[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
COPENHAGEN AND BEYOND: IS THERE A SUCCESSOR TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-62
__________
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
53-303 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
David S. Abramowitz, Chief Counsel deg.
Kristin Wells, Deputy Chief Counsel deg.
Alan Makovsky, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
David Fite, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
Pearl Alice Marsh, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
David Killion, Senior Professional Staff Member deg.
James Ritchotte, Professional Staff Member deg.
Michael Beard, Professional Staff Member deg.
Amanda Sloat, Professional Staff Member deg.
Peter Quilter, Professional Staff Member deg.
Daniel Silverberg, Counsel deg.
Brent Woolfork, Junior Professional Staff Member
Shanna Winters, Senior Policy Advisor and Counsel deg.
Jasmeet Ahuja, Professional Staff Member deg.
Laura Rush, Professional Staff Member/Security Officer deg.
Genell Brown, Senior Staff Associate/Hearing Coordinator
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
WITNESSES
The Honorable Todd D. Stern, Special Envoy for Climate Change,
U.S. Department of State....................................... 9
The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth, President, United Nations
Foundation and Better World Fund (Former United States Senator) 33
The Honorable Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global
Climate Change (Former Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans
and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs)........ 41
Steven Groves, J.D., Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow, The
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation.. 51
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Todd D. Stern: Prepared statement.................. 13
The Honorable Dana Rohrabacher, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California: Material submitted for the record..... 23
The Honorable Timothy E. Wirth: Prepared statement............... 36
The Honorable Eileen Claussen: Prepared statement................ 43
Steven Groves, J.D.: Prepared statement.......................... 53
APPENDIX
Hearing notice................................................... 72
Hearing minutes.................................................. 73
The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress from
the State of California, and Chairman, Committee on Foreign
Affairs: Prepared statement.................................... 75
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......... 77
The Honorable Gerald E. Connolly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Virginia: Prepared statement................. 86
Written responses from the Honorable Todd D. Stern to questions
submitted for the record by the Honorable Barbara Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 88
Written responses from the Honorable Timothy E. Wirth to
questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Barbara Lee 95
Written responses from the Honorable Eileen Claussen to questions
submitted for the record by the Honorable Barbara Lee.......... 102
COPENHAGEN AND BEYOND: IS THERE A SUCCESSOR TO THE KYOTO PROTOCOL?
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 4, 2009
House of Representatives,
Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in
room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Howard L. Berman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Chairman Berman. The hearing will come to order.
I will yield myself time for an opening statement and the
ranking member as well and the representative from American
Samoa and the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo, if he
comes, for 3-minute statements and then other members for 1-
minute opening statements.
In a little over 1 month, world leaders will gather in
Copenhagen, Denmark, in an effort to tackle one of the most
difficult challenges of our time--global climate change.
Numerous studies have warned that the failure to act quickly
and decisively on global warming will have disastrous
consequences. Many developing countries will face the threat of
severe flooding, the loss of arable lands, and the spread of
cholera, malaria, and other diseases.
A World Bank Study released last May estimated that storm
surges resulting from rising sea levels could threaten 52
million people and 29,000 square kilometers of agricultural
land in developing coastal countries around the world. This
will likely lead to mass migration, political instability, and
even failed states.
While countries in the developing world will bear the brunt
of climate change, the effects of global warming will also be
felt here in the United States. According to the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, a consortium of 13 Federal agencies,
climate change will affect almost every aspect of American
life, from access to food, to the state of our health, to the
amount of energy we use. In my home State of California, where
water is already scarce, increasing temperatures could lead to
a major water crisis--in fact, I think we are having a major
water crisis right now.
While there is growing certainty about the consequences of
climate change, it is unfortunate that the same cannot be said
about the prospect for charting a new course in Copenhagen.
Will the result be a comprehensive, binding agreement to reduce
global emissions and provide aid to developing countries to
deal with the impacts of climate change? Or will we see, as is
more widely expected, a more general framework agreement with a
``roadmap'' to a future deal?
At this late stage, no consensus has been reached on
specific objectives for lowering global greenhouse gas
emissions or on how best to help poor countries adapt to
climate change. Differences also remain on what funding levels
are adequate to achieve these objectives and how to help
developing countries access clean energy technologies while
protecting intellectual property rights. In part, this is a
result of the fact that the United States has limited
flexibility to negotiate at Copenhagen because Congress has yet
to provide clear guidance on emission levels and other key
issues.
In June, the House passed legislation that would reduce
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels
and provide assistance for poor countries to adapt to the
impacts of climate change, develop clean energy technologies,
and reduce emissions from deforestation. The Senate has yet to
act, but Majority Leader Reid has announced he wants
the deg.Senate committees to complete their work
before Thanksgiving. I personally strongly support Senators
Kerry and Boxer's efforts to move this legislation soon.
If we hope to achieve a meaningful international agreement
on climate change, the United States will have to make serious
commitments to reduce its emissions and to help developing
countries. Many nations, both developing and industrialized,
have been very clear about the need for U.S. leadership in this
arena. Regrettably, in recent years, such leadership has been
lacking.
In his recent speech before the United Nations General
Assembly, President Obama made it clear that the world can no
longer postpone a serious response to climate change. He
acknowledged that many nations will be devastated by drought
and famine if we fail to alter our current course. Just
yesterday, Chancellor Merkel spoke passionately about this
issue.
One thing this committee can do to help combat climate
change is to begin the process of modernizing our foreign
assistance to deg.institutions and programs. This
will allow us to more effectively help developing countries
meet their energy needs in an environmentally sustainable
manner and adapt to climate-related challenges. I am hopeful
that we will begin considering foreign assistance reform
legislation early next year.
Today's hearing will help us gain a better understanding of
the challenges and opportunities at Copenhagen, the positions
of the various parties, and the possible outcomes of the
climate change negotiations.
To help us explore these complex issues, we have a number
of excellent witnesses with us today, which I will soon
introduce. But, first, I would like to turn to my friend and
colleague, the ranking member, the gentlelady from Florida, Ms.
Ros-Lehtinen, for any opening remarks she might want to make.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much as always, Mr.
Chairman, for this hearing and for the opportunity to make
opening statements.
The Obama administration has made clear its desire to try
to reach what it says will be an historic agreement to replace
the expiring Kyoto Protocol at the upcoming United Nations
climate change conference in Copenhagen. However, there is
growing concern about the implications of such an agreement.
Many of the proposals already put forward in the name of
fighting global climate change contain provisions that, if
adopted, would do great harm to U.S. interests.
A recurring theme is the establishment of new and
unaccountable United Nations' style organizations acting as
global regulatory bodies and armed with far-reaching powers
that current U.N. bureaucrats can only dream of. Perhaps more
troubling is that, under many plans, these international
bureaucrats would have tens of millions of dollars at their
disposal to spread around the world. Based on past experience,
much of that money would undoubtedly disappear into the hands
of favored individuals and corrupt governments, never to be
seen again.
The prospect of a powerful, unaccountable, international
regulatory bureaucracy leads directly to an even greater
concern, namely, the undermining of U.S. sovereignty. Behind
the urgent calls for collective action on climate change is the
fact that many of these proposals are intended to be mandatory
and enforced by international authorities.
There are other problems with the proposals put forth. One
example is the demand by developing countries that the United
States and other developed countries pay them tens and even
hundreds of billions of dollars in compensation for taking
action to address climate change. The proposed sums defy
belief.
China's solution is to have the United States and the
developed nations contribute up to 1 percent of their gross
domestic product to the developing world annually. For the
U.S., that would amount to $140 billion per year. Now, we have
been getting used to speaking in terms of trillions of dollars,
but $140 billion per year every year still sounds like a lot of
money to me. Some of the developing countries have insisted
that this money or payment to them must be a legally binding
obligation that, quote, deg. ``cannot be subject to
decisions of developed country governments or
legislatures.'' End quote. deg. Basically, under these
proposals, the American taxpayer would be required to subsidize
other countries; and the U.S. Government and specifically the
U.S. Congress would have no say in it.
Also raising concerns is the disproportion in the
obligations and the idea being considered for the U.S. and
other developed nations to voluntarily impose significant
restrictions on ourselves while granting developing countries a
pass. This is one of the most objectionable provisions in the
current Kyoto Accord, but it has already made its appearance in
these new negotiations.
Although China is now the world's largest producer of
carbon emissions and India is racing up to catch it, these and
other countries have repeatedly stated that they have no
intention of adopting costly measures to address this
situation, although they are happy to have the United States,
Europe, and other developed countries do so. Only 2 weeks ago,
India's environment minister stated that, quote, deg.
``India will never accept internationally legally binding
emission reduction targets. These are for developed countries
and developed countries alone.'' End quote. deg.
Developing countries are also targeting intellectual
property rights, or IPR, by demanding free access to clean
energy technologies. These proposals include prohibiting
companies from patenting their own creations, compulsory
licensing, and the waiving of all royalties. One can only
imagine the consequences in China and elsewhere from the
removal of such international property rights protections,
given China's role as the number one violator of intellectual
property rights in the world.
And, finally, there are the enormous economic costs for the
American people. Many of the proposals being discussed are so
sweeping that our economy would have to be restructured in
order to achieve them. No credible estimate of the actual cost
to our economy in terms of money, lost jobs, and reduced
economic output have been put forward, but at a time of
economic distress and widespread unemployment here at home, we
should avoid imposing additional burdens on U.S. businesses and
individuals.
These are but some of the problems relating to the Kyoto
Accord and negotiations for a successor treaty. It is my hope
that President Obama will bear these facts in mind and not rush
to sign the U.S. on to an agreement that could seriously harm
our own interests.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentlelady.
Now I am pleased to recognize the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, deg. and the Global
Environment, the gentleman from American Samoa, Mr.
Faleomavaega.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we speak, Mr. Chairman, the climate change negotiators
from 175 nations are meeting in Barcelona, Spain, for a final
week of official talks before next month's climate change
summit in Copenhagen. That summit offers a crucial opportunity
to advance a new and a more comprehensive agreement to replace
the Kyoto Protocols after our country's own absence for some 8
years now, hopefully to limit greenhouse gas emissions and
avoid the worst consequences of climate change.
Fortunately, the U.S. is playing a positive role in that
effort, as President Obama has long recognized the need for
American leadership in reducing emissions, developing a clean
energy economy, and addressing the impact of global warming.
Passage of the Waxman-Markey bill last June has
demonstrated that the House is rising to the occasion. I hope
and believe that the Senate will soon make important progress
as well, despite yesterday's Republican boycott of the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee markup of the Kerry and
Boxer bill. The generally positive developments in Washington
have added impetus to the negotiations in Copenhagen and
enhance the prospect for a successful agreement on tackling the
manifest problems of global warming.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that the United States and other
developed countries have a moral obligation to provide adequate
and sustainable levels of assistance to the most vulnerable
countries. Those most adversely and immediately affected by
climate change are those least responsible for the greenhouse
gas emissions.
Driving global warming, as the World Development Report
2010 noted, are high-income countries with one-sixth of the
world's population, responsible for nearly two-thirds--and I
repeat, Mr. Chairman, two-thirds--of the greenhouse gases
currently in the atmosphere. Yet those living in developing
countries are bearing and will continue to bear the
overwhelming majority of the costs.
Thus far, Mr. Chairman, however, there has been relatively
little discussion in Washington of the problems posed by
climate change for developing countries and even less
commitment of resources. Indeed, the amounts directed to the
developing world by the Waxman-Markey and Kerry-Boxer bills are
woefully inadequate. That is the key reason why I have focused
the climate change work on the subcommittee on the impacts of
the most vulnerable societies and the resources required to
reduce or avoid those impacted.
Mr. Chairman, the Europeans, though more forthright in
making official estimates of the resources needed by developing
countries, have not been much forthcoming in making
commitments. Just last Friday, for example, the European Union
asserted that developed countries needed to provide some $75
billion annually to developing countries by the year 2020 to
help them cope with climate change, beginning with a fast
start. And all of this, unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, despite
pointing out the sums needed, the EU failed to state how much
it was willing to provide, let alone how costs are to be
divided amongst 27 members.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but I will wait for
another chance to say more.
Chairman Berman. We will include the entire statement in
the record.
