's Clean Power Plan that never came into being,
set a goal, and the United States achieved that goal without
the mandate 10 years ahead of schedule. And that is because of
Federal policy as it relates to tax incentives, Federal policy
as it relates to innovation, a lot of state action, and the
action of corporate America.
And that is something I do want to talk a lot about. There
are many, many companies, electric power utilities that are
driving emissions down, headed to net zero.
One statistic that I will leave you all with is that, right
now, 75 percent of American households are served by an energy
utility that is on the path to net zero by mid-century. We
don't need mandates if utilities are interested in heading in
this direction already. Seventy-five percent of Americans.
Mr. Carter. Great point. Thank you.
And I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Ms. Brownley, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Meyer, I wanted to ask you--and I apologize if I am
repeating a question that I didn't hear previously, and I
apologize for being late. But, in your testimony, you stated,
you know, geopolitical tensions, especially between the United
States and China--there is, you know, a dynamic at play
certainly going on.
Do you believe there are meaningful areas where the U.S.
could engage with China related to international climate policy
where we could find some significant agreement? And, if so,
which areas would you recommend the administration focus on in
negotiations?
Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Representative. Yes, there are some
areas. It is a very tense relationship. We are not going to
agree on everything. China absolutely has to do much more if we
are going to have any chance of staying at 1.5, even below 2
degrees Celsius.
We have been collaborating with China in some areas on
clean energy technology. In the Major Economies Forum process
over the years, the U.S. and China have been chairing the
sustainable finance working group in the G20, which recently
put forward a sustainable finance roadmap, which was adopted by
finance ministers, including Secretary Yellen, earlier this
month. So there are areas where we can collaborate.
We also have to recognize we are competitive rivals for the
growing markets for clean energy technologies. And as others
have stated, China is winning that race right now in terms of
renewable energy, in terms of storage, in terms of electric
vehicles and other technologies.

[[Page 42]]

We are going to compete there and we know that, but we can
play in a world that is dominated by rules and norms and
standards, that drives innovation and drives technology
deployment of clean technologies. And if we can reach agreement
with China on that rather than competing sets of rules and
norms, we will be ahead of the game.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you for that. And I wanted to just
follow up on a line of questioning that has already taken place
here. But, you know, it is ironic that we are here talking
about this, and, you know, behind closed doors, we are trying
to figure out how to get to a--close to $1 trillion worth of
investment in climate on the U.S.'s part.
So this is really a question for all of you. So if we can
reach that agreement--and I believe we will ultimately, but,
you know, we are not there yet--how does that play? I mean, it
has got to help. I know that. But, you know, does it help a
little? Does it help a lot? I am just sort of curious where
people stand on that relative to COP26 and our leadership and,
you know, getting the planet to a place where we need to get
it.
Mr. Meyer. Let me start because I spoke to that in my
testimony. I am sure others will chime in. It is essential that
the U.S. does what it says, that we walk the talk and that we
show we are going to do everything we can to reach the 50 to 52
percent reduction target that President Biden announced in
April at the leaders' summit he hosted.
That is the most effective strategy, frankly, to put
pressure on China and other countries who are questioning our
political will and whether we stand behind what we put forward
in the global community. So, I certainly hope that we will
show--be able to show in Glasgow that we are making progress in
that direction.
Obviously, what Congress does is essential, but the
administration has a number of other tools in its toolbox in
terms of financial standards, regulations, loan guarantees at
the Department of Energy, working with the growing number of
states and governors and mayors and business leaders and
investors who have demonstrated that they really want to take
the lead in the world economy on clean energy deployment. They
have set goals of net zero, 100 percent renewables. We can do a
lot more to collaborate with them and encourage more to join
them in this drive for climate survival.
Ms. Brownley. Well, I can assure you that that is exactly
what the President told us this morning, so you and he are on
the same page on that.
Any other comments from the panelists? Ms. McKenna.
Oh, I apologize, yes, please.
Ms. Fransen. Was that for me?
Ms. Brownley. Yes.
Ms. Fransen. Okay. Thank you. I would echo everything that
Mr. Meyer just said. I think the international community is
well aware of the importance of this legislation and the U.S.
delivering on its commitment to reduce emissions by 50 to 52
percent.
And I have heard members of this committee talking about
whether we can trust China on this issue. I should underscore
that China is on track to deliver its existing pledges, which
is not some

[[Page 43]]

thing that the United States can yet say. And moreover, the
United States has a history of reneging on its international
climate commitments, unfortunately, having pulled out of the
Kyoto Protocol and subsequently the Paris Agreement. So we need
to do a lot to restore trust, and this legislation is a big
part of that. Thank you.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And with that, Madam Chair, I
yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gonzalez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to quickly mention that China has no binding
commitment to meet any target, so it is easy to meet something
that you don't have a binding commitment to achieve.
That said, there is a suggestion today that it is a lack of
will, or somehow a lack of ambition that prevents climate
action. My view is it is a lack of realism in many respects
with respect to the tradeoffs that different countries are
going to have to make, certainly a lack of global coordination,
and also a lack of appropriate technology.
The developed nations, notably Germany, that have moved
sort of full on into solar and wind, have the highest rates in
the developed world, certainly in Europe, and have not achieved
their climate targets. A lot of that has to do with the fact
they keep shutting down nuclear plants, which makes no sense to
me, and the backup generation is coal. Another fact or
projection, roughly 75 percent of all births globally over the
next 50 years will occur in Africa. Those are fossil-based
economies today.
Mr. Hernick, I want to start with you, because I think you
have the key line in your testimony, which is ``low-cost, low-
emissions technologies and goods will be critical to successful
climate policy. Anything short of widespread adoption will fail
to address this global issue.''
So as you look at a world where 75 percent of births will
take place in a continent that is largely driven by fossil, how
do we get to our targets if not through low-cost technologies?
Mr. Hernick. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And
in my time in Africa--when I read the editorial, the article,
from the President of Uganda----
Mr. Gonzalez. That was powerful.
Mr. Hernick [continuing]. That Congresswoman Miller
presented, it is very powerful. And I think that we have to
remember, and I say this as an environmentalist, that there is
no greater threat to the environment than poverty. Because if
folks are in a position where they need to choose for their
family to heat their home and use a fossil fuel, use
hydropower, use solar power or go out and cut down a tree and
deforest, they will go out and cut down the tree and deforest.
And I think that that is a major challenge that you are seeing
across the continent, widespread deforestation which makes it
actually more difficult to adapt to a changing environment.
So we need all-of-the-above resources available to
countries, and that will include opportunities to retrofit
their coal-fired power plants, use not just carbon capture,
utilization, and storage, but other innovative technologies
that do allow fuel switching from coal

[[Page 44]]

to--I met with a company called Easy Energy Systems. They are
based out of Iowa. And they provide a technology where you can
supplement the fuel that goes into a coal-fired power plant and
reduce emissions dramatically. That is a cool technology. If we
are not developing that here, it won't be available in Africa.
Mr. Gonzalez. Thank you.
Ms. Fransen, in your testimony, you advocated for more
investment in clean technology and a reduction in the rate of
deforestation by 70 percent. I mentioned in our hearing last
week that I have significant concerns about biodiversity and
deforestation associated with solar and wind.
A study conducted in California that was published in the
National Academy of Sciences found that the deployment of solar
panels can exacerbate habitat fragmentation--that is obvious--
result in direct and indirect ecological consequences.
And another study led by Clark University found that forest
removal in New England and New York for the construction of
solar farms has driven up carbon emissions--driven up carbon
emissions--releasing close to 5 million metric tons of carbon
annually in recent years.
These sorts of things are common sense. When you destroy
forests and natural habitats, you emit carbon, lose carbon
storage, and disrupt sensitive ecosystems. How do we strike the
right balance between ecological concerns and climate concerns
when it comes to massive amount of land needed for solar and
wind?
Ms. Fransen. Thank you for the question. Before I address
it, I want to note that China and the U.S. have exactly the
same amount of legal bindingness in their targets under the
Paris Agreement. That is a feature that the U.S. negotiated
very hard for.
Moving on to your question, I think fortunately, it is not
necessary to destroy forests and biodiversity to deploy solar
and wind energy. I spoke earlier about how farmers are
benefiting from payments to put wind turbines on their land,
and that is helping them economically without destroying any
forests.
We have many options to deploy solar, for example, on roof
tops, in urban areas, and in less ecologically sensitive areas.
So, of course, we need to do it intelligently, and, of course,
there need to put safeguards in place for biodiversity, but I
think those two things can easily go hand in hand. Thank you.
Mr. Gonzalez. If you project how much solar is required to
hit some of these targets and you just look at how--where you
will have to deploy it, I think reasonableness would suggest
that that is not true, but I will yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next up, Congressman Casten, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to our witnesses.
I want to just make a comment. My friend from Ohio just
made the point that China has no binding commitments, and it is
true. None of us do. The way that Paris was structured was to
have voluntary, non-binding commitments to create a framework
for all of us to try to build to something more permanent. We
are uniquely the only country that looked at voluntary
nonbinding commitments and decided that was too hard, and so
Trump pulled out.

[[Page 45]]

Now, I share that because when we were in Madrid, shortly
after being pulled out, many of us on this committee, one of
the Europeans pulled me aside and he said, I just want to let
you know that bad things happen when the United States doesn't
lead.
And that is the moment that we are in by conscious choice
by the former President, and, frankly, by conscious choice of
40 years of policy where our story to the world has been, let
me tell you about the complexities of the U.S. Senate. That is
on all of us.
For us to lead, we need to have the economic muscle to do
that; check, we have got it. We need to be the leading advocate
in the world for equity and equality and democracy; check, we
have got that box. And then we need to show that we have
actions to match our words, and we have failed at that for 40
years.
Now, I share that background because we have had those two
of the three. There are other countries in the world that have
at least one of those and are trying to come up with two, but
they can't match our commitment to democracy.
And, Mr. Meyer, you have been at this as long as anybody,
certainly on the panel, maybe as long as anybody in this room.
As I look back over history, the last time that the United
States actually led and had all three of those was when the
Montreal Protocol was structured, I would point out, under the
Reagan and first Bush White House.
I wonder if you could just share your wisdom of what we did
right when we put that together, and what we are missing in the
current political zeitgeist in America to do what we did before
when we did--we did fix a problem, right? What can you share
with us?
Mr. Meyer. Thank you, Congressman. Let me first try to
clarify this issue of bindingness. The Paris Agreement is
binding on all countries to put forward what are called
Nationally Determined Contributions, so it is bottom up. Each
country decides what they can do and they commit to do it. And
it is binding in every country to report on how well they are
doing in meeting those commitments.
It is not binding on all countries to meet those
commitments because of the United States Senate. Because if the
agreement had required each country to meet those commitments,
it would require it submitting it to the Senate for
ratification and President Obama knew there were not 67 votes
in the Senate to ratify. So the reason it is not binding to
meet the commitments is because of the United States.
On the Montreal Protocol, that is a success story. It
really has worked very well, and it was driven by science,
including by Maggie Thatcher, who was the conservative Prime
Minister of England at the time, the United Kingdom, and she
persuaded President Reagan to support negotiation of the
Montreal Protocol.
That being said, it is a much easier problem to solve
because it deals with a much smaller set of economic actors,
and those economic actors realized two things: One, they could
make a lot of money by producing the alternatives to the
substances that were destroying the stratospheric ozone layer;
and two, if their products did destroy the stratospheric ozone
layer, they could be on the hook for a lot of lawsuits and a
lot of liability and compensation.

[[Page 46]]

So we were able to work with business, with other countries
to get that in place. It is a good model, but it is not
entirely analogous because of the differences. We have to
mobilize action across every sector of the economy. Every major
country needs to participate. And, as we have heard, it is a
much tougher problem than the ozone layer.
Mr. Casten. Right. And I am close to time. I guess I would
just offer that the--and I agree with all those points, but a
lot of that framework was then adopted into the 1990 amendments
to the Clean Air Act, which we did for acid rain, which had a
different set of economics. But we have shown with U.S.
leadership that we can create a cap-and-trade model to monetize
the reduction--
With the time I have got left, Ms. Fransen, committing to
clean energy is converting to clean--to cheap energy. So much
of what we are trying to do in the Build Back Better is to make
sure that we deploy the capital so that people can benefit from
cheap energy, and whether that is building EV charging stations
or tax credits, we have at least thought about how to do that
in the United States.
If you have a solar panel on your roof, you don't pay for
electricity anymore. It is pretty awesome. If you have an
electric vehicle, you don't pay for gasoline anymore. It is
pretty awesome. Everybody who tells you that we can't afford to
do this, basically would fail a freshman capital budgeting
class, but I digress.
What, Ms. Fransen, should we be thinking about
internationally to make sure that folks in other countries also
have access to those capital deployments so that they can
benefit from cheap, clean energy?
Ms. Fransen. Thank you. I think, first of all, as has
already been underscored, the role of the U.S. in leading on
innovation on these technologies to get them to exist in the
first place; and second, on deployment, to have economies of
scale bring cost down is fundamentally critical.
So I would start there. And beyond that, I think the kind
of support for countries, especially poor countries, a number
of folks have experienced in Africa and in much less developed
countries, support for those countries in the form of climate
finance is also a critical part of the equation. Thank you.
Mr. Casten. Thank you.
And thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to go a little
over. I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next up, Representative Palmer, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman and the witnesses for
being here.
And I want to thank my colleague from California for
acknowledging publicly what we have known all along, that this
legislation is being developed behind closed doors with zero
input from Republicans, which is hardly the way to address
major issues.
I also want to commend Mr. Meyer for the work his
organization has done in regard to an issue that is kind of the
ugly truth behind the climate, the push for renewables, and
that is your organization acknowledged that there is 9,700
excess deaths in the U.K. because of energy poverty.

