THE PRESIDENT’S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE: 

SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR 

A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Serial No. 114–14 

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

( 
THE PRESIDENT’S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE: SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS? 
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

95–219PDF 2015

THE PRESIDENT’S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE: 

SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR 

A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS? 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 15, 2015 

Serial No. 114–14 

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 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

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 

STEVE KNIGHT, California 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

DAN NEWHOUSE, Washington 

GARY PALMER, Alabama 

BARRY LOUDERMILK, Georgia 

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 

DON 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 

April 15, 2015 

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 ..................... 7 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 8 

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

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

Witnesses: 

Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 15 

The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century 

Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 29 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 31 

Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 43 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 45 

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American 

Council for Capital Formation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 56 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 58 

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 70 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Dr. Judith Curry, Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology .................................................................................. 92 

The Honorable Karen Harbert, President and CEO, Institute for 21st Century 

Energy, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Former Assistant Secretary for Policy 

and International Affairs, U.S. Department of Energy .................................... 98 

Mr. Jake Schmidt, Director, International Program, Natural Resources Defense Council ........................................................................................................ 104 

Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American 

Council for Capital Formation ............................................................................ 110 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Documents submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 118 
Page

IV 

Documents submitted by Representative Gary Palmer, Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .................................... 185 

Documents submitted by Representative Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 191 

Document submitted by Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief 

Economist, American Council for Capital Formation ....................................... 333 
(1) 

THE PRESIDENT’S U.N. CLIMATE PLEDGE: 

SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED OR 

A NEW TAX ON AMERICANS? 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15, 2015 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

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

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman SMITH. The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology will come to order. 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 

declare recesses of the Committee at any time, and welcome to today’s hearing titled ‘‘The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge: Scientifically Justified or a New Tax on Americans?’’ 

Let me recognize myself for an opening statement, then I will 

recognize the Ranking Member, then I will introduce the witnesses, 

and let me say that because I was late I didn’t have an opportunity 

to say hello to each of you individually but we very much appreciate your expertise and your presence as well. 

Last June, the Obama Administration proposed sweeping new 

electricity regulations. Now, despite heavy and growing opposition 

to the proposal, the Administration seeks to commit America to 

costly new requirements that won’t improve the environment. The 

President has promised the United Nations 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. He is attempting to write large checks we simply cannot cash. 

The pledge was made in preparation for a U.N. summit in Paris 

this December aimed at producing an international agreement that 

would impose legally binding requirements on the United States 

for the next decades. But all of this activity, at home and abroad, 

disregards the concerns of the majority in Congress and many 

states. The President’s attempt to justify his actions with an alarmist, one-sided focus on worst-case scenarios establishes a poor foundation for sound policymaking. 

When President Obama took office, he had an opportunity to 

work with a Democrat-controlled House and Senate to create climate legislation. But that effort failed because opposition to costly 

climate regulation crosses party lines. Congress has repeatedly rejected the President’s extreme climate agenda. So the Administration instead has taken the unprecedented step of attempting to create laws on his own and twist environmental regulations in ways 

Congress never intended. Now the Administration has packaged up 

all these regulations and promised their implementation to the 

United Nations, but the President’s Power Plan is nothing more 

than a power grab. 

Environmental laws can’t trump the Constitution. They can’t 

give the federal government the right to regulate the daily lives of 

citizens within their homes. Regardless of what the President may 

try to claim, Congress has not given him or the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to rewrite laws. 

Opposition to the President’s agenda is widespread and continues 

to grow. At least 32 different states are openly opposed to the plan 

and many now consider the possibility of refusing to enact his 

edicts at all. The majority of the members of the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Senate are opposed, and numerous organizations that are concerned about the cost and reliability of America’s electric grid have issued dire warnings about the likely impacts of the President’s plan. And the EPA’s models show there will 

be no real climate benefits. 

Whether that plan can stand up to legal scrutiny will take years 

to sort out. The legality of President Obama’s unilateral action certainly will not be known when climate negotiators set out to create 

binding international rules in Paris later this year. The President’s 
8 

far-reaching proposals and international promises will do lasting 

damage to our Nation, all for little to no environmental benefit. In 

fact, the pledge to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only a .03 percent Centigrade temperature rise, and in testimony before this 

Committee, former Assistant Secretary for Energy, the Honorable 

Charles McConnell, noted that the President’s Clean Power Plan 

would reduce sea-level rise by less than half the thickness of a 

dime. Meanwhile, middle and lower income American families will 

be hit hardest as energy costs inevitably rise. 

The President’s pledge to the U.N. hinges on a questionable and 

unclear plan. The commitment submitted two weeks ago lacks details about how we will achieve such goals without burdening our 

economy and it fails to quantify the specific climate benefits tied 

to the promise. 

Today is April 15th, Tax Day. It is a day that many Americans 

dread. As more Americans feel squeezed by rising costs, flat wages, 

and rising taxes, we should ask ourselves: can we really afford another extreme and expensive mandate? We will never reach the 

President’s arbitrary targets, which would increase electricity costs, 

ration energy, and slow economic growth. Such severe measures 

will have no discernable impact on global temperatures. They will 

make the government bigger and Americans poorer. 

I expect today’s hearing will demonstrate that the President’s 

U.N. climate pledge is destructive to the American economy and 

would produce no substantive environmental benefits. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Smith follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH

Last June, the Obama Administration proposed sweeping new electricity regulations. Now, despite heavy and growing opposition to the proposal, the administration seeks to commit America to costly new requirements that won’t improve the 

environment. 

The president has promised the United Nations 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. He is attempting to write large checks we simply 

cannot cash. 

The pledge was made in preparation for a U.N. summit in Paris this December 

aimed at producing an international agreement that would impose legally binding 

requirements on the United States for the next decades. 

But all of this activity—at home and abroad—disregards the concerns of the majority in Congress and many states. The president’s attempt to justify his actions 

with an alarmist, one-sided focus on worstcase scenarios establishes a poor foundation for sound policy-making. 

When President Obama took office, he had an opportunity to work with a Democrat controlled House and Senate to create climate legislation. But that effort failed 

because opposition to costly climate regulation crosses party lines. 

Congress has repeatedly rejected the president’s extreme climate agenda. So the 

administration instead has taken the unprecedented step of attempting to create 

laws on his own—and twist environmental regulations in ways Congress never intended. 

Now the administration has packaged up all these regulations and promised their 

implementation to the U.N. But the president’s ‘‘Power Plan’’ is nothing more than 

a power grab. Environmental laws can’t trump the Constitution. They can’t give the 

federal government the right to regulate the daily lives of citizens within their 

homes. 

Regardless of what the president may try to claim, Congress has not given him 

or the Environmental Protection Agency the authority to re-write laws. Opposition 

to the president’s agenda is widespread and continues to grow. At least 32 different 

states are openly opposed to the plan and many now consider the possibility of refusing to enact his edicts at all. 
9 

The majority of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate 

are opposed. And numerous organizations that are concerned about the cost and reliability of America’s electricity grid have issued dire warnings about the likely impacts of the president’s plan. And the EPA’s models show there will be no real climate benefits. 

Whether that plan can stand up to legal scrutiny will take years to sort out. The 

legality of President Obama’s unilateral action certainly will not be known when climate negotiators set out to create binding international rules in Paris later this 

year. 

The president’s far-reaching proposals and international promises will do lasting 

damage to our nation, all for little to no environmental benefit. In fact, the pledge 

to the U.N. is estimated to prevent only a 0.03 degrees C temperature rise. And in 

testimony before this Committee, former Assistant Secretary for Energy, The Honorable Charles McConnell, noted that the president’s Clean Power Plan would reduce 

sea level rise by less than half the thickness of a dime. 

Meanwhile, middle and lower income American families will be hit hardest as energy costs inevitably rise. The president’s pledge to the U.N. hinges on a questionable and unclear plan. The commitment submitted two weeks ago lacks details 

about how we will achieve such goals without burdening our economy. And it fails 

to quantify the specific climate benefits tied to the promise. 

Today is April 15th, Tax Day. It is a day that many Americans dread. As more 

Americans feel squeezed by rising costs, flat wages, and rising taxes, we should ask 

ourselves: can we really afford another extreme and expensive mandate? 

We will never reach the president’s arbitrary targets, which would increase electricity costs, ration energy and slow economic growth. Such severe measures will 

have no discernable impact on global temperatures. They will make the government 

bigger and Americans poorer. 

I hope today’s hearing will demonstrate that the president’s U.N. climate pledge 

is destructive to the American economy and would produce no substantive environmental benefits. 

Chairman SMITH. That concludes my opening statement, and the 

gentlewoman from Texas, the Ranking Member, Eddie Bernice 

Johnson, is recognized for hers. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let me 

apologize early that at the completion of my opening statement, I 

will have to depart for another committee markup, but our subcommittee Ranking Member, Ms. Bonamici, will take over. 

We are here this morning to discuss the carbon reduction target 

recently submitted by the Obama Administration to the United Nations. This target, which is known as the United States’ Intended 

Nationally Determined Contribution, sets a goal of reducing carbon 

pollution across the nation by 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels 

by the year 2025. 

Before I get too far into my statement, I would like to point out 

the fact that my colleagues in the Majority failed to invite anyone 

from the Administration to testify at today’s hearing. It seems to 

me that the Administration is likely the best source to fill in any 

details regarding the proposal or to address any questions or concerns that members of the Committee may have. Despite this omission, I am looking forward to hearing from today’s witnesses, and 

I welcome you. 

Some may say that the Administration’s carbon reduction goal is 

unrealistic or unwarranted, that addressing climate change will 

cause irreparable harm to the Nation’s economy or that it is based 

on unsettled science. I disagree with such sentiments. I think the 

target put forward by the President is justified. It appears to strike 

the right balance between ambition and achievability, and perhaps, 

most importantly, it a sends a strong and much-needed signal—I 

am so sorry; this is my allergy season—to the rest of the world 

about the seriousness of the United States in addressing the im-
10 

pacts of climate change. Such a position is critical to meaningful 

international engagement. 

