U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–827PDF 2017

PARIS CLIMATE PROMISE: 

A BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

February 2, 2016 

Serial No. 114–57 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas, Chair 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

BILL POSEY, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

JIM BRIDENSTINE, Oklahoma 

RANDY K. WEBER, Texas 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

JOHN R. MOOLENAAR, Michigan 

STEPHEN KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

RALPH LEE ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

DRAIN LAHOOD, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

MARC A. VEASEY, Texas 

KATHERINE M. CLARK, Massachusetts 

DONALD S. BEYER, JR., Virginia 

ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

MARK TAKANO, California 

BILL FOSTER, Illinois 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 2, 2016 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 5 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 7 

Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 9 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Steve Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 14 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 16 

Dr. John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth 

System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 44 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 46 

Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 71 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 73 

Mr. Steven Groves, The Bernard and Barbara Lomas Senior Research Fellow, 

Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, The Heritage Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 109 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 111 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 120

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Steve Eule, Vice President for Climate and Technology, U.S. Chamber 

of Commerce ......................................................................................................... 144 

Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO, World Resources Institute .................... 147 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Statement submitted by Representative Donald S. Beyer, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Science, Space, 

and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 156 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 162 

Article submitted by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Ranking Member, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 196 

Letter submitted by Representative Frank D. Lucas, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 197 

(1) 

PARIS CLIMATE PROMISE: 

A BAD DEAL FOR AMERICA 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY & 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:09 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Lamar Smith 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 
2 
3 
4 
5 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. Welcome to 

today’s hearing, entitled ‘‘Paris Climate Promise: A Bad Deal For 

America.’’ I’ll recognize myself for an opening statement, and then 

the Ranking Member. 

President Obama submitted costly new electricity regulations as 

the cornerstone of his agreement at the Paris U.N. Climate Conference last December. These severe measures will adversely affect 

our economy, and have no significant impact on global temperatures. In Paris, the President pledged that the United States will 

cut its greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 28 percent over the 

next decade, and by 80 percent or more by 2050. Moreover, the 

President’s pledge creates an international agreement that binds 

the United States for decades to come, but lacks constitutional legitimacy, since it has not been ratified by the Senate. 

The agreement not only requires the U.S. to reduce carbon emissions, but also compels our country to pay billions of dollars to developing nations to reduce their carbon emissions. Furthermore, 

even if all 196 countries continue their promised reductions for 

each year after 2031, until 2100, it will only reduce temperatures 

by one-sixth of a degree Celsius. The so-called Clean Power Plan 

will cost billions of dollars, cause financial hardship for American 

families, and diminish the competitiveness of American employers, 

all with no significant benefit to climate change. The U.S. pledge 

to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only one-fiftieth of 1 degree Celsius temperature rise over the next 85 years. EPA’s own data 

shows that this regulation would reduce sea level rise by only one 

one-hundreth of an inch, the thickness of three sheets of paper. 

The President’s power plan is nothing more than a power grab. 

A majority of Congress disapproved of the Clean Power Plan 

through the Congressional Review Act, and the governors of most 

states are challenging the rule in court. Meanwhile, the President 

attempts to justify his actions with scare tactics, worst case scenarios, and biased data. An example of how this administration 

promotes its suspect climate agenda can be seen at the National 

Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Its employees altered historical climate data to get politically correct results in an 

attempt to disprove the 18 year lack of global temperature increases. NOAA conveniently issued its news release that promotes 

this report just as the administration announced its extensive climate change regulations. NOAA has refused to explain its findings 

and provide documents to this Committee, and the American people. The people have a right to see the data, evaluate it, and know 

the motivations behind this study. Last week, over 300 respected 

scientists and experts, which include a Nobel Prize winner, members of the National Academy of Sciences, and former astronauts, 

sent this Committee a letter that expressed concern over NOAA’s 

efforts to alter historical temperature data. They agree that the 

issue deserves serious scrutiny. 

This administration continually impedes Congressional oversight 

of its extreme climate agenda. Rightfully, Americans should be suspicious. Furthermore, statements by President Obama and others 

that attempt to link extreme weather events to climate change are 
6 

unfounded. The lack of evidence is clear. No increased tornadoes, 

no increased hurricanes, no increased droughts or floods. For instance, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change found that there is ‘‘low confidence on a global scale’’ that 

drought has increased in intensity or duration. The same lack of 

evidence can be found in the IPCC reports for almost every type 

of extreme weather. 

The administration’s alarmism and exaggeration is not good 

science, and intentionally misleads the American people. Congress 

has repeatedly rejected the President’s extreme climate agenda. 

Now the administration attempts to create the laws on its own, 

and has packaged all these regulations, and promised their implementation to the U.N. The President’s Paris pledge will increase 

electricity cost, ration energy, and slow economic growth. It ignores 

good science, and only seeks to advance a partisan political agenda. 

The President should present his Paris climate change agreement 

to Congress. He won’t, because he knows neither the Senate, nor 

the House, would approve it. As we will hear today, the President’s 

U.N. climate pledge is a bad deal for the American economy, the 

American people, and would produce no substantive environmental 

benefits. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 
7 
8 
9 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

Ranking Member, the gentlewoman from Texas, Eddie Bernice 

Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good 

morning. Let me welcome our witnesses, and in particular I’d like 

to thank Dr. Steer for returning today. Your testimony in December, before the Paris conference, was enlightening, and greatly appreciated. Today I look forward to discussing your takeaways from 

Paris, as well as your thoughts on appropriate steps that need to 

be taken to address climate change. 

The Paris agreement formalized what many across the world already knew must be done to meaningfully address our most serious 

environmental challenge. Establishing a commitment to action, not 

for some, but for all countries, is the first step toward a comprehensive global strategy to reduce carbon emissions. This commitment 

demands transparency, again, not for some, but for all countries, 

to ensure that effective policies are put in place, and that the objective of the agreement, to limit the warming of our planet is accomplished. 

We can accomplish this in three ways. First we must need—we 

need to support the private sector’s growing recognition of the 

threats posed by climate change. In the United States alone, 154 

companies signed on to the American Business Act on Climate 

pledge. Through this pledge, companies like AT&T, Bank of America, Cargill, Coca-Cola, IBM, and even the Walt Disney Company 

are demonstrating their support for action by setting emission targets for their operations. As many of you will recall, days before 

the Paris climate talks, Bill Gates, along with a group of private 

investors, announced the creation of Breakthrough Energy Coalition, a coalition committed to investing in potentially transformative emerge—energy systems. Private sector efforts like this 

illustrate the potential impacts investments in technology can have 

on achieving both long and short term carbon reductions. 

The Paris agreement requires all governments to be consistent 

with their commitments, and sends a signal to the private sector 

that a stable framework for action will be put in place, enabling 

private actors to invest, innovate, and inspire further action. Second, as our private sector responds to stable market signals, we 

must continue to identify opportunities for the Federal Government 

to invest in research and technologies that put us on a path to prevent a rise in global temperatures above 2 degrees Celsius. In addition to helping address climate change, investments in such innovative technologies will propel us forward into a new era of economic prosperity and environmental health. Third, we must capture the momentum of the Paris agreement, and take a leadership 

role in addressing the challenge of climate change, and not just 

react to changes as they occur. Maintaining our international commitments demonstrates strength, and provides certainty for all of 

our partners, including our private sector partners right here at 

home. As we act in a transparent manner to develop and implement policies to address our own carbon emissions, we will help 

move other nations to follow our example, and achieve an impactful 

global response to climate change. 
10 

I fear that we will hear today many of the same views and arguments that we’ve heard from the majority for years. They will warn 

us of the dire economic consequences of acting on climate change, 

or suggest that thousands of the world’s most respected scientists 

are wrong about climate changing at all, or that any actions we 

take will be pointless. They will portray the Obama Administration 

as overreaching. They will say all of these things, but the reality 

is that the audience for those views is shrinking as the reality of 

climate change become evident. The rest of us acknowledge the 

task ahead, and recognize that delay is not an option. We must 

move forward to support policies that will address our climate challenge, and trust that our private sector will continue to innovate. 

The Paris climate agreement is a very positive development, and 

I hope that we can all build on it. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I have a page here from the Washington 

Post dated Friday, December the 11th, 2015, that talks about the 

draft of the Paris agreement, and it also has a second article that’s 

entitled, ‘‘In Paris, Majority View in GOP Congress Is In A Minority’’. I thank you, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 
11 
12 
13 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. Our first witness today is Mr. Stephen Eule, Vice President for Climate and 

Technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Prior to joining the 

Chamber, Mr. Eule was the Director of the Office of Climate 

Change Policy and Technology at the Department of Energy, and 

during this time Dr. Eule represented DOE at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the G–20, and other multilateral 

forums. He also previously served as a Subcommittee Staff Director 

here at the Science Committee, so welcome back. 

Dr. Eule received his Bachelor’s Degree in Biology from Southern 

Connecticut State College, and his Master’s Degree in Geography 

from George Washington University. 

I’ll now recognize the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, to 

introduce our next witness. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure and 

honor to introduce a fellow Alabamian. Our second witness is Dr. 

John Christy, distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, and 

Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of 

Alabama in Huntsville. Dr. Christy, a data-driven climate scientist, 

has researched climate issues for 27 years, and has been Alabama 

State Climatologist since 2000. He was a contributor on four reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and was 

lead author of a section of the 2001 IPCC third assessment report. 

In addition, Dr. Christy received NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991 for building a global temperature database, and in 2002 was elected a fellow of the American Meteorological Society. 

Dr. Christy received his Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics from 

California State University, Fresno, and his Master’s and Ph.D. in 

Atmospheric Sciences from the University of Illinois. It’s our pleasure to have you here, Dr. Christy. Thank you for testifying. 

Chairman SMITH. All right. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. Our third 

witness today is Dr. Andrew Steer, President and CEO of World 

Resources Institute. Dr. Steer joined WRI from the World Bank, 

where he served as Special Envoy for Climate Change since 2010. 

Prior to this position, Dr. Steer was Director, General, and Member 

of the management board at the United Kingdom Department of 

International Development. Dr. Steer worked at the World Bank 

for over 20 years, and has held a number of position, that include 

Director of the Environment Department. Dr. Steer received his 

Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Pennsylvania. 

