hearing of the select committee on energy independence and global warming is called to order during the last two weeks delegates from more than one hundred and eighty nations including the united states met in bali indonesia to begin the process of developing a post two thousand and twelve worldwide agreement to reduce global warming pollution this past saturday these delegates adopted the bali action plan which puts in place a road map for negotiations over the next two years this road map has been criticized for being too weak too fuzzy and inadequate for leading us out of the climate wilderness today's hearing will shine a light on the bali agreement and give us a sense of whether we are headed toward climate catastrophe or climate responsibility the bali action plan rests on four key pillars of climate policy reduction of global warming pollution adaptation to global warming impacts technology development and transfer to developing countries and financial investment to aid developing countries this road map appears to represent real progress in a number of key areas most importantly it marks the first time that developing countries have agreed to consider taking actions to reduce their global warming pollution the road map also increases the focus on adapting to the impacts of global warming that the world can no longer avoid it recognizes the need to develop and deploy clean technology and steer global investment toward low carbon ventures as well as the importance of avoiding  tropical deforestation in combatting global warming the bali action plan achieved these important steps forward despite being weakened by the continued opposition of the bush administration initial drafts of the road map included language based on the latest science that recognized the need for global heat trapping emissions to peak within the next ten to fifteen years before declining by more than half by two thousand and fifty with developing countries emissions twenty five to forty percent below one thousand nine hundred and ninety by two thousand and twenty in the face of opposition from bush administration negotiators backed by japan russia and canada this action was dropped from the final action plan these science based guides to emission targets were relegated from front and center to a footnote in the final document although inclusion of these guides would have strengthened the road map the leaders gathered at bali did succeed in opening the door to negotiations on a new global agreement these negotiations represent an opportunity to address global warming comprehensively but we still need global leadership to realize this opportunity one message that emerge from the world's leaders in bali is that we cannot afford to wait any longer to take international action to address global warming the question now is whether the bush administration will continue to be a roadblock on this new path in the meantime congress has taken the critical first step to reduce our global warming pollution by passing a democratic energy bill which president bush signed today that raises the fuel economy standards of our vehicles for the first time in over thirty years and puts our national energy policy back on track the energy bill is an important downpayment on solving the climate crisis reducing u s global warming emissions by up to a quarter of what is needed to save the planet by tw in the new year congress will begin work on a cap auction and trade bill which will achieve the balance of the reductions needed and demonstrate the u s leadership that is essential to reach a global agreement under which all countries take action we are fortunate to have an outstanding panel of experts on the u n climate negotiations with us today many of our witnesses were in bali participating in the negotiations and have graciously agreed to join us so soon after returning i look forward to hearing all of your thoughts on the outcome of the bali conference and the next steps for international climate negotiations i would now like to recognize the ranking member of the committee the gentleman from wisconsin  chairman last week in bali indonesia a speaker at the u n climate change conference had some pointed comments about what must happen in order to achieve a meaningful agreement on global warming the speaker had firsthand knowledge of the political landscape in the united states the speaker said that international negotiators had to move away from failures that have hampered global warming talks since the u n framework convention on climate change had its first meeting in berlin twelve years ago in one thousand nine hundred and ninety five the speaker referring to the so called berlin mandate said that the meeting put in place an inadequate process that exempted china india and other developing nations from taking significant steps to reduce emissions by exempting these nations the speaker said it made the subsequent kyoto treaty impossible to ratify in the united states senate the speaker warned that negotiators in bali must not make the same mistake of exempting china and india and other developing nations the speaker said that many in the united states were ready to move forward with substantial greenhouse gas reductions but no i quote without the knowledge that other folks are cutting in a way that is meaningful unquote the speaker wisely said that technology transfer and assistance with developing countries is crucial to quote the speaker again quote the industrial world can't do it alone unquote and while that speaker at bali and i disagree on many global warming policy proposals i am pleased that my  senator john kerry of massachusetts grasped the importance of enjoining china and india in the process senator kerry's statements are a breath of cool fresh air when compared to those of another american who spoke in bali while senator kerry laid out conditions that must be met in order for a global warming treaty to be approved by the united states senate another former presidential candidate simply laid blame for lack of promise the feet of america and while vice president al gore was calling america the obstructionist at the bali conference he failed to notice that other nations were joining the united states in opposing the mandatory reduction targets in the bali road map mister gore also failed to acknowledge that china and india initially refused to commit to taking actions on their own to reduce emissions before eventually accepting that they need to be part of the solution to and i am very pleased that china and india agreed to language in the bali road map for quote nationally appropriate mitigation actions that must be measurable reportable and verifiable while there are some provisions in the bali road map that raise concern i think overall it is a good agreement negotiators have given policymakers all over the world the time to promote the development of technology that will make emissions restrictions achievable without damaging the economy and hurting jobs and thus making those restrictions and changes politically untenable in any democratic country in the world if china and india were willing to work with the community it is possible to develop the meaningful climate change treaty that creates real environmental benefits protects jobs in the economy and advances technology without china and india any global warming treaty would simply be an invitation for manufacturers to move their options to these unregulated economies and where would our economy and environment be i opposed the kyoto treaty from the start because i knew what we were getting into with that flawed agreement and i am disappointed that there are those in this country that did not heed what senator kerry said then and what he said ten years ago when the byrd hagel resolution came up and because those cautions were not heeded the senate didn't ratify the treaty and eventually we lost at least a decade and probably more in reaching an agreement that could be worldwide in application was technology based and which would be politically acceptable both in this democracy as well as in other democracies around the world i hope that this road map from bali can start us on the path more realistic and effective global emissions reduction solutions but i must caution everybody that if we fall into the trap of what caused kyoto to fail then we will be losing even more time in this learn about what happened in bali and what we do with that experience the good news is that that will be the last international gathering of that scope where the united states is totally isolated from not just the rest of the developed world but probably the rest of the world in total and i count that as a singular bright spot but just because we have been isolated does not mean that we have great deal of leadership going on in this country and i appreciate the reference to al gore so derided by some as the ozone man who has had a consistent message for years and is now recognized globally for being right and being effective in moving us in the right direction we also have a great cross section of people who have been involved with the leadership in this country a slice of what is happening in terms of the ngos the private sector unions over seven hundred and fifty cities which i find extraordinarily exciting there is still time for this congress under the leadership of you mister chairman and this committee and others to be able to have singular accomplishments before we conclude and i think the combination of what has happened in bali the international consensus the leadership on the ground means that it is much more likely that the focus of this election is going to mean that not only will we make some success in two thousand and eight but the stage