[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
FROM L'AQUILA TO COPENHAGEN: CLIMATE CHANGE AND VULNERABLE SOCIETIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA, THE PACIFIC AND
THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-45
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-256 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the
GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office.
Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey
Samoa DAN BURTON, Indiana
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey ELTON GALLEGLY, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California DANA ROHRABACHER, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RON PAUL, Texas
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
DIANE E. WATSON, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri JOE WILSON, South Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
MICHAEL E. McMAHON, New York CONNIE MACK, Florida
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
GENE GREEN, Texas MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas
LYNN WOOLSEY, California TED POE, Texas
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
BARBARA LEE, California GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia
JIM COSTA, California
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona
RON KLEIN, Florida
Richard J. Kessler, Staff Director
Yleem Poblete, Republican Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa, Chairman
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois
DIANE E. WATSON, California BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD SHERMAN, California EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
Lisa Williams, Subcommittee Staff Director
Daniel Bob, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
Nien Su, Republican Professional Staff Member
Vili Lei, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
Thomas Karl, Ph.D., Director, National Climatic Data Center,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce......................................... 14
Mr. Kemal Dervis, Vice President and Director, Global Economy and
Development, Brookings Institution (former Administrator,
United Nations Development Programme).......................... 22
Anthony Janetos, Ph.D., Director, Joint Global Change Research
Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, University of
Maryland....................................................... 40
David Wheeler, Ph.D., Senior Fellow, Center for Global
Development.................................................... 48
Redmond Clark, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, CBL Industrial
Services....................................................... 67
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a Representative in Congress
from American Samoa, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment: Prepared statement......... 5
The Honorable Donald A. Manzullo, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois:
Prepared statement............................................. 10
Wall Street Journal article dated July 20, 2009................ 79
Thomas Karl, Ph.D.:
Prepared statement............................................. 17
Material submitted for the record.............................. 94
Mr. Kemal Dervis: Prepared statement............................. 24
Anthony Janetos, Ph.D.: Prepared statement....................... 43
David Wheeler, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 51
Redmond Clark, Ph.D.: Prepared statement......................... 70
The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Prepared statement.................... 86
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 108
Hearing minutes.................................................. 110
FROM L'AQUILA TO COPENHAGEN: CLIMATE CHANGE AND VULNERABLE SOCIETIES
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific
and the Global Environment,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eni F.H.
Faleomavaega (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I appreciate our panelists' patience as
we get our subcommittee organized.
The subcommittee hearing will come to order.
This is the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the
Pacific and the Global Environment. The topic of the hearing
this afternoon is ``L'Aquila to Copenhagen: Climate Change and
Vulnerable Societies.''
We are very happy and honored to have some of our
distinguished members of the panel join us this afternoon
giving us their sense of expertise and understanding of this
serious issue now facing not only our country but other
countries and regions of the world.
I think for purposes of expediting our hearing this
afternoon, in consultation with my ranking member, my good
friend, the gentleman from Illinois, why don't we--we have Dr.
Karl with us already, Dr. Dervis, Dr. Janetos, Dr. Wheeler, and
Dr. Clark. I think we need one more.
I would like to begin our hearing this afternoon with my
opening statement, and prefacing my opening statement with the
fact that the subcommittee held a hearing last year, in
February. And, of course, at that time, the political climate
in our country was very heavy in terms of Presidential
elections that were then pending and the issues of what came
about in the Bali Conference concerning the issue of climate
change. I thought we had a very lively debate with some of the
members of our subcommittee, especially my good friend, the
gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, who happens to be a
senior member of the Science and Technology Committee. He had
expressed some concerns even about the science, if there really
is a global warming or climate change occurring in our planet.
We also had the distinction of several members--ambassadors
of the Pacific Island Nations credited to both New York and to
the United States with a public briefing that was held.
And in view of not knowing with any sense of certainty what
would be the political climate and the issues that were raised
during the height of the Presidential elections, it is quite
obvious that the new administration under President Obama has
made climate change one of his top priorities of his
administration. And addressing the issue of the fact that for
some 8 years, because our country never signed on to the Kyoto
Protocol, it became very difficult to really know what the
basis of what really is our fundamental foreign policy toward
the issue of climate change.
That was clearly manifested in the Bali Conference that I
attended when, immediately after the election of Prime Minster
Kevin Rudd of Australia, his government immediately signed on
to the Kyoto Protocol and left us on a limb. I think we were
one of the two or three countries in the world who never did
sign on to the Kyoto Protocol.
I will say, in fairness to the Bush administration, there
had been efforts during the Bush administration in discussing
environmental and climatic issues, maybe not on the scale where
the expectations or the whole world was focusing on the Kyoto
Protocol and the post-Kyoto Protocol where we are supposed to
come out with some resolution to the issue by the year 2012
when the Kyoto Protocol will be terminated. And that some time
in January, I believe, in Copenhagen that the countries of the
world will again meet and convene on discussing again the issue
of climate change.
The chair believes that our country and probably most of
the industrialized countries--I don't think I need to dwell on
the fact that this issue is lively debated among the
industrialized countries. We are talking about China, India,
the United States, Brazil, and Indonesia--among the top five
most populous nations in the would world.
There seems to be a common thread leading on the very issue
of climate change. You are talking about population situations.
You are talking about whether or not the sciences still hold up
to some of the criticisms that have been raised or concerns of
whether or not there really is a climate change issue
occurring.
So this afternoon, since the time that, we have moved on to
the new administration. It was just recently that the Waxman-
Markey bill, H.R. 2454, was recently passed in the House. And
in that bill contains some attention given to the international
recognition of the problem. It isn't just the United States but
all countries in the world.
I just want to say that climate change presents an enormous
threat to every country and every region of the world. Rising
temperatures and sea levels, decreasing supplies of fresh
water, and increasing frequency in severity of hurricanes and
other weather events have already had a significant negative
impact on the physical and the biological environment, and on
human health.
In terms of national security, climate change has been
termed a threat accelerant, which may turn existing
instabilities into open conflicts. The most serious impacts are
coming, and sooner than even the most pessimistic predictions
made by the world's best scientists.
A recent study entitled, ``Humanitarian Implications of
Climate Change,'' based on research conducted by the United
Nation's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
and CARE organization--and I quote:
``Climate change is happening with greater speed and
intensity than initially predicted. Safe levels of
atmospheric greenhouse gases may be far lower than
previously thought. We may be closer to an irreversible
tipping point than had been anticipated. Meanwhile,
global CO2 emissions are rising at steeper and steeper
rates. Emissions reduction efforts have been too
little, too late.''
There is no group of people in greater danger than the poor
and the vulnerable. Indeed, those living on low-lying coral
atolls, coastal areas, and those who depend on subsistence
farming will face a threat even under the best of
circumstances.
As the State Department Special Envoy for Climate Change,
Mr. Todd Stern, said in May, ``One of the greatest challenges
in climate change is that the developing countries, indeed the
poorest of developing countries, are suffering serious impacts.
They have done the least to contribute to the problem, and they
are set up to be the most badly affected by it.''
There are two ways to address climate change and its
impacts. First, we can try to mitigate the greenhouse gas
emissions; or, secondly, we can try to adapt by responding to
rising sea levels, ocean acidification, coastal erosion, lower
crop yields and fisheries productivity, increasing numbers of
extreme weather events, lessened access to fresh water and
greater health problems resulting from climate-sensitive
diseases. Such measures can range from planting mangroves to
act as storm barriers in coastal regions to funding research on
salinity-resistant rice and drought-resistant crops, as well as
financial support to strengthen public health infrastructure.
The recent G-8 summit and the Major Economies Forum (MEF)
which represents 17 countries, accounting for 80 percent of the
world's greenhouse gas emissions; both meetings held in Italy
did move the ball forward when addressing climate change by
agreeing to a global, long-term goal of reducing global
emissions by at least 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050,
with developing countries making 80 percent reductions by that
date.
In terms of adaptation, the MEF declared that financial
resources for mitigation and adaptation will need to be scaled
up urgently and substantially, and should involve mobilizing
resources to support developing countries. Yet the organization
failed to make adequate financial or other resource
commitments. As the Secretary General of the United Nations,
Mr. Ban Ki-moon, said, ``The outcome was not sufficient.''
According to the Congressional Research Service report that
was submitted to the subcommittee for added information about
the issue, there were several pledges made by certain leaders
in the country. I believe it was Prime Minster Brown of England
who suggested that $100 billion be allocated to address climate
change to the vulnerable societies. Some of the NGOs suggested
maybe $160 billion. China, the Group of 77, suggested that 1
percent of the GDP of developed countries be provided. And the
MEF stayed with the bottom line and said it was vague, not very
clear in terms of what their commitments were.
African states say there has got to be a direct coalition
in discussing the issue with the members of the African states,
and I note with interest that they emphasized the whole
question that indigenous knowledge of climate changes in that
continent has to be taken into account.
And, of course, the sixth suggestion, as stated in H.R.
2454, the Waxman-Markey legislation; I hope the members of the
panel will also offer suggestions and maybe we can improve is
my sincere hope.
In the coming weeks, the chairman of the committee has
announced that we definitely will be working on a
reauthorization of the domestic assistance program and
hopefully that maybe through that vehicle we may be able to
offer some legislation based on the witnesses and whatever
data, information they can have and that hopefully working
closely with my ranking member we will be able to produce
something that will be helpful, especially to those countries
and regions that are most vulnerable when it comes to this
subject matter.
So, with that, I think I will submit the rest of my
statement. It will be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faleomavaega
follows:]Faleomavaega statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection, all statements made by
witnesses this afternoon will also be made part of the record.
At this time I would like to ask my ranking member for his
opening statement.
Mr. Manzullo. Well, I thank the chairman.
There is a great story--Eni Faleomavaega has a lot of
stories, and some of them are true. One of the great stories
was in, I believe, 1993 or 1994, we were sitting on a panel at
a hearing and somebody tried to justify the French detonation,
underwater nuclear bomb somewhere near Mr. Faleomavaega's
region. And this person went on to say that he didn't think
there was any damage; there was no problem whatsoever. And the
lone question that came from Congressman Faleomavaega was,
well, what about the fish? And that was supposed to be funny.
He can loosen up a bit because the fish were near the nuclear
explosion, but no one seemed to count them.
And what amazed me is that this bomb was detonated and
there was very little----
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Manzullo. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Because the French were kicked out of
Algeria after conducting their initial nuclear testing at the
expense of some 1 million Algerians who lost their lives in
their fighting against French colonialism. So De Gaulle decided
we will go somewhere else, not in France but to the South
Pacific. And this is where they detonated 220 nuclear devices
in the atmosphere, in the surface and under the ocean, that
they did this for a 20-year period. As a result, over 10,000
Tahitians were subjected to nuclear contamination because of
this testing.
Mr. Manzullo. And the latest test was as recently as 1994.
Mr. Faleomavaega. In 1995, I was privileged to participate
in a worldwide demonstration against the French Government when
they broke the moratorium on nuclear tests, and they wanted to
explode eight additional nuclear bombs for fear that their
national security was at risk, given the fact that they had the
fourth largest arsenal of nuclear weapons at that time.
Mr. Manzullo. The reason I raised that is I thought it not
amusing but pretty calloused that, in the explosion of this
device, the witness actually said there was no damage; and, of
course, you responded, what about the fish?