Our final witness is Mr. Steven Groves, Senior Research Fellow 

at the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the Heritage 

Foundation. Before joining Heritage in 2007, Mr. Groves was Senior Counsel to the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Mr. Groves received his Bachelor’s Degree in History 

from Florida State, his Master’s Degree in Law from Georgetown, 

and his J.D. from Ohio Northern University. 

We welcome you all, look forward to your testimony. And, Mr. 

Eule, if you’ll begin? 
14 

TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVE EULE, 

VICE PRESIDENT FOR CLIMATE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Mr. EULE. Thank you, Chairman, Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and members of the Committee. It’s a pleasure to be back here 

in the Science Committee. The main points I’d like to make, which 

are detailed in my written testimony, are as follows. First, the 

Paris agreement clearly fulfills the Durban Platform’s goal of an 

outcome with legal force, as it contains many legally binding provisions laying out what parties ‘‘shall’’ do. These include requiring 

the parties to make future increasingly ambitious mitigation 

pledges, and to provide financing and technology assistance. The 

binding aspects of the Paris agreement clearly require implementing legislation and regulation potentially affecting every sector 

of the U.S. economy. An agreement with such far reaching consequences, if it is to be considered durable and binding both politically and legally, should approved by Congress. 

Second, according to its own analysis, the Obama Administration’s emission reduction commitment for Paris doesn’t add up. In 

a report released New Year’s Eve, the administration estimates 

that 41 percent to 57 percent of the President’s 2025 emissions target remains unaccounted for, and that’s assuming EPA’s Clean 

Power Plan survives court scrutiny, a big if. Even when including 

the administration’s wish list of additional measures, in almost all 

cases the projected emission reductions still fall short, and often 

well short, of the President’s 2025 goal. That the administration, 

which has thus—shown thus far no reticence when it comes to regulating greenhouse gases, still can’t figure out how to reach its 

2025 goal without everything breaking just right demonstrates how 

unrealistic its goal really is. 

Third, the Paris emissions pledges are hugely unequal, and will 

not change appreciatively the rising trajectory of global emissions. 

While the United States, Europe, Japan, and a few other countries 

have offered up deep emission cuts, nearly all developing countries, 

particularly the large emerging economies, have offered little beyond business as usual. Differentiation among the parties is alive 

and well. A recent report from the Framework Convention estimates that, even in the unlikely event all the Paris pledges are implemented to the letter, global emissions will still rise nearly 1/5 

between 2010 and 2030, within the range of where emissions were 

headed anyway. 

Fourth, the disparity in commitments results from the fact that 

most countries place greater emphasis on economic development 

than they do on cutting greenhouse gas emissions. More than a billion people worldwide still lack access to the modern energy services that could lift them out of poverty. Coal will remain for some 

time the fuel of choice for electrification in developing countries. 

Using data from plants, we estimate that during the Paris climate 

talks, about 1.2 trillion watts of new coal fired power plants were 

under construction, or planned throughout the world. That’s about 

3–1/2 times the capacity of the entire U.S. coal fleet. This is not 

a carbon constrained world. 
15 

Fifth, the administration’s plan will likely result in emissions 

from the U.S. leaking to other countries, merely moving, not reducing them. The United States has a tremendous energy price advantage over many of its competitors. Overregulation from EPA, however, could force energy intensive industries to flee to other countries, similar to what we are seeing in Europe, where climate and 

other policies have driven up energy costs to industry two to four 

times higher than here in the United States. 

Sixth, developing countries have made it plain they will not undertake any meaningful commitments without large doses of financial aid. Developed countries have pledged $100 billion annually by 

2020, and are expected to increase that amount by 2025. A great 

deal of the U.S. share of this—will have to be appropriated by Congress. 

Seventh, although parties agree to a non-binding aim to limit the 

global temperature increase to well below 2 degrees C from the preindustrial level, the parties, as they have in the past, refuse to 

agree to a global emissions pathway that they believe would be 

needed to meet this goal. It is exceedingly unlikely that they ever 

will. This temperature target, therefore, will remain what it has always been, a political symbol of little practical consequence. 

Finally, technology is the key. At its most fundamental level, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a technology challenge. Existing technologies can make a start, but as we have seen, they are 

not capable of significantly cutting emissions on a global scale, and 

at an acceptable cost. That is why the Chamber will continue to 

emphasize energy efficiencies and policies designed to lower the 

cost of alternative energies, rather than raising the cost of traditional energy. 

In closing, back in 1997 the Clinton Administration offered up an 

unrealistic U.S. goal, disregarded clear guidance from the Senate, 

and signed the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty it knew was politically untenable, and therefore never bothered to submit to the Senate for 

its advice and consent. Now it looks like the Obama Administration 

may have repeated the mistake of ignoring Congress, signing on to 

a lopsided deal, and making promises future presidents and Congresses may be neither willing, nor able, to keep. As the late, great 

Yogi Berra once quipped, it’s deja vu all over again. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eule follows:] 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Eule, and Dr. Christy? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JOHN CHRISTY, 

PROFESSOR OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE AND 

DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, 

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE 

Dr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and Ranking Member 

Johnson, for the opportunity to speak about climate change. I’m 

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of 

Alabama in Huntsville, and Alabama State Climatologist. I’ve 

served in many climate science capacities, including as lead author 

of the United Nations IPCC. My research might best be described 

as building datasets from scratch to help us understand what the 

climate is doing, and why. 

I begin with the chart on display. This particular chart has 

caused considerable anxiety for the climate establishment, who 

want to believe the climate system is overheating, according to the 

theory of how extra greenhouse gases are supposed to affect it. The 

message is very simple. The theory does not match the observations as measured independently by both satellites and balloons. 

With that, a tax on those of us who pay attention to such evidence, 

and on the data themselves, have been remarkably sophisticated. 

From Congressional investigation of our finances, to well-funded 

videos, to reporters’ inquiries, for all of our notes, phone calls, expenses, reimbursements, e-mails, letters, and so on. 

At the core of these activities is the belief that someone who does 

not go along with the climate establishment must be on the payroll 

of scurrilous organizations. These attacks attempt to persuade people not to consider the data of the bulk atmosphere, the surface to 

about 50,000 feet. One attack says the satellites do not measure 

temperature. They do. As my colleague, Roy Spencer, points out, 

they measure temperature by emission, which is the same way a 

doctor measures your body temperature with an ear probe. Another 

attack says that the vertical fall of the satellites makes the readings unreliable. This problem was corrected 20 years ago for a different measurement, but the measurement shown here, this was 

never a factor involved. 

In a similar assertion, the claim is made that there was an error 

in the correction for the east-west drift of the satellites, but, again, 

that does not apply to the measurements shown here, but to a different layer, and that was fixed ten years ago. My written testimony goes into more detail about how these attacks on the data 

are misdirections, or simply wrong. They are designed to divert 

your attention away from the critically important result of how significantly the theoretical impact of greenhouse effect, on which policy is based, differs from reality. It is a bold strategy on the part 

of many of the climate establishment to put one’s confidence in theoretical models, and to attack the observed data. To a scientist, this 

just doesn’t make sense. 

My written testimony also examines issues, excuse me, related to 

the surface temperature datasets. I attempt to make the case that 

the surface temperature measurements are less effective at detecting climate change than the bulk atmospheric measurement shown 

here. First, the variations of the basic physical measurement are 
45 

not as directly related to greenhouse gas impact as is the upper air, 

and then there are other issues that affect the surface temperature, 

such as problems with human development around the stations, 

and huge changes in the way the measurement was actually made 

through the years. 

What about the Paris agreement? No one knows the impact of 

this agreement, because no one knows whether any country will 

follow through on its voluntary aspirations at all. However, we do 

know that even so-called green countries, like Germany and Japan, 

are today adding to their carbon emissions by building more coalfired power plants, and the rest of the world is moving forward 

with affordable carbon-based energy. These present trends of emissions indicate very little will be done because carbon-based energy 

is the foundation of the world’s improving welfare, and I believe 

this will continue until something even more affordable is discovered. 

With no certainty on future emissions, I’ve done a thought experiment. As I note in my written testimony, if the United States had 

disappeared in 2015, that’s no more people, no cars, no industry, 

nothing, the impact on the climate system would be a tiny few hundredths of a degree over 50 years. And that’s if you believe climate 

models. So, to me, it is not scientifically justifiable or economically 

rational that this nation should establish regulations whose only 

discernible consequence is an increase in economic pain visited 

most directly and harshly on the poorest among us. This happens 

when the scientific process that allegedly underpins regulations 

lacks objectivity and transparency, and becomes associate with attempts to shut out any evidence that questions the regulation’s assumptions. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Christy follows:] 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Christy. Dr. Steer? 

TESTIMONY OF DR. ANDREW STEER, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE 

Dr. STEER. Thank you very much indeed, Chairman Smith, and 

Ranking Member Johnson. It’s a great honor for me to be back in 

front of this Committee again. My name is Andrew Steer, and I’m 

President and CEO of the World Resources Institute. WRI is a nonprofit, non-partisan research institution, our 500 professionals 

work in 50 countries. 

Mr. Chairman, the Paris agreement is a big deal for the world, 

and a good deal for America. It has transformed the climate change 

landscape. 187 countries submitted their climate pledges as part of 

an agreement, a remarkable level of participation that we’ve never 

seen before. Developed and developing countries are now united in 

a common framework, as the U.S. has been pushing for. The World 

Resources Institute has analyzed over a dozen major studies, adding up the pledges, and found that they will substantially reduce 

global emissions below our current path. They’ll put us on a track 

for a world that warms 2.7 to 3.7 degrees Celsius, compared to a 

business as usual increase of 4 to 5 degrees Celsius. But they still 

don’t go far enough to avoid some of the worst impacts of climate 

change, but fortunately the agreement sets up the right conditions 

for future improvement. It establishes an ongoing regular process 

to increase action every five years, with an ultimate goal of limiting 

temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius. 

We believe the agreement strikes the right balance between what 

is legally binding and what is not. If the country targets had been 

legally binding, not so many countries would have signed up, probably including the United States. What is legally binding is a set 

of actions relating to measurement, reporting, transparency, and a 

review mechanism designed to ramp up ambition. In this regard, 

it’s actually a very modern form of an agreement, particularly in 

the context of rapidly falling costs of green technology, and a growing recognition that strong climate action is good for business. 