I have been clear in my position that the time to address climate 

change is now. The potential costs of inaction are too high for us 

to continue to drag our feet or put our heads in the sand. A sobering report from a nonpartisan and well-respected group of business 

and financial leaders, including Michael Bloomberg, Henry 

Paulson, and Tom Steyer, titled ‘‘Risky Business—The Economic 

Risks of Climate Change in the United States,’’ highlights the significant costs climate change has exacted and will continue to exact 

on our economy. The report presents a long list of concerns, including rising seas, increased damage from storm surge, more frequent 

bouts of extreme heat, and shines a light on the cost of inaction to 

private businesses across the country. 

However, the economic costs of inaction are not the whole story. 

There are also serious public health impacts associated with climate change. Greater risk of asthma attacks, heat stroke, food and 

waterborne as well as respiratory diseases are all consequences of 

a warming climate. I know that some still question whether climate change is happening or if humans have contributed significantly to the impacts currently being observed. I know such opinions will be expressed again today, but it seems to me that most 

of the world has moved beyond such debates and is instead focused 

on taking concrete steps to address the problem at hand. 

We in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not the experts 

on the science, and that allowing partisan politics to distort the scientific understanding of climate change is cynical and shortsighted. 

We, as a nation, must act today to address climate change if we 

are to preserve our quality of life for our children and grandchildren, and some old people like me. The negative consequences 

of climate change are not abstract scientific predictions for the faroff future. We are facing some of these consequences now and they 

are affecting every American. 

The President’s Climate Change Action Plan and the goal submitted to the United Nations represent commonsense steps that 

will lead to a healthier environment, because acting on climate 

change is not only an environmental imperative, but a public 

health and economic one as well. 

In closing, I would like to draw on a recent op-ed from Bob Inglis, a former member, a Republican member of this Committee with 

whom I served, and Jack Schlossberg, comparing the challenge of 

addressing climate change to the space race. They state: ‘‘Climate 

change is only scary if we chose to sit, wait, and do nothing about 

it. Climate change is a chance for all of us to add a chapter to the 

story of American triumph and human progress. Courage of this 

scale will come from a people who are told they can do great things 

by leaders who believe that their people are capable of great 

things. We believe America will see opportunity in the danger of 

climate change just like we saw benefits on Earth from travel in 

space.’’ 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

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

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY FULL COMMITTEE RANKING MEMBER

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are here this morning to discuss 

the carbon reduction target recently submitted by the Obama Administration to the United Nations. This target, which is known as 

the United States’ Intended Nationally Determined Contribution 

sets a goal of reducing carbon pollution across the nation by 26 to 

28 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2025. 

Before I get too far into my statement, I’d like to point out the 

fact that my colleagues in the Majority failed to invite anyone from 

the Administration to testify at today’s hearing. 

It seems to me that the Administration is likely the best source 

to fill in any details regarding the proposal or to address any questions or concerns Members of this Committee may have. Despite 

this omission, I’m looking forward to hearing from today’s witnesses. 

Some may say that the Administration’s carbon reduction goal is 

unrealistic or unwarranted; that addressing climate change will 

cause irreparable harm to the nation’s economy or that it is based 

on ′′unsettled′′ science. I disagree with such sentiments. I think the 

target put forward by the President is justified. It appears to strike 

the right balance between ambition and achievability. 

And perhaps, most importantly, it a sends a strong and much 

needed signal to the rest of the world about the seriousness of the 

United States in addressing the impacts of climate change. Such a 

position is critical to meaningful international engagement. 

I have been clear in my position that the time to address climate 

change is now. The potential costs of inaction are too high for us 

to continue to drag our feet or put our heads in the sand.A sobering 

report from a non-partisan and well-respected group of business 

and financial leaders, including Michael Bloomberg, Henry 

Paulson, and Tom Steyer, entitled, Risky Business—The Economic 

Risks of Climate Change in the United States, highlights the significant costs climate change has exacted and will continue to exact 

on our economy. 

The report presents a long list of concerns, including rising seas, 

increased damage from storm surge, more frequent bouts of extreme heat, and shines a light on the cost of inaction to private 

businesses across the country. 

However, the economic costs of inaction are not the whole story. 

There are also serious public health impacts associated with climate change. Greater risk of asthma attacks, heat stroke, food and 

waterborne as well as respiratory diseases are all consequences of 

a warming climate. 

I know that some still question whether climate change is happening or if humans have contributed significantly to the impacts 

currently being observed. 

I know such opinions will be expressed again today, but it seems 

to me that most of the world has moved beyond such debates and 

is instead focused on taking concrete steps to address the problem 

at hand. 

We in Congress have to acknowledge that we are not the experts 

on the science, and that allowing partisan politics to distort the sci-
12 

entific understanding of climate change is cynical and short-sighted. 

We, as a nation, must act today to address climate change if we 

are to preserve our quality of life for our children and grandchildren. The negative consequences of climate change are not abstract scientific predictions for the far-off future. We are facing 

some of these consequences now and they are affecting every American. 

The President’s Climate Action Plan and the goal submitted to 

the United Nations represent common-sense steps that will lead to 

a healthier environment, because acting on climate change is not 

only an environmental imperative, but a public health and economic one as well. 

In closing, I’d like to draw on a recent op-ed from Bob Inglis, a 

former Republican Subcommittee Chairman of this Committee, and 

Jack Schlossberg comparing the challenge of addressing climate 

change to the space race. They state: ‘‘Climate change is only scary 

if we chose to sit, wait, and do nothing about it. Climate change 

is a chance for all of us to add a chapter to the story of American 

triumph and human progress. Courage of this scale will come from 

a people who are told they can do great things by leaders who believe that their people are capable of great things. We believe 

America will see opportunity in the danger of climate change just 

like we saw benefits on Earth from travel in space.’’ 

Thank you and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Johnson. 

Our first witness is Dr. Judith Curry, Professor and former Chair 

of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and President of Climate Forecast Applications Network. Dr. Curry performs extensive research that focuses 

on air and sea interactions, climate feedback processes associated 

with clouds and sea ice, and the climate dynamics of hurricanes. 

Dr. Curry also serves on the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science 

Subcommittee and the Department of Energy Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee. She recently served on 

the National Academy’s Climate Research Committee, the Space 

Studies Board, and the NOAA Climate Working Group. Dr. Curry 

received her Ph.D. in atmospheric science from the University of 

Chicago. 

Our next witness is Ms. Karen Harbert, President and CEO of 

the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute for 21st Century Energy. Ms. Harbert leads efforts to build support for meaningful energy action through policy development, education and advocacy. 

Under her leadership, the Institute established the groundbreaking 

Index of Energy Security Risk and the International Index of Energy Security Risk, the first tools to quantify America’s energy security on an annual basis. Before joining the Chamber, Ms. 

Harbert served as the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs at the Department of Energy. She was the Primary 

Policy Advisor to the Secretary of Energy and to the Department 

on domestic and international energy issues. She also served as 

Vice Chairman of the International Energy Agency, which advises 

its 28 member nations on energy policy issues and orchestrates 

international responses to energy supply disruptions. Ms. Harbert 
13 

received her bachelor’s degree in international policy studies and 

political science from Rice University. 

Our third witness is Mr. Jake Schmidt, the Director of the International Program at the National Resources Defense Council. Mr. 

Schmidt has 14 years of experience in international climate policy 

with a focus on climate change, clean energy, biogems, and sustainable development in India, Latin America, Canada, and at the 

international level. He leads NRDC’s policy development and advocacy on international climate change including through climate negotiations and direct work with key countries around the world. 

Mr. Schmidt holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from Muhlenberg College and a master’s degree in environmental policy with a 

certificate in ecological economics from the University of Maryland. 

Our final witness is Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President 

and Chief Economist for the American Council for Capital Formation and Director of Research for its public policy think tank. She 

also serves as the Managing Director of the International Council 

for Capital Formation. Dr. Thorning is an internationally recognized expert on tax, environmental and competitiveness issues. Dr. 

Thorning has made presentations on the economic impact of climate change policy at forums in China, India, the European Union, 

and Russia. In addition, she recently made a presentation titled 

‘‘Investing in Energy and Industrial Development: Challenges and 

Opportunities’’ at a U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development 

meeting. Prior to joining the American Council for Capital Formation, Dr. Thorning served at the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, and the Federal Trade Commission. Dr. 

Thorning received her bachelor’s degree from Texas Christian University, her master’s degree in economics from the University of 

Texas, and her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Georgia. 

We welcome you all. You are clearly all experts, and it is just coincidental that two of you all have degrees from Texas universities, 

but that is nice to see. 

Dr. Curry, we will begin with you. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. JUDITH CURRY, PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 

GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY 

Dr. CURRY. I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present testimony this morning. 

I am concerned that both the climate change problem and its solution have been vastly oversimplified. The central issue in the scientific debate on climate change is the extent to which the recent 

and future warming is caused by human-caused greenhouse gas 

emission versus natural climate variability associated with variations from the sun, volcanic eruptions, and large-scale ocean circulations. 

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans 

are the dominant cause of recent climate change. This includes the 

substantial slow-down in global warming since 1998, reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide, and climate 

models that are predicting much more warming than has been observed so far in the 21st century. 
14 

While there are substantial uncertainties in our understanding of 

climate change, it is clear that humans are influencing climate in 

the direction of warming. However, this simple truth is essentially 

meaningless in itself in terms of alarm and does not mandate a 

particular policy response. 

We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem 

of climate change and its solution. First, the definition of dangerous climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic 

tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 

21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather 

events to human-caused warming are unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a wicked problem and ill-suited to a command-andcontrol solution. And finally, it has been estimated that the U.S. 

national commitments to the U.N. to reduce emission by 28 percent 

will prevent three hundredths of a degree Centigrade in warming 

by 2100. The inadequacies of current policies based on emissions 

reductions are leaving the real societal consequences of climate 

change and extreme weather events largely unaddressed, whether 

caused by humans or natural variability. 

The wickedness of the climate change problem provides much 

scope for disagreement amongst reasonable and intelligent people. 

Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is made very difficult by the deep uncertainties surrounding 

the risk both from the problem and the proposed solutions. 

The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990s 

by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues 

surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push 

the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond 

to climate change. 

As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have 

been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, 

build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no-regrets pollution-reduction measures. Each of these measures has justifications 

independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. 

Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy 

reasons, whether or not human-caused climate change is dangerous, avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen 

with the 21st century climate. 

This concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Curry follows:] 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Curry, and Ms. Harbert. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE KAREN HARBERT, 

PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

INSTITUTE FOR 21ST CENTURY ENERGY, 

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; 

FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY 

AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Hon. HARBERT. Thank you, Chairman Smith and the Ranking 

Members of the Committee. I want to make four points today regarding the Obama Administration’s Intended Nationally Determined Contribution to the UNFCC. 

First, the U.N.—the U.S. INDC lacks basic information to allow 

a rigorous assessment of the goal. The commitment is long on 

promises but short on data needed for a proper assessment. Nowhere does it explain how the Administration intends to get to its 

26 to 28 percent reduction target. The Administration’s math just 

doesn’t add up. We estimate that the announced and forthcoming 

regulations out of EPA including EPA’s Clean Power Plan still 

leave between 500 and 600 million tons or more of the Administration’s commitment still unaccounted for, and without a sector-bysector breakdown, we just don’t know how the Administration expects to achieve its target. 

Indeed, yesterday EPA Air Administrator McCabe acknowledged 

in House testimony that they have yet to do a comprehensive modeling of all of the regulations that constitute this proposal, and surprisingly, nowhere in the INDC is there any reference to industrial 

emission. It is hard to imagine getting there without addressing 

the industrial sector. EPA’s current budget proposal notes the 

Agency will soon begin considering new regulations on the refining, 

pulp and paper sector, iron and steel sector, livestock, and cement 

sectors, so there is more to come. 

It is also difficult to see how this plan can be sold to the international community, especially given the uncertain legal foundation upon which it rests. In its Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA 

ruling, the Supreme Court warned EPA against using ‘‘unheralded 

power to regulate a significant portion of the American economy.’’ 

This certainly constitutes a significant portion of the American 

economy. Thirty-two states have now raised legal objections to it, 

and the first case will appear before the Supreme Court tomorrow, 

and EPA Air Administrator McCabe said yesterday they do expect 

litigation to last for years. 

Secondly, the commitments are hugely unequal. If the world is 

serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then developing 

countries will have to take on huge commitments. However, indications are that that is not happening. China provides a very useful 

example. It has pledged to peak its carbon emission around 2030 

and to increase its share of non-fossil-fuel consumption to around 

20 percent is business as usual. In fact, in the International Energy Agency’s most recent outlook, which was released before 

China and the United States made this announcement, it actually 

models the Chinese proposals and policies currently in place and 
30 

comes to the same conclusion, which is, they will peak just around 

2030. This is nothing new. ExxonMobil’s forecast confirms the 

same. 

To put a finer point on it, yesterday in testimony here, the Arkansas Cooperative Executive that testified in front of the House 

said that the most advanced coal-fired power plant today in America is in Arkansas, the Turk power plant. Under EPA’s proposal, 

it will close. In China, on the other hand, they have 46 of these 

plants, and under their proposal they can now build 44 more of 

these plants. India has declined to make a very aggressive proposal 

before Paris, and the Russian Federation’s proposal actually allows 

it to increase its emission compared to the 2012 level. 

Third, the Administration’s plan is all pain. It is poised to be one 

of the most costly and burdensome regulations and rulemakings 

and proposals ever. Its own analysis suggests that electricity prices 

will go up 6 to seven percent by 2020 and up to 12 percent in other 

locations, and compliance costs could rise to about $8–1/2 billion by 

2030. That is on top of what EIA released yesterday, which is an 

18 percent increase in electricity rates between now and 2040 without the Administration’s Clean Power Plan. NERA, an economic 

consulting firm, did another analysis which said it is probably 

going to increase more like 12 percent, and compliance costs would 

be much higher than EPA forecasts. We should take note of that 

because EPA has been wrong in the past. For their proposal of 

mercury air toxins reductions, which they promulgated in 2012, 

they estimated that there would be 5 gigawatts of coal-fired generation retired. Today, it is actually 50 gigawatts attributed to that 

rule, a factor of 10. 

And fourth, the Administration’s plan has no gain. It is important to note that despite all of these costs, EPA admits under the 

Clean Power Plan that the heart of this will have no discernible 

impact on the environment, and that is because of carbon leakage 

as U.S. energy-intensive industries move to other countries and deprive us of revenue, tax revenue, and employment. Our diverse 

electricity sector, which has afforded us very affordable energy as 

opposed to other parts around the world, will actually be taken 

away from us. 

Conclusion: We need the industry that is investing here, the 

chemical industry, the manufacturing industry, the steel and pulp 

and paper industry, but those industries may move. We need a predictable environment, and this actually upends the predictable environment of investing in America, which is bad for the American 

economy. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Harbert follows:] 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Harbert. 

And Mr. Schmidt. 

TESTIMONY OF MR. JAKE SCHMIDT, 

DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM, 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Schmidt— 

sorry—Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Johnson, and distinguished members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to 

present the Natural Resources Defense Council’s views on the U.S. 

target to cut emission 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 

to address climate change. 

We have a responsibility to protect our children and future generations from the effects of climate change by reducing emission of 

carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping pollutants. This can be 

done in a manner that protects public health, spurs job creation, 

and helps address the significant damages from climate change. 

Acting responsibly at home is also an essential component of efforts 

to secure strong global action including for major emitters. Our actions at home show other countries that the world’s largest economy is prepared to rise to the challenge to address climate change. 

The consequences of inaction on climate change are grave. We 

are already seeing the impacts of climate change on our communities and facing substantial costs from these impacts. Strong and 

sustained efforts to address carbon pollution and other heat-trapping pollutants can significantly decrease these impacts on the U.S. 

and other countries. 

The new U.S. climate target is essential to helping stave off the 

worst of these impacts. The U.S. target can be achieved under existing law cost-effectively. Under existing law, President Obama 

has set in motion a number of carbon-cutting actions including carbon pollution standards for America’s power plants, improved vehicle efficiency standards, appliance efficiency standards, efforts to 

address methane leakage, and standards to reduce the climate pollution of coolants used in air conditioners and refrigerators. This 

new target will build upon these efforts as all these standards have 

time frames that extend past 2020 to give businesses longer-term 

certainty for their investment decisions. 

The U.S. can meet both its 2020 and 2025 targets using existing 

laws like the Clean Air Act, energy efficiency laws, and steps to 

protect our public lands and waters. These cuts can be achieved 

cost-effectively while helping to create jobs and achieving important health benefits for our children. Time and again, American ingenuity, entrepreneurs, and workers have risen to address great 

challenges. That opportunity to address this challenge is why more 

than 140 entrepreneurs recently wrote in support of the new U.S. 

target to cut its emissions. 

As you know, U.S. action at home also helps spur global action. 

For almost two decades, inaction on climate change in the U.S. has 

been a major stumbling block to securing strong international action on climate change. When the United States is willing to step 

forward domestically, it can have a catalyzing impact in other 

countries. This is evident in the new commitments from China and 

the recent one from Mexico. As part of the U.S.-China agreement, 
44 

China’s president committed to peak its emission by 2030 with the 

intention to peak earlier and to build an increased amount of nonfossil-fuel energy to amount to 20 percent of its energy by 2030. 

This is a commitment to even deeper cuts in its climate pollution 

that many expected was achievable just a few short years ago. In 

fact, prior to the announcement, many experts including the U.S. 

Energy Information Administration predicted that China’s emission 

wouldn’t peak until well after 2040, and you can see that in other 

analysis. 

This U.S. action couldn’t come at a more critical juncture. As 

leaders meet later this year to finalize a new commitment to address climate change, this agreement will solidify even deeper commitments from key countries around the world. Already the European Union, Switzerland, Norway, Mexico, and China have announced the outlines of their new commitments as a part of this 

agreement and more countries around the world like India, South 

Korea, Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia are diligently working 

on their proposed targets as a part of the international agreement. 

In summary, let me conclude with, if the U.S. target can be 

achieved cost-effectively under existing law, when the world’s largest economy acts, it sends a powerful signal to other governments 

that they also can and must act aggressively on this grave challenge of climate change. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schmidt follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. 

Dr. Thorning. 

TESTIMONY OF DR. MARGO THORNING, 

SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, 

AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR CAPITAL FORMATION 

Dr. THORNING. Thank you, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member 

Johnson, for the opportunity to appear before this committee. 

I’d like to make three or four points, picking up on some of what 

the other witnesses have said. First, it’s not clear that developing 

countries like China and India will actually implement strong 

measures to slow the growth of their emissions. 

Second, reaching the Administration’s target of 17 percent below 

2005 levels by 2020 seems unlikely since we’re only 9.5 percent 

down right now from 2005. So how we would reach a 26 to 28 percent reduction by 2025 seems very challenging. 

And third, how will the various regulatory measures described in 

the INDC to reduce carbon emissions impact the U.S. economy? 

Looking at trends in global energy use, the International Energy 

Agency’s 2014 statement suggests that energy use is going to grow 

by 37 percent to 2040. Why do we think the developing countries 

will actually be able to meet stringent reduction targets? Their 

emissions are the ones that are growing fast. The United States’ 

emissions are relatively flat. So it’s questionable that the targets 

that are being discussed will actually be met. 

What is the economic impact on the United States of the INDC? 

Investment in the United States is already quite sluggish. It hasn’t 

recovered to the 2007 levels. Net investment, net depreciation is 

sluggish, productivity growth is slow, wage growth is slow. We 

need to be sure that the policies that we undertake aren’t going to 

negatively impact our attempt to recover a strong economy. 

The question of whether developing countries will actually follow 

projected emission cuts, if they look at the European Union, the 

European Union over a decade ago was implementing strong policies to reduce GHGs to switch toward renewables. They have enjoyed very sluggish economic growth, very high unemployment 

rates, about 11 percent. So looking at the European lesson, why 

would developing countries want to follow that kind of a path? 

On the other hand, there are ways that the United States can 

move forward to try to slow the growth of emissions. There are 

policies that we can undertake that will actually be no-regrets policies, will actually increase economic growth. For example, tax reform. Congress and Senate Finance and Ways and Means are discussing tax reform. Scholarly research suggests that allowing expensing for all new investment would pull through cleaner, lessemitting technologies and help us reduce GHG growth, as well as 

other emissions. 

A study by the ACCF and Ernst & Young last year showed that 

allowing expensing for all new investment would reduce the cost of 

capital by about 25 percent, whereas the Bowles-Simpson plan, if 

implemented, would actually increase the cost of capital. Research 

shows that each ten percent reduction in the cost of capital for new 

investment increases investment by five percent. So tax reform 

should be on the table as a way of addressing GHG reductions. 
57 

Second, we should encourage the export of liquefied natural gas. 