And now who seeks recognition on the minority side?
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Chairman, seeing that Mr. Manzullo
isn't here and seeing that I do sit in on those particular
hearings held by that subcommittee, might I claim Mr.
Manzullo's time.
Chairman Berman. As long as it doesn't establish a
precedent.
Mr. Rohrabacher. All right. This is nonprecedent setting.
Chairman Berman. This is a waiver for vital national
security interests.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman is recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. Rohrabacher. And I appreciate that, considering you
know what my positions are on this issue, but I will make it
clear for the hearing.
Chairman Berman. I am hoping it is going to help me.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note that the words that are
being used today: ``Climate change.'' Climate change. Did they
always call it climate change? I seem to remember that up until
recently the words were ``global warming.'' And, in fact, for
two decades we were inundated with and smothered with this word
global warming was this tremendous threat that was about to
engulf the world.
Let me just note that the reason why it has changed from
global warming to climate change is that all the predictions
that we were told, these dire predictions over the last 20
years, have been proven wrong. Instead of getting warmer for
the last 9 years, it has not been getting warmer. It has
actually been getting cooler. In fact, the much-heralded
melting of the arctic ice cap has for the last 2 years reversed
itself. And that is just in terms of global warming not being
proven. But man-made global warming we hear more and more
scientists stepping forward to repudiate this flawed theory,
global warming, which is being used basically to attain a
political agenda through basically manipulation of the
scientific establishments in various countries.
Let me note that if we move forward--just for example, I
will just say, with all due respect to my good chairman and
friend, Eni Faleomavaega, the countries are not putting two-
thirds--no countries, including developing countries, are
putting two-thirds of the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Ninety percent of all greenhouse gases are caused naturally.
And the focus of controlling carbon dioxide, which is a very
miniscule part of the atmosphere, does not make sense to many
scientists who are now stepping forward, finally, after this
barrage of propaganda which is being used, Mr. Chairman, to
justify what we are talking about today, an attempt to create
global controls over the United States of America and a
compromise of our sovereignty which will undermine our
prosperity and our freedom.
This is an issue that should be taken very seriously; and
people should note that, after 20 years of hearing about global
warming, now it has become climate change, which has a great
deal of significance to the issue that we are talking about
today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
We do have two panels today, so to the extent members can
include their statements in the record, that would be helpful.
But I will now recognize any member of the majority who--
the gentlelady from California, Ms. Watson, is recognized for 1
minute.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a very important hearing that you are holding
today, and I look forward to Copenhagen. As we turn our
attention to the facts and figures, the position of the
administration, and the timeline of our Senate colleagues, I
ask that we keep a few things in mind.
Firstly, we all live in the environment. When a pipe
breaks, the roof starts leaking, or something blows a fuse in
our homes, we fix it. We can debate about why it happened and
how it happened, but in the end the only thing we can do is
make sure the problem is fixed as best as we know how. The
environment and our home, we have a responsibility to take care
of it.
Also, our environment very clearly affects all of us. The
Samoan people survived a tsunami just last month. Villagers in
Ethiopia face hunger daily because of the seemingly endless
drought. And in my own district, California, Los Angeles, we
constantly face water shortages that are exacerbated by the
reduction in the rainwater over the years. Therefore,
Copenhagen represents an opportunity for us to collectively
think through and act to ensure that we live in a healthy
environment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Anyone? The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Bilirakis, is
recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ranking
Member Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you for calling this important
hearing. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel
of witnesses.
I am deeply concerned about the potential consequences of
Copenhagen. As we are dealing with double-digit unemployment
for the first time in decades, the last thing we need coming
out of Copenhagen is an energy tax that will drive energy costs
through the roof for families and hamstring small businesses
who are trying to survive and create jobs. I am worried that
any international treaty addressing climate change will
severely disadvantage American businesses and shift jobs to
other nations like China and India which do not cap emissions
and will not be encumbered by any protocols.
We must balance the need to protect our environment with
the need for economic growth and job creation. Unfortunately, I
believe that any resolve at Copenhagen will fail to effectively
strike that balance and will do more harm than good.
We most certainly should not agree to live by the terms and
conditions of any international treaty or legislative body
other than the United States Congress.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
submit the rest of my testimony for the record.
Chairman Berman. Who else on our side seeks recognition?
Mr. Carnahan is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since coming to Congress, I have advocated for the U.S. to
reengage in a more commonsense international policy in terms of
climate negotiations. It is incumbent upon us as a country, I
believe, to lead by example, and we have a responsibility to
future generations here at home, to our fellow nations abroad,
and it is an opportunity for us to lead by example, to use the
very best of American science and innovation to create a new
generation of green entrepreneurs and green jobs. This is what
I think the opportunity is at hand to address this issue.
The prior administration, unfortunately, repeatedly denied
the very existence of climate change, attempted to silence
scientists that spoke out about this. I think the weight of the
evidence, the urgency, and the magnitude of the problem
deserves our very best attention and our very best efforts; and
I appreciate us having this hearing here today.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the gentleman, and I will put my full
statement into the record with consent.
Chairman Berman. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I just want to say two things: That the era
of global warming denying is over. Thank God. For the last 8
years we have denied the compelling evidence, the overwhelming
evidence of the reality of global warming, and the time for
that denial is now over. And, secondly, this is an opportunity
for the United States to reassert global leadership, having
squandered that opportunity these last 8 years. We can now take
our rightful place at the table.
And, as we heard from one of our key allies at the joint
session just yesterday, from Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of
Germany, our allies are looking for that leadership and looking
for that cooperation. This is a great opportunity.
Thank you for holding the hearing, Mr. Chairman. I yield
back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey, is recognized
for 1 minute.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This hearing is not only important to our State of
California and our country and our world but to the sanity of
Members of Congress. Because what a welcome relief it is, Mr.
Chairman, to have the opportunity to hear this expert group of
panelists we are going to have and the witnesses today and on a
subject that is not health care. So it is a subject we cannot
ignore, and it is going to give us a nice relief to be thinking
about something equally as important.
Thank you.
Chairman Berman. A panel on the health care implications of
global warming.
The gentlelady from Nevada, Ms. Berkley, is recognized for
1 minute.
Ms. Berkley. I have no statement at this time.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from New York, Mr. Crowley.
Mr. Crowley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit my
opening statement for the record.
Chairman Berman. Without objection.
Mr. Crowley. I just want to comment just briefly and very
quickly.
I hear repeatedly from my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle this is not the right time to do this. If this is not
the right time, when will it be the right time to do this?
It was not the right time in 1935, it is argued, to create
Social Security. But today we see that Social Security has been
one of the great achievements of our country. During the middle
of the Great Depression, we did that.
It was not the right time in 1965 to create the Medicare
system during the Vietnam War and during the civil rights
movement. It was not a good time to be doing things like that.
It is not the right time to be doing global warming because
of the economic condition of our country. This is exactly the
right time to be doing this, talking about new jobs, creating
green jobs for America, and at the same time reducing pollution
and contributing positively toward the growth of industry in
not only our country but throughout the world. This isn't only
a good time, this is the only time we are going to have an
opportunity to do this again and get it right.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentleman who knows something about the water crisis in
California, Mr. Costa, is recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It is a timely hearing. I think it is clear and
undisputable that the climate has always been changing. I think
the debate currently is whether or not and how much we are
contributing to that climate change. I think there is a
substantial amount of evidence that we are contributing
significantly to that climate change; and I think it provides
tremendous opportunities, if we take advantage of them, for the
economy and for new technologies and for a new generation of
energy development.
In California, we are largely dependent upon our water
supplies through Mother Nature's icebox which is the Sierra
Nevada, the snow that takes place there. We need that to
continue. With climate change, we need to understand how we are
going to better balance our water resources in a water-
deficient State. And so I think it is very important, not just
from the standpoint of energy but from a host of other water
resource and related energy issues, that we balance these needs
and that we take the time to do what is right.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired.
The gentlelady from Arizona is recognized for 1 minute.
Ms. Giffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am really pleased that Mr. Stern is here today and that
we will have a chance to hear from him and other members as
well. This is a hearing that is incredibly important and is
coming at an important time. I am excited about traveling to
Copenhagen with other Members of the Congress to have a global
conversation about what is happening with climate change.
I come from Arizona and, very much like my colleague from
California, the problems that we are facing are truly grave.
Climate change will affect our part of the country to a much
greater extent than other parts. Arizona is highly dependent on
the Colorado River. The Colorado River has over 25 million
users, increased population growth in that area, and the
Colorado is beginning to run quite low.
The invasive species that have come in because of climate
change as well, the buffelgrass infestation, for example, the
infestation of the bark beetle, the mega fires that we are
having across the West, these are not by coincidence. It is
real, and it is happening.
The positive aspect of what often seems as a doom-and-gloom
situation is that this is a human-caused problem, and it can be
a human solution as well. And that is what I am looking forward
to in terms of creating new jobs with a new type of energy and
a new way of addressing this problem. So there are real
possibilities here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
We are now pleased to welcome Todd Stern to the committee.
He was named as the special envoy for climate change on January
26, 2009, by Secretary Hillary Clinton. In that position, he
plays a central role in developing clean energy and climate
policy, both domestic and international.
Prior to his service with the Obama administration, Mr.
Stern was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress,
where he focused on climate change and environmental issues.
From 1997 to 1999, he led the Clinton administration's
initiative on global climate change, acting as the senior White
House negotiator at the Kyoto and Buenos Aires negotiations.
Mr. Stern, thank you very much for being here, and we look
forward to your opening statement and the questions.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TODD D. STERN, SPECIAL ENVOY FOR
CLIMATE CHANGE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Stern. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I must say, I have not yet been accused during the year of
being able to provide relief to an issue that is even harder
than this, so I appreciate the welcome. And I think this issue
will be a tossup as to whether health care or this is more
complicated.
But, in any event, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen, and members of the committee for
inviting me here today.
I would like to give you a brief update today on the state
of negotiations. Time is growing short. We have just 32 days
left until the beginning of the Copenhagen conference, and
there is still a lot of work to do.
Broadly speaking, I think it is fair to say that progress
has been too slow to date, especially in the formal U.N.
negotiating track. We are also operating intensively on other
tracks--the major economies forum of 17 major economies,
developed and developing, and the bilateral track--both of
which have been more constructive. But the formal negotiating
track is still quite problematic.
The developed-developing country divide that has run down
the center of climate change discussions for the past 17 years
is still, I am afraid, alive and well. Developing countries
tend to see a problem not of their own making and they are
being asked to fix it in ways which they fear could stifle
their ability to lift their own standards of living. And, of
course, we cannot expect developing countries or indeed any
country to commit to actions that they cannot plausibly achieve
or to make promises that are antithetical to their need to
fight poverty and build a better life for their citizens.
We must send a message that the effort to reach a new
climate change agreement is not simply about putting a cap on
emissions. It is also about development. And in the world we
now inhabit, the only sustainable development is low carbon
development.
But let me say what is not helpful is the way that some
developing countries, in any event, focus more on citing
chapter and verse for dubious interpretations of the original
Framework Convention Treaty or the Bali Action Plan, designed
to prove that they don't have any responsibility for action
now, rather than thinking through pragmatic ways to find common
ground and start solving the problem.
We recognize that developed and developing countries, even
the major ones, can be expected to do different things. For
example, the economy-wide reductions against a specific
baseline such as 2005 for developed countries on the one hand
and strong actions by developing countries that will have the
effect of reducing their emissions versus their business as
usual trend lines. Those are quite different things.
And we agree that developed countries have particular
responsibilities that are different from developing countries
with respect to providing financial and technology assistance
to poorer countries. We not only understand this, but we have
made a number of very forward-leaning and constructive
proposals in this regard.
We know that developed countries, including the United
States, have a special responsibility, given our role in
producing the emissions already in the atmosphere and because
of our greater wealth and capability. What we do not agree
with, though, is that we should commit to implement what we
promise to do while major developing countries make no
commitment at all, hiding behind a misreading of the principle
of common but differentiated responsibilities and respected
capabilities.
And we do not agree that only the actions of developed
countries should be submitted to a serious transparency and
accountability regime, including peer review by other
countries, while the major developing countries should be
subject to no peer review at all unless the actions were paid
for by developed countries.