Well, here we are, not that much later, France, of course,
in the European Union; and they have tried a cap-and-trade
system that is a miserable failure. And we just got back from
northern Africa where the industries are delighted, all the way
from Morocco over to Tunisia, that they can compete and sell
manufactured goods to Europe because they are not bound by
their cap-and-trade system. And even the cap-and-trade system
itself is not counting much success.
So what we have to do here is be extraordinarily careful.
The issue is not climate change. The issue is global pollution.
Climate change really only talks about what is emitted into the
atmosphere and not what goes into the seas or what goes into
the ground.
I look upon this as a much broader topic, one that jumps
over the issue, is there indeed climate change. But even that
word has changed from global warming to climate change. But we
don't have to agree on whether or not there is global warming
or global cooling or climate change. That is not the issue. The
issue is we should be doing everything reasonably that we can
in order to stop global pollution. And that is where I fit into
this equation and where the chairman and I may not necessarily
agree on what is necessary to do that. The bottom line is we
want to stop as much pollution as possible.
I will submit my statement to the record.
Before that I want to introduce Dr. Redmond Clark as my
constituent from the Illinois 16th Congressional District. He
is an expert on climate change and its impact on American
businesses. He is an accomplished chief executive whose company
produces a product that renders lead paint inert during
sandblasting operations. He rode his bicycle all the way from
northern Illinois to Washington, but he was planning on doing
that anyway and did not do that especially in preparation of
this hearing. But I think he brings something refreshing,
Chairman. And perhaps you and I can join him or should join him
in our exercising.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Manzullo
follows:]Manzullo statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentleman for introducing Dr.
Clark before the subcommittee.
I will just say to our good friend from Illinois that, in
fairness to France, the French just simply followed what we
did. We decided to do our nuclear testing in the Marshall
Islands, and then we detonated 67 nuclear weapons. The first
hydrogen bomb that we exploded in the world was in the Marshall
Islands. It was 15 megatons, which is about 1,300 times more
powerful than the bombs we exploded in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
What prompted the government from not doing any more
nuclear explosions in the Pacific was because the nuclear cloud
carried Strontium-90 all the way to Minnesota and Wisconsin,
and it was found in milk products. So we decided, no, let's go
do it underground. And the poor State of Nevada now became the
victim, where we detonated over 800, 900 nuclear bombs
underground.
And, of course, that adds on another issue of global
pollution, about what do you do with nuclear waste? To this
day, after spending billions and billions of dollars and
building Yucca Mountain, to think that this is going to be the
answer to solving the nuclear waste issue in our country--I
just am not an expert on technical and scientific issues like
this Congressman, but my suggestion or question is, how do you
transfer nuclear waste from Tennessee or Georgia or all these
other States to Nevada? By bus? By airplane? By train? By car?
What happens if, in that one-in-a-million chance, that goes
haywire? Maybe a terrorist group or maybe by accident, that
nuclear waste goes out in the public.
So this is where I think even in our own country we have
some very serious issues that we have not addressed seriously
and for the sake of Nevada's future and safety--and Nevada is
simply saying, why us? It seems the most practical solution is,
to every State, if you want to use nuclear technology to
produce electricity, you take care of your waste. Why ship it
to Nevada is my question.
And if you and I were to live in Nevada I don't think we
would appreciate having all the nuclear waste products coming
from all different States and your State becoming the
repository of something that is dangerous and lethal as nuclear
waste.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to detract from your issue.
But, to our friends here, I had the privilege of sailing on
a Polynesian voyaging canoe without a sextant or modern
navigation. We used it by traditional navigation. And it took
us about 27 days to sail on a double-hull Polynesian canoe
built by my Hawaiian cousins. And it was a real experience for
me because I got to see the environment, the ocean, the air,
the water.
Let me tell you, there was a lot of pollution and things
floating around in the ocean voyaging from Tahiti to Hawaii for
some 27 days. And this was in 1987, Congressman. I suspect now
it is even worse.
As you said quite adequately, and I agree with you, maybe
not necessarily just to suggest climate change but global
pollution caused by man is something that we ought to also
address seriously.
So, for today, I do want to personally welcome and invite
our distinguished panelists this afternoon for their
testimonies.
We have Dr. Thomas Karl, who received his bachelor's degree
in meteorology from Northern Illinois University, master's
degree from the University Wisconsin, and doctorate from North
Carolina State.
Dr. Karl is the director of NOAA's National Climatic Data
Center in Asheville, North Carolina, and leads NOAA's Climate
Services. He has served and continues to serve on a variety of
National Research Council Committees and is a fellow of the
American Meteorological Society, currently serving as
president. He is also a fellow of the American Geophysical
Union and the National Association of the National Research
Council.
Dr. Karl has authored many climate atlases and technical
reports and has published over 150 peer-reviewed articles in
various scientific journals. He has been named one of the most
frequently cited earth scientists of the 1990s. His science
focuses on climate, climate variability and climate change. He
has served as editor and contributing author to a number of
textbooks on topics ranging from the 1988 U.S. draught to
climate and biodiversity, and currently chairs and is co-
editor-in-chief of the 2009 State of Knowledge Report by the
United States Global Change Research Program and the Global
Climate Change Impacts in the United States.
Also with us is Mr. Kemal Dervis. Until February of this
year, Mr. Dervis was the executive head of the United Nations
Development Program and chairman of the United Nations
Development Group, a committee consisting of the heads of the
all U.N. funds, programs and departments working on development
issues at the country level.
In 2001 and 2002, as Minister of Economic Affairs and the
Treasury in the Republic of Turkey, Mr. Dervis was responsible
for launching Turkey's recovery program from the devastating
financial crisis.
A native of Turkey and the city of Istanbul, Mr. Dervis
earned his bachelor's and master's degrees in economics from
the London School of Economics and his doctorate from Princeton
University. He also taught economics at Princeton and Middle
Eastern Technical University before joining the World Bank,
served a 22-year career in the World Bank and became vice
president for the Middle East and North Africa in 1996 and also
vice president for poverty reduction and economic management.
And if anybody wants to share any languages with Mr.
Dervis, he is fluent in English, Turkish, French, and German,
and I suspect even Spanish.
Dr. Anthony Janetos is director of the Joint Global Change
Research Institute, a joint venture between the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Maryland.
He has many years experience in managing scientific and policy
research programs in a variety of ecological and environmental
topics: Pollution effects on forests, climate change impacts,
land use change, ecosystem modeling, and the global carbon
cycle. Dr. Janetos graduated magna cum laude from Harvard
University with a bachelor's degree in biology, and earned both
his master's and doctorate degrees in biology from Princeton
University.
Dr. David Wheeler is a senior fellow in the Center for
Global Development, where he works on issues relating to
climate change, natural resource conservation, African
infrastructure development and the allocation of development
aid. From 1993 to 2006, as the lead economist in the World
Bank's Development Research Group, he directed a team that
worked on environmental policy and research issues in
collaboration with policymakers and academics in Latin America,
in Southeast Asia, just about everywhere else in the world--and
Africa as well. He also worked on priority setting for country
lending, grants, and technical assistance with the World Bank's
vice president for operations policy and country services.
Dr. Wheeler completed his doctorate in economics at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1974, taught for 2
years also at the National University of Zaire in Kinshasa.
And, again, a distinguished career of serving with the World
Bank and has been a professor and also consulted with various
institutes of economics as well; and we are very, happy to have
Dr. Wheeler with us.
Dr. Redmond Clark, I think you have already been introduced
by my good friend from Illinois.
At this time, I would like to ask Dr. Karl to begin our
hearing this afternoon. Please, Dr. Karl.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS KARL, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CLIMATIC
DATA CENTER, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Karl. Good afternoon, Chairman Faleomavaega, Ranking
Member Manzullo. Thanks very much for inviting me to talk to
you today regarding global climate change.
It is now well established in scientific literature that
our climate is changing and that humans are largely
responsible. Additional changes are already assured because of
the large amounts of heat that have already been absorbed by
the ocean, long lifetimes of atmospheric carbon dioxide and
other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Changes are already apparent around the globe. For example,
last month, the United States Global Change Research Program
released a NOAA-led report entitled Global Climate Change
Impacts in the United States. The report provides concrete
evidence that impacts are not only affecting the contiguous
U.S. but other areas around the world, including the Pacific
Islands and the Caribbean.
Other scientific assessments have documented a variety of
important changes, such as decreases in subtropical and
tropical precipitation in Indonesia and southern Asia,
increasing ocean acidity, and rising sea levels.
The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change identifies coastal and small island
communities like those in Asia and the Pacific region as
particularly vulnerable to climate change and variability.
I would like to highlight a few climate impacts for which
observed and projected changes are relevant to Asia and the
Pacific region. Water is an area in which the impacts of global
climate change will be increasingly felt in small and large
ways, including increased intensity of extreme precipitation
events, and drought and changes in the quality and abundance of
water resources.
Asia is a region where water distribution is uneven and
large areas are under water stress. Even in humid and sub humid
areas of Asia, water scarcity is one of the constraints
limiting sustainable development. Yet, at the same time, we are
seeing evidence of increases in extreme precipitation events, a
trend that is expected to grow around the world; and future
projections include more dry days as the intensity of
precipitation increases when it does actually rain.
In India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, water shortages have
been attributed to rapid urbanization and inefficient water
use. These are all aggravated by a changing climate. In
subtropical regions, climate change is expected to reduce water
resources on many small islands. By midcentury, these water
resources maybe deg. be insufficient to meet the
growing demands during low rainfall periods.
The oceans will feel projected impacts of global climate
change, which, in turn, will have negative impacts on the most
vulnerable societies. The oceans have absorbed approximately
one-third of the human-produced carbon dioxide. This increased
absorption has measurable impacts on ocean chemistry. One of
these is increased acidification, which leads to the
deterioration of and can contribute to the total collapse of
coral reef ecosystems, especially when combined with coral
bleaching due to high ocean temperatures and other human-caused
stresses.
In addition to the food, resources, and biodiversity that
coral reefs provide, deterioration in coral reefs is expected
to impact the value of these areas as tourist destinations as
an important resource of income in some of the coastal areas in
the Asia and Pacific Islands.
Another impact on the world's oceans is sea level rise. Sea
level rise is expected to amplify the effects of other coastal
hazards. These include storm surge, Tsunami, and erosion, as
well as the loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
The reduction of fresh water availability due to saltwater
intrusion, especially in low-lying areas, is another hazard
facing many areas due to sea level rise.
By the end of this century, sea level rise is projected to
increase the annual number of people experiencing flooding in
coastal populations from 13 million to 94 million; and this is
likely to be an underestimate if contributions to sea level
from the Greenland ice sheet grow as evidence today suggests.
Almost 60 percent of the increase in affected costal
populations will occur in south Asia and about 20 percent will
occur in Southeast Asia.
In addition to changes in the ocean over recent decades,
there has been a general increase in duration of heat waves
along with the increased intensity in rainfall. Additionally,
these trends are expected to continue, along with increased
year to year variability of the Asian summer monsoon. One
impact of this variability and increase in temperature is
increased water stress and lower production of rice, maze, and
wheat in many parts of Asia during periods of monsoon failures.
This climate change will be further impacted by existing
climate variability phenomena such as El Nino and La Nina. We
may soon have firsthand experience of this increased stress as
in the summer of 2009 we are embarking on an El Nino episode.
