good morning today the select committee on energy independence and global warming will have a briefing from the ambassador of the european commission to the united states regarding the eu's progress toward the copenhagen negotiations and then we will have a hearing to learn about our country's progress despite the chill in the air today global temperatures remain high two thousand eight was tied for the eighth warmest year on record the evidence of shrinking ice caps and increasingly violent storms reminds us of the danger and challenges we face due to climate change the debate is no longer about whether humans are causing global warming but what we are prepared to do about it now that the united states has a president committed to action congress is poised to help resolve it last congress made progress with the passage of the two thousand and seven energy bill which by raising fuel economy and appliance efficiency standards will reduce global warming pollution in the future now the task confronting us is how to construct policies that meet the scientific need and the political will to accomplish this we will build and improve upon the good work from the th congress during this economic crisis we must find a way to lay a new foundation for growth as president obama said in his inaugural address that is our challenge to embrace the opportunity to create sustainable jobs and a resilient economy to reduce our dependence on oil and to prevent human misery but the united states cannot solve the problem alone the only prospect for success exist if the global community engages in a joint effort this is the challenge the international community accepted in bali in two thousand and seven at that meeting delegates from almost two hundred countries met to discuss international climate protection they decided on a path of negotiations leading to a comprehensive future climate regime to be adopted in two thousand and nine in copenhagen the select committee one year ago heard testimony about the progress made at the bali meeting today we are at the halfway point on the road to copenhagen this hearing will examine what progress has been made in answering the four main questions posed by the bali roadmap how to fulfill the needed greenhouse gas reductions outlined by science how to adapt to impacts we can no longer avoid how to answer the need for technology cooperation and how to support poor countries as they struggle to cope with the realities of climate change it is time to take stock and to plan ahead there are encouraging signs all across the globe mexico south africa the eu and others have made significant domestic commitments china's recent five year plan makes energy efficiency renewables and carbon reduction a priority carbon markets are being implemented all across the world the next step from bali was poznan poland in december almost four thousand government officials met to negotiate the next steps on the path to copenhagen today we will examine the concrete results of the conference the progress of the international community on the bali agreement and whether that progress is enough to guide us out of the climate crisis there are only three hundred and five days left until the final negotiations in copenhagen three hundred five days from today the united states and the world will have to reach an agreement that reduces global warming pollution and facilitates cooperation on adapting to unavoidable climate impacts developing and deploying low technology and financing aid to developing countries the road to copenhagen will require the determination of heads of state and the hard work of negotiators policy makers scientists and economists alike it will not be easy but there is no alternative to a global solution we must find a way to protect the planet while ensuring prosperity for those on it that concludes the opening statement of the chair we now turn to recognize the ranking minority member with the united nations self imposed deadline to replace the kyoto protocol approaching we can't allow expedience to dictate a costly and ineffective response opposition to kyoto was bipartisan in  seven the senate voted ninety five to nothing to pass the byrd hagel resolution stating that the united states should not be a signatory to a treaty that does not include binding targets for developing nations or that would result in serious harm to the economy because kyoto failed on both counts president clinton never submitted the treaty to the senate for ratification kyoto's principal failure was its lack of inclusiveness by only requiring commitments from developed countries kyoto does not place restrictions on a majority of countries including three of the world's five largest emitters china india and brazil a treaty cannot reduce emissions without their participation even that direction i met with delegations from both china and india and i asked pointblank will you agree to mandatory emissions cuts both countries said no the emissions in the developing world are rising so rapidly that reductions from developed countries will be entirely offset by countries without binding commitments the battelle memorial institute recently calculated that based on business as usual projections developing countries will produce more emissions than developed countries within the next ten years and there is a graphic over there that demonstrates that fact a recent article in foreign affairs magazine quantified china's growth by and fifty china is expected to have more cars than the united states china's grand scale urbanization plan will aggravate matters china's leaders plan to relocate four hundred million people the newly developed urban centers between two thousand and thirty in the process they will erect half of all of the buildings expected to be constructed in the world during that period that is a troubling prospect considering the chinese buildings are not energy efficient in fact they are roughly two and a half times less so than those in germany rather than accept mandatory limits or increase its efficiency china and other developing countries hope to sell offsets to the developed world accepting for investment is hardly a sacrifice comparable to binding limits on emissions but beyond the unfairness there is no way to guarantee that the offsets will actually happen the theory is sound instead of limiting emissions where they are the most costly companies can make the same cuts for less money abroad the problems however are twofold first the money that should be invested in our own economy is sent to china and second many of the offsets won't happen a recent project demonstration demonstrates the problem germany recently agreed to purchase offset credits from chinese developers to build a new dam the u n approved more than sixteen million credits for the project this legitimizes sixteen million tons of emissions in germany and generates tens of millions of dollars of revenue for china the problem beyond the massive transfer of wealth is that developers began constructing the dam two years before applying for the credits according