Cleaner-burning fuel to our allies and trading partners in China 

and India and Europe would help them reduce their emissions 

while growing their economies. And recall that over 2 billion people 

have no electricity; 1.3 billion are cooking with biomass and dung 

and coal, so we need to try to export our surplus of LNG, which 

is—seems to be growing every year. 

Then we also should encourage international financing for clean 

coal technology. My colleague George Banks recently produced a research paper on that topic and I’d like to request that that paper 

be submitted for the record. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Dr. THORNING. So a third thing I think we should do to try to 

stimulate our economy, as well as reduce GHG growth, is be careful to use cost-benefit analysis. Other witnesses have discussed the 

fact that reducing U.S. emissions significantly will have no impact 

on the temperature or on concentrations of GHG, so we should be 

using cost-benefit analysis, and we should also be adopting—encouraging the adaptation to climate change through no-regrets 

strategies in agriculture, for utilities, and other industries. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Thorning follows:] 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Thorning. 

I will recognize myself for five minutes for questions. 

And, Dr. Curry, let me address my first one to you. 

Earlier this year, NASA claimed that 2014 was the warmest year 

on record, and then they put in a footnote a disclaimer that they 

were actually only 38 percent sure that that was the case, less than 

50/50. That’s amazing. But quite frankly, you seldom hear disclaimers from the so-called experts who always seem to be 100 percent certain that they are right. Actually, as you know, the scientific method itself actually says that we should continue to question and challenge our hypotheses, not just assume we’re 100 percent right. So in many instances I’m thinking these so-called scientists really aren’t acting very scientifically. 

But in any case, I have a couple quick questions for you. One is 

that the President keeps talking about or keeps trying to connect 

human-caused climate change to extreme weather examples such 

as hurricanes and wildfires, and he keeps being contradicted by his 

own Administration officials. Why he keeps doing it, I don’t know. 

But who is right, the President or others who say there’s really no 

demonstrable connection between these extreme weather events 

like hurricanes and wildfires and human-caused climate change? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, who I regard as a little bit on the alarmist side frankly, 

even they acknowledge in their Special Report on Extreme 

Events—Weather Events and Climate Change published in 2012 

that there was essentially no connection observed in the historical 

record between human-caused climate change and extreme weather 

events. They found a few regional examples where there was a 

trend like heat waves in Australia and things like that but really 

no—— 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. CURRY. They didn’t find anything. And why this continues to 

be touted by the Administration is pure politics. I mean people respond a lot more to extreme weather events than they do to like 

a 2 degree temperature change or something. 

Chairman SMITH. It’s regrettable that we have the political leader of our country saying statements that we have reason to believe 

he must know are not accurate, so I thank you for your comment 

on that. 

Another question is that the two percent increase in global temperature is often seized upon as a tipping point, and if the temperature increases by two percent, all kinds of dire consequences 

will result. Is there anything magic about two percent. Where did 

we get that figure? Is it arbitrary or is there some scientific validity 

to 2 percent and not 2.5 or not 1.5 or something like that? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, the 2 degree target was a carefully negotiated 

number, okay, that doesn’t have much basis, you know, in science. 

The one scientific concern that was put forward was that this 

would be the amount of warming that would cause some of these 

tipping points like a shutdown in the Atlantic circulation or collapse of the major ice sheets. But again, the IPCC, in its recent assessment report, found these to be extremely unlikely in the 

timescale of the 21st century. So there’s really not much to that 

number other than a politically negotiated—— 
71 

Chairman SMITH. Yes. 

Dr. CURRY. —danger sign. 

Chairman SMITH. And thank you for that. And by the way, just 

as a side comment, the experts that make predictions as to what’s 

going to happen 85 years from now or 100 years from now and are 

absolutely certain that that’s going to occur, whatever those dire 

consequences are, the only thing I will say about a 100-year prediction is that it’s not going to be what is predicted. And it’s too 

bad that again the scientists are actually not using the scientific 

method on that. 

Ms. Harbert, let me ask you, you did a great job of going through 

those countries and what they are contributing or not contributing 

to the UN Treaty, but going back to China for a second, we have 

heard this from—we have heard the promises that we have recently heard from China for years and years and years and they 

never really come through on those promises. Is there any reason 

for us to believe that China is suddenly going to do what it claims 

it’s going to do and much of what it claims it’s going to do isn’t 

going to occur for years from now? Why should we be suspicious 

about some of these countries’ commitments? 

Hon. HARBERT. Well, China’s priority is economic growth. And 

we look at all of the forecasts and China’s economy is beginning to 

slow down. If you look at the International Energy Agency’s World 

Energy Outlook, they forecast a slowdown which would actually 

show that China’s emissions will peak just around the 2030 time 

frame, which is what they agreed to in this announcement. Now, 

let’s be clear. This was an announcement. This was not an agreement; this was not any type of binding commitment that the 

United States and China agreed to in the visit to Beijing. 

I think it’s highly unlikely that we will see anything happen before that. China is building coal-fired power capacity faster than we 

are. They are building lots of things faster than we are. And we’re 

looking at an emissions trajectory that was going to peak at the 

time frame they are agreeing to. So this is business as usual. They 

had already agreed to the renewables targets. They had already 

agreed to everything in that agreement they had already put down 

on paper before. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

And with the indulgence of my colleagues, I’m going to try to 

squeeze in one more question even though my time is up and that’s 

to Dr. Thorning. 

Dr. Thorning, you’re aware of this, but President Obama, when 

he was in law school, had as a professor a well-known constitutional expert by the name of Laurence Tribe. Recently, Professor 

Tribe testified, ‘‘The EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking 

power that belongs to Congress and judicial power that belongs to 

the Federal courts.’’ He added that, ‘‘Burning the Constitution 

should not become part of our national energy policy,’’ amazing 

statement with which I happen to agree. 

Well, both Ms. Harbert and you have mentioned the litigation 

that is out there. What happens if the clean power rule is thrown 

out, as many legal experts, including Professor Tribe, expect? 

Dr. THORNING. Well, I think the question of how that uncertainty 

about future directions will impact the business community is sig-
72 

nificant. Uncertainty retards investment, raises the cost of capital, 

so we need certainty and clarity and transparency about what our 

policies are going to be. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Thank you all for your answers today. 

And the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Lofgren, is recognized 

for questions. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, welcome to the Science Committee, the last 

place on the planet where we question whether climate change is 

being caused by human activity. 

Mr. Schmidt, it seems to me that the reality of anthropogenic climate change is really impossible to deny by reliable scientists all 

over the world. People are facing new challenges resulting from the 

rapid increase in greenhouse gas emissions, heavier precipitation 

events, consistently higher-than-average global temperatures, 

warming ocean, rising sea levels, increased incidence of extreme 

weather, severe droughts, changes in the spread of infectious disease, changes in ocean chemistry, and other ecological and public 

health impacts. Now, the scientific consensus about the contributions of humans to climate change is overwhelming. However, Dr. 

Curry and our Chairman appear to deny such consensus exists, 

and Dr. Curry suggests, ‘‘If humans are not the dominant cause of 

climate change, then attempts to modify the climate through reducing GHG emissions will have little impact on future climate 

change.’’ 

Do you believe, Mr. Schmidt, that human activities are the main 

cause of climate change? 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Yes, we do. We draw our conclusions from the vast 

majority of the climate scientists through the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change, as well as the U.S. National Climate Assessment, which surveys the landscape in terms of opinion and 

views and research analysis of the vast majority of the climate 

science community. And they have consistently found for the past 

15 or more years that, yes, in fact humans are causing climate 

change, that our contributions are significant, and that there are 

severe damages coming forward. We are at .8 degrees centigrade 

increase in temperature since preindustrial levels, and many of the 

impacts that you have outlined are already being felt. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would ask unanimous consent that we place in 

the record of this hearing the report entitled ‘‘Climate Change 2014 

Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers’’ from the IPCC. And 

I would note that contrary to the testimony of one of the witnesses, 

on page 7 of that report they find that changes in many extreme 

weather and climate events have been linked to human influences, 

including a decrease in cold temperature increases, an increase in 

warm temperature extremes and an increase in extreme high sea 

levels, and an increase in the number of heavy precipitation events 

in a number of regions. 

Chairman SMITH. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would also ask unanimous consent that the report entitled ‘‘Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, An Overview 

from the Royal Society and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’’ 

be placed in the hearing record and would note that on page 15 of 

that report they find that lower atmosphere is becoming warmer 
73 

and moister as a result of human-emitted greenhouse gases. This 

gives the potential for more energy for storms and certain severe 

weather events, consistent with theoretical expectations, heavy 

rainfall and snowfall events, which increase the risk of flooding. 

And heat waves are generally becoming more frequent trends and 

extreme rainfall vary from region to region. The most pronounced 

changes are evident in North America and parts of Europe, especially in winter. 

Chairman SMITH. That will be made a part of the record but I 

don’t know if that’s necessary since you read it all. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Ms. LOFGREN. I—no, the rest of the report, I would need more 

than my five minutes. 

Let me just ask you, Mr. Schmidt, as you’re aware, critics of the 

EPA rule have a sky-is-falling attitude towards actions that would 

protect the health of Americans and do something about emissions, 

which I think kind of ignores the fact that the U.S. economy has 

tripled in size since the adoption of the Clean Air Act in 1975. Concerns are raised that the Clean Power Plan is going to cause residential electricity rates to increase dramatically. Those most in 

need are going to suffer the most. Is that the case, and how will 

the efforts to reduce carbon emissions such as the Clean Power 

Plan affect low-income Americans? 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, I think you are right to point out that oftentimes there is a sky-is-falling analysis that’s presented, and we 

have seen this time and again in terms of environmental protection 

when the United States first took steps to deal with acid rain. The 

cost of—the cost estimates for many of the modelers predicted very 

significant impacts across the economy, and I think we have found 

that the economy has grown significantly and we, lo and behold, 

have very much lower acid rain as a result of that. And we have 

seen that—excuse me—across the board in terms of many environmental challenges. 