The world's ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record
for June. NOAA is predicting a strengthening of El Nino over
the coming months.
In recognition of the climate challenges already facing
many parts of the globe, NOAA has supported efforts to
understand and predict environmental change. We are working to
provide the tools that will allow for more effective management
of resources impacted by climate change. For example, NOAA
researchers are working with partners to understand how climate
change is altering global ocean conditions. These conditions
include water temperature, currents, upwelling, plankton
blooms, and others. We seek to understand how these changes
affect habitat range and abundance of economically important
fish and protected species.
In closing, climate change impacts across the globe are
merging as serious challenges for virtually all nations,
including our own. NOAA is taking action to assist in improving
understanding and predicting of climate change and in providing
information tools necessary to improve the management of these
critical resources.
Thank you very much for allowing me to testify today. NOAA
looks forward to working with you as we address these
challenges. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Karl
follows:]Thomas Karl deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Dr. Karl.
Mr. Dervis.
STATEMENT OF MR. KEMAL DERVIS, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR,
GLOBAL ECONOMY AND DEVELOPMENT, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION (FORMER
ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME)
Mr. Dervis. Chairman Faleomavaega, Ranking Member Manzullo,
I really appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the
subject from L'Aquila to Copenhagen: Climate Change and
Vulnerable Societies. I hope this hearing serves as another
signpost signaling America's critical role in supporting
climate change adaptation in the world's most vulnerable
communities and also in dealing with the broader environmental
challenges we face, as mentioned by the ranking member.
Let me just try to highlight a few I think important points
in this overall debate, which is going to be intensified, of
course, as the world's countries prepare for Copenhagen and as
the United States prepares for Copenhagen.
The first point I think is that it is true that we do know
that climate change is happening. I think there is overwhelming
scientific evidence to that effect. We heard Dr. Karl. It is
also true that gas emissions--heat trapping gas emissions are
playing a critical role.
At the same time, I think it is fair to add there is still
a lot of uncertainty on exactly how these processes work, how
fast they take place, what the exact impact is on the climate
and on various parts of the world.
But here the point I would like to make is the fact that
there is such uncertainty cannot be interpreted as allowing
inaction. Uncertainty means, yes, we don't know exactly what is
going to happen, but we do know that there is potentially
catastrophic risk down the road. So in situations like that, I
do believe that the wise course is to take insurance, to ensure
the world and particularly, of course, also the United States
against the potentially catastrophic impacts that may happen
40, 80, 100 years from now.
As we get more information from research and data, we can
adjust the exact action we take. But, in the meantime, I do
believe that action is urgent. So this is an overall reason I
think why policy is so important and why action has become so
urgent.
The second point--and this is a point where I think this
committee is concentrating on--is the fact that the most
vulnerable, the poor societies in the world are hurt the most.
I won't repeat what Dr. Karl already eloquently told us about
agriculture, about ocean, chemistry, about water level, sea
rise levels, and other factors that, unfortunately, impact
those who are the least able to protect themselves. The poorest
and most vulnerable countries are also those who contribute the
least to the accumulation of greenhouse gases. So it is a
particularly difficult ethical and political situation where
those who have contributed historically the least and who are
not contributing now because of the level of their GDP, the
level of their development, are going to be those impacted
soonest and with the greatest force.
Therefore, helping them adapt, helping them control the
impact of climate change is I think an imperative global need
that is being increasingly recognized. The amount of resources
needed are quite large. Estimates range into tens of billions
of dollars a year.
I think what makes these estimates particularly difficult
is that it is not easy to separate climate adaptation needs
from general development needs. Extreme climate events are much
more frequent in parts of the world that are least developed,
and even if there wasn't climate change there is a need to help
these societies withstand the effects, such as the cyclones,
for example, in Bangladesh and the devastating droughts that we
have seen in Africa and other parts of the world. But climate
change make these things worse, increases their frequency,
increases their impact.
I do believe, however, that it is important to approach the
issue broadly and not to separate adaptation to climate change
from the general fight against poverty, but to integrate these
measures and the policy support the developed countries, the
international organizations, and the United States provides
into a framework that is about fighting poverty and where,
within that fight against poverty, climate adaptation is one
important component.
The final point I would like to make relates to trade. I
think it is very important that the effort against climate
change, the effort to protect the world, to ensure the world is
widely shared, that particularly the rapidly growing emerging
market economies do participate in their own way in this
effort. I do, therefore, understand sometimes the debates
relating to trade and to the need to have an equal playing
field. However, I think it is very, very important to realize
that trade measures could hurt the poorest and the most
vulnerable countries in very important ways, because trade
rules cannot be discriminatory. So when thinking about trade
policy, I think it is very, very important to keep in mind also
the interest of the most vulnerable in the poorest countries.
Thank you very much for allowing me to share my
perspective.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dervis
follows:]Kemal Dervis deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Dervis.
Dr. Janetos.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY JANETOS, PH.D., DIRECTOR, JOINT GLOBAL
CHANGE RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL
LABORATORY, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Mr. Janetos. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Manzullo, thank you for
the opportunity to talk with you today.
May I have the first slide, please?
The IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was a milestone in terms
of presenting our evolving knowledge of climate impacts. It
provided documentation of literally thousands of impacts of
climate change on natural resources, on coastal regions, on
human health, on animal and plant species, and on agricultural
productivity. Out of this report emerged a clear consensus that
not only are we beginning to see the impact of long-term
changes in the climate system but also that we expect such
impacts to continue to grow in future decades, especially if
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere continue to
rise as they have been doing.
As our scientific knowledge has continued to evolve. Since
the IPCC report, many publications indicate, for example, that
their projections of sea level rise may have been conservative,
raising additional concerns for low-lying island nations, for
coastal barrier islands in such parts of the world as our own
southeast coast and Gulf regions. We now have a better
appreciation of the challenges to marine and coastal resources
presented by the acidification of the oceans, which inhibits
the abilities of many organisms, including many species of
corals, to form their calcium-carbonate-based exoskeletons that
we notice from above.
In addition, such reports as the U.S. Government's own
assessment of the impacts of climate change on agriculture,
land resources, water resources, and biodiversity indicate
widespread current impacts on U.S. natural resources.
The recent publication of the U.S. Global Change Research
Program's report, Global Climate Change Impacts on the United
States, demonstrates that concern over both observed and
projected impacts extends to the transportation sector, to
health and nutrition, to agricultural productivity, and to the
energy sector, as well as impacts we already know well and
natural resources.
That report also begins to outline how some sectors and
regions are responding to climate change as they develop their
own adaptation strategies.
Finally, IPCC and subsequent reports have convincingly
demonstrated that while no nation or region of the world is
immune from the impacts of changes in the climate system, there
are systematic additional vulnerabilities in the developing
world. And many, although not all, parts of the tropics and
subtropics, the impact of even modest climate changes on
agricultural productivity are expected to far outweigh those in
the productive regions of the United States and Western Europe,
for example. The influences of sea level rise in island nations
are clearly more problematic than they are for us, although
different regions of the U.S. clearly have different
vulnerabilities than the overall national picture. Moreover,
the supply of fresh water on many islands is clearly affected
by rising sea level.
What are some of the factors that determine vulnerabilities
of natural resources and societies to changes in climate?
There are many such factors. For the physical world, there
are different characteristic responses, for example, in crop
plants, both the increases in atmospheric concentrations of
carbon dioxide and changes in temperature and rainfall. Even
very common crops, such as corn, have characteristic times
during the growing season where they are extraordinarily
sensitive to high temperatures. We know about the major cereal
crops in the temperate zones significantly more than we
understand about most tropical crops, although rice is
beginning to be particularly well understood.
Societal vulnerabilities, though, are more complicated. Our
current understanding indicates that there are a combination of
both sensitivities and natural resources in the physical
systems, but they also include economic well-being, the
distribution of resources, human capital and knowledge, and
access to resources that can be mobilized when impacts are
beginning to be felt.
In the IPCC, we began to analyze some of these factors and
how they may change over time using research published by our
own institute and that from other colleagues. What we find in
such analyses are some general principles: Poorer countries
are, in general, more vulnerable than richer, although within
every country there are poorer regions and populations of
people that are more vulnerable than the average. Countries in
the tropics and subtropics have more apparent vulnerabilities
than those in the northern temperate latitudes. Coastal
regions, islands, and mountainous regions will suffer from more
immediate impacts than other places.
Perhaps the most important insight was the realization that
the adaptive capacity of many countries, including our own, is
not unlimited and that under scenarios of rapid and large
climate change that capacity can be overwhelmed.
How are people beginning to respond?
We now see evidence of people beginning to respond by
trying to adapt to change in large part because they feel they
must, because we are beginning to experience impacts. There are
challenges that continue to face us.
In my own view, it is critically important to begin to
develop adaptation strategies that take into account known
sensitivities of natural resources and of transportation,
energy, and health and to begin to institute programs to build
resiliency in particularly vulnerable parts of the would. At
the same time, it is crucial to begin collecting information on
the cost and effectiveness of such different strategies. We
have very little information, although the scientific community
has been calling for this type of knowledge for well over a
decade.
As we need to begin to understand both this fundamental
science and the economics of adaptation for our own resources,
our own society, it is equally important that we begin to
understand and assist countries less fortunate than our own.
Several studies of the national security implications of
climate change for the U.S. have concluded that severe climate
impacts in the developing world could reduce our own security
for many reasons. It has also been argued that countries such
as the U.S. could dramatically improve our collective
understanding of these features and that this knowledge could
serve the developing world as well as ourselves, if applied
appropriately.
I will not pretend to offer prescriptions for success. It
is clear that the policy process will have to wrestle with
these observations and findings. But it is equally clear that
adapting to changes in climate that cannot be avoided is an
essential part of an overall strategy of response to climate
change and that the most vulnerable parts of the world in
general are those countries that are less fortunate than our
own.
Thank you; and I, too, will be happy to address any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Janetos
follows:]Anthony Janetos deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you.
The chair apologizes. We had earlier a distinguished member
of our subcommittee, Mr. Inglis, but I hope he will return for
his questions.
Dr. Wheeler.
STATEMENT OF DAVID WHEELER, PH.D., SENIOR FELLOW, CENTER FOR
GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Wheeler. Thank you, Chairman Faleomavaega and
Congressman Manzullo.
Today, I am going to talk about climate change, but I have
spent 15 years in the World Bank worrying about pollution all
over the world. So if you have some questions about that, I
would be happy to entertain those. And I should say as well, if
you would like to talk Husky football, we can talk afterwards.
My brother Bob worked at Northern for 20 years, so I know the
situation there pretty well. We seem to have a northern
Illinois nexus.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Is this Husky with the University of
Washington?
Mr. Wheeler. Northern Illinois. It is a little different.
You can talk to the Congressman about that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I was just curious. I thought maybe there
was only one Husky team. Several of my relatives played for the
University of Washington Huskies.
Mr. Wheeler. What I thought I would mention here very
briefly today follows what Tony said about the national
security of the United States. I thought I would take as my
keynote Senator Lugar's remarks yesterday. He really said we
should think of the foreign assistance problem and climate
change as evoking real national security problems in the United
States, and so I want to offer a perspective on that.
There really are two aspects, both of which have been
mentioned. One is the potential impact of climate change on the
United States. The other is, obviously, the potentially
horrific impact on developing countries; and that may well have
implications for our security. So both are very important, I
think, about the context of U.S. foreign assistance.