will be set for a new era of american policy and i look forward to starting to get a glimpse of some of the specifics as we listen to our witnesses here today direction that we ought to have both concern and optimism it is moving in the wrong direction because the science as we know is astoundingly rapid at giving us signals that things are going out there particularly feedback mechanisms in the far north that are twenty times disturbing as they were two or three years ago the good news is that the people of this country are changing so rapidly on this issue and the science of the technology of dealing with energy solutions to this are becoming so available to us that we ought to have some optimism following bali and i just want to tell one little story why we ought to have optimism about three years ago i asked former vice president al gore to address our colleagues about this issue it was about three years ago and it was in this building and we asked all the members of the house of representatives to come listen to him four members of the united states house of representatives showed up to listen to the former vice president  states now the world is giving him the nobel peace prize and i encourage anyone who is interested in this subject to read his speech at bali it was a work of genius and it is a mark not just of individual achievement mister chairman thank you for having this hearing i want to thank all of our witnesses for their participation in bali and for being here today i apologize i won't be able to stay for the testimony but i again wanted to thank you for taking the time to talk about the next steps and the work of this select committee and the priority of the th congress and continuing to make progress domestically as well as working with international partners in sharing information and i would have to conference i do think that hopefully we can at least agree that the road map has us going in the right direction we are not off course we have made some progress in the last couple of years at least acknowledging with what the science has provided  and the negotiations over the last couple of weeks of the direction we need to go but in the three years that i have been in congress i have watched a dramatic shift in one area in particular as mister inslee was describing in terms of how fast things are changing not only in terms of the science but the political views that people have about certain things where they may have had a certain position over the last ten to fifteen years and now all of a sudden they are changing their positions two addressing as we will have to some of the issues that will arise over the next few years again we should have some optimism that we are going in the right direction that there is more progress to be made but we still haven't yet agreed on the precise destination we are trying to get to but i have no doubt that over the next few months and certainly heading into the next year or two that we will continue to make progress and we appreciate the strong efforts that all of you have made in getting us to the consensus that we achieved thus far and the consensus that we hope to achieve in the months ahead so again i thank you all for being here we look forward to working with you as we figure out the destination thank you i yield back  extremely interested in hearing from the panelists on whether or not they view this major economy's process as being competitive with the kyoto protocol or maybe more recognize the challenges ahead they are going to be difficult they are very big but i am very optimistic because both of the technology that i see already in play but also because we are opening up this sement at the behavior of the united states at the particular meeting in bali i was very disappointed very disappointed because so many of us here in the congress have been working very hard on trying to educate our communities especially communities of color but more importantly the messages that are sent out to third world countries and in particular i am thinking about countries that have been hardest hit by droughts and fires and hurricanes and i look south of the border i look to latin america and i see that folks there are looking for leadership and i know while we have the technology we have the know how we have the financial resources that we should be providing a bigger role on a bigger level so i am very anxious to hear what you have to say many of us here are excited i know my staff and i worked on getting an amendment into the foreign operations spending package that would require for the first time the secretary of state to convene an interagency committee to provide congress with a report describing the needs of developing countries and the actions planned to help provide for their needs this is a major major concern of ours here in the house and i am happy to say that in spite of what the administration may say those of us here as representatives for our constituents are strongly in support of advancing whatever we need to do to make sure that our communities are well taken care of and that we play an active role in combatting the negative effects of global warming in our planet and in our who was raised to believe that the united states should be a leader in many spheres of government and policy and this is one in particular that we should not lag any further on we should not only join the rest of the world  working for reduction of greenhouse gases but we should be leading and i of course would love to see china india and all countries of the world join in but i don't think we should hold back because leaders do not hold back they set the example for the rest of the world people in my district and the people i know around the country who i speak to see the changes in the weather they know about the drought in georgia that is so extreme that boats and docks and marinas are far from where the water is they know in our district about the three fifty year floods in the last three years they know about the ice storm in the midwest that was deadly to many people the one hundred and thirty nine mile per hour hurricane force storm that hit the northwest states the typhoon that decimated bangladesh the multiple extreme hurricanes that hit the yucatan this year the tornado that destroyed the town of greensburg kansas and on and on these are phenomena that may be isolated but are probably a part of the predicted pattern of increased intensity and frequency of storms i have seen several examples recently of ways of developing and using energy i just drove a hydrogen car that gm is developing which especially if they get hydrogen from water rather than from natural gas i am optimistic that that is a possible solution to part of the problem and of course the verdant hydrokinetic tide powered experiments that are going on in the east river in new york are very promising the last thing i want to say just because this is christmastime or holiday time of giving for many people of many faiths if you know somebody who has everything and you want to give them something that will help mitigate the impacts of global warming you can go on the internet and search for  how to adopt a polar bear and give a polar bear to somebody who has everything and that bear will be followed their habitat will be protected and you can teach people at the same time about the changes going on in the arctic as a result of this problem and  i thank you mister chairman and welcome to all of our witnesses today thank you for the hearing and the time we all know that on december th the u n completed a two week conference in bali indonesia and it was attended by representatives of more than one hundred and eighty countries and the attendees completed the conference by establishing an adaptation fund board to oversee the implementation of the adaptation fund created under the conference in bali proposes and these are concerns i want to address with you all today first the conference seeks to implement severe co restrictions worldwide in an attempt to prevent  global warming and as we are hearing global warming has little to do with human activities so that one is of concern to me data is increasingly surfacing in peer reviewed journals that show climate change may or may not be a problem further much of the data in the climate models that the ipcc have used and some that the bali road map is based upon are appearing to pose questions and the credibility is being questioned on those emerging data suggest that recent global warming over the past hundred years may not be caused by human co emissions instead the data tells us that the warming could be well within the natural variability and largely determined by changes in the sun so that is one area that i would like to travel with you all second the conference wants to institute a world carbon market to track and manage co emissions last year some of my colleagues and i went on a fact finding mission to europe to look at their emissions trading scheme i found it curious that they called it a scheme and what we found was a system that maybe wasn't as credible as we would like to see it that it didn't reduce the c emissions and in some cases might have even aided the increase so to force this type of system on every industrialized nation is not going to be something that is going to stop global warming we have to look at what the benefits and the causes and the cost are going to be and then look at how we need to address other issues that may be more pressing problems that we can do something about expired so we will turn to our panel and our first four witnesses today all participated in the bali conference we will begin with mister alden meyer director of strategy and policy for the union of concerned