U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

58–415 2010

AFTER BALI: THE U.N. CONFERENCE AND ITS 

IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

POLICY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 19, 2007 

Serial No. 110–21 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DAVID MOULTON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. Earl Blumenauer, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, opening statement ...................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Jay R. Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, opening statement ................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of South Dakota, opening statement ........................................................ 7 

Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Missouri, opening statement ............................................................................... 8 

Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Hilda Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement, ............................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Hon. John Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 13 

WITNESSES

Mr. Alden Meyer, Director of Strategy and Policy, Union of Concerned Scientists .................................................................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Mr. Philip Clapp, Managing Director, Pew Environmental Group ..................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Ms. Christiana Figueres, Official Negotiator, U.N. Framework Convention 

on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, Costa Rica ................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Mr. Ned Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy ...................................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Mr. Myron Ebell, Director, Energy and Global Warming Policy, Competitive 

Enterprise Institute ............................................................................................. 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
Page

IV 

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

The Climate Change and Energy Security Challenge, Stephen D. Eule, U.S. 

Dept. of Energy, November 29, 2007 .................................................................. 101 

EPA Analysis of Bingaman-Specter Request on Global CO2 Concentrations, 

U.S. EPA, Office of Atmospheric Programs, October 1, 2007 ........................... 120 

Stabilizing CO2 Concentrations with Incomplete International Cooperation, 

Edmonds, Clarke, Lurz, and Wise, U.S. Dept. of Energy, October 2007 ......... 127 

‘‘Europe’s Dirty Secret: Why the EU Emissions Trading Scheme Isn’t Working’’, Open Europe, August 2007 ......................................................................... 156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
(1) 

AFTER BALI: THE U.N. CONFERENCE AND ITS 

IMPACT ON INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE 

CHANGE POLICY 

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:05 p.m. in Room 

2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Solis, 

Herseth Sandlin, Cleaver, Hall, McNerney, Sensenbrenner, Walden, and Blackburn. 

Staff present: Morgan Gray, Joel Beauvais, and Ana Unruh 

Cohen. 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Select Committee on Energy 

Independence and Global Warming is called to order. 

During the last 2 weeks, delegates from more than 180 nations, 

including the United States, met in Bali, Indonesia, to begin the 

process of developing a post-2012 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 2 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 adVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:13 Oct 15, 2010 Jkt 058415 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A415.XXX A415

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
2 

ministration. Initial drafts of the road map included language 

based on the latest science that recognized the need for global heattrapping emissions to peak within the next 10 to 15 years before 

declining by more than half by 2050, with developing countries reducing emissions 25 to 40 percent below 1990 by 2020. 

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 emerged 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 30 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 2030. 

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, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
3 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 10 here 58415A.001
4 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 11 here 58415A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. 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 12 years ago in 1995. 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 not, and 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 Chairman’s own 

junior 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 at 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. 

Mr. 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 too. 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 international 

community, it is possible to develop the meaningful climate change 

treaty that creates real environmental benefits, protects jobs in the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
6 

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 10 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 toward a 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 fight. 

I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired, and 

the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking forward to this hearing today so that we can 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 

haven’t a 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 750 cities, which I find extraordinarily exciting. 

There is still time for this Congress, under the leadership of you, 

Mr. 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 2008, 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. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
7 

As far as when we talk about the road from Bali, I just want to 

note that this is moving so fast, both in the wrong direction and 

the right 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 20 times disturbing as they were 2 or 3 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 3 years ago, I asked former Vice President Al Gore 

to address our colleagues about this issue. It was about 3 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 of the United 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 but a global action. And I just think 

we ought to come away from Bali with a sense of optimism to see 

how fast things are changing. 

And, with that, I will yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes Ms. Herseth Sandlin from South Dakota. 

Ms. HERSETH SANDLIN. Thank you, Mr. 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 110th Congress and continuing to make 

progress domestically as well as working with international partners in sharing information. 

And I would have to share—I want to reiterate the statement 

made by Mr. Inslee about having some optimism. While there are 

going to be different interpretations about the road map itself and 

how it compares to the objectives of the 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 31⁄2 years that I have been in Congress, I have 

watched a dramatic shift in one area in particular. As Mr. 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 10 to 15 years and now all of a sudden they are 

changing their positions, as my friend from New York, Mr. Eliot 

Engel, has done on the issue of biofuels. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
8 

And so, when we have gone from huge resistance to biofuels in 

some corners to a signing of a bill that has a 36-billion-gallon target by 2022, 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 2, 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 have 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. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized. 

Mr. WALDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to waive my 

opening statement and look forward to hearing the testimony of the 

witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I, too, would waive my opening comments. I am 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 significantly, whether or not it 

is undermining the Kyoto Protocol. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing, and I look 

forward to hearing more detailed—or a detailed response from our 

witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

McNerney. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want to commend the members who have participated in 

the Bali conference for their hard work and for their accomplishment. I 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 cooperation is opening up a new chapter in human 

history, a chapter of cooperating worldwide to solve global problems. And so I look at this as a tremendous achievement. 

I thank the participants, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. 

I just want to welcome our panelists also, and I watched with 

much amusement 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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
9 

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 country and in our neighborhoods. 

Thank you very much. I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The statement of Ms. Solis follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
10 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 23 here 58415A.003
11 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 24 here 58415A.004
12 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 25 here 58415A.005
13 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. 

Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to our witnesses for your work and for coming 

here to tell us about it. 

I am one 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 in 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 50-year floods in the last 3 years. They know about 

the ice storm in the Midwest that was deadly to many people; the 

139-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, with that, I yield back. And thanks for holding this hearing, 

Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much. 

And just before we end it, the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, has arrived. And she is recognized for an opening. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome to all of our witnesses today. Thank you for the 

hearing and the time. 

We all know that on December 15th the U.N. completed a 2-week 

conference in Bali, Indonesia, and it was attended by representatives of more than 180 countries. And the attendees completed the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
14 

conference by establishing an Adaptation Fund Board to oversee 

the implementation of the adaptation fund created under the Kyoto 

Protocol. Delegates also considered policies to reduce emissions 

from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. 

However, I have two main concerns about the general path that 

the U.N. conference in Bali proposes, and these are concerns I want 

to address with you all today. 

First, the conference seeks to implement severe CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2 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 CO2

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: diseases, malnutrition and sanitation. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to the questions. 

And welcome to our witnesses. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentlelady. 

All time for opening statements by members of the committee 

has expired, so we will turn to our panel. And our first four witnesses today all participated in the Bali conference. 

We will begin with Mr. Alden Meyer, director of strategy and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Mr. Meyer has, for over 

30 years, had experience working on issues of energy and climate 

change, both at the State and national level. Before coming to the 

Union of Concerned Scientists in 1989, Mr. Meyer served as executive director for the League of Conservation Voters, Americans for 

the Environment, and the Environmental Action Foundation. 

We welcome you, Mr. Meyer. Please begin. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
15 

STATEMENTS OF MR. ALDEN MEYER, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGY 

AND POLICY, UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS; MR. PHILIP CLAPP, DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PEW ENVIRONMENT GROUP; MS. CHRISTIANA FIGUERES, OFFICIAL NEGOTIATOR, U.N. FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE 

CHANGE AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL, COSTA RICA; MR. NED 

HELME, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR CLEAN AIR POLICY; MR. 

MYRON EBELL, DIRECTOR, ENERGY AND GLOBAL WARMING 

POLICY, COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF ALDEN MEYER 

Mr. MEYER. Thank you, Chairman Markey and members of the 

select committee. UCS has been active on international, national 

and State climate change policy since 1989, and I have personally 

attended almost all of the international negotiating meetings on climate change since 1991 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 2 years. 

Substantial 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 10 to 15 years 

and then be reduced by 50 percent or more by mid-century, with 

much deeper cuts for industrialized countries. 

In the late 1990s, 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 problem 

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 1995 Berlin mandate that Mr. Sensenbrenner referred to, that prohibited any new commitments for parties not included to Annex 1 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.’’ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
16 

Through the constructive efforts in Bali of countries like China, 

Brazil, Indonesia, South Africa and others, Costa Rica, with lastminute 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-2012 

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 2005 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 25 

to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 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 10 or 15 years and to be reduced by 50 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 25 to 

40 percent reductions in emissions by industrialized countries by 

2020. The U.S. was unwilling to cut this deal, falsely claiming that 

inclusion of such a range would, quote, ‘‘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 can argue, 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 20 percent of global CO2

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 2 years on sectoral policy-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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
17 

administration was unwilling to block these negotiations from 

going forward is a hopeful sign, for, while a different U.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, Mr. Chairman, in her speech during the high-level segment, Connie Hedegaard, the Minister of Denmark, which will host 

the meeting in December 2009 where the new agreement will hopefully be 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, Mr. Chairman, that we will heed Minister Hedegaard’s 

wise words as we move forward from Bali to Copenhagen. 

[The statement of Mr. Meyer follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
18 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 58415A.006
19 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 58415A.007
20 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 58415A.008
21 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 58415A.009
22 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 58415A.010
23 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 58415A.011
24 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 58415A.012
25 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 44 here 58415A.013
26 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 45 here 58415A.014
27 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 58415A.015
28 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 58415A.016
29 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 58415A.017
30 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 58415A.018
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meyer, very much. 

Our second witness is Mr. Phil Clapp, who is the deputy managing director of the Pew Environmental Group. Mr. Clapp previously served as the president of the National Environmental 

Trust, which he led since its founding in 1994. Mr. 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 legislative director for former Senator Tim Wirth. 

We welcome you, Mr. Clapp. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF PHILIP CLAPP 

Mr. CLAPP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 

invitation to be here today. 

First of all, I want to congratulate you on what has just occurred. 

The President has just signed the energy bill, and that culminates 

what I know is for you a 20-year crusade to increase the fuel economy standards in Federal law. And you have contributed an enormous amount to that all the way back to 1982, and I remember 

your efforts back on the Energy and Commerce Committee at that 

time. So, congratulations. 

The delegates came to Bali with fundamentally three challenges: 

first, a decision as to whether to launch formal negotiations on a 

new treaty to be concluded in Copenhagen in 2009; secondly, to establish the 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 20 to 40 percent in worldwide emissions and a longterm goal of a 50 percent reduction by 2050. 