The mentality that looks at the world through those lenses
will not produce an agreement in Copenhagen. We have to do
better. After all, we are not engaged right now in a debating
society about the exegesis of section X of subpart 1 of sub-
subpart B of the Framework Convention or the Bali Action Plan.
We are seeking to put in place a new agreement based, broadly
on the concepts of those underlying documents, to be sure,
intended to safeguard our future and the future of our
children, to take an important step, in a word, toward saving
the planet and improving the economic, environmental, and
natural security future of America and the world.
This is a profound undertaking, it is a profound
responsibility, and we need to all treat it as such. The sooner
we get past the mentality of resisting responsible action and
the sooner we get into the mentality of searching for pragmatic
common ground, the better off we will be.
Ninety-seven percent of the growth of emissions between now
and 2030 is projected to come from developing countries, and
about 50 percent of that from China alone. We cannot solve the
problem without major action by the emerging market countries,
absolutely consistent, with their imperatives to grow and
eradicate poverty but major action nonetheless. And no country
holds the fate of the Earth in its hands more than China. In
our view, it is precisely because of their common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities
that they and others need to step up.
Now, paradoxically, while the negotiations are in a
difficult state, it is also true that we are at a moment in
history when more countries, including China, India, Brazil,
South Africa, are in fact taking stronger action or are poised
to take stronger action than ever before to combat climate
change. And the negotiations going on right now have helped to
drive these countries and others, developed countries as well,
to recognize the seriousness of the problem and to assert and
recognize the need for global action. So we need to find a way
to capture the positive effects on the ground--and there are
many--to get a deal, and I firmly believe that we can do this.
What are the key issues that we need to make progress on?
They are mitigation issues that I have already referenced. Both
developed and major developing countries need to not only
undertake those actions at home but reflect them in an
international agreement. Those actions must be subject to a
solid transparency and accountability regime. There must be
financing provisions to get to a deal, and in this regard I
hope that the Senate takes this into account as it pushes its
own version of a bill. There need to be provisions for
technology assistance, assistance on adaptation, forestry, and
the like.
We all, both in Congress and in the administration, have a
lot of work ahead. The world is watching our legislative
progress closely; and the more progress that is made by the
time of Copenhagen, the better off we will be. What we do or
don't do domestically is hugely important. It is, in a word,
central to our credibility and our leverage.
For our part, we will continue intensively engaging with
key countries and country blocs between now and Copenhagen. My
team right now is in Barcelona participating in the broad
framework convention negotiations that go on periodically. And
President Obama and the Secretary of State, along with our
entire administration, are committed to seizing each
opportunity to make progress.
Our objective, of course, is to pursue the strongest
possible outcome we can get in Copenhagen consistent with the
science and mindful of the necessity to be practical and
pragmatic. The health and safety of our children's future
depends upon it.
I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stern follows:]Todd
Stern 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]
Chairman Berman. Thank you very much, and I yield myself 5
minutes to start the questioning.
Step back, if you would, for a moment, Mr. Stern, and just
sort of tell us, why is it more important now than before for
the international community to act soon to lower greenhouse gas
emissions and help the developing countries that are affected
by climate change?
Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, I think it has been important for
quite some time. I think it grows ever more important, because
the problem gets worse and gets more visibly worse. If you look
at the evidence from all around the world, whether it is from
the Arctic, to the Antarctic, to glaciers melting in the
Himalayas, to droughts in our country and around the world, to
extreme weather events, to the force of hurricanes and the
like, there is just a huge imperative to begin to take action.
And the steps that need to be taken involve essentially the
transformation of the energy base of the global economy. It
involves the transformation of our energy infrastructure. You
have got to start. The longer that we wait, the worse it gets.
We are on a track to go--if we keep to our business as usual,
we are on a track for a temperature increase that would lead to
potentially catastrophic consequences. And so it is way past
time, but it is certainly time to take the action that you have
referenced.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
Yvo de Boer, who oversees the U.N. negotiation, said
recently that there is not sufficient time to reach a
comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen. He also hoped that
Copenhagen wouldn't simply be a declaration of principles.
Keeping those comments in mind, what are the expectations for
Copenhagen? Will the outcome be a new roadmap similar to Bali
that sets a new date for a binding comprehensive international
agreement? What would the components of a framework agreement
look like?
Mr. Stern. Mr. Chairman, I think that, in a word, the
objective, what success will be in Copenhagen, is the strongest
possible agreement we can get. I would think that we would
certainly hope that that would go well beyond simply a
restatement of Bali or a roadmap for further negotiations.
I would note in this regard the Prime Minister of Denmark,
who has more than the average concern and interest in the state
of these negotiations, has spoken recently, gave a speech to a
group of international legislatures--Congressman Markey was
actually there--on the 24th of October in which he called for
full-tilt pressure to move forward on getting a comprehensive
legal agreement but recognizing that that might not be in the
cards and doesn't look like it is in the cards for December,
that we should make progress on a political agreement that hit
each of the main elements--mitigation commitments, transparency
and accountability, financing, technology, force adaptation--
and to do all of that in a strong agreement that leads the way
to a full legal instrument perhaps next year or as soon as
possible.
So I think that we want something certainly beyond simply a
declaration that says we are going keep working on this. We
want a real agreement.
Chairman Berman. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time and recognize the
ranking member for 5 minutes.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you, Mr. Stern. I have a few questions. We won't have enough
time to answer them, but just some of my concerns.
President Obama has said that he supports the proposed
reduction in global emissions by 50 percent by the year 2050
and that the U.S. should be able to reduce our own emissions by
over 80 percent. What are the estimated costs in the terms of
foregone economic growth, jobs, income in meeting this target?
Following that, the developing countries argue that
significant reductions on emissions will reduce economic growth
and that the developed countries were not subjected to similar
restrictions in their history. Are they wrong in believing that
these proposals will reduce economic growth? And if yes, why do
the same arguments not hold true for the developed world?
And, lastly, China has repeatedly stated that it will only
accept any limits, as I said in my opening statement, on its
emissions--it will not accept any limits, even though it is the
largest in the world. How can the targets you have outlined,
without cooperation by China and other developed countries,
work?
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stern. Thank you very much, Madam Ranking Member. Let
me try to take these quickly in order.
Your first question is about costs, and there are different
assessments of that. I think that the assessments within the
administration are quite, quite modest. I don't remember the
exact number, but I think it is 100-something dollars over the
course of a year. And we can get you that exact number, but it
is quite modest for the costs of taking action. And let me say
that it is also our view that this is an enormous growth
opportunity with respect to the whole area of clean energy and
clean technology development.
We are going to be--whether we acknowledge it today or we
acknowledge it next year or we acknowledge it in 10 years, we
are going to be in a low carbon world. There isn't any way
around it. At some point, people recognize that smoking
cigarettes causes cancer. At some point, people are going to
recognize that too much carbon in the atmosphere is going to be
damaging; and we are going to, the whole world----
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. I am sorry--just because we have such
limited time. So what is the estimated cost in terms of growth,
jobs, and income in the target?
Mr. Stern. My staff just handed me a note saying that what
I said was I think it is in the range of 100-something dollars
a year. I see the EPA estimate $100-175 a year, is our EPA
estimate.
But there is going to be a huge--a huge industry, set of
industries that grow up in the course of converting to low
carbon. We are either going to be a leader in that--and we have
the capacity in terms of our technological ability, our capital
formation, our financial industry, et cetera, to be a leader
there. We can be a leader, or we can fall behind.
Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. The section about China saying repeatedly
that it is not going to limit their emissions. How is this
going to work worldwide?
Mr. Stern. The problem--and you are raising a very good
point, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen. But the issue here is not that China
or the other countries are not taking real action. They
actually are taking real action. The issue is and the
difficulty and what we are trying to work on now is that they
are much more willing--the way I often put this is countries
are willing to do more than they are willing to agree to do in
an international treaty.
If you look at what China is doing in terms of their
reduction in energy intensity, in terms of their renewable
targets, in terms of what they are doing on nuclear energy, in
terms of what they are doing on energy efficiency, it is quite,
quite significant; and it certainly appears from everything
that both I have seen and that others who are interacting a lot
with China have seen is they have started to get the bit
between their teeth and they are going to move on this.
And the thing that I worry about is not so much that is not
our pushing China now but that we are going to be chasing China
if we don't get our own act together 5 years from now and out
into the future. So they are acting, but they are resisting
making promises in an international agreement. And that is a
problem, and we are working on that, but it is not the case
that they are not doing anything.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
The gentleman from American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I want to
personally welcome Mr. Stern also this morning for our hearing.
A couple of observations, and please correct me if I am
wrong in these observations, Mr. Stern.
Our country's population makes up only 4 percent of the
world's population and yet we consume about 30 percent of the
world's energy resources. Of course, in fairness to our
country, we are also the biggest contributor to the needs of
the many problems the world currently has. No question that
India and China have to be part of this whole negotiation or
summit that is going to be coming up in Copenhagen or else the
whole issue is a failure.
The question is also whether or not the administration is
very firm about its commitment in seeing that, as part of the
negotiation process, we do identify and help the most
vulnerable societies in the developing countries that not
necessarily are the producers of these greenhouse gas
emissions.
I remember 9 years ago, and right where you are sitting,
was the former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, when the
administration first started at that time. And the question
that I raised before him, where was the administration's
position on climate change? And I remember Secretary Powell
said: ``In a matter of 2 months, we will let you know about
this.'' Every indication was that he was going to continue the
engagement process of the Kyoto Protocols. Now, as you know,
the Senate killed any indication of whether or not we support
the Kyoto Protocol.
And I agree with the fact that the Kyoto Protocols had many
provisions that were very unfair to the needs of our country.
But the criticism that I have had, not only did we take
ourselves away from the negotiation table, we just simply had
nothing to do with Kyoto anymore. And it is almost going to the
idea that if you are not at the table you are going to be on
the menu. And I believe, Mr. Stern, that for these years we
have been on the menu, ridiculed, criticized. And to say that
the most productive country in the world is not even at the
negotiating table, whether or not this issue is very important
not only to our own national security but to the needs of the
entire world, that we just simply were in absentia, if you
will, for these past 8 years.
Now, I know, with due respect to my good friends who still
question whether or not climate change really is a serious
issue that our own country should be a participant on, I wanted
to ask you--and I could not agree with my good friend and
colleague from Virginia that the years of global warming denial
is over. I think 8 years is long enough.
When I was at the Bali conference, Australia was the first
country that signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we were
sitting there so embarrassed. Because 190 countries gave
Australia a standing ovation for its commitment to global
change, and we just stood there like a--well, just embarrassed,
if you want my opinion.
But I would like to ask you, what is the administration's
position about helping the most vulnerable societies at the
Copenhagen discussions coming up next month?
Mr. Stern. We think that helping the most vulnerable
societies is a crucial part on any new agreement, Congressman.
This comes up in a couple of different places.
One is the issue of adaptation. We have put in a strong
position in support of adaptation particularly focused to the
poorest and most vulnerable countries. It arises in the context
of technology assistance, and it arises in the context of
financial assistance. We are in favor of all of those things in
a reasonable way.
The ranking member pointed out some of the fairly
outlandish numbers that are thrown around by some developing
countries; and certainly when you talk about things like 1
percent of GDP, that is silly. But real support is absolutely
essential. And not only is real support essential, but we
believe it is essential now. We believe that we should get
going with an agreement that can take effect and that can start
moving right away, not be delayed for several years; and we
hope that is what we can help to make happen.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask Mr. Stern,
I would deeply appreciate some clear statements from the
administration about the substance of the Waxman-Markey bill
provisions regarding what kind of assistance are we serious
about in providing for the needs of these most vulnerable
societies. Because it seems that--my own observation, Mr.
Chairman--there has been a lot of rhetoric, a lot of floating
ideas, but no real substantive commitment to help this part of
the equation as far as climate change is concerned. I know my
time is up, Mr. Chairman, but I would appreciate that.
Chairman Berman. I, unfortunately, should have mentioned at
the beginning, our 5 minutes is deg.are for both the
questions and the answers. But the question you asked on our
second panel is one of the ones I wanted to start out with.
Mr. Faleomavaega. If he could just submit for the record.