scientists  international national and state climate change policy since one thousand nine hundred and eighty nine and i have personally attended almost all of the international negotiating meetings on climate change since one thousand nine hundred and ninety one when negotiations started over the original rio framework treaty i am pleased to be able to share with you my observations on the bali negotiations i do believe this meeting reflected a sea change in the willingness of both developed and developing countries to move forward together in confronting the climate threat and really opens the way for serious negotiations over the next two years s scientific evidence indicates that an increase in the global average temperature more than two degrees celsius above pre industrial levels would pose severe risks to natural systems and human health and well being limiting warming to this level will require global emissions to peak within the next ten to fifteen years and then be reduced by fifty percent or more by mid century with much deeper cuts for industrialized countries in the late s you may recall companies opposed to u s ratification of the kyoto protocol ran television commercials with the theme it is not global and it won't work because countries like china and india did not take on binding emissions targets under the initial kyoto framework the most important outcome of bali in my mind is the full recognition that the climate change pro blem is global and that we all have a stake in addressing it in bali the world saw the dismantling of the so called berlin wall the famous phrase the one thousand nine hundred and ninety five berlin mandate that mister sensenbrenner referred to that prohibited any new commitments for parties not included to annex one of the framework convention nonindustrialized countries the president of indonesia captured it well in his keynote address to the meeting developing countries too must do our part the bottom line is that we all must do something differently and do something more the new australian prime minister kevin rudd put it starkly the community of nations must reach agreement there is no plan b there is no other planet any one of us can escape to we have only this one and none of us can do it alone so let's get it right and the minister from india captured the true spirit of bali when he said what is at stake is saving our future generations and therefore it is not a question of what you will commit or what i will commit it is a question of what we will commit together to meet that challenge through the constructive efforts in bali of countries like china brazil indonesia south africa and others costa rica with last minute acquiescence of the u s negotiations have been launched under the framework convention on nationally appropriate mitigation actions by developing country parties as well as on post two thousand and twelve emission reduction commitments for the u s and other non kyoto industrialized countries simultaneously negotiations over deeper emission reduction obligations of industrialized countries that have ratified kyoto including most recently australia will continue in the ad hoc working group launched in two thousand and five in montreal these two negotiating tracks will proceed in parallel with comparability of action required for all developed countries consensus could not be reached on the level of ambition for these negotiations as the u s fought hard to keep any specific reference to the need for industrialized countries to reduce their emissions twenty five to forty percent below one thousand nine hundred and ninety levels by two thousand and twenty out of the convention track decision in the closed working group negotiations developing countries said they could accept a reference to a need for global emissions to peak in the next ten or fifteen years and to be reduced by fifty percent or more by mid century this would have been a significant achievement given that achieving such a goal would require substantial reductions in projected emissions for big developing countries like china india and brazil but these countries made it crystal clear they could only support such a goal if it were to be accompanied by the language on twenty five to forty percent reductions in emissions by industrialized countries by two thousand and twenty the u s was unwilling to cut this deal falsely claiming that inclusion of such a range  prejudge unquote the outcome of the negotiations in my view this was a significant missed opportunity but the science based language remains in the kyoto track decision along with the comparability language in the bali action plan so you  by reference it applies to the united states while the language on mitigation actions by developed and developing countries generated the most intense debate in bali there are a number of other important building blocks included in the bali action plan which i describe more fully in my prepared testimony these include adaptation as ms solis referred to helping vulnerable developing countries deal with significant impacts of climate change that are already apparent and will only worsen in the future reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation which accounts for an estimated twenty percent of global co emissions equal to the total emissions of the u s or china and more than the total emissions of the transportation sector worldwide and strategies to facilitate the development transfer and accelerated deployment of clean technologies along with greater access to financing and capacity building for developing countries putting flesh on the bones of the technology and financing elements of the bali action plan is key to reaching agreement over the next two years on  based and other mitigation commitments by developing countries to help decarbonize their future development path the fact that at the end of the day the bush administration was unwilling to block these negotiations from going forward is a hopeful sign for while a different s team will be on the field during the second half of negotiations it would have been a tragic waste of time to run out the clock finally mister chairman in her speech during the high level segment connie hedegaard the minister of denmark which will host the meeting in december two thousand and nine where the new agreement will hopefully reached laid out a clear challenge to the u s it is about time that we act in a collective constructive and timely manner for almost a century europe has looked to the u s for leadership and guidance in times of instability and change we do so yet again as we strive to reach a truly comprehensive agreement to combat climate change but we do so knowing full well that all countries not just the largest emitters share responsibility for the final outcome i hope mister chairman that we will heed minister h aard's wise words as we move forward from bali to copenhagen the chairman thank you mister meyer very much our second witness is mister phil clapp who is the deputy managing director of the pew environmental group mister clapp previously served as the president of the national environmental trust which he led since its founding in one thousand nine hundred and ninety four mister clapp has more than a decade of experience on capitol hill as staff director of the house budget committee's energy and environment task force and remember your efforts back on the energy and commerce committee at that time so congratulations the delegates came to bali with fundamentally three challenges  timetable and rules for those negotiations and third to agree upon measures that would be open for discussion that was the minimum bar and i think all three were accomplished in bali we have an agreement today that could have launched a much stronger set of negotiations as many of you have noted in your opening statements the european union proposed a reduction of twenty to forty percent in worldwide emissions and a long term goal of a fifty percent reduction by two thousand and fifty i want to emphasize that those were only in the preamble of the agreement this was an ultimately hortatory statement that this is the that the world should be seeking to reach in the new negotiations no one was attempting in bali to impose some sort of regulatory straightjacket that said there was a binding agreement that these reductions should occur but it was an attempt to create a budget unfortunately the united states opposed those provisions that preambular language and as a result although it does appear in the text we can claim less of an endorsement  coming out of bali for that as a target than we could have and that is unfortunate given how quickly the scientific evidence is mounting i mean we are now at the point where arctic sea ice was reduced to less than half of its normal size this year the northwest passage opened for the first time in history this year and we have scientists telling us very clearly most recently at the american geophysical union meeting that was held in san francisco concurrent with the bali talks the leading scientist who made that projection who actually is the son of a coal miner and worked in coal mines as a child said the canary has died it is time to get out of the mine that is the urgency of these talks the world has one more shot to get an agreement and this will be it there is enormous suspicion of the united states throughout these talks and it does not come just from president bush's opposition to a binding international treaty and numerical targets the united states all the way back to one thousand nine hundred and ninety two has a long history of either fighting binding agreements as it did with the framework convention under the first president bush that