to the british times online one u n official estimated that twenty percent of the carbon credits failed to result in actual reductions karen harbert the presiden institute for st century energy will testify that the two thousand and seven u n negotiations in bali and indonesia produced positive steps towards a new treaty in bali developing countries agreed to actions that were measurable report verifiable this fits with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities that i support and that is fundamental in these negotiations an agreement to handicap the handful of economies won't change economic realities consumers will still buy goods the manufacture of these goods will result in the same emissions and america will simply outsource more emissions and more jobs every country has the right and ever government has the obligation to pull its citizens from poverty and advance their way of life the current global downturn historically demonstrates that wealth isn't a fixed pie it can increase and decrease in absolute terms and america prosperity doesn't come at the expense of the world the entire economic world can grow but all that growth must be subject to the same limitations we cannot self impose costs while foreign  predictable a long term contraction of the u s economy coupled with the continued explosion of global markets in the face of intense pressure to find a solution we can't adopt a costly one that won't work and i thank the chair underway why we are talking about global warming and i want to suggest there are two reasons for it number one the arctic as it melted this summer did not pay any attention to the dow jones average the pacific did not pay any attention to the standard and it became thirty percent more acidic in the last fifty years mother nature does not wait for us we have a necessity of acting now and secondly anyone who looked around the best opportunities for economic growth in this country are associated with beating global warming we know there is a world out there that is going to want these technologies and we believe and we took a first step with our economic recovery package to develop these technologies this is an economic recovery mission that are on as well as a global environmental one second point as to why we should act while china has not entered into an agreement yet with us let me suggest that i believe the road ahead the single most important thing we can do is for the united states to regain its moral authority to lead the world we are not in a real strong position to lead right now because we haven't acted and i would suggest that we need to act  copenhagen so that we have moral authority to lead the world into an international agreement i believe it is in our american destiny to do this and what we did last week in adopting our economic recovery plan which has about eighty eight billion of investment in these new technologies we are on our way to restoring our moral authority to lead the world the moral of the story is you can't blame everything on china when you haven't done anything at home and i wish we would spend more time figuring out how we are going to have a domestic response to this and a little less time blaming all the problems of the world on china when we are the ones who have three to five times more co output per capita than the chinese a third point just real quickly i met with the deputy minister of environment for czechoslovakia yesterday he had some very interesting ideas about what we should ask the chinas and indias of the world i believe there are appreciate what my friend the ranking member from wisconsin outlined there are real considerations we need to take into account to be able to do this right but  while germany may be two and a half times more energy efficient than china the united states doesn't look all that good in comparison with germany itself despite our advanced economy and having talked about this for some time i do feel very strongly that mister inslee's point about this being the path for the new economy for one that is sustainable and has economic opportunity is spot on i think that with the benefit of this hearing and the work mister chairman you are doing with the select committee we can refine proposals to make sure that we don't outsource pollution and jobs there is no reason we can't refine our own  trade and environmental policies to make sure that there is for example a carbon tariff to avoid that these are things that are within our capacity now that the united states has ended  an eight year hiatus where it was not part of the global process working in tandem that we have a president that is committed to our international cooperation and our international leadership i look forward to hearing from the witnesses and devising legislation and ideas that are based on the experience around the world good and bad so that we can meet this global climate cha i thank the gentleman time has expired for opening statements the chairman and we will now begin with a briefing from his excellency john bruton who is the ambassador of the european commission to the united states as a reminder we are not receiving testimony from a witness but a briefing by a foreign dignitary the select committee is honored to hear from ambassador bruton before accepting his current position ambassador bruton was the prime minister the taoiseach of ireland where he helped to transform the economy and enhance the peace process your excellency thank you very much for joining us today whenever you are comfortable he is ready to begin with his five minutes of opening testimony and that would be elliot diringer who is the vice president of international strategies for the pew center on global climate change diringer served in the clinton administration as deputy assistant to the president and deputy press secretary he now directs the pew center's outreach to key government mister chairman members of the committee thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today in summarizing my written testimony i would like to emphasize four points the progress made since bali what is needed in a post two thousand and twelve climate framework what will constitute success this year in copenhagen and how the united states can best ensure that success while global greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise at an alarming rate governments have made important progress since the bali conference ambassador bruton has just described efforts under way in europe other developed countries also are moving forward australia is planning a cap and trade system and other measures to reduce its emissions fifteen percent by two thousand and twenty japan will announce its own mid term target later this year even more encouraging is that several major developing countries have now adopted national climate strategies china which adopted a national climate program in two thousand and seven was joined last year by india brazil mexico and south africa brazil is proposing absolute reductions to begin ten years later internationally as well we have seen progress