Chairman Berman. Sure. Very good. If you would, we would
make it part of the hearing transcript.
Mr. Stern. Happy to do that.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from the Honorable Todd D. Stern to Question
Asked During the Hearing by the Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega
We support the House for its emphasis on adaptation in Waxman
Markey, as this will be an increasingly important issue in
international climate discussions as the impacts of climate change
become more pronounced. The Administration considers it very important
to address the needs of the most vulnerable in any future approach.
That is why we requested a nine-fold increase in our FY10 appropriation
for adaptation activities, to $350 million. We are committed to working
with Congress to mobilizing this funding through various sources,
including through the carbon market and other available sources.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Rohrabacher----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Oh, yes.
Chairman Berman [continuing]. Who took Mr. Manzullo's time.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Yes, I did.
Let me just note that the use of the word climate change
instead of--replacing global warming is itself a denial of
global warming. Because that phrase came into existence as the
scientific reality that it hasn't been warming for the last 9
years and that the Arctic melt has reversed itself for the last
2 years seems to be something that can be denied by suggesting
that we change the wording now to climate change. So any change
that takes place will justify a compromise in the legal
protections that we have given our own people by signing some
foreign treaty that compromises our constitutional rights,
compromises our national sovereignty, and undermines American
prosperity.
When you are in Copenhagen, you might look up Dr. Lomborg,
who is the former head of Denmark's Environmental Assessment
Institute--and I might put this quote into the record:
``Reducing CO2 emissions will not make the world a
better place to live.''
And I submit for the record right now, Mr. Chairman, a list
of 10 names of prominent, world-class scientists from MIT and
other major institutions who totally deny this theory of man-
made global warming and the efforts to try to stampede us into
making such agreements that we are talking about today that, as
I say, are aimed at undermining the constitutional rights of
our people and undermining our prosperity and our freedom in
this country.
[The information referred to follows:]Rohrabacher
FTR deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rohrabacher. Mr. Stern, let me just ask you some
specifics, rather than debating global warming itself, which I
believe is a debatable issue.
In performing your tasks, will you agree to alter or reduce
or deny the protections now held by American people of their
intellectual property rights, patent laws, and other type of
protections for intellectual property for so-called green
technologies?
Mr. Stern. We have no intention of doing anything that
would undermine or weaken intellectual property rights, Mr.
Rohrabacher. We think that is quite essential to the whole
project and innovation, which is, in turn, essential to getting
this issue----
Mr. Rohrabacher. So you would not----
Mr. Stern. We are not going to undermine intellectual
property.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Would you agree to compulsory licensing
fees for such green technologies?
Mr. Stern. No, that is not in our----
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Will you agree to differential responsibilities in emission
reductions or in funding?
Mr. Stern. We have said that we see a differentiation that
is appropriate, in our judgment, as between developed and
developing countries. Although developing countries, the major
ones, need to do very significant things to make very
significant reductions in their emissions compared to where
they would be.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the American people are going to have
to bear a much greater burden of other countries where maybe
their dictatorial governments have prevented the type of
economic progress that we have enjoyed here with the freedom in
our country.
Mr. Stern. We don't actually think there would be greater
burden for the American people.
Mr. Rohrabacher. What does differential mean then? I think
that differential means that somebody is going to bear more and
other people aren't.
Mr. Stern. No. It means that there is a difference; that
the nature of what we have to do and what they have to do is
somewhat different in a way that relates to both state of
development and standard of living and the like. And you can
well end up with the reduction of emissions as compared to
where they would otherwise be in a developing country that
turns out to be just as much as what happens in the United
States, even though the basic requirements are different. So I
don't actually think that we are talking about a larger burden.
Mr. Rohrabacher. I think that we could disagree on that.
Mr. Stern. I accept that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Will you agree to pay compensation to
vulnerable countries? And what would be an acceptable
definition of ``vulnerable''?
Mr. Stern. Well, it depends on what we are talking about.
We think that adaptation assistance for poor countries,
countries in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, and other
vulnerable countries, absolutely should get assistance and
adaptation. Compensation is sometimes used to mean something
else. Saudi Arabia asks compensation for the loss of revenues
that might ensue if there was a global warming climate change
regime. We are not in support of that.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stern. Could I make one other comment for the record,
which is the original climate change agreement is the Framework
Convention on Climate Change in 1992. It is not a new term.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired; and
the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Carnahan, is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carnahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to focus on I guess a challenge and an
opportunity. One of the counterarguments that we hear often
against the United States taking strong action is that
countries like India and China are such large and growing
emitters. I would be interested to hear some more detail on
your opinion regarding our engagement with China and India,
what we are doing to engage the international community to move
them toward adopting appropriate policies.
Mr. Stern. You know, Mr. Carnahan, we have to do what we
need to do as the United States. So I don't think that--that is
not dependent, in my judgment, on China and India. And yet what
China and India and other major developing countries do is
absolutely critical. As I said, virtually all the growth and
emissions going forward is going to come from the developing
world, and half of it--fully half of it is going to come from
China alone.
We have been engaged in an extremely intensive way with the
Chinese from the time that we started earlier in the year. I
have been to China myself three times. I have met with their
lead negotiator probably nine or ten times. We have engaged
with them at the level of the Secretary of State, level of the
President, level of Secretary of Energy and others. So we are
pushing hard. We are working with other allied countries, if
you will, who are also pushing.
Again, the thing that is really important to understand is
that countries like China and India are actually doing a lot.
They are not in the world anymore of saying we don't have to
worry about this problem. There is nothing that we have to do.
They are taking a lot of action. And my guess is, as you go
forward in the years to come, they are going to only ramp that
up in very significant ways.
Where they are resisting--and it is a real problem--is in
translating any of those actions that they are taking at the
national level into an international agreement. If you can't
get those actions translated into an international agreement,
you don't have an international agreement.
So that is a challenge. We are working hard at it. We have
had--we are pushing them to move in that direction. I think
there has been some movement in the context of my own
conversations with them, but there are 5 weeks to go, and I
don't know yet where that is going to land. But it is not the
case and shouldn't be seen to be the case that they are simply
sitting back and not taking action. They are quite focused on
it.
Mr. Carnahan. And closely related to that, the role of
technology and innovation in terms of translating those goals,
what they have done looking at certainly innovation that we
have done here at home, what we have seen countries like
Germany do in terms of incentives, in terms of setting
standards for how they meet goals, they have done remarkable
things with solar energy in a country that doesn't particularly
have a lot of sun.
So in terms of looking at some of those successes and some
of the technology, talk, if you would, briefly about the role
of technology and changing the game here.
Mr. Stern. I think technology is the game. There are
certain--if you look forward, if you look right now--there are
a lot of things, technologies, on the shelf in terms of
renewable energy and energy efficiency that can substantially
get us where we need to be in the course of the next 20 years
or so.
But if you are looking at the long-range solution of the
problem, it is going to come at the development of the new
technology. We can either set the rules of the road in place
through measures like the legislation that is pending,
executive action, regulation for the EPA and other places; we
can set the rules of the road in place to drive that technology
revolution; or we can sit back, keep debating, keep not getting
to where we need to go and watch that technology revolution
happen in other places.
Really, the competitive problem that we face in this
country is not so much what is going to happen to exposed
industries in the next few years. Those problems are real, and
they should be taken care of. They are taken care of in the
context of the House bill, and they should be taken care of in
final legislation.
But the real competitive problem that this country faces is
if we don't act at full speed and watch the technology
revolution be taken over by the Chinas and Indias and other
developed countries that see the writing on the wall and act.
We can be the leader here. Nobody has intellectual and
financial capability like the United States. But we need to
act.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stern, you made the statement that new industries will
grow up to help us comply with climate change, the so-called
green technology. There is a March 2009 study by the University
of Juan Carlos in Madrid, Spain, that showed Spain's experience
in forcing a transition to renewable energy that has been
terribly economically counterproductive. Based upon Spain's
experience, the study concluded that the United States should
expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on an average, nine jobs
lost for every four so-called green job created. The study also
concluded that, since 2000, Spain spent 571,000 Euros to create
each green job.
I live in manufacturing. That is my life. One out of four
people who work in the district I represent earns their living
dealing with grease and, many times, clean technology. What you
are saying is totally incorrect.
Do you think that one morning 535 Members of Congress or
people from the administration woke up saying, ``Voila, let us
invent green technology''?
It doesn't happen that way. Government does not create
jobs.
Let me give you some examples.
Danfoss is a Danish firm doing business in my congressional
district, the world leader in electrical modulation machines.
All-World Manufacturing, small group of guys got together.
They have cut back about 75 percent of the costs of the power
necessary to run hydraulic pressure pumps.
Eclipse Manufacturing--leading the world in gas combustion
burners--were making solar panels.
And Rentech, over on the Mississippi River in a
congressional district that has been suffering terribly from
the loss of jobs, was set to have a $600 million Fischer-
Tropsch conversion process to clean coal as opposed to natural
gas for feedstock for anhydrous ammonia and urea. As a result
of Fischer-Tropsch, they could have been manufacturing diesel
fuel without using petroleum, and all it lacked was lubricity.
Now I have seen with my own eyes the suffering taking place
in this country as a result of the statement that you made that
government can create jobs from green technology. What you
represented to this panel is nothing less than unilateral
surrender.
The Chinese and the Indians already have inked an agreement
back in October, just this past last month, that they are going
to coordinate efforts to combat any climate change treaty that
has, as its core demands, that the developing world take the
lead in cutting carbon emissions. So we just sit back and say
the United States is going to fall on its knees, plead that the
world follows the example and continue to destroy jobs.
I mean, I know of people who are fastener manufacturers in
Spain. They adopted cap-and-trade there. It did not work there
because right across the Strait of Gibraltar there is a company
in Morocco that is making the very same thing that doesn't have
to comply with these highest standards.
I just do not understand why the United States should
unilaterally disarm--we are at 17 percent unemployment in the
City of Rockford, Illinois. Add five points to that all across
the Nation. That is 22 percent. One out of four families in
Winnebago County, Illinois, is on public assistance; and many
have lost their jobs in manufacturing because of these things
and the statements that you want to make them have even more of
a loss of jobs.
Do you understand what I am saying? Have you talked ever
talked to the people in manufacturing about the impact?
Mr. Stern. Well, I actually grew up in a manufacturing
family. But that is neither here nor there.
Congressman, I don't think anybody lacks sympathy for what
is going on in the country with respect to the recession, but
let me just say I absolutely did not say that government
creates the jobs.
Mr. Manzullo. You did, too. You said, as a result of
government policies that green jobs will be hatched.
Mr. Stern. What I am saying is I think there are rules of
the road that can be laid down that can help stimulate the
creation of jobs.
You know, John Doerr, who is one of the legendary investors
in California, talks about the transition to clean technology
is something that has the promise to be several times larger--
--
Mr. Manzullo. I am not talking about philosophy. I am
talking about people who are losing their jobs. There is a big
difference between philosophers and manufacturers.
Chairman Berman. I am sorry. I feel like this won't get
settled by one more sentence.
Mr. Stern. I think you are right, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Berman. We have just started to vote. There will
be four votes. Let us see how far we can get, because Mr. Stern
does have to be back at the White House at 12:30, and we have
an excellent second panel.
The gentlelady from California, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to remind my friend, Mr. Manzullo, that we do
have an industry that is suffering, the auto industry, because
they refused to adjust to the world's needs for smaller,
cleaner autos. And we can't just go about business as usual.
Otherwise, we are going to have every industry in this country
either being replaced overseas with something that is cheaper
and something that will fit the needs of our global economy. We
have a lot of work to do.
So Mr. Stern, will you do me a big favor for all of us?
Will you repeat one more time--you can take my time to do
this--if you will, to outline what the United States is going
to lose if we refuse to step up to the fact that we must make
major changes and that we do have an industry that we must
capture for the United States green industries? Just take your
time. Talk about it. I am not going to shove it down your
throat. I want you to know we need to hear this over and over
again.
Mr. Stern. Well, look, I think that there are probably
three fundamental imperatives for the United States with
respect to acting on this issue: First of all, the issue
itself. Climate change, global warming, is getting worse. It is
extraordinarily serious. We are on a track, if we don't change
the trajectory that we are on as a global community, of running
into very serious and indeed potentially catastrophic problems.