convention is voluntarily only because of u s opposition through kyoto in one thousand nine hundred and ninety seven when the united states under the clinton administration sought weaker targets and indeed did not act to reduce its own emissions so we have an enormous challenge to lead and kevin conrad of papua new guinea said it best at the end when he said lead follow or get out of the way we would like to see you lead but if you will not lead get out of the way nations came to the table and the united states found itself incapable of saying yes to their proposals for the first time developing countries including china agreed to undertake measurable reportable and verifiable emissions reductions actions that is a step across a line that was first drawn in one thousand nine hundred and ninety two in addition although i was complimenting the chairman on the bill that the president sign would like to point out that china for example has fuel economy standards in place today that met the same target in that bill which is two thousand and eighteen in two thousand five so there is an enormous amount of leadership going on in the developed world that the united states is not recognizing and unless we do and come to the table with something to offer in return for their leadership on a number of these issues  energy bill the president has signed it i don't think anyone was predicting that last december but it has happened and what we are doing here in this december on this day on this afternoon is having the last hearing that this congress will have but it is really the first hearing of the next congress there are a lot of people who do not believe that we can pass a cap auction and trade bill as well but the speaker is committed to it and that is why we are having this hearing today think of it as the first hearing on the next big issue that we hope that we can get the president's signature on our next witness christiana figueres has been official negotiator of the figueres founded the center for sustainable development in the americas where she served as director until two thousand and three for her leadership in the areas of climate energy and conservation national geographic and ford mister chairman honorable members i speak to you as a citizen of costa rica a developing country that has taken on the goal of being carbon neutral by the year two thousand and twenty one we do so in full recognition that our impressive size will not necessarily affect global trajectories of emissions but out of the deep conviction that it is the moral obligation of every country large or small to do the utmost to address climate change have asked me to come here today to address the issue of the bali meetings from the perspective of the developing countries as already pointed out by speakers before me this meeting will be recognized as the one meeting in which developing countries made a landmark stride forward i want to point out three specific issues that are highly unusual for developing countries number one their willingness to participate in the climate change convention in very unusual ways developing countries are already and have already done more than the sum total of countries participating in the kyoto protocol and i believe ned will give you the numbers of that however in bali they expressed their very clear intent to do more than that in a dramatic departure from the traditional no new commitments stand developing countries assumed under the bali decision their willingness to undertake measurable verifiable and reportable actions supported by finance and technology on the part of developed countries the industrialized countries assume measurable verifiable and reportable commitments or actions according to their national circumstances from our perspective we recognize that this is a major step forward for the united states given where the united states has been over the last few years but it is a much weaker commitment than that which the european union had already committed to before they went to bali so on that score the developing countries have put much on the table and as a group the industrialized countries have put comparatively less to my second point commitments our very favorite word the decision in bali does not obligate any party to any type of commitment in fact it just opens a process over which over the next two years we will explore the form and level of commitment of all parties the form of further contributions on the part of developing countries is yet to be determined but it will very likely not be binding national emission targets as those that are assumed under the kyoto protocol in fact it is our task over the next two years to explore the full range of commitment types that may be possible and possibly to move toward a basket of commitment types where every country will assume the type of commitment that it feels comfortable with according to its national countries is predicated on whatever the industrialized countries are going to do and more specifically on what the united states is going to do the united states is admittedly the largest historical emitter the highest per capita  r and the wealthiest nation it is understandable then that there is a perception that the united states is not doing enough i would like to underline that a higher level of ambition of the united states as we go forward will encourage stronger contributions of the developing countries conversely a lower level of ambition of the united states will elicit only weaker contributions of the developing countries hence the united states is in the very privileged position of wielding the most influence on what the global overall level of effort is going to be as we move forward to conclude i would like to underscore that this new engagement of developing countries is a very clear invitation to the u s to engage but there is a timing issue here the agreement is scheduled to be reached by the end of two thousand and nine given where the united states is in its electoral cycle it is more than likely that the u participation in this regime will be shaped by this congress hence we are very encouraged by the development of mandatory legislation to reduce emissions in the united states honorable members it is in your hands to ensure that we together live up to the science of what is needed and stay within the art of what is possible thank you the chairman thank you very much and our next witness  is founder and president of the center for clean air policy and has more than twenty five years of experience working on climate change and air policy mister helme advises congress state governments and the european commission and developing countries on those issues he played a key role in the development of the clean air act of one thousand nine hundred and ninety and the european union's emissions trading system so we welcome you sir whenever you are ready ple appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today i will kind of clean up here and i will try to cover the points that maybe weren't covered by my colleagues as you mentioned we work a lot with key developing countries china india brazil and mexico in particular and we work with a number of the states in the united states during the course of the bali meeting we brought together ministers from twenty five countries christiana was part of that meeting and talked about the bali road map and the idea of providing incentives for developing countries to go beyond what they have done and i will show you in a minute a slide that shows exactly how much effort they have made and it was endorsed by all of those present and certainly became a part of the final agreement we also hosted a meeting for senator kerry and your staff and other staffs there with the leadership of the european union in a very constructive exchange on a lot of these issues i want to make four points this morning first i want to emphasize the difference in vision between the united states and that of the european union and developing countries and the rest of the world in this debate secondly i want to talk about the eu's leadership i think what they did going into bali and what they did at bali was critical to the outcome and deserves a lot of recognition and reflects dealing with the competitiveness issue in an effective way and i want to come back to that thirdly i want to echo what christiana and others have said about the role of developing countries and sort of provide you with some actual detail on the level of effort developing countries have undertaken already and what we expect coming forward and finally i want to address the issue that mister sensenbrenner raised earlier about competitiveness i think the european union has crafted a much better path a much more positive path to dealing with that than we have so far in the u s where the major effort so far has been this border tax adjustments provision proposed by mister bingaman and others in the senate bill i think there is a much better path that developing countries would welcome to move the ball forward rather than sort of saber rattling as we saw the administration do a bit of during the debate let me hit quickly these points in terms of difference in vision i think the fundamental difference here is europe and developing countries see this as a process where we unilateral action we step forward make commitments and then we work together through incentives to go beyond that that it is a joint effort we have all got to rise together to meet this challenge in contrast the u s s view has been let us all make pledges let have some weak aspirational goals for two thousand and fifty and then call it a day the heart of the difference here is do we do something in two thousand and twenty that