When we have analyzed what EPA has proposed and what’s possible in the power sector, we have found that you can actually 

make cuts on the order of 36 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 

44 percent by 2030 in the power sector with net benefits estimated 

to be up to 70 billion and 108 billion respectively. So these are significant benefits that can be achieved very cost-effectively through 

things like energy efficiency, you know, assuming real cost of energy efficiency, real cost of renewables like wind and solar, and reasonable transitions in terms of natural gas and so forth. 

And so with these kinds of efforts we can see significant benefits 

to the public and to low-income families as well and still deal with 

this challenge of climate change. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. 

And, Mr. Chair, my time is expired. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Lofgren. 

And the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Palmer, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Curry, you mentioned uncertainty and the importance of understanding the actual climate variability. Before inferring sensitivity to greenhouse gases and how there has been a hiatus in glob-
74 

al warming since ’98, could you explain how the Administration 

claims that 2014 is the warmest year on record? 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. There have been a number of—there’s about 

a half a dozen different groups doing these analyses and all but one 

of them found that 2014 was right at the top. But if you look at 

the uncertainty in these measurements, even knowing that, most 

of them found that 2014 was in a statistical tie with two other 

years, 2005 and 2010, and the U.K. group, with a far more realistic 

assessment of the uncertainty, found that 2014 was tied with nine 

other years statistically. You really couldn’t distinguish them statistically. That, however, is not the way all this was communicated 

to the public. It was touted as warmest year. 

Mr. PALMER. Can you discuss to what degree our understanding 

of these issues are uncertain? You know, what are the current key 

gaps in our understanding? Talk about the models if you don’t 

mind. 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. In terms of the climate models, the key 

issues—I mean if you compare the climate models with the observed temperature over the past decade, you see that the climate 

models are running way too hot. Since 1998 surface—global surface 

temperature has increased a tiny bit and it’s not statistically significant given the uncertainties, whereas climate models were predicting 2/10 of a degree per decade in the early years of the 20th 

century. So you’re seeing this growing divergence between the climate models and the observations. 

The key uncertainties are how the models treat aerosols in the 

atmosphere like little tiny particles. That’s a major uncertainty. 

They don’t get the ocean circulations in—particularly in terms of 

the timing, the magnitude, and the pattern of these major oscillations. They don’t include a lot of the indirect effects from solar variations and they don’t correctly simulate the effects of clouds, which 

have a very big impact on the climate. So there’s a large number 

of uncertainties in these climate models and things that we know 

we don’t have right. 

Mr. PALMER. When you mention clouds, you’re referring to water 

vapor as well, right? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, yes, water vapor. 

Dr. CURRY. The biggest uncertainty and the biggest impact is 

from the actual condensed clouds themselves. 

Mr. PALMER. Is it also true that what we found in measurements 

in terms of deep atmosphere is in conflict with what the models 

should have shown? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. The temperature—the atmospheric temperatures from satellite also diverge even more from the climate models. 

Mr. PALMER. Is it also true that the modeling does not reflect 

what has actually occurred over the last 30 or so years? There’s a 

discrepancy—a wide variance in what the models would have 

shown that the temperature would be versus what it actually was? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes, that’s correct. 

Mr. PALMER. Then in your experience do you think this sort of 

rhetoric coming from the White House is unprecedented to the scientific community? 
75 

Dr. CURRY. Well, there have been some rather extreme statements coming from the White House that don’t seem to be justified 

by even the—you know, the basic evidence and the assessment reports from the IPCC and so on. 

Mr. PALMER. Given the status of some of the scientists who 

raised these issues about the fallibility of the models—— 

Dr. CURRY. Um-hum. 

Mr. PALMER. —and the uncertainty of the science, does that reflect well on how these issues should be debated? 

Dr. CURRY. We have gotten caught in this really toxic mess 

where these politics have become scientized and the science has become politicized, and I’m not exactly sure how to break out of this. 

But again, it’s the job of the scientists to continually evaluate evidence and reassess conclusions. 

Mr. PALMER. If I may, I’d like to ask one question of Dr. 

Thorning. 

Dr. Thorning, the Administration continues to assert that the 

United States can substitute renewable energy for fossil eco-energy 

without negative consequences. As a matter of fact, they think that 

we should be at 80 percent renewables within the next two or three 

decades. Can you explain why we can’t just rely on renewables? 

Dr. THORNING. Well, renewable energy—pardon me; I have allergies, too. Renewable energy tends to be a lot more expensive than 

conventional energy from fossil fuel or nuclear. EIA’s most recent 

assessment of the capital cost for renewable energy shows that new 

natural gas is about $60 a kilowatt hour versus for offshore wind 

about $240 a kilowatt hour. Solar is also more expensive, and because the wind doesn’t blow all the time and the sun doesn’t shine 

all the time, you have to back those up with conventionals. So renewable energy—— 

Mr. PALMER. May I interject something right there just for a moment? If you have to back them up with natural gas or other fossil 

fuels, does that not indicate that renewables are not reliable? 

Dr. THORNING. Well, that’s one of the drawbacks because we 

don’t have the capacity to store solar right now and the wind 

doesn’t blow all the time. So—and we did an analysis of States 

with renewable portfolio standards compared to those that don’t 

and the States with the renewable portfolio standards had energy 

costs on average about 20—electricity costs about 20 percent higher 

than the States without portfolio standards. So if you’re thinking 

of how to grow the U.S. economy, forcing renewable energy is probably going to retard growth, not help it. And—you know, because 

it has to be backed up, you’re not really having much of an impact 

on U.S. emissions. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Palmer. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized. 

I’m sorry. We will go back to the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. 

Bonamici is recognized. I didn’t realize you had returned. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate that 

and I hope that my having to be in two places at once does not indicate my lack of interest in this important topic. We are also 

working on child nutrition in another committee. 
76 

Thank you so much to the witnesses for being here today. Climate change is an important issue to my constituents in northwest 

Oregon, and whether I’m talking about people who live on the coast 

who rely on a healthy ocean or growers of our famous pinot grapes 

in Yamhill County or entrepreneurs who are developing new clean 

energy technologies, there are many people who are working to address and mitigate the impacts of climate change in my State of 

Oregon. 

Now, there have been several statements here about how reducing carbon emission has costs, but we should also consider the costs 

of inaction. We have shellfish growers on our coast and many of 

them have spoken with me about the significant losses because of 

ocean acidification. Oyster production is an $84 million industry on 

the West Coast and supports more than 3,000 jobs in my State. 

Ocean acidification is threatening this industry, as well as those in 

the Gulf of Mexico, New England, mid-Atlantic. And this just 

doesn’t matter to coastal representatives; it’s important to restaurants and grocery stores and people who eat shellfish across the 

country. 

Now, later today, I’m going to have an opportunity to visit with 

some of the Oregonians who grow wine grapes in my district, and 

I want to mention that the wine economy in Oregon is valued at 

more than $3 billion and supports more than 17,000 jobs. Wine 

grapes are especially vulnerable to temperature extremes. Excess 

heat can raise the sugar level of grapes, for example, which, along 

with drought, threatens this important industry. 

So, Mr. Schmidt, you discussed in your testimony some of the increased costs associated with climate change. Do you agree that if 

we continue to do little or nothing, these costs will continue to rise? 

And can you talk just a little bit about the terms of lost jobs, for 

example, and areas like agriculture if we refuse to act? And I do 

want to have time for another question as well. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, thank you. I will keep it brief then. 

I think it’s true. When you think about the impacts that come 

from climate change, they are at this—sort of fundamental components of the American economy. How often does it rain, when does 

it rain, how much temperature variability at certain points? And 

you’re seeing some real-world examples of that in California where 

they are suffering from very severe droughts that are having a 

huge ripple effect across the entire economy, in agriculture, and 

happy to share with you some of our analysis of ocean acidification, 

which shows devastating impacts potentially across the entire fishing economy of the United States, which is significant, as you 

know. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Thank you. And, yes, we also have outdoor recreation activities that have been seriously hampered here because no 

snowpack. 

So in taking a leadership role to address climate change, the 

United States has an opportunity to further spur innovation and 

development of sustainable technologies. And, Dr. Thornburg, 

thank you for mentioning the States that have renewable energy 

portfolios. I was actually in the Oregon Legislature when we 

passed the legislation, and I’m proud to have supported that, to re-
77 

quire that the State’s largest utilities derive 25 percent of their 

2025 sales from renewable sources. 

We have a significant amount of hydropower as well in Oregon, 

and one way that our State is working to meet this benchmark is 

to be a leader in areas like wind energy. We are involved in generation, manufacturing, and the industry employs more than 1,000 

Oregonians. We have also made a strategic decision to become an 

international leader in the development of wave energy technology, 

and we have partnered with the government on some research in 

that area. 

So, Mr. Schmidt, you have established that we are already paying significant costs driven by climate change. Can you talk about 

how the U.N. Framework Convention will positively impact our domestic clean energy sector and innovation and economy nationwide? 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it will have very significant positive impacts 

we believe. What you’re seeing in places like China and India is a 

massive expansion of wind and solar demands. India has a target 

to get to 100 gigawatts of solar by 2022. And I was just there in 

February and I can tell you that there’s a huge amount of attention 

and focus on delivering that. They have lots of sun. They have 300 

days of sun, you know, some of the best sun in the world. They also 

have significant wind potential. 

China does as well. Despite this perception that China is not 

going to do anything for 16 years under this new commitment, 

that’s just not true. They are building a massive amount of wind 

and solar. 

And so what you see happening is that the more that these clean 

energy markets are growing internationally, that American companies are tapping into this. And this is a key component when we 

talk to entrepreneurs. They see this huge sort of market potential 

both within the United States and externally. So the products that 

they build to meet standards and regulations in the United States 

now become the kinds of technologies that they can export around 

the world and tap into those opportunities. 

Ms. BONAMICI. Well, thank you very much. I see my time is expired and I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Neugebauer, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A lot of different areas here and I kind of want to explore two 

or three of them. 

One of the issues is let’s say we move forward with some kind 

of an agreement with these other countries. What kind of a 

verification process will be put in place? Are they going to allow us 

to fly drones over their countries and do satellite imaging? I mean 

how do we know that they are playing by the rules? Because one 

of the things that I have seen in other areas of our government is 

we play by the rules but some of the people that we make agreements with don’t necessarily play by the rules. And so how do we 

make sure everybody is playing by the rules? Ms. Curry—Dr. 

Curry? 
78 

Dr. CURRY. I will defer to the other witnesses on that. That’s 

something that I don’t have much expertise on. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. 