Countries like China and India have stepped up to the plate to 

take action. In 2015 China once again broke world records for the 

most wind and most solar capacity installed in one year, almost 

twice the investment here in the United States. India is aiming to 

install 100 gigawatts of solar power by 2022, 30 times the current 

level, and 5 times higher than their previous target. 

Mr. Chairman, America’s businesses and cities are supportive of 

the Paris agreement. It wasn’t just national governments taking 

action in Paris. It was CEOs, bankers, mayors, governors who were 

pushing the hardest for the deal, and announcing new climate efforts of their own. 114 companies, including Coca-Cola and General 

Mills, committed to setting serious ambitious emissions targets 

aligned to climate science. 63 companies, including Walmart, 

Google, and Microsoft, pledged to transition to 100 percent renewable power in the shortest practicable timeframe. The six biggest 

banks in the United States issued a statement in favor of a global 

agreement. 450 cities joined the Compact of Mayors, a coalition of 
72 

city leaders dedicated to reducing emissions, including 120 from 

the United States. 

This flood of support is indicative of a new understanding of the 

relationship between climate change and the economy. Growing 

evidence from groups like the Global Commission on the Economy 

and Climate is proving that strong climate action is compatible 

with, and actually even necessary, for economic growth. And this 

is why 365 companies, including Adidas, Unilever, Gap, and Staples, wrote to U.S. governors last year in strong support of the 

EPA’s carbon pollution standards for existing power plants. They 

wrote, ‘‘Our support is firmly grounded in economic reality. Clean 

energy solutions are cost-effective and innovative ways to drive investment. Increasingly, businesses rely on renewable energy, and 

energy efficiency solutions, to cut costs and improve corporate performance.’’ The 365 companies who wrote this letter know that the 

smart money increasingly lies in the sustainable economy. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States is a leader in delivering improvements in energy efficiency, cleaner fuels, and new technologies. We’re already seeing the benefits. Last year the U.S. solar 

industry added workers at a rate nearly 12 times faster than the 

overall economy. Transitioning to a clean energy economy will create hundreds of thousands of more jobs, increase GDP, and save 

families money on energy bills. But, if unchecked, the negative economic impact of climate change will profoundly undermine the U.S. 

economy. 

Mr. Chairman, our analysis shows that the U.S. is already well 

positioned to meet its international climate commitments, but it 

will require continued strong leadership. The Paris agreement was 

a great achievement, but now is the time to go to work. Thank you, 

I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Steer follows:] 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 

Chairman SMITH. Than you, Dr. Steer. That was perfectly timed 

at five minutes. Mr. Groves? 

TESTIMONY OF MR. STEVEN GROVES, 

THE BERNARD AND BARBARA LOMAS 

SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW, 

MARGARET THATCHER CENTER FOR FREEDOM, 

THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION 

Mr. GROVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify 

today regarding the Paris agreement on climate change, and 

whether it’s a bad deal for America. And I’ll leave it to climate scientists and economists to say whether it’s a bad deal for the economy, but as a lawyer, what I can say is that the Paris agreement 

is a bad deal for the Constitution, for the separation of powers doctrine, and for the already strained relationship between Congress 

and the Executive Branch. 

Over the course of the past seven years, President Obama has 

taken many unilateral actions of dubious legitimacy. The President’s decision to treat the Paris agreement as an executive agreement, instead of a treaty, is just his latest use of executive power 

to achieve an end that he knows full well would not pass Congressional muster. The President’s decision is particularly egregious because it flies in the face of an agreement made between the White 

House and the Senate in 1992. Back then, during the ratification 

debate over the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, 

the Senate was concerned that President Bush, or future presidents, would negotiate agreements that contained emissions targets and timetables without submitting those agreements to the 

Senate. The Senate, then controlled by Democrats, required assurances that any future agreement containing targets and timetables 

be submitted for advice and consent. President Bush agreed on behalf of the Executive Branch, and the commitment was memorialized in the Senate’s ratification documents for the Framework Convention. 

The next president lived up to this agreement. When President 

Clinton negotiated the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, he treated it as a 

treaty, requiring the advice and consent of the Senate. But the 

Kyoto Protocol was so unpopular that the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval on it by a vote of 95 to 0 before it could even 

be submitted to the Senate. To his credit, President Clinton did not 

attempt to circumvent the Senate, nor did he simply declare that 

the Kyoto Protocol was an executive agreement that didn’t require 

Senate approval. He lived up to the commitment that was made in 

1992. 

But here we are in 2016, with a president that is unwilling to 

live up to the commitments of his predecessors. The President has 

negotiated a major climate change agreement under the auspices 

of the Framework Convention that contains targets and timetables, 

but he has refused to submit it to the Senate. The President is 

treating the Paris agreement as an executive agreement, and the 

reason is simple, political expediency. The President knows that 

there are nowhere 67 votes in the Senate to approve an agreement 

that requires the United States to send billions of dollars to the 
110 

Green Climate Fund annually, and in perpetuity, to make aggressive emissions reductions, and to ratchet those reduction levels up 

every five years, and to submit itself to an International Review 

Committee that will shame the U.S. in the event that the U.S. does 

not live up to its obligations. 

Now, in addition to ignoring the 1992 agreement with the Senate, the President is simply pretending that the Paris agreement 

isn’t a treaty in its own right, even though the objective criteria 

used by the State Department indicate that the Paris agreement is 

a treaty, and not a mere executive agreement. Specifically, when 

the U.S. is negotiating an international agreement, the State Department uses something called the Circular 175 Procedure to determine whether it is a treaty or an executive agreement. And as 

I detail in my written testimony, when you apply the eight factors 

of the C–175 Procedure to the Paris agreement, it’s very clear that 

it should be treated as a treaty. But the President has chosen to 

ignore the C–175 Procedure, in the same way that he has chosen 

to ignore the 1992 agreement between the Executive Branch and 

the Senate. 

As a result of the President’s unilateral actions, and his abuse 

of executive authority, in my view, the Paris agreement lacks 

democratic legitimacy. For that reason, unless and until the Paris 

agreement is submitted to the Senate, Congress should refuse to 

appropriate U.S. taxpayer dollars for the Green Climate Fund, or 

any other financial mechanism associated with either the Paris 

agreement or the Framework Convention. Congress should also 

continue to resist and disapprove all regulations meant to implement the Paris agreement domestically. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me, and I look forward to answering any of your questions, or the questions of the 

Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:] 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Groves. Let me direct my first 

question to Mr. Eule, and it is this. In your opinion, what are the 

costs of implementing the Paris agreement to the United States? 

And when I mention costs, I include the impact on jobs as well. 

Make sure your mike is on there. 

Mr. EULE. It’s difficult to say what exactly the costs will be, but 

it’s surely going to cost quite a bit. When you look at some of the 

projections for reducing greenhouse gas emissions significantly 

globally, we’re talking trillions of dollars, perhaps tens of trillions 

of dollars in costs. And the U.S. share of that would depend on 

what happens in negotiations, but it would be a significant amount. Now, when you talk about the $100 billion that’s supposed to be 

mobilized by 2020, that’s supposed to be ratcheted up by 2025, the 

U.S. share of that is under negotiation. And there’s a big discussion 

within the Framework Convention as to whether that should be 

government funding, or whether that should be private sector funding, or a combination of both. But I think it’s safe to say that a 

large percentage of that will have to come from the government, 

and that will be money that has to be appropriated by the Congress, and it’s going to run into billions of dollars. 

The impact this is going to have on the United States is significant. The United States, as I mentioned in my testimony, has an 

energy price advantage over many of its competitors. Two to four 

times—we pay two to four times less than many of our competitors 

in the OECD. You know, if that competitive advantage goes away, 

I think we can see a lot of energy intensive industries fleeing the 

country, as we’re seeing in Europe. We’re seeing, in Europe, steel 

mills closing. We’re seeing—saying—companies saying they’re not 

going to be investing in Europe anymore. We’re seeing power companies saying they’re not going to invest in Europe anymore. The 

same thing could happen here, and I think that’s why we have to 

take a strong look at the big disparity in what the U.S. is promising, and what other countries are promising. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Eule. Dr. Christy, 

NOAA recently claimed, to great fanfare, that 2015 was the warmest year on record. Now, this is the same organization that claimed 

2014 was the warmest year on record, and when we read the footnotes, they actually said they were only 38 percent sure that that 

was the case. In regard to their claim about 2015 being the warmest year on record, what are the weaknesses with the data they’re 

using? How good is their accuracy? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, this is a new dataset that’s come out, and 

hasn’t had much scrutiny on it. We’ve tried to reproduce parts of 

it, and have been unable at this point. It’s a strange kind of way 

to—that it was constructed. Relative to 2015, we have a better way, 

I think, to measure the climate system, and that’s the bulk atmosphere. That’s where the real mass of the climate system exists, in 

terms of the atmosphere, and 2015 was not the warmest year. It 

was either second to fourth, depending upon which dataset you use. 

So the fact that that information is not provided to the American 

public by a government agency is disturbing to me, because the evidence is there that 2015 was not the warmest year. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Christy. Mr. Groves, 

thank you for your strong testimony, and appreciate especially your 
121 

history of the 1992 agreement between the Senate and the Executive Branch, and also the definition of agreement and treaty as the 

State Department itself has determined. And it is breathtaking to 

have a president that ignores this, and abuses his executive authority, in my judgment. 

My question is this: to what extent are President Obama’s promises at the Paris meeting legally binding upon our country? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, I mean, there are commitments made 

throughout the Paris agreement. The Paris agreement is a legally 

binding agreement. Just because it’s not—he doesn’t consider it a 

treaty doesn’t mean it’s not legally binding. Executive agreements 

can be legally binding, like status of forces agreements, or even the 

agreement that we’re working out with Iran on the nuclear deal. 

The important thing to note is that the other 195 countries certainly believe that the United States will be legally bound by its 

commitments. Not only its commitments to reduce its emissions on 

certain targets and timetables, but mostly important for them to 

transfer billions and billions of dollars annually to the Green Climate Fund, and other climate mechanisms that they’re going to use 

in their countries. 