I would like to make an assertion here today and then back
it up for a few minutes, and that is, in the confrontational
climate change worldwide the struggle is going to be won or
lost in the developing world. There are really two reasons for
that. One has to do with sort of what we might call a direct
defense of the United States against climate change and the
other has to do with indirect defense through impacts in the
developing world.
But, directly, we have got this problem. There is no doubt
that climate change is going to impact the United States
severely. But there is also very little doubt, when you look at
the record, that emissions in developing countries are growing
so quickly now. They have already surpassed emissions from
developed countries year by year; and by the year 2030, they
will probably match emissions from developed countries as a
source of global warming.
So the bottom line here is we won't solve this problem
without addressing the emissions problem in developing
countries. Critical.
Now how do we do that? There are really two ways to address
it. One is leveling up by taking punitive measures, trade
sanctions, other approaches that would penalize countries that
continue to emit carbon without restriction while we restrict
ourselves.
My own view is that that is going to backfire. It is not a
smart policy. Because we are trying over time to foster
development in the world. We are trying to foster good
relations with developing countries for the sake of our own
security and for the sake of world prosperity. If we enact a
number of measures like that in the face of the fact that
developing countries really can't afford a lot of measures in
the nearer term to finance a rapid transition of low carbon
growth, we are basically going to build a backfire that we are
going to regret.
I think there is another approach which is smarter and more
targeted, and it is being discussed in the context now of the
legislation in Congress. The Waxman-Markey bill includes
features of both aspects of this. One is promoting the spread
of clean technology in developing countries to targeted
subsidies. There is a lot to be said about that. I won't dwell
on it now, but I think there is a lot of room there for
progress. About $1 billion has been targeted on that by the
bill through offsets and direct measures, and the
administration has suggested $400 million be spent through the
Global Clean Technology Fund at the World Bank for that. I
think it is a start. It is probably not sufficient. One could
talk about that further.
The other dimension is deforestation. People in poorer
countries are deforesting because the land is worth more in
other uses. Now the U.N. Has finally realized that if we are
going to stop that we will have to pay people to keep these
lands and forests, but that leads to a host of questions about
how to administer that and pay for it.
Again, in the Waxman-Markey bill, about $1 billion has been
allocated for the purpose through offsets. I think that is
probably not sufficient, but it is at least a start.
But in the final analysis here, the real issue I think for
the United States in sustainability and taxpayer support is
going to be monitoring these arrangements. Here is a real
opportunity for American leadership. It is our ethic to be
transparent. We have the technological capability to monitor. I
think the U.S. should step up and take the lead in the world
movement for public disclosure emissions from deforestation and
from industrial sources accessible to all as a way of making
sure that when accords are reached they can be monitored
effectively. Otherwise, I am afraid credibility will suffer.
Let me say a quick word about adaptation and vulnerability.
As my colleagues have said, there is very little doubt that the
impacts will be severe.
I think there are two aspects of the problem that are
really critical for foreign assistance. One I might call an
application of the 80/20 rule. You know that. It says usually
20 percent of the sources of a problem are accountable for 80
percent of the problem. Here it is more like a 90/10 rule. If
you look at the impacts that we anticipate for climate change
in the developing world, they are going to be very focused on a
few unfortunate places. It is true for sea level rise, and it
is also true for bad weather. There is really a
disproportionality here. If we are going to do assistance, we
need to target it if we are going to be effective. We need at
this look very carefully.
Having worked at the World Bank for a long time, I can tell
you it goes against the grain to target instead of spreading
aid around, but we will not have enough resources here to
dissipate the money. We really need to think carefully about
where these problems are going to hit and what we can do.
Secondly, in the domain of uncertainty, as my friend Kemal
said, I think we have got a real opportunity here. If you look
at the history of confrontation with climate variability in the
past, this is not new. There have been numberless tragedies in
developing countries involving climate events, droughts,
floods, thousands of people killed, millions of people
affected.
Question: Which countries have confronted this most
effectively among developing countries? There is very little
doubt about the answer. It is countries that have focused on
developing their economic and human resources.
Let me put the plus here on human resources. If you
actually look at the evidence, it is quite remarkable how much
better on the resilience front countries do if they have
focused on empowering and educating women. There are lots of
reasons why that is true. There is a very important kind of
nexus here.
So, in closing, I guess I would say, even if you are a
climate sceptic and even if climate change itself is secondary
for you, but you are really interested in promoting development
of other countries, it seems to me a win-win here could be
found in empowering and educating women. That would have
benefits on both sides.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wheeler
follows:]David Wheeler deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Dr. Wheeler.
I would like to turn the time to my colleague for a better
introduction of Dr. Clark. I think I failed in that regard,
too.
Mr. Manzullo. That is okay, Chairman.
It is my pleasure to introduce my constituent, Dr. Redmond
Clark. He is the current CEO of CBL Industrial Services. It is
a firm that provides environmental products and services to
domestic and international manufacturing companies, including
the iron and steel industry, metal smelting, iron and steel
recycling, et cetera. He has a Ph.D. In environmental sciences,
with a specialization in climate change impacts modeling. He
brings a unique perspective to our panel today; and thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for allowing us to bring him in.
Mr. Faleomavaega. No problem.
Please, Dr. Clark, proceed.
STATEMENT OF REDMOND CLARK, PH.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CBL
INDUSTRIAL SERVICES
Mr. Clark. Thank you.
I have to mention that I did my graduate work at Southern
Illinois University, which is the home of the Salukis, which
are actually the best football team in the State of Illinois,
the running dogs, as they say in Illinois.
At any rate, have that on the record, please.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Saluki, is that an Indian tribe?
Mr. Clark. It is an ugly dog that runs fast.
We come at these issues from a different standpoint. I
greatly appreciate the opportunity to speak today.
As a corporation, we are a foot soldier in the area of
implementation. We are the people that go out and attempt to
actually find processes that work to solve problems. That is
what we do. And so when we work through all of these policies,
the government will steer, policy will steer, treaties will
limit, regulations will limit and impact our markets. But, at
the end of the day, we will be responsible for developing the
markets that solve the problems that we are trying to address.
We are extraordinarily focused on that in our business, and we
try to look strategically ahead and understand what is coming,
not only so we can steer our company but so that we can
anticipate the problems that are before us.
I have a long personal history in natural hazards modeling
response management, and I agree with a number of things that
have been said today. So rather than going through the details
of my presentation, I will speak somewhat contemporaneously
about some of the thoughts that we bring.
This treaty is an important treaty because it is going to
reshape economies in some very significant ways. We are
proposing to make the developing nations low carbon developing
societies. We really don't know how to do that. We know how to
get part of the way there, but we didn't know the rest way.
This will be a leap of faith for all of us.
The developing nations, as has been previously indicated,
they are vulnerable to climate change. They are very sensitive
to climate treaty. Politically, they have got to provide for
their citizens. They have to provide economic opportunity for
them, and it will be harder to do it if they cannot gain access
to energy. They know that if they have access to carbon fuels,
cheap carbon fuels in large quantities, they have a better
opportunity to bring their citizens forward and live the kind
of life that they see experienced in the developed nations.
At the same time, the developing nations are straining
their ecosystems in a number of different ways. There are
incredible challenges out there. We don't see how they will be
resolved in this next treaty cycle, and it is a great challenge
with the negotiators to come up with something that will work.
China is acting now on a political agenda. They are moving
forward with a number of different things that we see that
represent significant issues for us and for some of the other
companies that we work with. A sitting government believes the
economy has to grow at a 10-percent rate. That means that they
are going to have to continue to push large quantities of
energy into their industrial operations in order to continue in
that growth curve. They are doing so because they have got 400
million people that are in disparate poverty. They do not feel
that they are free to simply choose to step back from that
growth agenda. They have got to take care of these people, or
it is going to destabilize the government.
India is on a slower track, but they are moving in some of
the same directions. And with 2.2 or 2.3 billion people between
the countries, that means everything in terms of global and
environmental security.
China has decentralized a lot of their decision-making
process. It is going to be a lot harder to negotiate with them
now, but we will speak on that in a moment. Neither of them
want to play at Copenhagen. We understand that, and we
understand their initial positions have been very clearly put
out in the press. They are not going to agree to any carbon
caps, and our lead negotiator has indicated he doesn't expect
that China will agree to a carbon cap going in. Again, we think
that is being driven by their political situation at home.
Now, in terms of key trends and developments, I haven't got
enough time to look deeply into the energy markets. I will just
simply say there has been a crash in investment in the carbon
fuels industry across the world, and although oil and natural
gas are plentiful right now, we expect that there are going to
be some major price shocks coming at us over the next 5-7
years. Coal is holding its own in part because there is so much
growth and external demand or international demand for coal as
a secure energy source.
China is buying up massive quantities of energy resources
or rights to energy resources. We estimate that China has
purchased approximately 20 percent of the excess oil and gas
production capacity of the world over the past 6 months, and
they are continuing to purchase enormous assets in that area.
Now, in the past they have historically made that energy
available outside of their country in normal markets in order
to maximize return on their investment, but if we run into a
period of shortages because of what has happened in response to
the economic downturn, what we are going to end up with here is
a situation where China has the ability to steer large
quantities of energy resources away from other developing
nations, away from the developed nations and into their own
economy.
If we as developed nations agree to cuts, and we do not ask
the developing nations to participate, we are going to
stimulate trade war. There is one going on right now. It is
going to become more pronounced over time.
I am out of time here, I can't go through detailed examples
here, but there are plenty of examples here in the U.S. where
whole industries are going to disappear simply because we
create enough of an energy gradient that we will invite
extranational competition into our markets.
China is also expanding their energy-intensive
infrastructure. They are hardwired now the way their economy is
set up to continue to build, and they are going to continue to
burn more and more carbon. They need it in order to grow their
economy. India is following along that same path. The developed
nations want to step back from that precipice, and here we are.
The ramifications of these decisions are going to show up in
all kinds of impacts in a number of different areas.
So, what do we do? What do we do when we step forward in
these negotiations? And I think it was Dr. Wheeler who
indicated that he thought taking a hard line was probably a
mistake. My suggestion is that I would agree with him. We need
to speak softly, but I think we also need to have a very large
stick present in our back pocket should we need to use it, and
I think trade restriction is, in fact, one of the major issues
that we are going to have to have a serious discussion about.
Maybe Dr. Wheeler and I can have a serious discussion at dinner
afterwards and get busy about our football teams as well.
But our feeling is that if we are going to go into these
negotiations, very simply we need carbon fuel reduction
agreements from all of the key players, including the
developing nations, whether it is a reduction in rate sector
agreements, whatever. No financial support for mitigation
without these agreements. Technology transfer, absolutely. I
think it is critical. But there has got to be a quid pro quo,
and that is an honoring of intellectual property rights by the
developing nations. And, of course, the issue of carbon
trading, I think, is open, and it is an effective mechanism
that could be used to help make these things happen.
One last thought: We need metrics and transparency, of
course, but when I was a relatively young man, we formed FEMA
here in the United States, and one of the important lessons
that FEMA learned was you don't throw good money after bad. You
don't keep bailing people out over and over and over again so
that they can return to the same floodplain, build their homes
and get flooded out again.
The mitigation process we came up with was we will invest,
but we will invest as we address the problem, not before we
address the problem. And I think the precursor to significant
gives on the part of the developed nations for the developing
nations is a carbon agreement that is going to limit
consumption by the developing as well as by the developed
nations.