I want to emphasize that those were only in the preamble of the 

agreement. This was an ultimately hortatory statement that this is 

the target 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, that we will reach the point when the Arctic may be free of summer sea ice not by 2040, a projection which 

shocked scientists when one NASA scientist made it last year, but 

as early as 2012. The leading scientist who made that projection, 

who actually is the son of a coal miner and worked in coal mines 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
32 

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 1992, 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 1997, 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.’’ The United States has to 

lead these talks. There is enormous suspicion of U.S. intentions 

under an administration of either party. And unless we do not take 

up our responsibilities, we will see another treaty that fails. 

I want to make one more comment about the role of developing 

nations, which Ms. Figueres will go into, I am sure, in much more 

detail. The watershed at these talks was that developing 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 1992. 

In addition, although I was complimenting the Chairman on the 

bill that the President signed today, I 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 2018, in 2005. 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, we will find yet another 

failed negotiation. 

[The statement of Mr. Clapp follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
33 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 58415A.019
34 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 58415A.020
35 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 58415A.021
36 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 58415A.022
37 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 58415A.023
38 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 58415A.024
39 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 58415A.025
40 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 58415A.026
41 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 58415A.027
42 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 58415A.028
43 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clapp, very much. 

And thank you for your kind words about the energy bill. I might 

add that we have now finished the 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 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and 

the Kyoto Protocol for Costa Rica since 1995. She also serves as a 

member of the executive board of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. In 1995, Ms. Figueres founded the Center for 

Sustainable Development in the Americas, where she served as director until 2003. For her leadership in the areas of climate, energy 

and conservation, National Geographic and Ford Motor Company 

recognized her with their Hero of the Planet Award in 2001. We 

are extremely fortunate to have her expertise on Costa Rica and 

developing nations. 

Welcome, Ms. Figueres. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTIANA FIGUERES 

Ms. FIGUERES. Thank you, Mr. 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 

2021. 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. 

You 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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
44 

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 2 

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 2 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 circumstances. 

Third, and most importantly, contingency. The Bali discussions 

point very clearly to the fact that all further action of the developing 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 emitter 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 2009. Given where the 

United States is in its electoral cycle, it is more than likely that 

the U.S. 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 statement of Ms. Figueres follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
45 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 58415A.029
46 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 58415A.030
47 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 58415A.031
48 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 58415A.032
49 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

And our next witness, Ned Helme, is founder and president of 

the Center for Clean Air Policy and has more than 25 years of experience working on climate change and air policy. Mr. 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 1990 and the European 

Union’s emissions trading system. 

So we welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF NED HELME 

Mr. HELME. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members. 

I 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 25 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 take unilateral action, we step forward, make comVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:03 Oct 15, 2010 Jkt 058415 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A415.XXX A415

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
50 

mitments, 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 us have some weak aspirational goals for 

2050 and then call it a day. 

The heart of the difference here is, do we do something in 2020 

that ensures that we still have the possibility of meeting the goal 

we want in 2050, or do we sort of see what happens and hope for 

the best? Basically, unless we make a decision in 2020 that is pretty concrete, we basically wipe out our chance of meeting the budget 

in 2050. 

In terms of EU leadership, as you know, the heads of state of Europe, back in March, agreed to a 20 percent reduction below 1990 

levels on their own, unilaterally, regardless of what anybody else 

does. And they proposed to do 30 percent or more below 1990 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 unthinkable.’’ This is what he said 

right before the U.S. caved. And I think this gives you a context 

of how much of a watershed, how much of a breakthrough this was. 

Next slide, please. 

This shows you quickly the numbers. As Christiana mentioned, 

the gray line is what Lieberman-Warner would do in 2015. The 

blue line is what the EU’s minus-30 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, ‘‘Developing countries aren’t doing anything, so we 

shouldn’t do anything.’’ 

Here are the facts. And, as others have said, this is about car 

standards, this is about a 20 percent improvement in energy efficiency by 2010. This is by 2010. Lieberman-Warner numbers are 

for 2015 and 2020. So it gives you a sense of how big this is. 

I was in China the last 2 days, discussions with them. I was impressed by how committed they are. A lot of criticism, ‘‘Oh, they 

only got 1 percent the first year.’’ This year they will get 4 percent 

of that 20 percent goal, and they are making big steps to go further 

in the coming years. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
51 

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 500 chief executives. I got to speak there a week before 

Bali. All the leadership of the European Commission, the Secretary 

of Commerce, the Secretary 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-per-ton-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 Mr. 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 U.S. and the Asia-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 

across the aisle here, to deal with this issue, and we really got to 

grab that piece. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Helme follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
52 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 81 here 58415A.033
53 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 82 here 58415A.034
54 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 83 here 58415A.035
55 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 84 here 58415A.036
56 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 85 here 58415A.037
57 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 86 here 58415A.038
58 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 87 here 58415A.039
59 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 88 here 58415A.040
60 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 89 here 58415A.041
61 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 90 here 58415A.042
62 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 91 here 58415A.043
63 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 92 here 58415A.044
64 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 93 here 58415A.045
65 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 94 here 58415A.046
66 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 95 here 58415A.047
67 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 96 here 58415A.048
68 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 97 here 58415A.049
69 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 98 here 58415A.050
70 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 99 here 58415A.051
71 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 100 here 58415A.052
72 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 101 here 58415A.053
73 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 102 here 58415A.054
74 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 103 here 58415A.055
75 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Helme. 

Energy bill, step one. Mandatory cap, auction and trade next. 

Our next witness is Myron Ebell. Mr. Ebell is director of energy 

and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. 