Chairman SMITH. What power does the next president have? I 

mean, is the next president obligated to enforce what this president 

agreed to? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, the rest of the world would certainly believe 

that the next president would be required to live up to the U.S. 

commitments under the Paris agreement. However, since the President currently characterizes the Paris agreement as a mere sole executive agreement, any incoming president may withdraw from it, 

in the same way they can withdraw from other executive agreements made with other countries. There are going to be political 

consequences to that with our allies, but, unlike a treaty, it’s much 

more simple to unwind a sole executive agreement. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Groves. And the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Johnson, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Steer, 

before I ask you a question, I’d like to congratulate you on—and 

all the staff at WRI for being named the number one environmental policy think tank in the world by the 2015 Global Go To 

Think Tank Index Report. 

The launching of the Breakthrough Energy Coalition, the world’s 

largest clean energy research and development partnership, is a 

prime example of the commitment by the private sector to addressing climate change, and it is clear that, from your testimony, that 

businesses have recognized the importance of taking action against 

climate change. Can you please comment on the importance of the 

private sector in addressing climate change? 

Dr. STEER. Thank you very much indeed. Yes, I think one of the 

things that’s happened in the last five years is a radical shift in 

our understanding about the link between economic growth and climate change. I was in Davos last week, at the World Economic 

Forum. There’s an overwhelming sense now on the part of business 

leadership in the largest companies in the world that actually we 

have to do something about climate change, and doing it smartly 

will make us more efficient, more competitive. And that’s why you 
122 

have these really remarkable sort of major companies, you know, 

1,000 companies have now said, we want a price on carbon. 

And one of the reasons for that is that they’re currently living 

in no man’s land. You know, they don’t know, well, there is, or 

there isn’t going to be, and so investment is lower than it should 

be. And what we now know—there’s a lot of empirical evidence 

that if you take smart actions on climate change, you can promote 

efficiency, you can bring in technology, and you can give long term 

confidence, which is what business really needs. So it’s a very exciting time. 

Now, one of the interesting things is that it’s not only the manufacturers and the retailers, it’s actually the financial sector as well. 

I mean, in Paris, 400 investors, representing 24 trillion in assets, 

have signed up to the global investment statement on climate 

change, pledging to seek out and scale up low carbon and resilient 

investments. And so what we’re seeing, and it’s very relevant to 

this Committee, obviously, is that the agreement by the United 

States and 20 other countries to double their investment in research at the public level, plus the Bill Gates commitment, together 

with another 25 billionaires, if you like, to really move things forward, and to link together, is an incredibly exciting development. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. In his testimony, Mr. Eule stated that the 

emerging economies have showed very little interest in reducing 

emissions in any meaningful way, and that most developing countries will just continue to operate in a business as usual manner 

under this agreement. You have a much more optimistic view of 

the impact and effectiveness that the Paris agreement will have on 

global emissions. Can you please elaborate on why you believe all 

countries, including developing countries, will deliver on this emissions reduction commitment? 

Dr. STEER. I don’t think it’s that I’m optimistic. I think we look 

at the facts. We leave our opinions at home, and we look at the 

facts. In China—most people still perceive China to be opening up 

hundreds of coal powered plants, and increasing their use of coal. 

In 2014 China shrank its consumption of coal. In the first 10 

months of 2015, coal consumption in China fell by nearly five percent. So coal consumption in China is actually now peaking. We’re 

not absolutely certain whether it’ll go up this year or not, but it 

looks like it’s now on a downward trajectory. In the meantime, 

China invested $120 billion on renewable energy last year. So 

things are changing, and countries like Brazil are now committed 

to actually reducing, in an absolute sense, as I think Mr. Eule 

made that in his written testimony, that—an absolute reduction. 

And countries like Mexico as well are really doing very remarkable 

things. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Now, what do you make of the claim 

that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce made, that most businesses 

in the U.S. are opposed to this deal? 

Dr. STEER. Well, I think we’re still on a journey, quite frankly. 

Just because the United States as a whole, our economy and our 

society, would benefit from serious action, that doesn’t mean that 

every single industry and every single company—and the history of 

change is that those who have a vested interest in the—in not 
123 

changing are much more vocal, including in trade associations, 

than those who would benefit. 

And so we’re on a journey, as we have been in many other areas, 

and each year we’re seeing more and more coming on board, and 

we’ve seen it in the last 12 months in an unprecedented way. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I’d like to 

enter the articles I mentioned earlier into the record, in my opening statement. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for your questions. 

And the gentleman from California, Mr. Rohrabacher, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So let’s talk about the economic impact, and 

maybe Mr. Eule would like to have his say on that as well. Mr. 

Eule, could you—we just heard about how it’s going to be more efficient to go over to a non-carbon-based energy source. That’s what 

we’re really talking about. It’s my understanding that oil, and gas, 

and coal, at their fundamental, is much more efficient than any 

other method that we’ve got at this point to produce the same 

amount of energy. Thus, if we’re not using those efficient methods, 

that means that some sort of wealth is having to be consumed that 

otherwise wouldn’t be consumed, which it seems to me destruction 

of the manufacturing of wealth would hurt normal people. Maybe 

you could comment on that? 

Mr. EULE. Yeah. I think I understand the question. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I mean, fundamentally, the economics—we’re 

being told the economics—— 

Mr. EULE. Right. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER —is actually working in behalf of moving in 

the direction—the global warming direction, pardon me, of—making that a major goal, bringing down the climate—bringing down 

the temperature. I mean, is that what you’re reading? Obviously 

it’s not. Maybe you could just get in a discussion—— 

Mr. EULE. Yeah, I—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. —over that. 

Mr. EULE. Yeah, I think when you look at where alternate technologies are, they’re still more expensive than more traditional energy technologies. I think that’s pretty plain. They intermittency 

issues, so that—and, you know, the question is, can they be scaled 

up to provide the energy that people need to lift themselves out of 

poverty worldwide? 

You know, when you think about climate change, like I said in 

my testimony, it’s a technology challenge. And as long as alternate 

technologies are more expensive and less reliable than traditional 

technologies, people are going to use traditional technologies, because it’s more important, especially in the developing world, it’s 

more important for them to provide energy to their people. And 

they will continue to use these technologies, because they make 

sense. 

Once alternate technologies are competitive with traditional technologies, a lot of these issues go away, quite frankly. The—we 

won’t need a big international—— 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Right. 
124 

Mr. EULE. —conference to decide how to change the, you know, 

the energy systems of these countries, because people adopt these 

technologies anyway because they make sense. They don’t at this 

point, but they will one day in the future, but we just don’t know 

when that’s going to happen. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So any businessman that runs a corporation 

that is not going to more efficient use of energy is wasting the resources of his company, and that would happen naturally, hopefully, that people are making their adjustments to go to more efficient methods of using the energy for their company. 

Let me ask Dr. Christy—the—when we talk about what was the 

most—the hottest day, this—isn’t this important? Because if indeed 

there’s been this massive increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere over these last 20 and 30 years, if indeed the—that has 

not resulted in these hottest days, does that not disprove the CO2

theory of—that CO2 is causing the climate to change? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Okay, in terms of the hottest days, I think you’re 

referring to the chart on—when a number of 100 degree days occurred in the United States, that one that shows in the ’30s many 

more occurred than today. So when you look at the United States’ 

record of extreme high temperatures, you do not see an upper 

trend at all. In fact, it’s slightly downward. That does fly in the 

face of climate model projects. 

I just had a paper accepted for a publication in which we looked 

at Alabama, and that very thing. Not one single one of the 76 climate models ran came close to producing what actually happened 

in Alabama’s climate over the last 120 years. So I think my bottom 

line here is I would not trust model projections on which all the 

policy is based here, because they just don’t match facts right now. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So if the facts are that we are not having this 

dramatic increase in temperature that we’ve been told that we’re 

having, at a time when CO2 has been increasing dramatically, and 

use—the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere has been dramatically increasing, well, then that would suggest that the CO2

theory of climate change is just inaccurate. 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I’m very happy to say you’re acting like a scientist here. When a theory contradicts the facts, or the other way 

around, you kind of try to change the theory. And that’s what we’ve 

shown, is that the key metric, the bulk atmospheric temperature, 

is not obeying what climate models say. The real world is not going 

along with that rapid warming, and so that should tell us our understanding is not sufficient to explain what is happening in the 

real world. We don’t know how CO2 is affecting the climate. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. So the models based on this are obviously incorrect? 

Dr. CHRISTY. The models need to go back to the drawing board, 

I think. 

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Thank you very much. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher. And the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, is recognized for her questions. I’m sorry, the gentlewoman from Maryland is not here. The 

gentleman from California, Mr. Bera, is recognized. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, as a scientist 

and a physician, I agree, you gather the facts, and you take those 
125 

facts, and you make a decision. I don’t think anyone disputes that 

both NASA and NOAA look at 2015 as the hottest year on record. 

I don’t think anyone disputes, you know, that the—that climate 

does change. I mean, in my home state of California, we’ve gone 

through several years of devastating droughts, loss of the snow 

pack. I’m grateful that we’re getting a lot of snow, and, you know, 

we’re getting that snow pack, and we’re getting a lot of rain, and 

El Nino, but climate does fluctuate, and it changes, so I think we 

can agree on that as well. 

You know, we do—if we look at extremes of climate, we’re having 

more extremes of climate. If we take the fact that, you know, look 

at our poles, North Pole, Antarctica, you know, we’re seeing more 

glacial melt off, and, you know, more extremes of melt. So those 

are the facts, and we should accept those facts. We can debate 

what’s causing this, and we certainly should have that robust debate, but based on those, I think many of us take these as just objective facts of what’s happening. 

We’re seeing, you know, in my colleague, Congressman Derek 

Kilmer’s district, you know, Native American tribes that have lived 

on coastal plains for thousands of years are now subject to chronic 

flooding, and having to move to high ground. So, again, we can 

take those facts. This body then has to debate what can we do to 

help move this forward? 

You know, Dr. Steer, if I think about it, it can’t just be one country moving forward, because we’re talking about a global climate. 