Thank you. I will be happy to answer questions.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Dr. Clark.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clark
follows:]Redmond Clark deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. Congressman Manzullo, first questions.
Mr. Manzullo. First of all, Chairman, I would like
permission to put into the record this article from the Wall
Street Journal dated July 20th, ``India Rejects U.S. Proposal
of Carbon Limits.''
Mr. Faleomavaega. Without objection.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]WSJ
Article deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Manzullo. I was watching a special, I think it was
National Geographic, about Greenland, and the Danes settled the
land because of its lush environment, an area to grow crops,
but then they left, most of them left, about 1,000 years ago
because the area, instead of being warm and lush, took on
almost an ice cap. It became the Greenland that we have known
until recently.
Now, the reason I bring that up is we are all concerned
about what is going on in the environment. The question is,
there were no greenhouse gases 1,000 years ago that made the
Danes abandon that area. So what caused the massive cooling
1,000 years ago, and is what climate change we are experiencing
now, is it necessarily related to what we are doing on the
Earth, or is it just something that occurs naturally? Anybody?
Mr. Karl. I will be happy to take that one.
It is clear that there are natural variations in climate,
and particularly on a regional scale, such as the one you just
identified.
The issue of whether humans are responsible for the changes
that we have seen over the last 50 years, there is no question
any longer. We have been able to look at, observe changes, and
link them quite convincingly to the patterns of changes we have
seen not only in temperatures, but changes in precipitation,
changes in water vapor, changes in atmospheric circulation.
They all put together a comprehensive picture of human-induced
climate change.
Now, that doesn't negate the fact that climate can change
on its own due to natural purposes; however, what we are seeing
today is clearly linked to human activities, and the
projections for the future are such that with unabated
increases in greenhouse gases, the rate of changes that we are
expecting over the course of this century are beyond anything
that we have seen in human mankind civilization. These changes,
in fact, will have some really significant impacts, one of
which our civilization hasn't yet been able to address, hasn't
had to address.
Mr. Manzullo. Anybody else agree, disagree, or want to
comment on that?
Dr. Clark?
Mr. Clark. In trying to translate the science into
something that people can use, we came up with an analogy that
may not be completely fair. If you go to Las Vegas and you sit
down at the blackjack table and you play 20 hands, it is
possible that you can win 20 hands in a row. The odds are very
long, but it is possible you can win 20 hands in a row. If they
changed the rules so that the dealer takes ties, then it is a
lot harder for you to win 20 games in a row. The odds just went
up.
The climate science work that has been done, it makes a
very, very serious effort to use best possible data to come up
with an estimate of how much we are changing the odds, and the
work that has been done says that we have changed the odds.
Your point, which is that there is a natural environment
fluctuating underneath, is absolutely correct. We have seen
similar changes in temperature in similar periods of time in
regions all over the world at varying times in their history.
As this extends on, we are going to have progressively more and
more data to determine just how precise we were right or how
precise we were wrong in the forecasts that we put together.
My sense right now--and this is an important political
distinction--my sense right now is that, for example, as far as
the House is concerned, the House has made a determination that
they are going to accept the science, and if we accept that and
we run down that policy corridor, what does it mean? And as we
drive down that policy corridor, from my personal perspective,
many, many issues that we have talked about, differences
between nations, are going to be forced up, and they are going
to be discussed, and they are going to have to be resolved.
Things like intellectual property, the issues are going to be
driven by the climate science, because climate science is going
to force an economic debate that is going to be healthy, I
think ultimately, for the world, and I think very healthy for
the United States.
But we have got to have that debate, and when we have that
debate, I suspect it needs to be less about the science and
more about the economic follow-through that comes from the
scientific argument that has been made. And it is a very
important distinction. Hopefully it is helpful.
Mr. Manzullo. Dr. Wheeler?
Mr. Wheeler. Just one comment, I guess. Personally I am
convinced that we have a problem, that there is a human origin
to that problem, so for me that is not really the issue.
But I think there is a more fundamental issue here, and the
way one can address this might circumvent the disagreement, And
that is we all agree there is a lot of uncertainty here, and
there are differing opinions about where climate change will
impact and how much. And the science is not yet certain, for
example, on the pattern of rainfall that we may expect over
large areas of the world. So it is very difficult to plan ahead
in agricultural policy, for example.
But what we do need is resilience, and what we have seen in
the past is that societies that have made certain policy-
progressive moves have become more resilient. So there is force
in that, and if we can orient our policies toward promoting
resilience, regardless of climate change, we can only help on
the climate front, and at the same time we can benefit from a
standard development perspective.
So I think there is an enormous common agenda here that can
be promoted progressively without even referring to the onset
of climate change, simply as a confrontation to the problems
that the world is facing right now. So I would urge that,
wherever possible, we seek this common ground and take measures
that are progressive from either perspective.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Dervis?
Mr. Dervis. Thank you. I just wanted to add one more time
the issue of uncertainty and insurance. Professor Scott
Barrett, a colleague who is going to teach at Columbia next
year, makes this kind of comparison. Suppose we were told there
is a 5-percent probability of a meteor hitting the Earth and
destroying most of it, but a 95-percent probability it won't
happen. What would we do? That is an extreme example. There is
a lot of uncertainty, but there is enough of a threat, of a
possible threat, that I think very serious action should be
taken as insurance, without necessarily being sure of how
things will evolve over time.
Of course, taking that action requires a global effort and
that is where, I think, we all agree; if the United States
takes action and others don't, it won't help. If China takes
action and the United States doesn't, it won't help either. So
how to do that globally is going to be increasingly at the
center of the debate.
Mr. Faleomavaega. We will have Dr. Wheeler, and then Dr.
Clark.
Mr. Wheeler. In thinking about China and India and their
stance in negotiations, from many conversations I have had with
colleagues in the international community who are working in
China and in India and here, I would urge the committee and the
Congress to look carefully at what our friends in those
countries are doing as opposed to what they may be saying in
the run up to Copenhagen, because the measures that they are
actually taking are consequential for renewable energy and for
climate change, and in some places quite major.
The Chinese arguably right now are moving more quickly to
develop renewable energy than we are. It is just they are
moving their energy systems so quickly that they are also
increasing their use of coal-fired power. But their increased
use of wind power and solar power is quite spectacular.
On the Indian front, we look at the question of
intellectual property. I would simply cite a recent arrangement
between eSolar, which is a U.S. Company, and the Acme Group in
India to develop solar thermal power in Rajasthan, in the
desert, possibly without any subsidies at all as a business
venture. That is going forward. Both sides have agreed to it.
The Indian Government likes the idea. They may provide some
subsidies for that because they see solar as an important
potential part of India's future.
So I hope we won't be too bamboozled by some of the
rhetoric running up to Copenhagen here. There are threads of
common interest in the world. There are ways in which we can
target our assistance progressively on measures that would
assist countries to do what they are intending to do anyway
better.
Mr. Clark. One last quick thought, and that is the meteor
that is approaching us is not just climate change, whether you
agree or disagree with the science. The meteor that is
approaching us is the cost and the availability of the energy
resources that we use to drive the world economy. It is
changing. We are seeing dramatic changes now, and there are
significant changes in the future as an economic and
environmental challenge.
Again, I think Dr. Wheeler and I are close together in our
thoughts. Watch very carefully what they are doing rather than
just listening to the rhetoric, because, again, what we see in
terms of activity are people that are preparing for a conflict
of sorts, and that needs to be incorporated into our
negotiating stance.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. As I remember, 8 years ago we had then
former Secretary of State Colin Powell appear before this very
committee, and one of the issues that I raised with him was the
Kyoto Protocol, climate change, and obviously the tremendous
impact that will have, especially among the most vulnerable
societies or countries, like Pacific island country atolls. As
I recall, he said, well, he has every intention to take up the
issue, follow up on what the previous administration, President
Clinton, had done; not necessarily to agree with everything
that was signed in the Kyoto Protocol.
But quite obviously the Bush administration, at least it
was submitted to the Senate, and the Senate killed the Kyoto
Protocol Treaty by 95-0, I believe. And I supported that,
because it was very unfair, one-sided, and it put the United
States in a very, I think, unequal level playing field when you
compare it to China, India and other countries about emissions.
But the next thing that transpired, about 2 months later,
was the White House response was to have nothing to do with the
Kyoto Protocol. And I think this is where I have a little
difficulty in agreeing to the administration's then policy,
which was just to completely take ourselves off the table and
not to continue the negotiation process and letting the Kyoto
Protocol members know we have some problems with it.
We completely left ourselves from participating. I think
the saying is that if you are not at the table, you will be on
the menu. Well, for 8 years, I think we have been lambasted,
ridiculed, criticized as anti-global warming or climate change.
Just to examine the contents, whether it is the science that we
disagree with or the unequalness of distribution of whatever
resources, that we were to address the problem.
So now, Johnny-come-lately, 8 years later, the new
administration comes up and says we do definitely look at
climate change as a very serious issue and a very top priority
by this administration.
My question to you gentleman, of course, we are taking the
sense now we are the leader of the world, and without us,
nothing moves. Well, if you were among the group of 77
countries, or however number, 100, whatever, that signed on to
the Kyoto Protocol, that for the last 8 years they have been
delivering, they have been discussing, they have been debating
the issues. How do you expect the reaction from other countries
that say, where have you been?
So India and China make their point of all the years that
they have discussed it with the Russians, whatever, the other
countries. And we are coming and saying, do what we want you to
do, because we know, we have the best scientists, we know the
best way to solve the problem.
So far the point of reference now by this country, our
country, is the Waxman-Markey bill as the first piece of
legislation that is addressing the very issue of climate
change. And as all of you eloquently pointed out, there is
going to be some sparks flying in Copenhagen.
You take the view that countries like India and China don't
consider themselves up to par with Japan, the United States or
the European countries as far as development is concerned; they
feel that they are still below standard. I know we make a lot
of comments about the economic rise of China, and also India,
but when you compare relatively, and I am not an economist, we
are still very much ahead of the ball compared to these two
countries, other than the fact they have tremendous
populations. And I think that alone seems to be the driving
force as to why they think that they ought to be given
different treatment in Copenhagen, or they just won't play.
Here the question is without these three countries, that I
suspect, in my own humble opinion, without China and India's
involvement, with whatever we want to propose in Copenhagen, I
think we are going to have a very difficult problem here in
resolving.
I have 100 other questions, but before doing this, I do
want to introduce my dear friend Dr. Watson, the gentlelady
from California, our former Ambassador to the Federated States
of Micronesia, who is also one of the senior members of our
subcommittee and an expert on Pacific issues. I welcome her to
our hearing this afternoon and would like to have her give an
opening statement, if she would like.
Ms. Watson. Certainly. Sorry to be late. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for holding this very timely hearing on climate
change as the climate conference in Copenhagen draws near.
As we all know, President Obama recently completed his
meeting with the G-8 in Italy to discuss climate change, and
though the group made progress, notably pleading $20 million--
pledging $20 billion in food aid and to prevent a dangerous
increase in global temperature, the most vulnerable
populations, those who are poor and have limited options, will
feel the most repercussions from climate disasters. The floods
will destroy their homes, droughts will destroy their farms,
and changes in ocean temperature will destroy their fishing
businesses.