[[Page 47]]

The prices for household energy has gone up so much in the
U.K. that people can't afford to keep their homes adequately
heated, and they are dying from cold-related illnesses.
Same thing is true in Scotland. It is interesting that a
lot of my colleagues are going to be in Scotland. Maybe they
should take some warm blankets with them because they are going
to go through the same thing.
And if this bill passes, we are already--without this bill
passing, because of the Biden administration's energy policies
already, we are anticipating somewhere in the range of a 40
percent increase in household utility cost. That is going to
really be problematic for people in some of the states like New
York and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and Michigan, and
particularly problematic for elderly people, because many of
these people are on fixed incomes. They are going to have to
make decisions about how much they can spend on their utilities
to keep their homes adequately warm versus what they can spend
on their food, which the food prices are going through the
roof, what they can spend on the medicines that they need.
And we have already seen Democrat policies in other states
in regard to the elderly and COVID and the thousands of people
who have died because of their policies in nursing homes. I
just think the American people need to wake up and see what is
happening here.
I also have some real issues with this discussion about
China. China said their target is to stop increasing emissions
by 2030, to stop increasing emissions. They are going to
continue to increase emissions until 2030, and frankly the
entire Chinese culture is built on deception, so I don't
believe for a minute that they are going to stop it, because
their objective is not to save the planet, it is to rule the
planet.
So all of you sitting at that table are living in a strange
world. I just am taken aback by the science. You keep talking
about the science and try to say that the science is settled.
Well, the only science that is settled is the political science
on your side.
You talked about 2.7 degree Celsius increase in climate.
Even your own--the people who talk about greenhouse gases
increasing the climate admitted that 2.7 degrees will have a
negligible impact on the planet. It may actually increase
economic development. It will increase food production.
And then for those of you who are talking about food, the
World Bank put out a report when the big push was for biofuels.
Mr. Hernick, you may recall this. That report was suppressed
because what they found that it increased food prices globally
by about 75 percent, and it forced 100 million people into
poverty, and probably, I want to say, in the 40 million range
into food poverty, into hunger.
You have got, I want to say, four, five times the number of
people living in developing countries as live in developed
countries. And you want to deny them access to natural
resources, like natural gas, that could pull those people out
of poverty. The World Bank has said that there are more people
dying from indoor pollution than from anything related to the
climate. So you are condemning people to poverty, you are
condemning people potentially to shorter

[[Page 48]]

life spans because of these policies. I think you need to think
about this.
And you talk about jobs. We had a meeting with the Vice
President of the European Union who admitted to us that the
people who lost their jobs in the fossil fuel industry did not
get new jobs. They are now having to live on their Social
Security. And there is a Spanish study that showed that for
every renewable job created, they lost 2.2 jobs. Those are some
things that I think need to be on the table.
With that, Madam Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Next up, Representative Crenshaw, welcome. You
are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crenshaw. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for holding
this hearing.
Thank you, to all the witnesses, for being here.
Ms. Fransen, I would like to start with you. You pointed to
China as a leader in renewable energy investment. They have
also asked that we help fund their transition to green energy.
My question is, should we do that?
Ms. Fransen. Thank you. China has been supportive of the
U.S. providing international climate finance in accordance with
our commitment under the Paris Agreement. That funding is
particularly necessary for vulnerable and poor countries, for a
combination of mitigation and increasingly----
Mr. Crenshaw. I understand that it may be necessary for a
combination of poor countries, but would it be necessary for
China? It is not a trick question.
Ms. Fransen. Well, we need to continue providing that
finance and increase that finance in accordance with our
obligation under the Paris Agreement.
Mr. Crenshaw. Sure. Well, I hope China is never a recipient
of that. I mean, you have mentioned them multiple times as a
leader in renewable energy, saying multiple times that they
have invested at least double the amount the U.S. has in
renewable investments. If you are impressed by that, you will
be very impressed with what they have invested in coal.
In 2020, China built three times more new coal capacity
than the entire world combined, that's the equivalent of one
new large coal plant per week, and that is on top of the 73
gigawatts of new coal capacity that is planned but not
completed yet. So they are not going to COP26, and they should
not be hailed as some leader in climate policy.
Ms. Fransen, changing the subject, you mentioned in your
testimony that the United States needs to drastically reduce
the rate of deforestation. Really no disagreement there. I am
not so sure that we have a high rate of deforestation. You
didn't cite where you got that number, but that is not
important. I think we all want net more trees, so let's agree
on that.
But what we might not agree on is who we should be hailing
as leaders throughout the world. Many of the countries you
mentioned as leaders in the climate space, they burn trees for
electricity in order to meet their climate goals.
The EU uses biofuels for 45 percent of its, quote/unquote,
``renewable mix.'' Do you think United States should follow
suit? Do

[[Page 49]]

you think we should be speaking out against these countries
that use wood burning as a way to make their renewable energy
mix sound better?
Ms. Fransen. Yeah. Thank you for raising that. There are
certainly problematic uses of biofuels throughout the world.
Not all biofuels are sustainable, and not all forms of biofuels
can be a robust part of our climate change solution, and that
is why we need to be investing in other forms of clean
renewable energy, like wind and solar.
We also need to bear in mind that biofuel production can
come into competition with conserving forests for carbon
sequestration and biodiversity, and that is the form of
biofuels that we need to avoid. So absolutely, we should call
that out.
Mr. Crenshaw. Good. I am glad to hear that. I would also
note that CO2 emissions for wood burning are two and
a half times higher than natural gas. We should not be clapping
our hands for our European partners that like to burn biofuels
instead of just going to clean natural gas that is produced in
the U.S.
I would also note that natural gas produced by the United
States is 41 percent less emissions on a life cycle basis than
gas produced in Russia. And yet, our administration plus the
Europeans are doing everything they can to rely on Russian
natural gas instead. I find that to be very frustrating.
Another frustration I might have is--I have many--we have
countries like Uganda that are begging for more natural gas.
They are telling the Western world that they won't be trapped
in this generational poverty because of the left's obsession
with only solar and wind solutions.
There is a company in my district that is trying to build
an LNG import terminal in Vietnam. The LNG terminal would allow
them to wean off of Chinese coal, which is three times the
emissions profile of U.S. natural gas. And in Vietnam, their
population density is 800 people per square mile.
So a solar farm displaces quite a few people. It is not
really feasible for them. So they are asking for cleaner energy
that actually works for them. Wind doesn't work for them
because offshore is closer to Chinese waters. And yet, the
Biden administration is refusing to permit this, is refusing to
allow this because our policy is not to help fund any kind of
projects, fossil fuel projects, abroad. But, of course, this is
just going to lead to higher emissions. Much like many of these
policies will end up net leading to higher emissions.
It is worth noting that if all OECD countries right now
stopped burning fossil fuel, stopped emitting any carbon
dioxide whatsoever, all of them, right now, for the next 100
years, we would only reduce the temperature by 2100, by 0.8
degrees Fahrenheit. That is quite a huge cost for almost no
benefit whatsoever.
I only point that out to get us back to some kind of
rational thinking when it comes to a cost-benefit analysis and
how we might look for better solutions that reduce emissions,
because I think we all have the same goal there, but do so in a
more pragmatic way.
Thank you. I yield back.

[[Page 50]]

Ms. Castor. Well, I want to thank our witnesses for your
testimony today. Your testimony comes at a vital moment for
Americans and the human race, frankly.
Congress is poised to act on the historic Build Back Better
infrastructure and clean energy package. That is good news for
American families because it is going to lower costs, provide
cleaner air, and good-paying jobs across the economy. And we
know that Americans are awake like never before to the rising
costs and the impacts of the climate crisis. Just take a look
at what we are shelling out for catastrophic weather events now
that are escalating. We have got to get a handle on this.
Americans want action, and with American leadership will
come global action that we need desperately before--and we have
to act before--because temperatures are continuing to rise and
it is going to get worse unless we all act. So we are going to
march together to Glasgow, and do everything we can to help
President Biden achieve our goals and press the rest of the
world to do so as well.
So without objection, I would like to enter into the record
at this time an October 2021 report from the World Resources
Institute titled, ``The State of Climate 2021''; the executive
summary of an October 2021 report from the United Nations
Environment Programme titled, ``The Heat Is On: A World of
Climate Promises Not Yet Delivered,'' which provides an
overview of the difference between where greenhouse gas
emissions are predicted to be in 2030 and where they should be
to avert the worst impacts of climate change; three, a
September 2021 report from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development titled, ``Climate Finance Provided
and Mobilized by Developed Countries,'' which examines the gap
between adaptation financing that has been provided and what is
needed; and, finally, a September 17, 2021, letter from the
Industrial Energy Consumers of America, because, of course,
exporting oil and methane has repercussions for the U.S.
economy.
So this letter to Department of Energy Secretary Granholm
asked the DOD to take action to prevent a U.S. methane supply
crunch that would harm consumers. The letter notes that low-
storage levels are the result of higher-year, over-year
exports. Without objection, those will be entered into the
record.
[The information follows:]

Submissions for the Record

Representative Kathy Castor

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

October 28, 2021

ATTACHMENT: Boehm, S., K. Lebling, K. Levin, H. Fekete, J. Jaeger, R.
Waite,
A. Nilsson, J. Thwaites, R. Wilson, A. Geiges, C. Schumer, M.
Dennis, K. Ross, S. Castellanos, R. Shrestha, N. Singh, M.
Weisse, L. Lazer, L. Jeffery, L. Freehafer, E. Gray, L. Zhou,
M. Gidden, and M. Gavin. 2021. State of Climate Action 2021:
Systems Transformations Required to Limit Global Warming to
1.5+C. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://doi.org/10.46830/wrirpt.21.00048

ATTACHMENT: United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Emissions Gap
Report 2021: The Heat Is On--A World of Climate Promises Not
Yet Delivered--Executive Summary. Nairobi.

The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/36991/
EGR21_ESEN.pdf

[[Page 51]]

ATTACHMENT: OECD (2021), Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by
Devel-
oped Countries: Aggregate Trends Updated with 2019 Data,
Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal, OECD Publishing,
Paris.

The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://doi.org/10.1787/03590fb7-en

ATTACHMENT: Letter to Secretary Granholm from IECA re: ``Requir[ing]
LNG
Terminals to Reduce Export Rates to Fill Winter Natural Gas
Storage, Establish LNG Export Volume Limits, and Put Public
Interest Safeguards in Place.'' (2021, Sept. 17).

The letter is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.ieca-us.com/wp-content/uploads/09.17.21_LNG-Letter-
to-Secretary-Granholm-
2.pdf?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_
campaign=newsletter_axiosgenerate&stream=top

Ms. Castor. I thank you again for attending our hearing. On
to Glasgow. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

United States House of Representatives

Select Committee on the Climate Crisis

Hearing on October 28, 2021

``International Climate Challenges and Opportunities''

Questions for the Record

Taryn Fransen

Senior Fellow

World Resources Institute

the honorable kathy castor
1. We know that cutting methane emissions is a key way to slow
global temperature rise and very often a win-win-win for industry, the
climate, and our health. What specific opportunities does the United
States have to lead on reducing methane emissions, and how would that
benefit the climate?