since bali president bush and other g leaders supported a global goal to reduce emissions at least fifty percent by two thousand and fifty then the major economies  china india and other developing countries acknowledged that their emissions must deviate from business as usual and in the u n climate negotiations governments have put forward dozens of concrete proposals for fashioning a comprehensive post two thousand and twelve agreement in anticipation of new u s leadership governments resolved two months ago in poznan poland to shift this year into full negotiating mode after years of stalemate conditions are finally set for genuine negotiation to begin center believes that to be effective a post two thousand and twelve climate agreement must establish verifiable commitments by all major economies including economy wide emission targets for developed countries and a range of policy commitments for developing countries we see four major challenges between now and copenhagen the first is agreeing on a range of comparable emission targets for developed countries president obama has called for reducing u s emissions to one thousand nine hundred and ninety levels by two thousand and twenty the european union as we have just heard has set a target of twenty percent below one thousand nine hundred and ninety levels measured against a one thousand nine hundred and ninety baseline these goals appear very much at odds however circumstances today are different measured against a more current baseline these goals appear considerably more comparable both in fact would reduce emissions roughly fifteen percent below two thousand and five levels targets under consideration in australia canada and japan fall in a similar range the second challenge is defining developing country actions in a way that works for developing countries and can be accepted by the united states and other developed countries as a genuine commitment developing countries are not prepared at this stage to assume economy wide targets commitments to implement nationally defined policies such as energy intensity goals efficiency standards or sectoral targets are a reasonable alternative provided that these policies are defined in clear metrics and produce verifiable emission reductions the third major challenge is agreeing on the appropriate means and level of support for developing country action mobilizing support will be difficult under current economic conditions but early progress in this area will be essential to reaching agreement in copenhagen the fourth major challenge is deciding how countries efforts are to be measured and verified a credible verification system is key to establishing and maintaining parties confidence in their efforts in the overall regime we cannot realistically resolve all of these issues in the next ten months as such we believe that the copenhagen conference should be considered a major success if it produces a strong interim agreement that puts a full final and ratifiable treaty within reach this interim agreement should do three things it should establish the basic architecture of a post two thousand and twelve framework it should indicate the range of emission reductions and level of support that developed countries are prepared to commit to and it should initiate a process to determine the specific actions to be undertaken by developing countries this would settle fundamental legal and design issues and create a positive dynamic for concluding the final agreement to ensure success in copenhagen the united states must first and foremost  at home by quickly enacting comprehensive mandatory legislation to reduce u s emissions the united states must also lead abroad through a full fledged diplomatic strategy congress can help strengthen the hand of u s negotiators through  design of domestic climate legislation congress could for instance authorize immediate assistance for capacity building in developing countries with assistance for technology development to be made available upon u s ratification and entry into force of a new climate agreement similarly congress could set aside allowance auction revenues to be made available on entry into force for emission reductions overseas above and beyond a u s domestic target the targets  set under domestic legislation must fundamentally guide the u s negotiating position but room to bargain could provide the negotiating leverage needed to secure stronger commitments from others i thank you for this opportunity and would be happy to answer your we thank you very much mister diringer our second witness is rob bradley he is the director of the international climate policy initiative at the world resources institute mister bradley a trained physicist now manages a variety of morning my name is rob bradley i am director of the international climate policy initiative at the world resources institute thank you for the opportunity to join you today i would like to make three points each of which i treat in more detail in my written testimony which i hope can be included in the record first success against climate change will mean both strong federal policy in the united states and action from major developed and developing economies second the world has changed dramatically from the days of the kyoto protocol major developing countries are ready to take significant limiting emissions third the bali action plan provides a solid foundation for a new international agreement that meets key u s interests the united states is an indispensable leader in the fight against climate change without the world's largest economy and biggest historical emitter other countries cannot fix the problem but nor can the u s do it alone almost eighty percent of global emissions are produced by fifteen countries counting the eu as one country nine of which are in the developing world the kyoto protocol the main climate agreement date has been rejected by the u s in particular because of the concern that without meaningful participation from major developing countries it would be ineffective and excessively costly to the u s economy developing countries have historically argued that with their poverty and small historical contribution to the climate problem they should not be responsible for curbing emissions but in recent years there has been a flood of developing country climate plans for example brazil announced that it would reduce its deforestation rate over fifty percent from the recent levels expected to cut emissions by five hundred and fifty million tons of co investment in wind hydro nuclear and biomass are expected to save an additional six hundred and forty million tons by two thousand and ten india has a number of states that are taking forward aggressive renewable energy targets plan to peak its national emissions by two thousand and twenty and to bring them down to low levels in two thousand and fifty in accordance with the science these policies will often not be in the same form as the cap and trade approach favored in the u s and europe but that need not make them any less ambitious they are the