Before joining the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mr. 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, Mr. Ebell. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF MYRON EBELL 

Mr. 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. I am not pleased, but congratulations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ebell, I did not go, but I went by Avatar to 

Bali. And I would recommend that the next time you can’t travel. 

Mr. EBELL. Right. Right. Well, I have been to many of these. You 

know, it is interesting that 15,000 people were so eager to get out 

of our 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 

Congressman. He is from the right side of the Cascades, as I like 

to think of it. 

I would like to say I think that the Bali talks need to be put in 

some kind of context. And 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 the Kyoto Protocol, 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 in 1997; 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 emissions 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 proVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:13 Oct 15, 2010 Jkt 058415 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A415.XXX A415

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
76 

ducing 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 a 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 Mr. 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 G77 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 statement of Mr. Ebell follows:] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
77 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 109 here 58415A.056
78 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 110 here 58415A.057
79 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 111 here 58415A.058
80 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 112 here 58415A.059
81 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 113 here 58415A.060
82 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 114 here 58415A.061
83 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 115 here 58415A.062
84 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ebell, very much. 

The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions. 

First you, Mr. Clapp, and you, Mr. Meyer. Do you think that the 

major economies meetings initiated by the United States can make 

any positive contribution to the U.N. negotiating process, or are 

they more likely to undermine it? 

Mr. CLAPP. I think what is important, Mr. Chairman, is that the 

administration’s objectives in the major emitters talks are quite 

unclear. We 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 

2009. At the beginning of the Bali conference, the Chairman of 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 make clear what its objectives are, because it has the prospect of really undercutting the ability to continue the U.N. negotiations. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. Let me just build on that. I think it could be a useful 

process if the U.S. would put forward a specific proposal of what 

we want to do. The European Union has said that they want to try 

to stay below the 2 degree Celsius temperature increase that I 

mentioned. Japan has put forward its Cool Earth 50, calling for a 

50 percent reduction in global emissions by 2050. The U.S. 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 no proposal 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 2 degrees, what? What risk are we willing to take with the 

planet? What risk are we willing to commit future generations to? 

Is it 3 degrees, 4 degrees, 10 degrees? We don’t know. The administration refuses to put forward a concrete proposal either for longterm global reductions or for near-term industrialized country targets. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. 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 delay will foreclose options to save the planet? 

Mr. EBELL. That is an involved question, but I would say, in general, yes. I think that if you look—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You do reject it? 

Mr. EBELL. Yes. If you look at the most extreme scenarios from 

the IPCC computer projections, you will find that, even under what 

is called the A1 FI scenario, in 2100 the high-growth, high-emisVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:03 Oct 15, 2010 Jkt 058415 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A415.XXX A415

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
85 

sions 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 10 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 in the 20th century; namely, hot-weather 

mortality has been going down, but cold-weather mortality has not 

been going down nearly as much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ebell. 

Mr. EBELL. So, from a simple utilitarian calculation, a little bit 

of warming in the upper latitudes will lead to an increase in 

human flourishing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me go to Ms. Figueres. 

Your testimony discusses the watershed decision of developing 

countries at Bali to agree to consider mitigation actions under a 

new global climate change agreement. 

Given the current administration’s intransigence on climate 

change, what explains developing countries’ willingness to open up 

to this discussion? 

Ms. FIGUERES. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

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 to play fairly within the climate regime. Bali has proved that that is no longer a valid argument. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

My time has expired. The Chair will recognize the gentleman 

from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

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 Kerry said 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. 

Now, that being said, I guess I would like to ask the panelists 

to briefly say, as a result of Bali and the softening of the adminisVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:03 Oct 15, 2010 Jkt 058415 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A415.XXX A415

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
86 

tration’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 up in 2 years. 

Who would like to be first? 

Mr. 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, the EU’s putting these targets out set a bar that 

was very useful. I think—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Now, let me interrupt you on that. 

The deal that was made in Berlin, which exempted the developing 

world and gave the EU a much lower emissions reduction target, 

the so-called EU bubble, as a result of two factors that occurred 

since 1990 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 failure but 

the mistake that made Kyoto a failure was the agreement that 

came from Berlin in 1995. 

Mr. HELME. I think there are two responses. 

One, we are beyond that, as everyone on the panel has said. I 

mean, we basically had that clear 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 to participate in that larger effort that 

will go forward in terms of with developing countries. So I think 

we are going to see a significant package coming forward. 

So we are beyond, sort of, the history of, did we do the right 

thing on Kyoto or not? We have now stepped up to the point where 

everybody is going to now take real steps. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Unfortunately Mr. 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 me much heart that the EU had gotten the message, and particularly the largest economy within the 

EU, which is that of Germany. 

Mr. EBELL. Could I reply to your question, Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

I think we really can’t 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 have already noted, their emissions 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
87 

went down between 1990 and 1997 for reasons that had nothing to 

do with emissions reductions. 

And so, I think what we can hope for in future negotiations is 

that the U.S., 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 more and more 

marginalized in this. 

Mr. HELME. Mr. Sensenbrenner, the facts simply don’t bear out 

what Mr. Ebell is saying. And for the record—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Helme, it is my time. And I will just 

say that the two factors that allowed the EU to reduce their emissions from 1990 to 1997 were the fact that Mrs. Thatcher decided 

to put the British coal-miners union out of business and change 

electric generating in the U.K. from coal to natural 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 gases and were environmental disasters and workplace 

safety disasters. That had nothing to do with compliance with the 

Rio Treaty. 