Methane is 86 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year
period, so reducing methane is a very powerful tool to reduce near-term
warming. The major sources of anthropogenic methane emissions are
agriculture (farming and livestock), the energy sector (emissions from
the production, transportation, and use natural gas, oil, and coal),
and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills and
wastewater handling and treatment facilities. As one of the world's
largest oil and gas producers, the US has both the responsibility and
the opportunity to take action on methane.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Ross, Waskow, and Ge, ``How Methane Emissions Contribute to
Climate Change''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the near term, the US can build on recent progress by addressing
three critical priorities:
Implementing the Methane Emissions Reduction Action
Plan, including implementing the EPA's proposed rule for oil
and gas facilities, addressing emissions from orphan wells and
abandoned mines, and reducing emissions from landfills and
agriculture
Passing key provisions in the Build Back Better Act,
including a methane fee, funding for methane monitoring and
mitigation, and support for agricultural methane management
Continuing to support global methane reduction
efforts under the Global Methane Pledge

These three priorities would build on recent progress in the
following areas:

Global Methane Pledge: Internationally, in September, the US and
the EU launched the Global Methane Pledge, an international pledge with
a collective aspiration to cut global methane emissions by 30% by 2030,
relative to 2020. More than 100 countries have already joined the
pledge.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Climate & Clean Air Coalition Secretariat, ``Global Methane
Pledge''

[[Page 52]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan: Domestically, the White
House released a U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan in
November, a comprehensive plan to address methane emissions from all
major sources.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ White House, ``U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Plan''

Agriculture: The U.S. Department of Agriculture is working with
U.S. farmers and ranchers to expand the voluntary adoption of climate-
smart agriculture practices to reduce methane emissions from key
agriculture sources. These practices include incentivizing the
deployment of improved manure management systems, anaerobic digesters,
and new livestock feeds, composting, among others.\4\ The U.S. Congress
is also considering supplemental funding that would support many of
these efforts, including agriculture conversation investments in the
House-passed Build Back Better Act.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ White House, ``Joint US-EU Press Release on the Global Methane
Pledge''
\5\ White House, ``Joint US-EU Press Release on the Global Methane
Pledge''; Yarmouth, ``H.R._To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to
Title II of S. Con. Res. 14''

Waste: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken steps to
implement stronger pollution standards for landfills, including
installing systems to capture methane and generate electricity.\6\
Under the new U.S Action Plan, the EPA is boosting its voluntary
landfill methane outreach program to achieve a national goal of 70
percent methane emissions capture for all landfills around the
country.\7\ The EPA is also ramping up an initiative to reduce the food
loss and waste, which is a major contributor to landfill methane
emissions.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``Benefits of Landfill
Gas Energy Projects''
\7\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''
\8\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''

Energy: The EPA has proposed a new rule to reduce methane emissions
from oil and gas production. The proposed rule includes standards for
performance, standards to eliminate venting, and monitoring to identify
methane leaks.\9\ The proposal covers not just new but also existing
operations, which will mean more rapid emission reductions. According
to the EPA, the proposed regulations will reduce methane emissions from
sources covered in the proposal by 74 percent by 2030, relative to 2005
levels.\10\ Further, the Department of Transportation in the process of
finalizing rules that will extend federal pipeline safety standards and
requires operators to cut methane leaks.\11\ The Infrastructure
Investments and Jobs Act significantly increases federal resources to
address methane emissions from abandoned mines and orphaned oil and gas
wells.\12\ In addition, the House included a methane fee and funding
for methane monitoring and mitigation in its passage of the Build Back
Better Act. If enacted into law, the fee would provide incentives to
further reduce methane emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``U.S. to Sharply Cut
Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health''
\10\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ``U.S. to Sharply Cut
Methane Pollution that Threatens the Climate and Public Health''
\11\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''
\12\ White House, ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Methane Emissions Reduction Action Plan and proposed EPA rules
are first steps in achieving serious cuts from methane emissions in the
U.S.
Further progress is also possible in the following areas:

A recent study suggests that oil and gas methane emissions can be
cut even further through more frequent inspections, greatly reduced
venting and flaring at wellheads, and improvements to oil storage
tanks, among other measures.\13\ Many of these measures have now been
put forth in EPA's latest proposed rule for new and existing sources,
and the administration and congress should continue to support rapid
and comprehensive reductions through complementary measures such as
investment in RD&D, regulation of facilities located on federal lands,
investment in plugging and remediation of abandoned sites, and
partnership with industry to ensure rapid best practice adoption. New
sensors and emerging monitoring technologies (for example, plane-
mounted sensors and satellites) will also open up opportunities for
more advanced leak detection and repair provide granular data to reveal
the leakiest parts of the oil and gas system, to support quicker seals
and remedial action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Clean Air Task Force, ``Reducing Methane from Oil and Gas''

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53]]

Further advances can also be made in the agriculture sector.
Enteric fermentation (cow burps), for example, is one of the largest
contributors to methane emissions in the U.S. agriculture sector.
Additional investments in RD&D of feed additives (which help to inhibit
methane production and improve the productivity of ruminants), are
important to scale up work in this area, firstly focused on longer-term
trials and safety tests.\14\ Improved feeding strategies for livestock
will require coordinated activity, so the U.S. government could partner
with the private sector to scale up production and distribution of
better feeds and conduct innovative marketing campaigns.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Searchinger et al., ``Opportunities to Reduce Methane
Emissions from Global Agriculture''
\15\ Searchinger et al., ``Opportunities to Reduce Methane
Emissions from Global Agriculture''

2. Global accountability and transparency are critical for
translating climate ambition and pledges into real emissions reductions
and progress on adaptation and resilience. How do we keep track of real
climate action around the world and how do we know that countries will
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
deliver on their commitments under the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement has set out a robust transparency framework for
the purpose of ``building mutual trust and confidence'' that each
country is implementing and delivering on their commitments. As part of
these transparency arrangements, each country will submit a report to
the global community every two years, detailing their greenhouse gas
emissions, progress made in implementing and achieving their
commitments, adaptation efforts and needs, and the financial,
technological, and capacity building support they have provided and
mobilized (for developed countries) or support received and needed (for
developing countries). At COP26 in Glasgow in November 2021, the United
States worked diligently with partners to ensure that the information
reported under the Paris Agreement would be in presented in a
standardized manner so that it is possible to transparently and
consistently track climate action and progress on commitments.
The Paris Agreement's transparency framework has also built-in
accountability processes, where technical experts ensure that
information reported is accurate and follows the latest and best-
available science and where countries can ask questions of each other
about their progress towards their commitments and to explore the
opportunities, challenges, and experiences countries face.
The new rules established under the Paris Agreement, which will
take effect by 2024, address weaknesses in the pre-Paris accountability
system, including infrequent reporting by some countries and weaker
requirements for developing countries than for developed countries.
Now, under the Paris Agreement, all countries will be required to
report on their progress every two years and do using the same strong
standards.
Processes established under the Paris Agreement are critical for
the global community to track climate actions, emissions reductions,
adaptation efforts, and the support provided for and needed by
developing countries for implementing climate actions. These processes
will provide regular updates (every two years) on actions in each
country and serve as the basis upon which we will know how countries
are delivering on their commitments.

3. How do you see clean technology deployment and innovation
benefiting vulnerable communities, and what role do you see for the
United States in both supporting deployment and innovation and in
making sure developing countries around the world can access cheap
clean energy technologies?

As noted in my testimony, while ambitious near-term actions are
possible with existing technologies, further innovation in clean
technology can broaden our options for ultimately driving net global
emissions down to zero, which we must achieve around mid-century to
limit warming to 1.5+C (2.7+F).
Given that climate change disproportionally impacts vulnerable and
marginalized communities--including the poor, largely in developing
countries--innovation that helps realize ambitious global emissions
goals is a critical part of reducing the climate impacts experienced by
vulnerable communities and developing countries. Further, technological
innovation is important to defining pathways towards low-emission and
climate-resilient development throughout the world. Finally, the
economic competitiveness, growth, and opportunity creation from clean
technology innovation can be a driver of prosperity for developing
nations. The deployment of innovative energy solutions can also bring
clean energy to disadvantaged groups that generally face greater
barriers to accessing these technologies and the benefits they provide.

[[Page 54]]

The U.S. has an important role to play in innovation, as a nation
leading the way on climate-smart technologies the U.S. can support
innovation in developing countries through technology transfer,
intentional partnership and collaboration, as well as international
finance.

4. What are the critical transitions that we need to make to limit
warming to 1.5 degrees C, and what are the economic costs and benefits
of making these transitions?

To limit global temperature rise to 1.5+C above pre-industrial
levels, the world must halve global greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
and reach net zero around mid-century. The sooner these emissions peak
and the lower they are when they peak, the greater the likelihood of
reaching net zero in time. The latest climate science from the IPCC
makes clear that achieving these deep emissions reductions will require
rapid, far-reaching transitions of unprecedented scale across power,
transport, buildings, industry, land use, coastal zone management, and
agriculture--as well as the immediate scale-up of carbon removal to
compensate for the significant proportion of the carbon budget that we
have already spent down and residual emissions that will prove
difficult to eliminate entirely.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ IPCC, ``Global Warming of 1.5+C''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent report from WRI translates these global systemwide
transitions into concrete, actionable targets for 2030 and 2050,\17\
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Boehm et al., ``State of Climate Action 2021''

Power
Reduce the carbon intensity of electricity generation
to 50-125 gCO2/kWh by 2030 and to below zero in 2050.
Increase the share of renewables in electricity
generation to 55-90% by 2030 and to 98-100% by 2050.
Lower the share of unabated coal in electricity
generation to 0-2.5% by 2030 and to 0% by 2050.

Buildings
Reduce the carbon intensity of operations in select
regions by 45-65% in residential buildings and by 65-75% in commercial
buildings by 2030, relative to 2015; reach near zero carbon intensity
globally by 2050.
Decrease the energy intensity of residential building
operations in key countries and regions by 20-30% by 2030 and by 20-60%
by 2050, relative to 2015; reduce the energy intensity of commercial
building operations in key countries and regions by 10-30% by 2030 and
by 15-50% by 2050, relative to 2015.
Increase buildings' retrofitting rate to 2.5-3.5%
annually by 2030 and to 3.5% annually by 2040; ensure that all
buildings are well insulated and fitted with zero-carbon technologies
by 2050.

Industry
Increase the share of electricity in the industry
sector's final energy demand to 35% by 2030, 40-45% by 2040, and 50-55%
by 2050.
Reduce global cement production's carbon intensity by
40% by 2030 and by 85-91% by 2050, relative to 2015.
Reduce global steel production's carbon intensity by
25-30% by 2030 and by 93-100% by 2050, relative to 2015.
Build and operate 20 low-carbon commercial steel
facilities, with each producing at least 1 Mt annually by 2030; ensure
that all steel facilities are net-zero GHG emissions by 2050.
Boost green hydrogen production capacity to 0.23-3.5
Mt (25 GW cumulative electrolyzer capacity) by 2026 and to 500-800 Mt
(2,630-20,000 GW cumulative electrolyzer capacity) by 2050.

Transport
Reduce the percentage of trips made by private LDVs
to between 4% to 14% below BAU levels by 2030.
Reduce the carbon intensity of land-based passenger
transport to 35-60 gCO2/pkm by 2030 and reach near zero by 2050.
Increase the share of EVs to 75-95% of total annual
LDV sales by 2030 and to 100% by 2035.
Expand the share of EVs to account for 20-40% of
total LDV fleet by 2030 and 85-100% by 2050.

[[Page 55]]

Boost the share of BEVs and FCEVs to reach 75% of
annual global bus sales by 2025 and to reach 100% of annual bus sales
in leading markets by 2030.
Increase the share of BEVs and FCEVs to 8% of global
annual MHDV sales by 2025 and to 100% in leading markets by 2040.
Raise the share of low-emissions fuels in the
transport sector to 15% by 2030 and to 70-95% by 2050.
Increase SAF's share of global aviation fuel supply
to 10% by 2030 and to 100% by 2050.
Raise ZEF's share of international shipping fuel to
5% by 2030 and to 100% by 2050.

Technological Carbon Removal
Scale up technological carbon removal to 75 MtCO2
annually by 2030 and to 4.5 GtCO2 annually by 2050.

Land-Use and Coastal Zone Management
Reduce the rate of deforestation by 70% by 2030 and
by 95% by 2050, relative to 2018.
Reforest 259 Mha of land by 2030 and 678 Mha in total
by 2050, relative to 2018. WRI
Remove 3.0 GtCO2 annually through reforestation by
2030 and 7.8 GtCO2 annually by 2050.
Reduce the degradation and destruction of peatlands
by 70% by 2030 and by 95% by 2050, relative to 2018.
Restore 22 Mha of peatlands by 2030 and 46 Mha in
total by 2050, relative to 2018.
Reduce the conversion of coastal wetlands by 70% by
2030 and by 95% by 2050, relative to 2018.
Restore 7 Mha of coastal wetlands by 2030 and 29 Mha
in total by 2050, relative to 2018.

Agriculture
Reduce agricultural production emissions by 22% by
2030 and by 39% by 2050, relative to 2017.
Increase crop yields by 18% by 2030 and by 45% by
2050, relative to 2017.
Increase ruminant meat productivity per hectare by
27% by 2030 and by 58% by 2050, relative to 2017.
Reduce share of food loss by 50% by 2030 and maintain
this reduction through 2050, relative to 2016.
Reduce per capita food waste by 50% by 2030 and
maintain this reduction through 2050, relative to 2019.
Reduce ruminant meat consumption in high-consuming
regions to 79 kcal/capita/day by 2030 and to 60 kcal/capita/day by
2050.