Hon. HARBERT. The answer is we won’t know. It’s a voluntary, 

you know, monitoring and self-reporting, as we have seen under— 

that’s why we had the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. We play by 

the rules; many other countries don’t, and that’s something we 

need to be concerned about. Even though they have vague commitments, they will have even a vaguer ability to ensure that they are 

meeting their commitments. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Yes. One—and also I guess the other question 

along with that, so it’s voluntary, but what is the regulatory infrastructure in those countries and what kind of regulations do they 

have? The President is proposing pretty rigorous regulatory proposals and this Administration has put out a lot of very extraneous 

proposals. But how do they compare with the United States, these 

other countries? 

Hon. HARBERT. The answer is that there are—very few commitments have been made. The deadline was March the 31st to make 

the commitments to the United Nations and less than a dozen 

countries have made the commitment, so we don’t know what the 

commitments will be going forward. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Do they have EPAs—I mean are they organized? Is there enforcement mechanisms that are as organized as 

the United States? 

Hon. HARBERT. I think it’s fair to say the United States has the 

most rigorous environmental—most stringent regulations on the 

books of the developed world. 

Mr. SCHMIDT. Do you mind if I add some perspective to that? 

From our work in China we have a major effort in China working 

on environmental challenges because it has many, as you know— 

what we have found consistently—and I think that they are at a 

critical tipping point. Any time you travel to anywhere in China 

now you see that the air pollution is terrible. That’s a major challenge for the government and they get that because social instability is the thing that scares them the most. And so the number 

one issue around social unrest today is air pollution in the country, 

and so that’s why we have seen them begin to control the amount 

of air pollution and coal consumption in some of the key provinces. 

And just last year was the first time in over—almost two decades 

that China’s emissions actually declined by about two percent. 

Their coal consumption declined as a result of many of these measures. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I think you have made one of my points there 

is that everywhere you go in China it’s foggy and it is a problem. 

I think the other issue is—and, Dr. Curry, you’re talking about 

modeling and how the actual temperatures and projected temperatures and various models that have been put together. I remember 

I had an opportunity to travel to the South Pole a number of years 

ago and there were some climate people there and they were showing me these projections of temperatures back 5,000 years moving 

forward, and they were models because obviously they probably 

didn’t have thermometers 5,000 years ago. If we do, we haven’t 

been able to find any of the recordings. So when those models 
79 

aren’t correct and we make a huge amount of policy based on what 

we think the models are and the potential outcomes and we miss 

those models, what are the consequences of that? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, this is why I argued that for a very wicked, 

complex problem, some sort of, you know, explicit targets and command and control really isn’t a very good policy choice. And this is 

why I suggest that we need a broader range of policy options on 

the table that leave us less vulnerability—less vulnerable to really 

getting it wrong. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aren’t we kind of betting the ranch on an outcome we’re not even sure about and a problem we have not quite 

defined? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. There are two possibilities. One, that we could 

spend all this money and really nothing happens with the climate 

and we have sunk—you know, it’s an opportunity lost. On the 

flipside, if the climate really is going to turn out worse than we 

think, what will be left is inadequate solutions, damaged economies, and technologies that aren’t up to scratch. So, you know, we 

risk of both of these things by, you know, focusing on these technologies that are really inadequate to the problem. We need to invest in better energy technologies that are really up to the challenge. Wind and solar aren’t going to do it. 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I see my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Neugebauer. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Beyer, is recognized for his 

questions. 

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

I found myself deeply troubled by Dr. Curry’s written and oral 

testimony, and I respect your career and your academic background and am grateful that you’re here, but I found the testimony 

just full of internally conflicting facts and opinions and in almost 

total conflict with everything I have read in the last 15 years in 

every journal I could get my hands on. So let me offer three examples and ask Dr. Curry for a response. 

First, you are highly critical of the precautionary principle. By 

the way, there’s a third option there, which is we do nothing and 

the worst happens and we’re embarrassed for the generations to 

come because we didn’t react. 

But you are highly critical of the precautionary principle. You 

said, ‘‘Extensive costs and questions of feasibility are inadequate 

for making a dent in slowing down the expected warming.’’ Then 

the very next sentence you state, ‘‘The real societal consequences 

of climate change in extreme weather events remain largely 

unaddressed.’’ 

A second, you—I’m quoting from your written testimony, ‘‘Is it 

possible that something really dangerous and unforeseen could 

happen to Earth’s climate during the 21st century? Yes, it’s possible, but natural climate variability, let me emphasize, perhaps in 

conjunction with human-caused climate change, may be a more 

likely source of possible undesirable change that human causes. In 

any event, attempting to avoid such a dangerous and unforeseen 

climate by reducing fossil fuel emissions will be futile if natural climate is a dominant factor.’’ 
80 

And then the very next page, ‘‘Climate change may exacerbate 

environmental problems that may be caused by overpopulation, 

poorly planned land use, over-exploitation of natural resources. 

However, it’s very difficult to separate out the impacts of humancaused climate change from natural climate change and from other 

societal impacts. So does it really make any difference? We can’t 

change sunspots or ocean circulation or even cloud cover, but we 

can impact the human-caused part of this wicked problem.’’ 

And finally, at the end of your written testimony you say, ‘‘There 

is reason to be concerned about climate change,’’ which sort of 

undoes the first 8 pages. 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. 

Mr. BEYER. ‘‘Uncertainty is a two-edged sword. Future climate 

outcomes might be better or worse than currently believed.’’ And 

then you propose a different set of solutions based on climate pragmatism, accelerated energy innovation, building resilience to extreme weather, and no-regrets pollution reduction. So it’s almost 

like climate change is real but let’s not talk about fossil fuel burning and the impact on greenhouse gases on what that does to all 

this. 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. The confusion is this: Scientifically, the term 

climate change means a changing climate and it has changed for, 

you know, the past 4 billion years or so. Okay. This whole issue 

of human-caused climate change is a relatively recent notion. So 

climate is always changing and it’s going to change in the future. 

The issue is how much of the change is caused by humans. We 

don’t know. We don’t know what the 21st century holds. The climate change may be really unpleasant and that may happen independently of anything that humans do. 

My point is is that we don’t know how much humans are influencing climate and whether it’s going to dominate in the 21st century. Given that we don’t know this, we’re still going to see extreme weather events whether or not humans are influencing the 

climate. This is what I’m talking about, that we really don’t know 

how the 21st century is going to—climate is going to play out, and 

we should figure out how to reduce our vulnerability to whatever 

might happen, and that includes extreme weather events are going 

to happen regardless of whether humans are influencing climate 

change. So maybe that clarifies my testimony. 

Mr. BEYER. A little but not much. I mean all science is contingent. We continue to learn. We continue—— 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. You must be humble at all times with what we know. 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. But it seems to me very much sticking our head in 

the sand to look at all of the evidence of what has happened with 

global warming in the last 30 years. By the way, the debate over 

whether it’s 2004 or 2009 or 2014—— 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. 

Mr. BEYER. —is the warmest year seems silly—— 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. 

Mr. BEYER. —when 10 of the last—— 

Dr. CURRY. Okay. The climate has been warming since the 

1700s, okay, since we came out of the Little Ice Age. We don’t know 
81 

what is causing that warming in the 18th century, in the 19th century. It’s not attributed to humans so there are other things going 

on in the climate system that has been contributing to a warming 

over several centuries. We can’t blame all of this on humans, okay, 

and we don’t know how all of this is going to play out in the 21st 

century. We just don’t know. 

Mr. BEYER. We just had a vice president who was willing to 

argue for enhanced interrogation and torture on the one percent 

chance of that Al Qaeda might someday get a nuclear weapon. Are 

we going to do nothing because there’s a greater than one percent 

chance that climate change—— 

Dr. CURRY. There’s nothing in my testimony that said we do 

nothing. I’m saying that what is being proposed is ineffective. It’s 

not going to do anything. Even if the United States is successful 

at meeting 80 percent reductions by 2050, this is going to reduce 

warming by about 1/10 of a degree centigrade. It’s not going to do 

anything. So should—I’m saying we need to acknowledge that and 

rethink how we are going to deal with the risk from future climate 

change, whether it is caused by human or natural processes. That’s 

what I’m saying. 

Mr. BEYER. Okay. Thank you, Dr. Curry, very much. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Beyer, those were good questions. 

By the way, you mentioned head in the sand. The best example 

I know of head in the sand is the Los Angeles Times announcing 

a policy that they will no longer cover climate change skeptics, nor 

will they publish letters to the editor on the subject. 

I not going to ask you whether you agree or disagree because I 

have a hunch you might agree that we need to be open-minded and 

continue to challenge our hypotheses. But—— 

Mr. BEYER. I will always agree, Mr. Chair. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Beyer. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Bridenstine, is recognized 

for his questions. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Curry, you’re the professor and former chair of the School of 

Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, Georgia Tech. You have a Ph.D. in atmospheric science 

from the University of Chicago. Prior to joining the faculty at Georgia Tech, you had faculty positions at the University of Colorado, 

Penn State University, and Purdue University. 

There are a lot of us probably especially on this side of the aisle 

who are confused because during this conversation we have heard 

that climate change has caused snowpack in some States, it has 

caused drought in other States, it has caused extreme weather, you 

know, experiences in other States. I come from Oklahoma. We 

know what extreme weather is. This is very confusing to us, that 

climate change is causing these vast changes, you know, I guess 

weather events. And really when you’re talking about States that 

are next door to each other in one State it’s causing snowpack, in 

the next-door State it’s causing drought, can you share with us 

what your professional judgment is on that analysis? 
82 

Dr. CURRY. Well, climate—extreme weather events and weather 

patterns is really, you know, just dominated by random chaotic 

variations in the atmosphere and ocean circulations. There are 

some regimes that get established that allow you some predictability. In the large ocean circulations like the Pacific decadal oscillation and the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation have a big decadal 

controls on the weather patterns, and a lot of the extreme weather 

that we’re seeing now has analogues back in the 1950s when the 

patterns were sort of similar. So trying to blame this on human is 

really rather pointless. It happens to be weather variability. 