So there is the underlying issue in itself which is quite
serious.
Secondly, there are really serious national security
implications that flow from that. There has been a lot of
writing about this lately. There was an excellent piece on it
in the New York Times a couple of months ago, and it is--to say
it is not just an environmental problem is not to downgrade the
importance of environmental problems, but it goes way beyond
that.
The third issue, the one that was the focus of your
question, is that this is going to be a monumental
transformation of the global economy and a monumental
transformation of the U.S. economy.
We are talking about transforming the energy base of the
entire economy and over a period of years, over a period of
decades. We are either going to get out ahead of that and take
a leadership role in developing the technology--both here and
for export--which has the potential over time, not like that,
not in 2 minutes, but over time in being a huge potential job
creator all across the country.
There isn't any country in the world that has got a better
intellectual or financial base than the United States. So there
isn't any reason why we shouldn't be a leader. And yet, if you
look at what happened over the last number of years, industries
that we started have gone elsewhere because we haven't been
acting. Solar industry is in Germany. It is in Japan. China is
charging forward on the development of solar and wind
components.
We can get back into this game, but we have got to do it
with policy that provides the right incentives and the right
tools. And we can do that. It is going to happen. Either we can
buy the stuff from somebody else when we finally get around to
believing that it is necessary, or we can get out in front of
it and make this a potent driver for the U.S. economy for the
21st century.
Ms. Woolsey. I have 1 more minute just to ask you what if--
I am switching. We are in Copenhagen now. What would be the
consequences if China signs on to an agreement that the United
States does not?
Mr. Stern. Look, I think that I am going to focus on the
positive. I think that we can get an agreement. I think that we
have a fair distance yet to go, but I actually think there is a
deal to be done.
I think the core is to get the major players all on board;
and I think that, in general, with respect to your question, if
you see the major players around the world, including the major
developing players, prepared to step forward in a constructive
way and in a way that is up to the task and the United States
were to stay back in the shadows, that would be quite a
troubling thing for the U.S.
Chairman Berman. The time for the gentlelady has expired.
The gentlelady from Nevada.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Your answer to Ms. Woolsey's first question was exactly the
question I was going to ask you, but it was leading to the
ultimate question. I believe that getting away from fossil fuel
and harnessing energy is an economic necessity, an
environmental necessity, and a national security imperative. We
are obviously not getting our message out to a broader
audience.
What would you suggest that we do to take this message
forward and share with the American people how serious this is
and what the downside is of not acting and the upside is of
actually doing something, and what are we doing wrong?
Mr. Stern. Well, look, I think that the reality is--and the
President has noted this on a number of occasions. I think it
is inevitably true that it is inherently difficult from the
point of view of the focus of the public to be confronting this
issue right in the middle of a global recession. What I sort of
say sometimes is there may be a sinkhole in your backyard which
is extremely threatening and dangerous, but if your house is
burning down, you don't have a chance to quite look at it.
So there is a certain problem, I think, in terms of public
communication, people having been understandably focused on
their jobs, their homes, their health care, et cetera. But, at
the same time, I believe it was Mr. Crowley who said this is
the moment to act. We cannot look at the economic challenge and
say, well, we will put this problem off.
We are creating new infrastructure all the time. We are
creating new power sources all the time. We have to make these
low carbon, and we have to make these green, and we have to get
on the right side on developing the type of technology that I
was talking about.
I think we need to keep talking. Members of Congress need
to talk. We need talk from the administration, the White House,
and the agencies; and we need to communicate a message that I
think is fundamentally twofold: One is, the status quo is not
sustainable. We have to change this. If you don't like a
proposal that you see, then you better explain what you do
instead. The status quo is not sustainable.
And, B, there is a huge, huge opportunity here that we need
to avail ourselves of, as I have been discussing before.
So there is a real legitimate threat which we cannot
ignore, and there is a real legitimate opportunity that we must
take advantage of.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady is expired.
Oh, I thought you were done.
Ms. Berkley. My time has expired. I have not expired.
Chairman Berman. The gentlelady yields back her time but
not herself.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt, will be our
last questioner.
Mr. Delahunt. I will just make some observations.
Has there been a calculation as to the potential in terms
of the economic loss, in terms of what will happen if we don't
address this issue?
You know, there are some people--and I think you have
sensed it today--that still believe that the world is flat,
okay? You know, and thank God Columbus discovered America, how
they would hold on to that. That is what we are faced with.
That is the problem with communication. The world is round, the
science is overwhelming, but there are those--and many of them
are on the other side of this aisle that are within the
Republican Party--people who think the world is flat. That is
not the case.
We understand that we have to address it. All I know is
that we sit here and, time after time, we find ourselves having
to fund enormous numbers, Federal dollars, in terms of
addressing natural disasters. What is that cost? Put aside the
economic, but, as we look, has anyone developed a model that
looks forward?
Mr. Stern. Congressman, it is an excellent question,
actually. Because what you see when you see even the EPA number
that I was talking about earlier of $100-175 a year, virtually
all of those models explicitly set aside the question of the
cost of inaction. They are not factored into any of those
models.
Now the guy who has done the work on this----
Mr. Delahunt. How many Katrinas can we afford?
Mr. Stern. That is exactly right.
The guy who has done the most work on this is Nick Stern,
the former Chief Economist of the World Bank and from the U.K.
He published a lengthy study that the U.K. Government had asked
him to do, and he made estimates that I don't remember the
exact numbers, but they go up into the several percentage
points of GDP lost over the course of the next 50, 75 years.
Mr. Delahunt. Rather than 2 percent of GDP, give me a
number. Half a trillion, 10 trillion? What is it?
Mr. Stern. I can get back to you on that. But the numbers
are very, very large. You are talking about 4-5 percent of GDP
out to----
Chairman Berman. $280 billion a year just to start.
Mr. Stern. A lot more than that.
Mr. Delahunt. Do you hear that, Mr. Chairman? A lot more
than that.
Chairman Berman. U.S. proportion.
Mr. Stern. But if you look into the future worldwide, it is
a very large number.
Mr. Delahunt. How many natural disasters can we deal with
in terms of our economy here? Look what Katrina has done to the
national economy and will continue to do.
And I agree with you on your other issues. But, you know,
you are right. The world--the globe isn't flat. It comes down
to that.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Delahunt. Yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I just want to say to my good friend,
with a little sense of humor, you said about Columbus
discovering America. I say that, while my ancestors were
traveling, voyaging thousands of miles, different islands,
Columbus actually got lost.
That is just a little humor that I wanted to add.
Mr. Delahunt. You have never been lost.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And the fear among our friends in Europe
was that you would go over because the world was flat.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I just have one question for the minute
remaining.
Chairman Berman. We have 1 minute to vote. If you want to
preside right from there, just take the gavel.
We will be back for the second panel.
Take a minute with the gentlelady. I am done.
Ms. Jackson Lee [presiding]. I won't get an answer from
you, but maybe I can get it in writing.
I am interested in whether or not, since we know the kind
of world we live in and the various interest groups, such as
coal in the United States, and the contributors to our complex
climate situation, what outreach has been done to energy
companies--for which, by their definition, the world is energy.
It could be green. It could be biofuels, et cetera. How can we
get them to the table?
And I will listen to the gentleman and yield on the way to
the vote.
Mr. Stern. I think there has been a great deal of outreach
done in that regard. That tends to be driven more by the White
House and the agencies that are focused specifically on the
domestic issues.
I think there has been an enormous amount of outreach done
to energy companies of all sorts. Some are at the table. Some
are actually supportive, and some are opposed. And I think that
there has been a lot of effort, continues to be effort, both by
the administration, by the White House, Department of Energy,
and others and by proponents of legislation on the hill.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would appreciate getting from the State
Department, getting from you, a list of either those coming
together at those meetings. I would assume they are open so you
can get a list.
[The information referred to follows:]
Written Response Received from the Honorable Todd D. Stern to Question
Asked During the Hearing by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee
The Department of State regularly meets with a range of industry
representatives, as well as NGOs representing environmental, labor, and
other interests both at their requests, and also prior to large
meetings of the UNFCCC and other key processes. Representatives from
major industry associations are invited to these meetings, as well as
are representatives from individual companies that have taken a
particular interest in the negotiations.
In addition, the State Department and the Department of Energy
hosted three stakeholder meetings in July and September, including
representatives from industry and NGOs, and soliciting input and ideas
in the following areas:
Carbon Capture and Sequestration: July 9, 2009
Solar Energy: July 21, 2009
Building Energy Efficiency: September 10, 2009.
In addition, we have held regular briefings with industry and NGO
representatives on the UNFCCC process. These included briefings with
business and industry representatives on August 19, September 24,
November 10, and November 30, in addition to briefings during the
Copenhagen Climate Conference itself.
Other agencies also have their own outreach processes focused on
outreach to members of civil society.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I think congressional members can be part
of this whole journey that we have to take beyond even the
writing of legislation, because we do have an issue that we
must get our hands around.
I assume at this point the meeting is now in recess.
[Recess.]
Chairman Berman [presiding]. The committee will come back
to order.
At least one of the panelists is aware of the strange
nature of our schedule.
Now I would like to introduce the panel.
Tim Wirth was the lead U.S. negotiator for the Kyoto
Climate Conference until he resigned to become the president of
the United Nations Foundation. In this role, he has worked to
develop the framework for post-Kyoto climate negotiations and
to advance the standards of energy efficiency in the United
States and abroad with the Energy Future Coalition.
As a Colorado Senator, he focused on environmental issues,
particularly climate change. In 1988, he organized the Hansen
hearings on climate change and collaborated on the
groundbreaking idea of cap-and-trade that was included in the
Clean Air Act amendments.
Senator Wirth was recently honored as a Champion of the
Earth by the U.N. Environment Programme; and, for those of us
who have been around a long time, we knew him as a really
wonderful House Member and really one of the critical leaders
on environmental issues and on a lot of other issues as well.
Eileen Claussen is the president of the Pew Center on
Global Climate Change and Strategies for the Global
Environment. Ms. Claussen formerly served as the assistant
secretary of state for oceans and international environmental
and scientific affairs under President Clinton. She also served
as senior director for Global Environmental Affairs at the
National Security Council and chair of the U.N. multilateral
Montreal Protocol Fund.
Her previous experience also includes work on the depletion
of the ozone layer, the Clean Air Act, and EPA's energy
efficiency program, including the Energy Star Program. Ms.
Claussen is a member of the Harvard Environmental Economic
Program Advisory Panel.
Steven Groves is the Bernard and Barbara Lomas fellow at
the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
Mr. Groves is responsible for developing the Freedom Project,
part of the Foundation's Leadership for America campaign to
advance the cause of protecting American sovereignty, self-
governance, and independence while promoting Anglo-American
leadership on issues relating to international political and
religious freedom, human rights, and the strengthening of
democratic institutions.
From 2003 to 2006, Mr. Groves was senior counsel to the
U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, where he
played a lead role in the subcommittee's investigation into the
United Nations' Oil-for-Food program. Mr. Groves earned a law
degree from Ohio Northern University College of Law in 1995 and
a degree in history from Florida State University in 1992.
Thank you for coming. Sorry for the interruption, and your
entire statements will be part of the record.
Senator Wirth.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, PRESIDENT, UNITED
NATIONS FOUNDATION AND BETTER WORLD FUND (FORMER UNITED STATES
SENATOR)
Mr. Wirth. It is always a delight to be back here and see
so many friends and have a chance to get into this remarkably
interesting issue with you.
I would say, by way of beginning, I listened carefully to
the Q&A, and I would give credit to the minority. I thought
that Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen raised some very interesting
issues that I hope the committee has a chance to discuss.
Because those questions of common but differentiated
responsibilities, cost of adaptation, overall cost to the
economy, are exactly the ones that we all have to come to
understand. And if we can help you and the minority, Mr.
Chairman, to organize roundtables or discussions on those, we
would be delighted to help. They have to be understood. Members
of this committee have to understand them.