The reason why you have to act as an international community is 

setting targets. And, again, I think—what I was pleasantly surprised about at the Paris accords is, you know, some of the countries that we have the most concern about, countries like India, 

who, I think, many of us thought could really undermine the Paris 

accords, really stepped up to the plate. I mean, and this is a country that will be making massive investments in energy. You know, 

the—300 million Indians have no reliable electrical source. There 

is a real opportunity to come up with innovative electrical sources 

in a very different way, using alternative and renewable energies. 

And, you know, I guess, Dr. Steer, as we look at this, you’ve already indicated corporate America gets the economic opportunity 

here. Many of us get the job creation opportunity here. And what 

would you say if, you know, the next concrete steps, and also what 

the facts are? 

Dr. STEER. Well, thank you, Congressman Bera. I agree very 

much with you. Look, no individual country operating on its own 

can address this problem. Global problems require international cooperation. That’s been massively lacking for the last quarter century. And what we’ve seen in the last year, actually, is potentially 

the emergence of a new multilateralism, and it’s a multilateralism 

led by the United States. 

Because the United States, including the George W. Bush Administration, and the current administration, have said, look, we 

are not going to put ourselves under some global treaty. We are 

going to have a situation where we are going to pledge, we’re going 

to be transparent, and something very dynamic is going to happen. 

And it’s going to happen because costs are falling, and because sig-
126 

nals will be given to the private sector. And what we have now in 

the Paris deal is precisely that. 

It’s actually a very modern type of deal, because it’s not based 

upon sending you to prison, or sending you a requirement to pay 

something if you don’t deliver. It’s rather saying, look, we are going 

to move in a certain direction. Every year that passes, costs are 

falling. And that’s why Prime Minister Modi, you know, as you say, 

he came into power—he didn’t come in, you know, committed to the 

environment. He came in to promote economic growth. He looked 

at his solar targets, which were 20 gigawatts by 2022, and he said, 

let’s quintuple them, to 100. Why did he do that? It wasn’t because 

he, you know, wanted to look good on the international stage. He 

actually did it because he wanted to promote a new industry. He 

wanted the notion that there were factories that are going to be 

built, and that’s exactly what he’s going to do, and that’s why 

China is spending 120 billion on renewable energy last year. So 

something is going on out there that is going to lead to an upward—— 

Mr. BERA. Because the economics make sense. And if we want 

to be smart, and we’re looking at 21st century industry, I want our 

companies to be creating those new energy sources. I want our 

company to—our companies to lead solar and wind, the thousands 

of jobs that are going to be created. And, again, let’s be smart 

about this, and let’s win this. And this is smart business, it’s smart 

investment, and it does protect our planet for the next generation. 

It’s the right thing to do, so thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bera. The gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Weber, is recognized for questions. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Steer, in your exchange with my good friend Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas, 

you got pretty exuberant one time, and you said there’s 25 billionaires involved. Do you remember that exchange with her? Do you 

remember that? Yeah. So I take it, because of the, I guess, status 

of being a billionaire, I take it, in this current presidential campaign, you would be a Donald Trump supporter? 

If—so—here’s my question for you, Dr. Steer. If climate change 

theory is right, assuming that all other countries comply—that all 

the other countries comply, and don’t cheat, then we will all stay 

equal, as it were, quote, unquote, in our respective competitive positions. We’re talking about global marketing now. But, if the theory is wrong, or if countries cheat, not that they would ever do 

that, the U.S. stands to lose the most, in terms of our competitive 

position. Does either one of those two scenarios I just laid out concern you? 

Dr. STEER. Well, as—I think it was—Mr. Eule made the point 

that, actually, at the moment, the United States, for example, has 

a great cost advantage in electricity. Consider the steel industry in 

Indiana. The cost of electricity to the steel industry is about 60 percent what it is in Hebei Province, which is the sort of big steel section of China. Under the U.S. Clean Power Plan, the estimation is 

that electricity prices will rise between five and ten percent, and 

then would fall back down again. So even under that, we don’t 

have to worry about the competitiveness of the United States steel 

industry. The academic evidence—— 
127 

Mr. WEBER. Well, that’s really my question, is are you concerned 

about either one of those two scenarios, whether we lose our competitiveness, or that the other companies—other countries would 

cheat? Are you concerned about either one of those? 

Dr. STEER. I fear that we will lose our competitiveness if we do 

not act on climate. 

Mr. WEBER. If you don’t act? 

Dr. STEER. Yeah. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Eule, let’s go to you. Do you—do I need to lay 

out those two scenarios again? Are you—— 

Mr. EULE. Congressman, it’s a very big concern. I mean, all you 

have to do is look at what’s going on in Europe. There—in Europe, 

energy intensive industries are becoming an endangered species, 

and they’re even recognizing now that they have a real problem. 

And when you talked five years ago in Europe about energy, it was 

all focused on climate change. Now it’s—there’s still a focus on climate change, but they’re talking more now about competitiveness, 

and how they’re going to position themselves in a competitive 

world. And I think we’re headed down the same path—— 

Mr. WEBER. Yeah. 

Mr. EULE. —if we’re not careful. And I would like to point out, 

about China, and China’s adoption of renewable energy, it’s also 

true that China has, under construction, planned about 460 billion 

lots of coal fired power plants, and India has about 360 billion lots 

of coal fired power plants, either planned or under construction. 

Mr. WEBER. So are you suggesting—— 

Mr. EULE. India—— 

Mr. WEBER. Are you suggesting we sic the EPA on them? 

Mr. EULE. Well, I’m just saying, you know, in the—made the 

pledge in Paris, and after Paris they still said that they’re going 

to go ahead with their goal to double coal production in five years. 

So while a lot of countries are making baby steps toward renewables and alternative technologies, coal is still going to be the goto fuel for providing electricity in these countries. 

Mr. WEBER. Okay. Thank you. And, Dr. Christy, I’m coming to 

you, those same two scenarios. Are you concerned about either of 

those two scenarios? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, I look—are you talking about if the climate 

models are wrong? 

Mr. WEBER. Well, if climate change theory is right, okay, then, 

assuming all countries comply, and don’t cheat, and we all stay 

equal, as it were, in our respective competitive positions, but if it’s 

wrong, or if those countries cheat, then we lose our competitive position. Are you concerned about that? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Well, the one I study is the climate model issue the 

most, and the evidence, to me, indicates they’re wrong. They just— 

the data is not matching up with—— 

Mr. WEBER. And you’re very concerned about that? 

Dr. CHRISTY. I’m very concerned. That’s why I showed the picture. 

Mr. WEBER. Let me move on to Mr. Groves, thank you. Mr. 

Groves, I know you raised a Constitutional issue, which I appreciate, and I am concerned about that, but just as you and me talking now—— 
128 

Mr. GROVES. Um-hum. 

Mr. WEBER. —the scientists don’t get the Constitutional issue, 

so—— 

Mr. GROVES. And I don’t get the—— 

Mr. WEBER. You didn’t hear me say that, right? But you’re— 

would you be concerned about that scenario as well? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, the area that I would be concerned about is 

non-compliance by the other parties. I mean, the U.S.—— 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. 

Mr. GROVES. —tends to take its treaty commitments much more 

seriously than other countries. That goes to arms control treaties, 

that goes to human rights treaties. And even if the U.S. joined this 

one, and lived up to the letter of its commitments, I wouldn’t be 

confident that countries like India, or China, or even countries— 

developing countries around the world would find it economically 

feasible to live up to their commitments. 

Mr. WEBER. So we would be tying our, as it were, proverbial arm 

behind our back? 

Mr. GROVES. Since we would be complying and they—— 

Mr. WEBER. Absolutely. 

Mr. GROVES. —would not, yes. 

Mr. WEBER. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Weber. And the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. Dr. Christy, 

it was fun to read about your resume. I understand—your emphasis on this bulk atmosphere measurement. I mean, I saw you won 

a very distinguished award from NASA in 1991 for your work on 

that, a special medal from the American Meteorological Society in 

1996 for your work on that and you lay out some criticisms of other 

climate scientists about using atmospheric data. You talked 

about—that they say—you’re only measuring radiation, not temperature, that you don’t allow for orbital decay and vertical drop, 

that you don’t allow for the diurnal drift problem, the east to west. 

And then you also responded and say, no, you’ve adjusted for all 

that stuff. 

But then you go on to criticize the surface measurement, saying, 

you know, one meter deep in the ocean is not the same as three 

meters above, that there’s infrastructure buildup that they don’t 

allow for. In fact, you even say, and I quote, that those who measure at the surface use ‘‘unsystematic measuring methods and instrumentation’’. So question number one is doesn’t it make sense 

to use all of the data we have, both yours and the stuff on the surface? And number two, does it really make a difference whether 

2015 was the first warmest, or the second, or fourth, if we’re looking at all recorded data? 

And three, doesn’t it make sense to look at what’s really happening, not between 20,000 and 50,000 feet, where we don’t live, 

but here, where we have sea level rise all along the Virginia coast, 

where the surges in Norfolk, Virginia are getting worse, and worse, 

and worse, as developed by Lockheed? The migration of animals, 

the migration of insects, and the decimation of forests in the north, 

the migration of tropical diseases, which is on the front page of the 

papers, these days, the disappearing Arctic ice, and Greenland ice, 
129 

and other stuff. Shouldn’t we put all of these things together, as 

opposed to—you don’t like the models, but let’s also look at what’s 

happening to our lives. 

Dr. CHRISTY. I’ll try to back up with those. I might have to ask 

you to remind me what the question—— 

Mr. BEYER. I’m sorry. 

Dr. CHRISTY. But for the third one, the bulk atmospheric temperature is where the signal is the largest, so that’s where you go 

to look for it, if you’re a scientist. We have measurements of that. 

It doesn’t match up with the models. 

Now, all those other things you’ve mentioned, if you take systematic measurements back 1,000 years for those very issues you 

talked about, I’ll bet you’ll see the same type of variations. The 

droughts mentioned in California, they were 100 years long when 

you go back about 9 or 800 years, not just four years, as this one 

has shown. So I think there’s a little bit of hyperbole, and all those 

things that people see changing right now, they’ve always changed, 

I suspect. What was your second question? And then we’ll—— 

Mr. BEYER. Does it make any difference whether it’s the first 

warmest, or the second, or fourth? 