ensures that we still have the possibility of meeting the goal we want in two thousand and fifty or do we sort of see what happens and hope for the twenty percent reduction below one thousand nine hundred and ninety levels on their own unilaterally regardless of what anybody else does and they proposed to do thirty percent or more below one thousand nine hundred and ninety if other developed countries step forward and if major developing countries made comparable efforts and that really set the bar for the discussion at bali it was a very useful signal and it also sent the signal that the eu sees this as not just a question of narrow competitiveness concerns but a matter this is a bigger deal than that that we can take a hit in the cement industry the steel industry in the short run in return for solving this much larger problem i think that is the way we have got to think about this issue in terms of developing country leadership let me ask the team to put the slide up for me i think this is a statement by the minister from south africa and i think it really captures where we are he said basically developing countries are saying voluntarily that we are willing to commit ourselves to measurable verifiable mitigation action and then he said it has never happened before a year ago this was totally  numbers as christiana mentioned the gray line is what lieberman warner would do in two thousand and fifteen the blue line is what the eu's minus thirty percent target would do the red line is what china brazil and mexico with laws on the books today in each of these countries policies on the books today if fully implemented they would make greater total reductions from their business as usual levels than the european union or the lieberman warner bill so this puts to sleep once and for all this myth about  how big this is i was in china the last two days discussions with them i was impressed by how committed they are a lot of criticism oh they only got one percent the first year this year they will get four percent of that twenty percent goal and they are making big steps to go further in the coming years let me close with a quick word on competitiveness i will come back to it hopefully in the questions europe has a high level group on competitiveness they brought together five hundred chief executives i got to speak there a week before bali all the leadership of the european of treasury the secretary of transportation the commissioner of environment all met they agreed on a package on competitiveness that says sectoral approaches make sense let's offer carrots to developing countries to take a similar carbon of steel goal offer some incentives in terms of financing and we get toward that proverbial level playing field that we hear so much about and mister sensenbrenner was talking about this is a much better path an incentive based approach than this idea of putting  border tax adjustments on everybody and europe talks about border tax adjustments too the companies are just as worried there as we are here about what happens to our industries but i think they recognize that there is a much better way forward and this is something that i would really like to see us do the us and the  pacific partnership started this thing but as usual they let it die by being unwilling to do anything serious it is a classic story of everything we touch turns to you know what that is what has happened in terms of the u s position so i think there is an opportunity here there is an opportunity ebell mister ebell is director of energy and global warming policy at the competitive enterprise institute before joining the competitive enterprise institute mister ebell focused on environmental issues as policy director for frontier of freedom as a senior legislative aide for our good friend and colleague on this committee congressman john shadegg and has also served as the washington representative of the american land rights association we welcome you mister ebell whenever you are ready please begin mister ebell thank you chairman markey and thank you for having me here today i am sorry to say i cannot begin by congratulating you on the anti energy bill that was enacted  one of the reasons i was not able to go to bali this year is that you all have been keeping us so busy with things that we oppose but i do but congratulations for getting it through winter temperatures and fly to a tropical paradise of course they used a bit of energy i don't hold that against them i would also like to say i am very pleased that two members from my native state are here one of them i consider my own what i would like to say is that if global warming is a problem then the kyoto approach cannot possibly be part of the solution it is being tried halfheartedly in some of the countries that ratified and it is not working even in the european union where global warming is a religious commitment emissions are going up emissions have been going up since kyoto was ratified and ninety seven they are continuing to go up they are going up much more rapidly in some european nations than in the united states even though those nations have lower economic growth and virtually no population growth our emissions have tracked population growth and we have been putting on about one point of emissions growth for every point of population growth and we have been putting on about three points of economic growth for every point of growth spain has been putting on more than one point of emissions growth for every point of economic growth for example now if europe were really serious about this issue i think there would be some indicators for example if the brown government decides not to go ahead with the new runway at heathrow or if they decide to cancel the proposed coal fired power plants or if the german government decides to back down on auto emissions controls and tells that their big auto makers will just have to stop producing so many big cars i think that would be an indication that they are serious but you know we have this cap and trade before the congress cap and trade is not working in europe except to benefit big special interests places like hospitals are having to buy credits from big oil companies for example this is a huge wealth transfer but it is not an emissions reduction program and i have brought copies of  paper an exhaustive paper by a think tank in london open europe that shows why the european emissions trading scheme is not working i would point out that the preface to that large paper is by a green party member of the swedish parliament now i generally agree with mister sensenbrenner about bali i think there are reasons to be positive and i would say first of all the u s tends to be isolated at all of these negotiations on multilateral environmental agreements and the reason is because we are unusual in that if we ratify a treaty it has the force of law and it can be enforced in federal courts against the administration and against the congress that isn't true of any other country in the world that is why if japan or canada or the european union fail to meet their kyoto targets they will say oh well we tried we are morally superior because our intentions were good that would not be possible if we ratified the kyoto protocol or a succeeding agreement we would have to do what we said it could be enforced in federal court but i do not think the u s is isolated anymore at these negotiations i think it is the european union that is isolated the united states now leads that and you will see this if you look at the positions of japan canada australia even even the new government in australia russia many of the g members and i think we have  found a lot of common ground with china and india very briefly the common ground is mandatory regulations won't work if the technology and economics don't work that therefore future agreements must first focus on technology on adaptation and on some side issues which i think are important like forestry so i will stop there thank you very much the chairman thank you mister ebell very much have two sets of talks going on here simultaneously i mean there is an aggressive agenda that has to be followed to achieve an agreement in copenhagen under the u n process by two thousand and nine at the beginning of the bali conference the chairman the white house council on environmental quality delivered a letter to the other delegates outlining a process of monthly meetings between now and july all over the world with an agenda to come to some sort of agreement by a leaders summit in july well every country only has so many global warming negotiators it is very unclear to me and i think the administration should  specific proposal of what we want to do the european union has said that they want to try to stay below the two degree celsius temperature increase that i mentioned japan has put forward its cool earth fifty calling for a fifty percent reduction in global  refuses to put any specific proposal on the table and i asked about this in bali i said it is like inviting people to a dinner party and not serving food the main purpose of the september meeting was to talk about the global long term goal the u s put on the table if they don't put a serious proposal on the table in honolulu my own view is it is not a serious effort if not two degrees what what risk are we willing to take with the planet what risk are we willing to commit future generations to is it three degrees four degrees ten degrees we don't know the administration refuses to put forward a concrete proposal either for long term global reductions or for near term industrialized country targets the chairman thank you mister meyer mister ebell in your testimony you say that global warming may be a problem in the future