My time is up. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. 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. 

Let’s go back to where that was in 1992. It is not that it is impossible. And you have documented some of the area. I come from 

a city that is at 1990 level of emissions and has had 4 consecutive 

years of—and I appreciate, Mr. 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. 

Mr. WALDEN. Careful now, the other side of the mountain thing. 

Mr. 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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
88 

States has been dragging its feet, not 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, a 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, Mr. Chairman, as we plot things that might find their way into law and help 

frame the next steps. 

If we can just briefly have our friends respond. 

Mr. MEYER. Let me start, because I think the agreement reached 

in Bali does create a place for that conversation. 

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 2 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 nonKyoto 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-factsright year to prepare for the serious, hard bargaining in 2009. And 

there is a space there for 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. 

Mr. CLAPP. Mr. 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 Mr. 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 2030 are .3 percent per year. Japan’s will 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
89 

be .1 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, is currently in violation of 

its treaty obligations under the Framework Convention on Climate 

Change, and we are 18 percent above our 1990 levels. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I am happy to have given the remainder of my 

time to the answer to Mr. Sensenbrenner’s question. 

Mr. CLAPP. My apologies. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. No, no, no. 

Had I had time, Mr. Chairman, one area that I happen to agree 

with Mr. Ebell—and I think my colleague from Oregon, Mr. Walden, would concur—that there is a huge role in terms of worldwide 

practice of forestry, what happens in this country. I am going to be 

lobbying you. We have some legislation pending on illegal logging. 

But there are a range of things. This might be something that 

might be worthy of a hearing in the future where we could, I think, 

make some real progress. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And Mr. Sensenbrenner is a formidable proponent of this opposition, so I think this is very helpful for everybody to have a chance 

to come back at Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. HELME. Could I have a reaction and then an answer? 

The CHAIRMAN. No. I think other members will give you that opportunity. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank our panelists for their testimony today. It 

is helpful to get your views on this topic. 

I want to pick up on a couple of points, one from my friend and 

colleague from 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 climate and its effect on forest, with drought and bug infestation. 

And if you could keep your answers fairly brief, because I have 

got another question, is there anything specifically you or your organizations have relative to management changes you would recommend on Federal forest lands? 

Mr. EBELL. Yes, indeed, Mr. 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 have the incentives to manage their land properly, the way private owners do. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
90 

Thank you. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. Thank you, Mr. Ebell. 

Mr. Helme, do you have any comments? Again, briefly. 

Mr. HELME. I think there is a very interesting provision in the 

Lieberman-Warner bill that would be attractive here. In the allocation of allowances, they provide some of the allowances to forestry 

and agriculture folks who make improvements—reforestation, 

afforestation and so on. The idea here is it is not offsets, it is in 

addition to. So you have a basic cap, then you take so many allowances out of the pool, sell them for the money, pay the money to 

farmers—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Would that apply to Federal forest lands? 

Mr. HELME. Only in-holdings, not—no. These would be for private people, basically. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Ms. Figueres. 

Ms. FIGUERES. I could answer that with respect to our countries 

but not with respect to the United States. I will hold off. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. Clapp. 

Mr. CLAPP. I will pass. I think that Ned covered what I would 

have said. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. 

Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. I can ask our forestry experts to get a response for 

you for the record. It is not my area of expertise. But one of our 

scientists is the lead author of the IPCC’s ‘‘Land-Use Change and 

Forestry’’ chapter, so I will try to get something for you on that. 

Mr. WALDEN. That would be helpful. I would appreciate it. 

Mr. HELME. One additional suggestion would be to keep, in this 

debate, in essence, at 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. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. That would be helpful. And, certainly, the 

work internationally on forestry I think is extraordinarily important. We all recognize the importance of healthy forests in sequestering carbon. Eradication of the forest doesn’t help. And, certainly, 

these fires we have seen in the West are a real problem. 

I want to move to carbon sequestration technology. 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 sequestration? 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? 

Mr. 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, then reinjected for secondary and tertiary oil 

recovery. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
91 

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 of secondary oil 

recovery. 

So I think it is there. It is a question of putting all the pieces 

together. It is not something the utility industry has done. It is 

something more of the chemicals and the gas and the oil industry. 

Mr. WALDEN. Sure. But I am trying to find out—because when 

we did SOX and NOX, the acid 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. 

Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. Let me just build on what Ned said. I think the technology is available. It is a question of price. My understanding is 

it would add now somewhere of 60 to 70 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 10 to 15 percent range, so it is more viable economically. But even there, we are going to have to help countries 

like China and India cover that spread between conventional unconstrained coal and carbon capture and storage coal. 

Mr. 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 out? 

And the second is, have you cost out the additional price per 

megawatt hour, kilowatt hour, whatever matrix you want, that this 

capture and sequestration will add to, say, the average power bill? 

Mr. CLAPP. Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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? 

Mr. CLAPP. No. What I said is that we need the demonstration 

projects that bring it up to scale. 

Mr. WALDEN. So it is not available now? 

Mr. CLAPP. It is not available at a commercial scale now. 