Unfortunately, we do not have the luxury of picking and choosing
among these targets--all must be achieved if we are to avoid the worst
climate impacts. But the good news is that the benefits of climate
action are enormous. A 2018 report from the Global Commission on the
Economy and Climate, for example, estimates that, when compared to a
business-as-usual scenario, ambitious climate action across these
systems could generate $26 trillion in direct economic gains through
2030, as well as create 65 million additional low-carbon jobs in 2030
(NCE 2018). In the United States alone, Energy Innovation finds that a
1.5+C pathway could increase national GDP by $489 billion per year in
2030 and reach $997 billion in 2050 (a 2.6 percent annual GDP
expansion).\18\ And due to limitations in economic modeling, these
estimates are likely conservative--they underestimate the benefits of
climate action. Traditional economic models do not adequately account
for the damage that climate change risks, which vary significantly in
scale and nature, can wreak on the economy, nor do they reflect the
full benefits of curbing greenhouse gas emissions, especially those
related to improved air quality and health (NCE 2018).\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Orvis, ``A 1.5 Celsius Pathway to Climate Leadership for The
United States''
\19\ Saha and Jaeger, ``America's New Climate Economy: A
Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the
United States''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financing these transitions globally, however, will require up-
front investments that reach $5 trillion per year by 2030, with a
public climate finance contributing roughly a quarter--or $1.25
trillion per year--of this total (Boehm et al. 2021). But it's clear
that that such investments make good economic sense, and the costs of
inaction are far outweighed by the risk posed by climate change.

[[Page 56]]

The U.S. is responsible for more cumulative carbon emissions than
any other country, and it is also the world's largest economy. The U.S.
can and must invest in transitions at home and abroad. Domestically,
the U.S. needs live up to its commitment to halve emissions by 2030,
and that means that congressional action, particularly passing the
Build Back Better Act, is essential.\20\ However, these required
transformations are global, and domestic emission reductions along are
not enough. Congress can enable the U.S. to lead on climate action
globally by maintaining and increasing international funding for
climate priorities like clean energy, resilience, and forest
protection.\21\ Finally, as leader in innovation, with congressional
support, the U.S. can lead the research and development needed to fully
decarbonize the economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Kennedy et al, ``Blueprint 2030: An All-In Climate Strategy
for Faster, More Durable Emissions Reduction''; Larsen et al,
``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 US Climate
Target''
\21\ Thwaites, ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden
Administration''

5. To what extent have President Biden's policies affected energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
prices in global energy markets and here in the United States?

Fossil fuel prices are volatile by nature. Over the past 15 years,
we have seen 3 major spikes and 3 troughs in the price of oil--two
caused by major global economic recessions (in 2008 and 2020), and one
extended period of volatility from 2014-2017 caused by increased global
supplies and OPEC production decisions (Figure 1). Price spikes often
follow price troughs as periods of low prices discourage investment in
production. Price spikes like the one we have seen in recent months
have happened before and will happen again until the world transitions
to clean energy and boosts the resilience of its energy systems.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6351A.003

Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on domestic oil production
requires understanding the investment cycles within the industry. In
the years prior to 2020, low prices led to low investment in the sector
and hesitancy to underwrite the large amounts of debt that more
expensive shale production requires, particularly following the 2014-
2017 trough, when the price of oil fell 70% over a year and a half due
to a supply glut resulting from OPEC attempts to undercut US shale oil
production.\22\ During 2020, US petroleum demand recorded its largest
annual decrease as consumption decreased to a 25-year low due to the
pandemic.\23\ When demand

[[Page 57]]

cratered, wells were shut in, rig counts plummeted, and many operators
declared bankruptcy.\24\ As demand rebounded strongly in 2021, this
lower production capacity meant supply has been unable to ramp up again
as quickly as needed
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Stocker, Baffes, And Vorisek, ``What triggered the oil price
plunge of 2014-2016 and why it failed to deliver an economic impetus in
eight charts''
\23\ Energy Information Administration, ``How much oil is consumed
in the United States?''
\24\ Cromwick and Myers Jaffe, ``Energy Price Inflation at Our
Doorstep''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President Biden's policies, including revoking a cross-border
permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and temporarily pausing new oil and
gas leasing, are not responsible for the recent rise in energy prices.
The Keystone XL pipeline would have transported an estimated 830,000
barrels of oil per day, compared to US petroleum product consumption of
approximately 20 million barrels per day.\25\ The Keystone XL pipeline
was also less than 10% constructed at the time of President Biden's
order and would not have been completed in time to deliver crude oil
and affect prices during fall 2021.\26\ The President's order to pause
new oil and gas leasing was only in effect for 4.5 months, until a
judge halted it \27\ and more than half of the federal acres already
leased are non-producing. Given the small share of production on
federal leases and the substantial lag time involved in developing new
federal leases into active operating wells, the President's pause on
new oil and gas leasing did not substantially impact domestic oil
production. In fact, domestic oil production has remained relatively
constant since June 2020 \28\ with the two largest disruptions during
this time coming from extreme weather events, namely the February 2021
winter freeze and Hurricane Ida in August 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Energy Information Administration, ``4a. U.S. Petroleum and
Other Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories''
\26\ Reuters Fact Check, ``Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline
had secured most of its funding, it was only 8% constructed''
\27\ U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Report on the Federal Oil
and Gas Leasing Program''
\28\ Energy Information Administration, ``4a. U.S. Petroleum and
Other Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current mismatch between energy supply and demand does not
indicate we should slow the low-carbon transition--rather, it
highlights its urgency. Shifting from gasoline-powered vehicles toward
electric vehicles, public transit, and other alternative transportation
modes would reduce oil dependence, protecting American consumers from
price volatility and reducing reliance on imports. In addition,
shifting from natural gas heating and new natural gas plants for
electricity generation would also reduce volatility. The US homes that
are heated primarily with natural gas are expected to have heating
bills 30% higher than normal this winter, in contrast to only 6% higher
for homes heated primarily with electricity.\29\ According to the IEA,
if the world invests enough in clean energy, average household energy
bills in developed economies will be lower in 2030 and 2050 than they
are today.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Energy Information Administration, ``Winter Fuels Outlook,
October 2021''
\30\ International Energy Agency. ``Prices and affordability--World
Energy Outlook 2021''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policies like the recently passed Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act (IIJA) and the Build Back Better (BBB) legislation currently
being debated by US Congress would help achieve this transformation.
The BBB legislation would provide incentives to speed development of
renewable energy generation, encouraging their development over new
natural gas plants. Natural gas already accounts for 40% of electricity
generation nationally and is also used extensively for home heating;
any increases in reliance on gas would exacerbate future vulnerability
to price spikes and supply issues. The IIJA includes substantial
investments in electric vehicles, which would reduce reliance on oil,
including billions for investments in electric vehicle charging
infrastructure and electric buses. The BBB legislation would add
additional incentives for other electric vehicles, further reducing
reliance on price-volatile oil. Factoring in fuel and maintenance
savings, an electric vehicle already costs one-sixth the amount of a
gasoline-powered car.\31\ Federal investments in these transformative
pieces of legislation will extend the lower costs and clean air
benefits of electric vehicles to more American households and protect
consumers from the volatility and geopolitics of global oil markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Gillis, ``Investments in clean energy are the ideal response
to high fossil fuel costs''

6. Some Members of Congress have described the anticipated impacts
of 2.7 degrees C warming as ``negligible.'' Can you describe the range
of climate impacts the world might experience as a result of 2.7
degrees C warming due to anthropogenic climate change? Would you
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
consider those impacts to be ``negligible''?

To date, global average surface temperature has risen 1.1+C (2.0+F)
relative to pre-industrial levels. Current policies are expected to
result in warming in the range of 2.7+C (4.9+F) by 2100. The projected
impacts under this level of warming are significant, according to the
IPCC AR6 WGI report released in August. The report as

[[Page 58]]

sessed five scenarios for future warming, including one (SSP2-4.5)
projected to result in 2.7+C by 2100. The impacts on the water, ocean,
and cryosphere system of that scenario include: \32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ IPCC, ``AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis,''
direct quotes

The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) will
very likely decline over the 21st century. . . . There is
medium confidence that the decline will not involve an abrupt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
collapse before 2100.

The Arctic Ocean will likely become practically sea ice-free
during the seasonal sea ice minimum for the first time before
2050.

Both the Greenland Ice Sheet (virtually certain) and the
Antarctic Ice Sheet (likely) will continue to lose mass
throughout this century. . . . The related contribution to
global mean sea level rise until 2100 from the Greenland Ice
Sheet will likely be . . . 0.04-0.13 m . . . while the
Antarctic Ice Sheet will likely contribute . . . 0.03-0.29 m.

Glaciers lost 6200 [4600-7800] Gt of mass (17.1 [12.7-21.5] mm
global mean sea level equivalent) over 46 the period 1993 to
2019 and will continue losing mass . . . (very high
confidence).

It is virtually certain that global mean sea level will
continue to rise through 2100, because all assessed
contributors to global mean sea level are likely to virtually
certain to continue contributing throughout this century.

At sustained warming levels between 2+C and 3+C, the Arctic
Ocean will be practically sea ice-free throughout September in
most years (medium confidence); there is limited evidence that
the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets will be lost almost
completely and irreversibly over multiple millennia; both the
probability of their complete loss and the rate of mass loss
will increase with higher temperatures (high confidence); about
50-60% of current glacier mass outside Antarctica will be lost
(low confidence); Northern hemisphere spring snow cover extent
will decrease by up to 30% relative to 1995-2014 (medium
confidence); permafrost volume in the top 3 m will decrease by
up to 75% relative to 1995-2014 (medium confidence). Committed
GMSL rise over 2000 years will be about 4-10 m with 3+C of peak
warming (medium agreement, limited evidence).

A forthcoming (February 2022) IPCC report will provide further
detail on the impacts of a 2.7+C future on ecosystems, water, food
production, cities and infrastructure, health, poverty, and
livelihoods. In the meantime, it is instructive to
review the projected impacts of 1.5+C and 2+C of warming as a benchmark
for 2.7+C
(Figure 2).

[[Page 59]]

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

References

Boehm, S., K. Lebling, K. Levin, H. Fekete, J. Jaeger, R. Waite, A.
Nilsson, J. Thwaites, R. Wilson, A. Geiges, C. Schumer, M. Dennis, K.
Ross, S. Castellanos, R. Shrestha, N. Singh, M. Weiss, L. Lazer, L.
Jeffery, L. Freehafer, E. Gray, L. Zhou, M. Gidden, and M. Gavin.
``State of Climate Action 2021: Systems Transformations Required to
Limit Global Warming to 1.5+C.'' World Resources Institute, 2021.
https://www.wri.org/research/state-climate-action-2021.
Clean Air Task Force. ``Reducing Methane from Oil and Gas.'' Clean
Air Task Force, 2021.
https://cdn.catf.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/21092556/
Path_to_65pc_OG_reduction- Dec2020_update.pdf
Climate & Clean Air Coalition Secretariat. ``Global Methane
Pledge.'' Climate & Clean Air Coalition Secretariat. Accessed December
8, 2021.
https://www.globalmethanepledge.org/.
Energy Information Administration. ``4a. U.S. Petroleum and Other
Liquids Supply, Consumption, and Inventories.'' Energy Information
Administration. Accessed December 8, 2021. https://
www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/data/browser/#/
?v=9&f=M&s=0&ctype=linechart&maptype=0.
Energy Information Administration. ``How much oil is consumed in
the United States?'' Energy Information Administration. Accessed
December 8, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6.
Energy Information Administration. ``U.S. Crude Oil Composite
Acquisition Cost by Refiners (Dollars per Barrel).'' Energy Information
Administration. Accessed December 8, 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/
LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=R0000____3&f=M.
Energy Information Administration. ``Winter Fuels Outlook, October
2021.'' Energy Information Administration. Accessed December 8, 2021.
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/winterfuels.php.
Gillis, Jack. ``Investments in clean energy are the ideal response
to high fossil fuel costs.'' The Hill, 2021.
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/584708-investments-in-
clean-energy-are-the-ideal-response-to-high-fossil.
Hughes-Cromwick, Ellen and Amy Myers Jaffe. ``Energy Price
Inflation at Our Doorstep.'' Third Way, 2021. https://www.thirdway.org/
blog/energy-price-inflation-at-our-doorstep.