more impressive when we consider the poverty of many of these countries as has already been mentioned in india five hundred and fifty million people still lack any access to electricity and they just like americans and europeans in the last century legitimately aspire to get it but they are seeking to pathway indeed countries such as china and india see their future as leaders in the clean energy revolution significant questions do remain many of these countries have a poor record of implementing national plans reliable  to obtain standards of enforcement governance and transparency are very variable it will certainly not be enough for countries to take each other's plans at face value this is where the international agreement comes in it must enhance collective willingness to act by establishing accountability to build trust that countries are taking real action to cut emissions and framing those actions in the context of global goals the bali action plan provides for a radically different agreement from the kyoto protocol mitigation actions from both developed and developing countries are to be measurable reportable and verifiable this language also applies to finance technology and capacity building support to developing countries this body can shape the success of the international process most importantly adopting an ambitious federal climate policy will unleash action not only in the u s but also from countries that have been waiting on the world's biggest economy second u s policy should include provisions financing international action on adaptation forest protection and clean technologies i don't want to imply that this will be easy many countries remain wary of commitments and their rhetoric will stress these fears but the world has moved on a lot in ten years there is a  real willingness to tackle emissions and a potential agreement that can turn this willingness into verifiable action for the united states and for the world the time is right to rise to this challenge thank you and i look forward to your questions the chairman thank you mister bradley very much  secretary for policy and international affairs at the u s department of energy we welcome you ms harbert whenever you are ready please begin ms harbert thank you chairman markey and ranking member sensenbrenner other members of the committee for holding today's very important hearing on climate change climate change is undoubtedly one of the most complex issues facing the international community today and i want to focus on some of the major challenges to a new agreement and where i believe the u s needs to play a constructive role however it is important to keep in mind the global context in which these negotiations are occurring has changed the world has changed considerably since the unfccc was launched in one thousand nine hundred and ninety two energy demand is going to increase by fifty percent between now and two thousand and thirty and seventy five percent of that growth is going to be in the developing world next year co emissions from the industrialized nations will account for forty seven percent of emissions the developing world will be fifty three percent in two thousand and thirty that will be a very different picture the industrialized world will be thirty eight percent and the developing world will be sixty two percent so to be effective therefore any new arrangement should take into account changing trends in global economic development energy demand and emissions the old model of donor and recipient countries simply will no longer work climate change needs to be addressed as part of an integrated agenda that proceeds from a clear understanding that for many countries energy security is a greater concern right now than climate change too often energy is vilified in these international discussions yet in reality affordable energy is central to addressing climate change because it underpins economic growth which is necessary to drive technology creation and employment and definitely environmental protection international strategies that recognize the reality can raise the level of trust between and among developed and developing nations in addition in these negotiations which were going to be very difficult to begin with under the very best of circumstances are now complicated further by the recent financial crisis looking ahead the u s must be the voice of reason in these negotiations permeating much of these negotiations is an air of unreality that ultimately could derail an agreement unachievable emission reduction targets the weakening of intellectual property protections and unrealistic demands for financial support for example are now all on the negotiating table we must temper our ambition with realism which means that while we promote a positive pro growth agenda that will attract developed and developing nations and will improve environmental stewardship we must also be willing to walk away from a bad deal further to ensure our economy retains its competitiveness any new domestic climate policy should be conditioned on an international agreement that has full international participation the idea that if the u s goes first china india and other nations will follow is just simply an unjustified article of faith that carries with it tremendous economic risk and potentially no environmental benefit we have seen with the kyoto protocol that top down approaches simply do not work a new agreement needs to accommodate a wide range of national circumstances and approaches and it should be very simple to implement and oversee a long term global emissions reduction goal should be realistic achievable and take into account emerging science the pace of technology development and diffusion and should not undermine economic growth or simply shift jobs or pollution overseas to be effective a new agreement must include the participation of countries like china and india in this regard the bali roadmap was very welcome in that we saw an indication of their willingness to participate in activities that were measurable verifiable and reportable a new arrangement should include commitments by all countries in accordance with the common but differentiated responsibilities however we should not use that as a source for inaction we believe the notion of responsibilities and capabilities ought to evolve as economic conditions evolve and countries evolve and we must recognize that countries should graduate from developing to develop status at the cornerstone of any success is technology development and deployment and that will determine how quick and how costly any future agreement will be we know that the world will use coal will use natural gas and will use oil and we must fashion policies to accommodate their exploitation in the developing world yet being mindful of environmental stewardship we of course are paying close attention to china and the g weaken intellectual property as part of their proposal we have to resolve what place nuclear power and carbon capture storage and sequestration will be in any new agreement we can lead by example