Mr. HELME. You need incentives to make it go. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am trying to get the first piece, which is, is it 

technologically ready? What does it take to get there? And then, at 

what cost? 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
92 

Mr. 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 legal and political obstacles to transport and 

pressurize storage underground. I think those are—— 

Mr. WALDEN. We heard that in Europe, too, that if carbon is a 

pollutant, you are putting a pollutant in the ground, and some laws 

will have to be changed here and elsewhere to deal with that. 

Is that true? 

Mr. HELME. That is true. 

I would add, in terms of Europe, Mr. Sensenbrenner’s favorite 

topic, Europe has committed to building 10 or 12 of these demonstration plants by 2015. They will have in place next year a new 

framework for regulating this very question you are asking. It will 

be completed by the end of 2008, so that we can go forward with 

those plants. 

I think what we need here is we need the same kind of commitment in terms of demonstration. We are still just trying to build 

one FutureGen. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And I will just make this point, that, as part of the legislation the President is signing related to energy, that there is $6 billion, 

$6 billion worth of Federal Government loan guarantees for carbon 

capture and sequestration in the legislation. So we are also moving 

much more aggressively on that path. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned, with the lateness of the hour, people have missed lunch. I have an alternative 

energy source: a fruit cake that I make every year. It may not be 

legal after the next round of environmental protection. So I was 

just going to pass this down here, if there is no violent objection. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sensenbrenner is raising ethics questions, 

but I think we will say that, for the purposes of our Congressmen, 

we can accept fruit cake from other Congressmen. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. 

Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Fruit cake, the ultimate renewable energy, I suppose. 

I wanted to ask Mr. 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. 

Could you tell us how mature those efforts are and what successes they may have had and what lessons we ought to learn? 

Mr. HELME. Okay. I would be happy to. 

As I mentioned, the U.N. has this high-level group on competitiveness, energy security and climate. And it has been meeting for 

2 years. And I participated 2 weeks ago in this high-level conference with 500 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, pulp and paper, oil refining, that sort of thing. And the 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
93 

idea here would be you do a benchmarking, so you say what is the 

best-practice technology today for a wet kiln cement plant? That 

comes at some level of carbon per ton of cement produced. 

You would ask the 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, 2012 to 2020. 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 

standards. And that is where we are heading. 

So a very promising opportunity, as opposed to I am going to 

stick you with taxes or I am going to make you buy allowances if 

you are not doing as well as I would like you to do in terms of your 

carbon program. So it is a much more positive approach. 

Mr. INSLEE. You said if they met or exceeded these standards, 

they could sell credits into the system. Was there a cost if they did 

not meet these standards? 

Mr. HELME. No. There would be—understand that to get this financing for technology, they have to have a contract, they have to 

build the plants, they have to operate the plants. They can’t just 

say, ‘‘Oh, thanks, we like the money, and it is very nice.’’ It is a 

contractual arrangement between that country and the Annex 1 

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 20 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 are looking at. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
94 

And it is a good opportunity of collaboration with the World 

Business Council for Sustainable Development and others. So it is 

a very promising opportunity. 

Mr. INSLEE. What is the best way to really delve into that proposal from Europe? I mean, has anybody got sort of a master paper 

describing that? 

Mr. 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? 

Mr. INSLEE. Could you put up that—you had a graph showing 

relative improvements in CO2 between the U.S. under McCainLieberman and Chinese existing—— 

Mr. HELME. Yes. Here it is. Can you see it from back there? The 

red is China, Brazil and Mexico. The blue is the European Union’s 

30 percent target that they set for 2020. The gray on the left is 

Lieberman-Warner in 2015. And the green on the right is 

Lieberman-Warner in 2020. So to give you a feel for the targets. 

And these are reductions below business-as-usual, okay. Because, 

remember, China is growing 100 percent, so they are shaving the 

growth. These are not reductions from 1990 levels or anything like 

that. But it still shows you that—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 

100 percent implementation, which is always tough in developing 

countries. 

Mr. INSLEE. Take this with a grain of salt. I mean, I haven’t 

studied this. But it 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 compared to China, even if we adopt 

a cap-and-trade system, relative to their measures already. 

Mr. HELME. That is exactly right. And China’s numbers are for 

2010. McCain-Lieberman-Warner is 2020. So they are doing this 

faster by 10 years, which is what we need actually. 

Mr. INSLEE. So is that a comment on—and I support the cap-andtrade system. 

And my time is up, so I will talk to you after this hearing. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to also say God bless Mr. Blumenauer for the spirit 

of giving. Thank you, sir. 

The gentlewoman from Tennessee has left. And I certainly will 

not be disrespectful. On two occasions, she has presented the word, 

the European ‘‘scheme,’’ as if it is something like the guy who was 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
95 

able to drill underground in Texas when I was a kid to tap into 

other oil. That was a scheme. In Europe, the word ‘‘scheme’’ is— 

the English word ‘‘scheme’’ is synonymous with the word ‘‘plan,’’ 

‘‘diagram.’’ It has nothing to do with some kind of system of ripping 

off folks. It means map; it means sketch. And it gives off the impression to some that the Europeans are announcing we are ripping you off. And if they were doing that, they would use another 

word. So she has done that twice, and I just wanted to say that. 

The other thing, Mr. 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—— 

Mr. EBELL. Mr. 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. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Okay. 

The developing nations and the poorer nations must figure this 

risk that are especially vulnerable to climate change, particularly 

concerning floods and droughts and other disasters. These nations, 

like many of those in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, are 

least responsible for the effects of global warming. 