Thus, as we begin to address the issues, we must keep in
mind that climate change is not about just saving the polar
bears or the Arctic rabbits and majestic Narwahls. Humans will
face many challenges in the coming years. Food, economic
productivity and infrastructure will all be negatively affected
by an increase in global temperature.
I hope that all of our panelists--and I am sorry to have
missed probably the first panel--but our panelists can
enlighten us on the strides being made to make developing
nations more capable of responding to natural disasters caused
by climate change.
There are some among us, Mr. Chairman, as you know, who
don't believe that climate change is among us, but all they
need to do is go up to the Arctic and see that our polar bears
really are disappearing. Their babies cannot find food, and
pretty soon we will find that they, too, are extinct.
So I really appreciate this, and I yield back the balance
of my time and want to listen to our witnesses at this point.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentlelady for her comments
and her opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Watson
follows:]Watson statement deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just wanted to follow up a little bit
on what my friend from Illinois had raised concerning
Greenland.
I think maybe some of you are experts on geography or
topography. I have always looked at Greenland as a huge
continent, seemingly. And just recently, if I read the media
reports, that Denmark has finally given sovereignty back to the
indigenous Inuit Eskimos, who number only 65,000 people through
the whole country of Greenland. I think it was probably the
same National Geographic television show that Mr. Manzullo and
I watched, and the fact that in the 20-, 30- or 50-year period,
there have been definite indications of meltdown of the
glaciers in Greenland as an indication that there definitely is
an impact or changes in the climate as far as this goes.
Ms. Watson. Mr. Chairman, would you yield?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I am glad to yield to the gentlelady.
Ms. Watson. Dennis Kucinich was putting a trip to Greenland
together, and two people dropped out; therefore he couldn't get
the military plane. I think we ought to all come together and
just take a very quick trip to Greenland so we can visually
attest to what climate change is bringing about. So, you know,
he would be ready to put it back together again if members of
our committee or subcommittee would agree to go.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I would say to the gentlelady, I would
gladly accept an invitation to go to Greenland, even though I
am a warm-bodied Polynesian, warm-water Pacific blue. I just
don't want to freeze there in a matter of minutes. If you are
exposed to the water in that part of the world, in less than 30
minutes, you will be dead. I think I would rather swim in the
Pacific Ocean.
Ms. Watson. He had on his itinerary where we are going and
the need for very warm clothes and the fact that we would be
well protected from the cold. It was a very well-laid-out trip.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Definitely you will not have polar bear
skins to clothe yourself with; is that correct? I am just
kidding.
I think Mr. Dervis wanted to comment on your opening
statement.
Mr. Dervis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members.
I just wanted to stress two points in response to the
comments. One is that the climate, the global climate, is this
common good we have, and it will be terribly sad if it led to
conflict rather than cooperation. In a way it is the ultimate
global good, you know. If you don't like globalization, you
could possibly close your borders to trade, or you could
possibly not accept foreign investment. But even if every
country closed their borders, the emissions, the heat-trapping
gases would still operate, and the climate change would affect
everybody. So it is something that the whole of humanity
shares.
And in the discussions and debates, which will be tough,
there will be different interests, different countries will
argue for resources. Some countries will say there should be
equal per capita, per-human-being emissions; others will argue
per dollar. All these things can be argued about.
But I think it is extremely important that the world
embarks on this in a spirit of cooperation and in discussing
and arguing rather than engaging in conflict. And I think
Copenhagen is a great opportunity, and the fact that the United
States is taking a strong role now and is fully participating
is really welcomed by everybody around the world. That is one
important point I wanted to make.
The second point, following on David Wheeler's, we have
examples of adaptation of climate-proofing actions in the
poorest and most vulnerable countries that have actually worked
reasonably well. One example I know is Bangladesh and the
cyclones. I can't remember the exact date, but I think it was
about 12 years ago there was a devastating cyclone in
Bangladesh, and more than 100,000 people were killed. There was
another one 3 years ago. In the meantime, in cooperation with
many countries and also the United Nations Development Program,
Bangladesh had taken measures, early warning systems, a plan
what to do when it happened, what to do with people, who would
take care of whom.
It was still devastating. It was about of equal strength,
but instead of more than 100,000 people dying, I think less
than 6,000 died, which is still a huge number, of course, but
it shows the kind of progress Bangladesh was able to make with
international assistance.
So it is important to focus on the positive. It is
important, I think, to realize that we can build more resilient
systems, and that that is part of the overall development
effort.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I appreciate, Mr. Dervis, your more
positive attitude toward the region. I think it is possible to
resolve these issues and not in gloom and dire inability on the
part of humanity and the countries to adapt and to raise or to
resolve some of the issues that have been raised in this
hearing.
I think Dr. Janetos and Dr. Wheeler may have some comments.
Mr. Janetos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to build
on Mr. Dervis' comments.
In our own research programs at the Joint Institute, we
have done a significant amount of modeling of the energy
economy and the prospects for global emissions as they relate
to the spread of energy technologies and end-use efficiency and
a whole range of different actions.
One conclusion of those studies from some of our sister
colleagues is the importance of joint actions to reach
particular emissions and concentration targets, that no one
country or even large groups of countries can hope to act on
their own and reach success; that this is, in fact, a problem
of common action.
It is also important to recognize that many of the nations
we have mentioned this afternoon also have significant
vulnerabilities themselves. They know this, of course.
I have been fortunate to participate as an adviser, for
example, in a very large environmental assessment of the
provinces, the western provinces in China, and the
environmental concerns and challenges they face there are
severe, ranging from poor soil fertility to increasingly arid
regions and a dramatic reduction in the amount of freshwater
they are able to access. So they face this tremendous dilemma:
How do they continue to satisfy their increasing and legitimate
demands for energy and growth while building the resilience
they need to combat climate change and its consequences as they
continue to occur?
At the end of the day, perhaps here are the elements of
common purpose and common goals that we may seek to exploit.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Let me share with you, just before I get
to Dr. Wheeler, the Congressional Research Service made this
overview for the members of the subcommittee, and I just want
to share with the members of the panel for your comment.
``Little dispute remains in peer-reviewed scientific
literature that greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere increase global average temperatures, and
that most of the observed warming since the late 1970s
is very likely due mostly to human-related increases in
greenhouse gas concentrations. Between 1970 and 2004,
carbon dioxide emissions grew by about 80 percent,
according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, or IPCC. Scientists also agree that natural
forces, such as solar irradiance and volcanoes,
contribute to climate variability, as they have
throughout history. Scientists, however, have been
unable to show that natural forces alone could have
driven recent warming and additional climate change
patterns. That is, climate models can reproduce
patterns of recent climate change only when they
include the effects of greenhouse gas emissions from
fossil fuel use, land clearing and some agricultural
and industrial processes.
``Little scientific dispute remains over the
greenhouse effect. Debate, however, is ongoing over how
much the climate would change if greenhouse gas
concentrations rise unabated, and how adverse the
impacts would be. Most climate models project that
without strong policies stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations, global average temperatures during the
21st century are likely to increase above natural
variability by at least 1.5 Celsius or 2.7 Fahrenheit
compared to 1990, and not by more than 6.4 degrees
Celsius or 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit under other
assumptions.''
I just want to ask the panelists, would you be in consensus
agreement to those statements? Do you all agree that this is
real, these are the facts, this is not something that somebody
else made up or having an ideological bent because they don't
believe that this is a bunch of hocus-pocus, this is real?
Everybody agrees to this?
I see some hands already, and I am glad you are getting the
attention of this.
As CRS says,
``Greenhouse gas-induced climate change would result
in more heat waves and droughts; decreased extreme cold
episodes; increased summer warming and dryness in the
central portions of continents; more intense
precipitation when it occurs, thereby increasing runoff
and flooding; accelerated melting and loss of snow and
ice, and global sea-level rise over several decades to
centuries; slowing of the Meridional Overturning
Circulation of the Atlantic Ocean, offsetting warming
of the North Atlantic, changing European and eastern
North American weather patterns; and natural positive
feedbacks of global warming that would reinforce and
accelerate the initial human-induced greenhouse gas
increases.''
I appreciate the fact that the panel does have a consensus.
You agree with what has been stated here as facts. I think all
of you had your hands raised. I am trying to follow which line
of questioning we had in mind. I think the gentlelady's initial
statement posed some interesting issues or statements.
Mr. Wheeler. If I could, just to enforce two of the points
that Kemal and Tony made, the first on the question of
adaptation and Kemal's excellent point about Bangladesh and the
value of early warning there.
What you have is the prospect, if we are smart about it,
and if we craft assistance that will be truly helpful there, to
arrive at a situation in midcentury where, even despite climate
change, we can have fewer losses than we do now. There is
tremendous room for improvement there, and that is a
development task, and I think we should pursue it in good
faith. It will have many benefits.
The second point I wanted to make, just to reinforce again
the points they made, everyone is talking about sparks at
Copenhagen, but I think that this is actually misplaced. Just
to reiterate, let me cite the case of South Africa for a
minute.
Now, the South Africans have had a remarkable history in
the last few years, as we know. The transformation they have
gone through has been extraordinary. They still face tremendous
poverty problems, and they are sitting on a huge trove of cheap
coal. So for South Africa from a poverty perspective, what
makes sense is full steam ahead and burn that coal, and they
burned a lot of it. But this year they have made a remarkable
commitment to switch to renewable energy as far as they can,
because they have a solar belt in their own desert in northern
Botswana that can be exploited, and they are willing to
sacrifice to attain that, and they are willing to put some of
the cost in their rate base.
But they have come to the World Bank, and I am sure they
have come to our colleagues in our Government, and they have
said, can you help us with this? We have made this commitment.
I think they would fight a legal restriction in Copenhagen on
their emissions, but they are paying the price themselves.
So I am asking you in good faith, shouldn't we help them
with that, and isn't that something we can agree on that
involves no sparks and progressive change?
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank Dr. Wheeler. And in line with Mr.
Dervis' comment about adaptation, I think that the tsunami
showed we did not anticipate the situation of a serious tidal
wave emanating from an earthquake where we didn't have--we were
not prepared for it. But now we are making every effort to beef
up our abilities, whether it be satellites or whatever it is,
that we can next time be able to predict or anticipate, if
there is an earthquake, producing such a disastrous tidal wave,
that affected or killed several thousand people in Indonesia
and other countries of the world.
I think your point is well taken about adaptation. It is
always good. What is it? An ounce of cure is worth a pound of--
am I saying it right? Anyway, something to that effect.
Prevention is the best way to do this.
What I recall in my sailing on this double-hull voyaging
canoe was the inherent fear that in the middle of the night
here, I would be sleeping, and these freak rogue waves that
would be traveling the Pacific coming from nowhere. You are
talking about waves about twice the height of telephone poles
traveling at about 60 miles an hour, and I was a little worried
about something like that happening, because it could go
anywhere. Luckily, we just had a bunch of squalls and
ministorms, but not something like that of a tidal wave or
tsunami that does definitely kill people, if not given proper
preparations to prevent people being hurt the way they were at
that time.
I think we are going in between the questions. Does the
gentlelady have any questions she may want to raise for members
of the panel?
Ms. Watson. I do have some. Coming in so late, they
probably have been addressed, but I would like to question Mr.
Karl in the center there.
I understand from your testimony that several islands, the
Maldives and parts of Fiji, who are at risk of inundation due
to sea level rise, and you also mentioned the vulnerability of
cold-water coral and changes in fisheries due to climate
change. In each of these occurrences, they will have a drastic
economic impact.