and we can accelerate nuclear power in this country and we can invest seriously in co carbon capture and storage so we have opportunities to exert leadership here at home by making wise smart energy policy choices and through the wto we should eliminate tariff and non tariff barriers to environmental goods and services which will lower the cost of any eventual agreement but it is important that climate change not be invoked as an excuse to erect tariff barriers to gain competitive advantage or redistribute wealth and we also have to remember that financing is critical this will not be cost free as  ambassador bruton said we need international concessionary financing and we need to re look at the financial instrumentation we have here at home so in sum what would a new international approach look like the following eight principles it should consider growing energy needs circumstances and resource endowments of all countries it should set realistic and achievable it should strike a good balance between environmental protection energy security and economic growth it should ensure global participation it should allow for diversified approaches it should ensure that mitigation actions are all measurable reportable and verifiable and it should place technology at the cornerstone while protecting intellectual property and the rule of law we should keep business at the table we should keep the energy alternative ways to deal with the situation if countries do not enter into this new international framework we have heard some discussion of potential mr blumenauer threw out the idea of some associated with the costs of noncompliance mike doyle and i are working on an approach a little different that would essentially provide free permits to energy intensive industries as an approach to prevent leakage overseas it wouldn't be directed to any one country it would simply say that energy intensive industries would receive some free permits as opposed to having to buy them at what is supposed to be an effective auction thank you mister inslee let me distinguish between two scenarios then one domestic action in anticipation of an international agreement and the second scenario being once we have reached an international agreement  think in the first scenario the approach you and mister doyle have put forward seems rather workable in our analysis of potential competitiveness impacts they actually appear reasonably modest and can be addressed through the allocation process ambassador bruton described how europe has chosen to go that route australia also is using free allocation to energy intensive industries to address this issue and we would prefer that to the imposition of border measures unilateral border measures in the absence of an international agreement assuming that we are able to achieve an international agreement it seems as if there are two options one would be to try to structure into the agreement  the use of some types of tariffs or border measures as a means either to enforce the agreement or as a tool to encourage action by parties that have not yet entered into the agreement the other option would be not to have those as an explicit tool of the agreement but for countries again to choose to do that unilaterally but now with an agreement in place either of those options assuming an agreement in place to my understanding would be more effective and more legitimate under the wto than choosing to go the route of unilateral trade measures in the absence of an international agreement i should emphasize i am not an attorney and by no means a wto expert but  understanding again is that if parties have reached an international environmental agreement then the use of trade measures either as a means of enforcing that agreement or as a unilateral  i really appreciated your comment about trying to drive technology is the answer to this problem it is one thing i wholeheartedly embraced and i appreciate you bringing that up i want to ask you about what you should be the relative contributions of the world's citizens to this problem so i will invite you to play slumdog millionaire with me for a minute take two world citizens one in india one in mumbai one living on a dollar a day with no legal place to live and then a middle class american living in the first congressional district where i live my constituents myself included about ten times more per capita than the slum dog millionaire so i guess the question is what do you think our relative expectations should be of one another in this international agreement how should we quantify that should they be dependent on our gross domestic products you know what should we expect of each other should we have the same per capita emissions in which case indians could go up by a factor of five and ours come down by fifty percent that seems not very attractive to me but it might be seen presume that any agreement that anybody ever is going to be party to is going to be a success in order for it to be a success it has to be binding and therefore there have to be responsibilities that everybody is going to agree to there is a precursor agreement that the developing world  have common but differentiated responsibilities but if there is a binding agreement that means that over time those will increase and so we have to be willing to sit at a table and look across the table at our counterparts in the developing world and have them agree to binding agreements therefore it will not be incumbent and our taxpayers and our citizens will not be the ones paying continuously over time for the compliance of the developing world if we erect tariff barriers at our borders because either they have not signed onto an agreement or they are not in compliance with their agreements that basically is just going to put on the burden of the american citizen that cost and that would be unfair whether it is in your district or anybody else's district that we were paying for the failure of the agreement and it is either an enforcement or whether it was just never successfully negotiated to begin with so we have to recognize the aspirations of the developing world they have a right to develop but they also have an obligation to enter into a binding enforceable agreement that will really and materially reduce greenhouse gas emissions every time if they do not participate we will not succeed so if the goal is to succeed they have to be party to it and they have to have binding enforceable obligations indians may take may be different than the percentage we would take you would accept that as a principal ms harbert well certainly every country is different in the type of natural resources it is endowed with with the types of industries that its economy relies upon so every country should have the sovereign right to decide how it is going to get to the target and to the binding obligations that it has agreed to because a country that has a lot of oil and gas and coal is going to go about it differently than a country that may be of a declining population that has a huge wind and solar base and so we should not be