but we should leave it to future generations to deal with it because they will be better equipped to do so do you reject the ipcc's conclusion endorsed in the bali roadmap that climate change represents an urgent problem and that continued scenario in two thousand one hundred the high growth high emissions scenario leads to a richer and warmer world rather than a poorer and cooler world under some of the emissions  constrained scenarios so i think in fact to give you another example cold weather kills a lot more people than warm weather about over ten times more people die from cold weather every year than warm weather now we know that under the global warming theory most of the warming will occur in the upper latitudes in the winter and all the projections from all of these models are exactly they mirror what has been happening the willingness comes i believe from desperation the fact that the united states has been completely unwilling to live up to its very visible responsibility has led developing countries to say okay then that means that we need to accelerate the pace at which we will accept our responsibility in order to bring the united states on board and i think really this is a very very frank invitation to bring the united states on board and if i could just add one comment to your question previously about the memo from the developing country perspective i think one of the major issues and arguments that has been said by the united states is that they needed a parallel process because the developing countries were not willing as you know i am kind of more a veteran of the climate change wars than any of my colleagues that are sitting here on the dais and i harken back to what senator  at bali and that is that any treaty that does not involve the third world is doomed to failure in the united states senate i think that is a given that is a political fact of life and i salute senator kerry as a leading democrat in making that observation to delegates who might not have wanted to have heard that message  softening of the administration's position the signing up of the developing countries and particularly china and india do you think we are going to hear less demagoguery from the european union on this subject because what the eu has been saying and particularly what the germany environment minister herr gabriel has been saying certainly is not going to bring about the type of consensus needed to wrap this  would like to be first mister helme my sense is that we really saw a coming together of the eu with the developing world and most of the other nations in agreement on how to move forward and i think as i said in my testimony t lower emissions reduction target the so called eu bubble as a result of two factors that occurred since one thousand nine hundred and ninety that had nothing to do with this issue basically was a deal where the developing world didn't have to do anything and the eu was able to what we refer to in this business as pose for holy pictures in playing a game of economic gotcha against the u s and japan and russia and perhaps some smaller countries like australia and norway as well now if we are going to continue playing the game of economic gotcha you are not going to see very much support in the united states senate for what proceeds henceforth and you know i think that what i am interested in seeing is whether the eu will admit not only that kyoto was a statement that verifiable national actions will be part of this and we have the track record i presented in terms of what china india brazil and mexico have already done i think in terms of the eu they did make significant reductions and they are now prepared unfortunately mister markey and i couldn't go to bali because we were busy doing the job we were elected to do here but reading the quotes in the press particularly from minister gabriel did not give expect much more from the european union than demagoguery because that is really all they have they are not willing to take the actions that they committed to to reduce their emissions and as you together with japan canada and other several leading nations will be able to lead these negotiations out of the kyoto dead end and as long as the eu is unwilling to match its actions to its rhetoric i think they will become gas and the merger of east germany and west germany and the closing of the stalin era east german industries which belched hot air and greenhouse chairman and i would invite any of our other panel members who would like to submit for the record their view of reality in this regard and i would just like to begin by saying how much i appreciated the testimony that has been presented in written form they are terrific documents dealing with the broader context and the reference that we are really sort of moving beyond kyoto we are moving to a new era the rest of the world is moving in an exciting direction and i really appreciate the context that you have provided i think this ought to be required reading for everybody in congress i think it would be extraordinarily helpful but i do invite you to supplement your submission part of what is interesting for me is that the united states under a republican administration made some commitments made commitments this didn't pop out of the clinton administration or other fuzzy headed people this was the result of negotiations where the united states was a partner and the united states turned its back on implementation and in fact resisted that  appreciate mister ebell that is on the other side of the mountains but it is doing something that has actually helped that community and it has met those commitments mister walden careful now the other side of the mountain thing mister blumenauer just referring back to his testimony just his testimony greg i am intrigued however about where we go from here i have been in a number of international meetings where the united states has been dragging  because it is going to get sued but because it would be held accountable i mean think about our failure to meet our commitments in terms of global water and sanitation where we were in johannesburg  retarding influence not because we would be sued but because we would have to perform i am curious if as we are moving into this next year where it is an election year where we have greater consensus around the world where the people who have been dragging their feet both in the developing and the developed world are sort of launching ahead i am wondering if our panel has some suggestions or recommendations of what we might do in that next step m the united states is neither fish nor foul we haven't ratified kyoto so we haven't participated in the discussions since montreal in the last two years the working group there about mitigation potential cost effectiveness what we can do vis a vis other industrialized countries and of course we are not a developing country so it is not appropriate for us to try to put ourselves in the same box within the convention we have an agreement now creating the space for developed non kyoto countries like the u s to put on the table what they can do to have civil society come in and talk about analysis that has been done in the united states about the cost effective mitigation potential to have other others put forward their information about that this next year is really an analytical and research get the facts right year to prepare for the serious hard bargaining in two thousand and nine and there is a space there congress for civil society for our national labs for ngos to put forward the facts as we see them about how much the u s can do mister clapp mister blumenauer i would really encourage the members of this committee as i have many members of the senate to become personally involved in these negotiations because we are going to find ourselves in a position regardless of what the congress does next year in terms of debating legislation where it is extremely likely that we will be in the middle in the winding up of major negotiations concluding in a treaty at the same time that congress is seriously moving forward on the first legislation that will bind the united states to emissions reduction so the two debates are going to affect each other and i think it is rather incumbent upon members of the congress to begin talking to a number of foreign governments and really familiarizing themselves with this position because the two debates are going to collide i want to go back  for a moment to what mister sensenbrenner was asking regardless of what one wants to say about the european union and the effectiveness of the measures it is taking according to our own department of energy europe's projected emissions increases between now and two thousand and thirty are three percent per year japan's will be one percent per year that is one third and one tenth of projected u s increased emissions so there has been a significant for whatever reason and there are policy reasons for it europe and japan are actually making major progress in improving their emissions whereas the united states to go back to myron's comment no no had i had time mister chairman one area that i happen to agree with mister ebell and i think my colleague from oregon mister walden would concur that there is a huge role in terms of worldwide practice of forestry what happens in this country  oregon and ask you each to talk about what the united states could do domestically on forest practices on its own land that might assist in carbon  sequestration or mitigating against unnecessary release of carbon and other greenhouse gases principally because the record wildfires we are seeing and given the forest service's analysis over the last decade of warming walden i grew up on a ranch in baker county