[[Page 60]]

International Energy Agency. ``Prices and Affordability--World
Energy Outlook 2021.'' International Energy Agency, 2021. https://
www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2021/prices-and-affordability.
IPCC. ``AR6 Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.''
IPCC, 2021. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
IPCC. ``Global Warming of 1.5+C. An IPCC Special Report on the
Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5+C above Pre-industrial Levels and
Related Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of
Strengthening the Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change,
Sustainable Development, and Efforts to Eradicate Poverty.'' IPCC,
2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/.
Kennedy, K., W. Jaglom, N. Hultman, E. Bridgwater, R. Mendell, H.
Leslie-Bole, L. Rowland, E. McGlynn, T. Massey-Green, T. Cyrs, L.
Clarke, H. McJeon, A. Zhao, J. O'Neill, R. Gasper, J. Feldmann, K.
O'Keefe, S. Kennedy, J. Zhao, and H. Kazanecki. ``Blueprint 2030: An
All-In Climate Strategy for Faster, More Durable Emissions
Reductions.'' America Is All In, 2021.
https://www.americaisallin.com/blueprint-2030.
Larsen, John, Ben King, Emily Wimberger, Hannah Pitt, Hannah Kolus,
Alfredo Rivera, Naveen Damari, Claire Jahns, Kate Larsen, and Whitney
Herndon. ``Pathways to Paris: A Policy Assessment of the 2030 US
Climate Target.'' Rhodium Group, 2021. https://rhg.com/research/us-
climate-policy-2030/.
The New Climate Economy. ``Unlocking the Inclusive Growth Story of
the 21st Century: Accelerating Climate Action in Urgent Times.'' The
New Climate Economy, 2018. https://newclimateeconomy.report/2018.
Orvis, Robbie. ``A 1.5 Celsius Pathway to Climate Leadership for
The United States.'' Energy Innovation, 2021. https://
energyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/A-1.5-C-Pathway-to-
Climate-Leadership-for-The-United-States.pdf.
Reuters Fact Check. ``Fact Check-Though Keystone XL Pipeline Had
Secured
Most of Its Funding, It Was Only 8% Constructed.'' Reuters, 2021.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-keystonepipelinexl-
builtandpai-idUSL1N2LA2SQ.
Ross, Katie, David Waskow and Mengpin Ge. ``How Methane Emissions
Contribute to Climate Change,'' World Resources Institute, 2021.
https://www.wri.org/insights/methane-gas-emissions-climate-change.
Saha, Devashree, and Joel Jaeger. ``America's New Climate Economy:
A Comprehensive Guide to the Economic Benefits of Climate Policy in the
United States.'' World Resource Institute, 2020. https://www.wri.org/
research/americas-new-climate-economy-comprehensive-guide-economic-
benefits-climate-policy-united.
Searchinger, Tim, Mario Herrero, Xiaoyuan Yan, Jinyang Wang,
Patrice Dumas, Karen Beauchemin and Ermias Kebreab. ``Opportunities to
Reduce Methane Emissions from Global Agriculture.'' Princeton
University, Cornell University, 2021.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/
methane_discussion_paper_nov_2021.pdf.
Stocker, Marc, John Baffes and Dana Vorisek. ``What triggered the
oil price plunge of 2014-2016 and why it failed to deliver an economic
impetus in
eight charts.'' World Bank, 2018. https://blogs.worldbank.org/
developmenttalk/what-triggered-oil-price-plunge-2014-2016-and-why-it-
failed-deliver-economic-impetus-eight-charts.
Thwaites, Joe. ``4 Climate Finance Priorities for the Biden
Administration.'' World Resources Institute, 2021. https://www.wri.org/
insights/4-climate-finance-priorities-biden-administration.
U.S. Department of the Interior. ``Report on the Federal Oil and
Gas Leasing Program.'' Department of the Interior, 2021.
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/report-on-the-federal-oil-and-
gas-leasing-program-doi-eo-14008.pdf?source=email.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Benefits of Landfill Gas
Energy Projects.'' Landfill Methane Outreach Program. Accessed November
22, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/lmop/benefits-landfill-gas-energy-
projects.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``U.S. to Sharply Cut Methane
Pollution That Threatens the Climate and Public Health.'' EPA Press
Office, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/us-sharply-cut-methane-
pollution-threatens-climate-and-public-health.
The White House. ``Fact Sheet: President Biden Tackles Methane
Emissions, Spurs Innovations, and Supports Sustainable Agriculture to
Build a Clean Energy Economy and Create Jobs.'' The White House, 2021.
https://
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/02/fact-
sheet-president-biden-tackles-methane-emissions-spurs-innovations-and-
supports-sustainable-agriculture-to-build-a-clean-energy-economy-and-
create-jobs/.

[[Page 61]]

The White House. ``Joint US-EU Press Release on the Global Methane
Pledge.'' The White House, 2021.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/
18/joint-us-eu-press-release-on-the-global-methane-pledge/.
The White House. ``U.S. Methane Emissions Reduction Plan.'' The
White House, 2021. https://
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/US-Methane-Emissions-
Reduction-Action-Plan-1.pdf.
Yarmuth, John. H.R._To Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title
II of S. Con. Res. 14, 2021. https://rules.house.gov/sites/
democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR5376RH-RCP117-18.pdf.

Questions for the Record

Tjada D'Oyen McKenna

Chief Executive Officer

Mercy Corps

the honorable kathy castor
1. You testified that it is very important that the United States
meet our international climate finance commitments. How does U.S.
climate finance aid help to meet development and humanitarian needs in
vulnerable communities, support adaptation, and advance our own
national interests?

The climate crisis is one of the biggest threats facing humanity
and jeopardizes the development gains the world has worked so hard for.
Confronting climate change is the most pressing issue of our time, and
action on global climate adaptation now will drive global climate
resilience in the future. U.S. International Climate Finance is crucial
to helping meet escalating development and humanitarian needs in
vulnerable communities. The climate crisis disproportionately affects
the communities Mercy Corps works with: vulnerable communities facing
poverty, fragility, conflict and already suffering the devastating
impacts of continued environmental degradation. As the largest
bilateral assistance donor, the U.S.'s continued commitments to global
climate finance will help countries adapt to the devastating impacts of
climate change already being felt, like food insecurity, poverty, and
drought, and help countries pursue low carbon development pathways to
overcome their development challenges.
We are already experiencing the devastating impacts that climate
change has on almost every aspect of life--from food and water
insecurity to infrastructure and public health. Our research has found
that a vast majority of the most climate-vulnerable countries received
less than $20 per person per year in climate change adaptation
financing from 2010-2017.\1\ Through our programming, we have seen how
important adapting to climate variability is and how investments in
crop and livelihood diversification, seasonal climate forecasting,
community-based disaster risk reduction, famine early warning systems,
insurance, water storage, supplementary irrigation can mean the
difference between success and failure for those dependent on these
means to survive. And this crisis is exacerbating inequalities that
intersect with gender, race, ethnicity, and economic security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Zurich Flood Resilience Alliance. 2020. At What Cost: How
chronic gaps in adaptation finance expose the world's poorest people to
climate chaos. http://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.floodresilience.net/resources/item/at-what-cost-how-chronic-gaps-
in-adaptation-finance-expose-the-world-s-poorest-people-to-climate-
chaos/
Climate risks, like climate change, are felt in hyper local
contexts and amplified at the global level. According to the October
2021 Climate Risk Analysis by the U.S. Department of Defense, Climate
change is ``reshaping the geostrategic, operational, and tactical
environments with significant implications for U.S. national security
and defense. [With the] increasing temperatures; changing precipitation
patterns; and more frequent, intense, and unpredictable extreme weather
conditions caused by climate change [we have found climate change a
force] exacerbating existing

[[Page 62]]

risks and creating new security challenges for U.S. interests.'' \2\
Climate change threatens military installations around the world,
increases the number and frequency of missions undertaken at the DoD,
compounds the challenges and drivers of climate migration, and exposes
U.S. defensive vulnerabilities--all of which could be exploited by and
embolden malign actors. It is in America's best interest to avoid the
destabilizing effects of climate change and assume the risks associated
with increasing climate variability unleashed at home and abroad.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of Defense, Office of the Undersecretary for Policy
(Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities). 2021. Department of Defense
Climate Risk Analysis. Report Submitted to the National Security
Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through the President's Emergency Plan for Adaptation and
Resilience (PREPARE), the U.S. intends on adopting a whole-of-
government approach to supporting developing countries and communities
in vulnerable situations around the world adapt to and manage the
impacts of climate change. This response also stresses the importance
of centering local communities and empowering local leaders with the
power and resources to build resilience to climate change. This
initiative also underscores the importance of multi-sectoral adaptation
efforts, collaborative action and the need for smart investment that
avoids duplication, enhances efficiency, and galvanizes good practice
to combat climate change. Mobilized in this manner, U.S. climate
finance and the U.S. commitment to supporting developing countries will
help to speed up the delivery of global emissions cuts--ultimately
leading to less damages, destruction, and destabilization of
communities around the globe. The PREPARE Initiative also mobilizes
finance and private capital to bridge the global climate financing gap.
It aims to accelerate financing of adaptation measures by: contributing
to and shaping new and existing multilateral and bilateral adaptation
funds, supporting multiple climate risk finance strategies,
strengthening capacity to access finance for adaptation and develop
bankable investments, and striving to leverage both public finance and
private capital.

2. In your statement, you called for the U.S. government to work
with the private sector to support climate adaptation. What can the
private sector do to support climate adaptation and resilience in
vulnerable communities?

The standard humanitarian and development tools deployed by wealthy
governments and development finance institutions--largely sovereign
loans and project contracts or grants--are insufficient in scope and
scale to meet the climate change challenge. To reach the level of
funding required, it is essential to unlock far greater amounts of
private capital and to encourage investments in higher risk
environments. Today, private sources represent more than 90 percent of
financial flows into emerging markets, and it has been estimated the
annual need to respond to the scale and severity of the climate crisis,
in green infrastructure and other adaptation and mitigation efforts, is
around $5 trillion USD.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.wri.org/insights/low-carbon-growth-26-trillion-opportunity-here-
are-4-ways-seize-it
Inclusive growth can only be achieved with the private sector to
spur greater development and humanitarian impact. There are
opportunities for the private sector to invest in adaptation as part of
a global green economy. Entrepreneurs are finding ways to help
communities cope with the impact of climate change. They now need
capital and support to bring their offerings to scale.
Development and business leaders alike recognize that by
collaborating and leveraging each other's unique resources, assets, and
skill set, we can tackle problems together that neither of us could
address alone. There is a $23 trillion global market for climate-smart
investments in emerging markets \4\ that needs to be utilized to reach
our collective climate adaptation and resilience goals. Markets offer
vital channels for advancing access to climate-smart and risk-reduction
products and services, particularly in contexts with weak public sector
services or protracted crises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ International Finance Corporation. (2016). Climate Investment
Opportunities in Emerging Markets: An IFC Analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/59260145-ec2e-40de-97e6-
3aa78b82b3c9/3503-IFC-Climate_Investment_Opportunity-Report-Dec-
FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CVID=lBLd6Xq
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Governments can assist with mainstreaming and integrating climate
change adaptation into national, sub-national and sector planning and
budgeting. This mainstreaming goes hand in hand with financial
instruments, procurement policy and access to flexible funding
streams--all of which can continue to ensure effective and efficient
use of public dollars in assistance. During the annual U.S. Federal
budget and appropriations process, for example, Congress can allow for
more flexibility in funding within the assistance budget, to allow
local actors and development

[[Page 63]]

agencies to rapidly overcome emerging issues, overcome barriers to
entry, de-risk investment and be more adaptive in planning and
implementation. Doing this will enable more effective co-creation,
innovative financing, and partnerships with a diverse array of actors.
This nimbleness can mobilize private businesses around the world to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
advance our core priorities.

3. In your testimony you described climate as a threat multiplier.
What types of assistance can address this climate-conflict nexus and
how the United States could demonstrate leadership here?

The relationship between climate-related risks and conflict is
complex and often intersects with political, social, economic, and
demographic factors, amplifying and compounding threats and stressors.
Despite the urgent need for more effective responses, funding for
climate adaptation rarely makes it outside of capitals, with only
approximately 10% of climate finance reaching local levels. Climate
change will have the most pronounced consequences in fragile states
because those with weak institutions and a history of conflict are ill
equipped to effectively respond to the challenge and, ostensibly
dealing with compounding crises, they are often passed over for
``stabler'' places for investment. It is estimated nearly a third of
conflicts from 1980-2016 were preceded by climate-related disasters.
Research suggests climate-related disasters increase the risk of armed
conflict, showing that states with large populations, political
exclusion and low levels of human development are particularly
vulnerable. Governance challenges in these countries often amplify
the negative effects of climate change by undermining institutional
capacity, damaging public trust and the strength of social contract,
and sustainable development broadly.
As such, strengthening local and state capacity to create an
enabling environment for peace and stability and supporting climate
resilience is critical. A recent study produced by Mercy Corps implies
that the capacity of states to prevent, mitigate and respond
effectively to the social and economic challenges brought about by
climate change, may determine, in large part, whether violence
occurs.\5\ U.S. programming should prioritize efforts to identify the
knowledge and technical gaps of formal and informal institutions and
build capacity to manage natural resources, address tensions and
disputes, and respond to disasters effectively. Important to this work
will also be establishing or strengthening conflict early warning
systems as well as climate and weather information systems (weather,
seasonal forecasts, early warning systems) to inform timely and
effective local investments,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Jene, Lisa and Beza Tesfaye (2020). Addressing the Climate-
Conflict Nexus in Fragile States: Understanding the Role of Governance.
Mercy Corps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.mercycorps.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Addressing-the-
Climate-Conflict-Nexus_Full-Report_11.6.pdf
Relatedly, programming should prioritize helping local government
actors and civil society organizations manage use of and competition
over natural resources. Developing resource sharing agreements and
joint management across administrative boundaries can improve
coordination and use, build trust through information sharing, and
ultimately reduce resource tensions. Further, working with communities,
especially youth, to identify and support alternative economic
opportunities can diversify sources of employment. Strengthening and
diversifying natural resource-based livelihoods can lower the risk of
conflict between groups and allow communities to better cope with
climate shocks and stresses, improving food security. Assessing
vulnerabilities and risks of food systems and facilitating access to
improved technologies, including information services, can help reduce
crop loss and improve yields, while facilitating market linkages can
increase household income.

4. How have you seen climate change undermine vulnerable
populations, especially with respect to women and girls? How can the
United States demonstrate greater leadership to address these impacts
and ensure that assistance reaches vulnerable women and girls?