trying to enter into this with a prescriptive formula it should be flexible there should be different sectoral approaches to this but at the end of the lady from tennessee ms blackburn is recognized misess blackburn thank you mister chairman and thank you all for your patience today and for the good conservation about this because i think it is something that does concern us all and especially in this economic environment in which we find ourselves mister bradley i wanted to come to you one of the things that i hear from  ag committee quite a bit they are very concerned about livestock emissions and regulations that might be forced on them i want to know what your opinion is on that bradley agricultural emissions are a significant source of emissions in large parts of the world and certainly when we look at some of the developing countries that we have been talking about here today finding reliable ways to  range of things that can be done within the agricultural community this is probably something that is going to be somewhat more detailed than perhaps inclusion in the cap and trade mechanisms of the kinds that we have been talking about h generally certainly i think these are areas where there is some ripe scope for technology cooperation agricultural research is actually an area which has quite a good traditional of international collaboration and tell you that it is something that does concern us because you are talking about an issue that would end up affecting every single u s farm and the impact of that on our food security supply and network is  something that is not lost on us so any further detail that you have on that that you could submit in written form i would definitely appreciate having another question for you reading some of the economists writings on climate change and dealing with the economic situation that we are currently in the jobs retention issues that are in front of us a large number of them have stated that spending billions of dollars on climate change right now is unnecessary and they say the money probably would be better spend going toward projects such as clean water and sanitation that that would be a more effective route in developing countries than putting the focus on climate change and i would like to hear you address that mister bradley so just to make sure i understand your interacts with climate change one is and this is something you alluded to with the agricultural question as well it is not going to be possible to build effective water and sanitation and similar infrastructure in developing countries unless all we take into account the climate impacts that they will already be facing because those water systems will have to exist and provide their service within those stressed environments and secondly simultaneously we do need to ensure that climate change doesn't  race ahead and perhaps outstrip some of the values that those systems are going to bring if you are asking though does it make sense for a country like india to be spending more of its effort proportionately on providing those kinds of countries are there is a so called germany within india you have million people in india who live what would be largely viewed as a western lifestyle you know drive mercedes have air conditioned apartments and so forth simply because they happen to be lodged in the middle of a very poor country should not exempt those kinds of communities for taking action and this is why some of the discussions we have been having around developing countries emphasizes taking specific actions rather than necessarily st in your testimony you suggest that the u s move swiftly to cap and reduce emissions which i agree with incidentally in fact i had hoped fear is that that will take such a precedent that some of the issues that some of us at least on this side are extremely concerned about are going to be delayed  we already i think have somewhat of a damaged image in this area internationally that is where mister bradley comes in as well does a delay in moving in this area possibility of an effective global agreement in action to date by the united states which is not only the largest economy in the world but also the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases has been the single greatest impediment to progress in developing an effective global agreement i think that we have been in a very prolonged period of stalemate and then prenegotiation with countries waiting to see what the u s is prepared to do you know we did see some progress over the past year we saw some progress in the major economies dialogue that president bush initiated there was initially some great skepticism from other countries but i think other countries came to recognize the value in that type of dialogue but i think the reason it didn't produce any more is because president bush didn't put anything on the table in terms of u s action there are great expectations right now about the new administration and what it will be prepared to do both in terms of moving forward with domestic action and bringing something into the negotiations so i think that frankly domestic action in the u s is essential it may not be sufficient but it is the first  step towards moving forward internationally if i could you mentioned you know concern about the current economic situation perhaps delaying action i just want to note that the pew center along with the world resources institute are both members of the u s climate action partnership coalition of major companies and nongovernment organizations calling for mandatory action and enactment of cap and trade legislation this year one of the points made by the ceos of the companies is that there briefly as i can absolutely without the united states taking a leadership position on domestic policy i see very little prospect for an international agreement and it striking we focus a lot in these conversations on the sort of differences with china but in many ways the conversations that we hear when we go to china are extremely similar to the ones being held here in washington around climate change they completely get how bad the climate change they really worry about the impacts that they face but they say listen we are trying to do some things right now but without the world's biggest economy moving on this how can we move much faster than we are now they have been extremely face from climate change is one of the things that should galvanize us all i was on mount kilimanjaro a couple of years ago and you see the pictures from the s and s with this kind of shaggy mane of snow on mount kilimanjaro and it is now  hair it is something which really underlines the incredible difficulties that many of these countries are going to face one of the things that i think was very praiseworthy in many of the discussions around the climate bills last year was a fairly consistent intent on the part of congress to provide finance for international adaptation it was interesting to see the religious community in particular fall full square behind that i think that is an important recognition of  harbert