The strange weather that we have seen in the United States this 

past winter with warmth and dry in the West and a lot of snow 

and cold in the East has been associated with a blocking pattern 

triggered by a warm blob in the Pacific that has been there, you 

know, for almost a year now. And scientists don’t know how to explain the appearance of that warm blob but it’s something related 

to natural variability, not human causes. So—— 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Thank you for your analysis. I think you have 

pretty much answered it. 

I’d like to direct my questions to Ms. Harbert. By the way, welcome from a fellow Rice Owl. It’s good to see you here. 

In your opinion, how much—or if you know—you probably have 

the facts—how much coal-fired power generation in the United 

States—will the United States lose under the EPA’s latest most recent round of power plant regulations? I have heard it is about 100 

gigawatts. Is that your assessment as well? 

Hon. HARBERT. Well, we already know that between 2012 and 

2016, so we are almost at the end of that period, that close to 60 

gigawatts of closures have already been announced and are underway. Beyond that, we expect and we see announcements every day 

of an additional 40 to 50 gigawatts. So your number is accurate. 

That’s taking a tremendous amount of power off of the system with 

little plan to replace it with anything sustainable. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So one of the things I’m hearing is that that’s 

about one third of total coal-fired capacity in our country. Is your 

analysis similar? Is that about right? 

Hon. HARBERT. That’s accurate. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. Okay. For my State of Oklahoma we derive 

most of our electricity from coal, and those coal-fired power plants 

are being shuttered. Can you explain for my constituents at home 

what this means to their electricity prices? 

Hon. HARBERT. Absolutely. In the State of Oklahoma the estimate is that the prices of electricity under this proposal would go 

up between 18 and 21 percent, 21 percent at the peak. Now, it’s 

very important to understand that 21 percent is on top of what is 

already forecast by EIA of an 18 percent increase. So you’re looking 

at a huge increase in Oklahoma, and particularly when you’re looking at 55 percent of the households in Oklahoma contribute more 

than 20 percent of their income, they are low-income households, 

this is going to hit 55 percent of those the hardest. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So it hurts the poor the most? 

Hon. HARBERT. It hurts the poor and the elderly the worst. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. So anything about current and proposed regulations, the Clean Power Plan, CAFE standards, among others, 
83 

these lead to necessary reductions to achieve the United States— 

will these achieve the United States’ intended nationally determined contribution? 

Hon. HARBERT. Today, we’re enjoying low electricity prices and 

low natural gas prices. These proposals will eliminate that comparative advantage and still not meet the goals that are laid out 

in the INDC. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. If we’re to reach our commitments of 26 to 28 

percent reduction, will that mean also shuttering natural gas-fired 

power plants? 

Hon. HARBERT. With the multitude of regulations, including 

ozone, you’re not going to be able to build at new capacity, so that 

won’t even shutter ones. It will not allow you to build new ones. 

So we are looking at a very big different economy by 2025. And I 

think you should note that 40 percent of the commitment the Administration made in their INDC, they have not accounted for how 

they are going to reach it, so more to come. 

Mr. BRIDENSTINE. My constituents have been very concerned 

about coal. This shocks me that they also need to be worried about 

natural gas-fired power plants. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I’m out of time and I will yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Bridenstine. 

The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Westerman, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Harbert, you mentioned in your testimony the Turk plant, 

which happens to be in my district, and I have had the opportunity 

to visit the Turk plant. I’m also an engineer and have designed 

many industrial facilities, and it is a very impressive plant. And I 

will say this about all of manufacturing in the United States, the 

facilities I have been involved with, they go to great extents to 

meet all permitting requirements. They are very conscientious 

about being good stewards of the environment. But when we see 

a plant like the Turk plant that is a super hypercritical coal facility, best technology in the world, if that plant can’t meet emissions, 

that’s simply saying that we are going to abandon coal as a fuel 

source if we can’t use technology like at the Turk plant. 

And when we look across the renewable energy spectrum, which 

I have done projects in renewable energy as well, they are not 

nearly as economically competitive as traditional fuels, and we also 

see that they have got technical problems with peak demand and 

baseline loads. 

So I think my question is more questioning the overall premise 

of our energy policy and our effort to use more renewables. 

Wouldn’t it make more sense, while traditional energy prices are 

low, to divert more research into renewables to make those technologies more efficient so that as we make our traditional fuels 

more scarce in the future, our renewables become more economic 

and will provide a much better energy source for the future? So I 

know you have worked with the 21st Century—you know, Institute 

for 21st Century Energy. I’d like to get your input and maybe even 

Dr. Curry’s input on how we need to maybe rethink the premise 
84 

of our whole energy policy and the way we address using renewables in the future. 

Hon. HARBERT. I think two quick points. It’s ironic that under 

the Administration’s proposal that we would be forced to close the 

Turk plant because it cannot meet the expectations of the proposal, 

and yet to highlight the disparity in obligations, China will continue to be able to build those plants, 54 new plants just like that 

one and yet we can’t build one here. 

You know, the idea should be—you know, the idea under this Administration’s proposal is to make today’s affordable energy more 

expensive. And what we should be focusing on is making a broad 

variety of energy more affordable, including alternatives like wind 

and solar, make it more competitive and let the market work. 

That’s what is good for the American economy, that’s what is good 

for the consumer, that’s what is good for your constituents. 

But this is going to raise electricity prices in Arkansas. And particularly, you know, if you look at Arkansas, you have got 61 percent of the households in Arkansas which are considered low-income households which spend 20 percent of their income on energy, 

they are going to be hit the worst. We should be offering them 

more options, not fewer, more expensive options. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Dr. Curry, would you like to add to that? 

Dr. CURRY. I will just make a comment about wind energy and 

solar energy, the great intermittence and the challenges of integrating wind and solar power into the grid. My company provides 

weather forecasts, and one of the things we do is predict wind 

power, and it’s enormously variable. Ramps are very unpredictable 

and you basically have to have a backup power supply ready. And 

so you have to make—you know, the day before you have to make 

a commitment as to whether you’re going to fire up the coal burner, 

the gas burner, whatever backup power source, and you just don’t 

know. There’s a great deal of uncertainty. And so it’s very difficult 

to integrate into the grid and it’s not clear because of the backup 

power sources and the extra power required to ramp up these 

burners, you know, whether you’re actually saving any CO2 emissions in this process. So we really need substantially better technologies that this is going to meaningfully reduce the CO2 emissions. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Yes. When we talk about CO2 emissions, even, 

you know, some of the policies that come out of here seem to be 

counterproductive to reducing CO2 emissions, even with our forests 

that we fail to manage properly that emits, you know, 70, 80, 90 

million tons per year of carbon into the atmosphere because we 

haven’t managed those forests correctly. So I think we just need to 

focus on the science and how to make all of our energy sources 

more economical for the future. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I 

think I’m out of time. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Westerman. 

And the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Posey. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Harbert, in your testimony you said that the numbers that 

the United States pledged to the United Nations do not add up. I 

wonder if you would expound on that a little bit for me. 
85 

Hon. HARBERT. Certainly. If you take all of the stated regulations 

that they have put into their INDC and add up the EPA’s estimated carbon reductions, they still come up 40 percent short. So 

it is evident that there is more action that’s going to be needed to 

meet that 26 to 28 percent cut. On top of that, in that submission 

to the United Nations, they say that we are going to meet an additional target of an 80 percent reduction by 2050 with absolutely no 

plan, no proposal, no narrative, no evidence of how we’re going to 

get there. So the math does not add up. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. I remember when Australia passed the Australian version of cap-and-trade, national energy tax, whatever, 

and I met with two members of Parliament yesterday, one of them 

I guess was the essential representative of our Senate and the 

other one represented essentially our House, and they told me that 

Australia rescinded their national energy tax cap-and-trade plan, 

said it was the biggest mistake, both of them, and they were a liberal party, by the way. Both of them said it was in their opinion 

the biggest mistake their government ever made. 

Hon. HARBERT. And largely—and hugely unpopular with the 

Australian people, which is why the subsequent government, in listening during their election campaign, then rescinded that pledge. 

And by the way, Australia has yet to make a pledge to the United 

Nations for this round. 

Mr. POSEY. Okay. Well, I was going to ask why you thought that 

they rescinded it because we didn’t get that far in the conversation, 

and now you have told me. I guess the cost of it was unbearable 

on the citizens and they were losing business left and right is what 

they told me. They didn’t tell me about the grassroots uprising. 

Hon. HARBERT. And they have a very dependent economy on coal 

and coal production and that was certainly under threat. They are 

a mining, you know, economy. 

But we also just don’t have to look to Australia. I think somebody mentioned in testimony earlier we just need to look across the 

pond to Europe about what we don’t want to do and look at what 

has happened under the cap-and-trade trading system in Europe 

and electricity prices have gone up, emissions have not gone down, 

they have not met their Kyoto requirements. And here in the 

United States without all of these government mandates and based 

on the private sector initiative and innovation, we have in essence 

met what would have been our Kyoto targets. 

So we can prove that energy and the environment can coexist, 

and those that would like to have the argument that it’s energy or 

the environment need to understand that that’s not the path that 

the economies of the world and the developing economies are going 

to pursue. 

Mr. POSEY. I know during the National Prayer Breakfast I 

guess—and I don’t remember the title from Spain but pretty much 

lectured us on the responsibility of adopting a cap-and-trade policy. 

Are you familiar with where they are with their policy in Spain? 

Hon. HARBERT. I know that Spain has heavily relied on subsidizing renewable energy and subsequently hemorrhaged a tremendous amount of jobs, about a 2-for-1 job loss in the renewable 

industry, and so they have largely abandoned that proposal. 
86 

You know, I would call your attention to an article in today’s 

New York Times about this exact issue, and the New York Times 

itself says that, you know, no poor nation can take care of its environment and so we should be very careful in how we approach this. 

But if you don’t offer people an opportunity, we’re never going to 

get to a point to resolve this on a global basis. 

Mr. POSEY. Thank you for your comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Posey. 

The gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Moolenaar, is recognized for 

his questions. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you for being here today and for your testimony. 

And I wanted to just share a story with you and then ask you 

maybe some questions. The situation we had in Michigan a while 

back in my district where we had a major manufacturer of 

polycrystalline silicon, which goes into solar panels, and very excited about the solar markets, one of the challenges with that is the 

main criteria for that company to be successful making that product that goes into solar panels was low-cost electricity. And so we 

actually had an investment go from our State to a different State 

because there was a lower-cost electricity. 