Women and men are experiencing climate change differently, as
gender inequalities persist around the world, affecting the ability of
individuals and communities to adapt. It is crucial that our aid
recognize and amplify the important contributions of women as decision
makers, stakeholders, educators, carers and experts across sectors and
underscore the importance, at all levels, of integrating gender
concerns and gender equity in policies and programming to ensure
successful, long-term solutions to climate change.
We have identified three critical areas for women's participation
in building resilience: (1) household decision-making, (2) meaningful
participation in community groups, and (3) access to market linkages.
Gender inequality, specifically in these

[[Page 64]]

areas, undermine and limit women's ability to prepare for, respond to
and recover from shocks. Mercy Corps' resilience programs, globally
programmed in diverse contexts like Nepal, Niger, and Indonesia, are
invested in generating knowledge around the intersection of gender and
resilience in practice. Advancing women's participation in household
decision-making, community organizations, and markets is critical to
strengthening their individual resilience and that of their families
and communities. Designing programs that effectively reach women and
strengthen their resilience capacities requires an in-depth
understanding of key gender dynamics in the program setting.
There are three ways the United States can demonstrate leadership
in addressing the effects of climate change on women and girls. First,
the U.S. can continue to integrate gender into all of the Agency's
climate change and development strategies. Second, it can support the
advancement of research to increase knowledge around the intersection
of gender and climate change. In doing so it should highlight the need
to address gender and social nuances in climate change vulnerability
assessments, develop related guidance, and create opportunities for
women and girls directly affected by climate change to contribute to
identifying sustainable solutions. Third, the United States can
continue to expand on the development of Climate Change Gender Action
Plans (ccGAPs), as piloted by USAID in Peru and Namibia, mainstreaming
ccGAPs within all of USAID's Country Development Cooperation Strategies
and identifying a climate change policy or strategy guided by gender-
specific issues in each priority sector.

5. Why is it so important to support local actors, local solutions,
and the localization of aid when it comes to adaptation and building
climate resilience?

Climate change is both a global and a hyper-local issue. The causes
impact everyone at a global level, however efforts and responses are
coordinated at and informed by the local level. To tailor climate
financing and climate resilient projects in a bespoke way, we must
ensure that local leaders and communities are engaged deeply in the
design and implementation of climate adaptation plans.
Local communities are on the frontlines of climate change impacts,
yet rarely do they and other local actors have a voice in the decisions
that most affect them. Their engagement is central to ensuring that
climate adaptation efforts are effective. Subnational governments and
local stakeholders are key implementers of national policies. Local
governments are often the first to respond to localized climate change
impacts, and their strong connections to the community and local
knowledge mean they are often best placed to recognize the need for
adaptation at a local scale. The United States can demonstrate
leadership by ensuring that local organizations in developing countries
have a seat at the decision-making table and designated leadership
roles in U.S. government programs seeking to respond to climate change.
Funding to build capacity and transparency can also contribute to
enhancing and promoting country ownership and increase
sustainability.\6\ Reaffirming the USG's commitment to locally owned,
locally led, and locally sustained will make assistance better tailored
to local political realities, power dynamics and incentive structures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Somanathan E., T. Sterner, T. Sugiyama, D. Chimanikire, N.K.
Dubash, J. Essandoh-Yeddu, S. Fifita, L. Goulder, A. Jaffe, X.
Labandeira, S. Managi, C. Mitchell, J.P. Montero, F. Teng, and T.
Zylicz, 2014: National and Sub-national Policies and Institutions. In:
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-
Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I.
Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S.
Schlomer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple U.S. government instruments--including Fixed Amount
Reimbursement Agreements (FARA), Public Financial Management Risk
Assessment Framework (PFMRAF), and Political Economy Analysis (PEA)--
exist to enable the U.S. to invest in accountable local systems, in
government, and in civil society while protecting U.S. taxpayer dollars
from unnecessary risk.\7\ The United States can help to, as USAID
Administrator Power mentioned in her ``New Vision for Global
Development'' speech, shift the status quo and center of gravity that
seeks to maintain the present development and humanitarian apparatus,
and lead the way to help identify new partners, strengthen the pathways
for true capacity sharing and establish genuine partnership with local
actors. The traditional power dynamics of donor-driven development (and
the systemic inequities in place within it) undermine sustainable
development. By the United States, the world's largest donor,
amplifying

[[Page 65]]

the local voices of those who too often are left out of decision making
and ensuring they have the technical support to co-design, set
priorities, drive implementation and evaluate the impact of the
programs and define success, the world can unlock untapped potential of
millions and fight corruption, strengthen governance and bolster
accountability--all of which accelerate and enable effective climate
change action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ T. S. Ahmad. (2015). To Fight Corruption, Localize Aid: How US
Foreign Assistance Can Support a Locally Driven Fight Against
Corruption. Washington DC: Oxfam America. From https://
s3.amazonaws.com/oxfam-us/www/static/media/files/CorruptionFINAL-
small.pdf

6. Clean renewable energy (solar, wind, and small-scale hydropower)
is often the cheapest source of electricity for vulnerable communities
in African countries. A recent Brookings analysis finds that African
countries are leading the world in expanding access to electricity via
off-grid solar and storage technologies. Could you please explain how
renewable energy provides cleaner and more cost-efficient solutions for
vulnerable people and communities in different countries across Africa?
Are there examples of communities bypassing polluting fossil fuels
altogether and deploying clean and renewable strategies to meet their
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
energy needs?

Renewable energy and energy efficiency are key to sustainable
development, enabling energy access, spurring economic growth, creating
employment, and improving health. Today, more than 800 million people
lack access to energy globally, 8 in 10 of whom live in ``fragile''
states where communities also face a myriad of complex challenges
related to conflict, weak governance and insecurity, as well as the
growing impacts of climate change. Advancements in clean energy
generation and storage technologies, plus innovations in off-grid
business models have enabled decentralized energy services to leapfrog
fossil fuel-based solutions for a growing number of households and
communities, particularly in East Africa.\8\ Centralized energy sources
and usually fossil fuel based energy systems have failed to serve these
communities for decades. This leapfrogging has spurred investment in
many new companies and can allow for individual households, buildings,
and businesses to manage their own energy production and consumption
and overcome affordability obstacles for poorer households.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Cilliers J. (2021) Technological Innovation and the Power of
Leapfrogging. In: The Future of Africa. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46590-2_10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As well as being more effective in reaching these underserved
communities, renewable energy solutions have also proved to be more
cost effective. Of the wind, solar and other renewables that came on
line in 2020, nearly two-thirds--62%--were cheaper than the least
expensive new fossil fuel,\9\ according to the International Renewable
Energy Agency (IRENA). According to a IRENA 2020 report, ``Renewable
Power Generation Costs in 2020 shows that costs for renewable
technologies continued to fall significantly year-on-year.
Concentrating solar power fell by 16 per cent, onshore wind by 13 per
cent, offshore wind by 9 per cent and solar by 7 per cent. With costs
at low levels, renewables increasingly undercut existing fossil fuel-
based generation and distribution costs.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ IRENA (2021), Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020,
International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu Dhabi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To connect the poorest and hardest to reach households, off-grid
solutions, including solar lighting, solar home systems, and
increasingly mini grids, will be crucial. At Mercy Corps, through our
recent merger with Energy for Impact (E4I), we will be able to create
and bolster opportunities to increase energy access and use for the
communities that need them most, integrate energy into sectors such as
agricultural development, economic growth, youth employment,
humanitarian recovery and climate resilience and push the frontier on
research, development and design.
The U.S.'s Power Africa Initiative, which provides technical
support for clean energy procurement and helps mobilize private capital
for clean energy projects, should serve as a model for U.S. leadership
in the clean energy space and in programming focused on developing
clean and renewable strategies to meet energy needs. Through the Power
Africa initiative, and others modeled like it, the United States has
the comparative advantage of leveraging its convening power to inspire
technology-rich, multi-sectoral, multi-regional and cost-optimal global
energy transition pathways. Power Africa's enterprise driven approach
has motivated the private sector to invest in power generation
projects, developed transmission and distribution resources, improved
government capacities to manage their power sectors, and ultimately,
leveled the playing field for competitive investment.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ USAID, 2018. Power Africa 2018: Annual Report. [Online]
Available at: https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1860/
2018-Annual_Report1015_508.pdf. ZLM Project Engineering, The Case for
Offshore Energy in KwaZulu-Natal, 26 April 2019, 2018 Draft IRP
released by the South African Department of Energy.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66]]

Questions for the Record

Alden Meyer

Senior Associate

E3G

the honorable kathy castor
1. What does the United States need to do to take a more
constructive stance in our engagement with vulnerable communities,
particularly those experiencing severe economic losses and
environmental damage due to climate impacts?

Extreme climate-related impacts are already hitting countries
earlier and harder than expected, and these will increase significantly
in years to come, even if current mitigation targets are met. Whichever
metric is used, costs are already substantial, in both economic and
human terms, and will only escalate. In 2020 over 30 million people
were displaced \1\ by weather-related disasters, primarily in Asia,
Africa and Central America. Climate-related disasters cost the world
$210 billion in 2020 \2\ and 85 percent of the global population has
been affected by climate-driven extreme weather events.\3\ The economic
cost of loss and damage in developing countries is estimated to be
$290-580 billion by 2030, rising to between $1-1.8 trillion by 2050.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Joint Statement by WMO and UNDRR on the Creation of a Centre of
Excellence for Climate and Disaster Resilience, October 13, 2021,
https://www.undrr.org/news/joint-statement-wmo-and-undrr-creation-
centre-excellence-climate-and-disaster-resilience
\2\ ``Natural disasters cause $210 billion in damage in 2020,
insurer says,'' Reuters, January 7, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/
business/environment/natural-disasters-cause-210-billion-damage-2020-
insurer-says-2021-01-07/
\3\ ``At least 85 percent of the world's population has been
affected by human-induced climate change, new study shows,'' Washington
Post, October 11, 2021 https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/10/11/85-percent-
population-climate-impacts/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Integrated Assessment for Identifying Climate Finance Needs for
Loss and Damage: A Critical Review, November 29, 2018 https://
link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5_14
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate change already poses a risk to sovereign credit ratings,
especially in Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island
Developing States (SIDS). While no country is fully prepared or immune,
the impacts are worst for those countries least responsible for climate
change and least able to pay for the response. For example, since 2019
multiple cyclones in Mozambique have helped push government debt to 125
percent of GDP. As the OECD notes in a recent report, without
appropriate action climate impacts will undermine their ability to
adapt to climate change and to achieve sustainable development.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Managing Climate Risks: Facing up to Losses and Damages, OECD,
November 1, 2021 https://www.oecd.org/environment/managing-climate-
risks-facing-up-to-losses-and-damages-55ea1cc9-en.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The underinvestment in, and lack of resilience of, societies is
widening the divisions between those most and least capable of dealing
with these climate, resource and other shocks. While many LDCs have
shown great ingenuity in their responses, recent extreme weather events
combined with Covid-19 have overwhelmed disaster response capabilities
and state and local budgets. The strain on vulnerable countries is
destroying the economic markets of the future and threatens global
stability, peace, and prosperity.
There is an urgent need for developed countries to show leadership
and offer concrete support to address adaptation and loss and damage.
As the OECD says: ``Developed countries must scale up both financial
and technical support to developing countries and make such support
more accessible and predictable.''
While loss and damage incurred by developing countries is
escalating rapidly, there are no dedicated financial or technical
mechanisms available to address climate impacts. Those designed to
support adaptation, mitigation, sustainable development and
humanitarian relief are neither sufficient nor appropriate to address
the scale and nature of loss and damage, now or in the future. While
countries at COP26 decided to provide the resources needed to stand up
the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage, it is not yet functioning to
provide technical support and is not set up to channel finance to
countries in need. New financial instruments and systems for delivering
technical support are urgently required to meet the challenge.

[[Page 67]]

The most climate vulnerable countries (LDCs and SIDS) are showing
strong appetite to find practical solutions that can be applied now to
address loss and damage. They are looking for solidarity in tackling
these challenges and urgently seek practical support that builds upon
existing financial and technical tools and instruments, while exploring
appropriate innovative options.
In Glasgow, countries agreed to ``establish the Glasgow Dialogue
between Parties, relevant organizations and stakeholders to discuss the
arrangements for the funding of activities to avert, minimize and
address loss and damage associated with the adverse impacts of climate
change, to take place in the first sessional period of each year of the
Subsidiary Body for Implementation, concluding at its sixtieth session
(June 2024).'' \6\ At the first session next June in Bonn, Germany, the
US and other developed countries should demonstrate a new, and public,
willingness to support the most climate vulnerable and least
responsible countries to address loss and damage and focus on how they
can provide vulnerable countries the support they need to address
climate impacts practically and urgently. These dialogues offer a
chance to set a new positive agenda for international cooperation that
yields significant geopolitical benefits. Helping vulnerable countries
prepare for and manage climate risk is not only a moral imperative, it
is also imperative for ensuring global stability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Glasgow Climate Pact, November 13, 2021 https://unfccc.int/
documents/310497
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building on the outcomes of COP26, the US should work with other
countries to:

Operationalize the Santiago Network on Loss and Damage,
by providing funding for a secretariat under the UNFCCC, human
resources and administrative systems to facilitate countries to
identify their technical and financial support needs and to connect
with the right providers of support, and funding to enable countries to
access support, including financial support to highly vulnerable
countries to conduct detailed national Loss and Damage risk and needs
assessments.