What can the nations of the world like the United States, like 

the EU, do to assist some of the poorer countries, third-world countries in attaining the technologies to compensate for the effects of 

global warming? Costa Rica probably is not necessarily in that category, but certainly southeast Asia and African nations are. 

Ms. 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 ascribing where 

funds would go to. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. HELME. Just commenting on that, Congressman, the thing to 

get clear here is the scale of the need. The World Bank estimates 

that we need 40 billion or 50 billion a year. OXFAM’s estimate is 

50 to $80 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 want to make an adaptation of infeasible. We did 

an analysis, for example, for our own State of California for GovVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:03 Oct 15, 2010 Jkt 058415 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A415.XXX A415

jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
96 

ernor 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 2090. 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 20 or 30 years. It is our moral responsibility to help these 

countries who had no role in creating this problem deal with the 

consequences of our past behavior. 

Ms. FIGUERES. Just to add a half a sentence to that, yes, it is 

the moral responsibility; and it is not just a moral responsibility. 

Actually, from the point of view of the United States, this is a longterm 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. 

Mr. 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 immigration—is a very serious one. 

In addition, this actually has implications for the targets—the 

worldwide reduction targets that were on the table in Bali. Those 

are actually projected, no matter how aggressive they may seem in 

our context, to provide us with only a 50 percent chance of avoiding 

the worst impacts of climate changing. So the measures were not 

extremes. 

Mr. CLEAVER. How much time do I have left? 

The CHAIRMAN. Five seconds. 

Mr. CLEAVER. General Motors National Park—I mean—— 

Mr. EBELL. No. No. I am 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 Mr. Walden 

has been an advocate of would be to privatize the national forest. 

They wouldn’t end up in General Motors’ hands, but a lot of them 

would probably end up in Ted Turner’s hands. So you can have either good or bad feelings. I don’t know. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Enron National Park. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York State, Mr. 

Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for your 

testimony. 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
97 

I wanted to ask Mr. Meyer, regarding that worst-case scenario, 

which is Bali gives us a 50 percent 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? 

Mr. MEYER. Well, it is not what my organization is projecting. It 

is what the International Government Panel on Climate Change is 

projecting, that has been certified by all governments in the world. 

If you read line by line, there are a couple of stories there: one, 

that the sea level rise we are going to see from thermal expansion 

and glaciers melting, that kind of thing—what is really not okay 

was the more rapid—our concern about disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet, the Antarctic ice sheet. Some renewed science is 

coming out about the flow rates there and the water going down 

and 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 closeoff date of the end of 2005 for the peer-reviewed literature that it 

could take into consideration in its findings. 

This is of great concern to the scientists that study the ice sheet 

model and the ice sheet flows, and I encourage to you have a separate hearing just on that issue. 

Mr. HALL. 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 changes and storm waves and surge 

and so on. So it does effect us directly, including those communities 

like Beacon and Newburgh and Kingston and others that have 

newly refurbished their waterfronts with restaurants and stores 

and promenades, not to mention the commercial rail running up 

just above river level on the west bank of the Hudson and the Amtrak and MTA commuter line that runs carrying passengers up the 

east bank just above the water level of the Hudson currently. 

I am curious, given the fact that the executive branch 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? 

Mr. MEYER. I think, as my colleague, Phil Clapp, said, participate in this process as 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 11 to 8 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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
98 

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 2 

years in this process. 

Mr. 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 into play to help developing countries jump into a clean 

energy future. 

Perhaps Ms. Figueres and Mr. Helme could comment on what 

steps our government should be taking to 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. 

Mr. HELME. As I mentioned, I think there 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 developing countries, taking more aggressive 

targets—I mean, the theory from Bali is—as I showed you, they’ll 

do more if there is assistance for technology, for sectorial activity 

in terms of these key investment sectors, for reductions from deforestation. 

So I think there is a big opportunity for us to put something on 

the table and draw forward. I think one of the ways to do it is to 

take a portion of the allowances—we are seeing this. Norway is 

doing it. Germany is doing it. But if you are taking allowances out 

of their system, auctioning those and using the money as incentive 

money 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 60 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 

and to signal to the private sector that they can go ahead and 

make the investments; and those investments will then translate 

into the technology transfer the developing countries need. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Let’s do this. We will give each one of you 1 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 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
99 

hearing as we go forward and begin this great project that is about 

to be undertaken? 

We will go in reverse order; and we will begin with you, Mr. 

Ebell. 

Mr. EBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would urge you to keep—as you consider energy rationing policies, 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 Mr. Hall said earlier. He encouraged people to adopt a polar 

bear. I think that is great. 

My colleague who is here today in the audience, William 

Yeatman, was a Peace Corps volunteer in Krygyzstan; and he 

will—if you want to contribute $50 to 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, Mr. Ebell, Mr. Helme. 

Mr. HELME. Number one, I would say moving legislation at least 

as strong as Lieberman-Warner is the most important thing you 

could 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 already acting in cement, steel, carbon 

paper and so on; and they will be more efficient than we are by 

the time 2020 rolls around. So that is not the issue. The issue is 

working together to get the level playing field. 

Finally, on the EU, I want to submit for the record only 2 countries of the 15 are not meeting their targets on their own. Only 

Spain and Italy are not. And I can give you chapter and verse 

about why the new EU program is very aggressive and the trading 

system works. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Figueres. 