Can you describe the complexity involved in predicting the
rate and the scale of future population flows related to
climate change, and do we have sufficient reliable data?
Mr. Karl. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. Basically I
want to emphasize that the basic understanding of the
fundamental science of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and
how they affect climate has not changed for 40 years.
The National Research Council back in the late 1970s, under
a couple reports--one was Dr. Smagarinski; another one was the
Charney report--actually used numbers very similar to the
numbers that our chairman just repeated in terms of the impacts
of greenhouse gases on global temperatures. This has been
validated by statements from all the major scientific societies
in the world, not only our own National Research Council, but
the other world academy of sciences panels and councils, the
IPCC and our own U.S. Global Climate Research Program. So that
part of the science we understand.
The question you raised is really at the heart of where our
uncertainty lies, and that is how well can we predict these
very important regional effects? You mentioned a number of
them, and I will just expound on some of them.
Coral and the impact of the double whammy of ocean
acidification, which we know has a strong impact on cold
corals, but in addition they likely affect all corals. And on
top of that we have something called coral bleaching when you
get very high ocean temperatures, the tendency for corals to
lose their coloration and eventually die due to these hot ocean
temperatures. Those then can be compounded by other stresses.
So you can see it is very difficult to predict exactly where
and when specific corals will be threatened.
We do know, in fact NOAA just put out a prediction for the
summer, that due to the very high ocean temperatures, the
corals are threatened in much of the Caribbean and parts of the
Central Pacific. We are in an El Nino situation on top of the
global increase in ocean temperatures, so potentially a serious
situation could be unfolding later on this summer, and as the
El Nino continues to strengthen, we may see more impacts.
With respect to sea level, one of the major uncertainties
we have is just what the contribution will be from the
Greenland ice sheet to the rise in sea level. Present
measurements suggest that Greenland is melting faster than what
we have expected, and because of this, just a recent report
that the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program put out,
the numbers for the expectations on global sea level rise have
increased to somewhere between 3 to 4 feet under the higher
emission scenarios, and right now we are on track to even
exceed the higher emission scenarios based on the amount of
carbon that has been emitted over the past 10 years.
So the real science today that has much, much importance is
to try to better understand these regional intricacies, what
are going to happen to those typhoons in the Pacific, the
hurricanes in the Atlantic, how much more intense are they
going to become. These are areas where we don't have 100
percent confidence, and this is where we need to improve our
observational set and improve our modeling capability and our
understanding to be able to provide that information so that
when we try to adapt--because clearly we are going to have to
adapt, because we already are committed to warming of another
degree Celsius because the ocean heat and the lifetime of
carbon in the atmosphere--we are going to have to better
understand what we want to adapt to, and it is important to
understand those regional changes.
Ms. Watson. I am just reminded in my term out in the North
Pacific very close to where our chair--well, the area that he
represents, there was a 45-minute warning of a tsunami coming
down to Micronesia. Well, what failed us was the equipment that
the State Department had brought us. We could not contact our
Peace Corps volunteers on the outer islands that are at sea
level, and we panicked. We kept running out to watch the water
level. Finally they announced that it had just fizzled out
somewhere in the North Pacific. But we put everything to test,
and we failed the test. So had that tsunami hit, we would have
lost lives.
So that leads me into what kind of information do we need
to plan for future disasters? And they are going to come if we
don't take care of the global warming patterns that we know
exist. So can you help on just recommending?
Mr. Karl. Yes. I can tell you, I think an important part,
and you hit on it, is an engagement with partners and
stakeholders. So sometimes, I don't want to say it is a little
thing, but it is the part you might not think about is do we
have the proper communications in those remote areas to get the
warnings out?
What I think is very important and what NOAA is trying to
do is engage our partners in these various programs. There is a
major education component to try to identify what the system
has in terms of resiliency and vulnerabilities. We do have a
number of programs in place to try and improve that capability,
and I will be happy to submit that for the record, if so
desired.
[The information referred to follows:]Karl
FTR deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Watson. If I just may go on for a minute, what we did
was we taught the local populations how to survive if they are
aboard ship and so on. But what we need to do is help them cope
when these natural disasters occur.
Let me also move on to, I am resident of southern
California. I represent Los Angeles, Culver City, Hollywood,
and I am very aware how difficult it can be to deal with water
crises. You know, we are in the desert. We got all our water up
north, 6,000 miles of delta, and no water in the south. So
political tensions increase when the areas with adequate water
supplies and those without start bickering about their
respective needs and the rights. We have three States in one.
You noted, as I understand, in your testimony that Asia is
a region of uneven water distribution and scarcity, and this
region has seen rapid urbanization, and it is a hotbed of
political uneasiness, especially in India, Pakistan and China.
How can the United States Government encourage these
nations to mitigate climate change, reduce pollution and
increase the resilience in their localities and still remain
politically friendly and not hinder development? That is a
little bit of magic thrown in, too. But can you give us some
suggestions?
Mr. Karl. Well, I think clearly it is a ground up approach,
boots on the ground. I know that we work with our International
Research Institute that we fund, and they actually go to areas.
For example, they are working on urban water supply problems in
Manila, and again it is working with the local population and
helping them understand what their resilience is and what their
adaptation capacities are; similar things with fire forecasting
and agriculture. And it really does take this engagement.
We have this body of knowledge that is extremely important
to be conveyed to folks who actually have to use it. That is
quite a challenging task, and I think it is going to require,
as we say, boots on the ground to encourage that dialogue and
discussion.
Ms. Watson. Thank you.
I see I have 1 more minute and a few seconds. If I could
continue, I would like to direct this to Mr. Dervis.
I understand in your testimony you said that the fixed
proportion of allowance revenue for adaptation financing is
small in the beginning and will grow as the value of the
allowance goes up. The U.N. and USAID have been known to
provide aid that is specifically marked for certain uses. For
example, in increasing the ability of small islands to provide
electricity to their residents, aid money has provided for the
expensive and polluting transport of diesel.
Would isolated communities, be they in the middle of an
ocean or in the plains of Africa, be better off predominantly
using solar or wind energy sources? I have got more to that,
but if you can just address that first part.
Mr. Dervis. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think the quality of any kind of foreign aid, but
particularly this adaptation aid, is, of course, going to be
very important. There have been mistakes made in the past by
various actors. I would think that there is tremendous
opportunity for renewables and nonconventional sources of
energy, including wind and solar. Of course, it depends on the
particular climate, the particular area one is talking about.
Nonetheless, there is a problem for all these sources
worldwide, and that is the extreme variability in the cost of
various sources of energy. I know many countries where wind
energy would become very competitive, provided the cost of
fossil fuels is not subsidized, or provided it doesn't go below
a certain level. So the pricing of various sources of energy,
including oil and gas, is an important component of this whole
problem.
We, of course, have faced extreme ups and downs in the
price of oil. Last year around this time it was $145 a barrel.
People were predicting it was going to be $200, and then it
collapsed to $35. And now it is up to between $60 and $70. So
this extreme variability makes it hard to choose the best mix.
But coming back to your particular question, I think it is
very important to look at the particular place, to use whatever
resources that place has in the best possible way, and to have
long-term approaches to these problems, because people can't
switch their investments and their behavior overnight. So one
has to have sustainable solutions.
Ms. Watson. We are right now in one of our committees
looking at how to particularly restructure USAID. So I would
hope that you would go to Copenhagen with some of the
suggestions that you are mentioning now. We need to restructure
how we use resources for the best outcome.
Thank you very much. I will yield back my time.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
Again, I appreciate, gentlemen, your patience in going
through the line of questions that we have. I think some of the
points that you made, and I thought Mr. Dervis' statement here
to the most vulnerable societies, gives a real serious sense of
ethical and moral challenges to those countries that have the
opportunities that they have in sharing their resources for
those countries that are poor.
I also note with interest, Mr. Dervis, your statement that
uncertainty shouldn't allow inaction, and I think you hit it
right on the nail in terms of this issue should not be taken
aback or just to think we are going to put it on the back
burner, and it is going to go away.
I do want to offer my apologies to the members of the panel
for myself and for the staff to give you a little head notice
in terms of we are now. I think we have a point of reference
clearly stated by the passage recently of the Waxman-Markey
bill, H.R. 2454, that specifically under Title IV of this bill,
which provides for an international adaptation program creating
a fund to carry out the program; consultations with USAID,
Treasury and EPA; and the two mechanisms that are also outlined
in this particular section of the bill.
I am going to be writing to each of you specifically for
your comments and for your input on the substance of this
proposed bill, because this is the only reference that we now
have in the Congress on how we are going to address this issue
of climate change and what we should be doing to help the most
vulnerable societies as has been the basis of this hearing.
It is not so much that I don't care about the rich
countries, because they already have the experts, they have all
the people to confront and be able to debate and discuss the
issues. But it is the poor countries, the most vulnerable, who
don't have the resources, who don't have the means, who don't
have the financial capabilities and the resources to address
these issues. And I think we ought not to miss this point of
making sure that they are just as important in our deliberative
process when it comes before Copenhagen in the meeting coming
up in January.
So if it is all right with you gentlemen, I will be writing
to you specifically. And I do want to say that I do value very
much your input and comments on this very important issue. I
cannot thank you enough for your taking the time to come and to
share your expertise and your understanding of this very
important issue.
It is my hope that in the coming weeks, as I will be
consulting with my colleagues on the subcommittee and also with
Chairman Berman, that we will move this forward and to see that
maybe we could finesse and make the legislation better than
what it is now, what has been proposed.
Of course, the other matter is the fact that we don't know
what the Senate is going to do with the bill. But at least we
have a starting point, and this is where I would deeply
appreciate your suggestions on how we can maybe make
improvements to the proposed legislation that is now before the
Congress and, of course, will be before the Senate.
As I said earlier, I will specifically be writing to each
of you for your comments and help on this.
All other added data or information that you wish to
support or to add into the record, without opposition, it will
be allowed, specifically this very thin report that Mr. Dervis
has requested that it be made part of the record. It is by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Paper No.
VI. It will be made part of the record. This is going to be
quite a record.
[Note: The information referred to, ``Climate Change and
Water,'' IPCC Technical Paper VI, June 2008, is not reprinted
here but is available in committee records and on the Internet
at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-
en.pdf (accessed 11/18/09).]
Mr. Faleomavaega. This is the basis of how our democratic
system operates, gentlemen. This is the opportunity that
Congress has to hold oversight hearings, and hopefully by
getting the truth, data and information that is important, that
we can then craft legislation that will address the issues that
are needed, especially the question of climate change.
Gentlemen, I have no further questions. I would like to
give each of you a chance for further comments before we close.
One closing question: There seems to be some concern about
China in terms of my understanding that China for the last 8
years has been moving aggressively in addressing emission
standards, in addressing pollution and the problems that they
face, probably even a lot more than what we have done in our
own country. To my understanding, almost 50 percent of the
energy resources from our country comes from coal. And the
supply of coal that we have in the United States, I think, is
about for 500 years or even more. We have enough coal to supply
our energy needs for the next 500 or 1,000 years. Then you have
shale oil, then you have natural gas and all these other
things. We have the natural resources.