oregon we still own that ranch it adjoins blm and forest service land so i have a great deal of practical experience in federal land management and i would say the very most important thing you could do would be to privatize the national forests the management of those forests is a disaster it is a continuing disaster they change management practices and philosophies but the continuing undercurrent is it is always a disaster because they don't bali we are looking at national baselines for performance of forests across the board we do that sort of informally in the u s it would be very useful to do that and sort of keep track of what are the net flows on these federal lands mister walden right that would be helpful and certainly the work internationally on  i was in europe with the energy committee earlier this year we were looking at different facilities can anybody talk to me about the status of existing technology to do both capture and compression and then sequest ration is the technology available today if i have a coal fired plant is there technology available to me today that will capture compress which you have to do and then sequester carbon and if not what is the timeline to get there mister helme my sense is the answer is yes that we have done the different steps in carbon capture sequestration at different points we haven't done it in one integrated way the oil industry has done this for years with oil refineries where they capture the carbon and of course  reinjected for secondary and tertiary oil recovery so i would argue the technology is there we still have some questions about the cost i mean if you talk to exxon for example some of the major oil companies they feel they can do this they know how to capture it they do it now in terms rain capture those emissions that technology i understand was available at the time that cap and trade was put in place and i keep hearing that this technology for carbon capture compression sequestration is not perfected yet mister meyer mister meyer let me just build on wh said i think the technology is available it is a question of price my understanding is it would add now somewhere of sixty to seventy percent to the price of a conventional coal plant to retrofit this technology on and then when you are going up to scale to find the reservoirs to permanently sequester the carbon is a challenge that our agencies are working on there is demonstration projects around the world the goal i think of doe is to try to get that increased cost down to maybe the ten to fifteen percent range so it is more viable economically but even there we are going to have to help countries like china  spread between conventional unconstrained coal and carbon capture and storage coal mister walden two questions on that point as a follow up is the issue about where do you put this carbon how do you keep it there and what happens if it comes  say the average power bill mister clapp mister walden i think we are at the point where the real issue is demonstrating the cost at scale you have utilities in the united states i mean jim rogers of duke energy has said this publicly many times that he simply cannot justify to his shareholders because there is no regulatory or legislative requirement in place the kind of investment that is necessary to do demonstration projects and that is where we are at this point mister walden so you are telling me that i could go out today if i owned that coal fire plant and that technology is available to me to put in my smoke stack or carbon stack whatever we call it now and the technology is there to run a tube and put the carbon in the ground mister clapp no what i said is that we ready what does it take to get there and then at what cost mister ebell i think it is ready in the sense if you are willing to spend a lot more money and you are willing to do it at a small scale i think that two things should be really kept in mind one is the current technology only captures two thirds of the carbon dioxide that is produced and secondly i think the real thing besides the technology are the for the purposes of our congressmen we can accept fruit cake from other congressmen the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington state mister inslee mister inslee thank you fruit cake the ultimate renewable energy i suppose i wanted to ask mister helme to elaborate on the european experience of the carrots rather than the sticks on imports from countries that don't have aggressive carbon measures conference with five hundred executives there they agreed on a path that would be to encourage key developing countries to work with them on setting carbon intensity goals for key competitive sectors so cement steel  chinese to look at that figure out what that means in terms of the context of china in terms of its cost picture could they do that with a pay back or is that going to cost them a fair amount what does that look like you then ask the chinese to set a target and the chinese would be offered incentives in the form of technology finance to go a little further to set a little tougher target that would be their target it would be a no lose target they would set that target as part of their commitment in this next period two thousand and twelve to two thousand and twenty they would receive the financing as an initial incentive on the technology side and then if they beat the target they could sell credits into the international market this is an idea that has been tested among developing countries shown a lot of interest in it because they are interested in the same way thereafter improving the efficiency of these sectors so it is got an appeal on both sides it moves you toward that level playing field so that all of us would have a similar kind of commitment to technology and we would take this carbon issue off the table it doesn't take labor costs off the table but it takes the carbon issue and the technology issue off the table and it gets the new technology in the hands if you talk to china what do they want from this treaty they want the most advanced technologies and this is a way to offer that to them and the eu sees this as a very promising incentive path which gets us to the same place i want to go i want a level playing field in cement and steel so i don't lose market share based on carbon a contractual arrangement between that country and the annex one countries who are often the financing and they can use that money for a variety of things we were in discussions yesterday in china about their twenty percent goal and one of their difficulties is getting the provinces to meet those targets they set the national goal it is the law but then they have to get this done at the local level so they are saying well could we use the money for tax credits could we use the money for having the cement association in china work with its members to get compliance and that is the kind of thing we describing that mister helme i can certainly share with you i think as i mentioned earlier the u s is on this path the asia pacific partnership is developing the very benchmark data the trouble is the u s has no credibility because at the end of the day they won't put any money on the table for incentives and they won't take any targets if they did their good idea would get a lot of momentum i mean i think myron was saying there is some collaboration with china and india there is but the point is where is the beef where is the incentive money that has what has been lacking where is the action and this is laws on the books today this isn't projections of what they might do some other time this is laws on the books today if fully implemented if they did one hundred percent implementation which is always tough in developing countries mister inslee take this with a grain of salt i mean i haven't studied this but is actually what is interesting to me if you look at that graph is even if we adopt mccain lieberman even if it was implemented we are still just marginally ahead of the amount we would be reducing ebell i wasn't sure if you were serious when you were saying that the forest should be operated privately were you making a point or do you actually i mean do you mister ebell mister cleaver absolutely  federal land managers do have the correct incentives to take care of what they are managing because they don't own it so yes absolutely in attaining the technologies to compensate for the effects of global warming costa rica probably is not necessarily in that category but certainly southeast a figueres yes exactly southeast asia africa all the small island states and the low lying least developed countries are all in that situation this is in fact one of the major inequities of climate change the fact that you say that all of these countries are major victims without having contributed to the problem in the past or in fact in the future in most of these countries what the united states could do very concretely is contribute to the various instruments that are being developed one of the issues in the bali decision one of the chapters is adaptation and there are very concrete measures there as to what all countries could do together in order to support particularly those countries that will need to adapt and that actually urgently need to adapt before they completely disappear like the small island developing states in addition to contributions to the adaptation fund there is finally some decision on the governments of the adaptation fund and that also would require a very clear leadership of the united states both in terms of financing as well as in terms of ascrib billion a year as a starting point to build capacity in these countries to deal with adaptation in the climate change we are putting two orders of magnitude