Dr. CHRISTY. No. Individual years, no, it’s really not critical on 

that. It’s the longer term trend, which is what I was showing. 

That’s the more critical parameter, because it talks about the accumulation of heat. It’s not happening the way models project it to. 

And number one was? 

Mr. BEYER. That’s good. I would’ve loved to have seen the rest 

of that. You stopped at 2025, or 2020, to see where it went in 2050 

and 2100. 

Dr. CHRISTY. It just kept going. 

Mr. BEYER. Kept going up? 

Dr. CHRISTY. Yeah. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Eule, you talked—really fascinating, from a 

Chamber perspective, I’m a businessman also, that you’re going to 

look at where the cost-effectiveness of the technologies are, that 

when solar, and wind, and tidal and stuff begin to approach the 

cost of fossil fuel, the problem will take care of itself. Exxon-Mobil 

has come out for a carbon tax, carbon pricing. I had a good conversation with the Chairman of BP in Davos last week, who said 

they also support a carbon tax. Would the Chamber support a carbon tax to bring these different methods into balance, especially if 

all of the revenue is returned to the American citizens, so it was 

revenue neutral? 

Mr. EULE. We would have to see what the proposal looked like. 

We’re—we’ve never said we were opposed to a carbon tax, never 

said we were in favor of a carbon tax. Never said we were opposed 

to cap and trade, never said we were in favor of cap and trade. We 

always have to see what the legislation says, and then we make 

a decision. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. That’s fair. Thank you very much. Dr. Steer, 

it’s been alleged that all of the Paris agreements and stuff will 

have a devastating economic impact. How do you reconcile that 

with the fact, since 2009, no country in the world has reduced its 

carbon footprint more than the United States, and we’ve had 70 
130 

straight months of private sector job growth, 18 million new jobs 

since January 20, 2009? How do you put those together? 

Dr. STEER. Well, I agree with you, Congressman, that actually 

this is part of this learning that we’re doing right now. The United 

States, we here, in this economy, are on the forefront of something 

we didn’t understand before, which is if you actually focus on the 

efficiency of economy, you will want to emit less greenhouse gases. 

And smart policies for climate change will lead to more efficiency, 

more technology, more long term certainty. So, I mean, I think 

you’re absolutely right. 

The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, which is 

chaired by President Felipe Calderon, the previous President of 

Mexico, a conservative President of Mexico, you know, he said, you 

know, that—when I was a young politician, he said, I believed 

there was a tradeoff between climate action and economic growth. 

When I was president, and I was chairing the G–20, I believed 

that, actually, economic growth and climate action could be compatible. He said, now, I’ve looked at the facts, and I know that long 

term healthy economic growth is only possible with climate action. 

So I agree very much with you, Congressman. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. And the gentleman 

from Florida, Mr. Posey, is recognized. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Several of you 

have, and almost everybody else has referenced the increase in 

cost—energy cost to Americans, and this is all about energy. And 

further down the chain, the increases affect virtually every product 

or service of every American. Example, I talked to some people in 

the cement manufacturing business, and they said, under the proposed EPA rules now, if they’re allowed to go into effect, in my 

state, half the manufacturing will close immediately, and the other 

half will be able to hang on for a year, long enough to get re-established in Mexico. And I don’t think there’s any environmental protection regulations of significance in Mexico regulating cement, and 

the manufacturing. And so, you know, unless you believe in such 

a thing as a no peeing section of a swimming pool, you know, we 

still get the pollution, we just pay 400 percent more for the product, you know? 

So I wondered, Mr. Eule and Mr. Groves, you had expressed to 

us the bottom line of your thoughts about the U.N. climate negotiation. Do you think this is simply an attempt to transfer wealth, or 

do you see other, more legitimate purposes? 

Mr. GROVES. Sure. Well, both Mr. Eule and I were there in Paris 

during these negotiations, and we can tell you from firsthand experience that the big issue in Paris was money. I studied not just 

agreements like these, but other agreements that deal in wealth 

transfers from the global north to the global south, from the developed world to the developing world, and the Paris agreement is no 

exception to the general trend in global U.N. agreements regarding 

global wealth transfer. And if it’s enforced, that’s essentially what 

will happen. 

Only the developed countries are required to pay into the Green Climate Fund, which is going to be $100 billion a year as a floor, 

beginning in the year 2020. And all of those dollars go to the devel-
131 

oped world, which is in the global south. So if that’s not kind of 

a global wealth transfer, I’m not sure what is. 

Mr. EULE. I would say there are mixed incentives in the talks. 

But I think what’s interesting is what Christiana Figueres said. 

She’s the Executive Secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention 

on Climate Change. And it’s in my testimony, and I’ll quote what 

she said. ‘‘This is the first time in the history of mankind that we 

are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has 

been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.’’ 

So I think a lot of people see these talks as a way to change the 

economic development system, and I think that’s something we 

should be concerned about, because the free enterprise system that 

we have has been responsible for the biggest boost in human 

health and welfare in history, and so I think we have to be cautious about where these talks go. 

Mr. POSEY. And I agree. And it’s—and I hadn’t intended to make 

this comment, but, you know, we won the Second World War. The 

world is more free today because we had enabled industrialists to 

produce, and we out produced the enemy. And here, I mean, I 

think most people have the common sense to understand that most 

of the rest of the world is in favor of us being less productive if it 

makes them more productive. 

But based on so much that we’ve seen in the governments that 

they’re actually trying to help with our money here, do you think 

that’s—any probability that the funds would be properly used, or 

would we see more waste, fraud, and abuse, like we have with 

many other—with many of the other resources we use to disperse 

Americans’ wealth to other people? 

Mr. EULE. Well, I think, certainly, if Congress is going to be appropriating the money that goes into the fund, Congress should 

have a say in how it’s spent. And there are rules that are being 

set up in the Green Climate Fund to oversee how the money is 

being spent. But, you know, I think the focus on the Green Climate 

Fund is a little bit displaced, because a lot of the money is not 

going to go through the Green Climate Fund. Even the Obama Administration has said we’re not going to be sending $100 billion 

through the Green Climate Fund. That is just not going to happen. 

A lot of it’s going to go through the World Bank. A lot of it’s going 

to go through other development banks. Some of it will go through 

the Green Climate Fund. But it’s going to be coming from—the 

$100 billion that the developed countries have pledged to mobilize 

is going to be coming from a lot of different sources, and so that 

makes it a little bit more complicated to track actually who’s providing the money, and where it’s going. 

Mr. POSEY. Yeah, there’s just such a historical problem with corruption in those processes every time we get involved. And I assume my time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Posey. The gentleman 

from California, Mr. Swalwell, is recognized. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Thank you, Chair, and I’m glad Mr. Posey 

brought up World War II, because when I think of the challenges 

of the 20th century, and what we’re facing now in the 21st century, 
132 

it was America’s role in World War II that really changed the dynamic of that cause, and I think the world is a better place because 

America acted. And Dr. Steer, I’m wondering, what does climate 

change look like if America does not act? Like, if we were, you 

know, in this next, I think, greatest challenge to the world since, 

you know, World War II, probably separate from, you know, extreme terrorism is climate change. And what happens if the United 

States does not act? 

Dr. STEER. The United States is the indispensable leader, in 

terms of the technologies that are required, the pro-market approaches, the pro-business, pro-growth, approaches. That is the 

only way we can address it. This is something that the United 

States is uniquely qualified to lead in. We would not have the Paris 

deal, had the United States not been a leader there, and so we look 

forward to continued leadership. 

Mr. SWALWELL. And, Dr. Steer, are you familiar with the U.S. 

military, and its belief on whether or not climate change is happening, and whether or not it should adjust in its modeling for the 

future? 

Dr. STEER. Yes. Look, the United States military is a leader in 

understanding climate change. It, more than most other institutions, has said we have to act, because climate change is affecting 

us in several ways. It’s making the world much less secure. It’s also 

raising our costs, quite frankly. The U.S. Navy, as you know, is exploring just how much it is going to cost to raise the moorings for 

its ships, given they’re projecting over a meter rise in sea level this 

century. 

So the U.S. military, and actually NATO—I met last week with 

the head of NATO, Prime Minister—ex-Prime Minister Stoltenberg 

in Davos, and NATO is concerned, deeply concerned, about climate 

change. 

Mr. SWALWELL. Great. Thank you, Chair, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Swalwell. The gentleman from 

Oklahoma, Mr. Lucas, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to introduce into the record a letter led by my friend from Oklahoma, Congressman Mark Wayne Mullin, and Congressman Tim Murphy, 

signed by myself and 26 other colleagues. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. LUCAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The letter was sent to the 

EPA, seeking clarification on potential EPA plans to embed U.S. 

federal employees in foreign countries to help monitor their 

progress towards the Paris climate promise’s goals. The EPA has 

yet to respond to the letter, but I’m hopeful they will take the letter seriously, and address our concerns soon. 

With that, Mr. Groves, are you concerned that the EPA is going 

beyond their legal authority by sending employees overseas? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, that article and that letter is the first that 

I’ve heard of this, Mr. Lucas. But I think what it does show is kind 

of the mischief that can—our federal agencies can get themselves 

into once you have something like the Framework Convention on 

Climate Change, and the Paris agreement being signed, is you 

have something that they can point to that authorizes them to en-
133 

gage in this type of international cooperation. I mean, I would be 

interested in seeing where the funding is coming from to pay U.S. 

employees taxpayer dollars to go help other countries with their climate change issues. 

But from a legal standpoint, you know, when the President signs 

things, and treats them as executive agreements, like he’s treating 

the Paris agreement, then it gives agencies like the State Department and the EPA clearance to go out and do this, or at least some 

type of justification they can point back to. But I think it’s something that’s worthy of further examination. 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely. Mr. Eule, on principle, wholeheartedly 

disagree with the concept of devoting U.S. taxpayers’ money to enforce an international agreement that the Senate’s not yet even 

ratified. With that being said, I understand it’s the EPA’s intent to 

move forward and help China get a handle on its greenhouse gas 

emissions. Do we really have a clue how much greenhouse gas 

China is emitting? 