But it is the question of environment, it is the question
of fairness or sense of equity by those who develop against
those who think that maybe to the extremes, which I think is
what we are trying to prevent here. I always get that
stereotype of corporate greed, that they don't care about
environmental needs, just as much as the opposite extreme of
environmentalists who never even go to see for themselves the
real serious needs of that given community or that given issue
that people in that specific area know more about than those
who think that they know what is best for the others.
I think the statement from the African countries makes that
quite clear about indigenous knowledge about climate conditions
for something that the so-called technologies of the modern
world are not able to address properly.
So, I would like to pose just one last question. Give me
the good and the bad about China and why you seem to have some
concern about China's involvement with Copenhagen. Let us start
from the right, Dr. Wheeler. We will go right down.
Mr. Wheeler. I had substantial involvement with China when
I was at the World Bank, Mr. Chairman, and I have to say that
they are quite concerned about their own pollution problems,
and they have actually moved quite aggressively on those.
I am personally aware of legislative reform in China as of
2 years ago. They passed a national law requiring that all
major polluting facilities disclose their pollution to the
people in the communities, which was, in China, in that
context, a pretty revolutionary change.
The party is behind that. The Communist Party itself is no
monolith. They have different factions. They have an
environmentalist faction. And my colleagues in the academic
community in China and the research communities are very aware
of the potential impact of climate change on China. They argue
the case very strongly in the internal councils in China, and I
think they have been heard.
So the Chinese are actually taking a lot of very active
measures along these lines. We need to respect that and
acknowledge that, and that should be part of our dialogue with
China.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Before Dr. Janetos says something, this
is something I always have to remind my colleagues on the
committee. When China became an independent country in 1949,
there were 400 million Chinese living at the time. After some
220 years, we barely reached 323 million people in the United
States. I don't care what kind of government, whether it is
Communist, Socialist, democracy or what, 400 million people
were living in China in 1949. So now it is 1.3 billion.
I think sometimes we seem to lose perspective when you see
the tremendous challenges for any government to address and why
it is so serious that the leaders are trying so hard. I must
say that Deng Xiaoping's historical decision in 1978 to change
China's economic policy to be involved in the free-market
system is the very reason why China now has come so
tremendously in advance, even though 800 million people in
China still live below the poverty level.
So, seriously, this is not as something that always creates
a sense of fear as if China is moving ahead of us and not
realizing they have got social and economic issues that are far
beyond what any of us here could well imagine or appreciate and
understand.
Dr. Janetos.
Mr. Janetos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I completely agree with Dr. Wheeler. We in our own
institute have research programs in two different cities in
China working on the importance of building codes for increased
energy efficiency.
China is not a monolith. It is important because it is so
large, just as we are important because we are so large.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Karl.
Thank you, Dr. Janetos.
Mr. Karl. I would comment similarly along the lines of Dr.
Janetos, we have a number of important exchange programs with
China, bilateral programs, where we share both data,
observations, observing systems. They are a critical component
for us to better understand what we discussed earlier with
respect to those important regional impacts, and we have had
some good relationships with them over the course of years.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Dervis.
Mr. Dervis. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you summarized
yourself extremely well, and one can add or summarize it
following your words, that never in history have so many poor
people been lifted out of poverty. But there are still many,
many that need to progress a lot. I do believe that one has to
keep that in mind.
One has to be particularly careful on the trade issues,
which have the greatest potential for very tough behavior and
conflict that could hurt everybody, because while obviously the
United States market is extremely important for China, we also
have seen just 3 days ago that their reserves have now
surpassed $2 trillion, of which almost $1 trillion is in U.S.
Treasury bills. So there are points on both sides to be very
careful about.
But I would like to say also with the growth, with the
importance, with the strength that China has achieved, now also
does come the time that China has to join the international
community in a very constructive way; that gradually it has to
take greater responsibility for the state of the world in a
way. And I hope that it will do that and that we all--the world
community will encourage them in that direction.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Dr. Clark.
Mr. Clark. China currently generates about 70 percent of
their energy from coal. They are walking a tightrope from
between trying to manage their economy, trying to control the
impacts that they are having on the local, the regional and the
world environment now, and at the same time trying to balance
their relationships with other nations. They are throwing
almost all the resources they can at their energy problem
because they have bought into the idea that energy access is
key to their solution in terms of addressing poverty. I think
they are building 2 gigawatts of coal-burning electrical
capacity. Every week now they are turning on a plant. And I
think annually their construction rate exceeds all of the
existing electrical-generation capacity of the continent of
Africa.
So China is of concern, first, because it is so large, and
because they are attempting to build and they have been
attempting to build a carbon-intensive infrastructure for
energy provision. Now, I am not suggesting that that is
something where they made a decision to do something that was
going to harm the planet. Those were simply the choices that
they had before them. They are aggressively trying to put
renewable energy in, but they can't throw enough renewable
energy into their system fast enough to deal with the peaking
demands they are seeing across the board.
They are also very aggressive economic competitors, and
they are rising to the level of the U.S. in terms of their
ability to influence manufacturing marketplaces throughout the
world. And for the first time, 2 of the 13 provinces in China
have now reached the point where their citizens are making
enough money so that they can go out and they can buy cars,
refrigerators, washing machines, microwaves, televisions,
everything that we take for granted here.
As the economy continues to evolve, more of the provinces
will pass over the threshold. We will see more and more
internalized consumer spending. And we see an economic process
of decoupling that people have talked about for probably
decades now that is really beginning to take root and take
hold.
And the reason that I think I am the source of some
negative energy here today about China because of the comments
that I made, I am very sympathetic of the situation that they
face. I am also very sympathetic to the needs of our economy as
well. We are reaching a period where our influence is going to
continue to wane. And our ability to encourage them to move
more rapidly in the direction of a lower carbon footprint for
their nation, our ability is going to go away, and I don't want
to see this climate negotiation go through. You mentioned that
the United States didn't participate in Kyoto. Well, to be
honest, neither did India or China. They had no binding targets
to make. They made no substantive commitments.
Would I would like to see personally is something where we
would get some form of binding commitments and participation by
all the players, as you indicated before. I think that is
absolutely critical.
So China is important in that regard. So it is a growing
industrial superpower. They have set their government system up
now. Even though their national government is pushing for
renewable energy and pushing harder on environmental impacts,
they have lost a degree of control in their economic
development plans that have devolved down to the provincial and
to the city levels. That is why they have so much access, have
the industrial capacity that has been built and continues to be
built.
They also have a problem with transparency that is our
culture as far as business is concerned, and we can't
necessarily understand just how the government is involved with
many of the state-owned enterprises. These are all challenges,
and they all need to be worked out.
The comment I made to Ranking Member Manzullo a few moments
ago was these economic issues, these are the underpinnings of
the foundation of the Copenhagen negotiations. It is not just
climate change. This is going to be a negotiation about the
economic future of the developed and developing nations and how
they are going to coexist not only environmentally, but
economically. I think that is going to begin to show up within
the negotiations that we see once they get underway.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I think the symptoms are already in
place. What I mean by this is that what happened recently with
our own economic recession, our own so-called experts on
economic policies and theories. My sense is now there seems to
be a regional response to say that the West has failed by its
own economic policies and causing the global and economic
environment in a worst way. There seems to be now issues raised
in China, Brazil, non-Western countries suggesting that there
needs to be a change in economic policies for 50 years or maybe
even 100 years. Again I am not an economist.
The whole world is always dependent on the dollar as the
basis of determining what would be the best decisions, or
evaluations, or policies affecting the economies of various
countries of the world. China is now questioning the validity
of how we have gone about in addressing the very issues as a
result of Wall Street, what lack of regulation, I guess you
might say. And correct me if I am wrong, but China and Canada
are probably among the few countries in the world economically
that are stable because they took regulatory measures to make
sure that banks don't run the derivatives and all these fancy
theories and things that we, the best economists or financial
people in Wall Street, ended up doing and find ourselves now in
economic chaos, if you want to put it in those terms. And we
are having to pay for this.
So I think in line with that we need to look at--and I am
talking about the big, big picture--not just putting our
economic situation into more stable conditions, but to say, is
the Western model really the best way to follow as a result of
what we have produced? And then causing whatever the economic
problems that we have created, it has serious implications in
world markets and other countries that are also affected by
this seriously.
So I am not criticizing, just suggesting that. Again, I am
not an economist, but I am just simply saying our failure as a
Western country in not getting our own economic policies in the
best way is now leaving some very serious questions by other
countries of the world that we need to take corrective action
and make sure that these things don't happen again.
Dr. Wheeler.
Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Chairman, if I could suggest one area
which is related to your remarks that might bear scrutiny by
you and your committee. As you think about Waxman-Markey and
improvements, it goes to the way in which the resources to be
allocated to clean technology development and so forth will be
allocated in this world, because there are two models. One is a
multilateral model, and the other is a bilateral model. And I
think that is under active discussion.
Along the lines of the point you just made, I would cite
the case of the Clean Technology Fund at the World Bank which
has now been chartered with 20 members representing the G-20
basically. So it is a new model of governance. It is not like
the old model in the World Bank. And that could be an important
channel for the funds that will be needed to address some of
these problems.
But I think for the Congress it is a very important issue
to resolve there on bilateral versus multilateral, and whether
or not and how much should be committed to these new
multilateral, broadly governed channels, because it is a
progressive new force in the world. It is something to be taken
seriously, I think.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Do you think that also by way of our own
national policies, given the fact that I think somewhere
between 25 and 30 percent of the assets in the World Bank, the
Asian Development Bank and International Monetary Fund are from
the United States, that maybe we could use that as a source of
influence on how we could better allocate the billions and
billions of dollars that these regionalist banking institutions
supposedly are to serve and to give assistance to the needs of
the world?
Again, I am not an economist. I just notice that all of you
practically have had experience, serious experience, in dealing
with these regional banks. And I just wonder have we asserted
our 25 percent ownership of these banks in such a way that
maybe addressing the very issue that we are discussing this
afternoon?
Mr. Wheeler. Sir, I would defer to my colleague, Kemal
Dervis. We have here today the ranking expert on this issue.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Dervis, would you care to comment? I
was going to say I had only one more question, but I can't help
it, I am really enjoying this dialogue.
Mr. Dervis. Well, I think the fact that these issues are so
global and involve so many countries in the world, I think it
is a good argument for strongly involving the multilateral
institutions, the World Bank, on energy in particular, because
it has long-term ability to lend and to discuss policy
frameworks, projects, sectors and so on.
At the same time I do believe bilateral efforts also have
their role to play. I think the strengthening of the U.S. aid
mechanism of USAID is important. For the next two or three
decades, we will have both channels, the national channels, the
bilateral channels and the multilateral ones. I have, of
course, lived in the multilateral ones for a good part of my
life, and I do believe they are quite useful. But also
taxpayers like to see their own country act, not always just
multilaterals, so it is a question of equilibrium. One has to
use both.
I do believe the very fact that the World Bank is in
Washington, just very close, makes it an institution that is
close to American policymakers. It is easy to talk, to discuss
things. And at the same time it is multilateral, the whole
world is there, and therefore it is an instrument that can be
used very effectively.
Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Gentlemen, I think I have held you here
too long here this afternoon. Again, I really, really
appreciate your participation and the comments that you have
made. It is going to be a tremendous help to the subcommittee.
Again, you will be getting a letter from me in the very
near future to see how we can better attack the Waxman-Markey
version of how we can be helpful to these vulnerable societies
dealing with climate change.
Thank you very, very much. The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