I listened to Mr. Crowley's, I thought, very, very good
statement about, even at times of crises, we can move ahead;
and I thought it was very eloquent. We think about what
happened during the Civil War, the worst crisis in our Nation's
history. While that was going on and the Congress was dealing
with that, the Congress also did the State and Land Grant
University Act, the Railroad Act, the Homestead Act. It was an
extraordinarily creative time. And the fact that we can walk
and chew gum--in the words of a famous American--at a time of
crisis we can deal with that but also deal with this issue.
If I might, Mr. Chairman, just be to very simple about this
and to try to boil this down. I think you can make this issue
as complicated as you want, or you can try to boil it down to a
few simple directions.
I listened to Todd Stern, who is an old and good friend of
mine. If I were sitting where he is, I would be trying to
transmit to people the fact that we can, in the United States,
commit to getting to, by 2020, a 20-percent reduction that in
fact is a benefit to our economy. And we can in fact, long
term, commit to the 80-percent reduction and 50-percent global
reduction that is going to be necessary by 2050.
Now, in answer to the question of the committee, those
become part of the post-Kyoto framework. You have got to have
the numbers. They are not the makers or breakers, but the U.S.
is going to have to commit to those numbers.
Just running through this very rapidly, if you follow the
legislative route and Waxman-Markey gets you 14 percent, the
Kerry-Boxer bill gets 17 percent--WRI estimates that Kerry-
Boxer gets 23 percent. So if you follow the legislative route,
we are going to get to that 20 percent. You are going to see
that on the horizon through the ways in which the legislative
process says it is going to move.
If that weren't to happen, do you get hung out, as we were
in Kyoto, by having made commitments you can't honor? No, you
can go back the other route and go the administrative route. I
have in my testimony data which is very well documented that
you can follow: Efficiency, renewables, and activities on
deforestation. And just those three measures alone, Mr.
Chairman, that gets you 15 of the 20 percent that you need.
You can do all of those through actions of the EPA, and
through renewable energy standards, efficiency standards, and
actions related to forests. You get 15 percent. You add on top
of that what we should be getting from automobiles--we are
going to do that--and add on top of that a transition from coal
to natural gas for at least those clunker power plants that
were--when you and I were young Members of the Congress, we
battled over the Clean Air Act under Henry Waxman's lead. The
idea was to get rid of these clunker power plants, those old
ones. They have managed to evade the law and stay in action.
Those ought to be wiped out.
If you do efficiency, renewables, forestation, take credit
for automobiles, and get rid of clunkers for the transition to
our own domestic fuel, natural gas, you get 20 percent as well.
So we can make this incredibly complicated and battle over
one thing or another, or you can go back and say, yes, we can
accomplish this. This is how we go about doing it, and these
are the benefits from that.
I tried to include a number of those items in my statement,
Mr. Chairman.
The last point I would make is I think the committee also
ought to pay very, very close attention to the United States-
China relationship. It is not only extraordinarily important,
but I think we are missing the boat on that.
I just came back from 3 weeks in Asia. We heard from
American business, from Chinese business, American leadership
at all levels that we are not paying the attention that we have
to pay to this most important of all relationships. They are
the largest polluter; we are the largest economy. They are the
most rapidly developing country; we are the biggest developed
country. We are a mirror of each other in so many ways. We have
agreements, but we are not following up on them.
And we have heard--and I have got some of that language,
and I could share others with you. We heard over and over and
over again, the United States has got to pay greater attention,
put real weight into this United States-China relationship.
That can be done by having a high-level person representing the
Secretary of State, at a high level, to be the person making
the interagency process work.
You remember Gore-Chernomyrdin at that time was a good
example when we were working on the United States-Soviet
relationship. And that really worked. We created that special
capability. You all can help to get that done, examine this and
help to get that done as you are working on the
reauthorization.
If I were you, I think one of the most interesting--and I
am not telling you how to do your job--but I think one of the
most interesting hearings to have would be to get people to
come in and talk about what this relationship is, what can be
done, and how do we accelerate taking advantage of what both
sides want to do, instead of pointing fingers at each other,
saying, you haven't reduced it, you haven't done that, or
whatever. That is such tired old language, and it's getting us
nowhere. At a time when our leadership says it wants to move,
their leadership says it wants to move, how do we get the two
together? Well, you have to organize administratively to get it
to happen, and it is absolutely doable. So we would be
delighted to help you on that, Mr. Chairman. It is an
incredibly promising and interesting area.
We thank you for having this hearing in this area, and your
leadership is remarkable. And you have got some great members
on your committee and flat-earthers and so on. A little humor
in the top row is always helpful.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wirth
follows:]Timothy Wirth 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]
Chairman Berman. Thank you, Senator Wirth.
Ms. Claussen.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE EILEEN CLAUSSEN, PRESIDENT, PEW
CENTER ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE (FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
STATE FOR OCEANS AND INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL AND SCIENTIFIC
AFFAIRS)
Ms. Claussen. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here. I am going to focus a little bit on where the
negotiations are and what I think we need to do.
To be fair and effective, a new climate agreement must
establish binding, verifiable commitments for all of the
world's major economies. These commitments can vary in form.
The United States and other developed countries, we believe,
should commit to absolute, economy-wide emission reduction
targets. China and other major developing countries should have
the option of assuming other types of commitments, such as
intensity goals, efficiency standards, or renewable energy
targets.
Let me just highlight the core issues in achieving such an
agreement and then describe what we believe would be desirable
and what might, in fact, be feasible at the negotiations next
month in Copenhagen
First is the issue of developed country targets. All
developed countries, except the United States, have now
formally adopted or proposed emission targets for 2020. The
proposed targets in the climate bill passed by the House and in
the Kerry-Boxer bill before the Senate are reasonably
comparable to those put forward by other countries if we assume
a 2005 baseline. Viewed against a 1990 baseline, they are
clearly not comparable. But, no matter the baseline, when taken
together, these numbers fall short of the mid-term reduction
levels many believe are needed to avoid dangerous climate
impacts, in other words, 11-18 percent below 1990 levels,
rather than 25-40 percent.
The second issue is developing country commitments. It was
a major step forward when developing countries agreed 2 years
ago in Bali to negotiate nationally appropriate mitigation
actions. China and other major developing countries have now
adopted national climate strategies outlining steps they are
taking and additional steps they could take with international
support. The challenge is to translate these types of actions
into international commitments which mean, in our view,
developing a new legal framework that inscribes developing
countries' efforts alongside those of developed countries in a
way that is clear, quantified, and verifiable.
A closely related issue is support for developing
countries. In the 1992 Framework Convention and again in Bali,
the United States and other developed countries agreed to help
developing countries reduce their emissions and adapt to
climate change. A new agreement must include a finance
mechanism that delivers on those promises. Both the House bill
and the proposed Senate bill would use some allowances under a
cap-and-trade system to support reduced deforestation,
adaptation, and clean technology deployment. Final legislation
must retain these provisions so the United States is able to
commit substantial support for an initial period as part of a
balanced climate agreement.
A fourth important issue is verification. As agreed in
Bali, the actions of both developed and developing countries
must be verifiable. This requires annual emission inventories
from all major emitters, regular reports from countries on
their implementation efforts, and international review of both.
There also must be a fair and open process leading to a clear
determination of whether or not countries are fulfilling their
obligations.
The fifth and final issue is the legal form of a new
agreement. We believe the best final outcome is a single,
comprehensive legal instrument under the Framework Convention
that succeeds and incorporates elements of the Kyoto protocol.
This agreement should be ratified and binding.
These are difficult issues; and, despite progress, major
differences remain among the parties. In light of this, we
don't believe a full and final agreement is possible in
Copenhagen. The very best outcome, we believe, would be an
interim political agreement defining the basic legal and
institutional architecture as a basis for then negotiating
specific commitments in a final legal agreement. But, for this
to occur, we will need to make substantial process on all of
the five issues I have just discussed.
Short of a comprehensive agreement on a new framework, the
best Copenhagen may be able to achieve is a political
declaration setting a long-term objective of two degrees and
perhaps providing some near-term support in areas such as
adaptation and deforestation. In all cases, it would be
important to establish a new end date for the negotiations in
2010.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Claussen
follows:]Eileen Claussen 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]
Chairman Berman. A new end date for the ultimate goal?
Ms. Claussen. Yes. Absolutely.
Chairman Berman. Mr. Groves.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN GROVES, J.D., BERNARD AND BARBARA LOMAS
FELLOW, THE MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM, THE HERITAGE
FOUNDATION
Mr. Groves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to
testify today.
In response to the question posed by the title of this
hearing, Is There a Successor to the Kyoto Protocol, the answer
is certainly yes. I can say so with confidence. Because, to
paraphrase Ronald Reagan, ``A United Nations program is the
nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth.''
The international community will press forward on a climate
change treaty regardless of what happens in Copenhagen. The
question is whether and to what extent the United States will
feel compelled to submit to an onerous treaty regime.
By now, we have all heard the common international refrain
that the United States must exhibit leadership on this issue.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon recently said, ``All the
world is now looking to the leadership of the United States and
President Obama.'' But at what cost does American leadership
come?
The draft 181-page negotiating text proposes a complex,
comprehensive, legally binding multilateral convention, the
nature of which poses a threat to American sovereignty. Not
only are the proposed terms controversial, the manner in which
those terms would be enforced would submit the United States to
an unprecedented monitoring and compliance regime. The United
States would apparently be required to agree to an intrusive
review of both its domestic energy policy and its compliance
with obligations to transfer wealth and technology to the
developing world.
The current draft negotiating text is replete with
references to mechanisms for compliance, monitoring,
verification, and enforcement and requires that financial
commitments and transfers of technology be legally binding.
Protecting U.S. interests in the Copenhagen negotiating
environment will be challenging. Unlike bilateral treaty
negotiations, the United States will be only one of 192
countries participating in the process. Such multilateral
negotiations make it difficult, if not impossible, for the
United States to dictate terms most favorable to it. Large
voting blocks--such as the European Union, the African Union,
and the G-77 developing countries--will likely pool their
votes, coordinate their negotiating positions, and may attempt
to effectively isolate the United States.
Despite these challenges, the United States may demonstrate
genuine leadership in climate change negotiations both in
Copenhagen and thereafter. Such leadership, however, should be
exercised in a manner that protects U.S. interests while
preserving American sovereignty. To do so, the United States
must first determine what the domestic consequences of
ratifying a post-Kyoto agreement are and then negotiate with
the international community on those terms.
Before engaging with the rest of the world regarding the
final terms of a universal climate change treaty, the United
States must first ascertain whether the international
obligations of the post-Kyoto agreement are domestically
feasible, both politically and economically. Given the sharply
divided opinion on climate change here in Congress and across
the country, it is unlikely that the U.S. is yet in the
position to make sincere commitments to the international
community, and making international promises that the United
States is unable to keep--as was the case when the U.S. signed
the Kyoto Protocol--does not demonstrate American leadership.
Neither does capitulating to demands from U.N. Officials.
Pledging to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without first
determining how those reductions will affect our economy does
not constitute leadership, in my view.
Instead, Congress should continue to study the impact that
a comprehensive climate change treaty and corresponding
legislation implementing that treaty would have on our economy,
our energy sector, our workforce, and our treasury. If we knew
what effect the proposed climate change treaty would have on
American citizens, then Congress and the White House would be
able to work toward a true bipartisan consensus on climate
change legislation. Only then will the United States be in a
position to promise internationally what can be achieved
domestically.
Such an approach would allow the United States to negotiate
with the international community in good faith, while
protecting U.S. national interests and preserving American
sovereignty. That approach, I submit, would demonstrate genuine
American leadership.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves
follows:]Steven Groves 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]
Chairman Berman. Thank you, and thank you all.
I am going to first recognize the gentlelady from
California, Ms. Woolsey.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator, it is nice to see you.
I have a question for both Senator Wirth and Ms. Claussen.
Mr. Groves, we just heard him; and he is saying that
American sovereignty could be at risk or is at risk if we sign
a global climate change agreement. I need to know, do you agree
with this assessment and what kind of precedence is there for
the U.S. signing such an agreement? What are the risks of our
not doing it?
Mr. Wirth. Let me begin by commenting on Eileen Claussen's
testimony.
We were just saying here if we took that statement that I
had made and the one she had made and put those together, you
have a pretty good framework for what we could do; and that
begins to answer your question, Congressman Woolsey. The
comments that I heard as, quote, deg. ``intrusive
review''--the way we do this, we have a very open process. Our
data is available through the Energy Information Administration
and so on. This is hardly something we are hiding from the
world.