Mr. EULE. No, Congressman, we don’t. There was an interesting 

report in the New York Times a few months ago which said that 

Chinese had been underestimating their coal consumption by 17 

percent. Just to give you an idea of how big that is, in emissions 

terms, that’s equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions—not just 

CO2 emissions, but the greenhouse gas emissions of Germany, so 

this is not a trivial error. And one of the aspects of the Chinese 

pledge is to set up a trading system, emissions trading system. 

And, you know, the question I have is how can you set up an emission trading system when you really don’t know how—what your 

emissions are? So, yeah, that’s a big problem. And it’s not just with 

China, by the way. I think this is a problem a lot of developing 

countries have. They really don’t have a handle on how much 

they’re emitting. 

Mr. LUCAS. So it’s hard to enforce an agreement that you don’t 

have any details for at home, you don’t have any facts to work from 

of substance? 

Mr. EULE. Well, I mean, one of the things in the Paris agreement 

is to set up a system where they’re supposed to be able to do that, 

but we’ll just have to see how that works out. 

Mr. LUCAS. Absolutely. Well, it’ll be fascinating to see how the 

EPA responds on this concept of sending U.S. employees out to enforce agreements that the Senate hasn’t yet approved. With that, 

Mr. Chairman, I wait with intensity on our friends at the EPA to 

respond, and I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Lucas. And the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Veasey, is recognized. 

Mr. VEASEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Steer, I wanted to 

ask you about the transfer of wealth from developed to developing 

nations that was a part of this agreement. Can you comment on 

that a little bit, and why it’s important to include a financial mechanism in the agreement, and what are the consequences for the 

U.S. not committing resources to developing nations? 

Dr. STEER. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, the 100 billion that is 

often referred to is not all public money. It includes private money. 

It includes the money that comes from the private sector that can 

actually be stimulated by the public money. And only a very small 
134 

portion of that will go through the Green Climate Fund, by the 

way. Most of it will go through many other channels, as Mr. Eule 

says. 

Look, countries in Africa are severely affected by climate change. 

I think the science is pretty clear on that. Yields will, other things 

being equal, decline, and it’s—quite frankly, it’s not pleasant, if you 

are a very poor farmer, and your yields decline further. They need 

help on new seeds. We know how to do that. So too, of the 1 billion 

people that would be affected by a rising sea level of a meter, most 

of those are poor. Most of them are living in very low lying areas. 

They need help, quite frankly. And so, to us, it’s pretty obvious that 

poor people require help. It needs to be provided, in link with private investment, and it needs to be provided in a way that promotes jobs and growth. 

So, I mean, quite frankly, under the agreement in Paris, the obligation for the United States, or any other country, to give any specific amount of money does not exist. That is not a legal obligation. 

What is required is that we are transparent about the extent to 

which we are willing to help low income countries. 

Mr. VEASEY. You know, you kind of—in that same lane, when it 

comes to opportunities for American businesses being able to export technologies to the developing world, what kind of opportunities do you see there? 

Dr. STEER. Look, I think that I would—I’m pretty confident that 

for every dollar of public money that the United States puts in to 

help developing countries on their mitigation, on their adaptation, 

because it will be leveraged with private investment, I’m pretty 

confident that more than a dollar will come back to the United 

States in terms of additional trade and investment. 

Mr. VEASEY. Well, yeah, that’s remarkable. Thank you, Dr. Steer, 

I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Chairman SMITH. And thank you, Mr. Veasey. And the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. LaHood, is recognized for his questions. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the 

witnesses for being here today, and your testimony. Mr. Groves, I 

wanted to ask a couple questions on the legal issues and Constitutional issues. Obviously, I was not in Paris. It sounds like you 

were, and many of the panelists were. In terms of the discussion 

that went on on why this was not a treaty, and an agreement, or 

a promise, you know, it seems like so much of our foreign policy 

is premised on the rule of law, our democracy, Constitutional democracy, how we do things in our country. And so when the question is asked by other countries or other entities, why is this not 

a treaty, and that’s posed to this administration, what’s the response, and what are the consequences of that? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, the response—and it’s not like our delegation 

was shy about this in Paris. The response was, you know, we cannot get this through the Senate, and so that’s why we’re not going 

to treat it as a treaty. This didn’t come out of the blue when White 

House Spokesman Jose Earnests was asked about this in March of 

last year, about whether the Senate would be able to review the 

Paris agreement. He said, well, I don’t really think that the Senate, 

who’s full of climate deniers, should have a say on making climate 

change policy. And when the host of the Paris conference, Laurent 
135 

Fabias of France, the Foreign Minister, was asked about this, he 

said, well, no matter what we do, we can’t have an agreement that 

would have to go to the U.S. Congress, because it’s not going to 

pass. So it was the biggest open secret in Paris, that whatever they 

agreed to, it was—it would have to be something that the U.S. 

would have to come back to the United States and not have to pass 

Congressional muster with. 

So, although the rest of the world will require and expect the 

United States to live up to its mitigation reduction commitments, 

and live up to its financial commitments to send billions of dollars 

every year, the fact that it didn’t have any type of Congressional 

scrutiny I think really speaks to the legitimacy of the agreement. 

Mr. LAHOOD. And in terms of the commitments and promises 

made in this non-binding agreement, tell me how that affects our 

domestic law, and how is that binding on corporations here, and 

whether there’s compliance or non-compliance, and is there precedent for that? 

Mr. GROVES. Well, it’s a clever thing that the White House did, 

is you go and you make an international commitment in Paris, you 

bypass Congress completely, and then you go to enforce it domestically through EPA regulations. So there’s a lack of democratic legitimacy on almost every level of the creation of this document and 

its enforcement. And these EPA regulations, like the Clean Power 

Plan, will be litigated. You know, Congress has passed resolutions 

disapproving of them. But, of course, those EPA regulations will be 

binding on U.S. corporations. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Yeah. And, Mr. Eule, I would just—following up on 

that, it seems incongruent to me that we continually, around the 

world, talk about democracy, and Constitution, and the system of 

government we have here, but we are doing this the opposite way 

here, and, you know, and not going through the treaty process, 

which, of course, is cloaked with the legalities that are binding. 

Can you comment on that? 

Mr. EULE. Yeah. I think, you know, if you want a durable climate 

change agreement, and durable climate change policy, you have to 

involve Congress. It’s as simple as that. And this administration 

has chosen not to do that. And so the question is, is this a durable 

treaty, politically and legally? And I would venture to say that the 

answer is no. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. Those are all my questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. LaHood. And the gentlewoman 

from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici, is recognized for her questions. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to all of our witnesses for appearing before the Committee. I 

represent Northwest Oregon, and climate change is a very important issue for my constituents. I go out to the Oregon Coast, that’s 

the western boundary of my district. People there rely on a healthy 

ocean. You may have heard of our famous Pinot Noir wine from 

Yamhill County, Oregon. They need a particular climate for those 

grapes to grow well. We have entrepreneurs who are developing 

new clean energy technologies. 

So there are many Oregonians who are working to address and 

mitigate climate change. In fact, this weekend I’m looking forward 
136 

to meeting with the Willamette Valley Wineries Association, and 

they want to talk about climate change. And they’re calling it climate migration. We’re getting people coming up from California, 

it’s too dry, it’s too hot. I don’t want to lose our industry to our 

wonderful state to the north, or to Canada. 

So I wanted to also talk about shellfish growers on the Oregon 

coast. And they’ve spoken with me about significant losses because 

of ocean acidification. Oyster production is a multi-million dollar 

industry on the West Coast. It supports thousands of jobs, and 

ocean acidification is threatening that industry, but also—not just 

in Oregon, Gulf of Mexico, New England, the Mid-Atlantic. And 

this issue doesn’t just matter to coastal representatives. All of us 

have restaurants, and grocery stores, and people who eat shellfish 

in our districts around the country. 

So, Dr. Steer, I wanted to ask you a little bit about how climate 

change affects oceans, and as a result, our fisheries, what happens 

to the fish population, migration, and food chain dynamics. And if 

you could also comment about the recent El Nino, and how it’s affecting the West Coast fisheries. And then I do want to save time 

for another quick question, please. 

Dr. STEER. Well, look, I think the understanding of science is 

firming up year by year. The impact on fisheries is potentially very 

great indeed. We know a lot about where fish come from. We know 

how their habitat can be spoiled by acidification, and by rising temperatures, and so there’s now a very large literature on this. So I 

think your constituents are right to demand action for that. 

Over the last year, as you know, there was a very major piece 

of work called Risky Business that looked at the impact of climate 

change at the county level throughout the entire United States. It 

was sponsored by Hank Paulson, and by Michael Bloomberg, and 

by Tom Steyer, so you had the entire political spectrum that were 

there, and it was quite devastating, quite frankly. And so we need 

to look at these facts. 

Now, obviously, the science is not absolutely firm, and so it’s very 

legitimate there’ll be some scientists on different sides, but you’ve 

got to look at the bulk of where the scientific opinion is, and it’s 

crystal clear. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And, Dr. Steer, I’d—I know you were 

in Paris. Welcome back to the Committee. I know there’s been 

some discussion already this morning about U.S. leadership, but I 

wanted to really follow up and have you expand on that. The 

United States has a long history of leading on global issues that 

have ramifications beyond our own borders, whether it be human 

rights, world health, technology, innovation. We ought to be applauding the administration for being ready to lead the international response to climate change. And we have, in a relatively 

short period of time, seen developing countries step up and make 

commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emission. 

So I wanted you to comment on the perception in Paris about the 

role of U.S. leadership, but also, would you please address this lack 

of—some people are saying the lack of a binding mitigation commitment in the agreement as a negative, and there’s this naming 

and shaming concept. Could you comment on that, and can mean-
137 

ingful carbon reductions be achieved without legally binding mitigation commitments? How can we effectively enforce that? 

Dr. STEER. Look, in Paris there was—Congresswoman, there was 

a remarkable gratitude for United States leadership, and I would, 

you know, I think we should be proud of that, actually, and this 

Committee should be proud of that. We wouldn’t have the deal 

without United States leadership. But it’s a mistake to say that 

only the United States didn’t want, you know, the country deals to 

be—or the country promises to be legally binding. Many, many 

other countries, including some of the most important in the world, 

said count us out if, you know, if we are going to have legally binding—so this was something that was negotiated. 