Now, what I’m hearing in Michigan is that we’re going to be losing a number of our coal plants, and I think and my understanding 

is in China they are building more and more coal plants, which will 

then allow them to be much more competitive actually in building 

solar panels. 

And so I guess one of the questions I had, Dr. Thorning, and I 

think it was in Mr. Schmidt’s testimony he stated that China’s 

president Xi Jinping—I’m probably not pronouncing that right— 

committed to peak the carbon pollution by 2030, but I think the actual agreement released by the White House says China intends to 

achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030 rather than by 2030. 

And I guess my question, Dr. Thorning, is this. You know, if 

other countries don’t make the same level of commitment that we 

are making and we sort of unilaterally disarm our coal plants that 

would actually allow us to be leaders in manufacturing because of 

the low cost of electricity, aren’t we paying a huge political price 

or a competitive price for kind of a political statement that says we 

are doing something at the same time when others may not be 

equally committed to that in a sort of a unilateral disarmament if 

you will? 

Dr. THORNING. That’s really the central theme of my testimony, 

that we would be incurring substantial cost. And as Dr. Curry and 

others have said, the overall impact on global GHG emissions is almost nonexistent. So—and to pick up on points that others have 

made, a strong economy is able to weather and adapt to climate 

change. A strong economy can make the investments needed to 

slowly bring in the type of equipment that would allow us to grow 

and reduce GHG emissions. 

So if we go down this path that this Administration is trying to 

push us toward, we will certainly lose competitiveness, we will lose 
87 

jobs, we will slow our growth. The Clean Power Plan is certainly 

not going to be helpful to the environment. 

I would like to clarify on Chairman Smith’s question. If the 

courts rule this as a legal, the question is what comes next? It 

would certainly be a good thing if it were ruled illegal, but the 

question is what comes next? Because uncertainty is what is retarding investment, so we need transparency in our energy policy. 

So I think policymakers need to weigh very carefully as we go forward. If we make these enormous sacrifices, loss of jobs, low-income people disproportionately hit, States dependent on coal suffering the consequences of higher prices, what do we gain for it? 

And I make the case we gain almost nothing. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Okay. Thank you. 

And then, Dr. Curry, I just wanted to get your perspective as a 

scientist. You know, my understanding is, you know, science moves 

forward when people are skeptical. They come up with new ideas 

and they test those ideas and there’s a peer-review process and 

there’s an opportunity to criticize and the academic freedom to 

criticize people’s findings, and it creates a whole new scientific debate based on that. What strikes me about a lot of the argument 

around climate change is you have people who are saying the debate is over or they are saying scientists, you know, unanimously 

agree. And to me any time someone says a debate is over in science 

it strikes me as not really scientific. And I’m sure you have encountered some of that, and what are your thoughts on that? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, I have definitely encountered that, and whenever I despair over what is going on in the climate field, I look at 

the recent collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease, okay, and, you know, even though it’s, you know, strongly enforced by funding and reputation and authority and groupthink, 

that these things, if they are not correct, will eventually collapse. 

Skepticism is one of the four norms of science. It’s absolutely essential for scientific progress. It’s our job to question the evidence 

and reassess conclusions. And that’s what we are supposed to do. 

However, in the climate field there is this manufactured consensus 

that we are all supposed to step in line and follow, and it’s rather 

bizarre given this very complex and poorly understood climate system. We need lots more debate. We need to explore natural climate 

variability in particular if we are ever going to understand all this. 

And it’s—disagreement and debate is really what moves the knowledge frontier forward, and this is being stifled and it is of great 

concern to me. 

Mr. MOOLENAAR. Thank you very much. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Moolenaar. 

The gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Massie, is recognized. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

I yield as much time as he may consume to Mr. Palmer. 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you, Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Curry, it’s very timely that you would end that last comment 

on talking about climate variability. It was mentioned earlier about 

the drought in California. Isn’t it true that the recent research has 

indicated that California has been through much more severe 

droughts in the immediate ancient past? And we have had a series 
88 

of droughts. We had a drought in the American Southwest in the 

13th century that apparently contributed to the decline of the 

Pueblo cities. Tree rings indicate that we had a major drought in 

the Mississippi River basin between the 14th and 15th centuries 

that contributed to the disappearance of the Mississippian culture. 

And we have had three major droughts in the 19th century, mid1850s, 1870s, 1890s, and then the Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s. 

Could you comment on that, what might have caused those? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, drought is nothing new in the American West. 

We have seen droughts in the American West. In the 20th century 

there was a drought of comparable magnitude in California in the 

1890s and then the mega-droughts, you know, 13th, 14th centuries. 

Again, these were caused by natural variability, some combination 

of something going on in the sun, the ocean circulation, whatever. 

The exact mechanisms contributing to those previous droughts are 

unknown but we can’t guarantee that it was not human-caused 

drought in the 13th century. So natural climate variability can 

bring some unpleasant surprises. And in terms of extreme weather 

events, I would say that natural climate variability is far and away 

the dominant factor of what we have seen in terms of recent extreme weather. 

Mr. PALMER. Would you conclude that a drought that lasted a 

century or more would be considered a severe weather event? 

Dr. CURRY. No, I guess I would call that, you know, climate event 

but it is, yes, where you draw the line between weather and climate. Drought really goes into the climate territory. 

Mr. PALMER. All right. Well, that makes my point, though, I 

think that when you have major changes in climate and attribute 

it to anything manmade, I think it calls into question some of the 

modeling. And I think it was you that made the point about the 

Little Ice Age, but not much is discussed about the warming period, the medieval warming period that occurred prior to that that 

I don’t think can be attributed to anything anthropogenic. 

So thank you, Mr. Massie. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. 

Chairman SMITH. Okay and—— 

Mr. PALMER. I yield the balance of my time. 

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman SMITH. Thank you both. 

And the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, is recognized. 

Mr. BABIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate it. 

Thank you for being here, all of you esteemed witnesses. 

Dr. Thorning, I would ask you—first a comment. I worry that 

regulations associated with climate change will increase the costs 

of energy to American citizens. It’s a big issue in my district in 

Texas 36, especially hardworking families who are already struggling to get by. Could you describe how increased energy costs impact the macroeconomic health of the United States both for primary energy users and end-use consumers? 

Dr. THORNING. Well, certainly. The overall impact of higher energy prices impacts low-income minority communities severely because low-income people may spend, you know, 15 to 20 percent of 

their income on energy. In your State of Texas, which has one of 

the highest electricity prices in the country, I think is due in part 
89 

to the renewable portfolio standards that have been put in place 

there. 

So macroeconomic studies over the last decade analyzing capand-trade proposals, many of which the ACCF has prepared and 

put forward, show significant impacts across the economy because 

as electricity prices rise, you tend to see loss of manufacturing jobs, 

you tended to see outsourcing of jobs, you tend to see people substituting—spending more on energy and less on other goods and 

services. So the whole economy is dragged down as one important 

component is increased in price. So that’s why I think it is imperative that our policymakers weigh the costs and the benefits of the 

proposals that this Administration has put forward and EPA’s 

plans because, as we have already discussed, the impact of curbing 

our emissions here will have almost no impact on global concentrations. 

Mr. BABIN. So I assume that high energy prices are spilling over 

and impacting everyday items as well—— 

Dr. THORNING. Yes, and the—— 

Mr. BABIN. —and you say the entire economy. 

Dr. THORNING. The converse is true. Due to the fall in the price 

of natural gas because of hydraulic fracturing, we have seen a moderation of electricity prices. We have seen the resurgence of manufacturing industries who use natural gas as a feedstock. We have 

seen a lot more activity and job growth in the sector, so that has 

been a great boon to the economy. And policies that make those 

more difficult are certainly going to slow our economic recovery. 

Mr. BABIN. Absolutely. Okay. So do you think going right along 

with those same—along those same lines, do these energy prices 

impact national security as well and the stability of our financial 

markets? 

Dr. THORNING. Yes, because as energy prices rise, that means 

we’re diverting resources to—you know, to the consumption of energy that could perhaps be devoted toward infrastructure spending, 

healthcare, national security. You know, if you look at our economy 

as a whole, if resources are going into a sector needlessly in the 

case of, you know, the climate plans this Administration has put 

forward, it will certainly weaken our ability to be competitive and 

to be strong nationally in terms of defense. 

Mr. BABIN. Okay. And, Mrs. Harbert, would you like to comment 

on that as well? We are talking about stability of financial markets 

and impact on national security. 

Hon. HARBERT. Keeping, you know, energy affordable and reliable here allows us to have a very healthy economy, and we need 

a healthy economy to be a very healthy, you know, national security apparatus and to be able to exert our power around the world. 

They are inextricably linked, and to the extent that we make our 

economy less competitive, that we are more focused on domestic 

problems, the less able we are to focus on the growing threat of terrorism. 

Let us not forget that also our ability to produce more energy 

here at home and use it here at home is allowing us not to import 

and not to finance some of those countries and organizations 

around the world that don’t like us so much. 
90 

Mr. BABIN. All right. Thank you so very much. And to follow up 

where my colleague here, Mr. Palmer, I think we don’t have to go 

too much farther into the history books to see that we have had 

climate change over the centuries, even during human existence 

and not just going back pre-human. And this is something that’s 

very common in—when we see our environment and our climate 

change for the warmer or for the cooler for that matter. 

But I want to thank each and every one of you. I yield back my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Palmer, is recognized to put something into the record here. 

Mr. PALMER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to enter into the 

record a report called ‘‘Activist Facts.’’ 

Chairman SMITH. Okay. Without objection, that will be made a 

part of the record as well. 

[The information appears in Appendix II] 

Mr. PALMER. Thank you. 

Chairman SMITH. We have no other Members to ask questions, 

and so before we adjourn, I just want to thank all four of you again 

for your testimony today. It has just been outstanding. We appreciate the time and effort you contributed to this hearing. And stay 

in touch with us. Thank you all. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(91) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
92 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Dr. Judith Curry 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 

Responses by The Honorable Karen Harbert 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 

Responses by Mr. Jake Schmidt 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 

Responses by Dr. Margo Thorning 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 

(117) 

Appendix II 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
118 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE ZOE LOFGREN
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY REPRESENTATIVE GARY PALMER
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED CHAIRMAN LAMAR S. SMITH
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 

DOCUMENT SUBMITTED BY DR. MARGO THORNING
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 

Æ