less a year on the table hundreds of millions not tens of billions the other point i would make is that we have to do aggressive mitigation if we wan an adaptation of infeasible we did an analysis for example for our own state of california for governor davis and governor schwarzenegger which showed if have you an aggressive mitigation path in california and the world you would lose about half of the sierra snow pack by tw ninety if you have business as usual growth you would lose virtually all of the sierra snow pack by the middle of the century and that's the drinking water supply for california that's the central valley irrigation that's when governor davis and governor schwarzenegger got it this is a core economic issue so to have adaptation be feasible and even on the bounds of being affordable you have to have the most aggressive mitigation scenario you can have even with that we are going to have impacts that we are experiencing now that will get worse over the next twenty or thirty years it is our moral responsibility to help these long term security issue for the united states if you think that we are having a hard time now dealing with the immigration issue in the united states that is nothing compared to the climate immigration waves that we will have unless we help these countries deal with the situation on their own territory mister clapp let me just add one more comment to that the nation projected to be the most rapidly impacted in terms of loss of water supplies worldwide is actually not in africa it's mexico so the question of sorry i do not support the privatization of national parks but in terms of managing our national forest they are and they have been for a long time a disaster and it is because people who don't own things don't have the incentive to take care of them they have the incentive to use them up therefore i really think that the best thing we can do in terms of adopting the good kinds of forestry practices that mister walden has been an advocate of would be to privatize the national forest they wouldn't chance if we manage to put this agreement together of avoiding what is your organization projecting as likely sea level rise should we hit that worst case scenario mister meyer well it is not what my organization lubricating the flow of those glaciers i would encourage you to have a hearing with some of the top experts on that in the world because there is a lot of concern in the science community that there may be more on the table there than was captured in the recent ipcc report which had a close off date of the end of two thousand thank you sir i represent a district which is divided by the hudson river which is tidal all the way to troy past albany and of course any increase in sea level will also be an increase in river level which will be then added to by tidal tends to be the face of our nation to many around the world we in congress are trying as you know to change energy policy and we were just successful in getting a decent energy bill it wasn't perfect but then no legislation is i suppose  we hope that this will show the world that we are serious or getting serious on this issue what else would you recommend that congress do to send this message to other countries around the world mister meyer i think as my colleague phil clapp said participate in this process  part of the u s delegation talk to the delegates about what is going on i was amazed how very aware they are of the actions of this congress they knew when the energy bill was coming to the floor i got e mails the day after the committee reported out the lieberman warner bill by an eleven to eight vote from japan from europe from developing countries congratulating the united states for the work that committee had done they follow our politics very closely because as christiana said they realize they are in our hands what we do is going to matter to their future and i think participating in this process going over to meet with them at these meetings or on your own inviting them to come and testify or even meet with you here the exchange of views between the rest of the world and civil society and the other branches of government in the united states is a key issue and i think will improve their confidence in going forward in the next two years in this process mister hall i am just going to jump ahead because my time is limited as is all our time i am happy to see one of the key topics in bali is technology transfer and that helping developing countries to leapfrog over fossil fuel powered development is on the map america has the technological know how and resources to bring many of these technologies aid the process of technology transfer which would also make us an energy and technology exporter as opposed to this fuel importer that we are mostly now is a great deal of interest in sharing technology particularly in these internationally competitive industries and so i think the u s joining in this effort with europe and others to provide assistance directly for innovation and linking it to  to help developing countries move forward and get more reductions ms figueres on the private sector side the studies that have been done on financial flows that are necessary in order to address climate change show that more than half in fact above sixty percent of the financial flows will be coming from the private sector as opposed to from the public sector and so in that sense once a policy both nationally and internationally is in place that will be enough to signal to the markets  let's do this we will give each one of you one minute to summarize what you want us to remember the energy bill is done bali is completed climate change cap and auction and trade is now front and center in the united states house of representatives and senate next year what do you want us to remember from this hearing as we go forward and begin this great project that is to keep in mind the energy needs not only of this country but of the world and i would just make this particular observation that mister hall said earlier he encouraged people buy a ton of coal to keep a kyrgyz family warm during this very cold winter in krygyzstan he will be happy to arrange that for you those are the real energy realities of the world there are a lot of people who do not have enough energy to live the kinds of lives that we lead and i would just think back to another great member from massachusetts john adams when he was elected to the continental congress he was a leading citizen of boston but he had to walk to philadelphia that is still the reality for a lot of the world thank you the chairman thank you mister ebell mister helme mister helme number one i would say moving legislation at least as strong as lieberman warner is the most important thing you possibly do we need that kind of a target secondly on this competitiveness issue i think we need to recognize as a place for incentives we need to recognize that it is a myth that developing countries are going to steal market share based on carbon china is mister chairman good news and bad news the good news is that the new engagement of the developing countries actually opens up an unprecedented opportunity to rethink the structure the logic and the potential of the future chapter of the climate change regime the bad news is we need to do this overnight we are on an incredible tight time frame we cannot afford to fail on this opportunity that is laid before us over the next two years if within two our last agreement this is our last shot we have to have an international agreement that stops the growth of emissions and begins a pathway downward by two thousand and twenty if we don't get that agreement now we will have missed the opportunity to get industry moving in that direction so the catastrophic impacts will occur the second thing is i would hope that many of you would have the political courage to not become part of the bash china movement china has been rather aggressive in its energy policies domestically as we have heard today and it is a country very different from united states china's coastal population in the  put a price of exactly zero on carbon pollution of the atmosphere we are not going to be taken serious in this process the more you can do to move domestic cap and trade legislation through the process the sooner the u s is going to get on board with the rest of the world the better our chances will be in negotiation second this is not just a risk it is an opportunity keep your focus on the clean energy jobs that can be created the new markets that can be created in helping the world solve this problems i know congressman inslee has put forward some very bold ideas there we need a revolution in this country and there is an upside for dealing with this problem not just a downside the third is the cost of achieving the deep cuts that we are talking about by two thousand and fifty are not zero they are not minimal they are affordable they are somewhere in the range of half to one percent of gross domestic output by the middle of the century that is the equivalent of postponing tripling world output from two thousand and fifty to two thousand and fifty one i think our descendants will say that is a pretty good deal on the other side the costs of doing something are far lower than the costs of doing nothing there is no scenario feasible where we can do nothing and have nothing happen in return estimates vary on what the ratio is there but there is very very little disagreement that the costs of inaction are much greater than the costs of dealing with this problem  congress for the next year i think global warming is about to be injected into the politics of the united states in a way that will match few other times for the next