In our view, and remember, you know, we don’t have a dog in 

this race. We are a research institution. Having looked at this very 

carefully, with our legal scholars, our scientists, our economists, 

our view is actually the balance between legally binding and nonbinding. Given where we are as a civilization today, and a global 

polity today, we believe this is a smart decision, and we believe 

there’s a potential dynamic that’s going to go on, whereby, as costs 

fall, as we learn more, as private sector leaders, you know, and I 

loved what you said about the United States leadership. Great 

thing about the United States leadership is it’s not just government. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Right. 

Dr. STEER. It actually—it’s, you know, it’s Apple, it’s Walmart. 

It’s a whole range of issues. Amazon, Kohl’s Verizon, they’ve all 

made huge commitments. These are powerful institutions that are 

part of the partnership of change. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Terrific. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield 

back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank the 

witnesses for being here. Quite frankly, I’m very concerned that 

there is going to be a very harmful and detrimental impact on the 

United States of America, including, and especially, my district in 

Texas, the 36th Congressional District. 

Mr. Eule, the regulations associated with climate change will increase the costs of energy for American citizens, especially hardworking families already struggling to get by. I would like to ask 

you if you could describe how the increased energy costs will impact the macroeconomic health of the United States, both for primary energy users, and also end use consumers? 

Mr. EULE. Well, thank you. NERA Consulting took a look at the 

Clean Power Plan, and it concluded that electricity rates would rise 

between 10 and 14 percent, and so that’s obviously going to have 

a big impact on the poor, minorities, the elderly, and people on 

fixed incomes. They also estimated that this would result in 64 to 

$79 billion in losses to consumers. And, you know, when you think 

about the energy price advantage we have over other countries, we 

have to, you know, ask ourselves, is this really the road we want 

to go down? So I think it could have a very devastating impact on 

consumers and on businesses. 
138 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And then, to follow that up, would U.S. jobs 

be lost if these electricity and natural gas prices increased for energy intensive trade exposed manufacturers here in the United 

States? 

Mr. EULE. Yeah, almost certainly they will be. 

Mr. BABIN. Yeah. 

Mr. EULE. Again, we have a tremendous energy advantage here, 

and we have to thank the oil and gas industry, and the fracking 

revolution that’s going on in this country. 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Mr. EULE. And we have a completely different energy situation 

than they have in many parts of the world, and we need to protect 

that. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. Well, if our colleagues on the other side of the 

aisle were being told that these new green jobs are going to increase the incomes of a lot of extra people, would these green jobs 

be enough to offset the manufacturing jobs we’re talking about losing from the recent U.S. promise at the Paris negotiations? 

Mr. EULE. It’s very difficult to say, but I will say this. When you 

look at the last seven or so years, since the recession, the one shining star in the U.S. economy has been the oil and gas sector—— 

Mr. BABIN. Right. 

Mr. EULE. —and that’s because of fracking. From the end of 2007 

to today, employment in that sector has increased by about 38, 39, 

40 percent, while for the rest of the economy it stayed pretty much 

flat. We’re pretty much back where we were back in 2007. So the 

one shining spot here has been the oil and gas sector, and that’s 

because of innovation, and that’s because of the entrepreneurship 

of U.S. companies, many of which are small and mid-sized companies. So the shale revolution in the United States has been a great 

boon to our economy. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. To even go further with what you just said, if 

you could elaborate on what the abundance of affordable natural 

gas, via this hydraulic fracking, means in terms of contributing to 

a cleaner environment, what can the fracking boom, and the new 

technology, what does that mean for a cleaner environment and increased standards of living, both here in the United States, and 

around the globe? There will be a positive impact in that regard 

as well, is that right? 

Mr. EULE. Absolutely. And this is one thing, I think, that doesn’t 

get enough attention in the international negotiations. And, to be 

perfectly honest with you, these people—these negotiators, they 

live in a bubble. I remember talking with a negotiator a couple 

years ago, and I mentioned the fracking revolution, and I said, this 

is going to create headwinds for any sort of agreement. And he 

looked at me, and he said, is this fracking thing for real? Yes, the 

fracking thing is for real. When people were talking about, a few 

years ago, peak oil, we’re not talking about peak oil anymore. We 

have more oil than we know what to do with. We have more natural gas than we know what to do with. There are shale formations 

throughout the entire world. This is going to be a tremendous boom 

for economies not just in the United States, but for those economies 

that can develop their shale resources. 
139 

And so, when I look at this, and then I look at the Paris agreement, and I look at where people are actually putting their 

money—I mean, people talk green, but they’re putting their green 

into shale, they’re putting the green into oil, they’re putting their 

green into natural gas, and they’re putting their green into coal, 

because it’s cheap, affordable, and scalable. So I think the shale 

revolution potentially is going to have a huge impact globally. 

Maybe not in the next five years, but certainly beyond that. 

Mr. BABIN. I know it’s had a huge impact on my state, the State 

of Texas. 

Mr. EULE. And a very positive impact, not only for Texas, but for 

North Dakota, and Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and Colorado, and 

many other places. 

Mr. BABIN. Right. Thank you so very much. And my time’s expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Babin. And the gentlewoman 

from Connecticut, Ms. Esty, is recognized. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Johnson, for holding today’s hearing to examine policy issues surrounding the United States’ pledge at the recent U.N. conference 

to curtail greenhouse gas emissions. I come from the great State 

of Connecticut, where we have found, and shown, that good environmental protection leads to economic growth, not the contrary. 

And I—when I look at a world where the human species needs two 

things, clean water and clean air, to survive, we need clean energy 

to be affordable and available to the entire world. So I’d like to follow up on some of the issues raised by my colleagues, because I 

think in Connecticut, where we’re part of the regional greenhouse 

gas initiative, where our state and our governor have been leaders 

on financing clean energy projects, as well as conservation projects 

that are bringing down the cost of energy, and spurring innovation 

that is leading to job creation in our state. 

The—three quick topics for you, Dr. Steer. Can you talk about 

the following? First, can you talk about the value of a bottom up 

approach? I know you were part of that in Paris, about—the reason 

we got U.S. mayors, states, Canadian provinces, and most importantly major U.S. corporations, who are investing in these efforts 

because they see the dollar imperative to do so for world markets. 

Number two, can you talk about the health impacts of not addressing climate change? One of the reasons we moved early and 

vigorously in Connecticut, because the same rules that address climate change are helping bring down asthma rates in our cities 

from dirty air that’s blown over from other parts of the country. It 

doesn’t just stay there, as many of our colleagues on the panel have 

pointed out. It moves, but also that pollution moves with it, and 

has major health impacts on others, who many not get to vote on 

those rules. 

And last, the role of technology, the upside of U.S. technology to 

address these issues, and license them to the world. These same 

engineers who developed fracking technology can also be developing, and I would argue, better off developing, clean, renewable 

energy technologies that can be licensed to the world, where they 

need them desperately. So if you could address those, I’d be very 

grateful. Thank you. 
140 

Dr. STEER. Thank you very much, Congresswoman Esty. First, I 

commend Connecticut for certainly doing exactly what you say. 

Until recently, your Commissioner of Environment was one of the 

best known environmental economists in the world, Dan Esty, and 

it’s—it—what you managed to do is not only do the right thing, but 

you actually analyzed it, and you’ve actually shown that it works, 

which is a really remarkable thing. 

And, by the way, it illustrates the point—I mean, coming back 

to fracking for a moment, fracking is a great blessing. If it’s gas 

fracking, it can promote jobs, and so on. By no mean is that killed 

by the Paris deal whatsoever. On the contrary, one of the most important things we can do to address climate change is actually reduce methane leakage from fracking, and that actually would save 

money. It will help the frackers. In the moment, like in energy efficiency more generally, we’re allowing stuff that we could be making 

money out of. So I think it illustrates the point that you were making, Congresswoman. 

On mayors, I mean, it really is amazing, you think about it. Why 

would 120 American mayors say, sign me up. We, as a city, we are 

going to measure our greenhouse gases, we’re going to be transparent about our greenhouse gases, we’re going to have plans for 

doing something about greenhouse gases, and every year we’re 

going to come back, be totally transparent as to whether or not 

we’re getting there. They don’t have to do that. No one is telling 

them. It’s not a law, and so too the 450 around the world. The reason they do it is because mayors are realizing their citizens want 

action, and they also see it as a way of doing things that they know 

they should’ve done all the time. 

And, actually, this is giving them a little political boost to do 

things like smarter public transportation, like bike paths, things 

like that, which, actually, citizens want. I mean, my—we have 350 

staff 200 yards from here in our office. Half of them don’t own cars, 

they don’t want to be. It’s a new era. They want bike paths. And 

so that would be one example. 

On the health impacts, Congresswoman, you know, we tend to 

think, well, China, obviously, you know, people are dying, and we 

know that 7 million people are dying every year from air pollution, 

but clearly in this country, you know, we breathe clean air. Turns 

out that analysis shows that actually the Clean Power Plan action 

will pay for itself just in health gains alone. That’s a really remarkable thing. 

And on technology licensing, I mean, this is so crucial. I mean, 

why is it the high tech companies are so keen that we take strong 

action? I mean, why are they lobbying? Why are they committed 

to, you know, 100 percent renewable? Why—and the reason is they 

see this as an amazing growth opportunity for the United States. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you very much. I believe my time has expired. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Esty. Before we adjourn, a 

couple of items. First of all, without objection, I’d like to put in the 

record a letter signed by 300 independent scientists that expressed 

concern over NOAA’s efforts to alter historical temperature data. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 
141 

Chairman SMITH. Also, Dr. Steer, a colleague of ours, Senator 

Bill Cassidy , has asked me to pass along a question to you relevant to today’s hearing. And could I give you that question momentarily, and ask you to respond in writing to me sometime in 

the next week or so? Would that be all right? Okay, thank you. 

I just want to thank our witnesses. This has been an excellent 

hearing. We’ve learned a lot, and I appreciate all the expertise represented at our witness table today. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(143) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
144 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Steve Eule 
145 
146 
147 

Responses by Dr. Andrew Steer 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 

(155) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
156 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE DONALD S. BEYER, JR. 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 

ARTICLE SUBMITTED BY RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON
197 

LETTER SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE FRANK D. LUCAS
198 
199 
200 

Æ