The question is the other side. How do we get the rest of
the world to report their data? That is what we want to have
happen. It is scarcely, quote, deg. ``intrusive
review.''
Transfer of technology? Well, just the reverse is rapidly
happening; we are going to be asking them for their technology
because they are moving ahead of us so much more rapidly.
One of 191, and they could isolate the U.S.? Well, we have
the veto at any time, so I wouldn't worry about that.
Protect the U.S. interests and not sign a climate
agreement? We were the sixth country to ratify the Framework
Convention on Climate Change in the fall of 1992. It is the law
of the land. We have already done that. What are we worried
about? That is the framework in which we are operating. Now we
are trying to implement the framework.
And, finally, the question was raised that we have to know
what we are doing economically. Well, we have a very clear
economic analysis. McKinsey has done that in this country
extensively. Stern has done that extensively globally. We have
got those numbers. We have to read those.
So the answers are all there to doing it.
The big question is the one that you asked. What happens if
we don't do this? Then the data gets really dangerous, and the
economic downside is very, very serious and very real to us,
much less the human suffering that occurs, the dramatic threat
to international security from vast flows of refugees because
of the hunger issue and the water issue that is pervasive
elsewhere. Not acting, there is no, no reason for us not to
act. It would be immoral and wrong for us not to act.
Ms. Claussen. Let me add one point to what Tim just said.
It appears that Mr. Groves is looking at this in a funny
way. Because we have already passed legislation through the
House. The Senate is engaged in trying to pass legislation
there. Those will set limits on greenhouse gasses for us. And
in the event this doesn't happen very fast, we do have the
Clean Air Act; we do have all kinds of authorities under the
Department of Energy's office to set efficiency standards and
other things. So it is not as if we haven't looked at the
economics of all of this, and it is not as if we are not going
to act.
The value of an international agreement is that everybody
else will start acting and make their data available and move
forward; and, as a global matter, you have to do that on an
issue like this.
So the issue, I think, is not us. We are going to go ahead
and do this anyway. The issue is making sure that others do
their fair share.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Changing the subject slightly, same topic. I was part of a
United States-China relations conference about 1 year ago. And
one of the scholars--Chinese scholars said that the United
States had--it is the same quotes--used more than our share of
the resources and soiled more than our share of the world, and
now it was their turn.
I told them they didn't get a turn because, if they did,
the world wouldn't be around for their children and our
children.
But what does the United States need to do to work with
China so that--I mean, they can't do what we did. So what do we
have to do to prove and make that balance?
Mr. Wirth. Again, it is the kind of question, Mr. Chairman,
that deserves a lot of discussion; and this committee is a
great forum for doing that.
I think that if you listen to the United States and China
today, the rhetoric is very, very different. When Eileen and I
were doing Kyoto, it was terrible. There was no discussion,
none whatsoever.
Today, we are getting beyond the finger-pointing and ``You
put this up there to begin with''; ``No, you are the biggest
polluter today.'' We are getting beyond that, and the
opportunity now is to use this issue as the fulcrum--I believe
you can use this issue as the fulcrum of the relationship
between the two superpowers.
I mean, we are so overwhelmingly bigger. India we are going
to watch very carefully. We have got a set of relationships
there and others, but this is the number one relationship. And
the opportunities that we have to take advantage of
economically--how do we understand each other in terms of
tariff issues? How do we share technology? How do we go ahead
on some of these very, very big issues that are out there? It
is a terrific set of opportunities.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Manzullo,
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you.
Senator, on May 18, 1993, when I was a freshman, having
been a Member of Congress for 4 years, you were testifying
about this same issue; and I appreciate your perseverance and
your dedication, your hard work on it.
I asked you a question back then--and this is not an ``a-
ha'' moment but just to bring it to your remembrance--as to
whether or not there should be an economic impact study on the
people that would be involved and taken into consideration with
environmental legislation.
The answer that you gave is, ``I know the President agrees
with you.'' We have to be very careful about the impact on
people. The impact on the deficit and the impact on interest
rates are very significant indeed. If we are not able to
alleviate that burden, it would be enormously difficult for our
children and grandchildren to enjoy the level of living this
generation has had.
My question is the same as it was back 17 years ago on the
impact that this will have on people, especially the areas in
manufacturing. That is, going into the negotiations in
Copenhagen, signing an agreement to further reduce emissions,
has anybody ever got involved deeply with manufacturers as to
what impact this will have on the loss of jobs?
I know the Brookings Institute on the cap-and-trade bill we
just passed said we would have a loss of about 8 million jobs.
But when you are at enormously high unemployment nationwide--
and the district that I represent, the biggest city at 17
percent, and for any area in the country just add 5 percent, so
we are over 22 percent--and when one out of four families is on
public assistance, don't you think it is absolutely totally
imperative to have some type of measurement as to the impact of
this on manufacturing?
And thank you for your answer 17 years ago.
Mr. Wirth. It was a good answer 17 years ago, and it is a
good answer today.
And the reason that we have to get an answer to this is, as
you suggest, is that what is happening in the Middle West, in
your area, is an economic catastrophe; and we have to figure
out how to build ourselves out of that. We can't blow up the
same balloon again, as you know. What is the new balloon going
to look like? What is the new economy going to look like?
If I were sitting where Larry Summers is sitting or where
the President is sitting and sitting down and talking to you
about what we do in Illinois, I would start by reaching out to
people like Caterpillar, who have said there are tremendous
opportunities here. If we do the climate change legislation
right--we are a major employer in your State. They have said,
if we do this in the right fashion, this could be a great
opportunity of rebuilding lots of industries and new industries
in this country. This is Caterpillar.
Mr. Manzullo. I understand that.
The reason I raise that is I don't see any quantitative
studies--we have seen people talking about inventing jobs.
People don't want new jobs that are invented by the government.
They want the same jobs they have, those jobs that have been
lost because of the downturns of the economy, those jobs that
are still necessary. And those jobs, in fact, Senator, that are
really being hurt by cap-and-trade that----
I mentioned earlier, Rentech makes anhydrous ammonia and
urea-related products. They were switching to the Fischer-
Tropsch process. We have a $600 million investment in my
congressional district. It would have really spawned green
technology all the way across the top part of the State of
Illinois. But just out of fear, out of what Senator Obama said
at that time about emissions tax or cap-and-trade, they pulled
the plug on that massive investment; and that has really hurt
manufacturing.
Mr. Wirth. Rentech is headquartered right at the edge of
Denver. The guys that own Rentech are there. I know the
situation very well and the opportunity.
Going back to the numbers, there is a very clear gross
economic analysis done by McKinsey--and I referenced some of
that in my testimony, and we would be glad to share with you
sort of the internals of that data if you would like to look at
it--as to what the opportunity is for growing out of this.
A second step, it seems to me, relates to truly looking at
a lot of the new industries and a lot of the new energy
opportunities. Let me cite one in particular.
In Illinois, you have----
Chairman Berman. Senator, can you come back to this in the
next round?
Mr. Wirth. I would be happy to come back to it, because it
is the key question. It is the one we have to get on, and the
Congressman is absolutely right.
Chairman Berman. Anybody object to a unanimous consent to
let Mr. Manzullo have an additional minute?
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wirth. I will just give you one example on fuel.
We have been very dependent upon coal--and that has been
driving a lot--and low prices, and somehow we have to figure
out how do we deal with the coal question because coal is so
polluting. Well, is there a shift that we can make?
Well, we have been given this enormous gift, as you
probably know, of these discoveries of shale gas. We now have
more natural gas reserves in the United States. Well, if we are
going to make the shift toward a low-carbon economy, along the
way you want to use low-carbon resources; and a lot of those
are in Illinois. There are significant resources in Illinois.
So this is an opportunity as well. If we get the rules right,
how do you generate the kinds of industries and changes?
Final point that I would make is really looking very
carefully at agriculture. There are solutions from the land
that are being developed. Some are coming to understand what
can be done in terms of sinks of carbon, different kinds of
fuels that can be grown, that we can grow on our own which make
a great deal of difference, and different nutritional crops at
a time when the nutritional value of foods is going to decline
because of climate change. There are opportunities coming out
of the great State land grant university system. You have one
of those in Illinois. That can be also another significant
opportunity.
Mr. Manzullo. Thank you for the additional time, and I look
forward to a cup of coffee to get the rest of the answer.
Chairman Berman. The gentleman from California, Mr.
Sherman, is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for having
these important hearings.
The United States is often at a disadvantage in trying to
get manufacturing jobs. We still do very well in terms of
developing the technology, marketing it, putting it together.
Critical to that is protection of intellectual property rights.
Now, the House has spoken in strong support for IP
protections in numerous House-passed bills. But, Mr. Groves,
how well are we doing in insisting that, especially with regard
to American innovations in the area of green technology, that
this will be protected and that the protection will not just be
a protection of the U.S. market?
All too often we want to say, well, we have protected
intellectual property. At least the Chinese can't sell the
counterfeit goods here in the United States. And there is a lot
of money to be made in the U.S. market. But we are being
promised global exports when we develop the technology. How
effective are we in making sure that American intellectual
property rights will be protected not only with regards to
devices used here in the United States but around the world?
Mr. Groves. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.
I was very pleased and very heartened to hear Mr. Stern's
testimony--or I believe it was in answer to a question
regarding the IPR issues--that the two options of the four IPR
options that are really on the table that are against
protections for intellectual property are a non-starter for our
delegation. They are still on the table. They involve
compulsory licensing of specific technologies for mitigation
and adaptation and immediate exclusion of new and revocation of
existing patents in developing countries, which would be
anathema to starting new green technologies in this country,
especially if we are going to be exporting them under a new
treaty regime, the post-Kyoto commitment period. So I was very
happy to hear Mr. Stern's response to those questions.
Mr. Sherman. So at least our bargaining position is that we
don't want in the agreement some additional text which
additionally roads international property rights. But, right
now, the international regime is not too friendly to
intellectual property rights. It is on paper.
Is there anything--and do we need anything--in Copenhagen
that provides for penalties for those who violate existing--
and, hopefully, under this treaty--undiminished intellectual
property rights?
Mr. Groves. It would be a good opportunity. If the United
States is ultimately going to agree to be part of such a
universal treaty, those types of technology transfers can be
monitored better than your average intellectual property when
we are talking about DVDs and movies and other inventions. So
protections and penalties for infringement on IP rights would
be a good addition to the treaty, and I don't think it would be
outside of the scope of the negotiations.
Mr. Sherman. I wonder if we have a comment from either of
the other two witness.
And I will ask you to comment, do we have a prospect not
just for battling against bad provisions on intellectual
property but actually putting into this agreement protections
that go beyond the currently ineffectual provisions in
international law?
Ms. Claussen. I can say that if you look at the text right
now, it includes virtually every country's proposals. So you
have these bad IPR things in there which I believe we will
never agree to and neither will some other countries, so I
think in the end they go away. I don't think there is anything
on the reverse which would enhance IPR.
Mr. Sherman. Our usual trade policy is to insist on
documents that are very good on paper and absolutely fail in
reality. Hence, we have the largest trade deficit in the
history of mammalian life.
Senator Wirth.
Mr. Wirth. I would just again point out, Congressman, what
I suggested earlier. I think the biggest point of debate is the
United States-China relationship on this. And it is an
opportunity again. I mean, they are very interested in what is
going to happen on this because they are developing on their
side a lot of protected technologies, and they also want to get
the rules right for this. So I think this is a great
opportunity for the United States and China to use this
negotiation, not going to happen at Copenhagen, but use this
relationship to see if we can clarify and come in a positive
way to agreements here. If I were this administration, I
certainly would----
Mr. Sherman. I look forward to us negotiating agreements
that will be enforced against U.S. Companies and ignored in
China.
I yield back.
Chairman Berman. The time of the gentleman has expired; and
the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized.
Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I will preface my questions by stating that I have never
seen an issue in my 22 years as a Member of Congress or in the
years beforehand when I was a journalist, I have never seen an
issue in which there has been a greater attempt to stifle
debate than this issue on global warming. The repeating of
``case closed'' and labeling anybody who has honest doubts
about whether or not the man-made global warming theory is
correct or not as deniers is just antithetical to open
discussion of a very important issue; and it leads to errors.