what do you think about the prospects of us reaching an agreement with the well to do in shanghai the well to do in bangalore the interests that they represent at least in slumdog aspect of it in the movie that you haven't seen but you can only assume that it is that dollar a day resident of both of those countries ms harbert well there are ongoing efforts right now that are succeeding on a sector by sector basis the asia pacific partnership you have the aluminum industry working amongst twelve or thirteen countries to find ways to produce aluminum in a much more energy efficient manner the same in the area of cement and steel et cetera and that is because we are using technology and reality and economics as the base for making decisions on how to modernize these systems one of the most important things we could do is reduce the tariff barriers on clean  services and we have not been successful in the doha round we may need to look at different ways of doing this why are we making clean energy more expensive in the developing world that is needless and we could reduce that those would be american jobs and american exports if you listen to the chinese and i spent a lot of time in china as have you the chinese have said yes we're willing to sit at the table it's going to be very costly our priority is economic growth bringing our people out of poverty so that we don't have these pockets of germany that everybody has a much better baseline and we should afford them the right to have their people have a better way of life but they said it is going to cost money and we don't have it and therefore we expect to be paid in fact they have said they want seven percent of the industrialized world's g annual basis to be able to sit at the climate negotiating table and agree to something well that would mean eighty dollars billion every year from the american taxpayer to fund china's compliance with an international agreement that is a heck of a lot of money and that is just the u s obligation so we have to be very careful in how we approach bringing them in and that it ultimately doesn't fall just purely on an economic basis on the people inside the united states that for a long time have been more prosperous that a good formula for us to use mister diringer well first on the question of sectoral agreements we think that is certainly something worth exploring i don't know about the practicality of trying to negotiate something with a national government with respect to action in specific geographic areas but in terms of action within certain economic sectors that is certainly something we should be discussing and in fact if we were able to reach agreements around specific sectors particularly the energy intensive sectors that would be one very effective way to address the competitiveness clear we need to see commitments we need to see reasonable commitments we also need to be prepared to provide some support to those countries that need it to achieve those commitments in the case of china when you have conversations i mean the impression i get is that they understand that a they have lots of money and that is not really the thing they need from us and that lots of money is probably not forthcoming from the united states toward china what they do need is some assistance on the technology front  administration is to initiate a high level dialogue with china to have an honest conversation about what they are prepared to do and what they need to do that i think in terms of the types of measures that we build into an agreement we need specific commitments from them and we need to help establish financial mechanisms that provide support although that will be differentiated support and you need to evaluate on a case by case basis based on the types of actions countries are prepared to do the types of assistance that would be available to them given their them with technology transfer in order to deal with their issues you think that they have sufficient technological capacity and resources to do it the mister diringer well i think they have sufficient financial capacity but i do think that there may be areas where we can assist them in terms of technological agreements how do we make it mister diringer there are many companies that operate day to day right now in china u s companies that have technology sharing agreements and are able to do business in china in ways that they don't feel is undermining their intellectual property so i think those are the types of agreements that we need to work out with respect to the clean energy technology the chairman ms harbert ms harbert i think there are three things first of all the united states has already put on the table the international clean energy fund they were joined by the u k and japan for a facility housed at the world bank that would provide concessionary financing to the developing world for clean energy projects that would do a lot for us in this economy and generate jobs here at home and it would do a lot to have commercially viable projects built on the back of the private sector r governments around the world that would distribute clean energy we should fund that effort secondly we should be serious about reducing tariffs on clean energy goods and services around the world that reduces the cost of clean energy and if the priorit economic growth in bangalore and shanghai that will reduce the cost of providing that and we have to recognize that the technologies are not owned by governments the united states government can't just go over to the chinese government and give it away they don't own it ge does dow does dupont does and they are not going to give it away that is not the way that our system works and so we need to have very strong intellectual property protections in place so that we can cooperate with china but we're not we should disabuse ourselves and we should stop using the words tech transfer in the negotiations the chinese the indians and the others are expecting to receive a big bundle of technology one day and it's not forthcoming that way it just doesn't work and so we have to find a way to make it work and for that technology how realistic is it for us to expect that mexico would adopt a meaningful cap and trade system that could be looked to with some confidence as something which is binding enforceable confidence building capital to put into the futuregen project in other words the chinese were proposing to pay money towards the construction of a power project in illinois the project was canceled by the administration and the chinese found out about it in the washington post  they have repeatedly emphasized that in many contexts and it is true that in the negotiations they do have some very i would say unrealistic sort of starting negotiation positions about financial transfers in many cases they are seeking to jointly and equally research and development and to share the intellectual property that arises from it the chairman and that is a good model ms harbert ms harbert to share the intellectual property the chairman jointly fund and develop ms