Mandate an assessment of the resources required to
address Loss and Damage to feed into the forward-looking assessment
under the Global Stocktake. This should quantify current expenditure
being delivered by existing mechanisms, including humanitarian
assistance, climate finance, development finance, and disaster risk
reduction and response. It should also identify and quantify the gaps
in finance currently available to address Loss and Damage, examining
the quantity of finance available that can be used to address Loss and
Damage and considering whether existing instruments are appropriate to
do so effectively.

Collaborate with finance providers in the design and
establishment of National Solidarity Funds for Loss and Damage, which
can be used to channel finance into the different activities needed to
cope with climate impacts, tackling comprehensively the different forms
of loss and damage over the range of time frames and contexts in which
it is experienced, i.e. anticipatory action, humanitarian response,
recovery and rehabilitation, disaster risk reduction and preparedness,
social protection and risk avoidance. These funds would aim to support
activities such as planned relocation, managed migration, migration
friendly cities, portable social protection or loan repayment holidays
as well as non-economic loss and damage, for example through
psychological services, and would incentivise the actors from
humanitarian, disaster risk reduction, social protection and climate
change sectors to work together to deliver Loss and Damage finance in
ways that are accessible, predictable, and flexible. The funding
disbursed to National Solidarity Funds for Loss and Damage should be
new and additional finance to existing development, humanitarian and
climate finance.

Work with finance providers to develop the mosaic of
financial instruments required to fund the different activities that
need to be delivered through national platforms, and to mobilise or
establish appropriate financial delivery mechanisms to meet the varied
needs of the most vulnerable countries. This would include disaster
risk finance, parametric insurance, forecast based finance,
anticipatory and rapid humanitarian response finance, local finance
delivery, risk transfer/insurance, highly concessional recovery
finance, debt restructuring and relief, debt for climate swaps,
catastrophe bonds, long term investments in risk reduction, disaster
preparedness, social protection and migration.

[[Page 68]]

Announce a collective pledge to invest in regional
disaster protection schemes through the Risk Informed Early Action
Partnership (REAP) initiative.

Make new bilateral commitments to support national
disaster response and preparedness funds.

Establish an international Climate Risk Observatory,
responsible for monitoring systemic and compounding risks, making sense
of them and recommending appropriate policy responses, with a view to
building a broad consensus on the nature of the risk landscape through
objective and evidence-based analysis and to directing finance towards
the most significant risks in the most vulnerable places.

Support the United Nations in developing a whole-of-
system approach to addressing Loss and Damage. Loss and Damage has
implications that go well beyond the mandate and scope of the UNFCCC.
All relevant UN agencies and multilateral institutions must come
together to agree on how to support LDCs and SIDS to address Loss and
Damage effectively.

2. What are your views on the U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration
on Enhancing Climate Action in the 2020s? How will U.S. leadership on
the global stage help to raise China's climate action ambition and work
to hold China accountable to their commitments?

The U.S.-China Joint Glasgow Declaration on Enhancing Climate
Action in the 2020s is an important signal as there is no pathway for
holding the increase in global temperature to 1.5C without engagement
on climate between China and the US; the declaration shows that
cooperation on this issue is possible despite tense relations. In the
joint declaration, the US and China acknowledge the urgency of the
climate crisis; they both must now show that they are taking the
responsibility they promised to prevent dangerous climate change by
taking bold actions in the 2020s.
Both President Biden and President Xi face domestic political
challenges in making the transition from dirty to clean energy
resources; demonstrations that both sides are taking action can be
helpful in addressing these challenges. In Glasgow, President Biden and
his team had to address the difficulties they have been facing in
getting his climate legislation enacted; making progress on this
domestic agenda will be critical to the administration's ability to
encourage other countries to increase the ambition of their Paris
commitments. While President Xi and other Chinese Communist Party
leaders aren't exceptionally worried about climate change diplomacy
right now, they have concerns that a negative public view of China's
actions on climate could interfere with broader plans for expanding
China's reach in the longer term and they are frustrated by criticisms
of China's actions given how much they believe they have done already
to reduce emissions.
In the joint declaration, the U.S. and China agreed to make methane
reduction a principal focus of their individual and joint efforts.
Because molecule-by-molecule methane is 80 times more potent at warming
than CO2, and because it dissipates more quickly in the
atmosphere than CO2, significant methane emissions
reductions in the 2020s could increase the chances of meeting the Paris
temperature limitation goal. Progress in developing the methane action
plan promised by China in advance of COP27 in the declaration will be
an important test of whether this is a significant step forward in US-
China collaborative action. Other significant aspects of the
declaration include China's commitment to accelerate the phase-down of
domestic coal consumption in its 15th Five-Year Plan, and the
commitment of both countries to ``engage collaboratively in support of
eliminating global illegal deforestation through effectively enforcing
their respective laws on banning illegal imports.''
The first meeting of the US-China ``Working Group on Enhancing
Climate Action in the 2020s'' launched in the declaration will be held
this week and may provide signals on how far collaboration can go on
some of the other specific areas outlined in the declaration.
In response to your second question, by accepting the mitigation
elements of the Glasgow Pact, China has acknowledged the gap between
its current efforts and the 1.5C target, recognized the need to do more
in this decade and committed to revisit its 2030 climate goal. Beijing
needs to deliver on the promises made in the Glasgow Climate Pact soon
with action--through putting an expiry date on domestic coal
consumption and bringing forward its peaking target to put China in
line with the 1.5C temperature limitation goal.
President Xi wants to make China a strong global player that can
exert political and economic influence; perceptions that China is not
doing its share to address the

[[Page 69]]

climate crisis could limit China's ability to exert influence and may
change the CCP's calculations on the pace of decarbonization.
The US can challenge President Xi's ability to exert influence by
demonstrating climate leadership at home and abroad. While (fairly)
immune to diplomatic pressure from the U.S., the CCP's competitive
nature remains sensitive to action by the U.S. and other developed
countries.
Chinese leaders assert that their form of government is superior to
that of the U.S. and more broadly those of the West; US actions
demonstrating a commitment to managing climate for the long-term raises
U.S. credibility internationally and can build pressure on China to
compete to show that their model of government can also deliver. This
may be more effective in accelerating the pace of decarbonization in
China than bilateral diplomacy, which has to date produced limited
results.
More broadly, developing countries are looking for sustainable
growth models. The U.S. can (and should) offer countries a low carbon
sustainable economic growth model, by providing technology, technical
and financial assistance, while preserving the countries' agency. This
can build pressure on China to revise its terms for overseas
infrastructure finance and technology assistance as well as to reduce
its own domestic emissions which are putting other developing countries
at risk for the worst effects of climate change.
The under delivery of the developed countries' $100 billion climate
finance commitment and resistance to the loss and damage outcomes
called for by developing countries at COP26 hindered efforts to build
trust and cooperation, and reduced pressure on China to raise its own
ambition. The US should work with other developed countries to identify
significant sources of funding for loss and damage activities by COP27
in Egypt, and to ensure that the goal of doubling collective adaptation
finance by 2025 is met. This will help build solidarity with developing
countries and take away this excuse for inaction from China.
One significant announcement in Glasgow was the agreement by the
US, EU, UK, Germany and France to provide assistance to South Africa in
making a transition from coal to clean energy resources, which gave
South Africa the confidence to put forward a more ambitious nationally-
determined contribution under the Paris Agreement. Delivering similar
energy transition deals in high-emitting developing countries in the
Indo-Pacific including India, Vietnam, and Indonesia could enable them
to take steps to phase down coal consumption and would leave China more
isolated in its resistance to moving more aggressively on this front.

3. How can the United States play a key role in accelerating global
ambition on climate action post-COP26, ahead of COP27 in Egypt, and
over the next several all-important years?

Far-off net zero targets were not the major theme at COP26; rather,
closing the gap in near-term action was the strong message from
Leaders' speeches in the opening high-level segment and this was
reinforced by India's new pledge to raise its 2030 ambition towards
meeting its net zero by 2070 emissions goal and by a variety of
leadership coalitions making economy-shifting commitments on coal,
methane, elimination of fossil fuel investments, and deforestation.
The Glasgow Pact \7\ acknowledges that current emissions limitation
pledges aren't enough to achieve the reductions of 45% needed in global
emissions by 2030 to ``keep 1.5C alive'' and sets out several requests
for countries to step up action, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Glasgow Climate Pact, November 13, 2021 https://unfccc.int/
documents/310497

-- ``to revisit and strengthen the 2030 targets in their
nationally determined contributions as necessary to align with
the Paris Agreement temperature goal by the end of 2022;''
-- for those ``that have not yet done so to communicate . . .
long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategies
towards just transitions to net zero emissions by or around
midcentury;''
-- ``to accelerate the development, deployment and
dissemination of technologies, and the adoption of policies, to
transition towards low-emission energy systems, including by
rapidly scaling up the deployment of clean power generation and
energy efficiency measures, including accelerating efforts
towards the phasedown of unabated coal power and phase-out of
inefficient fossil fuel subsidies, while providing targeted
support to the poorest and most vulnerable in line with
national circumstances and recognizing the need for support
towards a just transition;'' and
-- ``to consider further actions to reduce by 2030 non-carbon
dioxide greenhouse gas emissions, including methane.''

[[Page 70]]

The decision also establishes a work program on cutting emissions
before 2030 and calls for annual high-level ministerial round tables on
pre-2030 ambition to be held at each COP meeting, to give the
acceleration of action more political prominence.
Delivering on these opportunities by COP27 in Egypt next November
will require coordinated diplomatic and public campaigning to ensure
key countries deliver on the promise to raise their 2030 targets and
policy pathways. As discussed in the response to question 6 below,
mobilizing finance at scale to support national level just transition
strategies (along the lines of the South Africa Just Energy Transition
deal to shift its power system away from coal) will be necessary to
open the political and fiscal space for more aggressive decarbonization
commitments by major developing countries. The US should provide
leadership by ramping up its own bilateral assistance on this front as
well as by working to leverage private sector clean technology
investments and pressing the World Bank and other multilateral
financial institutions to deploy more of their financial firepower to
this objective.
As mentioned above, COP26 saw ambitious sectoral pledges on
methane, forests, coal, clean vehicles, and fossil financing. The US
and other countries should provide leadership on defining tracking
metrics and accountability mechanisms to help ensure that these
sectoral and non-state actor commitments are credible; the expert task
force created by UN Secretary General Guterres provides one important
forum for this work.
With its leadership of the Major Economies Forum, as well as its
chairmanship of the International Energy Agency's annual ministerial
meeting in February and of the Clean Energy Ministerial and Mission
Innovation summits in Pittsburgh next September, the US has
opportunities to help shape the international collaborative clean
energy architecture needed to accelerate the development and deployment
of clean technologies in every sector of the global economy.
The US should also work with the incoming German G7 and Indonesian
G20 presidencies to build on the progress made on climate and clean
energy issues as last June's G7 leaders' summit in Carbis Bay and last
June's G20 leaders' summit in Rome. This includes further elaboration
of criteria for sustainable finance investments, strengthening private
sector risk assessment and disclosure standards, and encouraging
national efforts to phase out subsidies for fossil fuel production and
consumption.

4. As developing countries, including in Africa, develop and expand
access to electricity, what are the economic and climate considerations
that drive energy mix choices?

For many developing countries in Africa and elsewhere, expanding
access to modern energy services is a high priority. Sustainable Energy
For All reports that while some progress has been made, much more
remains to be done on this goal:

``Globally, the number of people without access to
electricity declined from 1.2 billion in 2010 to 759 million in
2019. Electrification through decentralized renewable-based
solutions in particular gained momentum. The number of people
connected to mini-grids has more than doubled between 2010 and
2019, growing from 5 to 11 million people. However, under
current and planned policies and further affected by the COVID-
19 crisis, the 2021 Tracking SDG7 Report estimates 660 million
people would still lack access in 2030, most of them in Sub-
Saharan Africa. At the same time, some 2.6 billion people
remained without access to clean cooking in 2019, one third of
the global population. Largely stagnant progress since 2010
leads to millions of deaths each year from breathing cooking
smoke, and without rapid action to scale up clean cooking the
world will fall short of its target by 30 percent come 2030.''
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ SEforAll Analysis of SDG 7 Progress, 2021, Sustainable Energy
for All, August 11, 2021 https://www.seforall.org/data-stories/
seforall-analysis-of-sdg7-progress-2021

Expanding public and private sector finance for clean energy
investments is a key ingredient in closing these energy access gaps.
But as the World Resources Institute notes in its Investing in
Sustainable Energy Futures report,\9\ there are several other factors
hindering progress:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Investing in Sustainable Energy Futures, World Resources
Institute, April 22, 2010 https://www.wri.org/research/investing-
sustainable-energy-futures

``Energy prices do not reflect the true costs of fossil-fuel
technologies to public health, to the local environment, and to
the planet's climate system. Decision making in the electricity
sector has tended to be both exclusive

[[Page 71]]

and opaque, dominated by interests with a stake in ``business
as usual'' practices. As the prices of fossil fuels rise along
with our understanding of the environmental and social costs of
conventional energy, we need new and better ways to meet energy
demand and to support long-term development. Standard energy
policy and regulatory mechanisms do not support the renewable
energy and energy efficiency necessary to reduce emissions from
the energy sector. In most countries, policies and regulations
tend to emphasize short-term cost and supply considerations
rather than the long-term benefits of the enhanced energy
security, environmental performance, and cost savings over time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
offered by clean technologies.''