For example, it leads to errors when people on our own
committee mentioned that two-thirds of all the CO2
that is coming from developing countries, when only 10 percent
of all the CO2 in the atmosphere comes from man-made
sources. Ninety percent or more comes from natural sources.
Let's just note that again the theory of man-made global
warming is today being contested by hundreds of prominent and
thousands of scientists throughout the world. And this is not
something that is debates over the deniers, blah, blah; it is a
matter of serious discussion. When you see especially that ice
cores now indicate at their second look at it, not the first,
it was discovered that the warming trends in the world came
after the increases--the increases in CO2 were not
brought on by--the CO2 didn't bring on the higher
temperatures. The higher temperatures actually happened after
the CO--anyway, you know what I am trying to say. Pardon me for
getting this mixed up.
But see how we need to discuss this? High scores are now
showing the temperature increases--temperature increases
preceded CO2 increases. So the whole predicate of
this argument on global warming is that the CO2 made
the earth grow warmer. Well, based on that, predictions were
made that we were going to have ever-more-increasing
temperatures; and for the last 9 years we haven't had those
increasing temperatures. We have actually had a decline in
temperature.
And we have also seen in the last 2 years the polar ice cap
that is so touted with the pictures of the polar bear is now
refreezing for the last 2 years, again, totally contrary to the
predictions.
So what we have here is, at the very best, a debatable
theory of man-made global warming, which isn't used anymore. It
is man-made climate change because it is no longer warming. So
it is a very debatable point, if not a totally bogus point,
when people look up at other planets and see that some of the
same temperature trends that are going on here are going on on
Mars, for example. And I happen to be on the science committee,
and I have followed that very closely. And what does that
indicate? That--what? Man-made global warming is also affecting
what is going on on Mars? No.
So if there are absolute reasons to doubt whether or not
this theory is correct, why are we rushing headlong into
Copenhagen, into making agreements that will dramatically
impact the sovereignty of our country by agreeing that
international panels will then have greater say as to the
policies of our Government? And we also will agree to certain
goals and restrictions that may cause economic hardships here
and actually benefit countries that are poor because they have
dictatorships that are corrupt.
Let me just ask the panel this. Does anyone on this panel
think that the threat of global warming--excuse me, climate
change--it is not global warming anymore--would mean that we
should agree to policies that would discourage the use of
airline transportation? Would anyone agree with that?
Chairman Berman. The panel has 38 seconds.
Mr. Wirth. I would certainly say that the airline industry,
like everybody else, is going to have a responsibility to the
integrity of the climate envelope that allows life on earth to
exist as we know it.
Mr. Rohrabacher. So the answer is yes. Thank you. So we are
going to discourage travel on airlines.
Mr. Wirth. Congressman, I am perfectly happy to answer my
own questions.
Mr. Rohrabacher. But I only have 13 seconds so people can--
--
How about--what I have heard from the man-made global
warming group is that they want to discourage airline travel,
discourage the eating of meat, dramatically increase the price
of gasoline. These things will have huge impacts, especially if
mandated by an international agreement enforced by
international panels on the people of the United States. This
is a catastrophe being driven by a very questionable theory at
best but probably a bogus theory.
Thank you.
Chairman Berman. Probably a bogus theory. That is a
concession on your part.
The gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, I think there is one area that I find
myself in agreement with the gentleman from California; and I
do not believe that the changes that are occurring on Mars is
the result of anything that human beings are doing. I presume
that is all the responsibility of the Martians.
But, to be serious, you know, Mr. Groves--and my ranking
member and friend from California raised the issue of
sovereignty here. Are there any treaties or conventions that--
do you have a philosophical or an ideological perspective in
terms of the United States entering into international
conventions or international treaties?
Mr. Groves. Not at all, Mr. Delahunt. Thank you for the
question. It just depends on the treaties that we are getting
into. Obviously, bilaterals are better, because we can control
the terms better.
Mr. Delahunt. And I should have phrased it multilateral.
Mr. Groves. Multilateral human rights treaties, for
example. We are party to several major universal human rights
treaties. But, in those cases, every 4 years we go and we
report to a committee of experts in Geneva. They look at our
record. They make----
Mr. Delahunt. So you are comfortable with human rights,
multilateral human rights treaties?
Mr. Groves. As properly understood, I am comfortable with
them.
Mr. Delahunt. In terms of multilateral environmental
conventions?
Mr. Groves. If it is something that is in the U.S. best
interest and preserves American sovereignty, it is something--
--
Mr. Delahunt. You always put that qualifier, ``preserving
American sovereignty.'' I would suggest that any convention in
some way can be interpreted as ceding some sort of sovereignty.
Mr. Groves. Correct.
Mr. Delahunt. And I guess the issue is, is it in our best
interests when one steps back and does the analysis?
Mr. Groves. Or do a cost-benefit analysis. What are we
getting for surrendering or ceding some or a lot of our
sovereignty? Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. And, again, that obviously is in the eye of
the beholder, whether we are ceding. Because the economic
arguments that I am hearing like setting the rules--you know,
there are rules in every marketplace, you know, whether it is--
we have rules domestically. We have safety rules. We have food
security rules. We have an FDA. Maybe some would abrogate all
of those rules and just have a marketplace with absolutely no
supervision, no regulation, no protections. At least I am using
the term protections for the consumers.
So the concern that I have is that eventually rules are
going to be set that we had little input into; and, as a
result, we are going to find ourselves--I think it was Mr.
Stearns or maybe it was Senator Wirth who talked about we are
going to be catching up in terms of the new economic
opportunities.
I listened to my friend from Illinois, and I sympathize
with that pain and anguish that is besetting many of the people
that work in manufacturing. You know, I wish that we had done
something earlier in terms of the automobile industry, you
know, that would have made the American automobile manufacturer
much more competitive than it is. Because, let's be honest, we
got creamed by foreign competitors. All these good, patriotic
Americans are going out buying Toyotas or BMWs, because, for
some reason, the marketplace failed us, the American
manufacturers.
So, Senator Wirth, would you care to comment?
Mr. Wirth. I think there are interesting areas where you
have got to worry about sovereignty, and there are other areas
where I think Mr. Groves and I would probably disagree. But if
you look at the Law of the Sea, it seems to me that enhances
U.S. sovereignty. We get an enormous increase if we ratified
the Law of the Sea--which we haven't done for reasons that
escape me entirely. If we ratify that, we enhance, we broaden
our sovereignty very significantly. We broaden our jurisdiction
very significantly. We increase our rights significantly. In
the most selfish way, you know, we benefit from that treaty.
Chairman Berman. I agree with you. By his facial
expression, I have a feeling Mr. Groves does not share your
view about the Law of the Sea.
I yield myself 5 minutes.
And, I mean, this issue that Mr. Delahunt raises of
impinging sovereignty, I mean, there are two ways to look at
this. One is--and I guess in every different area you can have
different views of it. One is that every international treaty
is impinging sovereignty to some extent, because it is
providing constraints that don't otherwise exist on what
American political institutions can do.
So another way of looking at it is every one of these is a
sovereign decision of the United States and, therefore, none of
them impinge on U.S. sovereignty. It gets a bit philosophical
here.
Mr. Groves. What we want to look at real quickly is, when
it comes down to sovereignty, depending on the treaty, it boils
down to the question of who decides. At the end of the day, who
decides whether the United States is meeting its treaty
obligations?
Chairman Berman. Well, sometimes the WTO decides.
Mr. Groves. If it goes to a case and we bring it up to the
court, yes. And we were happy to cede that power to them. We
were front and center in those negotiations.
Chairman Berman. So now it is a question of what we are
happy to do, what is wise to do. It is getting down to case by
case.
Mr. Groves. Treaty by treaty, there is a different
analysis.
Chairman Berman. Well, one is, is it appropriate? You
propose sort of an analysis before you jump into something of
what are the economic costs trying to go through this process.
Is a corollary part of that process what are the economic costs
of not getting into meaningful, enforceable limits? Is that
appropriate, or is that called creative scoring?
Mr. Groves. I think it is the same question. You can't
determine what the economic costs are.
Chairman Berman. So your analysis would allow for that kind
of comparison?
Mr. Groves. Sure. To the extent that those costs can be
quantified on a scientific basis, of course.
Chairman Berman. To get down to some of the specifics, I am
wondering if any of you--and Senator, Ms. Claussen, perhaps
just by your background you might be the most likely to suggest
it. Waxman-Markey talks about some funding assistance for
developing countries. Kyoto provided a framework for the flow
of money through the clean development mechanism, which has
been criticized for funding projects that do not reduce global
warming. What is the best way to distribute funds for
mitigation and technology transfer? Are existing mechanisms
sufficient? Should we try to look for a new model?
Mr. Wirth. My own view of this, Mr. Chairman, is that we
ought to start by professionalizing CDM, the Clean Development
Mechanism. It was a good idea. It remains a good idea. It has
been caught up in an international bureaucracy that is very
tedious and incredibly slow. It is a good idea. It ought to be
incorporated into work being done by financial experts to make
this thing work, because it is a very, very good idea. And it
is a good way for us to discharge our obligations if you
believe, as I do, that, one, we put a lot of the pollution up
there but also that what we want to do, for example, is to slow
down the rate of deforestation. Well, how do you do it? What
mechanism do we have for buying forests effectively from people
who would be happy to sell them to us, if we had some money,
rather than to cut them down? So how do we pay for that?
Well, CDM is a very good mechanism. We don't have to create
something new, and it doesn't have to be the Copenhagen
agreement that gets us there.
But this is, again, something, from the perspective of this
committee, to look at and say, well, how do we make this work
better? It is so terribly important. I mean, that is one good
example of, it seems to me, what we could be doing at
essentially no cost to us.
Chairman Berman. Ms. Claussen.
Ms. Claussen. Let me just add that there is an effort to
try to reform CDM, because the process is slow and because some
of the reductions haven't been verified. So some of it is not
real. I think that has to be something that we take on, because
there are ways to use CDM to get something that is real, and
that is really what it should be all about. So some reform I
think is necessary.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
Because my own time is running out, let me just ask a
question that probably could have a yes or no answer. Is there
any aspect of the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China--I
mean, this whole notion of thickening the United States-China
relationship in this area? Is there any aspect of that that the
administration is treating as specially focused on
environmental energy kinds of issues?
Mr. Wirth. Well, it has an overall framework. As you know,
it came out of the Treasury Department originally; and it was
run by Secretary Paulson. He was the big guy in the Cabinet. I
mean, he sort of filled the vacuum.
Since then, it was transferred to the State Department.
They thought that was necessary--there was an MOU signed this
last summer. The question now is one of implementation and
really serious management of the dialogue--and do the Chinese
understand this? We don't want to negotiate something new. We
don't have to negotiate something new. It is already there.
They already understand that. It is a matter of us managing it
on our side.
I would be happy to talk to anybody further about this, Mr.
Chairman. We just heard over and over and over again--I was at
a major conference in Beijing of business people from all over
China and all over the United States, and this was the number
one issue--how much attention we are paying to the
implementation of this agreement. Americans asking, please do
this; and Chinese business saying, please do this. And we are
missing the ball.
This is not a massive new invention. We have the mechanism
that is there. It is just a matter of tending to it and putting
the political muscle behind it. I think that Secretary Clinton
could be encouraged to do this.
We have a great ambassador there. Huntsman is very, very
impressive, but he doesn't have time to do this day and day
out. That is not his job. The climate negotiator, that is not
his job. It is this economic relationship. That is where we
ought to hone right in on, and that is something I believe also
that this committee certainly has the jurisdiction and has the
ability to really underscore this and find out what is going on
and what the different views are.
Chairman Berman. Thank you.
We could probably continue the debate about the science for
a while, but I think we should adjourn the hearing. Thank you
all very much for coming and participating. A lot of good ideas
to follow up on.
[Whereupon, at 1:02 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing RecordNotice deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Minutes deg.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Berman statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Faleomavaega statement 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]
Connolly statement deg.
__________
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QFRs--from Stern 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]
QFRs--Wirth 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]
QFR--Claussen 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]
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