Ms. FIGUERES. Thank you, Mr. 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 2 years. If within 2 years 

at the end of 2009 we don’t have a global agreement that aggressively moves us forward, we will not be able to face our children 

and grandchildren. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clapp. 

Mr. CLAPP. Similar to what Ms. Figueres just said, this is our 

last agreement. This is our last shot. We have to have an international agreement that stops the growth of emissions and begins 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
100 

a pathway downward by 2020. 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 cities 

has a per capita income of about $1,200 a year. Fifty-seven percent 

of its population still lives on less than $5 a year. Whereas the 

United States per capita income is $42,000 a year. Our standard— 

of what is still one of the poorest countries in the world is rather 

slim. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Clapp. 

Mr. Meyer. 

Mr. MEYER. Yes. Three points. 

I think the message from Bali is clear. It is time for the United 

States not to talk the talk but walk the walk. If we continue to 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 2050 are not zero, they are not minimal they are affordable. They are somewhere in the range of half to 1 percent of 

gross domestic output by the middle of the century. That is the 

equivalent of postponing tripling world output from 2050 to 2051. 

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. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you and each of the witnesses. This 

has been absolutely a fantastic panel. We thank each of you for giving us this preview of upcoming attractions in the United States 

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 year, and with your help we 

have begun that today. 

Thank you so much. 

[Whereupon, at 1:57 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARING
101 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 157 here 58415A.063
102 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 158 here 58415A.064
103 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 159 here 58415A.065
104 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 160 here 58415A.066
105 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 161 here 58415A.067
106 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 162 here 58415A.068
107 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 163 here 58415A.069
108 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 164 here 58415A.070
109 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 165 here 58415A.071
110 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 166 here 58415A.072
111 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 167 here 58415A.073
112 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 168 here 58415A.074
113 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 169 here 58415A.075
114 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 170 here 58415A.076
115 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 171 here 58415A.077
116 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 172 here 58415A.078
117 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 173 here 58415A.079
118 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 174 here 58415A.080
119 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 175 here 58415A.081
120 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 176 here 58415A.082
121 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 177 here 58415A.083
122 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 178 here 58415A.084
123 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 179 here 58415A.085
124 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 180 here 58415A.086
125 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 181 here 58415A.087
126 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 182 here 58415A.088
127 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 183 here 58415A.089
128 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 184 here 58415A.090
129 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 185 here 58415A.091
130 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 186 here 58415A.092
131 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 187 here 58415A.093
132 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 188 here 58415A.094
133 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 189 here 58415A.095
134 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 190 here 58415A.096
135 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 191 here 58415A.097
136 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 192 here 58415A.098
137 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 193 here 58415A.099
138 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 194 here 58415A.100
139 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 195 here 58415A.101
140 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 196 here 58415A.102
141 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 197 here 58415A.103
142 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 198 here 58415A.104
143 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 199 here 58415A.105
144 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 200 here 58415A.106
145 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 201 here 58415A.107
146 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 202 here 58415A.108
147 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 203 here 58415A.109
148 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 204 here 58415A.110
149 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 205 here 58415A.111
150 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 206 here 58415A.112
151 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 207 here 58415A.113
152 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 208 here 58415A.114
153 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 209 here 58415A.115
154 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 210 here 58415A.116
155 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 211 here 58415A.117
156 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 212 here 58415A.118
157 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 213 here 58415A.119
158 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 214 here 58415A.120
159 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 215 here 58415A.121
160 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 216 here 58415A.122
161 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 217 here 58415A.123
162 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 218 here 58415A.124
163 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 219 here 58415A.125
164 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 220 here 58415A.126
165 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 221 here 58415A.127
166 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 222 here 58415A.128
167 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 223 here 58415A.129
168 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 224 here 58415A.130
169 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 225 here 58415A.131
170 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 226 here 58415A.132
171 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 227 here 58415A.133
172 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 228 here 58415A.134
173 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 229 here 58415A.135
174 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 230 here 58415A.136
175 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 231 here 58415A.137
176 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 232 here 58415A.138
177 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 233 here 58415A.139
178 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 234 here 58415A.140
179 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 235 here 58415A.141
180 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 236 here 58415A.142
181 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 237 here 58415A.143
182 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 238 here 58415A.144
183 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 239 here 58415A.145
184 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 240 here 58415A.146
185 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 241 here 58415A.147
186 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 242 here 58415A.148
187 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 243 here 58415A.149
188 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 244 here 58415A.150
189 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 245 here 58415A.151
190 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 246 here 58415A.152
191 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 247 here 58415A.153
192 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 248 here 58415A.154
193 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 249 here 58415A.155
194 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 250 here 58415A.156
195 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 251 here 58415A.157
196 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 252 here 58415A.158
197 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 253 here 58415A.159
198 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 254 here 58415A.160
199 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 255 here 58415A.161
200 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 256 here 58415A.162
201 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 257 here 58415A.163
202 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 258 here 58415A.164
203 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 259 here 58415A.165
204 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 260 here 58415A.166
205 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 261 here 58415A.167
206 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 262 here 58415A.168
207 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 263 here 58415A.169
208 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 264 here 58415A.170
209 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 265 here 58415A.171
210 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 266 here 58415A.172
211 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 267 here 58415A.173
212 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 268/500 here 58415A.174