Another WRI report \10\ outlines several actions that can provide
multiple benefits to developing countries, including generating good
jobs and training opportunities in renewable energy and energy
efficiency; accelerating energy access for all and providing economic
and social development in remote areas, particularly with distributed
renewables; reducing water stress; and improving household resilience:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NDC Enhancement and COVID-19 Recovery: Building Blocks for a
Sustainable Future, World Resources Institute, September 23, 2020
https://www.wri.org/insights/ndc-enhancement-and-covid-19-recovery-
building-blocks-sustainable-future

Further expanding renewable energy capacity and
generation, including distributed renewable energy that can broaden
energy access.
Grid modernization and improvements in parallel with
deploying renewables, including increased use of energy storage that
can bolster the penetration of renewables.
Actions to boost energy efficiency, particularly in
buildings.
Policies that can tap into synergies between the power
sector and electrification in end uses such as transport and buildings.
Accelerating the manufacture, purchase and use of a range
of electric vehicles (EVs), including two-wheel, three-wheel and light-
duty vehicles.
Developing widespread smart charging infrastructure to
facilitate the adoption of EVs.
Boosting public transport as a central part of a
transport strategy.
Taking steps in land-use and mobility planning and
infrastructure that support cycling and walking.
Addressing freight transport by leveraging new clean
fuels (including electrification) and information technology.

There were several encouraging developments at COP26 in Glasgow on
this front:

-- UN Secretary-General Guterres released the Global Roadmap for
Accelerated SDG7 Action,\11\ demonstrating support for clean energy as
the golden thread tying our collective climate and development goals
together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ ``UN Secretary-General issues new global roadmap to secure
clean energy access for all by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050''
Sustainable Energy For All, November 3, 2021 https://www.seforall.org/
press-releases/un-secretary-general-issues-new-global-roadmap-to-
secure-clean-energy-access-for-all
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Several countries made new net-zero commitments, including
Nigeria, India, Thailand, Nepal and Vietnam; nearly 90 percent of the
global economy is now covered by net-zero commitments. The Energy
Transition Council, championed by the COP26 Presidency, announced that
it will continue at least until COP30 in 2025 to provide a platform for
the global community to support these and other developing countries in
meeting these targets and achieving a just energy transition.\12\ It
highlighted some important country-level milestones that have resulted
from its work, including Nigeria's Energy Transition Plan; Morocco's
agreement to phase out coal, and agreement by Indonesia and the
Philippines to focus on the retirement of coal-fired power plants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Energy Transition Council unveils strategic priorities
beyond COP26,'' November 4, 2021 https://www.seforall.org/news/energy-
transition-council-unveils-strategic-priorities-beyond-cop26
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- More than 40 countries signed up to a political declaration on
Energy Day to transition away from unabated coal power generation, and
a group of 25 countries signed a UK-led joint statement committing to
ending international public financing for the unabated fossil fuel
energy sector by the end of 2022, prioritizing support for clean energy
instead.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Global Coal to Clean Power Transition Statement, UK COP26
Presidency, November 4, 2021, https://ukcop26.org/global-coal-to-clean-
power-transition-statement/

[[Page 72]]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another bright spot is the U.S. Power Africa initiative \14\ which
aims to bring together nearly two dozen public and private sector
partners to achieve universal, clean energy generation and access for
Sub-Saharan Africa by accelerating new distributed renewable energy and
grid-based solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Power Africa initiative 2020 annual report, USAID, March, 2021
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/annualreport
But as we work to lift people out of energy poverty, it's important
to avoid massive new investments in natural gas infrastructure in
Africa and elsewhere, as unabated use of gas also must be sharply
curtailed by mid-century to meet the Paris Agreement's temperature
limitation goals. A case study of Mozambique \15\ just issued by my E3G
colleague Jonathan Gaventa documents the risks inherent in such gas
expansion strategies:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The failure of `gas for development'--Mozambique case study,
Jonathan Gaventa, E3G, December 2, 2021 https://www.e3g.org/
publications/the-failure-of-gas-for-development-mozambique-case-study/

``Since natural gas was first discovered off the coast of
northern Mozambique a decade ago, it has become central to the
country's development strategy. Revenues from gas--it was
hoped--would catapult one of the least developed countries in
the world to become a middle-income country by the 2040s. Gas
production and exports were expected to spur widespread
industrialisation, fund public investment and pay down debt. 10
years later, this story of `gas for development' is failing.
Conflict, corruption and economic distortion have meant that
the promised economic benefits have not materialised.\16\
Meanwhile, a global shift in climate and energy policies mean
the outlook for future gas demand is shrinking. This increases
the downside risks of the gas projects and greatly reduces the
potential benefits. In turn, lower revenues will narrow the
options for responding to resource curse issues and addressing
Mozambique's pressing development needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Mozambique: Cabo Delgado, Nampula & Niassa Humanitarian
Snapshot--September 2021, UN Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs, November 2, 2021 https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
reliefweb.int/report/mozambique/mozambique-cabo-delgado-nampula-niassa-
humanitarian-snapshot-september-2021
A reset of expectations on the role of gas in Mozambique's
development is needed. For the Mozambican government, this
means lowering dependence on increasingly uncertain gas
revenues, and seeking out alternative pathways to prosperity.
For the international partners, donors and financial
institutions that enabled and encouraged the gas projects, it
means re-evaluating assumptions on the development benefits of
gas and redirecting financial support to more inclusive and
sustainable economic sectors.''

5. Is the fact that America's production of fossil fuels has a
lower carbon intensity than that of other countries a reason for the
United States to delay or refrain from acting on climate?

In a word, no. Even a cursory glance at the summary findings of the
most recent national assessment of climate impacts and risks to the
United States \17\ demonstrates why moving aggressively to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions that are driving rapid human-induced climate
change must be a national priority:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ FOURTH NATIONAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT, Volume II: Impacts, Risks,
and Adaptation in the United States, US Global Change Research Program,
2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/
Climate change creates new risks and exacerbates
existing vulnerabilities in communities across the United States,
presenting growing challenges to human health and safety, quality of
life, and the rate of economic growth.
Without substantial and sustained global mitigation and
regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause
growing losses to American infrastructure and property and impede the
rate of economic growth over this century.
The quality and quantity of water available for use by
people and ecosystems across the country are being affected by climate
change, increasing risks and costs to agriculture, energy production,
industry, recreation, and the environment.
Impacts from climate change on extreme weather and
climate-related events, air quality, and the transmission of disease
through insects and pests, food, and water increasingly threaten the
health and well-being of the American people, particularly populations
that are already vulnerable.

[[Page 73]]

Climate change increasingly threatens Indigenous
communities' livelihoods, economies, health, and cultural identities by
disrupting interconnected social, physical, and ecological systems.
Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are
being altered by climate change, and these impacts are projected to
continue. Without substantial and sustained reductions in global
greenhouse gas emissions, transformative impacts on some ecosystems
will occur; some coral reef and sea ice ecosystems are already
experiencing such transformational changes.
Rising temperatures, extreme heat, drought, wildfire on
rangelands, and heavy downpours are expected to increasingly disrupt
agricultural productivity in the United States. Expected increases in
challenges to livestock health, declines in crop yields and quality,
and changes in extreme events in the United States and abroad threaten
rural livelihoods, sustainable food security, and price stability.
Our Nation's aging and deteriorating infrastructure is
further stressed by increases in heavy precipitation events, coastal
flooding, heat, wildfires, and other extreme events, as well as changes
to average precipitation and temperature.
Coastal communities and the ecosystems that support
them are increasingly threatened by the impacts of climate change.
Without significant reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions and
regional adaptation measures, many coastal regions will be transformed
by the latter part of this century, with impacts affecting other
regions and sectors.

A recent report \18\ in Nature finds that to limit global
temperature increases to 1.5+C, nearly 60% of global oil and fossil gas
reserves and almost all the world's coal--90%--will need to remain in
the ground in 2050; global oil and gas production would need to peak
immediately and fall by 3% each year until mid-century.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Unextractable fossil fuels in a 1.5 deg.C world, Nature,
September 8, 2021,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03821-8
And there are many other damaging impacts of fossil fuel production
and use which are imposed on humans and natural ecosystems regardless
of the carbon intensity of the fuels, including land degradation from
mining, wells, pipelines and other facilities; water pollution as a
result of acid runoff from coal mining operations, oil spills and
leaks, and contamination from the toxic fluids used in oil and gas
fracking; and air pollution from emissions of mercury, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxide, and particulates.
Of course, as the US takes actions to reduce the harmful impacts of
domestic coal, oil, and gas production, it must also move aggressively
to reduce demand for energy through energy efficiency measures that
enable provision of energy services with lower energy inputs, and to
rapidly increase use of solar, wind and other clean energy resources.
Increasing imports of fossil fuels with a higher carbon intensity of
production from other countries is not acceptable, as reducing US
emissions while increasing global emissions is not a solution to the
climate crisis.

6. How important is U.S. leadership to the world meeting global
climate finance targets?

Keeping 1.5+C alive, protecting against climate impacts, and
dealing with losses and damages requires mobilizing trillions of
dollars per year. While COP26 did not deliver the finance required, it
set up processes to do so in textual decisions on the post-2025 finance
goal, adaptation finance, and loss and damage. President Biden and
other leaders must respond to the call for trillions made in Glasgow by
putting it at the top of an integrated diplomatic agenda which weaves
across G7, G20, and UN processes.
It is clear that the speed of the global net zero transition called
for in Glasgow cannot be realized without an equally ambitious
implementation agenda. In support of acceleration, President Biden,
Prime Minister Johnson and European Union President Von der Leyen put
forward a new paradigm of sustainability finance--spanning both public
and private investments--to mobilize the trillions needed to keep 1.5
degrees within reach.\19\ Moving into 2022, the political stage is set
for changes in the ways clean investment projects in developing
countries are financed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ ``U.S. President Biden, European Commission President Von Der
Leyen, And UK Prime Minister Johnson Announce Commitment To Addressing
Climate Crisis Through Infrastructure Development'' November 2, 2021,
https://
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/11/02/u-s-
president-biden-european-commission-president-von-der-leyen-and-uk-
prime-minister-johnson-announce-commitment-to-addressing-climate-
crisis-through-infrastructure-development/

[[Page 74]]

Availability and affordability of finance will determine how
quickly countries deliver the climate transition, particularly as many
developing countries continue to face a squeeze on their budgets given
COVID-19. The focus must be on financial diplomacy, including:

Targeted finance packages for ambition: The model
demonstrated by UK, US, and European collaboration at COP26 to provide
South Africa with a comprehensive, $8.5 billion just transition package
for coal was hailed as a success. Such financial packages for the clean
transition in India, Indonesia, and other countries could lay credible
foundations for them to enhance their 2030 NDCs. The US, UK, EU, and
other countries need to establish the platforms to catalyze such
investment deals at the pace and scale needed.

Mobilising the trillions for climate transition: The US
and other donor countries must drive significant reforms to
Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) and national Development Finance
Institutions (DFIs), including full alignment with Paris Goals and
scaling-up leverage of private investment.\20\ Increasing MDB capital
could use Special Drawing Rights in addition to reallocating them to
the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) Sustainability and Resilience
Trust. This could unlock financial firepower for joint UK, US and EU
initiatives--Build Back Better World (B3W), the Clean Green Initiative
and the Global Gateway--which channel increased sustainable
infrastructure investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ``Closing the trillion dollar gap to keep 1.5 degrees within
reach,'' Julian Havers and Frank Schroeder, E3G, October 15, 2021
https://www.e3g.org/publications/closing-the-trillion-dollar-gap-to-
keep-1-5-degrees-within-reach/

Finance for solidarity: The Glasgow Climate Pact has
lined up COP27 to focus on the wide disparity between finance for
mitigation and the lack thereof for adaptation and loss and damage. The
US should support the UK COP26 presidency in organizing a second
Climate and Development Ministerial to provide an early opportunity for
donors to deliver on their COP26 pledge to double adaptation finance
from $20 billion to $40 billion annually by 2025. This and other forums
including the G7 ministerial meetings and the Petersberg Dialogue--both
being led by Germany--will also be crucial opportunities for political-
level agenda-setting in advance of the first of several loss and damage
dialogues called for in the Glasgow Pact, to be held in Bonn, Germany
next June.

[all]