harbert to the extent that the intellectual property that is generated there can be common and differentiated benefits inventories necessary for some key sectors to monitor and verify their emissions effectively the climate change strategy that the mexican government came up with last year has talked about manufacturing and the power sector the dynamic by which that will be put in place may be a little bit different than in the united states so for instance in many instances the companies involved most particularly for instance the refining sector and some of the power generation so i would say that mexico is not on the brink of a cap and trade bill as we would recognize it here but i would say that there is a very realistic prospect national teach in today on global warming that is taking place on hundreds of campuses in college and high school alike all across the country in my district brandeis university has asked me to participate but rather than me teaching them i thought it would be important to let congress hear from the students so today at this hearing i am going to put brandeis university in the chairman's seat and ask a question sent to me by matthew schmidt who is a sophomore who heads the students for environmental action at brandeis here is the question after world war ii the united states played a crucial role in the rebuilding of europe has the time come for the united states to consider a similar role in spreading clean energy technologies throughout the world i would say absolutely but the united states will not be in a position to do that on its own obviously it will need to work in partnership with other developed countries and potentially with other developing countries who increasingly have the financial and technological wherewithal to reconsider the mission of those institutions and i think that in moving forward on technology to address climate change it is worth considering reinvention of the bretton woods institutions and making this one of their missions going forward so that we can move completely understand that and certainly i think some commentators and certainly some climate negotiators imagine that we have a lot of great technologies in a basement somewhere that we are deliberately not sharing this is more of a collaborative  think that the model that is going to work and the model that ultimately will invalidate some of the longer projections that we see in models the thing that isn't captured in models is that we must get to a point where some of the technologies that are going to let us have zero carbon energy really break through to the point of competitiveness the one thing that can do more than anything else in the world to drive that is by setting a carbon regime in the united states which will allow the world's biggest most technologically advanced and most innovative economy to start really pushing those technologies forward that will be america's biggest gift to the world those technologies that ultimately will drive that revolution will come from all kinds of places but they will come from america more than from any other single place so does america play a role in a way that looks exactly like the marshall fund not quite but does america play that incredibly important core role in driving an energy technology revolution our money where our mouth is and we need to be serious about not just the r and d but as you said in the deployment and providing the incentives out there to actually have these technologies penetrate the marketplace which will generate exports and generate innovation revolution of clean energy to do that we need sufficient loan guarantees in this country we need a clean energy bank we need production tax credits that will incentivize there are a lot of financial instrumentation that is very valuable that could be put in place absent having an over arching mandate secondly he brought up world war ii our infrastructure in this country was built right after world war ii and we really haven't done anything to modernize it since and if we are going to have a growing economy and fuel an economic recovery we got to get serious about infrastructure in this country otherwise we are going to have brownouts that certainly would not do anything for our economic recovery and we can demonstrate huge leaps of technology in our electricity grid since it has not really been modernized since world war ii and that will certainly help with the one point six billion people that don't have electricity around the world to have it in the advanced technology state last but not least and maybe the most important is this question from a student at a university and we are not graduating enough scientist institutions that have teachers that are capable of doing it it starts in pre kindergarten all the way through ph d so we have got to get serious about the intellectual foundation of what we are talking about here because we don't have the people that we need for all of these goals that we are talking about so we talk about importing you know president kennedy in his inaugural obviously uttered that famous statement ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country he also then followed it by talking to the world and saying to the citizens of the world ask not what the united states can do for you but what we can do together working for the goal of freedom and progress in the world at large i think here we have many countries that will be able to contribute germany is the leader in photovoltaic solar technology and denmark the leader in wind and obviously there are many parts of the world that can play leadership roles with the united states of course as the largest industrialized county hopefully playing the largest role of them all in the stimulus package that is now under consideration between the house and senate there is a large large infusion of funding for education we agree with that insight that you made ms harbert that we have fallen behind we have to make the investment in education because without that in the long run we cannot be leaders to a very large extent our leadership now is based upon the huge investment which we made a generation ago that is why we win the nobel prizes now that is why we are the leaders but we can't know thirty years from now whether or not we are going to be the winners over india and china and germany and other countries until we first determine how much we want to invest once again in our technologies and our young people to make sure that they are competitive that is still an unknown result because we have yet to make those decisions however  renewable electricity standard would give an incentive for the development of new technologies the tax breaks the incentive for the development of a new modern technology driven telecommunications driven  paced race for three hundred and five days to copenhagen and we intend to ensure that this congress and the american people are informed of all of the choices which we have to make this year if the united states is to be the leader when that meeting is convened thank you all so much for